Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apthermeng

A review of concentrated solar power hybrid technologies

Santanu Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna ⇑
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India

h i g h l i g h t s

This paper reviews hybrids of CSP with coal, natural gas, biomass, wind, geothermal.

Technologies have been categorized into high, medium, and low-renewable hybrids.

CO2 emissions highest for low-renewable hybrids, followed by medium and high.

Low-renewable hybrids offer higher efficiency and capacity factor at lower cost.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper reviews the hybrid power generation technologies of concentrated solar power (CSP) and
Received 5 April 2017 other renewable and non-renewable resources such as biomass, wind, geothermal, coal, and natural
Revised 6 August 2017 gas. The technologies have been categorized into high, medium, and low-renewable hybrids based on
Accepted 7 August 2017
their renewable energy component. The high-renewable hybrids report the least specific CO2 emissions
Available online 12 August 2017
(<100 kg/MW h), followed by the medium (<200 kg/MW h) and low-renewable hybrids (>200 kg/MW h).
The hybrids have been compared based on their plant characteristics and performance metrics using data
Keywords:
from the literature and of actual hybrid power plants. The low-renewable hybrids such as ISCC, solar-
Concentrated solar power
Hybrid
Brayton, and solar-aided coal Rankine power systems are technologically mature and offer superior per-
Biomass formance over the high and medium-renewable hybrids. The medium renewable hybrids such as solar
Wind plants with natural gas backup offer high solar share but suffer mostly from low efficiency and high cost
Geothermal that hinders their market penetration. The high-renewable hybrids such as CSP-wind, CSP-biomass, and
Coal CSP-geothermal have minimum negative impact on the environment. However, several parameters such
Natural gas as energy efficiency, solar-to-electricity efficiency, capacity factor, and cost effectiveness need to improve
for these systems to be competitive.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 603
2. Hybrid technology categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 604
3. Review of hybrid technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 605
3.1. High renewable hybrids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 605
3.1.1. CSP-biomass hybrid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 605
3.1.2. CSP-geothermal hybrids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 608
3.1.3. CSP-wind hybrids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611
3.2. Medium-renewable hybrids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613
3.2.1. Size of the solar field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613
3.2.2. Impact on the environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613
3.2.3. Performance comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 614
3.2.4. Other studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 614
3.2.5. Operational plants and challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 614
3.2.6. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 614

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ravikris@mecheng.iisc.ernet.in (R.V. Ravikrishna).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.08.038
1359-4311/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637 603

3.3. Low renewable hybrids. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615

3.3.1. Solar-Brayton cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615
3.3.2. Solar-aided coal power plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616
3.3.3. Integrated solar combined cycles (ISCC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619
4. Comparison of the hybrid technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624
4.1. CO2 emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624
4.2. Solar share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 625
4.3. Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 625
4.4. Solar-to-electricity efficiency (S-E g). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 626
4.5. Overall energy and exergy efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 626
4.6. Capacity factor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 626
4.7. Investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627
4.8. Cost of electricity (COE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 628
5. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 628
Appendix A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633

1. Introduction level to improve efficiency, cost-effectiveness and ensure energy

Solar radiation is the most promising renewable energy source
that can displace fossil fuels and meet our future energy demands.
The massive use of fossil fuels in the past century has led to an
unprecedented rise in greenhouse gases, resulting in global warm-
ing and climate change [1]. Apart from climate change, burning of
fossil fuels has added costs associated with human and ecosystem
toxicity, acidification of land, particulate formation and freshwater
eutrophication [2]. The Paris Climate Agreement [3] that has
recently come into force is a major step in the direction of mitigat-
ing these effects. Hence, countries are increasingly looking towards
renewable sources to meet their energy requirements and to
reduce their carbon footprint. Powering the world by renewable
sources such as solar, wind, and water by the year 2050 is feasible,
but requires large-scale expansion of the transmission infrastruc-
ture, sensible policy deployment, and major changes in the social
and political landscape [4,5]. The interconnection of these
resources at the grid level will reduce fluctuations in the supply.
An alternate scenario, in which the renewable energy technologies
are hybridized at the power plant level, can overcome several out-
standing challenges while providing a boost to distributed power
generation, energy autonomy and faster realization of energy sus-
tainability. The optimal path to realizing this transformation to
renewable energy resources may finally be a combination of both
the strategies: integrating geographically dispersed variable
energy resources through expansion of the transmission grid while
hybridizing co-located renewable resources at the power plant
autonomy. In this context, research and development of hybrid
solar energy technologies have assumed more significance than
ever. This paper is an attempt to review the major hybrid technolo-
gies involving concentrated solar power (CSP), their current state-
of-the-art, their comparative strengths and weaknesses, and rec-
ommendations for future research.
Solar energy can be harnessed in most parts of the world due to
its distributed nature (Fig. 1). The working of a CSP plant is similar
to conventional power plants in terms of usage of a power cycle,
working fluid, turbines, etc., where the fossil fuel is replaced by
solar energy. A CSP system can provide power similar to a conven-
tional plant [6], although the intermittency of solar radiation
(Figs. 2 and 3) presents several challenges. This intermittency
results in low plant capacity factor (23–50%) [7] and efficiency
(15–30%) [8] for standalone CSP plants, thereby increasing the
investment and cost of electricity. With technological advance-
ments, such as the addition of thermal energy storage systems
and hybridization, it is estimated that CSP can become cost-
competitive with natural gas around the year 2020 and with
coal-based power by around 2025 [9]. The Gemasolar solar plant
with 15 h of energy storage and 15% hybridization with natural
gas can operate at 74% capacity factor [10], close to that of conven-
tional power plants. Hybridization will also enable CSP plants to be
established in regions with moderate direct normal irradiation
(DNI  1700 kW h/m2/year), thereby moving it away from dry arid
regions and closer to load centers [6]. In a future where CSP plants
become a key supplier of dispatchable energy, hybridization seems

Fig. 1. Map of the yearly averaged downward surface solar radiation reaching the surface (W/m2) [4].
604 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637
Fig. 2. Hourly variation of DNI (W/m2) on four different dates at representative locations of four different continents, namely, Daggett in the USA, Sevilla in Spain, Ahmedabad
in India, and Antofagasta in Chile. The profiles have been obtained from the Solar Advisor Model (SAM), NREL [11].
Fig. 3. Variation of monthly averaged DNI (W/m2) at representative locations of
four different continents, namely, Daggett in the USA, Sevilla in Spain, Ahmedabad
in India, and Antofagasta in Chile. The profiles have been obtained from the Solar
Advisor Model (SAM), NREL [11].
inevitable. Hence, the purpose of the present work is to review the
most important CSP hybrid technologies currently available.
Hybrid plant configurations involving CSP that simultaneously
use solar energy and fossil fuel have been reviewed by Sheu
et al. [8]. The authors have classified the solar-fossil fuel hybrids
into three broad categories such as the solarized gas turbines, com-
bined cycles, and solar reforming. The authors have also proposed a
linear combination metric for comparison of the hybrid plants with
the currently operational power plants. Behar et al. [12] have
reviewed integrated solar combined cycle (ISCC) systems that use
parabolic trough (PT) technology. This work reports the current
status of such systems in terms of performance, configuration,
and future directions of research and development. The authors
have reported that direct steam generation parabolic trough
(DSG-PT) technology offers better performance compared to the
best heat-transfer-fluid parabolic trough (HTF-PT) technology in
terms of efficiency, electricity cost and greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. They also state that the ISCC plants would become com-
petitive with conventional combined cycle power plants with a
gradual increase in the price of the fossil fuels. Jamel et al. [13]
have reviewed the integration of solar energy with conventional
(combined cycles, steam Rankine cycles, and gas Brayton cycles)
and non-conventional power plants (geothermal). The authors
concluded that the ISCC plants offer technical and economic
advantages over other hybrid configurations. Peterseim et al. [6]
have tried to determine the most promising CSP technology for
hybridization with Rankine cycle power plants using fuels such
as coal, natural gas, biomass, and waste materials. The authors
report that Fresnel reflectors perform best in the low-
temperature category (<400 °C) due to low land usage and cleaning
water consumption. This is followed by parabolic trough technol-
ogy. In the high-temperature category (>450 °C), solar towers offer
the best performance. In another study, Peterseim et al. [14] have
analyzed the hybridization of CSP with coal, natural gas, biomass,
geothermal and wind for Australian conditions. They have catego-
rized the systems into light, medium and strong hybrids depending
on the level of integration and synergy between the technologies.
The authors report that the cost of a hybrid plant can be 50% lower
in comparison to standalone CSP plants. However, there are no
studies currently that review and compare all CSP hybrid technolo-
gies present in the literature and the present work attempts to
address this gap.
The present study performs an in-depth assessment of CSP
hybridization with other energy sources such as coal, natural gas,
biomass, geothermal, and wind. Among the CSP technologies, para-
bolic trough, linear Fresnel, and solar tower technologies have been
considered. In the following sections, the individual hybrid tech-
nologies will be reviewed and their performance characteristics
will be explored. This will be followed by a comparison of the
hybrid systems based on system characteristics and performance
metrics such as specific CO2 emissions, capacity, capacity factor,
specific investment, cost of electricity (COE), solar share, energy
efficiency, exergy efficiency, and solar-to-electricity efficiency (S-
E g) [8]. Finally, the insights obtained from the comparative anal-
ysis will be used to make recommendations for future research in
these areas.
2. Hybrid technology categories
Since the primary objective for using renewable technologies
such as CSP is sustainability and pollution reduction, the hybrids
have been classified based on the renewable component of the
generated power. While hybrids of CSP with wind, biomass and
geothermal are expected to have the least environmental impact,
the impact of non-renewable hybrids on the environment will
depend on its solar share. Hence, the hybrids have been catego-
rized into three broad divisions based on their renewable energy
component:
 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637
(a) High – hybrids of CSP with wind, biomass, and geothermal
energy resources. This category has the highest potential in
decelerating global warming and climate change.
(b) Medium – this category includes solar plants that use sup-
plementary firing of fossil fuels such as natural gas to
enhance the plant output and capacity factor. Examples of
this category include SEGS II-IX in Mojave Desert, California
[15] that uses natural gas backup for evaporation and super-
heating. The use of backup fossil fuel in such plants is lim-
ited to 12–15% in Spain, and to 25% in the US [10].
(c) Low – this category represents conventional fossil fuel
plants that incorporate solar energy for auxiliary functions
such as preheating and evaporation. This category includes
ISCC plants, solar-aided coal power plants, and solar Brayton
cycles. The solar share in such plants is usually less than 20%.
3. Review of hybrid technologies
This section will review the existing literature on the various
CSP-hybrid technologies suitable for power generation. The appli-
cation of such hybrids for other purposes such as heating and cool-
ing and polygeneration will be reviewed only briefly.
3.1. High renewable hybrids
As discussed in the previous section, these hybrids are formed
by integrating CSP with other renewable sources of energy.
3.1.1. CSP-biomass hybrid
Biomass provides a promising renewable extension to CSP
plants for continuous operation. Several regions in the world have
biomass and solar resources suitable for hybridization (Fig. 4). The
potential number of locations for CSP-biomass hybridization is
improved if multiple feedstocks are considered, although the initial
investment is higher. Although CSP-biomass hybridization is in the
nascent stages, a number of feasibility and technology assessment
studies have been conducted for countries such as India [16], Brazil
[17,18], Indonesia [18], Australia [14,19,20] and Europe [21]. The
global warming potential (GWP) of such a hybrid can be up to 10
times lower than that of CSP plants with non-biomass extensions
Fig. 4. Potential regions for CSP-biomass hybrid plants worldwide [22].
605
[18]. Also, it can provide greater penetration to both CSP and
biomass-generated power into the market compared to standalone
CSP and biomass plants.
3.1.1.1. Combinations of CSP and biomass technologies. Various
hybrid combinations of CSP and biomass technologies offer distinct
advantages in terms of efficiency and cost. Several hybrid systems
(Table 1) have been studied by Peterseim et al. [23]. The maximum
energy efficiency of 33.2% is obtained for solar tower and gasifica-
tion, whereas Fresnel and fluidized bed offer the lowest specific
investment ($/MWe). The efficiency difference between the 17
combinations is 13%, while the difference in the specific invest-
ments is 31%.
3.1.1.2. Plant capacity. The selection of capacity for CSP-biomass
hybrids is critical as the scaling of cost with plant size follow
reverse trends for standalone CSP and biomass plants [18]. A
capacity of at least 50 MWe is recommended for CSP plants as they
incur high initial investment. Contrarily, the capacity of biomass
plants is restricted below 50 MWe due to the increased logistical
costs of biomass transportation. A small size plant receives a con-
tinuous supply of biomass, although at the expense of a reduction
in efficiency (Fig. 5). A minimum capacity of 5 MWe is recom-
mended for biomass plants to obtain economy of scale benefits
[14]. Peterseim et al. [19] report that several locations in Australia
can support 5–25 MWe hybrid plants, while some others can sup-
port 50 MWe and higher capacity plants. A similar case study for a
30 MWe hybrid plant combining biomass with molten salt solar
tower system and 3 h of storage has been reported for Griffith, Aus-
tralia [20]. The first operating commercial CSP-biomass hybrid
plant, the Termosolar Borges, has a capacity of 22.5 MWe. How-
ever, lower capacity plants in the range of 2–10 MWe are possible
in the case of trigeneration systems. Nixon et al. [16] recommend
trigeneration as an efficient choice for CSP-biomass hybrids under
Indian conditions.
3.1.1.3. Installation cost. The installation cost for CSP-biomass
hybrids is lower than standalone CSP with similar power output.
Also, the specific investment decreases with an increase in the
plant capacity (Fig. 6). Significant cost reduction of the order of
606 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637

Table 1
Comparison of various CSP-biomass hybridization schemes [23]. Exchange rate: 1 AU$ = 0.74 US$.

CSP technology CSP working fluid Biomass technology Peak net efficiency (%) Specific investment (m$/MWe)
Parabolic trough Thermal oil Grate 29.3 4.96
Parabolic trough Thermal oil Fluidised bed 29.5 4.88
Parabolic trough DSG Fluidised bed 30.3 4.74
Fresnel DSG Fluidised bed 30.4 3.55
Parabolic trough DSG Fluidised bed 31.5 4.59
Fresnel DSG Fluidised bed 31.5 3.4
Solar tower DSG Fluidised bed 31.5 3.85
Parabolic trough Molten salt Fluidised bed 32.2 4.59
Fresnel DSG Fluidised bed 32.5 3.33
Solar tower DSG Fluidised bed 32.5 3.77
Solar tower Molten salt Fluidised bed 32.3 3.85
Parabolic trough Molten salt Fluidised bed 32.7 4.59
Solar tower DSG Fluidised bed 33.0 3.7
Solar tower Molten salt Fluidised bed 32.8 3.85
Parabolic trough Molten salt Gasification 32.8 4.59
Solar tower DSG Gasification 33.2 3.7
Solar tower Molten salt Gasification 32.9 3.85

50% is possible with CSP-biomass hybridization [14]. Other authors
have reported a 43% and 69% reduction in investment compared to
a standalone CSP system [20,23]. In comparison to a biomass-only
plant, hybridization reduces the biomass demand and conse-
quently decreases land usage by 14–29% [16]. But, the decreased
demand for biomass and land could not offset the increased initial
investment due to the high cost of CSP. The investment can be
reduced significantly by local production of CSP components and
through advancements in technology. Currently, the installation
cost of CSP-biomass hybrids is greater than biomass-only plants
but less than standalone CSP, which makes the hybrid systems
commercially viable. Hybridization also provides an affordable
way to dispatch CSP in locations where the electricity price is tra-
ditionally low due to large fossil fuel reserves [20].
3.1.1.4. Cost of electricity. The cost of electricity (COE) of CSP-
biomass hybrids in India is currently greater than that of a com-
mercial CSP by a factor of two and coal-fired power plant by a fac-
tor of four [16]. The COE is also higher in comparison to standalone
biomass plants. However, the COE may be comparable if the price
of biomass increases by 1.2–3.2 times or the cost of solar technol-
ogy decreases by 47.7–98.5% [16]. A scenario such as this is likely
in the future owing to the rising biomass prices and advancements
in CSP technologies. For Indian conditions, the cost of grid expan-
sion is higher than the establishment of CSP-biomass hybrids. Local
outsourcing of biomass can significantly reduce the logistical costs
and reduce the COE in comparison to a centralized system that
charges higher for distant locations due to transmission and distri-
bution losses.

3.1.1.5. Novel schemes for hybridization. Various novel schemes

Fig. 5. Variation of net cycle thermal efficiency of solar-biomass hybrids with plant
capacity for different biomass feedstocks [19].
have also been proposed in the literature for CSP-biomass
hybridization. Tanaka et al. [24] have analyzed the performance
of a combined cycle consisting of a bubbling fluidized-bed gasifier
and a solar-tower system. The gasifier supplies to the topping gas
turbine cycle whereas the solar tower and the gas turbine exhaust
supplies to the bottoming Rankine cycle. A peak thermal efficiency
of 36.7% has been obtained for the system. Peterseim et al. [20]
have analyzed the performance of a 30 MWe hybrid plant with a
solar tower and biomass boiler (vibrating grate), each with a capac-
ity of 15 MWe. The maximum cycle efficiency obtained at peak
load is 33.4%, while the efficiency with only the biomass boiler
was 30.2%. A hybrid power plant combining parabolic trough and
biomass boiler supplying to a steam turbine has been studied by

Fig. 6. Variation of specific investment of solar-biomass hybrids with plant capacity Fig. 7. Exergy destroyed in individual components as a fraction of the input exergy.
for different biomass feedstocks [19]. The regions selected receive DNI > 21–24 MJ/ The exergy lost in the exhaust is 8.72% of the input exergy. The gasifier is operated
m2/day. Exchange rate: 1AU$ = 0.74 US$. at Tg = 1073 K with biomass containing 20% moisture [26].
 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637 607

Table 2 mass plants. The superheating increases the overall hybrid plant
Details of the Termosolar Borges plant [32,33]. efficiency that can lead to the decrease in CSP cost by up to
Technology Parabolic trough-biomass 23.5%. Liu et al. [28] have analyzed two hybrid combined cycles
Background where the solar energy is utilized either for gasification of biomass
Status Operational or preheating of the compressed air. The solar gasification system
Country Spain offers better performance in terms of energy efficiency
Power 22.5 MWe (gI = 29.4%) and solar-to-electricity efficiency (S-E g = 18.5%) in
Land area 96 hectares
Electricity generation 98000 MW h/year (estimated)
comparison to the air preheating configuration (gI=28% and S-E
Cost (approx.) 153 million euros g = 15.1%). The scope of CSP-biomass hybrids for polygeneration
Start date December 2012 under Indian conditions has been analyzed by Sahoo et al. [29].
Technology Thermodynamic and economic analysis of a solar aided sugarcane
Receiver type Evacuated tube parabolic trough bagasse cogeneration plant has been performed by Burin et al.
Heat transfer fluid (HTF) Dowtherm A [30,31]. The hybridization led to an increase of annual electricity
HTF inlet temperature 293 C
production in the range of 1.3–19.8%.
HTF outlet temperature 393 C
Power cycle Steam Rankine
Turbine efficiency 37% at full load 3.1.1.6. Challenges. Several challenges need to be addressed before
Backup type Biomass (2  22 MWt) CSP-biomass hybrid plants are implemented extensively. Most of
Storage None
the CSP plants around the world are located in areas with
DNI > 20 MJ/m2/day. The number of locations that simultaneously
have large biomass resources suitable for hybridization is less.
Srinivas et al. [25]. The addition of solar energy increases the plant The use of cultivable land for the growth of high energy crops for
fuel efficiency (which is the ratio of the work output to the fuel utilization as biomass has given rise to the food versus fuel debate.
energy input, in this case, biomass) from 15% to 32% while decreas- Recent developments in the use of cellulosic biomass for energy
ing the thermal efficiency from 15% to 11% due to the low effi- production have alleviated some concerns. Increasing climate
ciency of the solar reflectors [25]. A couple of recent studies change concerns have also created uncertainty in the production
[26,27] have proposed a novel solar cycle incorporating a biomass and supply of biomass. For the construction of any biomass/hybrid
gasifier, a solar tower system, and a supercritical CO2 Brayton plant, a steady supply of fuel for an average plant lifespan of
cycle. A maximum cycle thermal efficiency of 40.8% is estimated 25 years needs to be ensured. Finally, with the current technolog-
in this hybridization scheme. An exergetic analysis reveals that ical capability, only 30% of the electricity is produced by solar
maximum exergy destruction occurred in the gasifier, followed energy in a CSP-biomass hybrid for a rated steam flow rate (ton-
by the combustion system (Fig. 7). Peterseim et al. [22] have inves- nes/h) [23]. A higher storage capacity (7 h considered in the anal-
tigated the concept of using biomass for superheating the steam ysis) can increase the solar share above 30%.
generated from a 50 MWe parabolic trough system with 7.5 h of
thermal energy storage. The concept is also feasible in regions with 3.1.1.7. Operational plant. Inspite of these challenges, the first and
small biomass resources and would provide higher conversion effi- the only commercial CSP-biomass plant has been operational in
ciencies compared to the installation of small-scale standalone bio- Spain since 2012 [32–34]. It has a capacity of 22.5 MWe and is sup-

Fig. 8. Termosolar Borges power plant in Spain [32,34–36].

608 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637
plied by 2  22 MW thermal biomass units operating on waste for-
est biomass and energy crops. The operational experience obtained
from this plant will be valuable in the development of newer CSP-
biomass hybridization strategies. The details of the plant are
shown in Table 2 and Fig. 8.
3.1.1.8. Summary. In summary, we observe that several combina-
tions of CSP and biomass technologies can be hybridized that offer
distinct cost and efficiency advantages. The capacity of these plants
is restricted between 5 and 50 MWe due to the considerations of
cost and the steady supply of biomass. Currently, the cost of these
hybrids lies in between standalone biomass and CSP plants. The
cost of electricity is also higher compared to standalone systems,
which can change with an increase in the cost of biomass or a
decrease in the cost of CSP components. Several novel schemes
are being proposed in the literature that can overcome some of
the current challenges and make this hybridization economically
feasible. A summary of the key parameters and performance met-
rics of selected studies on CSP-biomass hybrids is presented in
Table A1 in the Appendix.
3.1.2. CSP-geothermal hybrids
Geothermal energy is another renewable resource that holds
promise for hybridization with CSP. Geothermal plants use the
thermal energy beneath the earth’s surface to generate electricity.
Depending on the temperature and type of the geothermal
(a)
Fig. 9. (a) T-s diagram of an organic Rankine cycle with recuperation showing the various state points and operating conditions [39]. (b) Reduction in power output from a
geothermal plant with an increase in ambient temperature [39].
Fig. 10. Integration schemes for CSP-geothermal hybridization [40].
resource, several modes of utilization are possible. Geothermal
wells that produce dry steam can be used directly in a turbine to
generate power. Flash systems use hot water at high pressure to
generate steam in a flash chamber that can drive the turbine. Flash
geothermal systems are the most common type of geothermal
power plants. The third type of plants uses the low-temperature
geothermal resource to generate vapors of an organic fluid with a
low boiling point. Such systems are referred to as binary geother-
mal plants and run on an organic Rankine cycle (Fig. 9). Data cor-
responding to operational and planned geothermal plants
worldwide have been compiled elsewhere [37,38].
Geothermal plants operate at base load with high capacity fac-
tors due to the continuous supply of energy. However, the low
temperature of the resource (150–200 °C) results in reduced
power plant efficiency (12%) [37] that increases the specific
installation cost. The output from a geothermal plant also
decreases with increase in the ambient temperature (Fig. 9). The
gradual depletion of a geothermal well reduces the power output
of the plant over time. Hybridization with CSP (380 °C) can over-
come some of the challenges currently faced by standalone
geothermal and CSP plants.
3.1.2.1. Integration schemes. Several integration schemes have been
reported for the hybridization of CSP with geothermal energy
(Fig. 10). The two most common integration schemes are, (a) pre-
heating of the geothermal brine using solar energy, and (b) super-
(b)
 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637 609

heating of the steam by solar energy before entering the turbine.
The preheating configuration is the simplest in terms of retrofitting
to an existing geothermal power plant [40]. No significant modifi-
cations in the operation and control of the plant are necessary as
the CSP raises the brine temperature close to the design point of
operation. This also addresses the issue of the decline in
geothermal-well productivity with time. However, the utilization
of solar energy at a lower temperature in this configuration leads
to exergy destruction and reduces the solar-to-electricity efficiency
of the plant. The superheating configuration offers higher solar-to-
electricity efficiency due to high-temperature solar energy input
into the working fluid before the turbine. This also raises the over-
all plant energy and exergy efficiency. The retrofit cost in such a
configuration is significantly higher due to substantial changes in
the power block operating conditions and control strategies.
3.1.2.2. Output characteristics. The integration of solar energy mod-
ifies the output characteristics of a geothermal plant. Several such
results have been reported in a study by Turchi et al. [40,41] which
has analyzed the integration of parabolic trough collectors into a
binary geothermal plant. The hourly output of a standalone
geothermal plant decreases as the ambient temperature increases
with the progress of the day. However, the daily electricity demand
curve shows the opposite trend. The addition of CSP can address
this issue as its output increases with a rise in the ambient temper-
ature (Fig. 11a). The monthly power output of a hybrid system is
also higher and smoother compared to a standalone geothermal
plant (Fig. 11b). The annual decline in power output due to a
decrease in the temperature of the geothermal well is suitably
modified by hybridization (Fig. 11c). The authors have also
reported that the solar-to-electricity efficiency of the plant
increases with a decrease in both the geothermal well temperature
and the ambient temperature for a constant solar heat input
(Fig. 11d). The increase in the plant thermal efficiency is attributed
to the operation of the plant closer to the design point due to
hybridization.
3.1.2.3. Solar field size. The selection of the solar field size is critical
in determining the hybrid plant performance. The influence of the
solar field size on the performance of the hybrid plant has been
reported by Zhou et al. [42–44] under the climatic conditions of
Australia and New Zealand. In these studies, the parabolic trough
system is used to superheat the working fluid before entering the
turbine. The results show that the solar fraction in the system
increases with increase in the collector area, but decreases with
increase in the geothermal temperature (Fig. 12a). This can be

Fig. 11. (a) Hourly comparison of power output from a standalone geothermal plant and a hybrid plant [40]. (b) Effect of geothermal resource temperature decline on the
base and hybrid plant monthly power generation [40]. (c) Effect of geothermal resource temperature decline on the base and hybrid plant annual power generation [40]. (d)
Variation of the solar to electricity efficiency of the hybrid plant as a function of the geothermal well temperature and the ambient temperature [40]. The solar energy input is
25% of the geothermal plant design input.
610 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637

(a) (b)

Net electrical power output (kW)

Solar energy fraction

Solar aperture area (m2) Solar energy fraction

Fig. 12. (a) Determination of the solar energy fraction as a function of solar aperture area at various geothermal reservoir temperatures (Tair = 31 °C; design-point solar
DNI = 1000 W/m2) [43]. (b) Net electrical power output as a function of the solar share for various operation strategies [43].

attributed to the reduction in usage of geothermal energy as the
temperature of the well decreases, which is compensated by a
higher solar fraction. Again, at a constant geothermal temperature,
a rise in the solar fraction increases the net power output of the
plant (Fig. 12b). The type of operation strategy also has a signifi-
cant influence on the power output. Overall, a net exergy efficiency
of 12.4% was reported by the authors. The annual output of the
hybrid plant was 73.6% higher than that of the standalone geother-
mal plant.
3.1.2.4. Cost of electricity. The cost of electricity (COE) is highly sen-
sitive to the capital cost of the solar field (Fig. 13). At low prices of
the solar field, a higher solar share reduces the cost of electricity.
The opposite trend is observed when the specific cost of the solar
field is high. A low solar share is recommended in such cases to
make the COE competitive with the base plant. Zhou et al. [43]
have reported that the COE for a hybrid plant (171$/MW h) was
23% less than that of the standalone geothermal plant (225$/
MW h). Thus, a properly designed hybrid plant can become eco-
nomically superior to that of two standalone plants. Escobar
et al. [45] have also reported a reduction in COE (56.89$/MW h)
due to hybridization. However, Manente et al. [46] have reported
that the COE of a hybrid system (180–190 $/MW h) is much greater
than that of a standalone geothermal only plant. Similar observa-
tions have been made by Ghasemi et al. [47]. This shows that the
COE is highly sensitive to the location and the availability of
resources.
27.9%, and 71.1% were obtained at San Diego, Imperial, and Pisa,
respectively. The economic analysis revealed that hybridization
could lead to a 50% cost reduction compared to standalone solar
plants. Improvement in power output and efficiency due to
hybridization has also been reported by Ghasemi et al. [39,51].
Escobar et al. [45,52] have studied two integration configurations
for CSP-geothermal hybridization under Chilean conditions and
reported that the double flash hybrid configuration offered the best
performance. Greenhut et al. [53] also reported that the flash
hybrid configuration performed better in comparison to the super-
heat configuration in terms of power output, energy, and exergy
efficiency. Zhou [54] has compared the performance of subcritical
and supercritical organic Rankine cycle in a hybrid CSP-
geothermal power plant. In comparison to the subcritical plant,
the supercritical plant produces 4–17% more electricity and
reduced the solar capital cost by 6–24% and solar to electricity cost
by 4–19%. The maximum energy efficiency is reported for the sub-
critical condition while the exergy efficiency is higher for the
supercritical condition. However, Boghossian [55] found no syn-
ergy between a Kalina hybrid cycle operating on geothermal brine
and a parabolic trough CSP system. The author reported a 29%
reduction in power output compared to the standalone plants.
Changes such as regeneration, reheat, different working fluids,
and incorporating the solar energy at other locations in the cycle
can improve the system thermodynamic performance.

3.1.2.5. Novel schemes and other studies. Several other studies have
been conducted on CSP-geothermal hybridization for power gener-
ation. A brief analysis of the feasibility of CSP-geothermal hybrids
in Australia has been reported by Peterseim et al. [14]. The analysis
showed that the power output of the standalone geothermal plant
increased from 6.3 MWe to 8.4 MWe for parabolic trough hybrid
and 9.9 MWe for solar tower hybrid. The plant thermal efficiency
also increased to 12.5% and 14.1% from 10.2%, for a parabolic
trough hybrid and solar tower hybrid, respectively. However, ther-
mal storage systems or supplementary fuel firing are required at
night for superheating. Lentz et al. [48,49] have analyzed three
hybrid configurations using parabolic troughs for the Cierro Prieto
geothermal plant located in Mexico. The authors report that the
hybrid system can enhance the power output by augmenting the
steam flow rate. Astolfi et al. [50] have studied the integration of
parabolic trough collectors with a supercritical binary plant for
four different locations. The maximum annual average solar-to-
electricity efficiency, solar share and capacity factor of 9.4%, Fig. 13. Cost of electricity as a function of the solar field capital cost [40].
 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637 611

3.1.2.6. Operational plant. The Stillwater triple hybrid power plant
(Fig. 14) is the first hybrid solar-geothermal plant located in
Nevada, USA [56]. It consists of a 33.1 MWe geothermal binary
plant that was commissioned in 2009. Later in 2012, a 26.4 MWe
PV unit was added to enhance the output during the hot summers.
The system capacity was further augmented by 2 MWe due to the
addition of parabolic trough (PT) collectors that preheat the incom-
ing geothermal brine. The PT adds around 17 MW of solar thermal
energy into the system. The plant acts as an excellent case study
for understanding the hybridization of multiple renewable energy
sources. The combined plant is expected to produce around
200 GW h/year of electricity. The capital investment for the instal-
lation of the parabolic trough system was estimated at $15 million
in 2013.
ing, etc. A tabulated summary of selected studies on CSP-
geothermal hybrids is presented in Table A2 in the Appendix.
3.1.3. CSP-wind hybrids
Wind energy is currently the lowest cost renewable energy and
is widely available throughout the world (Fig. 15). Hybridization of
CSP with wind energy is an area that has not been explored widely.
This is predominantly because wind and CSP do not have wide syn-
ergy in terms of sharing of infrastructure (Fig. 16), unlike other
thermal energy sources such as biomass and geothermal. Hence,
CSP-wind integration has been referred to as a light hybrid [14].
However, solar energy naturally complements wind energy in gen-
erating power more uniformly as wind speed is lower during the
day and summer compared to nights and winter.

3.1.2.7. Summary. CSP-geothermal hybridization can overcome
several challenges faced by standalone geothermal plants such as
cost, low efficiency, and reduction in output over time. CSP can
be incorporated in the geothermal plant both in the preheating
or the superheating configuration. Such integrations lead to more
favorable plant output characteristics compared to standalone sys-
tems. However, the capacity of the solar field significantly influ-
ences the plant output and the cost of electricity. Several new
configurations with thermal storage or supplementary fuel firing
are being proposed to improve the performance of these systems.
CSP-geothermal hybrids have also been studied for applications
such as polygeneration, heating of greenhouses, desalination, cool-
3.1.3.1. Feasibility studies. Feasibility studies for CSP-wind hybrids
have been conducted for several locations such as Ontario [58],
Iberian Peninsula [59], India [60], Italy [61] and Arabian peninsula
[62]. Chen et al. [63] have proposed a model for selection of a suit-
able CSP-wind power generation project by considering the associ-
ated benefits, opportunities, costs and risks. A study by Kost et al.
[64] has suggested that a CSP-wind portfolio of energy production
is economically viable compared to standalone CSP in North Africa.
Sioshansi et al. [65] have analyzed several configurations for co-
locating solar and wind power plants in Texas, USA. Their analysis
suggests that deployment of hybrid plants with up to 67% CSP can
yield a positive return on investments. However, the results are

Fig. 14. Aerial view of the Stillwater triple hybrid power plant [57].

Fig. 15. Map of the yearly averaged world wind speed (m/s) at 100 m above sea level [4].
612 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637

Fig. 16. Schematic of a CSP-wind hybrid plant [67].

sensitive to CSP and transmission costs. Peterseim et al. [14] have
reported that CSP-wind hybrids have potential in Australia as sev-
eral wind farms and CSP plants are co-located. A number of loca-
tions in South Australia are particularly promising as they have
wind speeds >7 m/s and DNI >19.1 MJ/m2/day. The authors also
suggest that the excess electricity produced at night by the wind
farm can be utilized to charge the thermal energy storage system
of the CSP plant. However, a 260% difference in the day and night
time electricity prices is necessary to make this integration eco-
nomically feasible. Santos-Alamillos et al. [66] have also analyzed
the hybridization of CSP with wind farms to produce stable renew-
able power in the region of Andalusia in Spain. Their analysis
shows that optimal location of wind and CSP plants can overcome
the spatiotemporal variability in standalone CSP and wind plants
and provide stable base-load power. The addition of thermal stor-
age to CSP plants enhanced the performance of the hybrids.
3.1.3.2. Hybrid system performance. The performance of a CSP-wind
hybrid plant at Texas Panhandle has been analyzed by Vick et al.
[68]. The objective was to determine the suitability of CSP-wind
hybrids to match the utility electrical load in comparison to a stan-
dalone wind farm. The standalone wind farm generation is the
highest at night when the utility electricity load is the minimum
and vice versa (Fig. 17a). A standalone 100 MWe CSP plant with
6 h of thermal storage performed best to match the peak utility
loads in July and August. Overall, a 67 MWe wind farm and a
33 MWe CSP plant with 6 h of thermal storage were found to be
the best match for the utility electricity load (Fig. 17b). However,
the COE of the hybrid plant was much higher ($108–129/MW h)
in comparison to that of the wind farm ($64/MW h). Reichling
et al. [69] have analyzed the hybridization of an 800 MWe wind
farm with a 705 MWe parabolic trough solar field in Southern Min-
nesota. The hybridization led to a more favorable power output
curve that matched the load demand curve. Also, the specific CO2
emissions (10.8 g/kW h) are slightly higher than those associated
with wind (10.2 g/kW h), but lower than those for electricity gen-
erated from a parabolic trough solar field (13.4 g/kW h). However,
the cost of electricity (COE) of the hybrid plant (123 $/MW h) is
higher than that of standalone wind plant (67.8 $/MW h). A reduc-
tion in capital cost for solar technology by 75% could bring the COE
of the hybrid plant to within 7% of the COE of the wind plant. Pet-
rakopoulou et al. [70] have analyzed the hybridization of CSP with
wind for energy autonomy on the Greek island Skyros. The solar
plant has a capacity of 10 MWe, while each wind turbine is rated

Fig. 17. (a) Comparison of electricity load and wind farm capacity factor [68]. (b) Annual utility loading compared to different ratios of the wind farm to CSP rated generation
(2004) [68].
 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637
at 3.3 MWe. A total of two wind turbines has been used, thereby
taking the total capacity to 16.6 MWe. The mean annual efficiency
of the plant is 19.2% that lies between the reported efficiencies of
CSP and wind plants. The cost of electricity is 400 €/MW h. The
hybrid plant was reported to have lower land use requirement
and higher exergetic efficiency, thus making it a promising option
for energy autonomy of remote locations such as islands.
3.1.3.3. Summary. Thus, CSP-wind hybrids can generate power that
matches favourably with the load demand curve as compared to
standalone plants. However, the high capital cost of the CSP com-
ponent as compared to the wind farm increases the cost of electric-
ity and makes the hybrid plant economically unattractive. Further
research is necessary on the addition of storage and/or backup
fuel-firing, site selection and cost reduction of CSP to make the
hybrid scheme feasible. A tabulated summary of selected studies
on CSP-wind hybrids has been presented in Table A3 in the Appen-
dix. Currently, there are no CSP-wind hybrid plants operational in
the world.
3.2. Medium-renewable hybrids
Standalone solar plants suffer from low capacity factor that
necessitates the use of thermal energy storage systems. The size
of the storage system required to produce power as a base load
plant is two orders of magnitude higher (1000 h) than the current
storage systems (10 h) [71]. For current storage systems, the solar
fraction (fraction of the output power generated by solar energy)
ranges from 0.4 to 0.5 that reduces to 0.2 with no storage. Hence,
several standalone solar plants use fossil fuel (Fig. 18), preferably
natural gas, as a backup to keep the plant operational during low
insolation periods. There are, however, restrictions in some coun-
tries on the maximum usage of fossil fuels as a backup. In Spain,
fossil fuels can contribute to 12–15% of the total power output in
a solar plant, while in the USA the value is limited to 25% [10]. This
type of hybrid plants has been categorized as medium-renewable
hybrids in the current work. The renewable energy fraction in their
power output is approximately 70%, which is lesser than high-
renewable hybrids (100%), but higher than low renewable
hybrids (<20%).
3.2.1. Size of the solar field
The effect of the size of the solar field (solar multiple) on the
performance metrics of a medium-renewable hybrid plant
(Fig. 19) has been analyzed by Montes et al. [73]. The solar multiple
is the ratio of the actual solar field aperture area to the area
Fig. 18. Plant configurations using solar concentrators with both thermal energy storage (TES) system and supplementary fossil fuel burner (adapted from [72]).
613
Fig. 19. Variation of annual efficiency, fossil backup percentage, the size of thermal
energy storage (TES) and cost of electricity (COE) as a function of the solar multiple
[73]. Exchange rate: 1 € = 1.13 $.
required to deliver the rated thermal input to the turbine. The solar
multiple for a CSP plant is usually greater than 1. Montes et al. [73]
have performed the analysis for a 50 MWe parabolic trough power
plant, with thermal energy storage and auxiliary natural gas-fired
boiler. The storage system and natural gas boiler are operated to
maintain a constant power output. It was observed that the annual
efficiency decreases with increase in the solar multiple as more of
the electricity is produced from the solar collectors that have lower
efficiency. The contribution of the fossil fuel in the output electric-
ity also decreases with increase in the solar multiple. The thermal
energy storage size increases to accommodate the greater amount
solar energy surplus. The higher investment owing to the larger
solar multiple causes an increase in the cost of electricity (COE).
3.2.2. Impact on the environment
A few studies report the impact of fossil fuel backup on the
environment using life cycle analysis of medium-renewable hybrid
systems. Klein et al. [74] have evaluated the performance of a
100 MWe solar plant using parabolic trough with three backup
technologies and two cooling technologies. The performance was
compared in terms of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions, water
consumption, and onsite land usage. The life cycle CO2 emission
of plants without backup is 35 kg/MW h, which is 1.5–3 times
lower than with storage (60–73 kg/MW h). For plants with natural
gas backup, the emission (127–317 kg/MW h) is 4–9 times higher
than without backup. A similar analysis for a 50 MWe parabolic
trough CSP plant with 7.5-h storage has been performed by Corona
et al. [2]. Fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, fuel oil, and biofuels
such as wheat straw, wood pellets, and biogas have been used for
614 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637

backup. With 12% of the output energy being supplied by the
backup, the maximum CO2 emission was obtained for coal
(187 kg/MW h) and the minimum for wheat straw (34 kg/MW h).
The solar-only plant reported an emission of 26.9 kg/MW h. In
another study, Corona et al. [75] have analyzed the impact of fossil
backup percentage on the environment. While CO2 emission
increased with increase in natural gas backup, the effects on the
environment decreased slightly (Fig. 20) due to higher electricity
outputs.
3.2.3. Performance comparison
Several authors have compared the performance of medium
renewable hybrids with standalone solar plants. Price et al. [76]
reported an improvement in the performance metrics of parabolic
trough hybrid plant with auxiliary natural gas firing in comparison
to the standalone plant. The solar-to-electricity efficiency, capacity
factor and cost of electricity (COE) for the 30 MWe solar-only plant
were 10.6%, 22.2%, and 170 $/MW h, respectively. For the hybrid
plant with 25% backup, the values were 10.7%, 30.4%, and 141 $/
MW h. Similar results were obtained by Malagueta et al. [77,78]
who reported 50–70% decrease in COE and 100% increase in capac-
ity factor due to natural gas backup. The impact of storage systems
on standalone and hybrid plants has been analyzed by Wagner
et al. [79]. Their analysis shows that for small backup capacities
(1–4 h), the COE for plants with storage was lower as compared
to that of natural gas. For higher backup capacities (5–12 h), the
COE of plants with storage had slightly higher. However, Dersch
et al. [80] reported that a solar plant with natural gas backup but
without storage offers higher efficiency. The effect of the heat
transfer fluid on the standalone and hybrid plant performance
has been analyzed by Boukelia et al. [81]. The highest energy effi-
ciency (18.5%) and lowest COE (75.9 $/MW h) was obtained for the
molten salt plant with both storage and natural gas backup. The
thermic-oil plant with both storage and natural gas backup had
the highest exergy efficiency (21.8%), capacity factor (38.2%) and
annual power generation (165.8 GW h).
3.2.4. Other studies
Other studies on medium hybrids include that of Larrain et al.
[82], who have analyzed the performance of a 100 MWe direct
steam generation (DSG) parabolic trough (PT) solar power plant
in Chile with fossil fuel backup. A model was developed to estimate
the solar fraction and fossil fuel backup requirements for the plant
at four different locations. All the locations required fuel backup in
the range of 40–80%, and the location with the least backup
requirement was determined to be the most suitable for construc-
tion of CSP plants. In another study, Larrain et al. [83] developed a
lifecycle model for a 100 MWe hybrid natural gas-CSP plant to
determine the most suitable locations for the construction of such
plants in the Chilean Atacama Desert. Such a model is useful in
determining the locations at which a CSP plant becomes a net
energy source. Boukelia et al. [84] have optimized two parabolic
trough plants using molten salt and Therminol VP-1 as the heat
transfer fluid for Algerian conditions. The results have also been
compared with the Andasol-1 plant. The molten salt plant was
shown to be the best technology in terms of capacity factor, power
generation, water usage, investment cost, and cost of electricity.
Poghosyan et al. [85] tried to determine the size of thermal energy
storage system that would be required by the Shams-I PT plant at
Madinat-Zayed, United-Arab-Emirates to replace the natural gas
heater. Their analysis showed that storage cannot completely
replace the heat transfer fluid heater within a reasonable size
(solar multiple of two, storage for 16 h).
3.2.5. Operational plants and challenges
Several operating solar plants use auxiliary natural gas burners
for heating purposes. Price et al. [15] have reviewed the nine Solar
Electric Generating Systems (SEGS) (Table 3) located in the Mojave
Desert, California. It was reported that 8 of these 9 plants have nat-
ural gas backup for evaporation and superheating. The authors pre-
dict that advanced parabolic trough plants in the future would
have the cost of electricity (COE) in the range of 50–60 $/MW h
that would directly compete with conventional fossil fuel power
plants. However, these systems report low solar-to-electricity effi-
ciency owing to the higher solar share. This increases the capital
investment and cost of electricity. More studies should focus on
the use natural gas backup in solar tower systems that can offer
greater solar-to-electricity and thermal efficiencies due to higher
operating temperatures. Transient energy and exergy analysis
(over a day/ month/ year) of these hybrids will also be useful in
optimizing the hourly fuel consumption and plant performance
parameters while determining the sources of exergy destruction.
Fig. 21 shows parts of two SEGS plants using solar tower and para-
bolic troughs with fossil fuel backup.

3.2.6. Summary
Medium renewable hybrids are the most common solar plants
Fig. 20. Variation of impact on the environment with natural gas backup as they can operate continuously. The trade-off between the solar
percentage [75]. field size (solar multiple) and percentage of fossil fuel backup

Table 3
Characteristics of SEGS I-IX [15]. (Acronym: HTF – heat transfer fluid).

SEGS plant First year of operation Net output (MWe) Solar field outlet temperature (°C) Solar field area (m2) Annual output (MW h) Backup
I 1985 13.8 307 82,960 30,100 Thermal storage (3 h)
II 1986 30 316 190,338 80,500 Gas-fired
superheater
III 1987 30 349 230,300 92,780 Gas-fired HTF boiler
IV 1987 30 349 230,300 92,780 Gas-fired HTF boiler
V 1988 30 349 250,500 91,820 Gas-fired HTF boiler
VI 1989 30 390 188,000 90,850 Gas-fired HTF boiler
VII 1989 30 390 194,280 92,646 Gas-fired HTF boiler
VIII 1990 80 390 464,340 252,750 Gas-fired HTF heater
IX 1991 80 390 483,960 256,125 Gas-fired HTF heater
 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637
Fig. 21. (a) 19.9 MWe Gemasolar plant [86] located in Seville, Spain using solar
tower with 15% natural gas backup. (b) Part of the 354 MWe SEGS plant in northern
San Bernardino County, California using parabolic troughs with natural gas backup
[87].
determines the cost of electricity, efficiency, and CO2 emissions.
The plants with higher fossil fuel backup report higher efficiency
and lower cost of electricity compared to standalone solar plants,
although they have a higher negative impact on the environment.
Restrictions on the maximum usage of fossil fuel have resulted in
low solar-to-electricity for these systems. Also, currently they are
not competitive with conventional power plants or with photo-
voltaics. A tabulated summary of selected studies on medium
renewable hybrids has been presented in Table A4 in the Appendix.
All existing, under construction and planned SEGS plants with fos-
sil fuel backup have been summarized in Table A5 in the Appendix.
3.3. Low renewable hybrids
Low renewable hybrids are fossil fuel power plants with the
integration of solar energy for auxiliary purposes such as preheat-
ing. The solar share in low renewable hybrids is usually less than
20%.
3.3.1. Solar-Brayton cycles
Solar energy is used in Brayton cycles either to preheat the com-
pressed air before entering the combustion chamber or to generate
steam that is injected into the combustion chamber as the working
fluid. In both the cases, the increased inlet temperature to the com-
bustion chamber reduces the fuel consumption rate while increas-
ing the cycle efficiency. The higher working fluid temperature in a
Brayton cycle increases the solar-to-electricity efficiency in such
plants. This mode of integration enables continuous plant opera-
tion even in the absence of solar energy.
3.3.1.1. Solar preheating of compressed air. Solar preheating of com-
pressed air in a Brayton cycle has been investigated by several
authors. In such a configuration, the combustion chamber provides
the additional enthalpy required to reach the turbine inlet temper-
ature (950–1300 °C) from the receiver outlet temperature
(800–1000 °C). Numerical modeling of such recuperated solar
615
Brayton cycles (Fig. 22) in the power range of 1.4–4.2 MWe has
been performed by Schwarzbozl et al. [88]. The performance was
tested using three different turbines at two different locations,
namely Sevilla in Spain and Daggett in the US. The analysis showed
that the annual plant capacity factor decreased with an increase in
the solar share. A maximum solar share reported at 100% capacity
factor was 18.1%. However, the power production cost being higher
than that of conventional fossil fuel plants, the authors recom-
mended the introduction of these plants into distributed markets
(<10 MWe) along with cogeneration until the technology matures.
A similar study has been performed by Barigozzi et al. [89] in
which they have modeled the performance of a 36 MWe solar-
hybrid gas turbine system under the climatic conditions of
Palermo, Italy. The analysis revealed that such systems can achieve
a solar thermal share (Qsolar/Qin) of the order of 60–70% during the
peak sunny hours of the day in all seasons except winter. Kalatha-
kis et al. [90] have analyzed the performance of a CSP-Brayton sys-
tem for various spool arrangements of a 5 MWe gas turbine. The
single shaft recuperated turbine was the best choice for perfor-
mance, simplicity and cost considerations. The effect of storage
in a CSP-Brayton plant has been analyzed by Spelling et al. [91].
Under constant power operation, the addition of storage increased
the solar share while reducing the water consumption. Olivenza-
León et al. [92] have developed an analytical model for a CSP-
Brayton cycle considering the irreversibilities associated with a
real plant. Their model could satisfactorily predict the performance
of real plants.
3.3.1.2. Solarized steam injection gas turbines. Several studies on
solarized steam injection gas turbine (STIG) systems have been
performed by Kribus et al. [93–97]. In these systems (Fig. 23),
steam generated using low-temperature solar energy is injected
into the combustor to increase the power output and efficiency.
The exhaust from the turbine is recuperated by superheating the
solar-derived steam and preheating the water. The authors have
performed energy, exergy and economic analysis for a wide range
of operating parameters under the climatic conditions of India and
Israel. The addition of 4 h storage to the STIG cycle [97] increases
the capacity factor beyond 50% while adding stability to the power
output. Other studies on solar steam injection gas turbines with
carbon capture have been performed by Kosugi et al. [98–100]. A
novel steam injection gas turbine system with carbon capture
and storage has been proposed by Gou et al. [101]. The saturated
steam generated from the solar collectors is superheated by burn-
ing natural gas with pure oxygen before injection into the gas tur-
bine. Under design conditions, the system offers high solar-to-
Fig. 22. Solarized gas turbine plant schematic: recuperated Brayton cycle [88].
616 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637

Fig. 23. Layout of the solar hybrid steam injection gas turbine (STIG) cycle [93].

electricity efficiency (30.8%) and solar share (59.85%) at an average
collector temperature of 272.8 °C. Zhang et al. [102] have proposed
a 361 MWe recuperated gas turbine system in which solar energy
is used to produce steam for the upgrading of methane to syngas.
The system offered superior performance in comparison to a gas
turbine system without a solar assist. The solar-to-electricity effi-
ciency varies in the range of 25–30% and reduces CO2 emission
by around 20%. The COE of the system is around 59 $/MW h.
3.3.1.3. Summary. The first prototype of a solar-powered gas tur-
bine system was tested under the SOLGATE project (Fig. 25) in
the CESA-1 tower at Plataforma Solar de Almería (PSA) in Spain
[104–106]. The primary objective of the project was to develop a
pressurized volumetric receiver that could heat the air above
1000 °C for direct use in a gas turbine. In the hybrid operation, a
net power of 227 kWe was produced with a net efficiency of
18.2% and a solar share of 60%. The high-temperature receiver is
promising and the authors expect that the system can operate with
a minimum fuel usage of 5%. This was followed by the SOLHYCO
(Solar Hybrid Power and Cogeneration Plants) project [107,108]
that was aimed at developing a 100 KWe prototype solar-hybrid
microturbine system for cogeneration. Kerosene, used in the SOL-
GATE project was replaced by biodiesel to make the operation fully
sustainable. At megawatt scales, the first pilot solarized gas turbine
plant with a capacity of 4.6 MWe was operated under the Solugas
project [103,109] at Sanlucar la Mayor, Sevilla, Spain. Fig. 24 shows
that the power output of the turbine in the Solugas project can be
maintained constant irrespective of the varying weather condi-
tions. A similar 1.4 MWe hybrid solar-gas turbine system was
tested at the Thermis site, Targasonne, France under the PEGASE
project [110,111]. However, there are currently no operational
CSP-Brayton hybrid plants in the world. A tabulated summary of
selected studies on solar Brayton cycles has been presented in
Table A6 in the Appendix.
3.3.2. Solar-aided coal power plants
Solar-aided coal-fired power plants utilize solar energy for pre-
heating and boiling. Often, the solar energy replaces the bled-off
steam used for feed water heating in a regenerative Rankine cycle.
Retrofitting a solar field to a fully depreciated Rankine cycle power

Fig. 24. Full-time operation characteristics of the Solugas project [103].

 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637 617

Fig. 25. SOLGATE [106,112] and SOLUGAS projects [103]. (Acronyms: LT – low temperature, MT – medium temperature, HT: high temperature).

Fig. 26. Configurations of solar-aided Rankine cycle power plants in which the bled-off steam in the (a) low pressure and (b) high-pressure feedwater heaters are replaced by
solar energy [114].

plant is reported to be much more profitable compared to the inte- steam generation (DSG) and heat-transfer-fluid (HTF) technologies
gration of carbon capture technologies [113]. to a 300 MWe coal-fired power plant. The authors have reported a
peak solar-to-electricity efficiency (S-E g) of 27%. The integration
of solar energy into a steam power plant for feedwater preheating
3.3.2.1. Configurations for integration. The configuration for integra-
has been the focus of several studies. In one such study, Yan et al.
tion of solar energy into the steam power plant (Fig. 26) is critical
[118] analyzed the performance of several plants ranging from 200
in determining the performance of the hybrid plant. Odeh et al.
to 1000 MWe. The performance was observed to be sensitive to the
[115] have analyzed three such configurations in which the solar
size of the plant and the position of integration. The performance
energy is utilized for boiling, preheating, and both boiling and pre-
improved with an increase in the power plant capacity for the
heating. The study suggests that boiling is the best configuration to
same level of integrated solar power. The S-E g also improved with
reduce fuel consumption. In a similar study, Yang et al. [116,117]
an increase in the temperature of integration. For a 200 MWe coal-
has investigated several strategies for the integration of direct
618 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637
fired power plant, Yang et al. [119] reported S-E g of 25.5% and
36.6% at integration temperatures of 215 °C and 260 °C, respec-
tively. Similar studies on the utilization of solar energy for feedwa-
ter preheating has been performed by several authors [120–126].
All these studies report a higher S-E g compared to standalone
solar plants.
3.3.2.2. Effect of CSP technology. The type of CSP technology used for
hybridization has a significant influence on the hybrid plant perfor-
mance. A comparison of direct steam generation (DSG) and heat-
transfer-fluid (HTF) parabolic trough technologies applied to
coal-fired subcritical (550 MWe) and supercritical (660 MWe)
steam power plants has been conducted by Suresh et al. [127].
The DSG technology was observed to be more cost effective as
compared to the HTF technology. Also, the hybrid supercritical
plant is reported to have performed better than the subcritical
plant in terms of thermal efficiency (45.5% and 41.8%, respectively).
The specific CO2 emission for the subcritical and supercritical
plants was 790 kg/MW h and 760 kg/MW h, respectively. The use
of solar energy for feed water heating was exergetically more effi-
cient and led to a reduction in coal consumption by 14–19%. Inte-
gration of parabolic trough (PT) collectors into a 300 MWe lignite-
fired power plant has also been simulated by Bakos et al. [128]. The
plant efficiency increased from 33% to 37.6% with the addition of
the solar field. Popov [129] studied the integration of linear Fresnel
reflectors into a 130 MWe coal-fired power plant. The studies
showed that the replacement of high-pressure feedwater heaters
Fig. 27. Annual performance parameters with solar field area and storage capacity at 100% load [131].
with solar energy was the most advantageous in terms of solar
share, fossil fuel saving, and plant efficiency. A similar study using
linear Fresnel reflectors has been performed by Reddy et al. [130].
The study reported 20% increase in instantaneous power output by
replacing the turbine bleed streams with solar feed water heating.
3.3.2.3. Effect of solar field size. The variation of plant output charac-
teristics with an increase in the solar field size (Fig. 27) has been
discussed by Wu et al. [131] and Hong-juan et al. [132]. The
increase in solar field area enhances the annual plant output while
operating in the power boosting mode. In the fuel saving mode,
this causes a decrease in the annual coal consumption. The
increase in aperture area increases the solar-to-electric efficiency
as it replaces the bled-off steam for preheating. However, beyond
an optimal area, the additional solar contribution is wasted as all
of the bled-off steam has already been replaced by solar energy.
The higher solar field size incurs additional costs and hence the
cost of electricity (COE) increases beyond the optimum value. This
can be observed in Fig. 27(c) and (d) where the solar-to-electricity
efficiency is maximized and the COE is minimized for an optimal
aperture area. This optimal area depends on the total capacity
(MWe) of the plant and hence poses a limit on the maximum solar
share in these systems. It is, therefore, necessary to determine uses
of solar generated steam in a coal fired plant other than the
replacement of bled-off steam. Power cycles in which the solar
generated steam is directly used in the turbine will be a favorable
development and very few studies have addressed this issue, such
 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637
as [133]. Solar towers may be particularly attractive to generate
the high-temperature steam. Critical issues such as mode of oper-
ation (power boost or fuel saving) and sizing of the components
have to be addressed. Finally, we note that the cost of electricity
for a solar aided coal-fired power plant (98 $/MW h) is lower than
that of a CSP-natural gas system (140 $/MW h) [116,117]. Peng
et al. [134,135] have also reported the potential of hybrid plants
to reduce the COE by 20–30% in comparison to a standalone solar
plant.
3.3.2.4. Novel schemes and other studies. Several other studies have
been performed on solar-aided coal-fired hybrid plants. Campore-
ale et al. [136] performed thermodynamic analysis on the repow-
ering of an existing 364 MWe steam power plant with solar
energy. They obtained a reduction in fuel consumption by 8% at
the maximum solar irradiance. Wang et al. [114] have analyzed a
300 MWe subcritical coal-fired power plant integrated with solar
collectors and post-combustion carbon capture. Among the various
configurations studied, they found that the integration of medium
temperature solar energy to replace the high-pressure feedwater
heaters provided the highest solar-to-electricity efficiency of
around 24%. Gupta et al. [137] have compared the performance
of a 50 kWe solar thermal power plant to that of a 220 MWe hybrid
plant using direct steam generation (DSG) technology and reported
a higher efficiency for the hybrid system. Zhai et al. [138] have
optimized the solar contribution in a 660 MWe solar-aided plant
under different load conditions and direct normal irradiation
(DNI) levels. They proposed a model that calculated the solar con-
tribution in the solar-aided coal fired power plant at various load
conditions. In another study [139], the authors have analyzed the
performance of a 1000 MWe plant and concluded that hybridiza-
tion facilitates solar power generation at large capacities while
reducing emissions from coal-fired power plants. The addition of
storage systems to such hybrid plants also improves the perfor-
mance [140]. Zhu et al. [141] have performed exergy analysis of
a 1000 MWe coal-fired power plant fitted with solar towers. It
was observed that maximum exergy loss occurs in the boiler
(53.5%), followed by the solar field (26%). An exergy based method
Fig. 28. Images of (a) Lidell solar thermal station [145], (b) Fresnel reflectors at Lidell power plant [145], (c) parabolic trough solar field at the Integrated Solar Project in
Colorado [146].
619
for determining the solar contribution in a solar-aided coal-fired
power plant has been developed by Hou et al. [142]. They have
then used this method to study a 600 MWe coal power plant in
which the steam extracted in the first stage is completely replaced
by solar energy. The method proposed provides a theoretical refer-
ence in determining the solar contribution and thereby help poli-
cymakers in granting subsidies.
3.3.2.5. Power plants. The Lidell power station at New South Wales,
Australia is the first solar aided coal-fired power plant [143,144]. It
uses compact linear Fresnel reflectors to generate solar steam for
feedwater heating. The solar capacity is around 3 MWe while the
plant capacity is 2000 MWe. Another hybrid plant using parabolic
trough collectors is the Colorado Integrated Solar Project located in
Colorado, USA. The solar field produces around 2 MWe of electric-
ity [143]. However, both the above-mentioned plants are currently
non-operational. Fig. 28 shows selected images of the two hybrid
plants.
3.3.2.6. Summary. Solar energy forms a small fraction of the total
output in solar-aided coal power plants. The solar field can be used
for boiling, preheating, or both boiling and preheating. Both direct
steam generation (DSG) and heat-transfer-fluid (HTF) technologies
can be used, although the DSG technology is reported to be more
cost effective. There also exists an optimal solar field size for a
given coal power plant that uses solar energy to replace the
bled-off steam. Beyond this optimum size, an increase in the solar
field incurs additional costs that result in higher cost of electricity.
Finally, the cost of electricity from these hybrid plants is lower
than that from CSP-natural gas systems. A tabulated summary of
selected studies on solar-aided coal-fired power plants has been
presented in Table A7 in the Appendix.
3.3.3. Integrated solar combined cycles (ISCC)
Integrated solar combined cycle (ISCC) refer to combined cycle
systems with solar energy integration in the topping or the bot-
toming cycle. Integration of solar energy into a combined cycle is
attractive as they offer higher efficiency in comparison to Brayton
620 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637

and Rankine cycle power plants. Several ISCC plants are currently
operational or under construction around the world (Table 4).
The type of solar integration in a combined cycle plant has been
investigated by several authors. Integration can be performed with
the topping cycle (similar to solar-Brayton plants), the bottoming
cycle (similar to solar-aided coal-fired plant), or both. Oda et al.
[148] has analyzed all the three configurations (Fig. 29) and
reported that solar integration to the bottoming cycle provides
higher overall efficiency (Table 5). Integration in the topping cycle
is also promising due to the higher efficiency of the solar compo-
nent [8]. Similar observations have been made by Barigozzi et al.
[149], who have compared the performance of a combined cycle
with solar integration in the topping and bottoming cycles. The
analysis suggests that higher solar-to-electricity efficiency is
obtained by solar integration in the topping cycle. However, inte-
gration in the bottoming cycle boosts power output. Buck et al.
[150] have compared the performance of a 30 MWe plant with
solar heat integrated into the topping cycle with that of a
310 MWe plant with solar heat integrated into the bottoming
cycle. The topping cycle integration is reported to offer several
advantages over the bottoming cycle integration.
3.3.3.1. Combined cycle with solar integration in the topping cycle.
Solar integration in the topping cycle (Fig. 30) is similar to the CSP-
Brayton plant, where the gas turbine exhaust is used to generate
Table 5
Results for integration of solar energy to the topping and bottoming cycles of a
combined cycle plant [8,148].
Plant Integration method gI (%) gII (%)
A Both supplemental heat to the topping and 26.2 27.1
bottoming cycle
B Supplemental heat to the bottoming cycle only 29.8 30.9
C Supplemental heat to the topping cycle only 27.5 28.3
steam for the bottoming cycle in a heat recovery steam generator
(HRSG). Earlier studies on this configuration include SMUD
Kokhala [151], Kribus et al. [152], Segal and Epstein [153]. While
solar towers are the predominant choice [154], Amelio et al.
[155] reported the use of air-linear parabolic trough collectors
for air-preheating in such systems. Low-temperature parabolic
troughs (PT) can also be integrated into the topping cycle by gen-
erating steam for injection into the combustion chamber (STIG,
[93]). One such steam injection combined cycle system
(46.6 MWe) has been proposed by Kakaras et al. [156]. The effi-
ciency of the proposed system (57.6%) was higher than conven-
tional combined cycle systems. A novel configuration of heat
transfer fluid (HTF)-ISCC employing inlet air cooling of the gas tur-
bine has been proposed by Popov [157]. The inlet air cooling is
achieved either by a PV module or by an absorption chiller pow-

Table 4
Summary of existing ISCC plants [143,147].

Project name Location Technology Total output (MWe) Solar contribution (MWe) Status
Agua Prieta II Mexico Parabolic trough 478 14 Under construction
Ain Beni Mathar Morocco Parabolic trough 470 30 Operational
Archimede Italy Parabolic trough 765 5 Operational
ISCC Duba 1 Saudi Arabia Parabolic trough 600 43 Under construction
ISCC Hassi R’mel Algeria Parabolic trough 150 20 Operational
ISCC Kuraymat Egypt Parabolic trough 140 20 Operational
Martin US Parabolic trough 1150 75 Operational
Palmdale US Parabolic trough 570 50 Under development
Victorville 2 US Parabolic trough 563 50 Under development
Ningxia China Parabolic trough 92.5 92.5 Under development

Fig. 29. Possible configurations for solar energy integration into a combined cycle (adapted from [8]). (Acronyms: C – compressor, GT – gas turbine, HE – heat exchanger,
HRSG – heat recovery steam generator, ST – steam turbine, PT – parabolic trough).
 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637 621

Fig. 30. Schematic diagram of an ISCC with integration in the topping cycle (adapted from [72]). (Acronyms: HS – hot storage, CS – cold storage, HE – heat exchanger, C –
compressor, GT – gas turbine, ST – steam turbine, HRSG – heat recovery steam generator).

Fig. 31. Schematic of solar syngas fired power plant (adapted from [163]). (Acronyms: C – compressor, GT – gas turbine).

ered by a direct steam generation (DSG) linear Fresnel solar field.
These configurations improve the overall thermal efficiency of
the plant by 1.2% in comparison to HTF-ISCC. The authors also con-
cluded that the inclusion of the solar energy in the Brayton cycle is
much more advantageous than its integration into the steam cycle.
Another novel ISCC with a topping steam turbine plant supplied by
a parabolic trough system and a bottoming organic Rankine cycle
has been proposed by Al-Sulaiman [158].
3.3.3.1.1. Solar reforming. Solar reforming has also been studied by
several authors for integration of solar energy into the topping
cycle (Fig. 31). Solar reforming is used to upgrade the fuel so that
it can be utilized during periods of low solar insolation. The process
is used to convert high-temperature solar energy into chemical
energy by thermochemical processes such as methane steam
reforming (CH4+H2O = CO + 3H2), the water-gas shift reaction
(CO + H2O = CO2+H2) and steam or CO2 gasification of coal. The fuel
produced by this thermochemical process is a mixture of H2 and
CO, also known as syngas. Low and mid-temperature solar energy
[470–570 K] can also be used for methanol reforming to generate
syngas [159] that is oxidized in the combustion chamber of the
topping cycle. The system can reach a solar-to-electricity efficiency
of up to 35%. An advanced direct steam generation (DSG)-ISCC sys-
tem with solar thermochemical fuel conversion of methane has
been studied by Li et al. [160]. The energy and exergy efficiencies
of the hybrid plant are higher than that of combined cycle with car-
bon capture and storage. The authors reported a solar thermal
share of 28.2% and a net solar-to-electricity efficiency of 36.4%. A
model for performance evaluation and optimization of a combined
cycle with hybrid solar reforming of methane has been developed
by Sheu et al. [161]. Pilot-scale studies of solar reforming have
been performed under the SOLASYS project in which a 250 kWe
liquid-fuelled turbine was modified to operate on syngas [162].
3.3.3.1.2. Size of solar field. The performance of a hybrid plant as a
function of the solar field capacity (Fig. 32) has been analyzed by
Saghafifar et al. [164]. The authors have optimized the heliostat
field and thermo-economic parameters for a 50 MWe ISCC plant
located in the UAE. A solar tower system is integrated with the top-
ping cycle for air-preheating. The hybrid plant reported an annual
plant thermal efficiency of 47.16% with a solar share of 8.87%. The
specific CO2 emission decreased while the COE increased with
increase in the heliostat field capacity. The authors have also con-
cluded that establishment of a new hybrid plant is more econom-
ical compared to hybridization of an existing combined cycle plant.
The operating temperature of the receiver and the low efficiency of
the solar collector were determined to be the key bottlenecks for
hybridization. Similar thermo-economic optimization studies have
been performed by Spelling et al. [165] in which they have devel-
oped a dynamic model for a combined cycle system using solar
622 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637

Fig. 32. Variation of (a) annual fuel consumption, specific CO2 emission, (b) COE and payback period with heliostat field capacity [164].

towers. The authors reported a cost of electricity (COE) in the range

of 120–240 $/MW h with solar-to-electricity efficiencies ranging
from 18 to 24%. However, at larger plant capacities, the auxiliary
power consumption is expected to reduce the plant performance.
In another study, Spelling et al. [166] have performed optimization
of an advanced ISCC plant with thermal storage.
Currently, there are no operational ISCC plants with solar inte-
gration in the topping cycle as the technology for high-
temperature high-pressure solar receivers is not well developed.

3.3.3.2. Combined cycle with solar integration in the bottoming

cycle. Solar integration in the bottoming cycle (Fig. 33) is similar
to solar-aided coal-fired plants. However, instead of using coal,
the exhaust of the topping gas turbine is used to generate steam
for the bottoming cycle. All ISCC plants (Table 4) currently incorpo-
rate solar energy in the bottoming cycle. This type of integration is
technologically mature and offers high reliability and low financial
risk [167] compared to the topping cycle integration.
3.3.3.2.1. Effect of climate on plant feasibility. The feasibility of ISCC
plants in specific climatic conditions has been analyzed in several
studies. Baghernejad et al. [169,170] have performed the energy
and exergy analysis of the ISCC power plant located in Yazd, Iran
with a view to optimize the investment cost, exergy destruction
and electricity cost using genetic algorithm. The exergy analysis
reveals that maximum exergy is lost in the combustor (29.62%),
followed by the solar field (9%) and the exhaust (7.78%). The major
sources of energy losses are the condenser (35.94%) and the stack
(10.15%). A similar study under Iranian conditions has been per-
formed by Hosseinia et al. [171] who have concluded that the cost
of electricity (COE) of ISCC is lower than that of the combined cycle
and gas turbine systems by 10% and 33%, respectively if environ- Fig. 33. Schematic of ISCC plant with solar integration in the bottoming cycle [168].
 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637
mental costs are considered. Allani et al. [172] have studied the
integration of solar energy in a combined cycle under the climatic
conditions of Tunisia. They have concluded that the maximum
power strategy of operation is better at CO2 mitigation as com-
pared to maximum efficiency operation. Several authors have per-
formed thermodynamic analysis of the Hassi R’Mel ISCC power
plant in Algeria. Khaldi et al. [173] have found that the gas turbine
combustor and the solar field are the major sources of energy and
exergy losses, whereas the turbine and the compressor exhibit high
efficiencies. The solar energy share is around 14% whereas the solar
exergy share is 12%. The energy and exergy efficiencies at the
design point are reported to be 56% and 53%, respectively. A study
by Derbal-Mokrane et al. [174] has shown that the ISCC plant at
Hassi R’Mel can produce 150 MWe at 52% efficiency, with a solar
share of 20%. Behar et al. [175] have calculated that the design
point efficiency of the heat transfer fluid (HTF)-ISCC power plant
is better than that of the combined cycle. The feasibility of ISCC
plants in southern Greece has been analyzed by Bakos et al.
[176]. El-Sayed [177] has studied the performance of a direct steam
generation (DSG)-ISCC at Kuraymat, Egypt and concluded that the
power boosting mode is more economical compared to the fuel
saving mode. Brakmann et al. [178] have provided the design
Fig. 34. Comparison of electricity production from a CCGT and an ISCC plant at Almería, Spain (top) and Las Vegas, US (bottom) [185].
623
and technical details of Kuraymat ISCC, located in Egypt. Elsaket
[179] has proposed the modification of the existing 4 x 51 MWe
Brayton cycles into an ISCC with DSG technology under Libyan cli-
matic conditions. Such a modification would increase the plant
capacity to 286.12 MWe at the design point, thereby saving
151,260 t of fossil fuel annually and avoiding 468,910 t of CO2
per year. Li et al. [180] have studied the performance of a two-
stage solar input DSG-ISCC under the climatic conditions of Yulin
city, China.
3.3.3.2.2. Type of solar collector. The type of solar collector influ-
ences the performance of the hybrid cycle. However, the optimum
choice for collectors depends on several factors such as local cli-
matic conditions, plant operating conditions, etc. Franchini et al.
[181] have compared the performance of solar tower central recei-
ver system with that of parabolic troughs for the location of Seville,
Spain. The hourly transient analysis performed by them reveals
that parabolic troughs offer better performance as compared to
towers in the summer months with thermal efficiencies up to
60%. However, the yearly performance analysis shows that the
tower technology provides more energy at a higher efficiency as
compared to the parabolic troughs. Horn et al. [182] have com-
pared parabolic trough heat transfer fluid (HTF)-ISCC with air-
624 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637
tower ISCC and concluded that the solar levellized cost of electric-
ity for the trough is lower as compared to that for the tower. How-
ever, the cost of electricity (COE) is same for both the parabolic
trough (PT) and solar tower (ST) systems (31 $/MW h), which is
higher than that of the reference combined cycle plant (24 $/
MW h). Manente et al. [183] have analyzed and compared the per-
formance of several ISCC plant configurations using solar collectors
such as parabolic trough, solar tower, and linear Fresnel reflectors.
The configuration using parabolic trough offered the best perfor-
mance with solar-to-electricity efficiency reaching 30%. Also,
Rovira et al. [184] have reported that direct steam generation
(DSG) offers better performance as compared to the heat transfer
fluid (HTF) system.
3.3.3.2.3. Performance comparison. Several studies have compared
the performance of ISCC with that of solar electric generating sys-
tems (SEGS or CSP-natural gas hybrid) and combined cycle gas tur-
bine (CCGT) systems. Montes et al. [185] have compared the
performance of a CCGT power plant with that of a natural gas-
ISCC power plant using direct steam generation (DSG) technology
at Almería and Las Vegas (Fig. 34). In terms of cost of electricity
(COE), the CCGT performed better than the ISCC plant at Almería,
whereas the ISCC plant performed better in Las Vegas. The hot
and dry climate of Las Vegas enhanced the performance of the ISCC.
The global efficiency of the ISCC is better at Las Vegas (52.2%) com-
pared to 51.9% for Almería. A comparison of CCGT and ISCC plants
from energy and exergy considerations have been performed by
Reddy et al. [186]. The analysis revealed that major energy losses
took place in the condenser and heat recovery steam generator
(HRSG), whereas major exergy losses took place in the combustion
chamber followed by the HRSG. The energy and exergy efficiencies
of the combined cycle (53.9% and 54.5%) are higher than that of the
ISCC (41.7% and 49.7%). A comparative study of ISCC, SEGS, and
CCGT has been performed by Dersch et al. [80]. The study suggests
that ISCC has the highest efficiency of 68.6% in comparison to 34.7%
for a SEGS. However, the SEGS offers lower GHG emissions. Neza-
mmahalleh et al. [187] have compared various configurations of
DSG-ISCC, HTF-ISCC with HTF-SEGS and concluded that DSG-ISCC
is the best configuration offering superior performance. Kolb
[133] performed an economic comparison of several hybrids and
standalone solar plants that use solar towers both in the power
boost and fuel saving modes. The study showed that hybrid plants
were more economical compared to solar only plants. Giuliano et al.
[72] compare the performance of 5 different ISCC configurations
with storage to that of a combined cycle plant. They have concluded
that higher cost of fossil fuels and carbon trading can make ISCC
competitive with CCGT plants in terms of COE. Turchi et al. [188]
have compared the performance of HTF-ISCC hybrid with and with-
out storage to that of SEGS and concluded that the COE is lower for
ISCC without storage than with storage.
3.3.3.2.4. Novel schemes and other studies. Several novel schemes
for ISCC with solar integration in the bottoming cycle have also
been proposed in the literature. Gunasekaran et al. [189] have pro-
posed an advanced zero emission power (AZEP) cycle with carbon
capture and storage whose solar-to-electricity efficiency is compa-
rable with other technologies. They have also shown a negative
correlation between solar-to-electricity efficiency and solar share
(Fig. 35). Similar observations have been made by Kelly et al.
[190]. With increasing solar contributions, the solar energy dis-
placed some of the sensible heat transfer in the heat recovery
steam generator, leading to a decrease in the solar-to-electricity
efficiency. Cau et al. [191] have proposed a novel ISCC concept
using CO2 as the heat transfer fluid (HTF). Currently, the system
cost is higher compared to combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT)
plants but holds promise for the future. Li et al. [192] have pro-
posed a novel cascade integrated solar combined cycle that uses
both parabolic trough collectors and evacuated tube collectors.
Fig. 35. Trade-off between solar-to-electricity efficiency and solar share [189].
The system provided superior performance compared to one-
stage ISCC and CCGT systems. Bonadies et al. [193] studied the ret-
rofit of a solar tower and thermal storage system with a combined
cycle plant to make the plant operate for 17 h a day. The study
showed that the integration led to a lower running time for the
gas turbine unit compared to that of a regular ISCC plant. Manente
[168] developed a model to predict the performance of a 390 MWe
CCGT plant that was later used for hybridization with solar energy.
The analysis suggests that an addition of 50 MWe solar power
requires significant changes to the original plant in terms of equip-
ment and their capacities. Kane et al. [194] have studied the opti-
mization of the HRSG and HSSG to increase the exergy efficiency of
an ISCC plant. The results show that the cost of electricity with 15–
20% solar share is higher than similar capacity combined cycle
plants by 20–30%. However, the cost may decrease with a reduc-
tion in the cost of solar collectors and implementation of carbon
credits. Gülen [195] has developed a system of equations based
on Second Law to optimize the performance of ISCC plants.
3.3.3.2.5. Summary. Several ISCC plants are currently operational
or planned around the world. Fig. 36 shows selected images of four
ISCC plants located in several countries. There are currently no
plants with solar integration in the topping cycle, although they
promise higher efficiency due to operation at higher temperatures
and pressures. Solar reforming is also promising as the fuel can be
stored and used in a period with low solar insolation. For bottom-
ing cycle integration, all types of solar concentrators such as solar
towers, parabolic troughs, and Fresnel reflectors can be used. How-
ever, the performance depends on parameters such as local cli-
matic conditions, plant operating conditions, etc. Comparative
studies of ISCC plants with CCGT and SEGS systems suggest that
ISCC offers the highest efficiency. Several novel schemes for ISCC
systems have also been reported in the literature. A tabulated sum-
mary of selected studies on ISCC plants has been presented in
Table A8 in the Appendix.
4. Comparison of the hybrid technologies
The data reported in the literature along with that of actual
power plants (Tables A1–A8) have been compiled for comparison
of the CSP-hybrids reviewed in this paper. The mean, minimum
and maximum of all the data reported is represented in figures
as described in the next few sections.
4.1. CO2 emissions
Fig. 37 represents the specific CO2 emissions from the various
CSP-hybrids. As can be observed, the high-renewable hybrids have
the lowest specific CO2 emissions (<100 kg/MW h), followed by the
 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637
Fig. 36. Images of ISCC plants (a) Ain Beni Mathar, Morocco [196] (b) Martin, US [197] (c) Kuraymat, Egypt [198] (d) Hassi R’Mel, Algeria [199].
Fig. 37. Mean specific CO2 emissions from the CSP-hybrid technologies (bullets).
The lines represent the range of emissions reported in the literature. (Acronyms: NG
– natural gas, SEGS – solar electric generating system, ISCC – integrated solar
combined cycle).
medium (<200 kg/MW h) and low renewable hybrids (>200 kg/
MW h). The lowest CO2 emission is reported for CSP-wind hybrids,
while the highest is reported for solar-aided coal-fired power
plants. The values were in the range of emissions reported for stan-
dalone plants [200,201]. While both CSP-natural gas and ISCC use
natural gas, the emission of the former is lower due to the higher
solar share. Thus, hybridization of CSP with conventional power
plants such as natural gas combined cycle and coal-fired Rankine
cycle does not offer a significant reduction in their specific CO2
emissions.
No data for CO2 emissions from CSP-geothermal hybrid power
plant was available in the literature. However, CO2 emissions for
a hybrid geothermal combined heat and power (CHP) plant using
evacuated tube collectors was reported in the range of 29.2–
38 kg/MW h [202]. This value has been presented in Fig. 37. The
global warming potential reported for standalone geothermal bin-
ary plant and parabolic trough CSP plants is approximately 50 kg/
625
MW h [203] and 14 kg/MW h [200], respectively. Using this data,
an estimate (using a linear combination) of CO2 emissions from a
CSP-geothermal hybrid plant with 15% solar share is 44.6 kg/
MW h. This is of the same order as reported for the hybrid CHP
plant [202]. However, the CO2 content of the geothermal brine is
high and can lead to high CO2 emissions in flash and dry steam
geothermal plants. The emission can vary from 4–740 kg/MW h,
with a weighted average of 122 kg/MW h [204]. This weighted
average is still of the same order as medium hybrid CSP-natural
gas plants. The geothermal fluid in a binary plant circulates
through a closed loop and hence emits less CO2 compared to flash
and dry steam plants. Rule et al. [205] reports a value of 40 kg/
MW h Wairakei binary geothermal plant in New Zealand.
4.2. Solar share
The solar share in various CSP-hybrids is presented in Fig. 38.
The highest solar share is reported for SEGS plants that use natural
gas of the order of 10–25% for backup. CSP-biomass hybrid systems
using biomass for backup also report high solar share comparable
to CSP-natural gas systems. The configurations in which both bio-
mass boiler and CSP field operate in parallel to supply steam to the
turbine report low solar shares. CSP-geothermal hybrids use the
geothermal brine for base power output and have a low solar
share. The low hybrids mostly use solar energy for preheating
and hence have a low solar contribution. This also corroborates
with the high CO2 emission reported from such systems (Fig. 37).
It can also be observed from the data that the systems with ther-
mal energy storage have a higher solar share.
4.3. Capacity
The various CSP-hybrid systems are suitable only in some lim-
ited range of output capacities. CSP-biomass hybrids are restricted
below 50 MWe [19] to ensure a continuous supply of biomass and
to reduce logistical costs. The capacity of standalone geothermal
plants can vary from 0.2 to 68 MWe for binary systems to 4–
626 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637
Fig. 38. Solar share in the power produced from various CSP-hybrids. The lines
represent the range of data reported in the literature. (Acronyms: NG – natural gas,
SEGS – solar electric generating system, ISCC – integrated solar combined cycle).
330 MWe for flash systems [37]. The average capacity of 8.3 MW
(Fig. 39) for CSP-geothermal hybrids is obtained as more hybridiza-
tion studies have been performed for binary plants. Hybridization
studies for flash hybrids of capacity 20 MWe have also been
reported [45]. Depending on the solar resource, larger CSP-
geothermal hybrid plants can also be constructed. The capacity of
wind farms can be up to several hundred megawatts (Roscoe wind
farm, 781.5 MWe) with each turbine up to 10 MWe [206]. Thus,
CSP-wind hybrids can vary in capacity from 10 MWe to several
100 MWe as observed in Fig. 39. Also, the wind farm does not con-
strain the capacity of the CSP system as they share the power block
only. The CSP-natural gas plants can vary in capacity from 10 to
500 MWe [143]. However, the average is lower (68.5 MWe) as sev-
eral CSP-natural gas plants of 50 MWe are currently operational in
Spain and other locations. The solar-aided coal-fired power plants
are typically of capacities ranging from 100 to 1000 MWe. The
solar-Brayton plants are limited in capacity due to the requirement
of high-temperature and high-pressure solar receivers that are cur-
rently unavailable. ISCC plants with solar integration in the topping
cycle are also of smaller capacities due to the same reason. ISCC
plants with solar integration in the bottoming Rankine cycle can
vary in capacity from 50 to 1000 MWe.
4.4. Solar-to-electricity efficiency (S-E g)
For CSP-wind hybrids, the solar-to-electricity efficiency is same
as that for standalone CSP plants (14%) [69] as they share only the
power block (Fig. 40). This value will change as other modes of
integration are proposed in which CSP and wind share some com-
Fig. 39. Capacity of various CSP-hybrid systems. The mean capacities of some of the
CSP-hybrid systems have been shown in the plot. The lines represent the range of
data reported in the literature. (Acronyms: NG – natural gas, SEGS – solar electric
generating system, ISCC – integrated solar combined cycle).
mon infrastructure. CSP-biomass systems can reach higher effi-
ciencies (27.5% peak [22]) due to the attainment of higher
temperature from biomass combustion. The low temperature of
the geothermal resource (250 °C) limits the maximum plant
operating temperature, thereby reducing the solar-to-electricity
efficiency. CSP-natural gas systems reach mean S-E g in the range
of 10–20% with a maximum of 28.7 reported for the Ivanpah plant
[143]. For ISCC and solar-aided coal Rankine plants, the mean lies
between 20 and 30% with the maximum reaching in the range of
40–50%. The CSP-Brayton plants also report a higher mean S-E g
due to the incorporation of solar energy at elevated temperatures
in the gas turbine. Thus, the S-E g of low-renewable hybrids is
higher than the other categories. CSP-biomass systems can poten-
tially attain such high S-E g due to biomass combustion.
4.5. Overall energy and exergy efficiency
For wind, no data was available on the overall thermal effi-
ciency of the hybrid plant. The exergy efficiency of such a plant
was reported to be 19.2% in [70]. However, if we assume the CSP
plant efficiency to be 15%, wind turbine efficiency of 32% [70],
and solar share to be 48% [70], the overall thermal efficiency
h i
obtained is 20.73% 0:48þ1 0:52 ¼ 0:2073 . This has been shown in
0:15 0:32
Fig. 41. The thermal efficiency of CSP-biomass hybrids is also high
(>30%) as the plants are able to operate near the design conditions
by burning biomass. The CSP-geothermal hybrids report the lowest
efficiency (13%) due to the low temperature of the geothermal
source. The CSP-natural gas systems have a high solar share and
hence report a low overall efficiency. The increase in the backup
percentage from natural gas can increase the overall efficiency,
although at the expense of higher CO2 emissions. The ISCC plants
report the highest overall efficiency, followed by the solar-
Brayton and solar-aided coal fired plants. These plants also have
the lowest solar share (Fig. 38) and are able to operate at the design
conditions continuously. The solar-Brayton reports slightly higher
efficiency than the coal-fired plants due to the higher temperature
of operation. The ISCC plants report the highest efficiency due to
the dual cycle configuration.
The exergy efficiency reports similar trend as that of the energy
efficiency. The ISCC system reports the highest exergy efficiency of
60.9%, although the mean is higher for the solar-Brayton system as
only one data point is available in [114].
4.6. Capacity factor
The capacity factor of CSP-wind hybrids is the lowest due to the
intermittent nature of both the resources (Fig. 42). CSP-biomass
Fig. 40. Solar-to-electricity efficiency of various CSP-hybrid systems. The lines
represent the range of data reported in the literature. (Acronyms: NG – natural gas,
SEGS – solar electric generating system, ISCC – integrated solar combined cycle).
 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637 627

bines (100%) while the capacity factors for steam injection gas
turbines (STIG) are in the range of 30–50%. For the STIG cycle ana-
lyzed in [94], the capacity factor is limited due to the operation of
the system only during peak sunshine hours. It can be increased by
the addition of storage [97] (capacity factor of 51.5%) or extended
to 100% by the continuous burning of fuel. This also implies that
systems with higher capacity factors have a low solar share.

4.7. Investment

The cost of CSP technologies is significantly higher (6000 $/

kWe) as compared to other conventional power production tech-
nologies. The CSP systems with storage such as Andasol I in Spain
cost 8700 $/kWe [207]. Thus, a CSP-hybrid system with large solar
share, such as the medium hybrids, is expected to incur high initial
investments (Fig. 43). The highest investment (12,000–18,000 $/
kWe) has been reported for CSP-geothermal hybrids [14,43]. These
reported values are significantly higher than those of standalone
CSP (6000 $/kWe) and standalone geothermal plants (1711 $/
kWe in [5]). One possible reason for such high specific investment
is the assumptions made in the calculation. For example, the
authors in [43] assume a specific investment of 20,000 $/kWe for
an enhanced geothermal system. This is clearly higher than the
values reported in [5,208], which is less than 4000 $/kWe. The
other renewable hybrids such as wind and biomass cost around
4000 $/kWe. The solar-aided plants require the lowest investment
(<1000 $/kWe) due to the maturity of the technology and wide-
spread usage.

Fig. 41. Overall energy (top) and exergy (bottom) efficiency of various CSP-hybrid
systems. The lines represent the range of data reported in the literature. (Acronyms:
NG – natural gas, SEGS – solar electric generating system, ISCC – integrated solar
combined cycle).

Fig. 43. Specific investment for various CSP-hybrid systems. The lines represent the
range of data reported in the literature. (Acronyms: NG – natural gas, SEGS – solar
electric generating system, ISCC – integrated solar combined cycle).

Fig. 42. Capacity factor of various CSP-hybrid systems. The lines represent the
range of data reported in the literature. (Acronyms: NG – natural gas, SEGS – solar
electric generating system, ISCC – integrated solar combined cycle).

hybrids have reported a maximum capacity factor of 51.4% [17] but

can reach higher values due to the stability offered by the combus-
tion of biomass. Geothermal plants can operate as a base load plant
due to the steady supply of geothermal brine and thus offer high
capacity factor (60–70%). The CSP-natural gas plants with storage
can reach capacity factors up to 74% (Gemasolar [10]), although
at a higher investment. The mean capacity factor of such systems
is in the range of 40–50%. The mean capacity factor of ISCC and
solar-aided coal plants is high (>80%) due to the low solar share
in such systems. It is interesting to note that solar-Brayton plants Fig. 44. Cost of electricity for various CSP-hybrid systems. The lines represent the
report a wide range of capacity factors, from 30 to 100%. The high- range of data reported in the literature. (Acronyms: NG – natural gas, SEGS – solar
est capacity factors have been reported for the recuperated gas tur- electric generating system, ISCC – integrated solar combined cycle).
628 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637

4.8. Cost of electricity (COE)
The cost of electricity is higher for the high and medium hybrids
as compared to the low hybrids (Fig. 44). The low-renewable
hybrids such as ISCC, solar-Brayton and solar-aided coal plants
have a low solar share (Fig. 38) and require significantly less
investment (Fig. 43). For high and medium hybrids the mean val-
ues are close to 20 c/kW h, which is almost twice as that of the
low hybrids. However, there is significant variability in the
reported COE as it depends on the local conditions, their tariff
structure, subsidies, etc. For example, the COE for a CSP-biomass
hybrid at an archipelago in Indonesia has been reported to be
60 c/kW h [18]. Similarly, the COE for a CSP-wind hybrid in the
Skyros island of Greece has been reported to be 45.2 c/kW h [70].
Such locations are away from the national grid and have poor
accessibility, leading to increase in the COE. However, the lowest
COE values reported for the high and medium hybrids are close
to that of the mean of the low hybrids. While the COE of the high
and medium hybrids are expected to decrease with time due to the
advancement of technology, the COE of the low hybrids is expected
to rise due to increase in the price of fossil fuels driven by scarcity.
5. Summary
In this work, literature pertaining to various CSP-hybrids has
been reviewed in detail. The hybrids have been categorized into
high, medium and low based on their renewable energy compo-
nent. Hybrids of CSP with wind, biomass, and geothermal energy
have been categorized as high-renewable hybrids. The medium-
renewable hybrids refer to solar plants with natural gas backup.
The low-renewable hybrids encompass ISCC, solar-Brayton, and
solar-aided coal Rankine plants that use solar energy for auxiliary
purposes such as preheating and evaporation. The high-
renewable hybrids report the least specific CO2 emissions
(<100 kg/MW h), followed by the medium (<200 kg/MW h) and
low hybrids (>200 kg/MW h). A comparative analysis of the
hybrids has also been performed based on their plant characteris-
tics and performance metrics such as capacity, solar share, solar-

Table A1
Summary of selected CSP-biomass hybrid plants reviewed in the present study. (Acronyms: PT – parabolic trough, ST – solar tower, gI – net thermal efficiency, gII – net exergy
efficiency, S-E g – solar-to-electricity efficiency, COE – cost of electricity).

Technology gI gII S-E g CO2 COE Investment Capacity (MWe) Capacity Solar Comments
(kg/MW h) (c/kW h) ($/kWe) factor (%) share (%)
PT + TES + wheat straw[2] 34.2 50 88 7.5 h TES
PT + TES + wood pellets[2] 37.5 50 88 7.5 h TES
Biomass + PT [17] 11.3 30 51.4 53.6
SolComBio [18] 29.6 23 4371 20 Brazil
24.8 60 8193.8 20 Indonesia
Biomass + PT [19] 22.6–34.1 3108–5624* 5–60 *
1 AU$ = 0.74 $
Biomass + ST [20] 33.4 11.5 4144* 30 23.9 *
1 AU$ = 0.74 $
PT + biomass [22] 25.6–27.5* 4514–5476** 50 *
Peak
**
1 AU$ = 0.74 $
Various hybrids [23] 29.3–33.2 3330–4958* 17.3–19.5 *
1 AU$ = 0.74 $
b-IGCC + PT in 36.7 70 MWth (gasifier)
bottoming [24] + 100 MWth CSP
IGSCC [26] 40.8 36
SGCC [28] 32.4 34.9 21.25 19 51.7 On-design
condition
SHCC [28] 30.9 33.3 17.28 20 49.3 On-design
condition
PT + bagasse [77] 19.7 4692 100 37.1 43 Table 13
Borges Termosolar [143] 30.5* 7684* 22.5 *
1 € = 1.13 $

Table A2
Summary of selected studies on CSP-geothermal hybrids reviewed in the present study. (Acronyms: PT – parabolic trough, ST – solar tower, ETC – evacuated tube collector, gI –
net thermal efficiency, gII – net exergy efficiency, S-E g – solar-to-electricity efficiency, COE – cost of electricity).

Technology gI gII S-E g CO2 COE Investment Capacity Capacity Solar Comments
(kg/kW h) (c/kW h) ($/kWe) (MWe) factor (%) share (%)
Flash + PT [14] 12.5 16,354* 8.4 For Australia
Flash + ST [14] 14.1 12,432* 9.9 1 AU$ = 0.74 $
Binary + PT [50] 8.6 16.5 61.8 27.9 Annual average quantities
9.4 19.8 62.2 22.8
9.1 26 68.3 18.3
8.8 31.3 71.1 14.8
Binary + PT [43] 12.4 17.2 16,950
17.1 16,750
17.7 18,480
Binary + PT [54] 8–11.8 11.6–14.1 6.6–13.7 1.4–5 Subcritical
9.2–10.8 8.9–14.7 -3.8–14.4 1–5.4 Supercritical
Binary + PT [53] 10.8–1.4 12.7–13.1 11–11.4 For superheat
17.4–18 12.2–12.7 11.6–12.1 For flash hybrid
Binary + PT [55] 14.5 9.6 Uses Kalina cycle
Flash + PT [45] 6.5 17.5 Single flash
5.7 20.2 Double flash
Binary + PT [39] 17.9
Binary + ETC [202] 29.2–38 Evacuated tube collector
 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637 629

to-electricity efficiency, capacity factor, specific investment and
cost of electricity.
An extensive pool of literature exists for the low-renewable
hybrids such as ISCC, solar-Brayton, and solar-aided coal Rankine
power systems. For solar-Brayton with compressed air preheating,
the key challenge is the development and operation of high-
temperature high-pressure receivers. A similar challenge is faced
by ISCC systems with topping cycle integration. For solar-aided
coal Rankine plants and ISCC with bottoming cycle integration,
the future studies should focus on methods of increasing the solar
share to reduce CO2 emissions. In terms of other thermo-economic
parameters such as capacity factor, solar-to-electricity efficiency,
investment, and cost of electricity, these systems offer superior
performance over medium and high-renewable hybrids.
The medium renewable hybrids (CSP-natural gas) are also well
understood because of the operational experience gained from sev-
eral such power plants. Such hybrids report moderate specific CO2
emission due to high solar share. The capacity of such plants can
range from 20 to 500 MWe and is suitable both for distributed
and centralized power systems. The capacity factor of these sys-
tems can be greater than 70% with natural gas backup and thermal
storage. However, these systems report low solar-to-electricity
efficiency that increases the investment and cost of electricity. Cur-
rently, efficiency and cost are the primary constraints that prevent
further penetration of these systems into the market and should be
the focus of future research. Partial replacement of the backup nat-
ural gas by renewable fuels such as syngas obtained from gasifica-
tion of local biomass can also reduce the CO2 emissions of these
systems.
The high-renewable hybrids such as CSP-wind, CSP-biomass,
and CSP-geothermal have minimum negative impact on the envi-
ronment. This category is the least explored and presents tremen-
dous potential for future research. However, such plants will be
restricted to selected locations due to the requirement of two

Table A3
Summary of selected studies on CSP-wind hybrids reviewed in the present study. (Acronyms: WF – wind farm, PT – parabolic trough, TES – thermal energy storage, gI – net
thermal efficiency, gII – net exergy efficiency, S-E g – solar-to-electricity efficiency, COE – cost of electricity).

Technology gI gII S-E g CO2 COE Investment Capacity Capacity Solar Comments
(g/kW h) (c/kW h) ($/kWe) (MWe) factor (%) share (%)
WF + PT [68] 10.8–12.9 3733 100 38 33
WF + PT [69] 10.8 12.3 1508 20 800 MW wind + 708 MW PT
(equivalent to 200 MW wind)
* ** *
WF + PT+TES [70] 19.2 45.2 16.6 48 1 € = 1.13 $
**
1 CSP + 2 wind turbines

Table A4
Summary of selected studies on medium hybrids reviewed in the present study. (Acronyms: DSG – direct steam generation, PT – parabolic trough, NG – natural gas, ST – solar
tower, TES – thermal energy storage, gI – net thermal efficiency, gII – net exergy efficiency, S-E g – solar-to-electricity efficiency, COE – cost of electricity).

Technology gI gII S-E g CO2 COE Investment Capacity (MWe) Capacity Solar Comments
(kg/MW h) (c/kW h) ($/kWe) factor (%) share (%)
DSG PT + NG [82] 100 40–80% backup of natural gas
SEGS VI [76] 11 19.4 30 33 70
SEGS VIII [76] 10 16.4 80 28 70
SEGS [15] 10.7 14.1 30 30.4 75
SEGS [15] 14.1 9.6 50 39.6 75
DSG PT + NG [73] 27 8.9* 50 70.8 *
1 € = 1.13 $
25.6 9.6* 50 80.6
24.8 10.4* 50 84.8
23.9 11.3* 50 88.2
22.9 12.5* 50 91.4
PT + NG [74] 127–317 100 50 6 h NG
PT + TES + NG [2] 125 50 88 7.5 h TES
PT + TES + NG [81] 17.6 21.7 169.4 7.9 4703 50 32.4 Configuration 3
17.7 21.8 184 9.1 6904 50 38.2 Configuration 4
18.3 21.1 169.4 7.7 4003 50 29 Configuration 7
18.5 21.7 184 7.6 4752 50 34 Configuration 8
PT + TES + NG [84] 14.4 19.4 184 12.7 50 36.1 Batna
14.3 19.3 184 12.9 50 35.6 Setif
15.2 20.1 184 10.8 50 42.6 Djelfa
14.4 20.7 184 10.4 50 44.3 Ghardaia
14.7 20.8 184 9.6 50 48 Hassi R’mel
16.2 20.9 183.9 9.1 50 51.6 Adrar
16.4 21.4 183.9 8.5 50 54.6 Bechar
17 21.4 184 7.6 50 61.5 Tamanrasset
16.9 21.1 184 8.5 50 54.3 Amenas
16.6 20.8 184 8.1 50 57.4 Salah
PT + NG [77] 21.6 4638.5 100 41.3 47
PT + NG [80] 34.7 50 Without TES
32.6 50 TES
PT + NG + TES [75] 67.2 50 95
108 50 90
148 50 85
189 50 80
230 50 75
270 50 70
311 50 65
630 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637

renewable energy resources. While CSP-biomass hybrids are suit-
able for capacities less than 50 MWe, CSP-wind, and CSP-
geothermal hybrids can reach capacities greater than 100 MWe.
CSP-wind systems suffer from low capacity factor due to the inher-
ent fluctuation is wind and solar resource. The investment for high-
renewable hybrids is moderately high due to medium solar share.
The COE is highly variable depending on the resource, location, tar-
iff structure, etc. Further research is necessary to address several
issues pertaining to this class of hybrids. For CSP-biomass systems,
the primary challenge lies in the steady supply of biomass to loca-
tions with high DNI. Location-specific optimization of logistics,
development of burners for use of multiple feedstocks, use of gasi-

Table A5
Summary of all SEGS plants (operational/under construction/planned) with fossil fuel backup [143]. (Acronyms – gI – net thermal efficiency, gII – net exergy efficiency, S-E g –
solar-to-electricity efficiency, COE – cost of electricity).

Technology gI gII S-E g CO2 COE Investment Capacity Capacity Solar Comments
(kg/MW h) (c/kW h) ($/kWe) (MWe) factor (%) share (%)
Andasol-1 16 30.51 49.9 88
Andasol-2 16 30.51 49.9 88
Andasol-3 7119 50 85
Andasol-4 16 30.51 49.9 88
Arcosol 50 6114.2 49.9
Arenales 30.51 50 88
Aste 1A 15 30.51 50 88
Aste 1B 15 30.51 49.9 88
Astexol II 15 30.51 50
Bokpoort 11,300 50
Caceres 30.51 50 88
Casablanca 30.51 50 88
Dahan 13.7
EL REBOSO II 17 36.386 50
EL REBOSO III 17 50
Enerstar 30.51 50 88
Extresol-1 16 30.51 88
Extresol-2 16 30.51 49.9 88
Extresol-3 16 30.51 50 88
Gemasolar [10] 13060.3 19.9 74 85
Genesis 250
Guzmán 30.51 50 88
Helioenergy 1 30.51 50
Helioenergy 2 30.51 50
Helios I 30.51 50 85
Helios II 30.51 50 85
Ibersol 4520 50
Ivanpah 28.7 5835.5 377
La Africana 30.51 8746.2 50 85
La Dehesa 13.8 49.9 88
La Florida 13.8 50 88
La Risca 30.51 50 88
Lebrija 1 30.51 50 88
Manchasol-1 16 30.51 49.9 88
Manchasol-2 16 30.51 50 88
Mojave Solar 6400 250
Morón 30.51 6667 50
Nevada Solar One 3694.4 72 98
NOOR I 43.74 7359.1 160 1 Dirhams = 0.27 $
Olivenza 1 30.51 6418.4 50 88
Palen SEGS 500 98
Pedro de Valdivia 7250 360
Planta Solar 10 30.64424 11
Planta Solar 20 30.64424 20
Shams 1 6000 100
Solaben 1 30.51 50
Solaben 2 30.51 50
Solaben 3 30.51 50
Solaben 6 30.51 50
Solacor 1 30.51 50
Solacor 2 30.51 50
Solana 8000 250
SEGS II 30
SEGS III 30
SEGS IV 30
SEGS V 30
SEGS VII 30
SEGS IX 80
Solnova 1 50
Solnova 3 50
Solnova 4 50
Termesol 50 6114.2 49.9
Termosol 1 50
Termosol 2 50
 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637 631

Table A6
Summary of selected studies on solar-Brayton cycles reviewed in the present study. (Acronyms: GT – gas turbine, gI – net thermal efficiency, gII – net exergy efficiency, S-E g –
solar-to-electricity efficiency, COE – cost of electricity).

Technology gI gII S-E g CO2 COE Investment Capacity Capacity Solar Comments
(kg/MW h) (c/kW h) ($/kWe) (MWe) factor (%) share (%)
Recuperated GT [88] 40.4 15.4 21.6* 1.4 100 15 *
1 € = 1.13 $
38.4 14.5 22.5* 1.4 100 18.1
35.9 14.2 11.3* 4.2 100 7.5
35.9 14.6 11.2* 4.2 100 8.8
Brayton + storage [91] 456 10.5 1897 37 17.8
451 13.7 3011 38.2 37.6
STIG [94] 39.1 36.9 17.6 37.9 Constant power
39.1 35.9 17.6 41.7
39 37.9 17.6 36.7
39 37.7 17.6 38
39.5 38.4 17.6 34.3 Variable power
39.9 39.2 17.6 35.7
39.8 40.9 17.6 30.9
40.2 42.1 17.6 30.7
STIG + storage [97] 39.2 37 17.6 51.5 Table 6, ref: RGT, real storage
STIG [100] 75.2 3.82 22.4
SOLRGT [102] 45.9 52.3 29.1 343 5.9 736 361 20.3

Table A7
Summary of selected studies on solar-aided coal fired power plants reviewed in the present study. (Acronyms: PT – parabolic trough, CR – Coal Rankine, LFR – linear Fresnel
reflector, ST – solar tower, gI – net thermal efficiency, gII – net exergy efficiency, S-E g – solar-to-electricity efficiency, COE – cost of electricity).

Technology gI gII S-E g CO2 COE Investment Capacity Capacity Solar Comments
(kg/MW h) (c/kW h) ($/kWe) (MWe) factor (%) share (%)
PT + CR [116,117] 27 9.8 300
PT + CR [119] 36.6 200
PT + CR [131] 21* 6.3 330 *
Annual, Fig. 8a
PT + CR [134] 21 12* 349 *
1 Yuan = 0.15 $
PT + SubcR [127] 41.8 38.2 790 3.62* 789* 500 85 14.4 *
INR 1 = 0.015 $
PT + SupcR [127] 45.5 41.6 760 3.67* 843* 660 85 18.9
CR [120] 30.12 500
PT + CR [121] 45.9 200
LFR + CR [129] 33.1 17.3 104 6.5 For case B
35.4 34 116 9.9 For case C
35.7 39.2 117 22.8 For case D
LFR + CR [130] 38.4 41.3 9.4 636 3.7 LPH
35.8 41.7 20.6 738 17 LPH and HPH
PT + CR [118] 36.6 219 10.3 Subcritical
36.24 334 8.53 Subcritical
40.26 653 8.23 Subcritical
41.22 655 7.91 Supercritical
35.61 646 8.31 Ultra-supercritical
PT + CR [142] 24.1 600 4.3
PT + CR [122] 24.2 225 10.6
PT + CR [124] 23.6 100
25 125
25.6 200
24.6 330
25.3 600
27.9 1000
PT + CR [125] 36 300 11.5
PT + CR [126] 3.4–18 600
*
PT + CR [128] 8.6 275 Fuel saving
*
1 € = 1.13 $
34.9 285 2.2 Power boost
*
35.2 290 4 1 € = 1.13 $
36 296 6.1
36.7 8.5* 302 7.9
PT + CR [139] 42.5 13.6 4.2 637.5 1000 5.8 Fuel saving
42.9 13.5 4 601.6 1058 5.4 Power boost
PT + CR [132] 26.2 7.1 358 12.5 Configuration 1
1 Yuan = 0.15 $
ST + CR [133] 8.7 450 Power boost low capacity factor
7.8 450 Power boost high capacity factor
2.9 350 Fuel saver base loaded
PT + CR [209] 45.3–48 5.1–28.5 600
632 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637

Table A8
Summary of selected studies on ISCC power plants reviewed in the present study. (Acronym: CC – combined cycle, ST – solar tower, GT – gas turbine, PT – parabolic trough, R –
Rankine, gI – net thermal efficiency, gII – net exergy efficiency, S-E g – solar-to-electricity efficiency, COE – cost of electricity).

Technology gI gII S-E g CO2 COE Investment Capacity Capacity Solar

(kg/MW h) (c/kW h) ($/kWe) (MWe) factor (%) share (%)
CC + ST [148] 26.2 27.1 86.5 Both topping and bottoming
29.8 30.9 86.5 Bottoming
27.5 28.3 86.5 Topping
CC + ST GT [149] 56.3 29.3 66.5 9.8 Topping cycle integration
CC + PT R [149] 28.7 10.8 66.5 4.7 Bottoming cycle integration
CC + ST GT [164] 47.2 371.9 7.8 50 100 8.9
CC + ST GT [151] 19.6 4.8 30 21 Daggett
19.3 4.9 30 15 Sacramento
CC + ST GT [152] 21.3 6–7 2588 34
CC + GT [156] 57.6 46.6
CC + PT R [157] 49.9 469 ISCC
CC + PT abs. ch [157] 51.7 469 Turbine air cooling using solar
CC + ST GT [150] 43.1 32.3 5.1 30 11.3 REFOS
CC + PT R [150] 53.5 30.9 3.7 310 4.1 ISCC
CC + PT GT [155] 47.4 367 Ta = 25 °C, gg2
CC + ST GT [88] 44.9 18.3 7.1* 16.1 100 11.6 *
1 € = 1.13 $
43.4 19.3 7.2* 16.1 100 16.2
43.9 19 7.8* 16.1 100 27.8
CC + ST reforming [161] 47.6 26.1 386 5.4
CC + PT R [167] 15.7 17.6 140
16.1 17.5 140
ISCC [183] 29.7 317.4 1270 440 PT
29.2 317.7 1275 440 PT
28.2 317.4 1291 440 PT
27.5 317.4 1411 440 ST
26.6 317.8 1206 440 LFR
26.8 317.6 1204 440 LFR
CC + PT R [172] 60.2 350.6 7 18
67.1 314.4 9 2303 26
60.3 350 7.8 20.3
68.9 306.1 10.5 31.2
57 367 6.6 13.4
62.4 338.3 8.6 2310 20
57.3 368.6 7.3 15.1
63 334.7 10 24
CC + PT R [194] 362.1 4.8 1900 100 66 14
CC + PT R [171] 50.9 2.2 506 407 79.3
51.6 2 564 444 73.7
50.9 2.3 573 444 76
CC + PT R [169] 46.2 45.6 467
CC + PT R [170] 46.8 5.3 400
CC + PT R [210] 56 53 160 12
CC + PT R [174] 52 150 20
CC + PT R [175] 67 157 15
CC + PT R [176] 5.2 883.2 54.5 Power boost mode
5.4 1127.8 59 1 € = 1.13 $
5.7 1346.7 63.8
6 1542.8 68.5
6.2 1717.9 73.1
6.5 1881.1 78
5.1 924.5 50 Fuel saving mode
5.4 1249.2 50 1 € = 1.13 $
5.6 1582.7 50
5.9 1931.6 50
6.1 2287.5 50
6.4 2640.3 50
CC + PT R [181] 48.8 18 89.1 Annual average parameters
CC + ST R [181] 50.5 21.8 89.3 Annual average parameters
* *
CC + PT R [191] 23.6 7.8 553.6 278.1 9.2 Configuration 1
*
1 € = 1.13 $
24.8 7.8* 554.5* 279.4 9.6 Configuration 2
*
1 € = 1.13 $
CC + PT R [185] 52.2 21.5 9.2* 220 1.2 Almería
*
1 € = 1.13 $
*
51.9 27.3 9.1 220 2.4 Las Vegas
*
1 € = 1.13 $
CC + PT R [177] 117 8.4 Power boosting mode
87 9.1 Fuel saver mode
CC + PT R [180] 50.9 590 73.6 Annual performance
CC + PT R [182] 410 3.1 894 127 79.8 9 PT
CC + ST R [182] 409 3.1 902 127 80 8.2 ST
CC + PT R [188] 46.4 16.1 13.6 3330.9 138 Hybrid without TES
 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637 633

Table A8 (continued)

Technology gI gII S-E g CO2 COE Investment Capacity Capacity Solar

(kg/MW h) (c/kW h) ($/kWe) (MWe) factor (%) share (%)
48.3 16.2 15.4 4049.3 138 Hybrid with 3 h TES
47.7 16 12.9 3553.5 88 Hybrid with 4 h TES
CC + LFR R [186] 41.7 49.7 13.1 325 9.7
CC + PT R [80] 68.6 310 ISCC
68.1 310 ISCC with TES
CC + PT R [187] 474 7.5 451.5 73.1 14.8 DSG
486 7.6 444.8 73.5 15.1 HTF
CC + PT R [184] 50.1 44.6 130.2 HTFev
47.7 32.2 124 HTFph-ev
50.1 44.6 130.2 HTFev-sh
48 33.6 124.7 HTFph-ev-sh
50.1 44.6 130.2 DSGev
47.2 29.8 122.8 DSGph-ev
50.1 44.6 130.2 DSGev-sh
48.3 35.1 125.5 DSGph-ev-sh
CC + ST R [133] 8.7 450 Power boost low capacity factor
7.8 450 Power boost high capacity factor
3.2 350 Fuel saver CC
CC + PT + ET R [192] 53.4 60.9 30.8 6 816 594 77.4 Cascade ISCC
54.1 58.4 28.6 569 One-stage ISCC
CC + PT R [168] 54.6 26.1 440 1 Power boost 1
49.6 24.2 440 Power boost 2
51.4 28.9 440 Power boost 3
27.1–27.6 440 Fuel saving 1
24.9 440 Fuel saving 2
Archimede [143,147] 15.6 765 0.65
Agua Prieta II 478 2.9
Ain Beni Mathar 470 6.4
ISCC Duba 1 600 7.2
ISCC Hassi R’mel 150 13.3
ISCC Kuraymat 140 14.3
Martin 1150 6.5
Palmdale 570 8.8
Victorville 2 563 8.9

fied biomass (syngas) to reduce logistical costs, and hybridization
with other novel solar cycles such as the supercritical CO2 Brayton
cycle can be areas of focus for future research. For CSP-geothermal
systems, the idea of replenishing the geothermal well using solar
energy can be explored. These systems along with medium-
renewable hybrids require favorable policies to compete with the
low-renewable hybrids and attain technological maturity.
Appendix A
See Tables A1–A8.
References
[1] M. Van Aalst, N. Adger, D. Arent, J. Barnett, R. Betts, E. Bilir, J. Birkmann, J.
Carmin, D. Chadee, A. Challinor, M. Chatterjee, W. Cramer, D. Davidson, Y.
Estrada, J.-P. Gattuso, Y. Hijioka, O.H. Guldberg, H.-Q. Huang, G. Insarov, R.
Jones, S. Kovats, P.R. Lankao, J.N. Larsen, I. Losada, J. Marengo, R. McLean, L.
Mearns, R. Mechler, J. Morton, I. Niang, T. Oki, J.M. Olwoch, M. Opondo, E.
Poloczanska, H.-O. Pörtner, M.H. Redsteer, A. Reisinger, A. Revi, D. Schmidt, R.
Shaw, W. Solecki, D. Stone, J. Stone, K. Strzepek, A. Suarez, P. Tschakert, R.
Valentini, S. Vicuna, A. Villamizar, K. Vincent, R. Warren, L. White, T.
Wilbanks, P.P. Wong, G. Yoh, Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation,
and vulnerability, Assess. Rep. 5 (2014) 1–76.
[2] B. Corona, G. San Miguel, Environmental analysis of a concentrated solar
power (CSP) plant hybridised with different fossil and renewable fuels, Fuel
145 (2015) 63–69, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. fuel. 2014.12.068.
[3] The Paris Agreement, n.d.. <http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.
php> (accessed November 24, 2016).
[4] M.Z. Jacobson, M.A. Delucchi, Providing all global energy with wind, water,
and solar power, Part I: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas
of infrastructure, and materials, Energy Policy 39 (2011) 1154–1169, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.11.040.
[5] M.A. Delucchi, M.Z. Jacobson, Providing all global energy with wind, water,
and solar power, Part II: Reliability, system and transmission costs, and
policies, Energy Policy 39 (2011) 1170–1190, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2010.11.045.
[6] J.H. Peterseim, S. White, A. Tadros, U. Hellwig, Concentrated solar power
hybrid plants, which technologies are best suited for hybridisation?, Renew
Energy 57 (2013) 520–532, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.02.014.
[7] H.L. Zhang, J. Baeyens, J. Degrève, G. Cacères, Concentrated solar power
plants: review and design methodology, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 22
(2013) 466–481, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.01.032.
[8] E.J. Sheu, A. Mitsos, A.A. Eter, E.M.A. Mokheimer, M.A. Habib, A. Al-Qutub, A
review of hybrid solar-fossil fuel power generation systems and performance
metrics, J. Sol. Energy Eng. 134 (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4006973,
041006-041006.
[9] F. Trieb, T. Fichter, M. Moser, Concentrating solar power in a sustainable
future electricity mix, Sustain. Sci. 9 (2014) 47–60, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11625-013-0229-1.
[10] D.A. Baharoon, H.A. Rahman, W.Z.W. Omar, S.O. Fadhl, Historical
development of concentrating solar power technologies to generate clean
electricity efficiently – a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 41 (2015) 996–
1027, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.09.008.
[11] P. Gilman, N. Blair, M. Mehos, C. Christensen, S. Janzou, C. Cameron, Solar
Advisor Model: User Guide for Version 2.0, 2008. <http://www.
nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/43704.pdf>.
[12] O. Behar, A. Khellaf, K. Mohammedi, S. Ait-Kaci, A review of integrated solar
combined cycle system (ISCCS) with a parabolic trough technology, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 39 (2014) 223–250, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2014.07.066.
[13] M.S. Jamel, A. Abd Rahman, A.H. Shamsuddin, Advances in the integration of
solar thermal energy with conventional and non-conventional power plants,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 20 (2013) 71–81, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2012.10.027.
[14] J.H. Peterseim, S. White, A. Tadros, U. Hellwig, Concentrating solar power
hybrid plants – enabling cost effective synergies, Renew. Energy 67 (2014)
178–185, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.11.037.
[15] H. Price, D. Kearney, Reducing the cost of energy from parabolic trough solar
power plants, in: Proc. ISEC 2003 2003 Int. Sol. Energy Conf., Hawaii, USA, n.d.
<http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.114.7601&rep=
rep1&type=pdf>.
[16] J.D. Nixon, P.K. Dey, P.A. Davies, The feasibility of hybrid solar-biomass power
plants in India, Energy 46 (2012) 541–554, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2012.07.058.
[17] R. Soria, J. Portugal-Pereira, A. Szklo, R. Milani, R. Schaeffer, Hybrid
concentrated solar power (CSP)-biomass plants in a semiarid region: a
strategy for CSP deployment in Brazil, Energy Policy 86 (2015) 57–72, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.06.028.
634 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637
[18] M.B. da Fonseca, W.-R. Poganietz, H.-J. Gehrmann, Environmental and
economic analysis of SolComBio concept for sustainable energy supply in
remote regions, Appl. Energy 135 (2014) 666–674, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2014.07.057.
[19] J.H. Peterseim, A. Herr, S. Miller, S. White, D.A. O’Connell, Concentrating solar
power/alternative fuel hybrid plants: annual electricity potential and ideal
areas in Australia, Energy 68 (2014) 698–711, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2014.02.068.
[20] J.H. Peterseim, A. Tadros, S. White, U. Hellwig, J. Landler, K. Galang, Solar
tower-biomass hybrid plants – maximizing plant performance, Energy Proc.
(2013) 1197–1206, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.03.129.
[21] C.M.I. Hussain, B. Norton, A. Duffy, Technological assessment of different
solar-biomass systems for hybrid power generation in Europe, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.016.
[22] J.H. Peterseim, A. Tadros, U. Hellwig, S. White, Increasing the efficiency of
parabolic trough plants using thermal oil through external superheating with
biomass, Energy Convers. Manage. 77 (2014) 784–793, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2013.10.022.
[23] J.H. Peterseim, U. Hellwig, A. Tadros, S. White, Hybridisation optimization of
concentrating solar thermal and biomass power generation facilities, Sol.
Energy 99 (2014) 203–214, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2013.10.041.
[24] Y. Tanaka, S. Mesfun, K. Umeki, A. Toffolo, Y. Tamaura, K. Yoshikawa,
Thermodynamic performance of a hybrid power generation system using
biomass gasification and concentrated solar thermal processes, Appl. Energy
160 (2015) 664–672, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.05.084.
[25] T. Srinivas, B.V. Reddy, Hybrid solar-biomass power plant without energy
storage, Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 2 (2014) 75–81, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
csite.2013.12.004.
[26] S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna, A novel syngas-fired hybrid heating source for
solar-thermal applications: energy and exergy analysis, Appl. Therm. Eng.
109 (2016) 1011–1022.
[27] M. Gupta, S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna, Development of a syngas-fired
catalytic combustion system for hybrid solar-thermal applications, Appl.
Therm. Eng. 109 (2016) 1023–1030.
[28] Q. Liu, Z. Bai, X. Wang, J. Lei, H. Jin, Investigation of thermodynamic
performances for two solar-biomass hybrid combined cycle power
generation systems, Energy Convers. Manage. 122 (2016) 252–262, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.05.080.
[29] U. Sahoo, R. Kumar, P.C. Pant, R. Chaudhury, Scope and sustainability of
hybrid solar-biomass power plant with cooling, desalination in
polygeneration process in India, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 51 (2015)
304–316, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.06.004.
[30] E.K. Burin, L. Buranello, P. Lo Giudice, T. Vogel, K. Görner, E. Bazzo, Boosting
power output of a sugarcane bagasse cogeneration plant using parabolic
trough collectors in a feedwater heating scheme, Appl. Energy. 154 (2015)
232–241, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.04.100.
[31] E.K. Burin, T. Vogel, S. Multhaupt, A. Thelen, G. Oeljeklaus, K. Görner, E. Bazzo,
Thermodynamic and economic evaluation of a solar aided sugarcane bagasse
cogeneration power plant, Energy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2016.06.071.
[32] Termosolar Borges, n.d.. <http://www.cspworld.org/cspworldmap/
termosolar-borges> (accessed September 13, 2016).
[33] Borges Termosolar, n.d.. <http://www.nrel.gov/csp/solarpaces/project_detail.
cfm/projectID=242> (accessed September 13, 2016).
[34] A. Cot, A. Amettler, J. Vall-Llovera, J. Aguilo, J.M. Arque, Termosolar borges: a
thermosolar hybrid plant with biomass, in: Third Int. Symp. Energy from
Biomass Waste, 2010.
[35] A biomass-solar hybrid plant begins operations in Spain, n.d.. <http://
bioenergycrops.com/blog/2013/01/23/a-biomass-solar-hybrid-plant-begins-
operations-in-spain/> (accessed September 16, 2016).
[36] Supply of 50,000 tons of forest biomass to Termosolar Borges, n.d.. <http://
prensa.comsa.com/suministro-de-50-000-toneladas-de-biomasa-forestal-a-
termosolar-borges/> (accessed September 13, 2016).
[37] S.J. Zarrouk, H. Moon, Efficiency of geothermal power plants: a worldwide
review, Geothermics 51 (2014) 142–153, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.geothermics.2013.11.001.
[38] A. Franco, M. Villani, Optimal design of binary cycle power plants for water-
dominated, medium-temperature geothermal fields, Geothermics 38 (2009)
379–391, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2009.08.001.
[39] H. Ghasemi, E. Sheu, A. Tizzanini, M. Paci, A. Mitsos, Hybrid solar-geothermal
power generation: optimal retrofitting, Appl. Energy 131 (2014) 158–170,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.06.010.
[40] D. Wendt, G. Mines, C. Turchi, G. Zhu, Geothermal Risk Reduction via
Geothermal/Solar Hybrid Power Plants. Final Report, Idaho Falls, ID (United
States), 2015. doi:10.2172/1245529.
[41] C. Turchi, G. Zhu, M. Wagner, T. Williams, Geothermal/solar hybrid designs:
use of geothermal energy for csp feedwater heating, in: Geotherm. Resour.
Counc. 38th Annu. Meet., 2014, pp. 1–16.
[42] C. Zhou, E. Doroodchi, I. Munro, B. Moghtaderi, A feasibility study on hybrid
solar–geothermal power generation, in: New Zeal. Geotherm. Work., 2011.
<https://www.geothermal-energy.org/pdf/IGAstandard/NZGW/2011/64.
pdf>.
[43] C. Zhou, E. Doroodchi, B. Moghtaderi, An in-depth assessment of hybrid solar-
geothermal power generation, Energy Convers. Manage. 74 (2013) 88–101,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.05.014.
[44] C. Zhou, Figure of merit analysis of a hybrid solar-geothermal power plant,
Engineering 5 (2013) 26–31, http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/eng.2013.51B005.
[45] J.M. Cardemil, F. Cortés, A. Díaz, R. Escobar, Thermodynamic evaluation of
solar-geothermal hybrid power plants in northern Chile, Energy Convers.
Manage. 123 (2016) 348–361, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2016.06.032.
[46] G. Manente, R. Field, R. DiPippo, J.W. Tester, M. Paci, N. Rossi, Hybrid solar-
geothermal power generation to increase the energy production from a
binary geothermal plant, in: Vol. 4 Energy Syst. Anal. Thermodyn. Sustain.
Combust. Sci. Eng. Nanoeng. Energy, Parts A B, 2011: pp. 109–119.
doi:10.1115/IMECE2011-63665.
[47] M. Ayub, A. Mitsos, H. Ghasemi, Thermo-economic analysis of a hybrid solar-
binary geothermal powerplant, Energy 87 (2015) 326–335, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2015.04.106.
[48] Á. Lentz, R. Almanza, Solar-geothermal hybrid system, Appl. Therm. Eng. 26
(2006) 1537–1544, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2005.12.008.
[49] Á. Lentz, R. Almanza, Parabolic troughs to increase the geothermal wells flow
enthalpy, Sol. Energy 80 (2006) 1290–1295, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.solener.2006.04.010.
[50] M. Astolfi, L. Xodo, M.C. Romano, E. Macchi, Technical and economical analysis
of a solar-geothermal hybrid plant based on an organic Rankine cycle,
Geothermics 40 (2011), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2010.09.009.
[51] H. Ghasemi, A. Mitsos, A hybrid geothermal-solar power system: optimal
design and operation, in: Vol. 6A Energy, ASME, 2013, p. V06AT07A043.
doi:10.1115/IMECE2013-63576.
[52] I. Mir, R. Escobar, J. Vergara, J. Bertrand, Performance analysis of a hybrid
solar-geothermal power plant in Northern Chile, in: World Renew. Energy
Congr., Linköping, Sweden, 2011, pp. 1281–1288. doi:10.3384/
ecp110571281.
[53] A.D. Greenhut, J.W. Tester, R. Dipippo, R. Field, C. Love, K. Nichols, F. Batini, B.
Price, G. Gigliucci, I. Fastelli, Solar-geothermal hybrid cycle analysis for low
enthalpy solar and geothermal resources, in: World Geotherm. Congr. 2010,
2010, pp. 25–29.
[54] C. Zhou, Hybridisation of solar and geothermal energy in both subcritical and
supercritical organic Rankine cycles, Energy Convers. Manage. 81 (2014) 72–
82, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.02.007.
[55] J.G. Boghossian, Dual-temperature Kalina Cycle for Geothermal-Solar Hybrid
Power Systems, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2011. <http://dspace.
mit.edu/handle/1721.1/68995>.
[56] G. Dimarzio, L. Angelini, W. Price, C. Chin, S. Harris, The stillwater triple
hybrid power plant: integrating geothermal, solar photovoltaic and solar
thermal power generation, in: World Geotherm. Congr., 2015, pp. 1–5.
<https://pangea.stanford.edu/ERE/db/WGC/papers/WGC/2015/38001.pdf>.
[57] Officials Celebrate Hybrid Geothermal-Solar Power Plant, n.d..
<http://solarindustrymag.com/officials-celebrate-hybrid-geothermal-solar-
power-plant/> (accessed November 3, 2016).
[58] C.E. Hoicka, I.H. Rowlands, Solar and wind resource complementarity:
advancing options for renewable electricity integration in Ontario, Canada,
Renew. Energy 36 (2011) 97–107, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2010.06.004.
[59] S. Jerez, R.M. Trigo, A. Sarsa, R. Lorente-Plazas, D. Pozo-Vázquez, J.P.
Montávez, Spatio-temporal complementarity between solar and wind
power in the Iberian Peninsula, Energy Proc. (2013) 48–57, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.egypro.2013.08.007.
[60] V. Khare, S. Nema, P. Baredar, Status of solar wind renewable energy in India,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 27 (2013) 1–10, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2013.06.018.
[61] F. Monforti, T. Huld, K. Bódis, L. Vitali, M. D’Isidoro, R. Lacal-Arántegui,
Assessing complementarity of wind and solar resources for energy
production in Italy. A Monte Carlo approach, Renew. Energy 63 (2014)
576–586, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.10.028.
[62] A.Z. Sahin, Applicability of wind–solar thermal hybrid power systems in the
Northeastern Part of the Arabian Peninsula, Energy Sources 22 (2000) 845–
850, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/009083100300001645.
[63] H.H. Chen, H.Y. Kang, A.H.I. Lee, Strategic selection of suitable projects for
hybrid solar-wind power generation systems, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14
(2010) 413–421, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.08.004.
[64] C. Kost, B. Pfluger, W. Eichhammer, M. Ragwitz, Fruitful symbiosis: why an
export bundled with wind energy is the most feasible option for North
African concentrated solar power, Energy Policy 39 (2011) 7136–7145, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.08.032.
[65] R. Sioshansi, P. Denholm, Benefits of colocating concentrating solar power
and wind, Sustain. Energy IEEE Trans. 4 (2013) 877–885, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1109/TSTE.2013.2253619.
[66] F.J. Santos-Alamillos, D. Pozo-Vázquez, J.A. Ruiz-Arias, L. Von Bremen, J.
Tovar-Pescador, Combining wind farms with concentrating solar plants to
provide stable renewable power, Renew. Energy 76 (2015) 539–550, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.11.055.
[67] H.M.I. Pousinho, J. Esteves, V.M.F. Mendes, M. Collares-Pereira, C. Pereira
Cabrita, Bilevel approach to wind-CSP day-ahead scheduling with spinning
reserve under controllable degree of trust, Renew. Energy 85 (2016) 917–927,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.07.022.
[68] B.D. Vick, T.A. Moss, Adding concentrated solar power plants to wind farms to
achieve a good utility electrical load match, Sol. Energy 92 (2013) 298–312,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2013.03.007.
 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637
[69] J.P. Reichling, F.A. Kulacki, Utility scale hybrid wind-solar thermal electrical
generation: a case study for Minnesota, Energy 33 (2008) 626–638, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2007.11.001.
[70] F. Petrakopoulou, A. Robinson, M. Loizidou, Simulation and evaluation of a
hybrid concentrating-solar and wind power plant for energy autonomy on
islands, Renew. Energy 96 (2016) 863–871, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2016.05.030.
[71] R. Adinberg, Simulation analysis of thermal storage for concentrating solar
power, Appl. Therm. Eng. 31 (2011) 3588–3594, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2011.07.025.
[72] S. Giuliano, R. Buck, S. Eguiguren, Analysis of solar-thermal power plants with
thermal energy storage and solar-hybrid operation strategy, J. Sol. Energy
Eng. 133 (2011) 31007, http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4004246.
[73] M.J. Montes, A. Abánades, J.M. Martínez-Val, Performance of a direct steam
generation solar thermal power plant for electricity production as a function
of the solar multiple, Sol. Energy 83 (2009) 679–689, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.solener.2008.10.015.
[74] S.J.W. Klein, E.S. Rubin, Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions,
water and land use for concentrated solar power plants with different energy
backup systems, Energy Policy 63 (2013) 935–950, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.enpol.2013.08.057.
[75] B. Corona, G. San Miguel, E. Cerrajero, Life cycle assessment of concentrated
solar power (CSP) and the influence of hybridising with natural gas, Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess. 19 (2014) 1264–1275, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-
0728-z.
[76] H. Price, E. Lüpfert, D. Kearney, E. Zarza, G. Cohen, R. Gee, R. Mahoney,
Advances in parabolic trough solar power technology, J. Sol. Energy Eng. 124
(2002) 109, http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.1467922.
[77] D. Malagueta, A. Szklo, B.S.M.C. Borba, R. Soria, R. Aragão, R. Schaeffer, R.
Dutra, Assessing incentive policies for integrating centralized solar power
generation in the Brazilian electric power system, Energy Policy 59 (2013)
198–212, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.03.029.
[78] D. Malagueta, A. Szklo, R. Soria, R. Dutra, R. Schaeffer, B.S. Moreira Cesar
Borba, Potential and impacts of concentrated solar power (CSP) integration in
the Brazilian electric power system, Renew. Energy 68 (2014) 223–235,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.01.050.
[79] S.J. Wagner, E.S. Rubin, Economic implications of thermal energy storage for
concentrated solar thermal power, Renew. Energy 61 (2014) 81–95, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2012.08.013.
[80] J. Dersch, M. Geyer, U. Herrmann, S.A. Jones, B. Kelly, R. Kistner, W. Ortmanns,
R. Pitz-Paal, H. Price, Trough integration into power plants-a study on the
performance and economy of integrated solar combined cycle systems,
Energy 29 (2004) 947–959, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-5442(03)00199-
3.
[81] T.E. Boukelia, M.S. Mecibah, B.N. Kumar, K.S. Reddy, Investigation of solar
parabolic trough power plants with and without integrated TES (thermal
energy storage) and FBS (fuel backup system) using thermic oil and solar salt,
Energy 88 (2015) 292–303, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.05.038.
[82] T. Larraín, R. Escobar, J. Vergara, Performance model to assist solar thermal
power plant siting in northern Chile based on backup fuel consumption,
Renew. Energy 35 (2010) 1632–1643, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2010.01.008.
[83] T. Larraín, R. Escobar, Net energy analysis for concentrated solar power plants
in northern Chile, Renew. Energy 41 (2012) 123–133, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2011.10.015.
[84] T.E. Boukelia, M.S. Mecibah, B.N. Kumar, K.S. Reddy, Optimization, selection
and feasibility study of solar parabolic trough power plants for Algerian
conditions, Energy Convers. Manage. 101 (2015) 450–459, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2015.05.067.
[85] V. Poghosyan, M.I. Hassan, Techno-economic assessment of substituting
natural gas based heater with thermal energy storage system in parabolic
trough concentrated solar power plant, Renew. Energy 75 (2015) 152–164,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.09.025.
[86] Gemasolar: When the Sun Lights the Night, n.d.. <http://www.
directindustry.com/emag/issue-6/industry-avant-garde-gemasolar-
thermosolar-plant-1-0606.html> (accessed November 9, 2016).
[87] Solar Energy Generating Systems, n.d.. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_
Energy_Generating_Systems> (accessed November 9, 2016).
[88] P. Schwarzbözl, R. Buck, C. Sugarmen, A. Ring, M.J. Marcos Crespo, P. Altwegg,
J. Enrile, Solar gas turbine systems: design, cost and perspectives, Sol. Energy
80 (2006) 1231–1240, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2005.09.007.
[89] G. Barigozzi, G. Bonetti, G. Franchini, A. Perdichizzi, S. Ravelli, Thermal
performance prediction of a solar hybrid gas turbine, Sol. Energy 86 (2012)
2116–2127, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2012.04.014.
[90] C. Kalathakis, N. Aretakis, I. Roumeliotis, A. Alexiou, K. Mathioudakis,
Investigation of different solar hybrid gas turbines and exploitation of
rejected sun power, in: Vol. 3 Coal, Biomass Altern. Fuels, Cycle Innov. Electr.
Power; Ind. Cogener. Org. Rank. Cycle Power Syst., ASME, 2016: p.
V003T06A017. doi:10.1115/GT2016-57700.
[91] J. Spelling, R. Guédez, B. Laumert, A thermo-economic study of storage
integration in hybrid solar gas-turbine power plants, J. Sol. Energy Eng. 137
(2015) 1–10, http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4028142.
[92] D. Olivenza-León, A. Medina, A. Calvo Hernández, Thermodynamic modeling
of a hybrid solar gas-turbine power plant, Energy Convers. Manage. 93 (2015)
435–447, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.01.027.
635
[93] M. Livshits, A. Kribus, Solar hybrid steam injection gas turbine (STIG) cycle,
Sol. Energy 86 (2012) 190–199, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.solener.2011.09.020.
[94] G. Polonsky, M. Livshits, A. Immanuel Selwynraj, S. Iniyan, L. Suganthi, A.
Kribus, Annual performance of the solar hybrid STIG cycle, Sol. Energy 107
(2014) 278–291, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2014.05.022.
[95] A.I. Selwynraj, S. Iniyan, G. Polonsky, L. Suganthi, A. Kribus, Exergy analysis
and annual exergetic performance evaluation of solar hybrid STIG (steam
injected gas turbine) cycle for Indian conditions, Energy 80 (2015) 414–427,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.12.001.
[96] A. Immanuel Selwynraj, S. Iniyan, G. Polonsky, L. Suganthi, A. Kribus, An
economic analysis of solar hybrid steam injected gas turbine (STIG) plant for
Indian conditions, Appl. Therm. Eng. 75 (2015) 1055–1064, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2014.10.055.
[97] G. Polonsky, A. Kribus, Performance of the solar hybrid STIG cycle with latent
heat storage, Appl. Energy 155 (2015) 791–803, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2015.06.067.
[98] P.S. Pak, T. Hatikawa, Y. Suzuki, A hybrid power generation system utilizing
solar thermal energy with CO2 recovery based on oxygen combustion
method, Energy Convers. Manage. 36 (1995) 823–826, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/0196-8904(95)00130-6.
[99] P.S. Pak, Y. Suzuki, T. Kosugi, A CO2-capturing hybrid power-generation
system with highly efficient use of solar thermal energy, Energy (1997) 295–
299, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-5442(96)00115-6.
[100] T. Kosugi, P. Sik, Pak, Economic evaluation of solar thermal hybrid H2O
turbine power generation systems, Energy 28 (2003) 185–198, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S0360-5442(02)00092-0.
[101] C. Gou, R. Cai, H. Hong, A novel hybrid oxy-fuel power cycle utilizing solar
thermal energy, Energy 32 (2007) 1707–1714, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2006.12.001.
[102] N. Zhang, N. Lior, N.L. Na Zhang, Use of low/mid-temperature solar heat for
thermochemical upgrading of energy, Part I: Application to a novel chemically-
recuperated gas-turbine power generation (SOLRGT) system, J. Eng. Gas Turb.
Power. 134 (2012) 72301, http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4006083.
[103] R. Korzynietz, J.A. Brioso, A. Del Río, M. Quero, M. Gallas, R. Uhlig, M. Ebert, R.
Buck, D. Teraji, Solugas – comprehensive analysis of the solar hybrid Brayton
plant, Sol. Energy 135 (2016) 578–589, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.solener.2016.06.020.
[104] U. Fisher, C. Sugarmen, A. Ring, J. Sinai, Gas turbine ‘‘solarization”-
modifications for solar/fuel hybrid operation, J. Sol. Energy Eng. 126 (2004)
872, http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.1763602.
[105] J. Sinai, C. Sugarmen, U. Fisher, Adaptation and modification of gas turbines
for solar energy applications, in: Vol. 5 Turbo Expo 2005, ASME, 2005, pp. 87–
94. doi:10.1115/GT2005-68122.
[106] P. Heller, M. Pfänder, T. Denk, F. Tellez, A. Valverde, J. Fernandez, A. Ring, Test
and evaluation of a solar powered gas turbine system, Sol. Energy 80 (2006)
1225–1230, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2005.04.020.
[107] L. Amsbeck, R. Buck, P. Heller, J. Jedamski, R. Uhlig, Development of a tube
receiver for a solar-hybrid microturbine system, in: Proc. 14th Bienn. CSP
Solarpaces Symp., 2008. <http://elib.dlr.de/54223/1/Lars_Amsbeck_
Development_of_a_tube_receiver_for_a_solar-hybrid_microturbine_system_
Solarpaces2008_proceedings.doc.pdf>.
[108] SolHyCo (SOLar HYbrid power and COgeneration plants), n.d.. <http://www.
psa.es/en/areas/ussc/grupoalta/projects/solhyco.php> (accessed November
21, 2016).
[109] M. Quero, R. Korzynietz, M. Ebert, A.A. Jiménez, A. del Río, J.A. Brioso, Solugas
– operation experience of the first solar hybrid gas turbine system at MW
scale, Energy Proc. 49 (2014) 1820–1830, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.egypro.2014.03.193.
[110] P. Garcia, A. Ferriere, G. Flamant, P. Costerg, R. Soler, B. Gagnepain, Solar field
efficiency and electricity generation estimations for a hybrid solar gas turbine
project in France, J. Sol. Energy Eng. 130 (2008) 14502, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1115/1.2807211.
[111] B. Grange, C. Dalet, Q. Falcoz, F. Siros, A. Ferrière, Simulation of a hybrid solar
gas-turbine cycle with storage integration, Energy Proc. (2013) 1147–1156,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.03.124.
[112] Plataforma Solar de Almería: Annual Report, 2014. <http://www.psa.es/en/
techrep/2014/ANNUAL> (REPORT 2014.pdf).
[113] V.H. Dalvi, S.V. Panse, J.B. Joshi, Solar thermal technologies as a bridge from
fossil fuels to renewables, Nat. Clim. Change. 5 (2015) 1007–1013, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2717.
[114] F. Wang, H. Li, J. Zhao, S. Deng, J. Yan, Technical and economic analysis of
integrating low-medium temperature solar energy into power plant, Energy
Convers. Manage. 112 (2016) 459–469, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2016.01.037.
[115] S.D. Odeh, M. Behnia, G.L. Morrison, Performance evaluation of solar thermal
electric generation systems, Energy Convers. Manage. 44 (2003) 2425–2443,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0196-8904(03)00011-6.
[116] Y. Cui, Y. Yang, J. Chen, Utilization of solar energy in a coal-fired plant, in:
Challenges Power Eng. Environ., Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin,
Heidelberg, 2007, pp. 1207–1212. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-76694-0_225.
[117] Y. Yang, Y. Cui, H. Hou, X. Guo, Z. Yang, N. Wang, Research on solar aided coal-
fired power generation system and performance analysis, Sci. China Ser. E
Technol. Sci. 51 (2008) 1211–1221, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11431-008-
0172-z.
636 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637
[118] Q. Yan, E. Hu, Y. Yang, R. Zhai, Evaluation of solar aided thermal power
generation with various power plants, Int. J. Energy Res. 35 (2011) 909–922,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/er.1748.
[119] Y. Yang, Q. Yan, R. Zhai, A. Kouzani, E. Hu, An efficient way to use medium-or-
low temperature solar heat for power generation – integration into
conventional power plant, Appl. Therm. Eng. 31 (2011) 157–162, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2010.08.024.
[120] E. Hu, Y. Yang, A. Nishimura, F. Yilmaz, A. Kouzani, Solar thermal aided power
generation, Appl. Energy 87 (2010) 2881–2885, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2009.10.025.
[121] Q. Yan, Y. Yang, A. Nishimura, A. Kouzani, E. Hu, Multi-point and multi-level
solar integration into a conventional coal-fired power plant, Energy Fuels 24
(2010) 3733–3738, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef9012906.
[122] Y. Zhao, H. Hong, H. Jin, Proposal of a solar-coal power plant on off-design
operation, J. Sol. Energy Eng. 135 (2013) 31005, http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/
1.4023359.
[123] Y. Zhao, H. Hong, H. Jin, Mid and low-temperature solar-coal hybridization
mechanism and validation, Energy 74 (2014) 78–87, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2014.03.092.
[124] Y. Zhao, H. Hong, H. Jin, Evaluation criteria for enhanced solar-coal hybrid
power plant performance, Appl. Therm. Eng. 73 (2014) 575–585, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2014.08.003.
[125] J. Qin, E. Hu, G.J. Nathan, The performance of a Solar Aided Power Generation
plant with diverse ‘‘configuration-operation” combinations, Energy Convers.
Manage. 124 (2016) 155–167, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2016.07.015.
[126] J. Li, X. Yu, J. Wang, S. Huang, Coupling performance analysis of a solar aided
coal-fired power plant, Appl. Therm. Eng. 106 (2016) 613–624.
[127] M.V.J.J. Suresh, K.S. Reddy, A.K. Kolar, 4-E (Energy, exergy, environment, and
economic) analysis of solar thermal aided coal-fired power plants, Energy
Sustain. Dev. 14 (2010) 267–279, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
esd.2010.09.002.
[128] G.C. Bakos, C. Tsechelidou, Solar aided power generation of a 300 MW lignite
fired power plant combined with line-focus parabolic trough collectors field,
Renew. Energy 60 (2013) 1–8, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2013.05.024 Technical note.
[129] D. Popov, An option for solar thermal repowering of fossil fuel fired power
plants, Sol. Energy 85 (2011) 344–349, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.solener.2010.11.017.
[130] V.S. Reddy, S.C. Kaushik, S.K. Tyagi, Exergetic analysis of solar concentrator
aided coal fired super critical thermal power plant (SACSCTPT), Clean
Technol. Environ. Policy 15 (2013) 133–145, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10098-012-0492-3.
[131] J. Wu, H. Hou, Y. Yang, E. Hu, Annual performance of a solar aided coal-fired
power generation system (SACPG) with various solar field areas and thermal
energy storage capacity, Appl. Energy 157 (2015) 123–133, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.08.022.
[132] H. Hong-juan, Y. Zhen-yue, Y. Yong-ping, C. Si, L. Na, W. Junjie, Performance
evaluation of solar aided feedwater heating of coal-fired power generation
(SAFHCPG) system under different operating conditions, Appl. Energy 112
(2013) 710–718, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.05.062.
[133] G.J. Kolb, Economic evaluation of solar-only and hybrid power towers using
molten-salt technology, Sol. Energy 62 (1998) 51–61, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0038-092X(97)00075-3.
[134] S. Peng, Z. Wang, H. Hong, D. Xu, H. Jin, Exergy evaluation of a typical 330
MW solar-hybrid coal-fired power plant in China, Energy Convers. Manage.
85 (2014) 848–855, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.12.073.
[135] S. Peng, H. Hong, Y. Wang, Z. Wang, H. Jin, Off-design thermodynamic
performances on typical days of a 330 MW solar aided coal-fired power plant
in China, Appl. Energy 130 (2014) 500–509, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2014.01.096.
[136] S.M. Camporeale, A. Saponaro, Repowering of a Rankine cycle power plant by
means of concentrating solar collectors, in: Proc. ASME Turbo Expo, 2011, pp.
1–8.
[137] M.K. Gupta, S.C. Kaushik, Exergetic utilization of solar energy for feed water
preheating in a conventional thermal power plant, Int. J. Energy Res. 33
(2009) 593–604, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/er.1500.
[138] R. Zhai, M. Zhao, K. Tan, Y. Yang, Optimizing operation of a solar-aided coal-
fired power system based on the solar contribution evaluation method, Appl.
Energy 146 (2015) 328–334, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2015.01.140.
[139] R. Zhai, H. Liu, C. Li, M. Zhao, Y. Yang, Analysis of a solar-aided coal-fired
power generation system based on thermo-economic structural theory,
Energy 102 (2016) 375–387, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.02.086.
[140] R. Zhai, C. Li, Y. Chen, Y. Yang, K. Patchigolla, J.E. Oakey, Life cycle assessment
of solar aided coal-fired power system with and without heat storage, Energy
Convers. Manage. 111 (2016) 453–465, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2015.12.053.
[141] Y. Zhu, R. Zhai, H. Peng, Y. Yang, Exergy destruction analysis of solar tower
aided coal-fired power generation system using exergy and advanced
exergetic methods, Appl. Therm. Eng. 108 (2016) 339–346, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.07.116.
[142] H. Hou, Z. Xu, Y. Yang, An evaluation method of solar contribution in a solar
aided power generation (SAPG) system based on exergy analysis, Appl.
Energy 182 (2016) 1–8, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.08.109.
[143] NREL, n.d.. <http://www.nrel.gov/csp/solarpaces/> (accessed September 22,
2016).
[144] Liddell Solar Thermal Station, n.d.. <http://www.areva.com/arevasolar/
liblocal/docs/Areva_Liddell_flyer_HR.pdf>.
[145] Liddell Solar Thermal Station, n.d.. <http://www.cspworld.org/cspworldmap/
liddell-solar-thermal-station> (accessed November 29, 2016).
[146] First solar/coal hybrid power station up and running, n.d.. <http://
newatlas.com/first-solarcoal-hybrid-power-station/15728/> (accessed
November 29, 2016).
[147] E. Okoroigwe, A. Madhlopa, An integrated combined cycle system driven by a
solar tower: a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 57 (2016) 337–350, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.092.
[148] S.D. Oda, H.H. Hashem, A case study for three combined cycles of a solar-
conventional power generation unit, Sol. Wind Technol. 5 (1988) 263–270,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0741-983X(88)90023-9.
[149] G. Barigozzi, G. Franchini, a. Perdichizzi, S. Ravelli, Simulation of solarized
combined cycles: comparison between hybrid GT and ISCC plants, Ceram.
Conc. Sol. Power Plants Control. Diagnostics Instrumentation; Educ. Electr.
Power Fans Blowers. 4 (2013) V004T05A008. doi:10.1115/GT2013-95483.
[150] R. Buck, T. Bräuning, T. Denk, M. Pfänder, P. Schwarzbözl, F. Tellez, Solar-
hybrid gas turbine-based power tower systems (REFOS), J. Sol. Energy Eng.
124 (2002) 2, http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.1445444.
[151] H.I. Price, H.W. Whitney, D.D. Beebe, SMUD Kokhala power tower study, in:
Am. Soc. Mech. Eng. – International Sol. Energy Conf., 1996.
[152] A. Kribus, R. Zaibel, D. Carey, A. Segal, J. Karni, A solar-driven combined cycle
power plant, Sol. Energy 62 (1998) 121–129, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0038-092X(97)00107-2.
[153] A. Segal, M. Epstein, Optimized working temperatures of a solar central
receiver, Sol. Energy 75 (2003) 503–510, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.solener.2003.08.036.
[154] S. Heide, U. Gampe, U. Orth, M. Beukenberg, B. Gericke, M. Freimark, U.
Langnickel, R. Pitz-Paal, R. Buck, S. Giuliano, Design and operational aspects
of gas and steam turbines for the novel solar hybrid combined cycle SHCC, in:
Proc. ASME Turbo Expo 2010 Power Land, Sea, Air, 2010, pp. 465–474.
doi:10.1115/GT2010-22124.
[155] M. Amelio, V. Ferraro, V. Marinelli, A. Summaria, An evaluation of the
performance of an integrated solar combined cycle plant provided with air-
linear parabolic collectors, Energy 69 (2014) 742–748, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2014.03.068.
[156] E. Kakaras, A. Doukelis, R. Leithner, N. Aronis, Combined cycle power plant
with integrated low temperature heat (LOTHECO), Appl. Therm. Eng. (2004)
1677–1686, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2003.10.030.
[157] D. Popov, Innovative solar augmentation of gas turbine combined cycle
plants, Appl. Therm. Eng. 64 (2014) 40–50, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2013.12.002.
[158] F.A. Al-Sulaiman, Exergy analysis of parabolic trough solar collectors
integrated with combined steam and organic Rankine cycles, Energy
Convers. Manage. 77 (2014) 441–449, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2013.10.013.
[159] H. Hong, H. Jin, J. Ji, Z. Wang, R. Cai, Solar thermal power cycle with
integration of methanol decomposition and middle-temperature solar
thermal energy, Sol. Energy 78 (2005) 49–58, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.solener.2004.06.019.
[160] Y. Li, N. Zhang, R. Cai, Low CO2-emissions hybrid solar combined-cycle power
system with methane membrane reforming, Energy 58 (2013) 36–44, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.02.005.
[161] E.J. Sheu, A. Mitsos, Optimization of a hybrid solar-fossil fuel plant: solar
steam reforming of methane in a combined cycle, Energy 51 (2013) 193–202,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.01.027.
[162] C. Sugarmen, A. Rotstein, U. Fisher, J. Sinai, Modification of gas turbines and
operation with solar produced syngas, J. Sol. Energy Eng. 126 (2004) 867,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.1758725.
[163] R. Tamme, R. Buck, M. Epstein, U. Fisher, C. Sugarmen, Solar upgrading of
fuels for generation of electricity, J. Sol. Energy Eng. 123 (2001) 160–163,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.1353177.
[164] M. Saghafifar, M. Gadalla, Thermo-economic analysis of conventional
combined cycle hybridization: United Arab Emirates case study, Energy
Convers. Manage. 111 (2016) 358–374, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2015.12.016.
[165] J. Spelling, D. Favrat, A. Martin, G. Augsburger, Thermoeconomic optimization
of a combined-cycle solar tower power plant, Energy 41 (2012) 113–120,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.03.073.
[166] J. Spelling, B. Laumert, T. Fransson, Advanced hybrid solar tower combined-
cycle power plants, Energy Proc. (2013) 1207–1217, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.egypro.2014.03.130.
[167] C.S. Turchi, Z. Ma, M. Erbes, Gas turbine/solar parabolic trough hybrid
designs, in: Proc. ASME Turbo Expo, ASME, 2011, pp. 989–996. doi:10.1115/
GT2011-45184.
[168] G. Manente, High performance integrated solar combined cycles with
minimum modifications to the combined cycle power plant design, Energy
Convers. Manage. 111 (2016) 186–197, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2015.12.079.
[169] A. Baghernejad, M. Yaghoubi, Exergy analysis of an integrated solar combined
cycle system, Renew. Energy 35 (2010) 2157–2164, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2010.02.021.
 S. Pramanik, R.V. Ravikrishna / Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 602–637
[170] A. Baghernejad, M. Yaghoubi, Exergoeconomic analysis and optimization of
an integrated solar combined cycle system (ISCCS) using genetic algorithm,
Energy Convers. Manage. 52 (2011) 2193–2203, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2010.12.019.
[171] R. Hosseini, M. Soltani, G. Valizadeh, Technical and economic assessment of
the integrated solar combined cycle power plants in Iran, Renew. Energy 30
(2005) 1541–1555, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2004.11.005.
[172] Y. Allani, D. Favrat, M. von Spakovsky, CO2 mitigation through the use of
hybrid solar-combined cycles, Energy Convers. Manage. 38 (1997) S661–
S667, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0196-8904(97)00012-5.
[173] F. Khaldi, Energy and exergy analysis of the first hybrid solar-gas power plant
in Algeria, in: Proc. ECOS, 2012. <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/
Fouad_Khaldi/publication/
257235961_Energy_and_exergy_analysis_of_the_first_hybrid_solar-
gas_power_plant_in_Algeria/links/54da22840cf2970e4e7dc9c6.pdf>.
[174] H. Derbal-Mokrane, S. Bouaichaoui, N. El Gharbi, M. Belhamel, A. Benzaoui,
Modeling and numerical simulation of an integrated solar combined cycle
system in Algeria, in: Procedia Eng., 2012, pp. 199–208. doi:10.1016/j.
proeng.2012.01.1194.
[175] O. Behar, A. Kellaf, K. Mohamedi, M. Belhamel, Instantaneous performance of
the first integrated solar combined cycle system in Algeria, Energy Proc.
(2011) 185–193, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.05.022.
[176] G.C. Bakos, D. Parsa, Technoeconomic assessment of an integrated solar
combined cycle power plant in Greece using line-focus parabolic trough
collectors, Renew. Energy 60 (2013) 598–603, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2013.05.025.
[177] M.A.H. El-Sayed, Solar supported steam production for power generation in
Egypt, Energy Policy 33 (2005) 1251–1259, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2003.11.021.
[178] G. Brakmann, F.A. Mohammad, M. Dolejsi, M. Wiemann, Construction of the
ISCC Kuraymat, in: Int. SolarPACES Conf., Berlin, 2009.
[179] G.M. Elsaket, Simulating the Integrated Solar Combined Cycle for Power
Plants Application in Libya, Cranfield University, 2007. <http://data.tour-
solaire.fr/thesis/2007_Elsaket_SIMULATING-THE-INTEGRATED-SOLAR-
COMBINED-CYCLE-FOR-POWER-PLANTS-APPLICATION-IN-LIBYA_116p.pdf>.
[180] Y. Li, Y. Yang, Thermodynamic analysis of a novel integrated solar combined
cycle, Appl. Energy 122 (2014) 133–142, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2014.02.017.
[181] G. Franchini, A. Perdichizzi, S. Ravelli, G. Barigozzi, A comparative study
between parabolic trough and solar tower technologies in solar Rankine cycle
and integrated solar combined cycle plants, Sol. Energy 98 (2013) 302–314,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2013.09.033.
[182] M. Horn, H. Führing, J. Rheinländer, Economic analysis of integrated solar
combined cycle power plants, Energy 29 (2004) 935–945, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0360-5442(03)00198-1.
[183] G. Manente, S. Rech, A. Lazzaretto, Optimum choice and placement of
concentrating solar power technologies in integrated solar combined cycle
systems, Renew. Energy 96 (2016) 172–189, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2016.04.066.
[184] A. Rovira, M.J. Montes, F. Varela, M. Gil, Comparison of heat transfer fluid and
direct steam generation technologies for integrated solar combined cycles,
Appl. Therm. Eng. 52 (2013) 264–274, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2012.12.008.
[185] M.J. Montes, A. Rovira, M. Muñoz, J.M. Martínez-Val, Performance analysis of
an integrated solar combined cycle using direct steam generation in
parabolic trough collectors, Appl. Energy 88 (2011) 3228–3238, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.03.038.
[186] V. Siva, Reddy., S.C. Kaushik, S.K. Tyagi, Exergetic analysis of solar
concentrator aided natural gas fired combined cycle power plant, Renew.
Energy 39 (2012) 114–125, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.07.031.
[187] H. Nezammahalleh, F. Farhadi, M. Tanhaemami, Conceptual design and
techno-economic assessment of integrated solar combined cycle system with
DSG technology, Sol. Energy 84 (2010) 1696–1705, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.solener.2010.05.007.
[188] C.S. Turchi, Z. Ma, Co-located gas turbine/solar thermal hybrid designs for
power production, Renew. Energy 64 (2014) 172–179, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2013.11.005.
[189] S. Gunasekaran, N.D. Mancini, R. El-Khaja, E.J. Sheu, A. Mitsos, Solar-thermal
hybridization of advanced zero emissions power cycle, Energy 65 (2014)
152–165, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.12.021.
[190] B. Kelly, U. Hermann, M. Hale, Optimization studies for integrated solar
combined cycle systems, in: Proc. Sol. Energy Forum Power to Choose,
637
Washington (DC), 2001: pp. 393–398. <http://www.researchgate.net/
publication/229000659_Optimization_studies_for_
integrated_solar_combined_cycle_systems/file/e0b4951badbf2a9af4.pdf%
5Cnpapers2://publication/uuid/07203F08-07BE-4B8E-96AB-
A6A7554B42DC>.
[191] G. Cau, D. Cocco, V. Tola, Performance and cost assessment of Integrated Solar
Combined Cycle Systems (ISCCSs) using CO2 as heat transfer fluid, Sol. Energy
86 (2012) 2975–2985, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2012.07.004.
[192] Y. Li, J. Yuan, Y. Yang, Performance analysis of a novel cascade integrated solar
combined cycle system, Energy Proc. (2015) 540–546, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.egypro.2015.07.449.
[193] M.F. Bonadies, M. Mohagheghi, M. Ricklick, J.S. Kapat, Solar retrofit to
combined cycle power plant with thermal energy storage, in: Proc. ASME
TURBO EXPO 2010, vOL 3, 2010, pp. 921–931.
[194] M. Kane, D. Favrat, K. Ziegler, Y. Allani, Thermoeconomic analysis of advanced
solar-fossil combined power plants, Int. J. Appl. Thermodyn. 3 (2000) 191–
198.
[195] S.C. Gülen, Second law analysis of integrated solar combined cycle power
plants, J. Eng. Gas Turb. Power. 137 (2015) 51701, http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/
1.4028741.
[196] Abengoa, n.d.. <http://www.abengoa.com/web/en/noticias_y_publicaciones/
noticias/historico/2014/12_diciembre/abg_20141215.html> (accessed
November 30, 2016).
[197] Martin Next Generation Solar Energy Center, n.d.. <http://www.cspworld.
org/cspworldmap/martin-next-generation-solar-energy-center> (accessed
November 30, 2016).
[198] ISCC’s outlook brightens with wave of projects, n.d.. <http://www.
powerengineeringint.com/articles/print/volume-19/issue-11/features/isccs-
outlook-brightens-with-wave-of-projects.html> (accessed November 30,
2016).
[199] Abengoa. Innovative technology solutions for sustainability, n.d.. <http://
www.abengoa.com/htmlsites/boletines/en/septiembre2011/ingenieria/>
(accessed November 30, 2016).
[200] M. Pehnt, Dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) of renewable energy
technologies, Renew. Energy 31 (2006) 55–71, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2005.03.002.
[201] N.A. Odeh, T.T. Cockerill, Life cycle GHG assessment of fossil fuel power plants
with carbon capture and storage, Energy Policy 36 (2008) 367–380, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.09.026.
[202] F. Ruzzenenti, M. Bravi, D. Tempesti, E. Salvatici, G. Manfrida, R. Basosi,
Evaluation of the environmental sustainability of a micro CHP system fueled
by low-temperature geothermal and solar energy, Energy Convers. Manage.
78 (2014) 611–616, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.11.025.
[203] S. Frick, M. Kaltschmitt, G. Schröder, Life cycle assessment of geothermal
binary power plants using enhanced low-temperature reservoirs, Energy 35
(2010) 2281–2294, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.02.016.
[204] P. Bayer, L. Rybach, P. Blum, R. Brauchler, Review on life cycle environmental
effects of geothermal power generation, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 26
(2013) 446–463, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.05.039.
[205] B.M. Rule, Z.J. Worth, C. a Boyle, Comparison of life cycle carbon dioxide
emissions and embodied energy in four renewable electricity generation
technologies in New Zealand, Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 (2009) 6406–6413,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es900125e.
[206] D.Y.C. Leung, Y. Yang, Wind energy development and its environmental
impact: a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (2012) 1031–1039, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.09.024.
[207] J. Hernández-Moro, J.M. Martínez-Duart, CSP electricity cost evolution and
grid parities based on the IEA roadmaps, Energy Policy 41 (2012) 184–192,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.10.032.
[208] C.R. Chamorro, M.E. Mondéjar, R. Ramos, J.J. Segovia, M.C. Martín, M.A.
Villamañán, World geothermal power production status: Energy,
environmental and economic study of high enthalpy technologies, Energy
42 (2012) 10–18, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.06.005.
[209] L. Feng, H. Chen, Y. Zhou, S. Zhang, T. Yang, L. An, The development of a
thermo-economic evaluation method for solar aided power generation,
Energy Convers. Manage. 116 (2016) 112–119, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2016.01.072.
[210] F. Khaldi, Energy and exergy analysis of the first hybrid solar–gas power plant
in Algeria, in: Proc. 25th Int. Conf. Effic. Cost, Optim. Simul. Environ. Impact
Energy Syst., Perugia, Italy, n.d.