Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 47 (2015) 186–197

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

Hybridization of concentrated solar power plants with biogas

production systems as an alternative to premiums: The case of Spain
Antonio Colmenar-Santos n, José-Luis Bonilla-Gómez, David Borge-Diez, Manuel Castro-Gil
Industrial Engineering Higher Technical School, Spanish University for Distance Education (UNED), Juan del Rosal St., 12-28040 Madrid, Spain

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The present research explains and analyses a technically feasible and economically profitable alternative
Received 9 May 2014 for concentrated solar power plants recently constructed in Spain. The proposed solution is hybridization
Received in revised form with biogas. The method is more economical than investment in salt storage systems, used to improve
14 January 2015
operation time and a better electrical production control. This alternative proposes new income
Accepted 8 March 2015
Available online 24 March 2015
alternatives for plants by using residual heat in flue gases from boilers and in the cooling circuit in
the power block, thereby achieving an effective reduction in the final cost of electric power generation.
Keywords: Current commercial technologies used in the bio-digestion process of organic waste are studied and
Concentrated solar power practical cases that can be best integrated are analyzed. Presented case studies are presented for solar
Biogas
power plants without storage analyzing waste availability for biogas production. Areas with the greatest
Hybridization
potential for the implementation of the proposed alternative and improvements aimed at increasing the
Waste
Biomethanation overall performance of future hybrid plants are also determined, and an economic evaluation of the
Energy storage proposed solution versus salt storage is conducted. To improve research results a sensitivity analysis to
evaluate the feasibility in different economic scenarios is performed. Results show that the proposed
method of hybridization through the use of biogas provides an alternative solution for an important part
of renewable generation power plants with a limited ability for dispatchability. In terms of environ-
mental issues the solution places a value on certain types of waste that today, in addition to not being
utilized properly, pose a serious problem for society.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
2. Concentrated solar power and biogas state of art. Application to hybridization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
2.1. Concentrated solar power plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
2.2. Biogas plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
2.3. Solar systems hybridization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
3. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
3.1. Location of plants with the greatest potential for hybridization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
3.2. Identify supply capacity of waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
3.3. Determine demand for biogas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
3.4. Availability of waste for biogas production requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
4. Economic feasibility analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
4.1. Building and operating costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
4.1.1. Biogas plant costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
4.1.2. Hybrid plant operation and maintenance costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
4.1.3. Space requirements for hybrid plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
4.1.4. Required works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
4.2. Greenhouse gasses emissions impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
4.3. Sensitivity analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
4.3.1. Influence of waste availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 34 913 987 788; fax: þ34 913 986 028.
E-mail address: acolmenar@ieec.uned.es (A. Colmenar-Santos).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.061
1364-0321/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A. Colmenar-Santos et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 47 (2015) 186–197 187

4.3.2. Influence of construction costs and operating hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

5. Weaknesses and strengths of the proposed system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
5.1. Weaknesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
5.2. Strengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

Nomenclature OFMSW organic fraction of municipal solid waste

PTC parabolic trough collector
AINIA Agrofood Industry Research Association (Asociación STP standard temperature and pressure
de Investigación de la Industria Agroalimentaria) TES thermal energy storage
Alperujo 2F Alperujo (two-phase olive mill pomace) from two- UASB upflow anaerobic sludge blanket
phase oil-extraction process UWTP urban wastewater treatment plant
Alperujo 3F Alperujo (three-phase olive mill pomace) from VS volatile solids
three-phase oil-extraction process
BP biogas plant Formulae
BR biogasification reactor
BTA biotechnische abfallverwertung (biotechnological waste %CH4 methane content in biogas (%)
utilisation) CSPbiogas biogas required energy (MW h)
CSP concentrated solar power Ebiogas specific final energy production (kJ/kg)
DDGS dried distillers’ grains with solubles Edigestate management specific energy consumption for digestate
DRANCO dry anaerobic composting management (kJ/kg)
GHG greenhouse gases Edigestate transport energy consumption for digestate transport (kJ/
HTF heat transfer fluid kg)
IDAE Spanish Institute for Diversification and Energy Con- Edigestate transport specific energy consumption for digestate
servation (Instituto para la Diversificación y el Ahorro transport (kJ/kg)
Energético) Eplant specific energy consumption for biogas plant opera-
INE Spanish National Institute of Statistics (Instituto tion (kJ/kg)
Nacional de Estadística) Etransport specific energy consumption for digestate transport
IOWM integral organic waste management (kJ/kg km)
ISCC integrated solar combined cycle LHVCH4 LHV for methane (kJ/m3)
ITC investment tax credit LHVbiogas LHV for the produced biogas (kJ/m3)
IWES Institute for Wind Energy and Energy System P boiler boiler rated power (MW)
Technology V biogas estimated biogas production (m3)
IWTP industrial wastewater treatment plant V biogas  CSP annual biogas demand for the hybrid CSP plant (m3)
LNG liquefied natural gas mi mass of digestate i (kg)
LPG liquefied petroleum gas pi specific biogas production ratio for digestate i (m3/kg)
MARM Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Areas, and d distance from CSP plant to digestate source (km)
Environment (Ministerio de Agricultura, Medio Rural
y Medio Ambiente)

1. Introduction
Spain is currently the top producer of concentrated solar power
(CSP) energy worldwide. The nearly 1878 MW h [1] of solar power
energy produced in Spain in 2012, 73% of the worldwide CSP
production, as well as leadership in projects in foreign countries,
have positioned Spanish companies such as Abengoa and Acciona
as model companies at the global level in construction and
exploitation of this type of power plant. As an example, Abengoa
is currently building the two largest concentrated solar power
plants in the world, each of which will provide a rated power of
280 MW in the states of Arizona and California and the largest CSP
tower in the world in South Africa, with a rated capacity of 50 MW.
Spanish company Acciona broke the nearly 20 year hiatus in the
construction of concentrated solar power plants in the U.S., thanks
to its Nevada One project (State of Nevada) [2].
CSP plants require, for an adequate profitability and feasibility,
ample solar resources. This requirement justifies the abundance of
this type of power plants in the southern half of Spain, specifically
the regions of Extremadura, Castilla-La Mancha, and Andalucía [3].
Within these regions, the majority of solar power plants are located
in rural areas, where land prices are lower and large surface are
available. These locations are often in regions with an abundance of
agricultural and livestock waste. Analyzing the availability of
organic waste in these areas where CSP plants are located, a
significant energy potential was identified due to the abundance
of agro-livestock waste [4], industrial waste, the organic fraction of
municipal solid waste and sludge from wastewater treatment
plants. Moreover, in these regions, abundance of this organic waste
and lack of treatment and management strategies has also caused
serious environmental problems. One of the most important
examples is the case of eutrophication of the La Colada dam in
Córdoba [5]. In the present paper the authors analyze the possibility
of hybridization between CSP plants and biogas plants (BP) via the
use of organic waste that is available in the zone of influence.
188 A. Colmenar-Santos et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 47 (2015) 186–197

Although many articles about the hybridization of CSP systems have Solar Power Plants in Spain
been published, including biogas systems hybridization, this combined 1; 2% 3; 6%
2; 4%
use of two energy sources has not been deep analyzed. One example of
combined biomass and CSP usage is the feasibility analysis of hybrid
solar-biomass power plants in India [6]. One combined biomass and
solar project is the case of a solar thermal power plant in the province
of Lérida, in northern Spain, where the Spanish companies Abantia and Tower
Comsa EMTA are in the final phase of start-up of a hybrid CSP plant
PTC
with thermal contribution in the heat transfer fluid (HTF) circuit that is
provided by biomass fired boilers using forestry and agricultural waste Fresnel
obtained from the zone [7]. Stirling
Of the 39 solar power plants operating in Spain, 19 do not have
energy storage systems. This implies that the annual operating hours
of these plants at equivalent peak load are 2000 h compared to the
3400 operating hours of plants with equal generation capacity with
salt storage [8]. For these power plants the only option for increasing 46; 88%
operating hours without resorting to very substantial investments,
Fig. 1. Solar power plants in Spain classified according to the technology used at
such as the installation of salt storage systems that includes
the end of 2012 [11].
enlargement of the solar field, construction of tanks or exchangers,
receiving, stockpiling, salt melting systems and other modifications,
is to take advantage of existing auxiliary boilers. This method has the
limitation of being powered by liquefied natural gas (LNG), a fossil
fuel that when used to contribute above 15% of the whole plant
power implies means leaving the special electricity regime. This
Spanish regulation includes special feed in tariffs for CSP plants,
named as special electricity regime. Exceeding maximum LNG
contribution will lead to reduction in the feed in tariffs, with the
economic implications that this would have.
The proposed system in the present research proposes the use of
fuels that do meet the special regime criteria and would be easy to use
worldwide. The biofuels that meet the requirements are biomass,
biogas, bioethanol, and biodiesel. In terms of economic impact in the
CSP plant the price of bioethanol and biodiesel is higher than that of
other biofuels and requires the installation of liquid fuel-fired boilers.
In the case of biomass, there are technical difficulties in constructing a
boiler for solid fuel. The use of biogas has also a high main advantage
since it is a gas and can be used in the plants that have LNG boilers as
Fig. 2. Location of concentrated solar power plants in Spain at the end of 2012 [11].
would therefore require only a small modification in these boilers. Red indicates operating plants, yellow in building process and green future plants.
Moreover, by introducing biogas production systems into the same (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is
plant, the residual energy in the condenser cooling system and boiler referred to the web version of this article.)
fumes could be used in the pasteurization process to adapt waste for
its use as a substrate. This article analyzes the strengths and weak- hours. These plants include the Andasol Parabolic Trough Collector
nesses of this alternative to storage as a practical and economical way (PTC) plants in the province of Granada and the Gemasolar Tower in
of increasing the operating hours of solar thermal power plants. Seville. Other energy storage systems, including vapor (the PS10 solar
thermal tower), concrete blocks, and other methods as mineral oil
storage, chemical storage, phase change material storage [10] are also
2. Concentrated solar power and biogas state of art. in use although these systems are less frequently implemented in
Application to hybridization commercial plants than salts, as they do not have the same
advantages or are in an earlier experimental phase. Considering all
In this section, the existing CSP and biogas technologies available solar technologies for electricity production, Spain has the
suitable for hybridization are studied and compared. largest number of power plants as well as the largest installed
capacity. This fact results in a considerable experience and leadership
2.1. Concentrated solar power plants in these systems. PTC plants have the greatest deployment as they
account for 87% (34 of the 39 currently in operation), a proportion
Concentrated solar thermal energy is maturing and the technol- that rises to nearly 89% if are considered those currently under
ogy is achieving a reduction in the price of construction, maintenance construction (12 PTC-type of 13 under construction), Fig. 1.
and operation, improving the competitiveness of this electricity- Analyzing the PTC technology in existing power plants 15 has
generating technology. The regions with highest numbers of CSP storage with salt technology and 19 do not have any storage system.
plants are the southern regions of Spain (Andalucía, Castilla—La For the plants currently under construction, 6 of them will have a
Mancha and Extremadura), North Africa (Morocco and Algeria, the storage system and 6 of them will not use any storage technology, Fig. 2.
western United States (California, Nevada, and Arizona), and Mexico.
Italy, Egypt, Iran, India, and Thailand have only one plant each. UAE, 2.2. Biogas plants
South Africa, China, Chile and Argentina also have plants under
construction [9]. To increase the number of operating hours and There are several technologies to generate methane gas from
dispatchability, several plants are equipped with thermal salt storage organic waste (biogas) such as gasification, pyrolysis, alcoholic
tanks (TES) that provide up to 7.5 h of daily equivalent operation fermentation, and anaerobic digestion. In this paper anaerobic
 A. Colmenar-Santos et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 47 (2015) 186–197 189

Table 1
Theoretical potential for biogas production [15].

Type Organic content VS (%) Produced biogas(m3/t waste)

Intestines þcontents Carbohydrates, lipids, proteins 15–20 50–70

Flotation sludge 65–70% Proteins, 30–35% Lipids 13–18 90–130
BBO (oil-filtering soils, with bentonite) 80% Lipids, 20% other organics 40–45 350–450
Fish oils 30–50% Lipids 80–85 350–600
Whey 75–80% Lactose, 20–25% Proteins 7–10 40–55
Whey concentrate 75–80% Lactose, 20–25% Proteins 18–22 100–130
Meat and bone hydrolysates 70% Proteins, 30% lipids 10–15 70–100
Jams 90% Sugars, organic acids 50 300
Soybean oil/margarines 90% Vegetable oils 90 800–1000
Alcoholic beverages 40% Alcohol 40 240
Waste sludge Carbohydrates, lipids, proteins 3–4 17–22
Concentrated waste sludge Carbohydrates, lipids, proteins 15–20 85–110
OFMSW separated at the source Carbohydrates, lipids, proteins 20–30 150–240

decomposition is analyzed because this system is the most appropriate
way to process high humidity percentage waste. Moreover this
technology is one of the most advanced commercial technology in
this field. Although methane generated by the anaerobic decomposi-
tion of livestock and agricultural waste has been exploited for a long
time, its development in Spain has been slater compared to other
European countries, where the implementation of waste-recovery
plants is generally greater. Germany has more than 7000 plants while
Italy and France have more than 500, and the UK has more than 275
[12]. The anaerobic decomposition of organic matter produces a gas
that contains more than 60% CH4 [13] and is usually referred as biogas.
Biogas has energetic characteristics that make it an energy source of
growing interest due to its ability to substitute other fossil energy fuels
such as natural gas and Liquefied Petrol Gas (LPG).
Main use of biogas is located in cogeneration plants, such as
wastewater treatment plants. If it is purified it can also be used in
transport sector as a substitute for gasoline in bi-fuel engines, as
well as injected into natural gas distribution networks [14]. Any
organic substance, using a decomposition process in an anaerobic
environment, is capable of producing biogas for hybridization
purposes but the most widely used substances for this purpose are:
– Organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW)
– Sludge or silt from urban wastewater treatment plants
(UWTPs) or industrial wastewater treatment plants (IWTPs)
– Agricultural and livestock waste
– Industrial organic waste.
These substrates can be used for the purpose intended in the
paper depending on the availability in the CSP plant surroundings.
Depending on the substrate, the organic composition, proportion
of volatile solids (VS) and the potential for biogas production will
vary, Table 1. These production rates depend on the acidogenic,
acetogenic, and methanogenic processes in the biomethanation.
As shown in Table 1, the better organic wastes to use as
fermenting substrates in hybrid plants are those with a high content
of vegetable oils such as soybean oil and margarines. These yield an
average biogas production of 800 m3/t to 1000 m3/t STP [16]. To
improve the process and increase production co-digestion of mixed
waste types is often used. This option uses the synergies of mixtures
in order to compensate substrate composition and optimize global
production. Studies show that daily biogas production is up to
3 times greater in co-digestion than using single substrates [17]. The
use of glycerin as an additive [18] to the digestion process increases
biogas production, as is shown in the case of the Skovbaekgaard
plant in Denmark, where increased its daily production of 3000–
3500 m3/d STP to 10,000 m3/d STP via addition of 1000 m3 of
glycerin annually to a mixture of cattle waste and vegetable fats.
Other parameters also affect biogas production, such as the operat-
ing temperature of the biodigestor, the pH of the substrate, the
retention time inside the biodigestor. Biodigestors types that could
be utilized for the proposed hybridization can be classified accord-
ing to the principal type of substrate used [19]:
– Waste treatment systems (OFMSW, silts and sludge from
treatment plants, agro-livestock waste, etc.)
– Wastewater treatment systems.
Within the first category, there are various sub-classifications
according to the stages that make up the process, the working
temperature, feed type, and the substrate water content. In indus-
trial production there are seven common processes for wet bio-
methanation (Avecon, Vagron, Bigadan, Envital/Ros Roca, Haase,
Linde, and BTA) and six processes for dry biomethanation (Valorga,
DRANCO, Kompogas, BR, Biocell, and Linde Seco), each of which has
different characteristics and differs in biogas yield. For wastewater
biogas production four types of digesters are utilized (anaerobic
contact, anaerobic filtering, UASB, and internal circulation reactors).
Current uses for biogas are direct combustion in boilers and internal
combustion engines, gas turbines, injection into the natural-gas
distribution network and use in fuel cells. In each case, the gas must
have specific characteristics in terms of methane content, levels of
impurities and presence of other compounds.
2.3. Solar systems hybridization
The available studies and publications on hybridization of solar
systems and/or biogas are focused on different hybridization options
but no research papers are found on the use of hybrid solar systems
and biogas in the same facility, as a way to improve global economic
feasibility. Solar photovoltaic technology is often used in a hybrid way
since there are hybrid commercial systems that combine wind
turbines, photovoltaic panels and an energy storage system such as
batteries or fuel cells. This combined used allows more stable
production throughout the year and reduces blackout risk. A research
deals about the hybridization possibilities of thermosolar energy and
proposes the use of geothermal and solar energy in a co-generation
hybrid system, for combined heat and power production [20]. Low-
temperature solar systems for cooling production using absorption
systems have been used for fermenters cooling in bioethanol produc-
tion in Brazilian plants. No combined used for electricity generation is
reported. Most similar scheme to the one outlined in this paper is the
hybrid solar power plant in Les Borges in the Spanish province of
Lérida where is a CSP plant of 22.5 MW equipped with a biomass fired
190 A. Colmenar-Santos et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 47 (2015) 186–197

Table 2
Regions wit h the highest numbers of solar thermal power plants without storage.

Province Region Electric power (MWe) Municipality

Córdoba Campiña Baja 2  50 El Carpio

3  50 Palma del Río
Sevilla Aljarafe 3  50 Sanlúcar La Mayor
La Campiña 2  50 Écija
1  50 Lebrija
Cáceres Logrosán 4  50 Logrosán
Ciudad Real Mancha 2  50 Puerto Lápice

Table 3
Main types of available waste in the different districts.

Cáceres—Logrosán Córdoba—Campiña Baja Sevilla—Aljarafe Sevilla—La Campiña Ciudad Real—Mancha

Waste t/y Waste t/y Waste t/y Waste t/y Waste t/y

Other species’ 381,112 Alperujo 2F 711,687 Cereal hay 257,839 Cereal hay 956,660 Cereal hay 509,314
excrement (ovine)
Cereal hay 192,322 Cereal hay 500,741 Hen droppings 48,399 Swine waste slurry 255,621 Whey 297,272
Cow manure 82,684 Other species’ 232,466 Other species’ 32,320 Cow manure 106,821 Wine industry 222,801
excrement excrement transformants
Vegetables 26,058 Cow manure 226,186 Cow manure 30731 Alperujo 2F 95,355 Swine waste slurry 183,633
Alperujo 2F 21,687 Swine waste slurry 58,121 Citrus 11,144 Whey 94,109 Hen droppings 146,591
Swine waste slurry 21,114 Hen droppings 32,454 Swine waste slurry 10,753 Raw Material poultry 69,116 Other species 121,973
slaughterhouse
MP Slaughterhouse 4,511 Citrus 26,732 Whey 9,389 Vegetables 62,024 Cow manure 72,932
Alperujo 3F 3,305 Wine yeast 13,379 Alperujo 2F 7,896 Other species 55,063 Alperujo 2F 55,889
transformants
Sludge Dairy IWTP 2,818 Sludge meat IWTP 3,140 Raw Material 6755 Hen droppings 46,578 DDGS (Bioethanol) 16,130
Slaughterhouse
Hen droppings 1,385 Sludge Dairy IWTP 2,791 Bars and restaurants 6590 Glycerine 15,303 Sludge Dairy IWTP 6,391
Glycerine 388 Sludge Dairy IWTP 11,969 Glycerine 5,998

boiler, using forestry and agriculture biomass and providing a yearly
production of 954 h/y in solar mode and 5400 h/y in biomass mode.
This hybrid system increases global equivalent hours in the plant,
improving global economic and financial behavior. The biomass waste
demand in this hybrid plant will reach 70000 t/y and will generate
98 GW h/y. In terms of production Les Borges plant has a higher
energy intake for biomass combustion than for solar power produc-
tion, while in this paper is proposed and analyzed a case study where
the plant will provide more energy using the solar power plant
system. In the location the annual radiation ranges from 1532 kW h/
m2  y to 1683 kW h/m2  y and in the Guadalquivir and Guadiana
valleys, where CSP plants studied in the paper are located, the annual
radiation is 1825 kW h/m2 y [21]. An example of hybridization process
for electricity production are Integrated Solar Combined Cycle (ISCC)
plants. In these plants, it is possible to improve the performance of a
combined-cycle thermal power plant using a solar thermal field of
parabolic trough collectors. The energy contribution from the solar
field occurs during the steam cycle, achieving partial substitution of
fossil-fuel use and a reduction in CO2 emissions during daylight hours.
– Córdoba (Palma del Río y El Carpio)
– Sevilla (Sanlúcar La Mayor, Écija, Morón de la Frontera, and
Lebrija)
– Cáceres (Logrosán and Majadas)
– Badajoz (Olivenza, Orellana, and Alvarado)
– Ciudad Real (Puertollano and Puerto Lápice).
The analysis is focused on those regions in which [22] two or more
power plants are located in close proximity to each other. In Table 2
these regions are classified into five regions belonging to four provinces.
Plants located in Cordoba are chosen for the research. In this region,
large amounts of biomass optimal for biogas production are available. Los
Pedroches, a small region in Cordoba, has a high production of livestock
waste and it is one of the most important Spanish livestock producers.
Cordoba is the second Spanish region in terms of oil production and
alcoholic drinks, such as wine. These factors and low distance from the
waste production centers to the CSP plants (lower than 50 km) makes
the location optimal for the research. The paper methodology and
proposals can be extensive for any other worldwide location.

3. Methodology 3.2. Identify supply capacity of waste

In this section a proposed methodology for feasibility analysis of
hybridization is presented. Methodology is divided in four stages:
(1) location of plants with hybridization potential, (2) biomass
potential in the region, (3) biogas demand and (4) waste availability
evaluation for biogas production requirements.
3.1. Location of plants with the greatest potential for hybridization
As indicated in the previous section and shown graphically
in Fig. 2, the greatest number of CSP plants without storage are
found in the following Spanish regions:
In order to optimize waste supply maximum transport distances
are determined using an energy balance [23]. The strategy is avoiding
using more energy in digestate transportation and handling that final
energy production. Energy balance is stated in Eq. (1) and transport
associated energy consumption is calculated as shown in Eq. (2). Ebiogas
is the final energy production for each kg of digestate (kJ/kg) and
associated energy consumption inputs are energy consumption for
transport ðEdigestate transport Þ, management ðEdigestate management Þ and plant
operation ðEplant Þ. Energy consumption associated with transport
depends, for same digestate and transport method, on distance from
source to CSP plant, Eq. (2). Edigestate transport is energy consumption
 A. Colmenar-Santos et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 47 (2015) 186–197 191

associated with transport (kJ/kg), d is the distance between CSP plant 3.3. Determine demand for biogas
and digestate source (km) and Etransport is specific energy consumption
ratio (kJ/kg km). Therefore, organic waste supply to feed the biodi- Yields obtained in existing plants in countries with many biogas
gestor is fixed to a regional level. A distance of 20 km for manure and plants are used to quantify required waste for use as a substrate to
animal-waste slurry and 50–100 km for agricultural and industrial obtain the amount of methane needed to maintain a minimum
waste is stablished. Type of waste that is most abundant in the CSP yearly operating hours. Energy demand was calculated taking into
plant surroundings is determined using regional information files account the thermal power of the boilers installed in solar power
maintained by the Spanish Probiogas Association [24]. Biomass waste plants, which are usually two units of 25 MWth. The purpose of the
have to ensure an enough and varied supply throughout the year in study was to evaluate the use of biogas in existing boilers so that it
order to satisfy the demand for substrate that the plants would have. was considered the overall performance of the plant during opera-
Due to the plants dependence on solar radiation, this demand is tion in night mode, without any contribution from the solar field.
expected to be smaller in the summer and greater in the winter. Thermodynamic studies of CSP plant projects [28,29] in which the
Table 3 shows the waste availability for the plants. Table 3 shows the energy balances of solar power plants are detailed, show an average
ten more abundant types of waste in terms of volume production, as performance of 85% for the boiler and of 36% for the other processes
well as sub-products of biodiesel and bioethanol production processes of the power block, from the steam generator to the discharge of
that could be used for co-digestion, including wine industry waste, electrical energy to the transmission grid. The overall theoretical
glycerin, and Dried Distillers’ Grains with Solubles (DDGS). efficiency was 30%, close to the value of 26% obtained during a test
period of various CSP plants in Spain. The maximum available
Ebiogas Z Edigestate transport þ Edigestate management þ Eplant ð1Þ power in night mode using the most common boilers configuration
(2  25 MWth) based on the overall performance would be 15 MWe
with both boilers working at rated power. For this case, electrical
Edigestate transport ¼ d U Etransport ð2Þ
generator power is 15 MW and this value was adopted for the
To calculate biogas production literature sources and articles in
operation at full power in night mode or at 100% in biogas mode.
which the authors determined the biogas rate production experimen-
Spanish legislation regarding the production of electricity at CSP
tally are used. According to the main co-substrate and the proportions
plants allows up to 50% of the energy to be obtained from biomass
of other required waste biogas production is calculated [24,25]. Using
and/or biogas so that the number of peak hours are 6667 h/y. Added
data presented in Table 3 a database with the waste and available
to the expected 2000 h of solar operation, this would provide nearly
quantities in the nearby surroundings was stablished. Using this
the required number of hours per year, 8760 h. This shows that
information the existing experiences of biomethanation plants in Den-
there would be no legal limitations to use this energy source. Salt
mark, Germany and the United Kingdom are used to determine the
storage systems have a limit of 4670 h. As is shown in Table 4, the
industrial biodigestor technology that better fits the requirements. The
average CH4 content of the biogas in the referenced plants in the
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and associated database of the
research is approximately 65%, although there are referenced cases
Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Environment of the Spanish Govern-
in which the use of appropriate technology and substrate ratios
ment [26] and the National Institute of Statistics [27] database were
yields CH4 content as high as 85%.
used to quantify the most available waste for use as primary substrate.
For a substrate containing different digestate components, such
Each district was analyzed individually to determine the type and
as a mixture of organic waste and industrial subproducts, estimated
amount of available waste. The following special cases are presented:
biogas production can be calculated using Eq. (3). V biogas is the
estimated biogas production (m3), mi is the mass of digestate i (kg)
and pi is the specific biogas production ratio for digestate i (m3/kg).
– In the Cordoba district of Campiña Baja, there are notable
differences between the town of Palma del Rio, where two
Acciona solar plants and one FCC (another company) plant are Table 4
located, and the municipality of El Carpio, where two Abengoa Biogas plants in Europe used as reference [30].
plants are located. In the first district citrus is the main crop,
Name Country Production % CH4 Daily Prod. Annual
while in the second the main crop is olives. This has a direct (m3/d) (vol) (m3/d CH4) Prod. (m3
impact on the availability of the type of waste. CH4)
– The district of Aljarafe in Seville, where three Abengoa Solar
plants are located, represents a major urban area, which Kalmar Sweden 6,850 66.5 4,555.3 1.66E þ 06
Aby— Sweden 14,550 67.6 9,835.8 3.59E þ 06
reduces the amount of agricultural and livestock waste avail-
Linkoping
able. For hybridization purposes waste should be obtained from Laholm Sweden 9,000 75 6,750 2.46E þ 06
neighboring districts. The criteria of maximum distance to the Pawlowko Poland 1,200 65 780 2.85E þ05
waste source adopted in the research must be used. Lintrup Netherlands 15,590 65 10,133.5 3.70Eþ06
– In the case of the district of La Campiña in Seville, as in the case Vegger Netherlands 5,752 65 3,738.8 1.36Eþ 06
Frankenfor Germany 2,538 70 1,776.6 6.48E þ 05
of Córdoba, there is an extensive surface over which different Almanzán Spain 3,360 65 2,184 7.97Eþ05
primary crops are found, making it necessary to analyze each Tracjusa Spain 6,750 65 4,387.5 1.60Eþ 06
plant separately. Miralcamp Spain 2,000 65 1,300 4.75E þ05
– For the plants in Ciudad Real, also the property of Abengoa, the Skovbaekgaard Denmark 10,000 52.5 5,250 1.92Eþ 06
most profitable option is to use waste from the wine industry,
which is present in the entire district, province, and region.
– For the district of Logrosán in Cáceres, the largest concentrated Table 5
solar power platform in Europe with 200 MW would permit Parameters used for the calculation of biogas demand.
centralization of production and distribution of biogas to the
boilers of each plant, thereby improving the economies of scale. h/y MWt/h MW h/y kW h/m3 STP m3 STP biogas/y

This area has high levels of ovine livestock waste as well as bovine 4670 50 233,500 6.5 35,923,076.92
and porcine waste, in addition to cereal hay and vegetables.
192 A. Colmenar-Santos et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 47 (2015) 186–197

Table 6
Availability of waste in the Córdoba district of Campiña Baja and surrounding districts [31].

t/y Campiña Baja Campiña Alta Pedroches Colonias Sierra Total available

Alperujo 2F 208, 819 301,665 70,320 17,399 113,484 711,687

Cereal hay 211,830 30,953 217,128 21,128 19,702 500,741
Remains other species 11,177 12,928 185,334 4,418 18,609 232,466
Cow manure 15,410 3,508 174,683 28,351 4,234 226,186
Swine waste slurry 4,720 29,695 19,085 735 3,886 58,121
Hen droppings 6,217 7,986 13,856 101 4,294 32,454
Citrus waste 17,061 77 342 2,858 17,252 37,590
Wine yeast transformants 1,682 11,445 33 20 199 13,379
Sludge meat 47 508 2,245 340 0 3,140
Sludge dairy IWTP 73 0 2,718 0 0 2,791
Glycerine 388 0 0 0 0 388

Table 7 substrates. Analysis in the research is performed using ten cate-

Average production obtained according to substrate gories of organic waste with the highest yields. In the following case
utilized in commercial plants [33]. other types of products with lower production but of heightened
interest have been added for improving the co-digestion process.
Substrate m3 STP biogas/t
These subproducts include sludge from treatment plants in the
Cereal hay 300 dairy industry and glycerin generated in biodiesel production
Alperujo 2F 325 process. Results are presented in Table 6.
Citrus 479 As detailed in the previous sections, biogas production depends on
Wine yeast transformants 240
a variety of factors. Biogas production data available in the bibliogra-
Sludge meat IWTP 50–70
Sludge dairy IWTP 40–55 phy are used to calculate approximate production, shown in Table 7.
Cow manure 300 According to the table, a value of 250 m3 STP of biogas is produced for
Swine waste slurry 350 each ton of waste input to the biodigestor. This value is taken as a
Hen droppings 350
reference and could be improved by the addition of components such
Remains other species 275
as glycerin, available in the studied area, or using a pre-treatment of
the input waste with a pasteurisation process [32], at a temperature of
Lower heating value (LHV) for the produce biogas is calculated as 70 1C for 1 h. For this pre-treatment, water from the condenser chilling
shown in Eq. (4), taking into account energy produced during circuit and exhaust gas from the boilers can be used as heat source.
combustion is only produced due to methane combustion. In To reach the necessary level of production of biogas, the avail-
Eq. (4) LHVbiogas is the LHV for the produced biogas (kJ/m3), %CH4 ability of waste should be 143,692 t/y. This amount can be reached in
is the methane content in biogas (%) and LHVCH4 is the LHV for the location, especially taking into consideration that co-digestion of
methane (kJ/m3). For a CSP plant annual energy to be obtained from various types of waste will improve production of biogas and
biogas is calculated as shown in Eq. (5) where CSPbiogas is the biogas increase quality of the digestate that can be commercialized as
required energy (MW h), P boiler is the boiler rated power (MW), h organic fertiliser. Use of the four most abundant types of waste
the plant operating hours in biogas combustion mode and ηplant the ensures an availability of 1.6 million t/y, more than 10 times the
overall plant efficiency. Required volume of biogas can be finally required yearly amount. Alperujo – olive mill pomace – production,
stated using Eq. (6) where V biogas  CSP is the annual biogas demand 1.1 million t, has constant annual availability. Production is concen-
for the hybrid CSP plant (m3), %CH4 is the methane content in trated in the olive harvesting season, October to March, although the
biogas (%), LHVCH4 is the LHV for methane (kJ/m3) and CSPbiogas is milling process continues for a longer time. The lowest production
the biogas required energy (MW h). point is in the summer, when solar production in CSP plants is
X
n highest and demand for biogas is low. The required proportions of
V biogas ¼ mi U p i ð3Þ each waste would depend on the co-substrates utilized and on the
i¼1 analytical composition of the remains. This makes it necessary to
study the behavior of different mixtures during the pilot-plant phase,
LHVbiogas ¼ %CH4 ULHVCH4 ð4Þ
in order to maximize methane production. The following mixtures
are reported in different research, improving methane content:
P boiler Uh
CSPbiogas ¼ ð5Þ
ηplant – Alperujo 25%, cow manure 75%
– Swine waste slurry 80%, other waste 20%
CSPbiogas
V biogas  CSP ¼ ð6Þ – Bovine 89%, glycerine 10%, vegetable fats 1% [34]
%CH4 ULHVCH4
– Avian, porcine, and bovine 80%, food waste 20%
Calculations to determine biogas production needs were done – Swine waste slurry 35%, bovine waste slurry 25%, and slaugh-
using as a reference the equivalent operating hours of the plant and terhouse waste 40%.
the energy consumption of its boilers, thereby obtaining a demand
of close to 36 million m3 STP of biogas with a purity level of 65%
methane to produce the required equivalent energy, Table 5. 4. Economic feasibility analysis

3.4. Availability of waste for biogas production requirements 4.1. Building and operating costs

Each substrate yields a characteristic level of biogas production The economic feasibility analysis was carried out performing an
depending on its protein, carbohydrate and lipid content. Gas analysis of the construction costs of biomethane plants from
production can be increased by co-digestion with appropriate co- agricultural waste and livestock. These costs are evaluated for large
 A. Colmenar-Santos et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 47 (2015) 186–197 193

Budget evolution (M€) installed electrical power is mainly related to the economies of scale,
400 because in countries such as France and Italy the number plants in
each country are about 500 units, while in Germany it exceeds 7000
units. This allows Germany being more competitive in the biogas
350
sector than other countries in the European Union.
Required investment in agro-industrial waste biodigestion cap-
300 ability in the CSP plants includes the cost of electrical generation and
Million €

control equipment, power grids and other costs related to the

modification of the land. In the case of CSP plants these facilities
250 are already built and not additional expenditures are required. The
mentioned economic study [35] presents a case of a plant with a
treatment capacity of 100,000 m3 of waste/year. The overall invest-
200
Without storage ment in the plant was 5.2 million €, of which 2.8 million € was
required for the power generator and the grid connection system.
With storage
150 Investment in biodigestors without electrical equipment and con-
0 2 4 6 8 10 nection to the electrical distribution grid was 738 €/kWe. The 53.8%
Fig. 3. Budget’s plant evolution in Spain at the end of 2012. cost proportion for the generator and grid connection is similar to
values published in the Financing Guide for agriculture-based biogas
projects, where a percentage of 56% is stablished for electricity
Jobs per Plant and Region
production, network connection, and auxiliary equipment [38]. To
Castilla La estimate the cost of installing biodigestors and other auxiliary
Mancha
equipment the 738 €/kWe was used. For a 15 MW rated power plant
Castilla La
Mancha production the cost would be approximately 11 million €.
Required investment in a CSP plant for salt storage tanks installa-
Extremadura tion and need for expansion of the solar field to produce the energy to
be stored was calculated. Required changes in the power block related
With storage
Extremadura
Without storage
to the salt tanks and auxiliary systems, such as heat exchanger units,
electrical system, instrumentation, pumps, public works, salts, and
Andalucia other costs were included. For no storage plants of equal size and in
close proximity, which ensured equality in climatological and solar-
Andalucia
radiation conditions, the construction costs ranged from 230 million €
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 (Alvarado, Badajoz) to 251 million € (Palma del Río II, Córdoba). In
Jobs
plants with storage costs ranged from 300 million € (Extresol,
Cáceres) to 387 million € (La Africana, Córdoba) [39]. Final budget
Fig. 4. Jobs per plant and region. depends on many factors such as contractor, previous experience
these projects, equipment providers and other factors. Despite of it
Table 8 these amounts represents the state of the art in CSP plants building.
Reflective area in CSP plants in Spain. Fig. 3 shows average costs for these plants.
Location Reflective area (m2) without Reflective area (m2) with
energy storage energy storage
4.1.2. Hybrid plant operation and maintenance costs
Andalucía 300,000 510,000 For a storage capacity of 7.5 h the cost increase in the building
Andalucía 310,000 550,000 process was 70 million €. Biogas plant management, operation and
Andalucía 403,000 523,200
maintenance costs depend on the plant’s size and hours of opera-
Extremadura 352,854 552,750
Castilla La 287,000 510,120 tion. Required staff depends on various logistic factors such as waste
Mancha collection system, daily amount of required substrate collection,
public holidays, maximum transport capacity for each vehicle,
access roads to farms, plant-maintenance strategy or plant auto-
plants, with a rated power of about 15 MWe. Cost to implement the mation system. Biomass plants with similar power capacities in
energy storage systems using molten salts and the corresponding Spain are Miajadas and Briviescas biomass power plants (owner
expansion of the solar field was determined. As a last step, other Acciona), with a rated power output of 16 MW and 25 fixed jobs.
variables with influence on the final cost of each alternative were Biomass power plant El Tejar, located in the town of Baena and with
studied. This include costs such as new personnel requirements, a power output of 25 MW, requires 30 fixed jobs [40]. The staff
new surface requirements, plant stopping time for implementation distribution, according to their functions, is 10 personnel in opera-
cost and buying allowances. tion, 15 in maintenance and 5 for management and administration.
Some performed tasks are duplicated in case of existing staff in the
CSP plant, such as manager, operators, security, firefighter, para-
4.1.1. Biogas plant costs medic, maintenance technicians or night shift. Therefore, only five
To evaluate the required investment for the biomethanation plant, drivers and five operators for receiving and waste management are
an economic study of different models of agro-industrial waste required. Average staff required to manage each type of CSP plant
biodigestors was performed. The results of an economic study were (without storage and with storage) in the 3 regions with greater
presented by the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment of the implementation of concentrated solar power plants, are 9 and 20,
Spanish government [35] and detailed an approximate cost of 1600 respectively. Fig. 4. Ten additional workers for waste collection and
€/kWe. According to available bibliography other countries had costs management and maintenance of the biogas plant will imply staff
estimated at 2000 €/kWe in Germany [36] and 4000 €/kWe in France costs similar to a CSP plant with energy storage, so it was
and other European countries [37]. The difference in cost per unit of considered that both alternatives had similar staff requirements.
194 A. Colmenar-Santos et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 47 (2015) 186–197

Investment required per country biogas

reference cost and Salt Energy Storage
€ 80,000,000

€ 70,000,000

€ 60,000,000

€ 50,000,000
Spain
€ 40,000,000 Germany
France
€ 30,000,000 Salt Energy Storage

€ 20,000,000

€ 10,000,000

€-
Without Electrical Grid connection (53% total cost)

Fig. 6. Investment required per country biogas reference cost and salt energy
storage.

reflective area, shown in Table 8, were verified. The different required

area between CSP plants without storage and with storage represents
approximately 30% of reflective area and therefore soil area.

4.1.3. Space requirements for hybrid plants

In the studied plants is enough area, planned to expand the
solar field and the power block facilities, to ensure the availability
of sufficient area for the installation of equipment for the biogas
plant, including receiving plant, waste biodigestors and a storage
tanks for the digestate. Its location next to the LNG tanks ensured
adequate truck access for waste transport.

4.1.4. Required works

Fig. 5. Sankey diagrams with 3 different sceneries: only solar (a), solar and biogas
(b), solar and storage (c).
In addition to the required investment for each of the alternatives
under consideration, is required to plan a plant stop to do required
works in safe conditions. For the implementation of hybrid biogas
system, the required work would be performed by the storage gas
area that is usually located outside the power block and outside the
solar field so it would not affect plant operation. Only exception
would be connecting the biogas feed piping system to the existing
LNG pipeline between boilers and gas tanks. The impact would be
limited to the boiler system and would not require stop the rest of
plant systems. For the salts storage system installation of tanks and
heat exchangers would take place on the power block and can be
performed without stopping the operation of the plant during the
expansion phase of the solar field. The connection of main HTF pipes
and cables in solar field and power block would force to perform a
complex commissioning operation because temperature conditions
of HTF must be maintained to prevent freezing inside absorber tubes.

Table 9 4.2. Greenhouse gasses emissions impact

Partial efficiencies for different components for CSP plants.
Another parameter analyzed in the research was the impact on
Sankey annual energy production (GW h) Yield (%) Biogas Solar TES
CO2 emissions caused by the energy generated by biogas combus-
Solar field 52 0 621.1 457.7 tion. The balance is positive in favor of hybridization with the use of
Salt storage 95 0 0 238.0 biogas, allowing total replacement of LNG (fossil gas). It reduces CO2
Boiler 85 266.0 0 0 emissions according to commitments of the Kyoto Protocol. Zero
Steam generator 84 226.1 323.0 226.1 CO2 emissions are achieved in plants equipped with salt storage
Turbine 38 189.9 271.3 189.9
Generator electrical load 97 72.2 103.1 72.2
since a boiler is not necessary once the storage system is set up. It
Annual energy production (GW h) 70.0 100.0 70.0 implies both alternatives would be balanced in terms of costs
associated with the management of greenhouse gasses emissions.
The plant size is determined by the solar field and mainly Investment results obtained for each alternative show a cost of
depends on solar radiation in the chosen location and loops installed 11 million € in case biomethanization versus 70 million € for salt
to achieve the required collector area. Analyzing the various existing storage system addition. Additional costs would be required in case
concentrated solar power plants in the area average values of of salt storage system due to required production stop.
 A. Colmenar-Santos et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 47 (2015) 186–197
4.3. Sensitivity analysis
4.3.1. Influence of waste availability
Previous sections show that for studied area the most cost
effective alternative to increase time of operation for CSP plants is
biogas hybridization compared to salt energy storage system. Sensi-
tivity analysis is performed modifying key parameters and variables
such as availability of waste and distance from producers to power
plant. These factors directly affect design parameters of digesters and
therefore the cost of investment, generating an increase in final cost
of produced energy. In terms of solar radiation availability sensitive
parameter for comparative study between biogas and salt energy
storage are effective hours of solar radiation. An increase in radiation
hours reduces production cost of a salt energy storage compared
with the maintenance cost for biogas generation. Case studies are
conventional CSP plant, CSP plan with storage and CSP plant with
biogas plant. Results are shown in Fig. 5a–c using a Sankey diagram
and different efficiencies are calculated, Table 9. According to the
analysis better results were found for the implementation of biogas
hybridization versus salt energy storage.
4.3.2. Influence of construction costs and operating hours
Two additional variables are studied in the research in terms of
economic construction costs and maximum hours plant could be
operating at full load. For the biogas plant costs different reference cost
to build an anaerobic biodigestor are studied. In the research was
considered the Spanish cost reference, 738 €/kWe. As sensitivity
analysis reference costs for other European countries, such as Germany
or France are studied. In these cases the final cost is lower for hybrid
system in comparison with salt energy storage, Fig. 6. Second analyzed
variable is how many hours plant could be working at full load due to
legal restrictions. Four different scenarios are considered:
1. Limitation of 50% maximum energy from other source (biogas)
2. No limit to produce energy with other source using same boiler
power (15 MWe)
3. No limit to produce energy with other source and changing
boiler power (50 MWe)
4. Salt energy storage system.
For scenarios 1 to 3, using biogas, investment cost is lower than in
the salt energy storage scenario. For scenario 3, requiring a 50 MWe
boiler with biogas, to change boiler would require more expensive
equipment: new boiler, new HTF conduit, related costs to stop
production while boiler installation, etc., Table 10. For all cases, biogas
is the optimal solution to increase profits in CSP plants power plant.
5. Weaknesses and strengths of the proposed system
5.1. Weaknesses
Although experience in biodigestion of agro-livestock and indus-
trial waste has been gathered over decades in countries such as
Table 10
Cost in function of maximum load equivalent hours.
Solar Solar (MW h) Biogas
(h/y) (h/y)
50% energy max from biogas 2000 100,000 4667
Without limit energy from biogas (15 MW) 2000 100,000 6760
Without limit energy from biogas (50 MW) 2000 100,000 6760
Thermal energy storage (50 MW) 2000 100,000
195
Germany and Denmark, there is an absence of large plants, with
greater power than 15 MWe. Required levels of biogas production in
the hybrid CSP plants proposed in the research implies that these
industrial biomethanation plants would be in the experimental stage,
with resulting production risk. On the other hand, this requirement
would accelerate research and development activities and allow us to
gain knowledge about the construction of future plants. As indicated
in Table 2, some of the wastes used in co-digestion are vegetable
waste, such as cereal hay, alperujo, citrus or other vegetables and the
production of these wastes would be subject drought cycles and
other climatic conditions although the existence of many types of
waste with similar organic characteristics would allow use other
similar substrates. New suppliers in regions located 50 km to 100 km
from the plant could be studied, reducing financial gain but allowing
the plant to maintain its production parameters.
Companies that operate CSP plants are companies created
expressly for electricity production so that biogas production and
marketing of fertilizers are not included in their chartered activities.
This leads to the need for a specific company or subcontract for each
activity. While this might be considered a weakness, this situation
has already been encountered in other types of power plants and
has been resolved without problems through the creation of
multiple companies, each with a different interest but which
mutually render services. One example is the biomass plant
operated by Valoriza Energía in the municipal district of Puente
Genil, Spain, where there are three different but interrelated
companies [41]. Legislation regarding compensation for solar power
plants does not specifically address the option of hybrid plants with
solar thermal and biomass technologies, though it indicates that, in
case of hybridizations, the limit on production hours with payment
priority would be limited to those of the original CSP plant. This
uncertainty can be eliminated through a legislative reform by the
Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism, which is responsible for
the application of that regulation.
Associated GHG reduction cannot be economic attractive for
companies in countries without economic incentives for renewable
energies in their electrical industries. Despite of it other incomes
including derived from GHG emissions-reduction agreement reached
60 Production - Summer
50
40
Summer solar field
MW
30 Summer biogas
Summer total
20
10
0
0:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 0:00
Time
Fig. 7. Daily power production in sunny summer day.
Biogas (MW) Biogas (MW h) TES (h/y) TES (MW h) Total (MW h) Cost (million €)
15 70,005 170,005 11
15 101,400 201,400 15.71
50 338,000 438,000 37.5
1400 70,000 170,000 70
196 A. Colmenar-Santos et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 47 (2015) 186–197
60 Production - Winter
50
40
Winter solar field
MW
30 Winter biogas
Winter total
20
10
0 Waste producers would have the ability to exchange their waste for
0:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 0:00
Time
Fig. 8. Daily power production in sunny winter day.
60 Production - Cloudy fall
50
40
Cloudy fall solar
MW
30 field
Cloudy fall biogas
20
10
0 gas into the atmosphere has a greenhouse or heat-retention effect 23
0:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 0:00
Time
Fig. 9. Daily power production in cloudy autumn day.
by participant countries in the Kyoto Protocol would increase
economic feasibility:
– Offsetting of emissions on the part of gas generators in other
countries, that is a system used by Japanese and German
companies that have invested in concentrated solar power
in Spain
– Income relating to the management of waste used as sub-
strates, both for small producers and industries such as
agencies and public authorities that generate waste)
– The sale of processed digestate as fertilizer and compost to
farmers in the area
– The marketing of waste heat from the plant process for air
conditioning of agro-livestock facilities located next to the plant
such as cattle farms or greenhouses, using a district heating.
5.2. Strengths
In addition to the direct benefits to the CSP plant (increasing
operating hours and therefore annual revenues) other benefits can be
listed. One of the most important ones is the greater use of the solar
energy for electricity production because during morning hours no
received radiation would need to be used to heat the system (steam and
thermal oil) until turbine inlet conditions are reached. Another advan-
tage is a reduction in the number of starts and stops in the turbine and
associated equipment. This reduces thermal and mechanical stresses
and thereby extends the service life of all these components.
The global power system would be provided with greater
stability by having a greater number of manageable power stations
connected to the grid with the possibility of taking up variations in
case of a failure of the larger unit. A reduction of losses in electrical
transmission system would be achieved by bringing electricity
production closer to areas of consumption, as well as by developing
power plants whose production curves fits more easily the demand
curve of the electrical system. Next figures makes possible to
compare daily energy productions between CSP plants without
hybridization and proposed hybrid CSP plants for different solar
production situation. Fig. 7 is meant for a sunny summer day, Fig. 8
is meant for a sunny winter day and Fig. 9, a cloudy autumn day. In
these figures, it possible to verify how hybridization upgrades
dispatchability of electrical energy production.
In social and environmental terms, waste producers would be
encouraged to improve the waste management system, thereby pre-
venting waste from reaching the ecosystem with the resulting impact.
processed digestate, a biological fertilizer, thus allowing them to reduce
their economic investment in mineral fertilizers [42]. In line with this,
the production of organic fertilizer in comparison with actual use of
fossil origin fertilizers would allow a reduction in the importation of
these products and provide the advantage of better agricultural
production with the use of natural fertilizer versus conventional ones.
Replacing the natural gas currently used in the auxiliary boilers in
CSP plants would also generate savings in fossil-fuel imports. For the
Spanish case a maximum of 15% of the total plant production is
permitted, which is equivalent to 17.65 GW h/y. This substitution would
save 22.45 million N m3/y of LNG per plant, an emissions equivalent of
12,355 t CO2/y [43]. Biogas combustion reduces the amount of CH4
released into the atmosphere by uncontrolled anaerobic digestion of
waste, which would be used to feed the digester. The emission of this
times greater than CO2. Therefore, controlled combustion reduces the
CO2 emissions within Spanish territory, thereby reducing the invest-
ment directed at offsetting excess GHG emissions with respect to
commitments in the 1997 Kyoto protocol [44]. This solution can be
replied worldwide. Food industries that generate waste would pay a
small fee for the treatment of their waste and this treatment cost
would be lower than paid for disposal in landfills or purification,
thereby reducing the operation costs and increasing their competitive-
ness. Economic synergies generated in the setting of this new model of
hybrid plants would increase the economic conditions for inhabitants
in the area by creating new jobs. Direct and indirect jobs are required
related to the transport of waste and digestate as well as to the
operation of the biomethanation plant. These requirements would help
to keep people in rural areas as well as reducing the operating costs of
waste-generating farms and industries.
Future research lines are a vis-à-vis continuing hybridization.
This might include a price reduction system for the energy
generated in renewable-energy power plants. Experience in power
generation through CSP plants has shown that the overall energy
efficiency of the process when using Brayton and Rankine thermo-
dynamic cycles in the same thermoelectric power plant is higher
and produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions. A hybrid plant
design implemented from the beginning would result in increased
power generation with the same consumption of methane pro-
duced in biodigestors. Location of the gas combustion boilers in
parallel with superheaters would reduce losses and increase the
temperature and pressure of the steam before entering the turbine,
which would positively affect the power generated in the alternator.
There are two improvement options: first one is circulating the
biogas in the turbines and using exhaust gases to heat the HTF and
second one is modifying the position of gas boilers in the system.
For both of them the required investment would be higher because
the intervention in the existing power plant would be greater and
would involve more downtime than the developed alternative.
6. Conclusions
Analyzed data in the research show that the potential for
generation of agro-livestock and industrial waste in the districts
 A. Colmenar-Santos et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 47 (2015) 186–197
where studied CSP plants are located ensure a continuous supply
for use in biomethanation plants for hybrid CSP-biogas plants. The
state of the art of the biogas sector demonstrates the maturity of the
technology with regard to the availability of equipment for ade-
quate production of biogas. Multiple options are available for co-
digestion of organic waste, and it is possible to adapt them to the
characteristics of the produced waste in areas located near CSP
plants as well as to climatic periods that might cause a temporary
reduction in the availability of the waste. Recent legislative changes
regarding economic incentives for solar thermal technology makes
hybridization a possible way to increase plant operating hours at a
lower cost in comparison to installing a salt storage system for the
same end electrical production. This results in a shorter recovery of
the investment period, increased profitability and facilitates access
to financial resources required for the investment. Additional new
sources of income for the power plant are generated through waste
heat recovery currently dissipated in the cooling tower or exhaust
gases from the auxiliary boilers. In this paper a solution that has
never previously been discussed in has been described and proved
to be technically, legally, and economically feasible. The strengths
and weaknesses of the proposed solution indicate that it has
potential for technological and labor development. Economic ben-
efits are obtained and additional incomes are related with emis-
sions trading or reducing fossil fuel imports.
References
[1] Electricity grid in Spain. The Spanish electricity system. Preview of the 2012
report, 〈www.ree.es/sistema_electrico/pdf/infosis/Avance_REE_2012.pdf〉; 2012
[accessed: 12/01/2013].
[2] Acciona US. Official website of the Nevada One Project, 〈www.acciona.us/
Business-Divisions/Energy/Nevada-Solar-One〉 [accessed: 26/01/2013].
[3] Deloitte by request of Prothermosolar. Macroeconomic impact of solar thermal
sector in Spain. Madrid, Spain, 〈www.protermosolar.com〉; 2011 [accessed: 26/
12/2012].
[4] Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment. Statistical yearbook of the
ministry of agriculture, food and environment. Madrid, Spain; 2011 [accessed:
16/12/2012].
[5] Council of Agriculture and Fisheries of the Assembly of Andalusia. Plan for
rural revitalisation for Los Pedroches and Valle del Guadiato. Version October
Sevilla. Spain; 2011. p. 97.
[6] Nixon JD, Dey PK, Davies PA. The feasibility of hybrid solar–biomass power
plants in India. Aston University. Energy 2012;46:541–54.
[7] Council of Agriculture and Fisheries of the Assembly of Andalusia. Plan for
rural revitalisation for Los Pedroches and Valle del Guadiato. Version October
Sevilla. Spain; 2011. p. 97.
[8] Morelli, D. Presentation of the Borges Solar Thermal Plant project at Rovira
and Virgili University. Lérida, Spain, 〈www.urv.cat/media/upload/arxius/CATE
DRA%20ECONOMIA%20LOCAL%20I%20REGIONAL/110923_abantia_urv.pdf〉;
2011 [accessed: 30/09/2012].
[9] Prothermosolar Association. Location of solar thermal power plants, 〈www.
protermosolar.com〉; 2012 [accessed: 06/12/2012].
[10] World Solar Thermal Electricity Association (STELA). Map of the location of
Stela World, 〈www.estelasolar.eu/index.php?id=116〉; 2012 [accessed: 06/12/
2012].
[11] Herrmann, U Geyer, M. Overview on thermal storage systems workshop on
thermal storage for trough power systems. In: FLABEG Solar Int. GmbH;
Febrery 20–21, 2002.
[12] Prepared by the authors from data Prothermosolar Association. Location of
solar thermal power plants, 〈www.protermosolar.com〉; 2012 [accessed: 06/
12/2012].
[13] European Biomass Association (AEBIOM). European bioenergy outlook 2012.
Statistical report. Bruxelles, Belgium; 2012. p. 94–96.
[14] Cuesta Santianes MJ, Martín Sanchez F, Vicente Crespo G, Villar Fernandez S.
Current status of biogas production and utilisation. Technol Watch Rep
2009;17:14.
[15] Venkatesh G, Abdi Elmi R. Economic–environmental analysis of handling
biogas from sewage sludge digesters in WWTPs (wastewater treatment
plants) for energy recovery: case study of Bekkelaget WWTP in Oslo (Norway).
Energy 2013;58:220–35.
[16] Marañón Maison, E, Fernández Navas, Y, Castrillón Peláez, L. State-of-the-art
manual of anaerobic co-digestion of livestock and agroindustrial waste. Rev. 2.
Probiogas. Madrid, Spain; 2011. p. 9.
[17] Campos, E., Bonmatí, A., Teira, M.R., Flotats, X. Energy exploitation of waste
and liquid manure sludge. Biogas production. Environmental Engineering
197
Laboratory. University of Lerida. Lérida, Spain, 〈http://web.udl.es/usuaris/lea/
archivos%20pdf/AECI-Ecampos.pdf〉; 2013 [accessed: 30/09/2013].
[18] Astals S, Nollá-Ardeval V, Mata-Álvarez J. Anaerobic co-digestion of pig
manure and crude glycerol at mesophilic conditions: biogas and digestate.
Bioresour Technol 2012;110:63–70.
[19] Siles JA, Martín MA, Chica AF, Martín A. Anaerobic co-digestion of glycerol and
wastewater derived from biodiesel manufacturing. Bioresour Technol
2010;101:6315–21.
[20] Mes, T. Methane production by anaerobic digestion of wastewater and solid
wastes. Dutch Biological Hydrogen Foundation, (2003). Cap. 4. 62–76.
[21] Duccio T, Fiaschi D. Thermo-economic assessment of a micro CHP system
fuelled by geothermal and solar energy. Energy 2013;58:45–51.
[22] State Meteorological Agency. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment.
Atlas of solar radiation in Spain. Madrid, Spain, 〈www.aemet.es/en/servicio
sclimaticos/datosclimatologicos/atlas_radiacion_solar〉; 2005 [accessed: 31/
01/2013].
[23] National Institute of Statistics. List of districts and their municipalities.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Madrid, Spain, 〈www.ine.es/
daco/daco42/agricultura/comarcas99_metodologia.xls〉; 2013 [accessed: 30/
09/2013].
[24] Päsehl M. Evaluation of energy efficiency of various biogas production and
utilisation pathways. Appl Energy 2010;87:3305–21.
[25] Pascual, A. Ruiz, B., Gómez, P., Flotats, X., Fernández, B. Status and potential of
biogas generation. Technical study, PER 2011-2020. IDAE. Madrid, Spain; 2011.
p. 90–96.
[26] Flotats X, Sarquella L. Biogas production by anaerobic co-digestion. Practical
Guide for the development and operation of biogas energy utilisation plants
based on manure slurry and other organic products. Barcelona, Spain: Catalan
Institute of Energy; 2008.
[27] Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Environment. Geographic viewer of agri-
culture and Livestock of MAGRAMA. Madrid, Spain; 2012. [accessed: 05/12/
2012].
[28] National Institute of Statistics. Agricultural census database INE. Madrid,
Spain; 2009 [accessed: 08/12/2012].
[29] Martín Martín E. Technical-economic development of an implementation of a
50 MW solar thermal power plant. Final thesis. Madrid, Spain: ICAI. Comillas
Pontifical University of Madrid; 2011.
[30] Briceño Cano S. Economic and thermoeconomic study of a concentrated solar
power plant. Final thesis. Sevilla, Spain: School of Engineering. University of
Seville; 2011.
[31] Basic Study of Biogas. Andalusian Energy Agency. Department of Innovation,
Economics and Science of the Assembly of Andalusia. Sevilla, Spain; 2011. p.
161–165.
[32] Data from the district Fact Sheets on accessible and available raw materials.
Official website of the Association Probiogas, 〈http://213.229.136.11/bases/
ainia_probiogas.nsf/listado%20provincias?〉OpenForm; 2013 [accessed: 30/09/
2013].
[33] Pascual, A. Workshop on use of by-products and waste treatment from the
food industry, AINIA. Valencia, Spain; 2009. p. 19.
[34] Approximate proportions calculated from animal census available on the
official website of the farm Skovbaekgaard and taking as average production
per head of cattle of 20 m3/y (average cattle excretions).
[35] Ministry of Environment, Rural and Marine Affairs. The agroindustrial biogas
sector in Spain. Madrid, Spain, 〈www.magrama.gob.es/es/ganaderia/temas/
requisitos-y-condicionantes-de-la-produccion-ganadera/docbiogasver
sion21-09-2010_tcm7-5925.pdf〉; 2013 [accessed: 30/09/2013].
[36] Hahn, H. Guideline for financing agricultural biogas projects—training mate-
rial for financing bodies. IEE project ‘BiogasIN’. Fraunhofer Institute for Wind
Energy and Energy System Technology (IWES), 〈www.biogasin.org/files/pdf/
WP3/D.3.5_IWES_EN.pdf〉; 2013 [accessed: 30/09/2013].
[37] Flotats, X. Economic analysis of biogas plants. IOWM Technology Center,
Integrated Organic Waste Management; 2011. p. 15–18.
[38] Hahn, H. Guideline for financing agricultural biogas projects—training mate-
rial for financing bodies. IEE project ‘BiogasIN’. Fraunhofer Institute for Wind
Energy and Energy System Technology (IWES).
[39] CSP World Map. 〈www.csp-world.com/cspworldmap〉; 2013 [accessed: 20/01/
2013].
[40] Córdoba Newspaper. Agroenergy of Baena, The environmental jewel of El Tejar.
Córdoba, Spain, 〈www.diariocordoba.com/noticias/cordobaprovincia/agroenergeti
ca-de-baena-joya-ambiental-de-tejar_317894.html〉; News published on April 27,
2007 [accessed: 20/01/2013].
[41] Valoriza Energía, SA. Integrated olive biomass treatment complex of Puente
Genil (Córdoba). Press release. Cordoba, Spain, 〈www.seopan.es/ficheros/
b8b9d8c3ea757309efe2d2238091e0f3.pdf?PHPSESSID=b312956800b6181
fe94fa7254fff7df2〉; Published on November 22, 2006 [accessed: 20/01/2013].
[42] Abdullah A. Techno-economic analysis of electricity and heat generation from
farm-scale biogas plant. Energy 2012;44:381–90.
[43] Taken as equivalent values 10.4 kW h/N m3 of natural gas and average CO2
emissions of 700 kgCO2/kW h electricity generated in Spain.
[44] Lund H. The Kyoto mechanisms and technological innovation. Energy
2006;31:2325–32.