See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317983782

Effect of heliostat size on the levelized cost of electricity for power towers

Conference Paper in AIP Conference Proceedings · June 2017

DOI: 10.1063/1.4984381

CITATIONS READS
9 1,188

2 authors:

Arvind Pidaparthi Jaap Hoffmann

Bloomberg New Energy Finance Stellenbosch University
6 PUBLICATIONS 25 CITATIONS 18 PUBLICATIONS 68 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of a hybrid pressurized air receiver (HPAR) View project

The SUNDISC cycle: A direct storage-charging dual-pressure air receiver cycle View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Arvind Pidaparthi on 15 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Effect of heliostat size on the levelized cost of electricity for power towers
Arvind Pidaparthi and Jaap Hoffmann

Citation: AIP Conference Proceedings 1850, 030038 (2017); doi: 10.1063/1.4984381

View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4984381
View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/apc/1850/1
Published by the American Institute of Physics
 Effect of Heliostat Size on the Levelized Cost of Electricity
for Power Towers
Arvind Pidaparthi1, a) and Jaap Hoffmann1
1
Solar Thermal Energy Research Group, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, Matieland 7602, Stellenbosch,
South Africa.

a) Corresponding author: parvindsastry@gmail.com

Abstract. The objective of this study is to investigate the effects of heliostat size on the levelized cost of electricity
(LCOE) for power tower plants. These effects are analyzed in a power tower with a net capacity of 100 MWe, 8 hours of
thermal energy storage and a solar multiple of 1.8 in Upington, South Africa. A large, medium and a small size heliostat
with a total area of 115.56 m2, 43.3 m2 and 15.67 m2 respectively are considered for comparison. A radial-staggered
pattern and an external cylindrical receiver are considered for the heliostat field layouts. The optical performance of the
optimized heliostat field layouts has been evaluated by the Hermite (analytical) method using SolarPILOT, a tool used
for the generation and optimization of the heliostat field layout. The heliostat cost per unit is calculated separately for the
three different heliostat sizes and the effects due to size scaling, learning curve benefits and the price index is included.
The annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are estimated separately for the three heliostat fields, where the
number of personnel required in the field is determined by the number of heliostats in the field. The LCOE values are
used as a figure of merit to compare the different heliostat sizes. The results, which include the economic and the optical
performance along with the annual O&M costs, indicate that lowest LCOE values are achieved by the medium size
heliostat with an area of 43.3 m2 for this configuration. This study will help power tower developers determine the
optimal heliostat size for power tower plants currently in the development stage.

INTRODUCTION
The heliostat field typically contributes to about 40% of the overall costs in a concentrating solar power (CSP)
tower plant [1]. It is essential to reduce these costs to make power tower plants competitive with parabolic trough
technology which is considered the most commercially mature CSP technology. The purpose of this study is to
investigate the effect of heliostat size on the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for power tower plants. In order to
achieve this objective, this study reviews the history and process of heliostat design, considers past studies on
heliostat cost reduction and identifies new opportunities for cost reduction. This paper suggests a holistic approach
for determining the optimal heliostat sizes, where focus is placed on costs at the solar field level, individual heliostat
level and at the sub-component level. Several power tower developers are currently considering developing power
tower plants near Upington because of the high annual beam radiation values in the region [2]. For this reason, this
location has been chosen for this case study. The study aims to develop a theoretical framework to identify the
optimal heliostat size for this power tower plant with a net capacity range of 100 MWe.

APPROACH
Several heliostat cost reduction studies have been conducted, each with a different approach. However, there is
neither any unanimity between these studies, nor the power tower developers, regarding the optimal size of a
heliostat. Currently, heliostats in operational power tower plants are in the size range between 1.14 m2 to 140 m2 [3].
Heliostat field construction costs remain a major challenge as large heliostats are usually assembled on site in a
special purpose-built facility called a Heliostat Assembly Building (HAB) [4]. The motivation behind eSolar’s small

SolarPACES 2016
AIP Conf. Proc. 1850, 030038-1–030038-8; doi: 10.1063/1.4984381
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1522-5/$30.00

030038-1
heliostats was that they could be constructed and assembled in factories; this shows great potential for reducing on-
site labor costs [5]. Furthermore, eSolar asserts that their 2.2 m2 heliostats are sufficiently small so they can be
installed manually without the need of a lifting device [6]. Smaller heliostats with higher costs per unit area, but with
better optical efficiencies could result in lower LCOE values due to the lower tower height, smaller receiver area and
lower number of heliostats with optical properties reminiscent of large heliostats [7,8]. It is only recently that ‘cost
versus heliostat size’ has been taken into consideration with an indication that the lowest life cycle costs might
eventually be achieved by heliostat sizes larger than 50 m2 [9]. However, power tower developers and research
facilities like German Aerospace Center (DLR) and Solar Thermal Energy Research Group (STERG) have
developed small heliostats with an area less than 10 m2 [3]. A holistic LCOE model is suggested in this study to
compare not only the assembly and erection costs but also the optical efficiency of the heliostats.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Apart from the assembly and erection costs, the effects of heliostat ‘cost-size’ scaling relationships must also be
taken into consideration. These relationships are based on the length of the chord, area of the heliostat and in some
cases, the number of mirror modules on a given heliostat [10]. Learning curve effects also play an important role in
the case of smaller heliostats as there is a percentage drop in cost with the doubling of each production. Learning
curve effects have been used in several models to predict the decrease in costs (or time) with the increase in
production volumes as workers in a manufacturing plant become more efficient [11]. These effects are significant in
the manufacturing of smaller heliostats. It is also important to note that learning curve effects for ‘off-the-shelf’
products (like drives and torque tubes) are considered to be lower than for custom made products. Additionally, the
optics of a heliostat field layout is often characterized using one of these two techniques: analytical methods and
Monte-Carlo Ray-Tracing (MCRT). In this study, this has been done using Solar Power tower Integrated Layout and
Optimization Tool – SolarPILOT. This tool has been developed by NREL and can be used to characterize the optical
performance of heliostat field layouts. The advantage of using this tool is that both methods, analytical and MCRT,
are combined to characterize the optical performance of the heliostat field in greater detail and accuracy [12].
The optical efficiency of heliostats depends on the mirror surface slope and beam quality errors. The mirror slope
errors can further be divided into errors due to shape (deformations due to self-weight and wind loads), temperature,
and assembly. The beam quality errors can be divided into shape, waviness and specularity errors [13]. Heliostats
with different sizes have different optical errors and hence different optical efficiencies [14]. All these parameters
are taken into consideration while developing the heliostat field layout in SolarPILOT. Tracking accuracies and the
‘cost-area’ scaling relationship must also be taken into consideration while increasing the size of a heliostat [7,16].
Therefore, a holistic LCOE model is suggested to examine the effects of different heliostat sizes on the LCOE for
power towers. Furthermore, a new method has been developed to evaluate the O&M personnel required for the solar
field which estimates the number of instrument technicians and mechanical technicians (Machinist/welders) required
based on the number of heliostats in the field [16, 17].

HELIOSTAT COST-AREA PROPORTIONALITY

The size of a heliostat influences the cost of a heliostat in several ways since subcomponent, labor and O&M
costs vary for different heliostat sizes. Heliostat cost-per-unit for the three chosen sizes is calculated by considering
the main cost-categories of the heliostat: Foundations, metal support structure, drives, controls, mirrors, and
assembly of the heliostat. To evaluate these costs, a reference heliostat with a conventional pedestal/torque tube
structure and an azimuth/elevation drive configuration is selected from the literature. This heliostat is chosen in such
a way that it is easily scalable and so that recent cost information for the main cost categories is available. For this
reason, a medium sized heliostat with a total surface area of 43.3 m2 has been chosen as the reference heliostat for
this study [13, 14]. The specific costs for the drives and mirrors for this heliostat were based on quotations and
included overhead costs and profit. An additional 20 % was added to the remaining cost categories (foundations,
metal support structure and assembly) to account for the business requirements of the component manufacturers
[13]. The drives/controls specific cost was bundled into a single unit hence it has been divided into two separate cost
categories by assuming that the drives cost 97% of this bundled value. Table 1 shows the cost-area proportionality
(scaling factor) used for the main heliostat subcomponents considered.

030038-2
 TABLE 1. Heliostat subcomponent cost-area proportionality
Cost-Area proportionality
Heliostat subcomponent
(Scaling factor ) s Reference

Foundation C  A1.50 [16, 17]

Metal Support structure C  A1.47 [20]
Drives C  A0.60 [17, 18]
Controls C  A0.2311 [20]
Reflector panels C  A1.0420 [20]
Assembly/Fabrication C  A0.4264 [20]

ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
The costs for the power tower have been categorized into direct and indirect capital costs. The costing model for
tower/receiver system, thermal energy storage (TES) system, site preparation, and the steam and power generation
system is adopted from the 2013 report ‘Molten Salt Power Tower Cost Model for the System Advisor Model’ to
reflect the current state of the art molten salt power tower technology [17]. The cost inputs for this study have been
indexed to the year 2015 using the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI) from the above mentioned
report. The heliostat costs have been calculated separately for the three different heliostat sizes considered and
include the effects due to size scaling, learning curves benefits and the price index. The annual O&M costs are
estimated separately for the three heliostat fields.
The heliostat field costs include the foundation, steel supporting structure, drives, controls, mirrors and assembly
costs. These costs are estimated using a reference specific cost for a single heliostat which is then multiplied by cost
effects due to scaling factor ( s ), effects due to high volumes accounting for learning curve benefits measured by a
progress ratio ( pr ) and a price index ( pi ) reflecting the changes in heliostat sub-costs over the years. The scaling
effect deals with varying heliostat sizes and is the ratio of the heliostat area under investigation ( Aheliostat ) to that of
0
the reference heliostat ( A heliostat ) with ( s ) as the exponent. Learning curve effects predict the decrease in costs (or
time) with the increase in production volumes as workers in a manufacturing plant become more efficient [21].
These effects are important for smaller heliostats since there is a percentage drop in cost with doubling of each
production. These effects are accounted for using the progress ratio with the ratio of current volume of production
0
( V heliostat ) and a reference volume ( V heliostat ) as exponent. The price index is estimated for each cost category to
reflect the latest costs. However, since latest price indices for 2016 are not available for heliostats, the prices have
been indexed until 2011 [20]. The total heliostat field costs ( C heliostat ,total ) can therefore be expressed as a function
of individual heliostat direct cost ( Cheliostat , direct ) and the total number of heliostats in the field ( N heliostat ) [20]:
C heliostat ,total  C heliostat ,direct  N heliostat (1)
s
 A  V
 C 0   0heliostat    pr  2
log heliostat 0
where, C heliostat ,direct V heliostat  pi (2)
 A heliostat 
The heliostat optical improvement costs are calculated separately to identify the importance of the heliostat
optical efficiency. The heliostat optical quality indicates the capability of a heliostat to reflect a circular and a
specular sun-image on the receiver surface. These costs are calculated using a single ‘root-sum-square’ (RSS) value
which is ‘bundled’ by the slope and the tracking error. The heliostat optical RSS error of the medium sized heliostat
(  rss ) is chosen as the reference heliostat optical error. This means that a heliostat with a higher optical quality
O

than the reference heliostat will not necessarily lower the LCOE due to the higher costs involved in achieving this
optical quality. The total heliostat optical costs ( C heliostat , optical ) can therefore be expressed as a function of optical
improvement cost per heliostat ( C heliostat ,optic ) and the total number of heliostats in the field [20]:
Cheliostat , optical  Cheliostat , optic  N heliostat (3)

030038-3
  1 1 
where, Cheliostat , optic  0.01  10 3    O 2   Aheliostat (4)
  rss  rss 
2

The heliostat cost per unit is calculated using the reference cost for each subcomponent. Table 2 shows the
heliostat subcomponent reference costs in USD, the progress ratio and the price index used for the calculation of the
heliostat subcomponent costs.

TABLE 2. Heliostat subcomponent reference cost, progress ratio and the price index [14, 20].
Reference
Heliostat subcomponent cost Progress ratio (-) Price index (-)
cost/unit ($)
Foundation ($) 563.27 0.9806 1.0816

Metal support structure ($) 1303.08 0.9900 1.8070

Drives ($) 2030.24 0.9400 1.3702

Controls ($) 62.80 0.9600 1.2841

Reflector panels ($) 491.81 0.9700 1.0861

Assembly/Fabrication ($) 701.98 0.9800 1.0000

POWER TOWER ENERGY PERFORMANCE

There are several quantities that control the thermal power transferred to the top of a receiver in a power tower
plant. These quantities can be categorized as energetical, geometrical, and material [22]. Among these quantities,
geometrical quantities can be estimated and summarized into one ‘characteristic function’ without major
approximations [23]. This characteristic function can be defined for a specific sun position as the effective surface
area of all the heliostats, in a given field, that reflect the beam radiation onto the receiver. The geometrical quantities
could relate to heliostat area or to ground area. Figure 1 shows the Sankey diagram for the expected losses in a
power tower plant. These losses are calculated to analyze the energy performance of the power tower plant.

FIGURE 1. Sankey diagram for plant losses in a CSP power tower setting [24].

Optimized Heliostat Field Layout Optical Performance

The heliostat field is the most capital intensive part of a power tower plant, hence optimizing the field size is
very critical for reducing overall costs. SolarPILOT is used to generate the optimal heliostat field layout leading to
the lowest LCOE values. This is achieved by obtaining the maximum flux and minimizing the system losses. Each
iteration in the optimization process makes a full layout and simulates the performance of that field. The
optimization considers the capital costs, the energy performance (optical and thermal) and the site-specific weather
data. Optimal values for receiver height, receiver aspect ratio and the tower height are investigated by the
optimization algorithm which uses the design point thermal losses and the piping thermal losses to calculate the
design point thermal rating of the receiver. Figure 2 shows an example of the optimized heliostat field layout with
the medium sized heliostats generated using the built-in RSGS optimization algorithm in SolarPILOT.

030038-4
 FIGURE 2. Heliostat field layout with 21 290 medium sized heliostats with solar field efficiency data overlay

Once the optimized heliostat field layout is generated, the optical performance of the heliostat field layout is
evaluated for the three heliostat fields using the Hermite (analytical) flux simulation model. The design point is
chosen at solar noon, Spring Equinox. The heliostat geometry, canting method, focusing type, optical error
parameters and the mirror performance parameters are typical inputs for evaluating the optical performance of the
plant. The blocking losses are eliminated using the ‘no-blocking’ method described by Siala and Elayeb [25].
Shading losses are most prevalent when the elevation angle of the sun is low [26] and have not been considered for
the heliostat fields. The atmospheric attenuation is calculated using the slant distance between the individual
heliostat and the receiver using the method described by Augsburger [20]. Table 3 shows the optical performance of
the three heliostat fields with the major losses in a radial staggered heliostat field layout.

TABLE 3. Optical performance of the three heliostat fields with the major system design parameters.
Field with large Field with medium Field with small
Optical performance results
heliostat heliostat heliostat
Heliostat area (m2) 115.56 [27] 43.3 [27] 15.67 [27]

Heliostat count (-) 8131 21 290 55 544

Slope error (mrad) 2.60 [20] 1.18 [15] 1.30 [28]

Tracking error (mrad) 0.63 [29] 0.60 [15] 0.945 [30]

Total RSS error (mrad) 5.350 2.468 3.546

Cosine efficiency (%) 80.00 80.10 79.80

Blocking efficiency (%) 99.40 99.20 99.80

Atmospheric attenuation (%) 91.90 92.60 92.00

Heliostat reflection (%) 90.30 90.30 90.30

Interception efficiency (%) 96.10 98.30 96.80

Solar field efficiency (%) 63.38 65.30 64.01

030038-5
 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
The costing model for the annual O&M expenditure is adapted from a study [17] which assumes a schedule that
provides the maintenance personnel and the consumable material quantities associated with the plant. There is
insufficient information in current literature about the relationship between O&M personnel required and the
number of heliostats in a field. Hence a new method has been developed to estimate the O&M personnel required
for the solar field while considering the suggestions from studies made in the past [16, 17]. The new method
estimates the number of instrument technicians and mechanical technicians (Machinist/welders) based on the
number of heliostats in the field and is shown in Table 4. The instrument and mechanical technicians are required to
foresee the heliostat field operations and hence the number of these personnel required varies in a plant with more
heliostats. The number of maintenance supervisors, maintenance foremen and clerks/assistants has not been changed
as it is perceived that this number does not depend on the number of heliostats or the size of the field.

TABLE 4. Operations and maintenance personnel required for the plant.

Field with Field with Field with small
O&M personnel details
large heliostat medium heliostat heliostat
Number of heliostats (-) 8131 21 670 55 544

Solar field reflective area (m2) 943 120.15 922 586.73 917 739.13

Reference year (-) 2015 2015 2015

Maintenance supervisor (-) 1 1 1

Maintenance Foreman (-) 1 1 1

Instrument technician (-) 2 3 5

Machinist/Welder/Technician (-) 2 3 5

Clerk/Assistant (-) 4 4 4

Fixed cost by capacity ($/kW-yr.) 67 68 72

Variable cost by Gen. ($/MWh) 4 4 4

Total annual O&M costs ($) 8 107 845.41 8 266 131.64 8 546 940.91

The annual O&M cost for a heliostat field with more heliostats is significantly higher because of the higher
number of O&M personnel required for the minimal maintenance-related downtime. These costs play a major role in
the calculation of the LCOE of a plant and must therefore be properly estimated based on the number of heliostats in
the field layout.

RESULTS – THERMO-ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE AND LCOE

The thermo-economic performance of power tower plants depends on the optimal size of its components and
since the solar field and the TES system are the most cost intensive subsystems they must be sized cautiously. For
this reason, a parametric study is performed by increasing the solar multiple (SM) and the number of hours of TES.
A study done to identify the optimum hours of storage for this plant revealed that with a SM of 3 and 16 hours of
TES capacity factors as high as 92.19% could be reached. However, upon consultation with ESKOM stakeholders, a
capacity factor (CF) constraint of 60 % was recommended to determine the effect on the optimum storage capacity
and investment costs [31]. Hence, in this study, the SM is fixed at 1.8 and number of hours of TES is fixed at 8.
For the energy performance, hourly DNI values from the weather data have been used. This weather data uses
hourly values from a TMY3 file for Upington. The optical power is summed up during each hour for each heliostat
in the field to get the annual energy reflected by the solar field to the receiver [32]. The annual energy reaching the

030038-6
receiver is approximated using the individual heliostat area ( Aheliostat ), the number of heliostats in the field
( N heliostat ), the annual direct normal irradiance value ( DNI ) and the solar field efficiency ( SF ) as follows [29]:
E REC  Aheliostat  N heliostat  DNI   SF (5)
The net annual electrical energy generated by the plant is obtained by assuming a power block efficiency ( PB )
of 40%, a solar to thermal efficiency of the receiver ( REC ) and a capacity factor ( CF ) of 60% and is expressed as:
E PB  E REC   PB   REC  CF (6)
The total installed costs involved during the construction are calculated by summing up the direct and indirect
capital costs. O&M costs are calculated separately based on the number of personnel required in the three heliostat
fields. The annual fuel costs are considered to be null since the power towers plants are considered as solar only i.e.
without any hybridization. Table 5 shows the thermo-economic performance of the three heliostat fields with the
single and derived indicators used to obtain the LCOE which is used as the figure of merit to compare the heliostats.

TABLE 5. Thermo-economic performance and LCOE of the three heliostat fields.

Field with large Field with medium Field with small
Single/derived indicators
heliostat heliostat heliostat
Capital recovery factor (%) 9.88 9.88 9.88

Heliostat field cost ($/m2) 176.26 166.23 165.69

Total capital costs ($) 587 966 857.00 565 893 074.07 541 617 452.15

Annual O&M costs ($) 8 107 845.41 8 266 131.64 8 546 940.91

Annual electrical energy (GWh) 351.75 366.32 336.51

LCOE ($/kWh) 0.1874 0.1745 0.1827

CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK

The theoretical framework for investigating the effects of heliostat size on the levelized cost of electricity
(LCOE) for power tower plants has been presented. A large, medium and a small size heliostat with total areas of
115.56 m2, 43.3 m2 and 15.67 m2 respectively are considered. The results indicate that lowest LCOE values are
achieved by the medium size heliostat with an area of 43.3 m2 for this configuration. The results also indicate that
heliostat ‘cost per unit area’ should not be taken as the sole figure of merit, but rather as a guideline while
comparing heliostats of different sizes. Heliostat scaling effects, learning curve benefits, the price index and the
optical performance of the heliostat field layout should be considered to choose the best suitable heliostat size.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank the department of Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering, Stellenbosch University
and members of the Solar Thermal Energy Research Group (STERG).

REFERENCES
1. A. Pfahl, “Survey of Heliostat Concepts for Cost Reduction,” J. Sol. Energy Eng., vol. 136, no. 1, pp. 014501–
(1–9), 2014.
2. M. Suri, “Site Assessment of Solar Resource :Upington Solar Park,” 2011.
3. J. Coventry and J. Pye, “Heliostat cost reduction - Where to now?,” Energy Procedia, vol. 49, pp. 60–70, 2013.
4. U.S. Department of Energy, “SunShot Concentrating Solar Power Program Review 2013,” Phoenix, Arizona,
2013.

030038-7
 5. S. Schell, “Design and evaluation of esolar’s heliostat fields,” Sol. Energy, vol. 85, no. April 2009, pp. 614–
619, 2011.
6. P. Ricklin, M. Slack, D. Rogers, and R. Huibregtse, “Commercial readiness of eSolar next generation
heliostat,” Energy Procedia, vol. 49, pp. 201–208, 2013.
7. G. J. Kolb, S. A. Jones, M. W. Donnelly, D. Gorman, R. Thomas, R. Davenport, and R. Lumia, “Heliostat Cost
Reduction Study,” Albuquerque, New Mexico, 2007.
8. W. A. Landman and P. Gauché, “Analysis of canting strategies using the HFLCAL model,” in Proceedings of
SASEC 2014., 2014, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–7.
9. G. Kolb, C. Ho, T. Mancini, and J. Gary, “Power tower technology roadmap and cost reduction plan,”
Albuquerque, New Mexico, 2011.
10. S. Jones, “Heliostat Cost as a Function of Size For Molten-Salt Power Towers,” 2000.
11. T. Wright, “Factors Affecting the Cost of Airplanes,” J. Aeronaut. Sci. (Institute Aeronaut. Sci., no. 9, pp. 122–
128, 1936.
12. M. J. Wagner and T. Wendelin, “SolarPILOT: A Tool for Solar Power Tower Layout and Optimization,”
Golden, Colorado, 2016.
13. F. Von Reeken, G. Weinrebe, T. Keck, and M. Balz, “Heliostat cost optimization study,” in Conference
proceedings SolarPACES 2015, 2016, pp. 1–8.
14. G. Weinrebe, F. Von Reeken, M. Wöhrbach, T. Plaz, V. Göcke, and M. Balz, “Towards holistic power tower
system optimization,” in Energy Procedia, 2014, vol. 49, pp. 1573–1581.
15. M. Balz, V. Göcke, T. Keck, F. Von Reeken, G. Weinrebe, and M. Wöhrbach, “Stellio – Development ,
Construction and Testing of a Smart Heliostat,” in AIP conference proceedings, 2016.
16. J. B. Blackmon, “Heliostat size optimization for central receiver solar power plants,” in Concentrating solar
power technology: Principles, developments and applications, Woodhead Publishing Limited, 2012.
17. C. S. Turchi and G. A Heath, “Molten Salt Power Tower Cost Model for the System Advisor Model (SAM),”
Golden, Colorado, 2013.
18. J. B. Blackmon, “Parametric determination of heliostat minimum cost per unit area,” Sol. Energy, vol. 97, pp.
342–349, 2013.
19. M. J. Emes, M. Arjomandi, and G. J. Nathan, “Effect of heliostat design wind speed on the levelised cost of
electricity from concentrating solar thermal power tower plants,” Sol. Energy, vol. 115, pp. 441–451, 2015.
20. G. Augsburger, “Thermo-economic optimisation of large solar tower power plants,” École Polytechnique
Federale de Laussane, 2013.
21. G. F. Nemet, “Beyond the learning curve: factors influencing cost reductions in photovoltaics,” Energy Policy,
vol. 34, no. 17, pp. 3218–3232, 2006.
22. F. J. Collado, “Quick evaluation of the annual heliostat field efficiency,” Sol. Energy, vol. 82, no. 4, pp. 379–
384, 2008.
23. E. Leonardi and B. D’Aguanno, “CRS4-2: A numerical code for the calculation of the solar power collected in
a central receiver system,” Energy, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 4828–4837, 2011.
24. C. Gertig, a. Delgado, C. Hidalgo, and R. Ron, “SoFiA - A novel simulation tool for Central Receiver
Systems,” Energy Procedia, vol. 49, pp. 1361–1370, 2013.
25. F. M. F. Siala and M. E. Elayeb, “Mathematical formulation of a graphical method for a no-blocking heliostat
field layout,” Renew. energy, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 77–92, 2001.
26. O. C. Scheffler, “Optimization of an Optical Field for a Central Receiver Solar Thermal Power Plant,”
Stellenbosch University, 2015.
27. G. Weinrebe, “Holistic Design and Optimization - Concept & Application,” 2014.
28. A. Pfahl, M. Randt, C. Holze, and S. Unterschütz, “Autonomous light-weight heliostat with rim drives,” Sol.
Energy, vol. 92, pp. 230–240, 2013.
29. F. J. Collado and J. Guallar, “A review of optimized design layouts for solar power tower plants with campo
code,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 20, pp. 142–154, 2013.
30. J. Christian, A. Moya, C. Andraka, and J. Yuan, “Probabilistic Analysis to Quantify Optical Performance and
Error Budgets for Next Generation Heliostats,” J. Sol. Energy Eng., vol. 137, pp. 1–8, 2015.
31. K. Madaly, “Identifying the optimum storage capacity for a 100 - MW e concentrating solar power plant in
South Africa,” Stellenbosc University, 2014.
32. J. Kunert, A. Pfahl, and R. Buck, “Dimensioning heliostat drives considering dynamic wind loads,” in
SolarPaces Conference, 2009, pp. 1–8.

030038-8
View publication stats