Solar Energy 274 (2024) 112550

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Solar Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Environmental and economic impacts of photovoltaic integration in

concentrated solar power plants
D. Costa a, b, *, S. De Regel a, b, G. Espadas-Aldana a, b, H. Laget c, R. Kishore d, Y. Meuret d,
F. Duerinckx b, e, f
a
Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO), Boeretang 200, 2400 Mol, Belgium
b
EnergyVille, Thor Park 8310, 3600 Genk, Belgium
c
AZTEQ, Thor Park 8300, 3600 Genk, Belgium
d
Light and Lighting Laboratory, Department of Electrical Engineering (ESAT), KU Leuven, Gebroeders De Smetstraat 1, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
e
Imec division imo-imomec, Thor Park 8320, 3600 Genk, Belgium
f
Hasselt University, Wetenschapspark 1, 3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study conducted an environmental and economic assessment of an innovative hybrid energy generation
Concentrated solar power (CSP) system, a CSP+ plant, which integrates photovoltaic (PV) panels in a concentrated solar power (CSP) setup. The
Photovoltaic (PV) CSP+ concept uses a beam splitter that transmits part of the incident solar spectrum towards the PV cells for
Life cycle assessment (LCA)
electricity generation and reflects ultraviolet and infrared light to the receiver tube for heating. This system
Levelized cost of electricity (LCOE)
Levelized cost of heat (LCOH)
allows more efficient use of solar radiation in a compact system with optimal efficiency.
The environmental impacts were assessed using the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology, focusing on the
climate change impact category. The economic impacts were calculated using the levelized cost of electricity
(LCOE) and the levelized cost of heat (LCOH). Both assessments considered a cradle-to-grave perspective in three
scenarios (SC). SCI considered only electricity generation, while SCII involved the combined production of
electricity and heat. These scenarios were compared to conventional CSP and PV technologies (SCIII) and
benchmark values from the literature.
The LCA results showed SCII was the most preferable: the impacts on climate change were reduced by up to
83% for electricity production and up to 97% for heat production compared to benchmark values. In SCII, the
LCOE and the LCOH in the CSP+ plant were lower than the average benchmark values, with reductions of up to
70% for electricity and 40% for heat. The sensitivity analysis showed that the environmental performance was
strongly influenced by the operating lifetime. For economic performance, the weighted cost of capital was the
most influential factor.

List of acronyms List of acronyms (continued )

OCDE Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
CSP Concentrated solar power O&M Operation and maintenance
CST Concentrated solar thermal PEFCR Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules
DHI Diffuse horizontal irradiance PERC Passivated emitter and rear cell
DNI Direct normal irradiation PV Photovoltaic
EoL End of life SC Scenario
GHI Global horizontal irradiance Si Silicon
IR Infrared sc-Si Single-crystalline silicon
LCA Life cycle assessment UV Ultraviolet
LCI Life cycle inventory WACC Weighted average cost of capital
LCOE Levelized cost of electricity
LCOH Levelized cost of heat
(continued on next column)

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: daniele.costa@vito.be (D. Costa).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2024.112550
Received 6 February 2024; Received in revised form 10 April 2024; Accepted 15 April 2024
Available online 26 April 2024
0038-092X/© 2024 International Solar Energy Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Costa et al.
1. Introduction
Increased energy generation via renewable sources, particularly
solar energy, is critical to achieve the objectives of the Green Deal [45],
according to which Europe will be the first climate-neutral continent by
2050 [19]. Concentrated solar power (CSP) and concentrated solar
thermal (CST) are technologies for generating electricity and heat from
solar energy, respectively. CSP plants have evolved considerably and are
attracting increasing interest since they are independent of fuels and
have low operating costs [1]. However, even though the installed ca­
pacity of CSP plants has increased in recent years [37], few studies in the
scientific literature have addressed the environmental and economic
impacts of CST or CSP plants.
In CST and CSP plants, the solar radiation is concentrated on a solar
receiver, heating a transfer fluid. The resulting heat can either be used
directly in CST plants or, in the CSP case, transferred to steam [47] to
Fig. 1. Schematic drawing of the proposed CSP+ approach (a) cross-section of the photovoltaic system (b). Legend: IR – infrared, NIR – near-infrared, UV – ul­
traviolet, and VIS – visible.
2
Solar Energy 274 (2024) 112550
generate electricity in a conventional power cycle [55,57]. The thermal
energy storage system in the plant provides a buffer against immediate
fluctuations of solar radiation, thus extending the duration for which
energy can be supplied [47]. Therefore, a CSP plant can work at full load
for several hours without sunlight, and its operation can be compared to
conventional power generation plants.
The CSP+ project is based on hybrid power demonstrator plants that
combine photovoltaic (PV) and CSP systems. Even though other con­
cepts integrating PV and CSP exist [32,42,51], the CSP+ concept
(detailed in Section 1.1) innovates by integrating PV cells within the
mirrors of the CSP plant structure. Integrating CSP with a PV system
leverages the strengths of both technologies to improve the reliability
and efficiency of the system. Such integration allows for more consistent
power generation throughout the day since CSP can generate power
during periods of low solar radiation, complementing the intermittent
PV generation and leading to a more stable and reliable power output
D. Costa et al.
from the integrated plant. The synergy between CSP and PV could be a
breakthrough technology for the CSP industry and support the decar­
bonization of the energy mix in Europe, moving towards achieving net
zero carbon emissions by 2050.
However, to fully understand the implications of the CSP+ concept,
this study investigates its environmental and economic performance
from a life cycle perspective. For that, the life cycle assessment (LCA)
method is employed to support a robust assessment of the environmental
performance of products and processes. The levelized cost of electricity
(LCOE) and the levelized cost of heat (LCOH) are calculated for the
economic assessment. Two locations are considered, namely Belgium
(Ostend) and Spain (Seville). The economic and environmental perfor­
mance of electricity and heat production at the CSP+ plant are
compared to conventional CST and PV systems and with benchmark
values from the literature. In addition, a sensitivity analysis is carried
out to identify parameters affecting the environmental and economic
performances.
1.1. The CSP+ concept and innovative aspects
The CSP+ concept combines a parabolic trough concentrated solar
power plant with PV cells and a central receiver tube to generate thermal
and electrical energy in a compact system with optimal efficiency. An
innovative aspect is that the parabolic structure contains a 13-layer
optical coating (alternating titanium dioxide and silicon dioxide
layers) and PV cells instead of the silver mirror coating used in con­
ventional CSP systems (Fig. 1). Together with the encapsulant layers and
the two glasses, this makes up the complete CSP+ parabola. In the CSP+
system, the reflective layer in the parabola is a dichroic mirror, which is
transparent to a part of the light spectrum. The parabolic mirrors reflect
the incoming solar light onto a central focal line, in which a receiver
tube is placed, which captures the light and transfers the heat to the heat
transfer fluid flowing through the pipe.
Another innovative aspect is that the dichroic mirrors split the sun­
light spectrum, transmitting the visible part of the spectrum to the PV
cells for electricity generation while reflecting ultraviolet (UV) and
infrared (IR) light, which PV cells cannot efficiently use, to the receiver
tube for heating. By separating the incoming light, each system receives
the wavelengths for which its efficiency is the highest. Another inno­
vation is that the PV cells mounted behind the dichroic mirror are
bifacial. Therefore, the PV system uses direct and diffuse sunlight
transmitted through the dichroic coating and light reflected from the
surroundings falling onto the rear of the parabola. For the bifacial PV
cells sandwiched between the two glasses, passivated emitter and rear
cells (PERC) were chosen. Mono-Si modules based on PERC cells are
mass-produced by various manufacturers and are the dominant tech­
nology for PV solar panels today [67].
2. Methodology
The description of the assessed systems and their energy output is
presented in Sections 2.1 and 2.2. For the assessment of environmental
impacts, the LCA methodology was applied (Section 2.3). The life cycle
inventory (LCI) is presented in Section 2.4. For the assessment of eco­
nomic impacts, the LCOE and the LCOH were used (Section 2.5). A
sensitivity analysis was conducted for both assessments (Section 2.6).
2.1. System description
The CSP+ system corresponds to pilot plants that are not connected
to the energy grid. For this study, plants were considered to be installed
in Ostend, Belgium and Seville, Spain. The CSP+ plant lifetime is 25
years. The plants are based on modular segments with dimensions of 12
m x 5.77 m aligned in rows. This study considers a plant with 10 seg­
ments and one row at both locations. The system can be divided into CSP
and PV parts for modelling purposes, as presented in Section 2.3. The
3
Solar Energy 274 (2024) 112550
cradle-to-grave system boundaries are shown in Fig. 2. For the envi­
ronmental and economic assessment, the production of electricity and
heat by the CSP plant is analyzed and compared with conventional
technologies for environmental and economic impacts. The considered
scenarios and functional units are defined below:
• Scenario I (SCI): production of 1 MWh of electricity in the CSP+
plant.
• Scenario II (SCII): production of 1 MWh of energy (heat and elec­
tricity) in the CSP+ plant. In this scenario, an allocation based on
energy content is conducted since heat and electricity are produced
in the same plant.
• Scenario III (SCIII): production of 1 MWh of electricity in a con­
ventional PV system without a tracking system and 1 MWh of heat in
a conventional CST plant.
2.2. Energy output
The energy output per scenario is calculated based on the average
monthly day, considering solar irradiation data from EnergyPlus [16].
This dataset comprises hourly direct normal irradiation (DNI), global
horizontal irradiance (GHI) and diffuse horizontal irradiance (DHI) for a
typical day in any given month. These values are used to calculate the
average yearly DNI for Ostend and Seville as 746 kWh/m2 and 1773
kWh/m2, respectively. The average yearly GHI values for Ostend and
Seville were calculated to be 1039 kWh/m2 and 1776 kWh/m2,
respectively. The energy output (electricity and heat in the CSP+ plants
in SCI and SCII) is based on simulations (described in Section 2.2.1). For
these simulations, the complete hourly datasets with actual solar posi­
tions are obtained from the Python library Astropy [62,63,64]. The
energy outputs for electricity and heat production in conventional CST
and PV systems are described in Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, respectively.
2.2.1. CSP+
Fontanot et al. [26] present the detailed system design and the
modelling framework of the comprehensive multi-physics model
developed to predict electrical and thermal energy production in CSP+
systems. Multi-physics modelling for PV modules is a well-established
domain [59], while equivalent models for hybrid CSP and PV systems
are scarce [71]. Even within the subset of hybrid CSP and PV systems
incorporating beam-splitting coatings, the designs in the existing liter­
ature have considerable variations. The modelling framework considers
various aspects, including optical, thermal, and PV elements, and in­
corporates long-term weather monitoring data for accurate predictions.
The energy output of the CSP+ system in SCI and SCII is based on this
modelling framework, which comprises thermal and electrical models.
For SCI, all the heat is used for electricity generation, i.e., the thermal
conversion factor is 100%. In this scenario, where only electricity is
produced, the thermal-to-electricity conversion efficiency, equivalent to
the Rankine cycle efficiency of the power block, is assumed to be 25%.
This value is aligned with other values previously reported [6,51].
The input to these models comes from an optical model, which
supplies the spectral irradiance distribution on the front and back of the
parabolic trough to the electrical model, while the thermal model sup­
plies the optical power distribution on the thermal receiver tube. The
optical model computes the spectral irradiance via optical ray tracing
over the entire parabolic trough. A single degree of freedom for tracking
the sun is considered, such that the trough is rotated in a plane
orthogonal to the focal line. The DNI and DHI are functions of the
geographical location and the time of the year. The spectrum used is the
standard AM 1.5 solar spectrum from the ASTMG-173 spectra [53]. The
transmittance and reflectance of the dichroic mirror coating are func­
tions of the angle of incidence and wavelength. The ray tracing software
used for this purpose can calculate the transmittance and reflectance of
the coating provided by the coating design [65]. The daily solar posi­
tions corresponding to the irradiance data are used in the geometrical
D. Costa et al.
Fig. 2. System boundaries for all scenarios. Legend: CSP – concentrated solar power, CST – concentrated solar thermal, EoL – end of life, O&M – operation and
maintenance, PV – photovoltaic, SC – scenario. The orange box represents the CSP part of the CSP+ system (SCI and SCII) and the CST (SCIII). The green box
represents the PV part of the CSP+ system (SCI and SCIII) and conventional PV in SCIII. Light lines represent sub-stages. Dashed lines represent sub-stages that are not
considered in SCIII. Blue boxes represent the assessed scenarios.
calculations. The effect of the DHI is modelled by considering the diffuse
source to be a Lambertian hemisphere. The ground is also considered to
be a Lambertian plane, and albedo values specific to the ground type are
considered to model the reflection.
The electrical model is a physic-based simulation framework that
uses a single diode model and the thermal properties of the PV cells to
derive the current–voltage characteristics and the system’s power
output [30]. The electrical model output consists of the hourly electrical
power, while the thermal model output consists of the hourly thermal
power, outlet temperature and mass flow rate of the heat transfer fluid in
the thermal receiver. Both simulated energy outputs are resolved hourly
for a typical day of each month.
The thermal model enables calculating the temperature distribution
of the thermal receiver tube and the heat transfer fluid along the tube
length using a steady-state energy balance. The temperature distribution
is then used to calculate the thermal power output. Heat losses are
assumed to be only radiative to the environment at 25 ◦ C. A uniform
heat flux is considered along the entire tube. The Gnielinski correlation
[29] describes the convective heat transfer to the heat transfer fluid. The
properties of the heat transfer fluid are considered dependent on the
temperature.
2.2.2. Conventional CST plant
To determine the heat generated in a conventional CST plant in SCII,
the calculation of the total heat (ECSP− h ) follows Equation (1) [6]. The
calculation of the ECSP− h is based on the DNI. The ηh,CSP was measured
empirically in the pilot plant and corresponds to 45%.
ECSP− = DNI × ηh,CSP × ACSP
h
Where: ECSP− h is the total heat output in kWh/yr; DNI is the direct
normal irradiation in kWh/m2yr; ηh,CSP is the solar-to-heat efficiency in
%; and ACSP is the solar field aperture in m2.
Solar Energy 274 (2024) 112550
2.2.3. Photovoltaic cells
To determine the total electricity output generated (EPV− out ) by the
conventional bifacial PV panels in SCIII, Equation (2) is used [56]. This
approach is based on existing guidelines for the LCA of PV systems [28],
and the reference performance ratio of 0.75 MJ/MJ already includes the
annual degradation rates. The energy output is calculated based on the
GHI from Ostend and Seville, cell area, efficiency, and concrete albedo.
EPV− = GHI × APV × ηPV × PR × t × (1 + Al) (2)
out
Where: EPV− out is the electricity output; GHI is the location-specific
global horizontal irradiation in kWh/m2yr; APV is the surface area of
the PV modules in m2; ηPV is the module efficiency in % under standard
test conditions, i.e., per 1000 W/m2; PR is the initial performance ratio
(excluding degradation due to ageing); t is the lifetime of PV modules in
years; and Al is the albedo in %.
2.3. Life cycle assessment
The LCA follows the ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 standards [39–40]
and is conducted in four steps: goal and scope definition; life cycle in­
ventory collection; and life cycle impact assessment. The goal of the
attributional LCA is to assess the impacts of electricity and heat pro­
duction on climate change from cradle to grave. The scenarios, system
boundaries, geographical scope, and function units were previously
described in Section 2.1.
(1) 2.4. Life cycle inventory
To compile the LCI, all inputs and outputs from raw material
extraction, manufacturing, use phase, and end of life (EoL) treatment are
quantified [39–40]. The foreground LCI data for the CSP+ plant was
compiled with primary data for the environmental and economic as­
sessments provided by the project partners. The source of background
data was the ecoinvent database version 3.9, system model cutoff [68].
4
D. Costa et al.
As referred, the CSP+ concept can be divided into a CSP part (Section
2.4.1) and a PV part (Section 2.4.2). These sections also present the LCI
for the conventional CST plant and the conventional PV system. Sections
2.4.3 and 2.4.4 describe operation and maintenance (O&M) as well as
plant decommissioning stages.
2.4.1. Conventional CST and CSP+ components
The modelling of the CSP part of the CSP+ plant is assumed to be
equivalent to the conventional CST system in SCIII. The land occupation
is assumed to be that of an industrial plant. The land use of the CSP+
plant is twice the area of the total number of segments, with the area of
one segment equivalent to about 69 m2. The components of the CSP+
part are the solar field equipment (comprising the foundations, receiver
structure, mirror and coating), the heat transfer system, the thermal
energy storage system, and the power block. These components are
modelled based on the number of segments. The CST plant has the same
components, except for the power block.
The receiver structure materials are lean concrete along with steel for
manufacturing A-pylons, drive pylons, torque boxes and the receiver
supporting arm. Two different structure foundations are used. Com­
bined, the foundations use about 1.6 m3 of lean concrete and about 10.2
m3 of reinforced concrete (BE 500 steel and concrete C30/37). The
concrete density is 2370 kg/m3 [23]. A 4% rate of excess concrete is
adopted, and 2% of the total concrete used is counted as waste [23]. The
amount of steel for the reinforced concrete corresponds to 100 kg/m3 of
reinforced concrete, while reinforced concrete steel density is 2300 kg/
m3 [66,68]. The excess and losses of reinforced concrete are assumed to
be the same as those of regular concrete. It is assumed that there are no
steel losses.
The receiver structure contains a 13-layer mirror with unitary di­
mensions of 1700 mm x 1641 mm and 1700 mm x 1501 mm for inner
and outer mirrors, respectively, with a thickness of 4 mm and mass per
area of 2520 kg/m2. Each segment has 7 modules of 4 mirrors around
the central pipe, 2 of size 1700 mm x 1501 mm and 2 of size 1700 mm x
1641 mm. Therefore, a total of 28 mirrors per segment are installed. The
mirrors have a 13-layer coating made of SiO2 and TiO2 with trans­
mittance in the 300–2500 nm range. Each layer composing the coating
has a thickness of about 200 nm, leading to a final thickness of about 6
μm. Approximately 3.3 g/m2 of SiO2 and 3.4 g/m2 of TiO2 are used for
the coating. The dichroic mirror coating reflects roughly 90% in the IR
region above 1100 nm while transmitting a similar percentage of pho­
tons between 500 and 1100 nm to the PV cells.
The steel piping system and the heat transfer fluid comprise the heat
transfer system. The piping consists of 4 m of combined vacuum receiver
tubes with a steel core and a glass envelope. The heat transfer fluid is a
commercial linear, non-reactive polydimethylsiloxane (the main prop­
erties are shown in Table 1). The total amount of heat transfer fluid
corresponds to the capacity of the piping system per solar collector
module, i.e., 4.10E-05 m3 per segment. No fluid replacement is
considered over the life cycle of the CSP+ plant.
The power block (only present in SCI and SCII) and the thermal
storage system (for SCII and SCIII) are also considered. Secondary data
from a commercial 50 MW solar thermal parabolic trough plant were
used to compile the LCI for the power block and thermal storage [61,68].
For the power block, these data include pressure vessels, compressors,
Table 1
Main properties of the considered heat transfer fluid.
Parameter Value Units
Density (25 ◦ C) 0.92 g/cm3
Flashpoint (Pensky-Marten) 120 ◦
C
pH 7 −
Ignition temperature 358 ◦
C distance travelled for O&M activities is assumed to be 50 km, consid­
Viscosity (25 ◦ C) 4–6 mm2/s
Heat of combustion 26.3 MJ/kg
Ignition temperature 358 ◦
C
5
Solar Energy 274 (2024) 112550
heat exchangers with cooling towers, and steam turbine generators as
the main systems. The secondary LCI consists of a hot and cold two-stage
nitrate salt thermal storage system for heat storage. The storage tanks
are designed for 3 to 6 h of storage time. This system includes nitrogen
pressure vessels, storage tanks, pumps, pipes, electrical wiring, insu­
lation, concrete, and paint works.
2.4.2. Photovoltaic cells and panels
The CSP+ plant comprises the PV cells incorporated in the segment
mirrors. So, for the PV cells in the CSP+, the land use is equivalent to the
CSP component, following the estimates previously described. For the
conventional PV panels (SCIII), the land use requirement is assumed to
be equivalent to the total required area, which is assumed to be 7 m2/
kWp [54].
The mirrors referred to in Section 2.4.1, although different in size,
house single-crystalline (sc-Si) silicon glass-glass PERC cells with
(158.75 mm x 158.75 mm = 252.02 cm2), making a total of 90 cells per
segment. The cells are composed of single-Si wafers with a thickness of
160 µm and have 2 mm spacing between them. For all scenarios, the
PERC cells have 22.50% efficiency [67] and 5.67 Wp/cell. Therefore,
the 90-cell panel has a nominal power of 510.3 Wp. The lifetime of the
PV cells is assumed to be the same as the CSP+ plant, i.e., 25 years. This
is a conservative approach, considering that several studies have
described a lifetime of 30 years [27].
The LCI of the PERC cells considers the global market for single-Si
wafer PV cell production in the ecoinvent database, which was modi­
fied to reflect the global PERC cell market. The original process was
adapted to consider only solar-grade silicon use and a wafer thickness of
170 µm. Therefore, the mono-Si wafer input in this process was changed,
and the electronic grade was replaced by solar grade-Si. All inputs in the
Ecoinvent database remained equal, but the rear passivation layer and
dielectric opening processes were included based on [48].
The glass-glass module comprehends a wiring system (0.11 kg/m2)
and 2 layers of low iron solar glass coating with 2 mm thickness (density
of 2.530 kg/m3) and solar cells with 160 µm thickness and mass of 395 g.
For all scenarios, the ecoinvent market process for PV panels was
adjusted to correspond to panels composed of PERC solar cells. For SCI
and SCII, the aluminium content was removed, as it is not present in the
CSP+ plant. Other material shares from the original process remained
equal. The mass of the conventional PV module is 14.74 kg/m2, with a
material mass share of 0.686 kg/kg of glass, 0.101 kg/kg of plastics,
0.178 kg/m2 of aluminium and 0.0008 kg/kg of copper. The PV system
in the CSP+ is assumed to have the same materials, except aluminium
for the framing, resulting in a weight of 12.11 kg/m2 and mass shares of
0.835 kg/kg of glass, 0.123 kg/kg of plastics and 0.0009 kg/kg of
copper.
Finally, 2 inverters with a nominal capacity of 150 kWh are
considered in all scenarios (except for heat production in SCIII). The
lifetime of the inverters is assumed to be 12.5 years, with 10%
replacement of parts over this period [12,28]. The efficiency of the
inverter is 93.4% [68]. The number of required inverters is adjusted
according to the nominal power output of the PV system.
2.4.3. Operation and maintenance
For the CST and CSP+ plants, the O&M activities are limited to
surface cleaning using trucks [44] and water use for dry cooling. The
same operations are recommended for PV installations to reduce the loss
of efficiency due to the soiling caused by dust and snow deposition
[20,58]. Therefore, for all scenarios, O&M operations are assumed to
occur once a year, using a 3.5 t EURO 6 lorry as a proxy for existing
cleaning vehicles used, with water consumption of 20 L/m2 of the total
panel surface [20,44], which is considered wastewater after use. The
ering the on-site truck use and its displacement to the site. Water con­
sumption for dry cooling corresponds to 0.3 m3/MWh [36].
D. Costa et al. Solar Energy 274 (2024) 112550

2.4.4. Plant decommissioning Table 2

The CSP+ and CST plants are assumed to be completely dismantled Financial parameters for calculating the levelized cost of electricity and lev­
at their EoL. The steel used in the solar field equipment and the heat elized cost of heat of the CSP+ plants in Seville and Ostend. Legend: CSP –
transfer system is assumed to be recovered at a recycling rate of 80% concentrated solar power, CST – concentrated solar thermal, PV – photovoltaic,
[44]. The remaining steel fraction is assumed to be disposed of in an WACC – weighted average cost of capital. Capital costs and personnel costs are
not disclosed for confidentiality reasons.
inert sanitary landfill along with the mirrors and receiver tubes, and the
heat transfer fluid is incinerated with energy recovery. Parameter Value Unit Source
Due to the still limited waste stream today, PV modules are mainly Total capital investment (PV)
treated in recycling plants designed to treat laminated glass, metals or Capital costs (PV) 0.48 EUR/Wp [38]
electronic waste [60]. It is assumed that PV components are treated in a Inverter cost 0.055 EUR/WattDC Project information

recycling plant, allowing the recovery of steel, aluminium and copper.

The PV EoL is based on [60], which considers data obtained from Total capital investment (CSP+/CST)
Capital costs EUR/m2 Project information
recycling companies. At the EoL, glass and copper are recycled, while <
500 aperture area
silicon components and polymers are disposed of in a sanitary landfill or
incinerated [60]. This approach assumes that bulk materials, i.e., glass,
Total operation and maintenance costs
aluminium and copper, are recovered, while the cells and other mate­
Personnel costs − % of the total Project information
rials, such as plastics, are incinerated according to the mass fraction of capital cost
each component (reflecting the material composition reported in Sec­ Operational costs – 0.033 USD/kWh [38]
tion 2.4.2). Finally, for the inverters EoL, it is assumed that aluminium, Belgium
copper and steel are recovered, and their plastic components are Operational costs – 0.025 USD/kWh [38]
Spain
disposed of in a sanitary landfill.

Discount rate
2.4.5. Life cycle impact assessment
WACC real (PV) – 1.90 % [38]
The LCA uses the climate change impact category from the Envi­ Belgium
ronmental Footprint 3.1 impact assessment method [4], as recom­ WACC real (PV) – 3.60 % [38]
mended by the European Commission [18,21]. Since there are no Spain
guidelines for the assessment of the life cycle impacts of CSP plants, the WACC real (CSP) 7.50 % [11] and [52]
Inflation 1.45 % [22] and [70]
study complies with existing the methodological guidelines [28] and the Other – USD/EUR 0.904 USD/EUR Average exchange rate from
Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) for PV mod­ conversion 2021 to 2023 from [17]
ules used in PV power systems for electricity generation [20].

equivalent to 0.48 EUR/Wp, estimated based on the average global

2.5. Levelized cost of energy and levelized cost of heat
The economic assessment considers the system boundaries, LCI, and
assumptions used in the LCA. The LCOE and LCOH methods are widely
accepted and used to compare the economic costs of a given technology
[33]. Although several approaches to calculate LCOE and LCOH exist,
they can be defined as indicators of the unit energy cost over the life
cycle of a project, including capital costs, operating costs, fuel, interest
on loans, repairs, and decommissioning [3,25,33]. The adopted
approach for the LCOE and LCOH calculation is described by Equation
(3) [33,38]. The parameters considered for calculating the LCOE are
shown in Table 2. The parameters and the choices of the range values in
the sensitivity analysis are discussed in sections 2.5.1 to 2.5.4.
/ ∑
C + nt=1 (Rt + O&Mt + Dt ) × (1 + WACCreal )− t
LCOE LCOH = ∑n − t (3)
t=1 (E)(1 + WACCreal )
Where: LCOE is the levelized cost of electricity; LCOH is the levelized
cost of heat; C is the total capital investment; Rt is the reinvestment in
year t; O&Mt is the operation and maintenance costs in year t; Dt is the
decommissioning and waste management costs in year t; WACCreal is the
real weighted average cost of capital; and E is the energy output (heat or
electricity).
2.5.1. Capital costs and land costs
The capital costs of the thermal part of the CSP+ plant include the
solar field equipment (foundations and structure), mirror and coating
system, heat transfer system, thermal storage and power block (SCI and
SCII). The final value is not disclosed due to confidentiality issues, but it
is under 500 EUR per m2 of the aperture area. The same values are
assumed for the conventional CST (SCIII), but the power block costs are
excluded.
For the PV part, the capital costs correspond to the cost of the PV cells
and the cost of the inverters. The cost of the PV modules is assumed to be
the same for the CSP+ plant and the conventional PV. The cost is
prices for bifacial panels [38]. The same costs are assumed for the PV
system in SCIII. It is assumed that the capital costs include site devel­
opment, components and system costs, assembly and financing costs.
The capital costs exclude grid connection costs. The cost of the inverters
is 0.055 USD/WDC [24], and replacing parts is considered a reinvest­
ment in year 12 of 10% of the inverter cost [12,28]. For simplicity, land
costs are not considered.
2.5.2. Operation and maintenance, personnel, and insurance costs
O&M costs for CSP+ and CST plants include plant operation and field
maintenance, such as replacing mechanical parts and mirrors, among
other operations [15,38]. O&M costs are 0.025 USD/kWh for Spain and
0.033 USD/kWh for Belgium (using French values as a proxy)[38].
These values are assumed to be the same for CSP+ and conventional CST
plants. These values include insurance costs, which should be consid­
ered due to the technological risks associated with PV and CSP systems
[31].
As previously described, the O&M costs of PV systems without
moving parts consist of regular cleaning, performance monitoring and
inverter replacement. The conventional PV system operation costs in
both locations were obtained from field operators and corresponded to
14.90 EUR/KWp, a value 25% lower than the average of Organisation
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OCDE) countries [38].
This value is assumed to be the same for the CSP+ system.
2.5.3. Decommissioning costs
As data on decommissioning costs is scarce in the scientific literature,
so it was assumed that the cost corresponds to 10% of the capital costs
for all scenarios. The EoL also considers the revenues from recovered
steel and aluminium. Data from the World Bank [69] on aluminium and
pig ore were linearly extrapolated to estimate the residual value at
decommissioning.

6
D. Costa et al.
2.5.4. Weighted cost of capital and discount rate
The discount rate, often represented by the weighted average cost of
capital (WACC), is a crucial parameter. It reflects the cost of capital to
discount monetary values and is particularly relevant in evaluating
projects for capital-intensive renewable power generation technologies
with low or zero fuel costs [36]. The WACC describes different capital
sources and reflects shares of equity and debt and suitable returns [46].
WACC discount rates vary considerably depending on the technology,
location, kind of investors, and country-specific aspects [13].
The real discount rate represents the real flux of money and energy,
which is not impacted by future inflation [8,41]. The real after-tax
WACC for solar PV technologies in Belgium and Spain in 2021 corre­
sponded to 1.90% and 3.60%, respectively [38]. For CSP technologies,
the real WACC is assumed to be 7.5%, and differentiation by country was
not feasible within the available literature [11,52]. The real after-tax
WACC values for the European Union range between 1.80% and
5.50% [38]. PV and CSP systems have greater technological risks in
comparison with traditional power plants [34], which is reflected in
higher WACC. For calculating future costs, the inflation rate based on
consumer prices is 1.45%, corresponding to the average annual inflation
rates from 2017 to 2021 in the Eurozone [22,70].
2.6. Sensitivity analysis
A sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the effects of the
different modelling assumptions. For the LCA, sensitivity analysis based
on a perturbation analysis was conducted – Equation (4). This approach
identifies how parameter changes lead to deviations in results. The
selected parameters are adjusted by ± 10%, deriving a sensitivity factor
representing the relative changes in results. The parameters selected for
the sensitivity analysis are the lifetime of the plant, the material re­
covery factor at the EoL (i.e., steel recovery), and the efficiency of the
Rankine cycle for thermal energy conversion to electricity. Additionally,
for SCII, the effects of the different thermal conversion for electricity and
heat production are analysed based on changing it from 0 to 100%.
Δ result
Sensitivityfactor = initialresult
(4)
Δ parameter
initialparameter
A sensitivity analysis of the economic impacts was also carried out. For
that, a range of values was assumed to reflect the market changes better
than the simple parameter variation. The sensitivity analysis is con­
ducted to investigate the effects of high inflation values. Therefore, a
change in the annual inflation rates from 1% to 15% is considered. In
Fig. 3. Summary of total energy production in the analysed scenarios. Legend: SC – scenario.
7
Solar Energy 274 (2024) 112550
addition, a sensitivity analysis to WACC values for the CSP+ plant is
conducted based on changes from 0% to 7.5%.
3. Results and discussion
Based on the simulations and calculations described in Section 2.2,
the total energy output for all scenarios is shown in Fig. 3. The major
differences observed in these results are in the energy production in SCI
and SCIII, mostly due to the assumptions adopted in the energy calcu­
lation based on optical simulations. When comparing electricity pro­
duction, a CSP+ plant produces higher overall electricity. This is mainly
due to the dichroic mirror coating design, which ensures that the solar-
to-electricity conversion is carried out much more efficiently. Heat
generation in SCIII is the highest, as all solar radiation is used at an ef­
ficiency higher than that of the CSP+ plant. For the CSP+ plant, about
33% of the incident energy is reflected in the thermal receiver. This is
further reduced as optical simulations are more detailed to estimate the
total heat production and consider the actual solar positions in relation
to the trough, leading to solar to thermal efficiencies that are lower than
those in the CST plant.
3.1. Life cycle assessment
The impacts on climate change per life cycle stage for all scenarios
are shown in Fig. 4. The results show the manufacturing of PV cells as
the most critical component for producing the CSP+ plants (51% of total
impacts) and for the conventional PV system (87% of total impacts). For
the conventional PV and the CSP+ systems, the impact of manufacturing
PV modules is driven by the production of monocrystalline silicon using
the Czochralski process (about 36% contribution), mostly due to the
high electricity consumption. The total impact on climate change of the
conventional PV system is about 5% larger than the PV panels in the
CSP+ plant due to the presence of the aluminium frame.
The solar field equipment (foundations, receiver structure, mirrors
and coating system) is the second largest contributor to the impacts in
the CSP+ plant (27% of total impacts) and the greatest contributor to the
impacts of CST plants (68% of the total). For the solar field equipment,
the impacts are explained by the structure (52% of impacts), which is
driven by the use of steel, the foundations (33% of impacts), and the
mirror and coating (15% of impacts). For the CSP+, the thermal storage
and the power block have nearly the same contributions to impacts, 6%
and 5%, respectively.
The EoL of the plant is critical since the avoided production of steel
due to its recovery reduces the total emissions of the CSP+ plant by
D. Costa et al.
Fig. 4. Impact shares per component in each assessed system. Legend: CST – concentrated solar thermal, EoL – end of life, O&M – operation and maintenance, PV –
photovoltaic, SC – scenario.
about 20%, while the figure for the conventional CST plant is 50%. For
the conventional PV in SCIII, the EoL reduces the impacts by about 4%.
The EoL of other materials in the CSP+ and CST plants make a very small
contribution (1% reduction for the CSP+ and 3% reduction for the CST
plant). The EoL of the PV and inverters promotes a reduction of about
2% in SCI and SCII and about 4% in SCIII for the conventional PV sys­
tem. Aluminium recovery explains the greater reduction in conventional
PV.
Fig. 5 presents the impacts of electricity production on climate
change compared to benchmark values for CSP plants [7,9,10,43,49]
and PV systems (considering only studies assessing PERC cells) [48,50].
To support the comparison, the results from some of the benchmark
studies were normalized to match the life cycle of this study, i.e., 25
years [7,10,43,49,50]. Except for [10] and [43], all the studies had
cradle-to-grave system boundaries. The comparison with [43] considers
the system with minimal backup. For the conventional PV, for both
benchmark studies [48,50], China is the location for producing panels,
which is aligned with the LCI modelling of this study.
Regarding absolute values, the impact on climate change of the
CSP+ in SCI is 48 kg CO2eq/MWh in Ostend and 24 kg CO2eq/MWh in
Seville. For SCII, the impacts for electricity production are 17 kg CO2eq/
Fig. 5. Electricity production impacts on climate change per different scenarios and locations compared to benchmark values in the scientific literature. Legend: CSP
– concentrated solar power, PV – photovoltaic, SC – scenario.
8
Solar Energy 274 (2024) 112550
MWh in Ostend and 6 kg CO2eq/MWh in Seville. For SCIII, the emissions
of electricity production in the conventional PV are 43 kg CO2eq/MWh
in Ostend and 25 kg CO2eq/MWh in Seville. The difference in results by
location shows the impact of the different solar irradiation levels, which
leads to different energy production and, consequently, environmental
impacts.
The comparison shows that the impacts of electricity production in
the CSP+ plants are aligned with values reported in the scientific liter­
ature. In SCII, the impacts are reduced compared to benchmark values
by up to 83% compared to CSP only and 77% compared to PV systems.
However, producing only electricity in the CSP+ (SCI) in Ostend creates
the highest impact. These results reflect the lower solar irradiation of
this location and the fact that greater heat-to-electricity efficiencies can
reduce the impacts of the CSP+ plant. For Seville, the impacts on climate
change are lower than the average reported in the benchmark studies.
However, for Ostend, the impacts are higher than the average bench­
mark values in SCI. In all scenarios and locations, the impacts on climate
change are lower than energy production in open-ground installations
reported by the ecoinvent database in Belgium (equivalent to 80
kgCO2eq/MWh for a 570 kWp open-ground installation) and Spain
(equivalent to 65 kgCO2eq/MWh for a 570 kWp open-ground
D. Costa et al.
installation).
The results and benchmark comparison for heat production (SCII and
SCIII) are shown in Fig. 6. Since no study was identified assessing the
specific impacts of heat production in a parabolic trough from a life
cycle perspective, the comparison considers heat generated in heat
generation from biogas and natural gas in Belgium and Spain, based on
the ecoinvent database. For SCII, the impacts on climate change are 15
kgCO2eq/MWh in Ostend and 8 kgCO2eq/MWh in Seville. For heat in
SCIII, the impacts on climate change are 3 kgCO2eq/MWh in Ostend and
6 kgCO2eq/MWh in Seville. The comparison shows that heat production
in the CSP+ reduces impacts by up to 93% compared to heat production
from biogas and 97% compared to heat production from natural gas.
3.2. Levelized cost of energy and levelized cost of heat
The cost breakdown for the CSP+, conventional CST, and PV in­
stallations are shown in Fig. 7. The cost variation per location is mostly
due to O&M costs, which depend on the total energy produced. How­
ever, the distribution of costs is nearly the same across locations for the
CSP+ plant. For SCI and SCII, the cost for the CSP part corresponds to a
maximum of 63% of the total costs. Of this amount, solar field equip­
ment accounts for up to 18%, heat transfer system for up to 8%, power
block for 10%, thermal storage for 11% and other costs (balance of the
plant, contingencies, engineering, and manufacturing labour costs) for
up to 17%.
The LCOE and LCOH results and their comparison with benchmark
alternatives are shown in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9, respectively. LCOE results are
compared to the global average values from 2017 to 2021 [38] and
reported values in the scientific literature [31,32]. [11] discuss different
CSP technologies, but only the results for solar trough technology are
used for comparison. For the comparison with [32], the average of the
conservative values was adopted. The comparison with the results of
[31] considered the average reference case for 2030. For the comparison
with PV, global average values from 2017 to 2021 for the 27 Member
States of the European Union at the utility-scale were considered [5,38].
For the LCOE, the results show that for SCII and SCIII (both loca­
tions), the cost of generating electricity in the CSP+ plant is below the
average of LCOE values [38]. For electricity production in SCI, the LCOE
is higher, 126% in Ostend and 20% in Seville. These differences can be
explained by the different levels of total electricity production at the
locations. On the other hand, for electricity production in SCII, the LCOE
is 15% and 70% smaller than average values for Ostend and Seville,
respectively. Compared to conventional PV, the LCOE is lower for SCIII
Fig. 6. Heat production impacts on climate change per different scenarios and locations compared to benchmark values in the scientific literature. Legend: CST –
concentrated solar thermal, SC – scenario.
9
Solar Energy 274 (2024) 112550
for both locations and equivalent to 16% and 45% reductions from
average values for Ostend and Seville, respectively.
Regarding the LCOH, finding specific cost data of parabolic trough
CSP is challenging, since most studies and reports focus on electricity
generation rather than heat production. For LCOH, the results are
compared with different technologies for heat production reported in
the literature [2,5,11,35]. In [2], the comparison considers the
maximum LCOH values obtained for a hybrid parabolic trough collector
solar-biomass system for heat application. To compare results, the
values reported by [35] for France are used. The LCOH in SCII shows a
cost reduction of 3% for Ostend and 41% for Seville compared to the
average benchmark values. On the other hand, for SCIII, heat production
in Ostend is 21% higher, while in Seville, it is 53% lower than bench­
mark values, which is explained by the different energy production
levels in these locations.
3.3. Sensitivity analysis
Table 3 presents the obtained sensitivity factors. The results show
that lifetime is the most sensitive parameter for the impact on climate
change. Different lifetimes of CSP plants are reported in the scientific
literature: 20 years [49], 25 years [9] and 30 years [7,43]. The challenge
in the CSP+ design is to extend the life cycle of the plant, considering the
lifetime of the solar cells, which suffer a loss of performance due to their
annual degradation rates.
For the material recovery factor, the results indicate that increasing
the recovery rate of steel at the EoL of the plant reduces impacts, but this
mostly affects the production of heat in conventional CST plants. This
can be attributed to the fact that, in the CSP+ plants, the impacts also
include PV manufacturing, affecting the final impact reduction.
Finally, the thermal conversion efficiency, applicable only in SCI,
had minimal sensitivity to the impacts. However, for SCII, increasing the
thermal conversion factor increased the output of electricity output
since it affected the allocation factor between electricity and heat pro­
duction (Fig. 10). Considering that SCI shows environmental impacts for
electricity production only, this sensitivity shows that the conversion
factor, and hence the allocation factor between electricity and heat, can
increase the impacts of electricity and reduce the impacts of heat.
Fig. 11 shows the nonlinear effects of inflation on the LCOE and
LCOH. Extrapolating the inflation to the maximum of 15% would
significantly increase the LCOE and LCOH in all scenarios due to its
compound effect on each aspect of the supply chain and capital expen­
diture. Fig. 12 shows that a reduction of 10% in the WACC corresponds
D. Costa et al. Solar Energy 274 (2024) 112550

Fig. 7. Cost breakdown for all scenarios in Ostend (a) and Seville (b). The category “Other” includes costs for the CSP part and the balance of the plant, contin­
gencies, engineering, and manufacturing labour costs. Legend: CST – concentrated solar thermal, EoL – end of life, O&M – operation and maintenance, PV –
photovoltaic, SC – scenario.

Fig. 8. Levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) results for electricity generation considering global electricity production. Legend: CSP – concentrated solar power, PV –
photovoltaic, SC – scenario.

to an approximate 5% reduction in either the LCOE or LCOH. Consid­
ering both locations, the reduction to a theoretical WACC of 0% would
reduce the LCOE and LCOH by about 36% to 41%, considering all the
scenarios.
3.4. Limitations
Even though several studies suggested the integration of CSP plants
with other renewable energy sources [32,42,51], none have suggested
their integration with PV cells in their design, as proposed in the CSP+
concept. Therefore, a limitation of this study is the difficulty of
comparing results due to the innovative aspects of the plant configura­
tion. Moreover, depending on the targeted supply duty of a CSP plant, its
configuration can vary markedly. For example, the connection to the
grid was not considered, since CSP+ plants mostly target industrial
consumers. Finally, the energy output is an important aspect affecting
the results, since it directly affects the energy generated. Even though
this issue is minimized by the assessment of two locations with very
different solar irradiation levels, the results do not reflect the impacts of
the installation in all regions.
The results showed that the electricity and heat produced in the
CSP+ setup have low carbon emissions compared to existing systems in
all scenarios, and below the national carbon intensity of electricity
generation for Belgium in 2022 (145 kgCO2eq/MWh) and Spain (205
kgCO2eq/MWh) [14]. Generating electricity only in the CSP+ plant
(SCI) produced the highest impacts in all scenarios, particularly for the
installation in Ostend. However, the sensitivity analysis showed that
different conversion factors of heat to electricity could significantly
reduce the impacts of the electricity produced by the plant.
Regarding the economic aspects, the LCOE and LCOH can be refer­
ences for policy-making, but like other economic metrics, they have
limitations as indicators of market competitiveness. LCOE and LCOH
support the choice between different technologies in regulated systems
that assume equality between discounted average costs and stable
remuneration over the lifetime of electricity production [33]. In markets
where operators earn a complex mix of revenues in volatile energy and
flexibility markets, there is a risk that costs may differ for an investor,
even for technologies with identical LCOE and LCOH. In addition, the
comparison between the different technologies may not be fair due to
differences in the scope of the studies, the methods, and different levels

10
D. Costa et al. Solar Energy 274 (2024) 112550

Fig. 9. Levelized cost of heat (LCOH) results for heat production. Legend: AAHP − air-to-air heat pump, AWHP – air-to-water heat pump, CST – concentrated solar
thermal, DST – domestic solar thermal, PTC – parabolic trough collector, SC – scenario.

4. Final remarks
Table 3
Sensitivity factors for lifetime, material recovery factor. Changes are conducted Deploying renewable energy technologies, particularly solar energy,
first based on a 10% increase of the original parameter and second a 10%
is critical to ensure the achievement of climate targets and the objectives
decrease. The order of the “+” or “-” values follows the first and the second
of the Green Deal. The CSP+ plant combines the CSP technology with PV
assessments. Legend: NA – not applicable, SC – scenario.
plants in the same installation, reducing the land use required while
System Technology Location Sensitivity factor allowing greater electricity and heat production flexibility, whether or
Lifetime Material Thermal not connected to the national grid. This study presented the environ­
recovery conversion mental and economic impacts of the CSP+ concept, considering the
factor efficiency
impacts on climate change and the LCOE and LCOH across three
SCI Electricity Ostend − +9% − +3% − +2% different scenarios. The scenarios considered the CSP+ plant operation
Seville − +9% − +3% − +3%
(SCI and SCII) compared to a CST plant and conventional PV generation
(SCIII).
SCII Electricity Ostend − +9% − +3% NA Integrating PV panels in a CSP structure increased the overall elec­
Seville NA
tricity generation (SCI) of conventional PV systems (SCIII) with the
− +9% − +3%
Heat Ostend − +9% − +3% NA
Seville − +9% − +3% NA advantage of flexible heat and electricity production. However, the
combined electricity and heat production in SCII performed better than
SCIII Electricity Ostend − +9% NA NA
in SCI and SCII. SCI is the least preferred option for climate change
Seville − +9% NA NA impacts. Overall, the impacts on climate change are lower for electricity
Heat Ostend − +9% − +11% NA and heat production in Spain, mostly due to the differences in solar
Seville − +9% − +11% NA irradiation. The CSP+ and the conventional CST perform better than
biogas or natural gas alternatives for heat production.
For the CSP+ plant, PV panel production is the most critical aspect of
of technology maturity.
impacts on climate change, followed by the solar field equipment for the
The sensitivity analysis showed that WACC strongly influences the
CSP+. The EoL highly influences the impacts on climate change, but the
LCOE and the LCOH in all scenarios. Therefore, its reduction is critical,
sensitivity to steel recovery rates is low. The allocation factor between
which can be achieved with lower financing costs to ensure the afford­
electricity and heat production (SCII) is also pivotal for environmental
ability of these technologies. Growing market experience and competi­
impacts.
tion can reduce financing costs and measures to manage project-specific
The LCOE showed reduced costs compared to CSP benchmark values
risks. In that sense, a limitation of this study is that the effects of the
for SCII and SCIII in both locations. However, compared to conventional
learning rates are not considered. The effects of the learning rates have
PV benchmark values, SCI and SCII presented higher LCOE values.
shown that LCOE and LCOH can be reduced according to the increased
Except for SCI in Ostend, all LCOE values were within the benchmark
installed capacity in CSP and PV systems, as shown by [31].
values. For the LCOH, SCII presented a reduction compared to bench­
The study demonstrated the environmental and economic feasibility
mark values in both locations. In SCIII, this also occurred for Seville. The
of integrating CSP and PV technologies. However, since our focus is on
sensitivity analysis showed that reducing the WACC for CSP plants is an
the climate change impacts of solar energy generation, only the results
important factor to further reduce the LCOE and LCOH of the CSP+
of this impact category are presented and discussed. Therefore, other
plant.
environmental impact categories should be considered. Since inte­
This study assessed an innovative concept to enhance the deploy­
grating CSP and PV systems can reduce infrastructure and land devel­
ment of solar energy towards decarbonizing electricity and heat pro­
opment costs compared to separate installations, it is particularly
duction. The results showed that integrating CSP and PV technologies
relevant to consider the effects of CSP+ on the reduction of land use,
can lead to cost-effective electricity and heat production with reduced
both from environmental and economic perspectives. This is especially
impacts on climate change. A limitation of this study is that only the
advantageous in areas where land availability is limited or expensive,
impact on climate change was assessed. Therefore, future studies should
making land use a critical aspect for decisions involving energy projects.
investigate the impacts of other relevant environmental categories,

11
D. Costa et al. Solar Energy 274 (2024) 112550

Fig. 10. Impact on climate change due to the thermal conversion factor in scenario II (SCII) in Ostend (a) and Seville (b).

Fig. 11. Levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) and levelized cost of heat (LCOH) sensitivity to inflation rates values for Ostend (a) and Seville (b). Legend: SC
– scenario.

Fig. 12. Levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) and levelized cost of heat (LCOH) sensitivity to weighted average cost of capital (WACC) values for Ostend (a) and
Seville (b). Legend: SC – scenario.

12
D. Costa et al.
particularly land use.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
D. Costa: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Inves­
tigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft,
Writing – review & editing. S. De Regel: Data curation, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Methodology, Project administration. G. Espadas-
Aldana: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – orig­
inal draft. H. Laget: Data curation, Investigation, Project administra­
tion, Resources, Supervision, Validation. R. Kishore: Conceptualization,
Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Software, Writing –
original draft, Writing – review & editing. Y. Meuret: Data curation,
Investigation, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Valida­
tion. F. Duerinckx: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Methodology, Resources, Software, Validation, Writing – original draft,
Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this publication.
Acknowledgements
This work was part of the CSP+ ICON project, funded by VLAIO
(Flanders Innovation and Entrepreneurship) under project number
HBC.2020.2451, and was supported by the Flemish spearhead clusters
Flux50 and Catalisti. The authors also thank Amelie Müller, Annabel
Vella, and Roel Degens for their support during the execution of the
work.
References
[1] O. Achkari, A. El Fadar, Latest developments on TES and CSP technologies – Energy
and environmental issues, applications and research trends, Appl. Therm. Eng. 167
(2020) 114806, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.114806.
[2] P.O.O. Akello, C.O. Saoke, J.N. Kamau, et al., Modeling and performance analysis
of solar parabolic trough collectors for hybrid process heat application in Kenya’s
tea industry using system advisor model, Sustainable Energy Research 10 (1)
(2023) 7, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40807-023-00077-w.
[3] J. Aldersey-Williams, T. Rubert, Levelised cost of energy – A theoretical
justification and critical assessment, Energy Policy 124 (2019) 169–179, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.10.004.
[4] S. Andreasi Bassi, F. Biganzoli, N. Ferrara, et al.. Updated characterisation and
normalisation factors for the Environmental Footprint 3.1 method, Publications
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2023.
[5] T. Badouard, J. Yearwood, et al., Cost of energy (LCOE) – Energy costs, taxes and
the impact of government interventions on investments – Final report, Publications
Office, Brussels, 2020.
[6] J.J. Burkhardt, G. Heath, E. Cohen, Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of trough
and tower concentrating solar power electricity generation, J. Ind. Ecol. 16 (s1)
(2012) S93–S109, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00474.x.
[7] J.J. Burkhardt III, G.A. Heath, C.S. Turchi, Life Cycle Assessment of a parabolic
trough concentrating solar power plant and the impacts of key design alternatives,
Environ. Sci. Tech. 45 (6) (2011) 2457–2464, https://doi.org/10.1021/es1033266.
[8] A. Ciroth, G. Huppes, W. Klöpffer, et al.. Environmental Life Cycle Costing, CRC
Press, New York, 2008.
[9] B. Corona, G.S. Miguel, E. Cerrajero, Life cycle assessment of concentrated solar
power (CSP) and the influence of hybridising with natural gas, Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 19 (6) (2014) 1264–1275, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0728-z.
[10] U. Desideri, F. Zepparelli, V. Morettini, et al., Comparative analysis of
concentrating solar power and photovoltaic technologies: Technical and
environmental evaluations, Appl. Energy 102 (2013) 765–784, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.08.033.
[11] S. Dieckmann, J. Dersch, S. Giuliano, et al., LCOE reduction potential of parabolic
trough and solar tower CSP technology until 2025, AIP Conf. Proc. 1850 (1) (2017)
160004, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4984538.
[12] N. Dodd, M. Espinosa Martinez, P. Van Tichelen. et al.Preparatory study for solar
photovoltaic modules, inverters and systems, Publications Office of the European
Union, Luxembourg, 2020.
[13] C. Donovan, C. Corbishley. The cost of capital and how it affects climate change
mitigation investment, Imperial College London/Grantham Institute, London,
2016.
13
Solar Energy 274 (2024) 112550
[14] EEA, 2023. Greenhouse gas emission intensity of electricity generation. Retrieved
from: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/co2-emissio
n-intensity-14/#tab-googlechartid_chart_41. Access date: 11/12/2023.
[15] IEA, 2010. Technology roadmap: Concentrating solar power, International Energy
Agency, Paris. Retrieved from: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/663f
abad-397e-4518-802f-7f1c94bc2076/csp_roadmap.pdf.
[16] EnergyPlus, 2023. EnergyPlus. Retrieved from https://energyplus.net/. Access
date: 08/09/2023.
[17] European Central Bank, Euro foreign exchange reference rates: US dollar (USD),
Retrieved from: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/policy_and_exchange_rates/eur
o_reference_exchange_rates/html/eurofxref-graph-usd.en.html, 2024. Access date:
01/03/2024.
[18] European Commission, 2013. Commission recommendation of 9 April 2013 on the
use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental
performance of products and organisations (2013/179/EU). Official Journal of the
European Union, Brussels.
[19] European Commission, 2019. Communication from the Commission: The European
Green Deal. COM(2019) 640 final (2019). European Commission, Brussels.
[20] European Commission. Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR):
Photovoltaic modules used in photovoltaic power systems for electricity
generation, European Commission, Brussels, 2020.
[21] European Commission, 2021. Commission recommendation (EU) 2021/2279 of 15
December 2021 on the use of the Environmental Footprint methods to measure and
communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and
organisations. Official Journal of the European Union, Brussels.
[22] Eurostat, 2023. HICP - annual data (average index and rate of change). Retrieved
from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/PRC_HICP_AIND__custom_
4398487/default/table?lang=en. Access date: 01/06/23.
[23] FEDBETON, 2021. Typical Belgian ready-mixed concrete [B-EPD n◦ 21–0069-002-
00-01-EN]. Federal Public Service of Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment,
Belgium. Retrieved from: https://www.fedbeton.be/docs/H7H7S5Q1K5/B-
EPD-21-0069-002-00-01-EN-Fedbeton-signed.pdf.
[24] D. Feldman, V.R.R. Fu, A. Ramdas, et al., 2021. U.S. solar photovoltaic system and
energy storage cost benchmark: Q1 2020. Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20-77324.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), United States of America.
[25] I.V. Filimonova, V.D. Kozhevin, I.V. Provornaya, et al., Green energy through the
LCOE indicator, Energy Rep. 8 (2022) 887–893, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
egyr.2022.10.165.
[26] T. Fontanot, R. Kishore, S. Vandenkerkhof, et al., 2024. Multi-physics based energy
yield modelling of a hybrid concentrated solar power/photovoltaic system with
spectral beam splitting. Retrieved from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
abstract_id=4749894. Access date: 01/02/2024.
[27] R. Frischknecht, G. Heath, M. Raugei, et al., 2016. Methodology guidelines on Life
Cycle Assessment of photovoltaic electricity. Report IEA-PVPS T12–08:2016.
International Energy Agency Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme. Retrieved
from: https://iea-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Task_12_-_Methodology_
Guidelines_on_Life_Cycle_Assessment_of_Photovoltaic_Electricity_3rd_Edition.pdf.
[28] R. Frischknecht, P. Stolz, G. Heath, et al., 2020. Methodology guidelines on Life
Cycle Assessment of photovoltaic. Report IEA-PVPS T12-18:2020. International
Energy Agency Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme. Retrieved from: https://ie
a-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/IEA_Task12_LCA_Guidelines.pdf.
[29] V. Gnielinski, Neue Gleichungen für den Wärme- und den Stoffübergang in
turbulent durchströmten Rohren und Kanälen, Forschung Im Ingenieurwesen A 41
(1) (1975) 8–16, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02559682.
[30] H. Goverde, B. Herteleer, D. Anagnostos, et al., Energy yield prediction model for
PV modules including spatial and temporal effects. https://doi.org/10.4
229/EUPVSEC20142014-5CV.2.28.
[31] J. Hernández-Moro, J.M. Martínez-Duart, Analytical model for solar PV and CSP
electricity costs: Present LCOE values and their future evolution, Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 20 (2012) 119–132, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.082.
[32] C. Hernández Moris, M.T. Cerda Guevara, A. Salmon, et al., Comparison between
concentrated solar power and gas-based generation in terms of economic and
flexibility-related aspects in Chile, Energies 14 (4) (2021), https://doi.org/
10.3390/en14041063.
[33] IEA, 2020. Projected costs of generating electricity. International Energy Agency,
Paris. Retrieved from: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ae17da3d
-e8a5-4163-a3ec-2e6fb0b5677d/Projected-Costs-of-Generating-Electricity-2020.
pdf.
[34] IEA, 2021. Renewables 2021: Analysis and forecast to 2026. International Energy
Agency, Paris. Retrieved from: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/5a
e32253-7409-4f9a-a91d-1493ffb9777a/Renewables2021-Analysisandforecastto20
26.pdf.
[35] IEA, 2022. Levelised cost of heating for air-to-air and air-to-water heat pumps and
gas boilers for selected countries, and sensitivity to fuel prices, H1 2021–H1 2022.
Retrieved from: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/levelised-cost-of-h
eating-for-air-to-air-and-air-to-water-heat-pumps-and-gas-boilers-for-selected-cou
ntries-and-sensitivity-to-fuel-prices-h1-2021-h1-2022. Access date: 01/10/2024.
[36] IRENA, 2012. Concentrating solar power. Bonn, Germany: International
Renewable Energy Agency, Bonn. Retrieved from: https://www.irena.org/-/medi
a/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2012/RE_Technologies_Cost_Analysis-CSP.
pdf?rev=31e7dff180544284b08a299f233a3210.
[37] IRENA, 2021. Renewable power generation costs in 2020. International Renewable
Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi. Retrieved from: https://www.irena.org/-/media/File
s/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2021/Jun/IRENA_Power_Generation_Costs_2020.
pdf?rev=c9e8dfcd1b2048e2b4d30fef671a5b84.
D. Costa et al.
[38] IRENA, 2022. Renewable power generation costs in 2021. International Renewable
Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi. Retrieved from: https://www.irena.org/-/media/File
s/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2022/Jul/IRENA_Power_Generation_Costs_2021.
pdf?rev=34c22a4b244d434da0accde7de7c73d8.
[39] ISO, 2006. ISO 14040:2006 - Environmental management - Life cycle assessment -
Principles and framework, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
[40] ISO, 2006. ISO 14044:2006 - Environmental management - Life cycle assessment -
Requirements and guidelines, International Organization for Standardization,
Geneva.
[41] ISO, ISO 15686–5: Buildings and constructed assets - Service life planning - Part 5:
Life-cycle costing, International Organization for Standardization,, Geneva, 2017.
[42] X. Ju, C. Xu, Y. Hu, et al., A review on the development of photovoltaic/
concentrated solar power (PV-CSP) hybrid systems, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells
161 (2017) 305–327, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2016.12.004.
[43] S.J.W. Klein, E.S. Rubin, Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions, water
and land use for concentrated solar power plants with different energy backup
systems, Energy Policy 63 (2013) 935–950, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2013.08.057.
[44] N. Ko, M. Lorenz, R. Horn, et al., Sustainability assessment of concentrated solar
power (CSP) tower plants – Integrating LCA, LCC and LCWE in one framework,
Procedia CIRP 69 (2018) 395–400, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.11.049.
[45] I. Kougias, N. Taylor, G. Kakoulaki, et al., The role of photovoltaics for the
European Green Deal and the recovery plan, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 144
(2021) 111017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111017.
[46] W. Kuckshinrichs, J.C. Koj, Levelized cost of energy from private and social
perspectives: The case of improved alkaline water electrolysis, J. Clean. Prod. 203
(2018) 619–632, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.232.
[47] M. Liu, N.H. Steven Tay, S. Bell, et al., Review on concentrating solar power plants
and new developments in high temperature thermal energy storage technologies,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 53 (2016) 1411–1432, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2015.09.026.
[48] M. Lunardi, J.P. Alvarez-Gaitan, N.L. Chang, et al., Life cycle assessment on PERC
solar modules, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 187 (2018) 154–159, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.solmat.2018.08.004.
[49] N. Mahlangu, G.A. Thopil, Life cycle analysis of external costs of a parabolic trough
Concentrated Solar Power plant, J. Clean. Prod. 195 (2018) 32–43, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.187.
[50] A. Müller, L. Friedrich, C. Reichel, et al., A comparative life cycle assessment of
silicon PV modules: Impact of module design, manufacturing location and
inventory, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 230 (2021) 111277, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.solmat.2021.111277.
[51] M. Muñoz, A. Rovira, M.J. Montes, Thermodynamic cycles for solar thermal power
plants: A review, WIREs Energy Environ 11 (2) (2022) e420, https://doi.org/
10.1002/wene.420.
[52] R. Musi, B. Grange, S. Sgouridis, et al., Techno-economic analysis of concentrated
solar power plants in terms of levelized cost of electricity, AIP Conf. Proc. 1850 (1)
(2017) 160018, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4984552.
[53] NREL, 2022. Reference air mass 1.5 spectra. Retrieved from https://www.nrel.gov
/grid/solar-resource/spectra-am1.5.html. Access date: 10/09/2023.
[54] S. Ong, C. Campbell, P. Denholm, et al., 2013. Land-use requirements for solar
power plants in the United States - NREL/TP-6A20-56290. United States of
America: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Retrieved from: https
://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56290.pdf.
[55] R. Pitz-Paal, Concentrating Solar Power, in: T.M. Letcher (Ed.), Future Energy:
Improved, sustainable and clean options for our planet,, 3rd Edition., Elsevier,
2020, pp. 413–430.
14
Solar Energy 274 (2024) 112550
[56] M. Raugei, R. Frischknecht, C. Olson, et al., 2021. Methodological guidelines on
net energy analysis of photovoltaic electricity. Report T12-20:2021. International
Energy Agency Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme. Retrieved from: https://ie
a-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Task12_-_Methodological_Guidelines_o
n_Net_Energy_Analysis_of_Photovoltaic_Electricity.pdf.
[57] J. Santos, J. Palacio, A. Reyes, et al., Concentrating solar power, in: I. Yahyaoui
(Ed.), Advances in renewable energies and power technologies, Elsevier, 2018,
pp. 373–402.
[58] C. Schill, A. Anderson, C. Baldus-Jeursen, et al., 2022. Soiling losses – Impact on
the performance of photovoltaic power plants. Report IEA-PVPS T13-21:2022.
International Energy Agency Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme. Retrieved
from: https://iea-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/IEA-PVPS-T13-21-2022
-REPORT-Soiling-Losses-PV-Plants.pdf.
[59] M.U. Siddiqui, O.K. Siddiqui, A.B.S. Alquaity, et al., A comprehensive review on
multi-physics modeling of photovoltaic modules, Energ. Conver. Manage. 258
(2022) 115414, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2022.115414.
[60] P.F. Stolz, R. Wambach, K. Sinha, P., Heath, G., 2017. Life Cycle Assessment of
current photovoltaic module recycling. Report IEA-PVPS T12–13:2018. Paris:
International Energy Agency Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme., Retrieved
from: https://iea-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Life_Cycle_Assesment_o
f_Current_Photovoltaic_Module_Recycling_by_Task_12.pdf.
[61] T. Telsnig, Standortabhängige Analyse und Bewertung solarthermischer
Kraftwerke am Beispiel Südafrikas, University of Stuttgart, Germany, 2015.
[62] C. The Astropy, A.M. Price-Whelan, P.L. Lim, et al., The Astropy Project: Sustaining
and growing a community-oriented open-source project and the latest major
release (v5.0) of the core package, Astrophys J 935 (2) (2022) 167, https://doi.
org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74.
[63] The Astropy Collaboration, A.M. Price-Whelan, B.M. Sipőcz, et al., The Astropy
Project: Building an open-science project and status of the v2.0 core package,
Astron. J. 156 (3) (2018) 123, https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f.
[64] The Astropy Collaboration, T.P. Robitaille, E.J. Tollerud, et al., Astropy: A
community Python package for astronomy, A&A 558 (2013), https://doi.org/
10.1051/0004-6361/201322068.
[65] Thin Film Center, 2022. Essential Macleod. Retrieved from: https://www.thinfi
lmcenter.com/essential.php. Access date: 07/06/23.
[66] TOTEM, 2023. TOTEM tool - Tool to Optimise the Total Environmental impact of
Materials. Retrieved from: https://www.totem-building.be/pages/welcome.xhtml.
Access date: 05/02/2023.
[67] VDMA, 2022. International technology roadmap for photovoltaic (ITRPV): 2021
results. VDMA, Germany. Retrieved from: https://www.vdma.org/international-te
chnology-roadmap-photovoltaic.
[68] G. Wernet, C. Bauer, B. Steubing, et al., The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I):
overview and methodology, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21 (9) (2016) 1218–1230,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8.
[69] World Bank, 2020. World Bank Commodities Price Forecast (nominal US dollars) -
April 2020. The Word Bank Group, United States of America. Retrieved from:
https://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/633541587395091108/CMO-April-2020-Fore
casts.pdf.
[70] World Bank, 2022. Inflation, consumer prices (annual %) - Euro area. Retrieved
from: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/FP.CPI.TOTL.ZG?end=2021&loca
tions=XC&start=2015&view=chart. Access date: 06.01.23.
[71] D. Ziyati, A. Dollet, G. Flamant, et al., A multiphysics model of large-scale compact
PV–CSP hybrid plants, Appl. Energy 288 (2021) 116644, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2021.116644.