Version of Record: https://www.sciencedirect.

com/science/article/pii/S1364032115001045
Manuscript_4bc67693852182dd6339a34de6c2296d

Challenges and Opportunities for Solar Tower Technology in India

Srilakshmi Gopalakrishnana,*; Venkatesh Va; Thirumalai N Ca; Suresh N Sa
a
Center for Study of Science, Technology and Policy, 10th Cross, Papanna Layout, Mayura Street,
Outer Ring Road, Bangalore, Karnataka, India -560 094

Abstract

Solar Tower technology has gained considerable momentum over the past decade. Unlike the
parabolic trough, Solar Tower has a lot of variants in terms of type of receivers, working fluids, power
cycles, size of heliostats, etc. Most of the literature available on this technology does not address in
great depths, details of various parameters associated with tower technology. A detailed examination
of plant parameters is required in order to perform a potential assessment, design basis or feasibility
analysis. This paper aims to assess the principal parameters of existing plants, namely, solar to electric
conversion efficiency, mirror and land area per MWe of equivalent capacity, packing density, field
layout configuration, receiver size, tower height and gross costs of plants, wherever data is available.
Based on this global review of existing plants, it is observed that, the annual solar to electric
conversion efficiencies has an average value of 16% and an average packing density of about 20%.
Since most of the existing plants have been constructed for demonstration purposes, the true potential
of this technology has not yet been realised. Using this assessment as a basis, the technical, financial
and policy drivers and barriers for adopting tower technology in India are discussed. It is seen that
based on indigenisation prospects, tower technology with external cylindrical or cavity receivers with
storage could be adopted. The role and significance of this technology is brought out in the context of
the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission (JNNSM) in order to achieve grid-connected solar
power. It is estimated that around 1800 MW of grid connected Solar Tower plants could come up
under this mission by 2022.

Keywords: Solar Tower; Global Review; Operational; Under Construction; India; JNNSM;

*Author for correspondence. Tel. +91-80-6690-2594, Fax: +91-80-2237-2619

E-mail address: [email protected]

© 2018 published by Elsevier. This manuscript is made available under the Elsevier user license
https://www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/
 1. Introduction
Solar Tower (ST) technology, which is also referred as Central Receiver Technology, uses a large
number of heliostats having a dual axis control system (one about the elevation axis and the other
about the azimuthal axis). These heliostats reflect direct beam solar radiation (impinging on their
surface) to a stationary receiver located at the top of a tower. In the receiver, Heat Transfer Fluid
(HTF) gains heat and transfers this thermal energy to the power block to generate electric power. This
technology has evolved over the past 20 years. Even though it dates back to the late 1980s, over the
past decade, a considerable increase in the number of operational ST plants has been observed. The
capacity of plants under construction indicates that the growth of ST technology is on par with that of
Parabolic Trough (PT) technology
[1].

This paper presents an analysis of the challenges, opportunities and potential of ST technology for
Indian conditions, based on a gross assessment of certain parameters of existing plants worldwide.
Based on available information, solar to electric conversion ratio, mirror and land area variations with
equivalent capacity, field layout configurations, working fluids employed, receiver size estimation,
tower height, and gross costs of plants have been examined. Furthermore, an assessment of available
solar and land resources in India, technological expertise in terms of engineering, design and
manufacturing have also been discussed. Based on this assessment, the potential of ST technology for
Indian conditions is estimated.

Most of the literature available on the existing ST plants discuss the overview, plant construction and
characteristics [2],[3],[4],[5]. Studies have also been conducted on operation evaluation, modelling
and simulation of specific components of plants [6],[7]. A design of reference plants using particular
heliostats have been proposed [8]. Also, specific reviews of ST plants [9] as well as reviews of all the
Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) technologies (which includes ST) have been performed [10],[11].

While most of the literature identified, discuss in depth, the performance characterisation of
components of particular plants, they do not present a methodological assessment of ST parameters.
In this paper, a detailed assessment of various parameters of existing ST plants is presented. This is
used to infer the challenges and opportunities for employing ST technology in the Indian context.

The total installed capacity of ST plants worldwide is shown in Table 1. It has been compared with PT
technology to identify the growth potential of ST in the next few years.

In India, the experience with ST is very limited and is yet to gain momentum. The Jawaharlal Nehru
National Solar Mission (JNNSM), one of the eight missions under the Prime Minister’s National
Action Plan for Climate Change (NAPCC), was released in 2010. The objective of this mission is to
achieve 20 GW of grid-connected solar power and 2 GW of off-grid solar power by 2022. The targets
set by JNNSM on capacity addition, is shown in Table 2. Planning supported by technology
improvement and policy support can lead to high level of solar additions in India.

Section 2 of this paper discusses the assessment of existing plants based on various parameters like
solar to electric conversion efficiencies, mirror & land area used for various ST technologies, field
layout, tower height etc. Section 3 discusses the challenges and opportunities for ST in India based on
technical, financial and policy perspectives for critical parameters. This is done in terms of resource
availability (solar and land) and technological expertise (engineering, design and manufacture).
 2. Assessment of Existing Plants
Tables 3 and 4, provide information on certain parameters of existing plants, both in operation and
under construction. Based on the information available, assessment of the ST plants was carried out,
and is discussed in this section.

2.1. Overall Efficiency of Conversion of Solar to Electric Energy

The solar to electric conversion efficiency of any plant is defined using Eq. (1).

Annual Electricity Generation ( MWh)

η s−e =
Annual Solar Resource ( MWh / m 2 ) × Heliostat Field Area(m 2 )
(1)

The values of conversion efficiency for various existing plants are calculated and shown in Table 5. In
this table, the last column contains calculated values while the other columns contain collated data
[13]. It is broadly segregated based on the type of receiver being employed for operational plants and
plants under construction. From the table, it is seen that η s −e lies in the range of 15.51% to
17.30%.The Jülich plant has a very low conversion efficiency of 6.16%. This is because air is used as
the HTF, which transfers its thermal energy to water. The steam generated in the process drives a
Rankine cycle. This is an inept process as the efficiency of heat transfer from air to water/steam is
quite low. The average value of η s −e , from Table 5 is found to be about 16%.

2.2. Comparison of Heliostat Field Area and Land Area with respect to
Equivalent Capacity
The mirror area and land area per MWe of rated capacity varies due to the number of thermal storage
hours employed. Hence there is a necessity to normalise the mirror and land area taking into
consideration the number of hours of thermal storage. In order to do this, it is assumed that with no
thermal storage, a typical plant can operate for around nine hours [14],[15],[16]. If x hours of thermal
storage are incorporated, then the capacity increases by (9+ x )/9 times as compared to a similar plant
with no thermal storage. We define this as the equivalent capacity (in MWe) of the plant, given by Eq.
(2).

§9+ x ·
Equivalent Capacity = Rated Capacity × ¨ ¸ (2)
© 9 ¹

where, x is the number of hours of thermal storage.

Mirror and land area were compared with rated and equivalent capacity for existing plants, separately,
for each type of receiver used.

2.2.1. Mirror Area

Table 6 gives the values of the mirror area per MWe of rated and equivalent capacity.

It can be seen from the table that the mirror area per MWe of equivalent capacity (m2/MWe) of plants
using cavity receivers ranges from about 6000 to 6750 and for plants using external receivers ranges
from about 3800 to 6650. It can also be seen that both Rice Solar and Crescent Dunes plants have
lesser mirror area/MWe compared to other plants. This is because these two sites have higher solar
resource (see Table 5). Even though the Ivanpah plant has the highest solar resource, its mirror
area/MWe is also high since it employs the Direct Steam Generation (DSG) mode for attaining
temperatures of the order of 565°C.

A plot of mirror area vs. equivalent capacity is shown in Fig. 1 for operational plants and the curve
obtained was found to resemble a linear pattern.

2.2.2. Land Area

Table 7 shows the utilisation of land area per MWe of rated and equivalent capacity.

The land area per equivalent capacity (hectares/ MWe) for plants with cavity receivers ranges from 1.3
to 4.5 and for plants with external receivers ranges from 2 to 3.7. Here, the variation could be due to
the type of receiver employed, height of the tower, sizes of heliostats used, and further, due to the
variations in packing density.

A similar plot (as presented in Fig. 1) showing variation of land area with equivalent capacity is given
in Fig. 2, which also indicates a linear variation.

2.2.3. Packing Density

The packing density of a plant is defined as the ratio of mirror area to land area. It gives an indication
of the extent of utilisation of land. Packing density percentage is defined in Eq. (3).

Mirror Area
Packing density percentage = ×100 (3)
Land Area
In Table 8, the packing density of existing plants (segregated based on type of field configuration) has
been calculated and presented. It can be observed that the average value of packing density for
operating plants is about 20%.

2.3. Field Layout Configuration

There are some standard layout patterns which have been observed for the heliostat field design of
existing plants. These are: radial staggered and cornfield patterns.

2.3.1. Radial staggered

In this configuration, heliostats are arranged in a circular manner around the tower. This can be seen
in Fig. 3, which is the heliostat field of the Gemasolar plant. In Fig. 4, the field for PS 10 and PS 20
towers have been shown. As seen in the radial staggered configuration, the arrangement is such that
no two heliostats in adjacent rings are on the same radial line. Consecutive circular rings position
heliostats in a staggered formation of this kind. They are typically employed for plants using external
cylindrical receivers with surround field layouts or cavity receivers with northern fields.

2.3.2. Cornfield

A cornfield layout, as the name suggests, refers to a configuration where the heliostats are arranged in
straight rows, one behind the other. This is shown in Fig. 5 (the Sierra Sun Tower) and Fig. 6 (the
Jülich tower). In Fig. 6, a single-side field is used, since the Jülich tower uses a cavity receiver with a
single-side aperture.
 2.3.3. Observations on field layouts of existing plants

From Figs. 3 to 6, one can infer that the layout of heliostats does not follow any particular norm.
Depending on the plant capacity, type of receiver used, as well as the latitude of the plant, the
heliostat field layout changes. It is interesting to note that all these plants (except Dahan and Jülich)
are located in the latitude range of 28°11’ N to 38°14’ N. However, their layouts are different because
different types of receivers are used. At these latitudes, the sun is due south throughout the year.
Therefore in the PS 10, PS 20, ACME, Dahan and Solugas plants, using single cavity receivers, it is
appropriate to locate all heliostats to the north of the tower. The Gemasolar plant uses an external
cylindrical receiver and consequently the heliostats are located all around the tower (surround field),
but a greater number of heliostats are on the northern side.

The ratio of the radial distance of the farthest heliostat ( r ) and the height of the tower ( h ) is shown
in Table 8. The r values were estimated from the Google Maps and Wikimapia images [17], [18],
[19], [20] and the h values were taken from the NREL database [13]. The r / h ratio for the
Gemasolar plant on the north side of the field is 6.1 whereas on the south side it is 4.3. Sierra
SunTower has two units, one uses an external cylindrical receiver and the other uses a dual cavity
receiver [13]. The maximum r / h ratio seen in both cases is 2.3. Thus, the heliostat field layout is
closely linked with the choice of the receiver and other design considerations.

The size of the heliostat also plays a key role in determining the field layout. It can be seen that the
Sierra Sun Tower heliostats with cornfield pattern are more closely packed (leading to a high packing
density, See Table 8). The Jülich plant also has a cornfield pattern and relatively high packing density.
It can be seen from Table 8, that plants with cornfield pattern have better land utilisation compared to
plants with radial patterns.

For plants with radial staggered configurations (surround/north fields) and large heliostats, for
example, PS 10, PS 20 and the Gemasolar plant, the packing densities are smaller. When the heliostat
size increases, the shadowing and blocking effects increase. If these have to be minimised, the mirrors
will have to be placed at large distances from each other, thereby reducing the packing density.

2.4. Working Fluid Employed

Different types of HTFs can be used in an ST plant based on the type of receiver and power cycle
employed in the system. HTFs that have been used in existing operational ST plants are water, molten
salt and air.

2.4.1. Water

When water is used as HTF, the solar field generates steam directly and the Rankine steam cycle is
used for power generation. Since in this case, water is used both as HTF and working fluid, it
eliminates the need for a heat exchanger. The maximum possible temperature that has been achieved
with water is 566°C [13]. Plants using water as HTF are PS 10, PS 20, Dahan, Sierra Sun Tower and
Ivanpah.

2.4.2. Molten Salt

In the case of molten salt as HTF, a heat exchanger is used to transfer thermal energy from the HTF to
water in order to generate steam. Steam Rankine cycle is used for power generation. One of the
advantages of using this as the working fluid is that the HTF used is same as the storage media. When
the plant is not in operation, HTF from the receiver has to be drained out as the freezing temperature
of molten salt is relatively high, its value being around 238°C [21]. Gemasolar plant uses molten salt
as its HTF. This is also because it employs 15 hours of thermal storage.
 2.4.3. Air

Air is used as the HTF when a volumetric receiver is used. The receiver design is rather complex with
one disadvantage being that air has poor heat transfer properties. Therefore, the efficiency of heat
transfer to the power block is not very high. Compressed air has better heat transfer properties as it is
denser. Air at high temperatures of the order of 1000°C gives rise to better heat transfer properties but
the material constraints of the HTF carrying pipes will have to be considered. Also air does not
require cooling water and hence is advantageous especially in locations where water availability is a
problem. Jülich tower in Germany uses a volumetric receiver, with air as HTF and water as working
fluid. This plant employs a steam Rankine power cycle. Since the advantage of air reaching high
temperatures is not completely utilised, low power block efficiencies are observed in this case.


The advantages and limitations of the working fluids mentioned in this Section are shown in Table 9.

2.5. Estimation of Receiver Size

It is observed from the literature review that a basis for sizing the receiver and arriving at an optimum
size of the receiver was not explicitly available. In this section, a methodology has been arrived at, for
a first order estimation of receiver size. This is based on the equivalent capacity of a plant, the type of
HTF used, and operating temperatures. The actual receiver size is higher than the estimated one as it
accounts for spillages, varying flux distributions, thermal losses, etc. Based on the actual receiver size
(from existing plant data), the factor by which it is higher than the estimated area has been arrived at
(see Eq. (7)). Table 10 presents the estimation of receiver size. The values assumed for the power
block efficiency are shown in this table. From this, the power input to the power block (MWth) is
estimated as shown in Eq. (4).

Equivalent Capacity
Thermal power input tothe power block ( Pinput , PB ) = ×100 (4)
η PB

where, Equivalent Capacity is in MW, Pinput , PB is in MWth and η PB is the power block efficiency
percentage.

The receiver efficiency is in the range of 80% to 90%. For this study, it is assumed to be 85% [23] and
therefore, the thermal power input to the receiver from the solar field (MWth) is given in Eq. (5).

Pinput , PB
Thermal power input tothe receiver ( Pinput , receiver ) = ×100 (5)
85

where, Pinput , receiver is in MWth.

Depending on the type of HTF used, the maximum allowable flux density on the receiver is fixed. For
safety conditions, it has been assumed that approximately 85% of this maximum allowable flux is
incident on the receiver. The calculated receiver area is obtained from Eq. (6).

Pinput , receiver
Calculated Receiver Area = × 1000 (6)
Flux on receiver

where, Flux on receiver is in kW/m2.

This calculated receiver area is compared with the actual receiver area of various plants - Jülich,
PS10, Solar Two and Gemasolar [24], Dahan [7], Solugas [25], which is available in the literature.

There is a limitation on the maximum allowable flux density for various HTFs. For molten salt, it is
1000 kW/m2 [26], for water it is 350 kW/m2 [23] and for air it is assumed to be 1200 kW/m2.

The ratio of actual receiver size and calculated receiver size is given in Eq. (7) is computed.

Ratio = Actual Receiver Area / Calculated Receiver Area (7)

This ratio varies from 1.47 to 2.31 for plants using molten salt, 0.96 to 1.57 for plants with water and
2.86 and 5.10 for plants with air as HTF as shown in Table 10. It can be seen that this ratio is high for
receivers using air as HTF. These receivers can attain temperatures of 1000°C. Due to the lower heat
capacity of air, these plants require receivers with bigger surface area compared to receivers using
water as HTF.

2.6. Tower Height

Table 11 lists the tower heights ( h ) of ST plants. Fig. 7 shows the variation of tower height with
equivalent capacity, with the numbers indicating the serial number of the plant given in Table 11. It is
observed that no direct correlation is evident between the tower height and the equivalent capacity of
a plant.

Once the capacity of a plant, its thermal storage and solar resource are known, the land and mirror
areas can be determined. Based on the type of receiver and design of a plant, the heliostat field can be
designed. However, the basis on which the height of the tower is arrived at is not clear. From Table 8,
it can be seen that the ratio of the farthest distance of the heliostat to the tower height ( r / h ) is
between 5.7 and 6.8 for most of the plants. However, for the Ivanpah plant, it is higher (of the order of
10), while for the Sierra Sun tower plant and the Jülich plant, it is a much smaller value, 2.3.

2.7. Gross Cost of Existing Plants

The data available on the gross costs for existing tower plants is limited. The gross cost of the PS 10
plant (cavity receiver) is about Rs 19 crores per MWe (35 million Euros [27]). The gross cost for the
Dahan plant (cavity receiver) is approximately Rs 20 crores per MWe (32 million CNY [28]). The
overall cost of the Gemasolar plant (external cylindrical receiver) is approximately Rs 36 crores per
MWe (419 million USD [29]). This data is depicted in Table 12. Data for most of the other existing
plants was not available.

2.8. Highlights from Global Review

It is seen from Section 2.1 and Table 5, that the average calculated solar to electricity conversion
efficiency for existing plants with available information is about 16%.

Taking the average of the values obtained from the assessment, the mirror area per MW of equivalent
capacity is about 6375 m2/MWe for cavity receivers, and 5207 m2/MWe for external tubular receivers.
The average land area in hectares per MWe of equivalent capacity is found to be around 2.89 for
cavity receivers and 3.02 for external tubular receivers. These numbers can be kept in mind, as a
starting reference while setting up a tower plant, depending on the technology chosen.
The field configurations observed are radial staggered surround field for plants with capacities above
20 MW (using external rectangular receivers) and north side radial field for plants with capacities
lesser than 20 MW (using cavity receivers).

The results of the receiver size estimation study shows that the actual area of the receiver should be
increased by a factor of about 2 for molten salt, 1.2 for water and 4 for air as HTF, compared to the
area arrived at by calculation (see Eq. (7)). The actual receiver size depends on the flux impinging on
it from each section of the field, the nature of HTF used and its flow pattern inside the receiver.

The r / h ratio should be restricted such that the ' r ' value is not more than 1km. This is because,
irrespective of the tower height, attenuation loss of radiation from the farthest heliostat is considerable
for larger ' r ' values. This will decrease the efficiency of the plant, and therefore, it should be
avoided.

3. Challenges and Opportunities for ST Deployment in India

This section discusses the challenges and opportunities for deployment of ST technology in India.
This is analysed with respect to technical, financial and policy aspects for the following parameters, as
applicable.

3.1. Solar Resource

3.1.1. Technical

Challenges: Solar resource data is available either through satellite or ground based measurements.
At present, for India, ground-based measurements are available for 119 stations [30]. On the other
hand, satellite data is available for India from various sources [31],[32],[33],[34]. However, satellite
data is not as accurate as solar resource data obtained from ground-mounted sensors. Satellite-based
models cannot provide accurate instantaneous values like the ground-based measurements. They also
provide data with lower frequency of measurement [35]. Therefore, ground-based data is required for
many more stations in India, such that accurate pre-feasibility analyses can be carried out to identify
the potential locations for installations of ST technology.

As seen, in Table 8, the r / h ratios are such that the farthest heliostat can be as much as a km away
from the tower. When a sun ray is reflected from such a large distance, it is bound to undergo
attenuation losses. These losses occur due to the scattering and diffusion of reflected solar radiation
by aerosols, moisture content and dust in the atmosphere. As the particulate matter content of the
atmosphere increases, so does the attenuation loss. [36].

Most areas in India which have abundant solar irradiation (for example, Gujarat and Rajasthan) are
also areas which are prone to very high dust factors. Dust in the atmosphere, not only causes
attenuation losses but also settles on the heliostats, thereby reducing their life and efficiency. In these
cases, maintenance of each heliostat (mirror cleaning) is of prime importance and this is not an easy
task in a field with thousands of mirrors.

Opportunities: Most parts of India receive high solar resource, i.e., Direct Normal Irradiance (DNI)
almost throughout the year, which has the potential to be tapped. The best sites in India receive
around 2100 kWh/m2/annum. [14]. As noted from the assessment, this is on par with all the existing
plants that are producing grid connected power. These sites have solar resources of the same order,
the average being around 2230 kWh/m2/annum (See Table 5). This sets the benchmark for
commercial viability of this technology under Indian conditions.

As can be seen from Section 2, the geographical location of a plant has a bearing on the type of
receiver and heliostat field configuration used. The position and path of the sun depend on the latitude
of the given location.

India is situated approximately between 8°N & 34°N latitude and 70°E & 96°E longitude. Two
nomograms have been prepared considering the extreme latitudes of 8°N and 34°N to illustrate the
path of the sun over the year. These nomograms are shown in Fig. 8 for days of Mar 21, July 21 and
Dec 21. The radial lines indicate the azimuth position of the sun whereas the concentric circles
represent the altitude angle of the sun. From these nomograms, it can be seen that the sun stays
predominantly due south for most of the year. Considering all these facts, cavity receiver with
northern field could be ideal for smaller plant capacities (<20 MW). This is also evident from
assessment in Section 2 (see Table 3). Similarly, external cylindrical receivers with surround heliostat
field and dual cavity receivers are suitable for higher capacity plants (>20 MW).

India receives around 300 sunny days in a year [14], thus enabling harnessing of solar energy for the
setting up of power plants. Fig. 9 shows the DNI Map of India. It can be seen from this map, that most
parts of India enjoy a daily solar radiation of 4.5 - 5 kWh/m2/day. Out of the 3.28 million km2 of land
area that India spans, around 18% receives solar radiation of 5.5 - 6 kWh/m2/day which is suitable for
solar thermal power generation. This land area might include forests, agricultural land, waste land,
built up area, water bodies etc.

3.2. Land Resource

3.2.1. Technical

Challenges: Micro-siting of wastelands has not been conducted for all states in India. This needs to be
performed in order to estimate the potential or possibility of ST technology by assessing terrain, soil,
wind conditions etc. The proximity of wastelands from the load centers is not explicitly available. The
wasteland locations have to be coupled with matrices like sub-stations, water availability and road
connectivity in order to identify suitable wastelands for ST installations.

Opportunities: Approximately 0.4 million km2 of wasteland is available in India [38]. From the
assessment (see Table 7), it is seen that for existing ST plants with grid connected power, the average
land requirement per MWe is 3.8 hectares (0.038 km2). Even if 1% of this wasteland is utilized, the
potential for ST technology is around 105 GWe. Therefore, land should not pose as a constraint for ST
deployment.

3.2.2. Financial

Challenges: Even though wastelands are available, acquisition challenges in terms of obtaining
clearances, time for sanctioning land etc. are not very easy to obtain and these add to the total pre-
operative costs. If the terrain has a slope greater than 5˚, then considerable earthwork would be
required to be performed. This would lead to an increase in the construction time and the installation
(set-up) cost.

Opportunities: Costs of wasteland are relatively cheap in India and would be of the order of about 1-
2% of the total capital costs. [22].

3.2.3. Policy
Challenges: For zones which receive high DNI in India, land banks have not yet been identified. The
Government needs to take initiative in ear marking land banks which have proximity to water
resource and power evacuation facilities which are quintessential to large scale ST plants. There is a
void in the policy support towards this which needs to be addressed.

3.3. Technology

3.3.1. Technical

Challenges: The maturity of ST technology is not very high in India. It is still in the nascent stages
where R&D work needs to be carried out. India has limited experience in the development of power
tower systems. Apart from a couple of small-scale demonstration plants, there are no plants in the
pipeline. ACME company in India partnered with eSolar company, USA, to develop a 2.5 MWe tower
plant in Bikaner, Rajasthan. The heliostat field for this plant set-up utilises 1.16 m2 small size flat
mirrors [13]. The advantage of small size heliostats is that they are easy to handle and install, but a
major disadvantage is that they require more number of controllers for tracking. Even though the
plant, was commissioned in 2010, it has been running at reduced capacity [39]. Some of the possible
problems that can be envisaged include lack of sufficient DNI, difficulties in tracking, and
accumulation of dust on the mirrors.

SunBorne Energy is setting up a 1 MWth solar power tower system with the support of the Ministry of
New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), Government of India at the National Institute of Solar Energy
(NISE), Gurgaon. The primary aim of this demonstration plant is to devise a method to optimise the
heliostat field (using Titan tracker heliostats) using a volumetric air receiver while simultaneously
having a provision for thermal storage. This plant is planned to be set-up using regional indigenous
resources for most of the system components [40].

Detailed studies need to be carried out to understand the suitable ST technology variants that are ideal
for Indian conditions. The ground work required to make this technology more acceptable to the
market has to be performed. Many of the existing plants that have been collated in this study are
demonstration plants. Currently, only four plants are commercial plants, producing grid connected
power.

Opportunities: In terms of technology that can be used for Indian conditions, the initial assessment
(See Section 3.1.1) suggests that for India, plants with an external cylindrical receiver (with surround
field) or cavity receiver (with north side field). Since plants employing these receivers have been
commercially proven, these two technologies can be adopted for Indian conditions. High temperatures
in the range of 300 to 1000°C are possible with the use of suitable HTFs leading to higher power
cycle efficiencies.

Due to availability of biomass resource in India, hybridisation with biomass can be achieved in order
to increase the Plant Load Factor (PLF) of the plants.

3.3.2. Financial and Policy

Challenges: Since ST technology is a new entrant in the power sector, and only a few demonstration
plants have been built, the actual costs are not known. Bankability of this technology is also an issue
in the Indian market. Hence, getting financial closure would be difficult in this case. Furthermore,
there is a void in the policy framework for tariff support for implementation of power plants with
storage and hybridisation. This is a deterrent to the growth of ST plants in India.
 3.4. Engineering & Design

3.4.1. Technical Expertise in India

Challenges: Companies specialising in design, implementation and construction of ST plants are

currently not present in India and very few companies exist worldwide. The lack of domestic industry
participation also hampers the investment that can be made in this technology. Not enough pilot
projects have come up, in India, in order to gain a better understanding of the ST technology.

Opportunities: India could have a head start in the designing and manufacturing of various
components and further improvement through R&D facilities. A gradual market can be built up.
Meanwhile the advantages in importing various components of this technology can be examined.

3.4.2. Manufacturing, Supply Chain & Materials

Challenges: Absence of an established supply chain for the main ST components is a major
challenge. One of the most important components of ST technology, namely, the receiver, does not
have even a single indigenous manufacturing unit in India. At the international level as well, there are
only a handful of manufacturers, resulting in expensive receivers.

For the HTF, there are only three suppliers of molten salt globally, namely, SQM (Chile), Haifa
Chemicals (Israel), and Durferrit Salts and Auxiliary Products (Germany). Lack of domestic suppliers
for molten salt is a barrier in implementing ST plants with storage (as molten salt storage is the most
efficient presently). This is due to the fact that molten salt is a major cost contributor of a storage
system.

Unlike PT, which has a well-established supply chain, ST has limited suppliers as well as standards
due to the large number of variants in technology. Furthermore there is no benchmarking for
reliability testing of ST components. Due to this, market acceptability of in-house manufactured
components is low. We can see that due to the lack of demand for components such as heliostats,
receivers etc. for which a domestic market can be set up, the question of sustainability looms at large.

Opportunities: The manufacture of low cost heliostats is possible as there is considerable availability
of low iron content glass in India, which is necessary for the fabrication of heliostats. The structural
designing of the tower and manufacturing of heliostat support structures (requisite drive mechanisms)
can be accomplished in India, at lower costs.

The establishment of an indigenous market for receiver technology (external cylindrical and cavity
receivers) can be done as, once the specifications are known. Since India has a good engineering base,
the manufacturing and fabrication process can be achieved.

4. Conclusion
The total capacity of grid-connected solar projects in India currently stands at 2632 MW as on March
31, 2014 [41]. The contribution from CSP in Phase-1 has been very less compared to the contribution
of photovoltaic systems. Some of the reasons for the slow deployment of CSP in India are: availability
of solar resource data, delay in importing key components of the plant (mirrors, HTF, etc.), obtaining
financial closure, etc. However, CSP is expected to play a significant role in the coming phases of
JNNSM, given the mandate of 30% capacity addition from CSP [12]. Assuming that 30% of the target
could be tapped from solar thermal technologies, the share of CSP will be around 6000 MW. Based
on present maturity levels of ST technology, it is assumed that it can contribute around 30% of the
CSP share, resulting in approximately 1800 MW of installed capacity by 2022.

As seen from the existing plants, most of the tower plants employ either the external cylindrical or the
cavity type receiver. By using molten salt, one can achieve higher temperatures along with thermal
storage for a long duration. The main advantage of using molten salt is that it can be used both as the
HTF and as well as the storage medium.

Given the considerations mentioned above, the system configuration that could be ideal for Indian
conditions are:

• Molten salt as both HTF and storage medium

• External cylindrical receivers with a larger north-side field, or cavity receivers with a north-
side field
• Thermal storage for utility scale plants as it can provide reliable and dispatchable power, and
further help in meeting peak-time demands
• Biomass hybridisation

As discussed earlier, based on reasonable assumption, the share of ST technology deployment in

India, is about 1800MW (of grid-connected power), which is to be achieved by 2022. The assessment
study concludes that this is an achievable target. Given the challenges with conventional methods of
power generation, the use of tower technology in harnessing solar power will play a pivotal role in
meeting India’s future energy demands.

5. Acknowledgements
This paper is based on the work done at CSTEP supported in part under the US-India Partnership to
Advance Clean Energy-Research (PACE-R) for the Solar Energy Research Institute for India and the
United States (SERIIUS), funded jointly by the U.S. Department of Energy (Office of Science, Office
of Basic Energy Sciences, and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Solar Energy Technology
Program, under Subcontract DE-AC36-08GO28308 to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
Golden, Colorado) and the Government of India, through the Department of Science and Technology
under Subcontract IUSSTF/JCERDC-SERIIUS/2012 dated 22nd November, 2012. The authors are
grateful to Dr Anshu Bharadwaj, Executive Director, CSTEP for his constant encouragement, support
and guidance. The authors are also thankful to M A Ramaswamy, Advisor, CSTEP and Badri S Rao,
Research Engineer, CSTEP for their critical review in improving the manuscript.
References
[1] National Renewable Energy Laboratories (NREL). URL:
http://www.nrel.gov/csp/solarpaces/by_project.cfm [Accessed: January 2014].
[2] Burgaleta JI, Arias S, Ramírez D. Gemasolar - The first tower thermosolar commercial plant with
moltern salt storage. In: SolarPACES, Granada, Spain, September 2011; 20–23.

[3] Koll G, Schwarzboezl P, Hennecke K, Hartz T, Schmitz M, Hoffschmidt B. The Solar Tower
Jülich - A Research and Demonstration Plant for Central Receiver Systems. 15th Proceedings
SolarPACES 2009; September 2009, Berlin; 15 – 18
[4] Quero M, Korzynietz R, Ebert M, Jiménez AA, del Río A, Brioso JA. Solugas – Operation
experience of the first solar hybrid gas turbine system at MW scale. SolarPACES: Energy Procedia
2013;000-000.
[5] Meduri PK, Hannemann CR, Pacheco JE. Performance Characterization and Operation of eSolar’s
Sierra Suntower Power Tower Plant. In: SolarPACES Conference 2010, Perpignan, France.
[6] Zunft S, Hänel M, Krüger M, Dreissigacker V, Göhring F, Wahl E. Jülich solar power tower –
experimental evaluation of the storage subsystem and performance calculation. ASME Journal of
Solar Energy Engineering, 2011;133: 031019-1.
[7] Xu E,Yu Q,Wang Z,Yang C. Modeling and simulation of 1 MW DAHAN solar thermal power
tower plant. Renewable Energy 2011; 36:848–57.
[8] Tyner C, Wasyluk D. eSolar’s modular, scalable molten salt power tower reference plant
design.SolarPACES: In: 19th annual SolarPACES symposium. 2013. Las Vegas; Energy Procedia
2013;000-000.
[9] Manuel Romero, Reiner Buck, James E. Pacheco. An Update on Solar Central Receievr Systems,
Projects and Technologies. ASME 2002;124:98-108.
[10] Siva Reddy V, Kaushik SC, Ranjan KR, Tyagi SK, State of the Art Solar Thermal Power Plants -
A Review. Renewable and Sustanable Energy Reviews,2013;27:258-73
[11] Zhang HL, Baeyens J, Degrève J, Cacères G. Concentrated solar power plants: Review and
design methodology. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2013; 22:466-81.
[12] MNRE-Phase II-JNNSM Policy Document, December 2012. Url: http://mnre.gov.in/file-
manager/UserFiles/draft-jnnsmpd-2.pdf [Accessed: February 2014].
[13] National Renewable Energy Laboratories (NREL). URL:
http://www.nrel.gov/csp/solarpaces/power_tower.cfm. [Accessed: January 2014].
[14] Mahtta R, Joshi PK, Jindal AK. Solar Power Potential Mapping in India using Remote Sensing
Inputs and Environmental Parameters. Renewable Energy 71 (2014): 255-262.
[15] Khare V, Nema S, Baredar P. Status of Solar Wind Renewable Energy in India. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 27 (2013):1–10.
[16] Chandel M, Agrawal GD, Mathur S, Mathur A. Techno-Economic Analysis of Solar
Photovoltaic Power Plant for Garment Zone of Jaipur city. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 2
(2014):1–7.
[17] Wikimapia. URL: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=37.564548&lon=-5.326610&z=15&m=b
[Accessed: February 2014]
[18] Wikimapia. URL: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=37.445153&lon=-
6.255856&z=16&m=b&search=plant%20solar%2010%20seville [Accessed: February 2014]
[19] Google Maps. URL: https://www.google.co.in/maps/@34.7314081,-
118.1384052,238m/data=!3m1!1e3 [Accessed: February 2014]
[20] Google Maps. URL:
https://www.google.co.in/maps/place/J%C3%BClich/@50.9148227,6.3878133,480m/data=!3m1!1e3!
4m2!3m1!1s0x47bf5955a9618aa3:0x3eefff6a1ed5a8f9 [Accessed: February 2014]
[21] Archimede Solar Energy URL: http://www.archimedesolarenergy.it/molten_salt.htm. [Accessed:
February 2014]
[22] Ramaswamy MA, Chandrasekaran VS, Krishnan R, Thirumalai NC, Suresh NS, Badri S R,
Dolly SK, Kanth VC, Kumar VA. Engineering Economic Policy Assessment of Concentrated Solar
Thermal Power Technologies for India. Banaglore: CSTEP 2012;162-4.
[23] Stein WB, Geyer M. Power from the Sun. URL:
http://www.powerfromthesun.net/Book/chapter10/chapter10.html [Accessed: February 2014]
[24] Augsburg G. Thermo-Economic Optimization of Large Solar Tower Power, EPFL 2013; Page
92.
[25] Quero M, Korzynietz R, Ebert M, Jiménez AA, del Río A, Brioso JA. Solugas – Operation
experience of the first solar hybrid gas turbine system at MW scale. SolarPACES 2013: Energy
Procedia 2013: 000-000.
[26] Hull V, Lorin L. The Role of '‘Allowable Flux Density" in the Design and Operation of Molten
Salt Solar Central Receivers. Journal Solar Energy Engineering 2002;124:165-9.
[27] http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/eu/index_en.cfm?pg=research-csp-support. [Accessed:
February 2014].
[28] NREL, URL: http://www.nrel.gov/csp/solarpaces/project_detail.cfm/projectID=253. [Accessed:
February 2014].
[29] The Energy Collective, URL: http://theenergycollective.com/nathan-wilson/58791/20mw-
gemasolar-plant-elegant-pricey. [Accessed: January 2014].
[30] National Insititute of Wind Energy. URL: http://cwet.res.in/web/html/departments_srra.html.
[Accessed: October 2014].
[31] National Renewable Energy Laboratories (NREL).
URL:http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/new_data/India/
[32] Database Name: Meteonorm, Data Provider: Meteotest. URL: http://meteonorm.com/.
[Accessed: February 2014].
[33] Database Name and Provider: Weather Analytics. URL: http://www.weatheranalytics.com/.
[Accessed: February 2014].

[34] Database Name: Solemi, Data Provider: DLR. URL: www.dlr.de/tt/solemi. [Accessed: March
2014].
[35] Suri M, Cebecauer T. Satellite-based Solar Resource Data: Model Validation Statistics Versus
User’s Uncertainty. Presented at: ASES SOLAR 2014 Conference, San Francisco.

[36] Ballestrin J, Marzo A. Solar Radiation Attenuation in Solar Tower Plants. 17th SolarPACES
International Symposium 20-23 September 2011. Granada, Spain.
[37] National Renewable Energy Laboratories (NREL).
URL:http://www.nrel.gov/international/images/india_dni_annual.jpg
[38] Wastelands Atlas of India, Departement of Land Resources, national Remote Sensing Centre;
2011
[39] Down To Earth, URL: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/solar-thermal-technology-get-
boost-phase-two-solar-mission. [Accessed: December 2014].
[40] MNRE, URL: http://mnre.gov.in/centers/about-sec-2/new-initiatives/. [Accessed: February
2014].
[41]Renewable
Energy Headlines, URL:
http://www.renewableenergyheadlines.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=2739:total-
grid-connected-solar-capacity-stood-at-2-632-mw-as-on-march-31-2014&Itemid=103. [Accessed:
February 2014]

     

  

   
  
 


 







 
 



 







 ! "  
 

 ! 
    +

# $  %&'( #))*+& #)+*,& #),*&

 
!
"

##
####
$####

%%&!
' 
( 

$##
###
$###








































+- $   .   +

1   
2

   0" $  "  3% (   
  $    "  1  1
2
#!/& # & # & 1    "  .  
"#$& #$&
#$&
'
#
'
#


$
$#
###

)

$##

*+ ,
!- 
.
.

$

###
#
/ -
(
$##

'
$#
'
$#

#
$
$#
####

)

$##

0
)

'
' "
'(

#
.
$ #
.
$#

 
12 

$##

3  

!-  
12 
 

'
$#


$#
$#
###
#
$#

4,-  
  
' 

(1
5 
$.
#
.
$#
.
$$$

)

$#

0,
, 
.

.$
##
##
####

)

$#

'  
'
.
#


$
 

)
(
$#$

5) ,
' 
12 

'(
$
#

 ##
.#
$$#
#

$#

4"
3  



4- $    5     +

1   
67 
1     

     0" $  3%  
   "  2 1  1
2
$ #!/& # & # & 1        
"#$& "  #$&
  
"#$&
  
12 
 

'(
#
#

#
$.
######

$#

0 
  
' 

12 
 

3
' 
'(
#


#
$.
######

$#

  
' 

6,
' 
',
(%
#
$
#
$#
#
##
$##
)

$#

4
7
 

'
, 
#
$.
#
$#
$
 #
#
$#

0
' 


8  6  % 6 67  +

" 
 
3  67  1   
3  6 
  $   6   " 
#9/'$'&  % 
#!/&    "#$&
6#:&
#!/'&

.63"
-. "0
3)
4
8
)

 ) .#$
$ ##
$#$
###
.

 ) $#
###
$#$
####
.

; .
#
$#
####
.

3)
4
8
12 
49 

$  .
####
$$
###
.

-%
$
#$ $
$
$$#
. #

6 
3)
4
8
/ -

< .
###
#$
###
.

5 ;63.
35
-. 
3)
4
8
12 
  

3  #
####
$
# 
.

 
#
###
$
# 
.

; 







=! ">  +

   6? %   ! " ! "#$&!/

  $
#!/& # & #!/& #$& 
3  6? % 
    
   
.  
3)
4
8
)

 *) .#$

$.$
###
#
$

 *) $#

$$.$$
####
##
#

"!6 $.
#
$.
$
$
$

; .

.
####



  .
#
.
 



3)
4
8
12 
49 

$  .

 .#
###
#
$

-% $
#
$
$#####



3)
4
8
12 
  
 
0
)

 
#

$#
 
 

3)
4
8
/ -

< .
.
.
###
$###
#$

5     
3)
4
8
12 
  

3  #

$ .
# 
$


 
#
#
$ $.$$
# 
#


; 
3)
4
8
)

@ 
#
$

###
#


.













,0">  +

6? % 
   0"
  $   0"# &!/
#!/& # & # &
#!/&







 6? % 
3  
 
.  
3)
4
8
)

 *) .#$

$.$


.

 *) $#

$$.$$
#

.

"!6 $.
#
$.
.
$.
.

; .

.
.$
.
.

  .
#
.

.
.

3)
4
8
12 

$  .

 .#

.
.

-% $
#
$.#

.
.

3)
4
8
12 
  
 
0
)

 
#
.#
.
.
.

3)
4
8
/ -

< .
.
.

.
.

5     
3)
4
8
12 
  

3  #

$ .

.
$

  #
#
$ $.$$

.
$.

3)
4
8
)

@ 
#
$

#
$.
$.

.
3)
4
8
4
9
0

 
#
$.
#
#
.
.








A9;  
 

9; 
  $ '
 #:&
2      #3&
!-  
.
.$

  
0 
.
.

5'1!'
.
#.

2     
'
#
 .
.

'
$#
.
.

2     
'
' "
.$
$.

*+ ,
$$.
$.



B"% 0$    1
2

HTF Advantages Limitations

 -Dissimilar heat transfer coefficients in liquid,
-For steam Rankine cycle, water being the
saturated vapour and superheated gas phases
working fluid, the need for heat exchanger is
-Consequent problems with temperature gradient
Water eliminated
and thermal stress
-Eliminates the costs associated with the salt or
-Flow control problems with varying solar flux
oil based HTFs
-Difficult for long thermal storage hours

-Stable, non-toxic and environmentally benign

-High melting point (~222°C); Needs auxiliary
Molten -High thermal conductivity and thermal
heating to prevent solidification
Salt capacity
-Highly corrosive at elevated temperatures
-Operating temperatures can go up to 560°C

-Poor heat transfer properties (conductivity, film

-High temperatures of the order of 1000°C can
Air coefficient etc.) compared to other fluids
be utilized
-Complex receiver design


)3% C6 $  

  !7E
     " 
6? %  > 9    "  2 7     " 
> 9   "'
  $   -  3% 1
2 2 7;  3% 3% 3%
6 > 9   
#!/&
$ #!/ &  1
2 #9/'$& "#$& "#$&
#:& #!/ & "
#D& #9/'$&

 

' 
4"
 .


.#
.
###
#
$.
. #
$. 

' 

 

!-  
 .#


$ .
.$#
###
#
#.$
$.
.

' 

'&#
$.$
$#
$
.
 .

#
##
.
$.
.

0,
.
##
$
.
.

#
##
$.$#
$
#.

*+ ,
' 

.
#
$
.$
.
(
$##
#$#
. #
$$
$.

4"

'  
.
#
#
.
.#
(
$##
#$#
.
#.$
.#




4, 

 -
) 
:$$;


1 ;   2  1    $ 


 
6  6? % 


E
    1 
E
#!/& # & #!/& #$&
.  
3)
4
8
)

 '
#


$.$


 '
$#
$#

$$.$


+ (1
$.
#
$.


4 0,
.

.


3)
4
8
12 
49 

8 !-  
.

 .
#

= 5'1!'
 #
#
 #
#

3)
4
8
12 
  
 
0
)

, '

#



3)
4
8
/ -

A *+ ,
.
.
.
#

5     
3)
4
8
12 
  

B 3
' 
#

$ .


  

) #
#
$ $.$


 

3)
4
8
)

6,
' 

 #
$
.
$##

 

3)
4
8
4
9
0

 '
#
$.

#


















"%      



6  6? %    ' #3E
   
# &    '!/&
#!/&
0,
.

.
.

'
#
.#$

$.$
.$

!-  
$#

 .
.

$$



 350000

Heliostat Aperture Area

300000
250000
200000

(m2)
150000
100000
50000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Equivalent Capacity (MW)

Fig. 1: Mirror Area vs. Equivalent Capacity for Operational Plants

250
Land Area (hectares)

200

150

100

50

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Equivalent Capacity (MW)

Fig. 2: Land Area vs. Equivalent Capacity for Existing Plants

Fig. 3: Heliostat Field at the Gemasolar Plant, Spain [17]

$



 Fig. 4: The Heliostat Field for PS 10 and PS 20, Spain [18]

Fig. 5: Heliostat Field at the Sierra Sun Tower, USA [19]

Fig. 6: Heliostat Field of the Jülich plant, Germany [20]

$



 $#

$## 

Tower height (m)

$  
#
 #


##
$

# 

#
# # ## # $## $# ##

Equivalent Capacity (MW)

Fig. 7: Variation of Tower Height with Equivalent Capacity

Fig. 8: Nomogram Showing the Path of the Sun

$



 Fig. 9: Annual DNI Map for India [37]

$