Initial Investigation Into The Potential of CSP Industrial Process Heat For The Southwest United States

Initial Investigation into the
Potential of CSP Industrial

Process Heat for the Southwest
United States
Parthiv Kurup and Craig Turchi
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy
Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
Technical Report
NREL/TP-6A20-64709
November 2015
Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Initial Investigation into the
Potential of CSP Industrial
Process Heat for the
Southwest United States
Parthiv Kurup and Craig Turchi
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Prepared under Task Nos. CP13.3510 and ST6C.0410
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy
Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Report

15013 Denver West Parkway NREL/TP-6A20-64709
Golden, CO 80401 November 2015
303-275-
Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308
NOTICE
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government.
Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty,
express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of
any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately
owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name,
trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation,
or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors
expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at SciTech Connect http:/www.osti.gov/scitech
Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:
U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062
OSTI http://www.osti.gov
Phone: 865.576.8401
Fax: 865.576.5728
Email: reports@osti.gov
Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:
U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service
5301 Shawnee Road
Alexandria, VA 22312
NTIS http://www.ntis.gov
Phone: 800.553.6847 or 703.605.6000
Fax: 703.605.6900
Email: orders@ntis.gov
Cover Photos by Dennis Schroeder: (left to right) NREL 26173, NREL 18302, NREL 19758, NREL 29642, NREL 19795.
NREL prints on paper that contains recycled content.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC36-08-
GO28308 with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Funding was provided by the Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Solar Energy Technologies Program.
iii
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
Executive Summary
After significant interest in the 1970s, but relatively few deployments, the use of solar
technologies for thermal applications, including enhanced oil recovery (EOR), desalination, and
industrial process heat (IPH), is again receiving global interest. In particular, the European Union
(EU) has been a leader in the use, development, deployment, and tracking of Solar Industrial
Process Heat (SIPH) plants.
The objective of this study is to ascertain U.S. market potential of IPH for concentrating
collector technologies that have been developed and promoted through the U.S. Department of
Energys Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) Program. For this study, the solar-thermal collector
technologies of interest are parabolic trough collectors (PTCs) and linear Fresnel (LF) systems.
This report first reviews global SIPH activities that employ concentrating collector technologies.
From that basis it explores the potential of SIPH, with emphasis on the state of California. The
best entry markets for SIPH in the United States are the regions having excellent Direct Normal
Irradiance (DNI) resource and IPH-user industries. The opportunity for deployment of SIPH is
identified by understanding and breaking down the industrial use of direct process heat and
steam in the U.S. market into submarkets. The report also maps industries requiring IPH with
locations having suitable DNI for solar-thermal facilities.
Regarding industrial use of direct process heat and steam, this report focuses on the southwestern
states, and in particular, California. The assessment for California indicates a technical thermal
energy potential (i.e., the achievable solar energy generation given collector performance,
topographic limitations, environmental and land-use constraints) of almost 23,000 TWhth/yr.
This dwarfs the estimated demand of about 48 TWhth/yr for the five industrial sectors in
California that utilize the most natural gas for IPH. It is important to highlight, the proximity of
the solar supply/potential and the demand at site is more important for SIPH than solar
generation of electricity.
An assessment of suitable SIPH applications must consider the temperature capabilities of the
solar collectors as well as the temperature requirements of the target markets. This study
identified three general regions of temperatures between 80C and 400C that can be defined for
linear concentrating collectors based mainly on the most suitable heat transfer fluid (HTF). The
low-temperature region of 80-200C is best suited for use of water or steam, the intermediate
region of 200-300C can utilize direct steam generation (DSG) or mineral oils, and the high-
temperature region of 300-400C must use DSG or more costly synthetic oils. It is further noted
that the industrial demand for steam is dominated by temperatures in the range of 120 to 220C. 1
Thus, the best SIPH market target is believed to be systems using pressurized water or steam in
the range of 120 to 220C. Because this temperature is well below the level employed at
electricity-generating CSP plants, there may be advantages to optimizing collector/receiver and
thermal energy storage designs for this temperature regime.
The cost for solar-generated heat by SIPH is quantified by defining the levelized cost of heat
(LCOH) in a fashion analogous to the familiar levelized cost of energy (LCOE). California offers
a favorable environment for SIPH given its good insolation, gas prices typically higher than the
national average, and policies promoting solar-thermal deployment. Prior efforts to promote
iv
widespread SIPH development in the 1970s and 1980s failed because heat from solar fields
could not compete with natural gas prices. Given historically low gas prices, this remains a
challenge today. However, solar field costs have fallen dramatically in the past decade and this
study finds that the solar LCOH for many regions in California is lower than the LCOH from
natural gas, using a representative installed solar hardware price and the average price for
industrial natural gas in California. Economics of individual cases will be governed by the
project-specific attributes, such as contract gas price, access to land, and process flexibility.
Based on global experience, the food sector is viewed as a good candidate for early adoption of
SIPH systems. For example, one of the largest SIPH plants in the world uses solar heat to fry
potato chips in Modesto, California. In addition to the economic potential described above, this
sector may recognize a marketing benefit in the use of solar energy that helps offset the risk of
deploying the technology.
The present study highlights the potential of SIPH in California; this could lead to consideration
and eventual deployment of new SIPH facilities. Such deployment would expand use of solar-
thermal collectors, helping to drive down the cost of the hardware and leveraging the investment
made by DOEs Solar Energy Technologies Office. IPH represents about 29% of all primary
energy used in the manufacturing sector, which is the thermal energy equivalent of 5,700 CSP
plants the size of Nevada Solar One. Expansion of solar energy into this market is expected to
help reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions associated with fossil fuel combustion.
v
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................................... vi
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 How Solar Thermal can Meet the Needs of IPH ........................................................................... 2
2 Global SIPH Potential, Efforts, and Projects ..................................................................................... 4
2.1 Market Studies for the use of SIPH ............................................................................................... 5
2.2 Existing PTC Plants for SIPH ....................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Global Examples of Concentrating SIPH Systems ....................................................................... 6
2.4 Temperature Ranges for SIPH ...................................................................................................... 9
2.4.1 Candidate HTFs.............................................................................................................. 10
3 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 13
3.1 Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up Analysis ............................................................................................ 13
3.2 Limitations for the Chosen Method and Study............................................................................ 14
4 U.S. Demand for IPH ........................................................................................................................... 17
4.1 U.S. Industrial Consumption of Natural Gas for Process Heat ................................................... 20
4.2 California Industrial Natural Gas Consumption .......................................................................... 23
4.3 Natural Gas Prices for Industry Across the U.S. Southwest ....................................................... 25
4.4 Southwestern U.S. DNI and Solar-Thermal Energy Potential .................................................... 26
4.5 Locations of California Industries Using IPH ............................................................................. 29
4.6 IPH Collector Costs and LCOH .................................................................................................. 31
4.7 U.S. Incentives for SIPH ............................................................................................................. 33
4.8 U.S. Case Studies for SIPH Plants .............................................................................................. 34
4.8.1 Modesto Frito Lay Food Processing Plant ..................................................................... 34
4.8.2 Desalination and Californias Need for Water ............................................................... 36
5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 43
6 Future Analyses Possibilities............................................................................................................ 45
Appendix A. Industry Sectors with Potential for SIPH Application ..................................................... 47
Appendix B. Fuel Use by Type and End Use.......................................................................................... 48
Appendix C. Thermal Energy Potential of California ............................................................................ 50
Appendix D. LCOH Calculation and Assumptions ................................................................................ 54
Capital and Operating Costs ................................................................................................................. 55
Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 55
Financial Assumptions ......................................................................................................................... 55
Equations for FCR Calculation ............................................................................................................ 57
Notes .......................................................................................................................................................... 59
Bibliography .............................................................................................................................................. 63
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1. Estimated temperature range for solar energy heat technologies .................................................. 3
Figure 2. Solar IPH plants built across the world from 1980 to 2015 (left chart) and in the United States
(right chart) .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3. Cumulative number and kWth capacity of PTC IPH plants worldwide as of June 2015 .............. 6
Figure 4. PTC IPH plants across the world by industry served (as of May 2015) ........................................ 6
Figure 5. CSP PTCs used for generating heat at the Cremo SA milk processing centre .............................. 7
Figure 6. TSE1 site in Thailand where the Solarlite SL 4600s were being utilized for DSG ....................... 7
Figure 7. LF system installed on a roof ........................................................................................................ 8
Figure 8. Methodology developed for this study to determine U.S. SIPH potential with an example of the
food industry in California ................................................................................................................. 14
Figure 9. Sankey diagram of the annual primary energy flow in the U.S. manufacturing sector ............... 17
Figure 10. Sankey Diagram of annual process energy flow in U.S. manufacturing sector. Process energy
is a subset of primary energy (see Figure 9). ..................................................................................... 18
Figure 11. MECS 2010 energy end use by percentage and quantity (TBtu/yr) .......................................... 19
Figure 12. Energy consumption within the MECS industries by end-use category as of 2010 .................. 19
Figure 13. Total U.S. consumption of natural gas (NG) by MECS sector and natural gas used for direct
process heating and conventional boiler use. ..................................................................................... 20
Figure 14. IPH annual energy use for steam generation for the industries utilizing the greatest amount of
natural gas .......................................................................................................................................... 22
Figure 15. Industrial natural gas end use for California as of 2005 ............................................................ 23
Figure 16. Industrial electrical end use for California as of 2005 ............................................................... 24
Figure 17. Natural gas prices for industry for the southwestern United States (2009 to 2014) .................. 25
Figure 18. U.S. annual average DNI map (data from 1998 to 2009) .......................................................... 26
Figure 19. Solar-thermal energy potential (MWhth/km2) for California based on DNI and land area
constraints .......................................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 20. Locations of animal-food processing, breweries, and dairy products plants across California
along with annual solar-thermal energy potential .............................................................................. 29
Figure 21. Close up of Fresno showing the solar-thermal generation potential and potential user industries30
Figure 22. Quoted FOB uninstalled collector costs ($/m2) ........................................................................ 31
Figure 23. Estimated installed collector costs per m2 for a 20-ha SIPH installation .................................. 32
Figure 24. Estimated LCOH for different solar resource and solar field costs compared with two LCOHs
from the use of natural gas at U.S. and Californian Industrial natural gas prices ............................. 33
Figure 25. Modesto and Panoche SIPH plants as of Sept. 2014 ................................................................. 34
Figure 26. PTCs at the Frito Lay Modesto food processing plant .............................................................. 35
Figure 27. Drought Monitor Map of the United States as of June 9, 2015 ................................................. 36
Figure 28. Western U.S. drought maps comparing June 9, 2015 and June 10, 2015.................................. 37
Figure 29. CSP configurations currently under interest using RO and MED ............................................. 39
Figure 30. Basic MD system ....................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 31. Solar thermal-gradient pond paired with a MED thermal desalination system ......................... 41
Figure 32. SkyTrough CSP collector at the Panoche desalination pilot plant ............................................ 41
Figure 33. 2010 MECS overall natural gas breakdown by end use ............................................................ 49
Figure 34. 2010 MECS overall electricity end use breakdown .................................................................. 49
Figure 35. Solar technical thermal energy potential of CA overlaid on animal-food processing sites ....... 51
Figure 36. Solar technical thermal energy potential of CA overlaid on the breweries ............................... 52
Figure 37. Solar technical thermal energy potential of CA overlaid on locations of dairy product
manufacturers..................................................................................................................................... 53
vii
List of Tables
Table 1. Typical Applications for IPH .......................................................................................................... 2
Table 2. Temperature regions relevant for SIPH .......................................................................................... 9
Table 3. Physical properties and costs for candidate HTFs ........................................................................ 10
Table 4 Temperature-dependent properties for candidate HTFs. ............................................................... 11
Table 5. Safety/environmental characteristics of candidate heat-transfer fluids based on U.S. National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) ratings. NFPA rankings range from no risk (0) to high risk (4)...... 12
Table 6. List of Specific Industries Included in the MECS (NAICS Codes 31-33) ................................... 15
Table 7. MECS Sectors with the greatest steam use at less than 260C ..................................................... 21
Table 8. U.S. natural gas consumption for direct process heating and conventional boiler use in high-use
industry sectors .................................................................................................................................. 22
Table 9. Natural gas consumption (TBtu/yr) for California by use sector (as of 2013) ............................. 23
Table 10. Estimated natural gas consumption for direct process heating and boiler use in California for
select MECS industries ...................................................................................................................... 24
Table 11. Thermal Power Density and Capacity Factor by DNI Class....................................................... 28
Table 12. Overview of Desalination Technologies ..................................................................................... 38
Table 13. Studies globally regarding industries that could be suitable for SIPH applications ................... 47
Table B-1. End use fuel consumption for all MECS 2010 industries in the United States......................... 48
Table C-1. Annual technical thermal energy potential by county in California ......................................... 50
Table D-1. LCOH calculation method patterned after the fixed charge rate LCOE calculation in SAM
2015-06-30. Calculated values are defined in the text below. ........................................................... 54
viii
Nomenclature
AHP Absorption heat pump
LF Linear Fresnel
CSP Concentrating solar power
DOE Department of Energy
DNI Direct normal irradiance
DSG Direct steam generation
EIA Energy Information Agency
EU European Union
FCR Fixed charge rate
HTF Heat transfer fluid
IEA International Energy Agency
IPH Industrial process heat
GIS Geographic information system
LCOE Levelized cost of energy (electricity)
LCOH Levelized cost of heat
LF Linear Fresnel (collector)
MECS Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey
MED Multi-effect distillation
MGD Million gallons per day
MSF Multi-stage flash
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
PTC Parabolic trough collector
RO Reverse osmosis
SAM System Advisor Model
SHC Solar heating and cooling
SHIP Solar heat for industrial processes
SIPH Solar industrial process heat
TBtu Trillion British thermal units
1
Fox, Sutter, and Tester, The Thermal Spectrum of Low-Temperature Energy Use in the United States.
ix
1 Introduction
Thermal energy and steam are ubiquitous needs in industrial processes. From the extraction of
raw materials to food processing, heat is a vital part of the processing and manufacturing sectors.
In the last several years, interest in using solar thermal collectors to generate the heat needed for
industrial processes and applications has grown. Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) plants for
electricity production have seen great expansion in the past decade, with large plants constructed
in the Europe Union (EU), Africa, Australia, and the United States. These concentrating
technologies can achieve relatively high temperaturesfor example, linear-focus collectors can
reach temperatures up to about 500C, and point-focus technologies can go to even higher
temperatures. For solar hardware developers, expansion into industrial process heat (IPH) offers
access to new markets for CSP collector technologies. Greater market size, in turn, can drive
down the cost of CSP collectors through economies of scale in manufacturing and learning-curve
advances in deployment. This report looks at the potential for CSP collector technologies applied
to IPH in the United States. The study focuses on California and the states of the southwest.
In the 1970s and 1980s there was a great deal of interest in collection of solar thermal energy for
buildings and process heat applications 2,3. Despite significant effort, very few projects came to
fruition, mainly due to solar collector cost relative to the alternative price of natural gas 4. In
recent years, the improvement and proliferation of solar collectors for electricity generation and
the development of sophisticated solar collector modeling tools has regenerated interest in solar
process heat applications. In 1977, the International Energy Agency (IEA) established the Solar
Heating and Cooling (SHC) program and looked to create an environment for the development
and progression of SHC. 5 An EU-led collaborative project between the IEA SHC and the
SolarPACES program, known as Task 49/Task IV, was set up specifically to address establishing
and helping to meet the potential of solar for IPH. 6 Much of the initial work dealt with the
potential of non-concentrating, flat-plate collectors. Flat-plate solar collectors are common in
many countries, including the United States, where the overwhelming majority is applied for
domestic home heating or heating water for pools. 7 While these are excellent applications for
low-temperature collectors, this report deals with the growing interest in the deployment of
concentrating collector technologies that can achieve temperatures needed within the industrial
sector.
The EU in the last decade has been leading the research into SIPH a, and increasing plant
installations are indicative of the increasing interest. However, as of 2015, despite great
potential, the worldwide adoption of CSP technologies for IPH generation is modest. Due to the
excellent solar resource conditions in the United States (especially in the Southwest) and the
ubiquitous need for IPH, the United States provides a sizeable opportunity for greater
deployment of solar-thermal collectors with the associated benefits of increased solar jobs, lower
carbon emissions, and potential cost reductions in collector technologies. For example, within
the U.S. industrial sector, the estimated consumption of energy for heat for applications such as
washing, sterilization, and preheating was approximately 24,000 TBtu in 2014. 8 b
a
Note that the IEA uses the acronym SHIP for solar heat for industrial processes. This report will refer to these
applications as solar industrial process heat, or SIPH.
b
1 trillion Btu (TBtu) is approximately equal to 1015 J or 293 GWhth
1
This report will show that for California in particular, the solar technical potential to supply heat
from CSP can theoretically meet Californias demand for heat in major industries that use IPH.
The next section of this report covers a brief introduction into IPH and how concentrating solar-
thermal technologies can provide energy to this application. Section 2 highlights global SIPH
projects and efforts. Section 3 addresses the methodology used for this study. Section 4 provides
results of understanding the potential thermal energy demand within selected industries and then
the thermal energy potential in California for SIPH. Conclusions and recommendations follow.
1.1 How Solar Thermal can Meet the Needs of IPH

Industrial and manufacturing companies have a large appetite for thermal energy. Research has
found the majority of process heat demand stems from either direct heating or steam generation,
where steam is typically generated indirectly in a fossil-fuel boiler. 9 One study in Germany
found 74% of the entire industrial energy consumption (641 TWhth/yr) was utilized to meet
thermal demand for areas such as process heat, space heating, and water heating. 10 Table 1
shows a sample of typical processes and applications (under 400C) that use process heat either
through direct heating or indirect heating and steam generation. As can be seen, there are
numerous applications where heat (conventionally produced through electricity or fossil fuel) is
utilized for IPH applications.
Table 1. Typical Applications for IPH 11
Fluid Metal and Non- Curing and

Heating Calcining Drying Heat Treating Metal Heating Forming
Resin and
Air heating Cement Crude oil Aging Cleaning plastics
Liquid Coke Food and by
Heating calcining products Coating Glass heating Heat forming
Minerals Pulp and Paint and
Reforming calcining paper Homogenizing organic coating
The recent growth in CSP has been focused on the construction of large electric-generating
plants. In these facilities, solar energy is first concentrated and used to heat a heat transfer fluid
(HTF). The HTF may be water/steam, oil, or molten salt. Generated steam can be expanded
directly into a turbine to produce electricity. Non-steam HTFs are used to produce steam in a
dedicated steam boiler prior to the steam turbine. Linear-focus CSP technologies such as
parabolic trough collectors (PTCs) and linear Fresnel (LFs) are ideally suited for producing hot
HTF or steam at temperatures up to about 500C. Figure 1 illustrates temperature ranges where
the main solar thermal collector technologies can supply heat or steam. As can be seen,
concentrating collectors (i.e., PTCs and LFs) can easily supply heat in the range required for
common industrial needs. 12 It is worth highlighting that the SIPH plant needs to be collocated or
near to the industrial plant be supply the heat input for the industrial processes, as heat or steam
transmission is limited in comparison to electricity generation.
2
Figure 1. Estimated temperature range for solar energy heat technologies 13
The objective of this study is to ascertain market potential within IPH for collector technologies
that have been developed and promoted through the DOE CSP Program. As will be shown, the
majority of IPH needs fall within a range of temperature that is most suited for linear-focus
collector technologies such as PTCs and LFs. The DOE CSP Program has long supported the
development of linear-collector technologies, and that research assisted the development and
deployment of CSP plants such as Nevada Solar One (Nevada), Martin Next Generation Solar
Energy Center (Florida), Genesis (California), Solana (Arizona), and Sundt Solar Booster
(Arizona), among others. Low-temperature heating in the range of about 80C and below, while
a good application for flat-plate and evacuated-tube solar thermal systems, are outside the scope
of this study.
3
2 Global SIPH Potential, Efforts, and Projects
In 2012, 45% of the heat in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
Americas was used by the industrial sector, with the residential sector coming in second at
32%. 14 In contrast, for the OECD Europe region the reverse was true, where the residential
sector makes up 45% relative to 34% for the industrial heat demand. In 2012, the U.S. demand
for IPH exceeded that for the EU.
The IEA estimates that with concerted collaborative effort, global usage of low-temperature
SIPH (e.g., <120C) could reach 7.2 exajoules per year (EJ/yr) by 2050, with 3,200 GWth of
capacity. 15 This would be approximately 16% of the global final energy use for low-temperature
heat. China is one of the key countries looking to install significant amounts of solar-thermal
collectors to meet the countrys industrial and agricultural heat demands. It is expected by 2020
1.5% of the entire Chinese industrial and agricultural thermal demand will be supplied by solar-
thermal sources. 16
As of 2015, the IEA SHIP database c highlighted 155 projects where solar heat was directly used
for industrial processes. 17 The majority of these projects utilized flat-plate collectors, though the
prospect of using concentrating technologies such as PTCs and LFs is gaining interest. The
United States currently lists 18 SIPH plants, both with concentrating and nonconcentrating
collectors, in the database. This includes 10 SIPH plants utilized for Food and Dairy processing
(e.g. fruit drying, milk processing), 4 for the Beverage industry such as breweries, 2 for
Desalination & Water Treatment and 1 for Subway washing. These SIPH solar fields augment
and add heat/steam for processes used by these manufacturers. Preliminary research indicates
there is significant market for the United States to become a global leader for SIPH, especially in
the southwestern states. Figure 2 shows the number of SIPH plants constructed globally since
1980. The spikes in 2008 and 2012 for the United States were from specific SIPH plants, such as
the Modesto, CA, Frito Lay plant in 2008 and the St. Pauls, NC, Prestage Foods plant in 2012. 18
Figure 2. Solar IPH plants built across the world from 1980 to 2015 (left chart) and in the United
States (right chart) 19
c
The IEA uses the acronym SHIP for solar heat for industrial processes. This report has referred to these as SIPH
4
2.1 Market Studies for the use of SIPH
Several global studies have been performed to understand both technical and theoretical potential
of SIPH needs. 20 These studies have identified potential heat demands and how solar thermal can
be utilized to meet the thermal need of industries. 21 Countries such as Germany, Spain, Portugal,
Italy, and Austria have been leading the analysis. 22 Tunisian and Mexican studies of SIPH
potential have generally considered nonconcentrating solar-thermal collectors. 23 A 2013 German
study found the overall heat demand for German industry that could be theoretically met with
solar to be 16 TWhth/yr. 24 This accounts for approximately 3.4% of the overall German industrial
heat demand. 25 For comparison, 16 TWh of thermal energy is the annual thermal output of
approximately 46 Nevada Solar One CSP plants d. Another important study in the field of
understanding and quantifying solar heat and thermal potential was performed in 2012 in
Australia, where heat demand across Australia was detailed for 2,498 industrial sites. 26
The global studies have also highlighted key industries that could most easily and readily benefit
from the integration of steam/heat from solar thermal technologies. These include paper, dairy,
food, chemical and washing/cleaning. 27 The industries identified in the various country studies
are found in Appendix A. These global studies on SIPH are used to guide estimates of the
potential of SIPH for U.S. industrial heat users.
2.2 Existing PTC Plants for SIPH

The IEAs SHIP database compiles known plants where solar-thermal collectors are utilized to
provide IPH demands of a site (http://ship-plants.info/). While not extensive and omissions are
known, the database provides an estimate on the global situation of SIPH plants. At present, most
facilities use nonconcentrating collectors. PTCs are the most prevalent form of concentrating
collector for SIPH both in the United States and the world.
Figure 3 highlights the number and the cumulative capacity by country of PTCs utilized for
SIPH plants. It is worth noting that few key PTC SIPH plants such as the 10,000 kWth Abengoa
Solar Minera El Tesoro plant (operating since 2012), used for the solution heating process for
the copper electro-extraction process in the mining production, were not in the SIPH database. 28
As can be seen in Figure 3, while Mexico has the most PTC SIPH plants (orange dots), the actual
solar thermal capacity was relatively low (blue bars). The United States, on the other hand, had
only two PTC SIPH plants, but globally amounted for the greatest capacity at approximately
4,028 kWth.
d
Nevada Solar One, built at 64 MWe capacity, generates about 350 GWhth per year.
5
Figure 3. Cumulative number and kWth capacity of PTC IPH plants worldwide as of June 2015 29
Figure 4 highlights the capacity breakdown by country and industry of PTC SIPH plants.
Significantly, PTCs have predominantly been used at food and dairy processing plants, which
may be a combination of the IPH temperatures required and the favorable impression of using
solar energy for food production. For the food processing industry as a whole, nearly 3,900 kWth
of capacity had been installed as of 2015. As of June 2015, the United States had the only
operating PTC desalination plant.
Figure 4. PTC IPH plants across the world by industry served (as of May 2015) 30
2.3 Global Examples of Concentrating SIPH Systems

With regards to utilizing concentrating solar technologies for IPH, there are several examples
which highlight that potential can be met and that SIPH is an economically viable option. In
2014, there were fifteen PTC and four LF projects supplying process heat for a variety of
6
applications and temperatures. 31 The dairy industry in Switzerland utilized PTCs for milk
processing for three projects. The Cremo SA manufacturing plant, seen in Figure 5, has roof-
mounted PTCs to heat water for two processes. The rooftop solar field provides 170C steam for
the high temperature process of sterilization and 125C steam for milk processing/heating the
supply line. 32
Figure 5. CSP PTCs used for generating heat at the Cremo SA milk processing centre
SolarLite CSP Technology GmbH (Duckwitz, Germany) has specifically targeted the SIPH
market with their SL 4600 trough suited for temperatures up to about 250C. 33 A 2014 Solarlite
case study of a brewery in southern Europe highlighted that the brewery produced an average 1.4
million hectoliters (~37 million gallons) of beer per year and utilized approximately 4.5 million
m3 of natural gas per year. For the brewery, the natural gas was approximately 15% of the total
brewerys annual cost, amounting to 2.5M ($2.7M) per year. 34 With the implementation and
integration of the PTCs to provide significant thermal energy for the otherwise gas-fired boilers
(which produce steam at 8 bar and 170C), the brewery has reportedly saved 0.54M ($0.59M)
per year for an investment of 3.75M ($4.11M). The estimated simple payback was seven years
for this industrial-scale application. The case highlights the applicability for breweries as an
industry of interest for SIPH. SolarLite has expansion plans and a pipeline of activity for the
United States, Europe, and the Middle East. As of 2014, Solarlite reported a pipeline of nearly
100 MWth for Australia and were also testing the use of biomass combined with CSP for IPH. 35
Figure 6 shows the SL 4600 at the 5 MWe TSE1 site in Thailand, where SolarLite is utilizing the
troughs for direct steam generation (DSG).
Figure 6. TSE1 site in Thailand where the Solarlite SL 4600s were being utilized for DSG 36
Linear Fresnel systems are also being investigated and deployed for SIPH. For example, in
Jordan, the commissioning of an Industrial Solar (Freiburg, Germany) LF-11 Fresnel collector
system occurred in May 2015. This roof-based system reportedly has a peak capacity of 223
kWth to provide steam directly to a pharmaceutical production process and decrease fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions. 37 In Italy, an LF collector system was inaugurated that can
7
generate 600 MWhth/yr, save 180 tons per year of CO2 emissions, and save 50,000 L of fuel oil
per year. 38 This was built for the Nuova Sarda Industria Casearia (cheese and dairy production
plant) in Sardinia. 39 An LF system similar to that used at the cheese factory is shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7. LF system installed on a roof 40

One of the recent applications of SIPH is enhanced oil recovery (EOR), where GlassPoint
(Fremont, CA) is one of the leaders. Crude oil production typically includes three stages of
primary, secondary, and tertiary recovery, where the tertiary stage utilizes EOR techniques to
increase the production of crude oil from the residual oil in the reservoir that the primary and
secondary techniques could not extract . 41 The oil recovery factor, which is the amount of oil that
can be recovered from the original well can increase from 25% using primary techniques to 30-
70% using EOR. 42 One of the main EOR techniques utilizes the injection of steam into aging oil
fields to boost the extraction of residual oil reserves. 43 In oil-producing regions with good DNI,
such as southern California or the Middle East, EOR is ideally coupled with solar thermal to
produce and inject modest-pressure saturated steam. Convenient for the solar-steam application,
continuous injection is not always required. 44
The GlassPoint design encloses PTCs within a greenhouse-like structure to keep the reflectors
clean and eliminate wind loading on the reflectors. Placing the PTCs inside a commercial
glasshouse that was mass produced for the agricultural industry has advantages, such as a
potential 20% reduction in steel and reduced O&M costs. 45 The primary benefit of the solar-
thermal EOR is significant saving of natural gas that would normally be used for the steam
production. GlassPoint claims that, in the situation where constant rate steaming is used (i.e.,
steam is injected into the well at a constant rate with solar heat in the day and gas for the night),
the potential natural gas reduction could be 25%. 46 For the case of variable rate steaming (i.e.,
where the natural gas provides a base rate of steam and solar DSG injects a greater quantity
during the day), the potential natural saving can be up to 80%. 47 The largest GlassPoint site to
date is the 7 MWth Petroleum Development Oman (PDO) site, which has been reported to deliver
50 tons of steam a day at a gas savings of 47,000 MMBtu per year. 48 GlassPoint recently
announced a 1,021 MWth EOR project in Oman that would become the largest solar thermal
plant in the world. 49
Other CSP players vying for projects in solar-thermal EOR include power tower developers such
as eSolar and Brightsource. 50 BrightSources Coalinga 27 MWth demonstration site was used to
test power tower technologies while providing steam injection for recovery of heavy oil reserves
in southern California. 51 Much of the knowledge gained at the site was applied to the electric
power sector at the Ivanpah plant. Tower technologies can achieve higher steam temperatures
8
than linear-focus systems such as PTCs; their advantage at lower steam temperatures (e.g., less
than 400C) is not clear.
2.4 Temperature Ranges for SIPH

As illustrated in Figure 1, different solar thermal collectors have different temperature
capabilities. Table 2 lists different temperature ranges and the most likely solar collectors to
supply IPH at those conditions.
Table 2. Temperature regions relevant for SIPH
Temperature
Range* Solar Collector Type HTF of Choice Applications/Comments
Flat plate
Non-tracking compound Hot water
< 80C Water
parabolic Space heating
Solar pond
Parabolic trough
80 to 200C Water/steam Hot water or steam for IPH
Linear Fresnel
Direct heat or steam for IPH
Parabolic trough Vacuum-jacket receivers
200 to 300C Mineral oil
Linear Fresnel become necessary to minimize
heat loss
Parabolic trough
300 to 400C Synthetic oil Direct heat or steam for IPH
Linear Fresnel
Parabolic trough Steam or
400 to 550C Electric power
Linear Fresnel Molten salt
Heliostat/central receiver Steam or
>550C Electric power
Parabolic dish Molten salt
* This study focuses on temperatures between 100C and 400C, where linear-focus collectors excel and IPH
demand is high. See following section for information on HTF choice throughout this range.
Temperatures below about 80C can be achieved with non-tracking, non-concentrating devices
such as solar ponds and flat-plate collectors to supply hot water, swimming pool heating, or
space heating. While such applications are excellent matches for solar energy, the development
and deployment of these systems are outside the scope of this study, which is dedicated to
identifying alternative markets for concentrating solar collectors.
At the other end of the spectrum, temperatures above about 550C exceed the limit of linear-
concentrating systems and require the use of point-focus systems such as parabolic dishes and
central receivers. These units most often deploy molten salt or high-pressure steam as the heat
transfer fluid, although some designs have been tested with air.
The region of interest for the present study is the realm of temperatures that can be achieved with
tracking, linear-focus collectors. These collectors have a proven track record, utilize simple one-
axis tracking, and can be deployed in a modular fashion by adding additional collector length.
The optics of linear-focus systems can achieve temperatures up to about 550C. However, as one
9
moves to higher temperatures, the requirements for the HTF and the receiver become more
restrictive, which generally means more expensive hardware and fluids are required.
2.4.1 Candidate HTFs

Among the many possible HTFs, pressurized water, ethylene glycol, and mineral oil are
reasonable candidates for SIPH applications based on their physical properties and cost. The
organic fluids are generally available from a number of vendors under various tradenames. For
example, the synthetic oil eutectic mixture of biphenyl and diphenyl ethercommercially sold
as Dowtherm A and Solutia VP-1is the HTF of choice for current parabolic trough CSP plants.
Table 3 summarizes the physical properties and approximate cost of these HTFs. Pressurized
water cost assumes boiler-grade water generated from ion exchange or reverse osmosis. The cost
for pressurized water listed in Table 3 is equivalent to about $3 per 1,000 gallons.
Propylene glycol was considered in addition to ethylene glycol. Its viscosity is higher than that of
ethylene glycol, its boiling point (187C) is slightly lower, and its cost is higher, so ethylene
glycol was chosen as the best glycol fluid. Propylene glycol is generally used as a replacement
for ethylene glycol where toxicity and biodegradation are important considerations, so this fluid
may be an appropriate option in food processing applications.
HTF storage cost in Table 3 is the cost of the fluid per unit of stored thermal energy assuming
sensible storage with a temperature differential of 150 K. Ethylene glycol, mineral oil, and
glycerin have about the same cost per unit of stored thermal energy. At temperatures up to
200C, all of the organic fluids can be stored in tanks at less than 2 bar absolute, which is
considered low-pressure storage. Pressurized water clearly has the lowest storage cost when
considering only the cost of the stored fluid. However, its vapor pressure increases tank costs,
which must be considered when estimating the cost of the full TES system.
Table 3. Physical properties and costs for candidate HTFs

Melting/ Vapor Max HTF
Pour Boiling Pressure Recd Storage
Point Point at 200oC operating Cost Cost
HTF (oC) (oC) (bar) Temp ($US/MT) ($/kWhth)
Pressurized Water 0 100 15.5 Unlimited 0.8 0.004
Ethylene Glycol -13 197 1.11 ~240C 1400 12
Mineral Oil -12 >355 0.01 ~300C 1500 16
Dowtherm A/VP-1 12 257 0.24 ~390C 4300 55
Table 4 lists the temperature-dependent properties of the candidate fluids from 50C to 200C.
All candidate fluids have acceptable heat capacities, densities, volumetric heat capacities, and
thermal conductivities. The high viscosity of mineral oil at 50C will cause its pumping costs to
be high relative to water and ethylene glycol. These factors suggest ethylene glycol as the most
promising fluid if low-pressure storage is preferred.
10
Table 4 Temperature-dependent properties for candidate HTFs.
Vapor Heat Vol. Heat
Pressure Capacity Density Capacity Viscosity Conductivity
Temp (C) (bar) (J/g-K) (kg/m3) (kJ/m3-K) (cP) (W/m-K)
Pressurized water
50 0.134 4.183 992.7 4,152 0.560 0.629
100 1.013 4.217 958.4 4,042 0.282 0.665
150 4.900 4.313 916.9 3,955 0.184 0.668
200 15.54 4.489 864.8 3,882 0.134 0.651
Ethylene Glycol
50 <0.001 2.53 1,100 2,781 6.5 0.266
100 0.02 2.78 1,055 2,929 2.0 0.229
150 0.20 3.02 1,015 3,070 0.9 0.191
200 1.11 3.27 965 3,158 0.5 0.154
Mineral Oil (Shell Thermia B)
50 <0.001 1.95 850 1,661 21 0.133
100 <0.001 2.17 811 1,762 3.8 0.128
150 <0.001 2.35 778 1,832 1.7 0.125
200 0.005 2.54 746 1,893 0.90 0.121
250 0.026 2.72 713 1,940 0.61 0.118
Dowtherm A/VP-1
100 0.004 1.77 999 1,770 0.99 0.128
150 0.045 1.91 957 1,828 0.59 0.121
250 0.87 2.18 867 1,890 0.29 0.105
350 5.48 2.45 761 1,864 0.18 0.086
Table 5 lists safety and environmental factors for the candidate fluids. All the fluids are relatively
low-risk. Water and mineral oil pose the least risk to the environment. In the absence of thermal
storage, pressurized water is the clear winner for the HTF choice at conditions near 200C. It
offers superior physical properties, lower hazards, and less cost compared to the organic fluids.
At higher temperatures, solar thermal collectors can produce steam directly or use an organic
mineral oil if a liquid HTF is desired. The greater risk and cost of synthetic oils is generally not
justified unless temperatures greater than about 300C are required. As will be shown, most
SIPH applications are at temperatures less than that temperature.
11
Table 5. Safety/environmental characteristics of candidate heat-transfer fluids
based on U.S. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) ratings. NFPA
rankings range from no risk (0) to high risk (4).
High- NFPA NFPA
Pressure Flammability Health NFPA Environ.
HTF at 200C Risk Risk Reactivity Corrosive Risks
Pressurized
Yes 0 0 0 No None
Water
Ethylene
No 1 2 1 No Low
Glycol
Mineral Oil No 1 0 0 No Very low
Dowtherm
No 1 2 0 No Low
A/VP-1
12
3 Methodology
There are two primary methods researchers have adopted to analyze the potential for SIPHa
top-down approach or a bottom-up approach. While there are general differences in the
methodologies, there are marked similarities as the aim is to understand a level of potential for
SIPH. Both methods are looking to match the industrial heat and steam demand with a supply of
solar-thermal energy. Understanding the conventional energy source (e.g., natural gas, waste
heat, or electricity) is required to assess the economic potential.
It is worth highlighting there are different levels and meanings of potential. The raw resource
potential considers only DNI and land area. The second level, as defined in a prior NREL study,
is the technical potential, where estimated technology-specific performance, topographic, and
land-use constraints are applied. This report uses similar constraints that were used in the 2012
NREL study. 52 Realizable potential is related to technical potential, though further assessments
and constraints are added to scale back the technical potential to a more likely target. 53 Economic
and market potential, as defined by the DOE EERE Potential Pyramid, take technical and
realizable potential and add constraints such as projected fuel costs, technology costs, and policy
implications of siting a project in a specific area. 54 This investigation considers the raw resource
and technical thermal energy potentials in the U.S. Southwest. Promising regions identified in
this study would be prime candidates for potential follow-on, site-specific analysis.
3.1 Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up Analysis

Several studies have undertaken a top-down approach to understand and quantify the SIPH
potential in a particular country. For example, a top-down approach was used by German
researchers for a recent SIPH evaluation. 55 The top-down approach examines from the country
level the industries and applications that require the use of IPH. This demand for IPH is then
compared with the available supply of solar-thermal energy based on resource data and land
availability in proximity to the user industries. Various constraints and incentives can be applied
to try to arrive at a realistic target for SIPH potential.
The bottom-up approach has been utilized by several countries in quantifying SIPH potential,
including Australia, Spain, and Portugal. 56 Here, a detailed investigation is undertaken on
specific sites or companies to determine suitable sectors for SIPH, and then parallels are made to
the larger industry. The benefits of this approach include a more accurate estimate of solar
potential that can be provided for the given site and space restrictions; however, such analysis
requires more time and effort and is necessarily limited in extent. A bottom-up approach is most
useful once likely applications have been identified via the broader, top-down analysis.
This study chose to undertake a top-down approach of the potential for SIPH, primarily because
it gives a good overview of opportunity derived from the solar resource potential and relevant
industries in the region. The purpose was to test the hypothesis that U.S. areas with high DNI
also contain a direct industrial need for steam due to the high consumption of natural gas.
Figure 8 highlights the steps used to understand the thermal energy demand and the technical
thermal energy potential for SIPH, with the geographic extent narrowed to the state of California.
California was selected due to its strong DNI resource, the evidence of high natural gas
consumption for industrial steam, and policies favorable to deployment of renewable energy
technologies.
13
Figure 8. Methodology developed for this study to determine U.S. SIPH potential with an example
of the food industry in California
The proximity of supply site and demand site is more important for SIPH than solar generation
of electricity. Unlike electric power generation, the application of SIPH requires co-location of
the solar field and the thermal-energy consumer. Accordingly, the majority of SIPH deployments
are on land adjacent to the plant or on the facility roof itself. This is because the distribution of
hot fluids, such as steam, is limited to short distances (hundreds of meters), while electricity
distribution lines may run for hundreds of kilometers.
The top-down approach provides a good overall assessment of whether further research should
be undertaken for an area or industrywithout the commitment of time and resources necessary
to undertake a detailed bottom-up analysis. For example, the bottom-up approach as undertaken
in Australia, 57 is a more accurate representation of site-specific potential, but it is most useful in
conjunction with an initial top-down analysis. The top-down analysis can provide the raw
resource and technical potential in a given geographic area and so provides initial indications
where to focus further efforts and undertake detailed bottom-up analysis at specific industrial
sites to determine whether the industrial users requirements for process heat can be met by the
supply of solar energy.
3.2 Limitations for the Chosen Method and Study

For the purpose of this report, the energy calculations and industrial snapshots will be limited to
the southwestern United States. The states included in this definition are California, Arizona,
14
Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, and Texas (i.e., regions with the greatest annual average
DNI). 58 California is then singled out for more detailed consideration due to its emphasis and
policy on deploying more solar technology.
The U.S. Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS) 2010 data set is utilized for
estimates of fuel and energy consumption in the industrial sector. The data set is for industries
classified with the NAICS codes 31-33; see Table 6. Natural gas has been chosen as the main
fuel for analysis as the majority of the MECS industries utilize natural gas as the prime fuel
rather than coal or oil. Natural gas is also the most consumed fuel for direct process heating and
conventional boiler use (i.e., steam production). The electricity used for direct process heating
and conventional boiler use is a relatively small portion when compared to natural gas. For the
calculations, only the specific fuel consumptions for the sub-categories of direct process heating
and boiler use have been considered by industry and location. While natural gas is most
prevalent and selected as the primary IPH fuel, applications where natural gas is not available
and other energy sources, such as fuel oil, propane, or electricity are used would be prime
candidates for adoption of SIPH due to the higher relative costs of those energy sources.
Table 6. List of Specific Industries Included in the MECS (NAICS Codes 31-33)
NAICS Code Individual Sector Title

311 Food Manufacturing*
312 Beverage and Tobacco Product Manufacturing
313 Textile Mills
314 Textile Product Mills
315 Apparel Manufacturing
316 Leather and Allied Product Manufacturing
321 Wood Product Manufacturing
322 Paper Manufacturing*
323 Printing and Related Support Activities
324 Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing*
325 Chemical Manufacturing*
326 Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing
327 Nonmetallic Mineral Products Manufacturing
331 Primary Metal Manufacturing*
332 Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing
333 Machinery Manufacturing
334 Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing
335 Electrical Equipment, Appliance and Component Manufacturing
336 Transportation Equipment Manufacturing
337 Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing
338 Technical Instrumentation
339 Miscellaneous Manufacturing
* top five industrial steam user
15
Previous research into the industries with the greatest steam demand has found that food, paper,
petroleum, chemical, and primary metals industries were the largest consumers of steam. 59 For
this report, any other fuel sources or contributions to steam from fuel byproducts such as
naphtha, as well as End-Use Not Reported (EUNR) categories, were excluded. The data have
been further confined to steam applications less than 260C. Steam at less than 260C can easily
be provided by concentrating collectors and solar-thermal. Although steam is used in industrial
applications with temperatures up to 380C, the pressure requirement for it often makes its
generation and distribution impractical at these temperatures.
PTCs have been selected as the primary solar-thermal collectors, and the thermal potential is
based on trough performance models. This is not to imply that LFs are not a valid solar-thermal
option; however, more data exist for parabolic troughs. A prior NREL solar-resource study
utilized PTC models to undertake theoretical energy potential analysis, 60 and those data are
applied for the present analysis. The present study assumes performance based on PTCs with a
solar multiple of 1.4 and without thermal energy storage. As per the 2012 study, a land
constriction of one square kilometer has been maintained. While suitable for electricity
generation plants, this minimum-land-area constraint is overly restrictive for SIPH applications.
However, as will be shown, solar resource is not a limiting factor in the top-down analysis. If the
work progresses to a bottom-up analysis of specific cases, a finer resolution model will be
employed for the local resource assessment.
Large-aperture troughs are mature and efficient technology, but may not be the collector of
choice with smaller, lower-temperature SIPH applications where weight, wind-profile, ease-of-
assembly, or other metrics may take on greater importance. Nonetheless, the large trough models
provide a reasonable estimate of thermal performance. Discussions with SIPH developers and
further research into collectors designed for process heat applications will refine performance
estimates in modeling SIPH systems.
16
4 U.S. Demand for IPH
The U.S. manufacturing sector has three primary energy sources: fuel, steam generation, and
electricity generation (Figure 9). A fourth category, onsite renewable electricity generation,
makes up only 0.04% of this total. As can be seen, fuel (e.g., natural gas, fuel oil, coal, etc.)
accounted for nearly 57% of the primary energy input, with extensive use for process energy,
either directly or via onsite steam generation. Approximately 5,016 TBtu of fuel were consumed
by the MECS industries in 2010 to produce direct process energy, with a slightly smaller
quantity (about 3,000 TBtu) consumed for steam generation for process energy. The approximate
8,000 TBtu/yr of fuel for process energy represents approximately 42% of the total primary
energy consumption in the U.S. manufacturing sector.
Figure 9. Sankey diagram of the annual primary energy flow in the U.S. manufacturing sector 61
In Figure 9, process energy refers to elements such as process heating, process cooling and
refrigeration, and machine drive. The category of process energy is further divided in Figure 10;
the five major components being process heating, process cooling and refrigeration, machine
drive, electro-chemical, and other processes. Electricity usage within the process energy category
is mainly for non-heating applications that could not be replaced with solar heat.
17
Figure 10. Sankey Diagram of annual process energy flow in U.S. manufacturing sector. 62 Process
energy is a subset of primary energy (see Figure 9).
From Figure 10, it is clear the importance of process heating within process energy as a whole.
For 2010, the U.S. manufacturing sector utilized 7,204 TBtu for process heat generated from
steam, electricity and fuel, or approximately 70% of the total process energy consumed in the
manufacturing sector and 29% (0.70*0.42) of the primary energy consumed in the sector.
Breaking down the energy consumed as fuel for process heating across the United States, nearly
4,589 TBtu/yr was consumed via direct fuel use for process heating. When the direct and indirect
(e.g., fuel used to generate steam) consumption of fuel is considered, the MECS industries
effectively demanded 6,879 TBtu/yr of fuel for process heating, or nearly 95% of all the process
heating energy demand. This energy demand represents the annual thermal output of about 5,700
solar fields of the size used at the Nevada Solar One CSP plant. Clearly, a significant opportunity
exists for the replacement of fossil-fired thermal energy.
The MECS 2010 data provide the industrial breakdown of the energy end use by energy type and
end-use category. Figure 11 highlights the breakdown of the energy used within the MECS
industries by the fuel type. Natural gas and electricity represent over 87% of the fuel consumed
by all the MECS industries in the United States. Natural gas within the MECS industries was the
fuel most consumed in 2010 (5,211 TBtu/yr of natural gas was consumed or 56% of the entire
MECS industries fuel consumption in the United States). 63
18
Figure 11. MECS 2010 energy end use by percentage and quantity (TBtu/yr) 64
The MECS 2010 data for industrial energy consumption can be further broken down into direct
and indirect uses, as shown in Figure 12. Direct use refers to heat applied to an industrial
process via combustion flue gas or electric heaters, while indirect use refers to energy used to
heat an intermediary fluid, most commonly water/steam. Nonprocess use is consumption
occurring onsite, but not associated with industrial processes. This categorization shows that
natural gas is the preferred energy source for steam generation, while natural gas and electricity
are used almost equally for direct heating. The full table containing the end-use categories and
the 2010 fuel consumption for electricity, coal, and natural gas is given in Appendix B.
Figure 12. Energy consumption within the MECS industries by end-use category as of 2010 65
It has been shown that fuel, especially natural gas, is a significant driver for the production of
process heat, either through steam generation or direct heating. The data indicate that natural gas
replacement is the biggest opportunity for SIPH. Situations where electricity can be offset will be
rare, although they may present favorable economics. The next section explores gas consumption
within specific industrial sectors.
19
4.1 U.S. Industrial Consumption of Natural Gas for Process Heat
In the United States, the industrial and manufacturing sectors are the largest consumers of natural
gas and electricity, specifically for process heat, either directly or indirectly through steam
production via a conventional boiler. Several studies have quantified process heat consumption
in industries across the United States. 66 Figure 13 highlights the consumption of natural gas in
the MECS industries and the portion of that consumption used for direct process heating and
conventional boiler use.
Figure 13. Total U.S. consumption of natural gas (NG) by MECS sector and natural gas used for
direct process heating and conventional boiler use. 67
From Figure 13, the sectors with the highest use of natural gas for direct process heating and
conventional boiler include: chemical manufacturing, petroleum & coal products, primary
metals, and food manufacturing. However, total consumption is not the only consideration when
20
exploring opportunities for SIPH. We also seek opportunities that align with solar collector
capabilities.
A 2011 study by Cornell University identified five MECS subsectors that heavily utilize steam,
focusing on steam temperature less than 260C. 68 This temperature regime aligns well with
target applications for concentrating solar collectors. The industrial sectors included food, paper,
petroleum and coal, chemicals, and primary metals consistent with major users of natural gas
(Figure 13). The steam energy temperature distribution is shown in Table 7 and Figure 14.
Table 7. MECS Sectors with the greatest steam use at less than 260C 69
Steam Energy Temperature Distribution (%)

Temperature Petroleum and Chemical Primary Metals
Range (C) Food (311) Paper (322) Coal (324) (325) (331)
>260 - - - 22 38
240-260 - - - 9
220-240 - - - -
200-220 2 - 100 -
180-200 6 - - 9
160-180 8 14 - 32 62
140-160 - 22 - 5
120-140 11 64 - 23
100-120 16 - - -
80-100 16 - - -
60-80 20 - - -
40-60 21 - - -
All Temps. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
260 100% 100% 100% 78% 62%
The total consumption in the range between 100C and 260C amounts to about 1.7 million
GWhth. To put this in perspective, the 64 MWe net Nevada Solar One parabolic trough plant
produces about 350 GWhth per year, so the thermal energy potential depicted in Figure 14
represents the equivalent of about 4,800 such plants if all the sites were suitable for SIPH. All the
sectors listed in Figure 14 utilize steam in temperature ranges suitable for solar generation;
however, the food industry may consider the use of solar energy in their processes to be
particularly appealing. As noted previously, the food sector has been the application of choice for
many international SIPH plants.
21
Figure 14. IPH annual energy use for steam generation for the industries utilizing the greatest
amount of natural gas 70
Comparing the data in Figure 14 and Table 2, it appears that the temperature range from about
120 to 220C is of particular interest. This temperature range is characterized by the requirement
to use concentrating optics, the ability to easily use water/steam as the HTF, flexibility in the
selection of receiver tube vacuum insulation, and high IPH demand. Accordingly, the
temperature range of 120C to 220C is viewed as an excellent target for concentrating solar
collector deployment for SIPH.
Table 8 sums the consumption of natural gas that is used for direct process heating and
conventional boiler use in the five industries that use the greatest amount of natural gas in these
applications. Table 8 excludes the estimated fraction of natural gas consumption in chemicals
and primary metals sectors that is at temperatures greater than 260C. The table highlights the
maximum thermal energy demand in the subsector where natural gas could be replaced by SIPH
for process heating requirements.
Table 8. U.S. natural gas consumption for direct process heating and conventional boiler use in
high-use industry sectors 71
Natural Gas Consumed per Year

MECS Code MECS subsector Trillion Btu GWhth
311 Food 339 99,400
322 Paper 170 49,800
324 Petroleum and Coal Products 618 181,000
325 Chemical 722 212,000
331 Primary Metals 289 84,700
TOTAL 627,000
22
This overall picture of the United States indicates that diverse industries heavily utilize natural
gas for steam production and direct process heating. It has been estimated (Table 8) that the five
industries in the United States that utilize the greatest amount of gas in these applications
represent a thermal energy demand of approximately 627 TWhth/yr. This demand is spread out,
and requires further breakdown at the state level to highlight potential for SIPH. Subsequently,
California is chosen for closer examination due to its high DNI resource, high natural gas use
within these steam demanding industries, and the California Solar Initiative-Thermal (CSI-T)
incentive that promotes SIPH.
4.2 California Industrial Natural Gas Consumption

The seven southwestern states of interest for this study account for approximately 35% of the
2013 total U.S. consumption of natural gas. 72 Nationally, California ranks third in industrial gas
usage behind Texas and Louisiana. 73 When the sectors of residential, commercial, industrial,
transport, and electricity generation are considered, Californias 2013 consumption made up
approximately 9.2% of the total U.S. consumption. The breakdown of the natural gas
consumption by each sector identified in the State Energy Data 2013 is highlighted in Table 9,
which shows nearly 34% (854 TBtu/yr) of the natural gas consumption in California was for
industrial use. 74
Table 9. Natural gas consumption (TBtu/yr) for California by use sector (as of 2013) 75
Electric Power
Residential Commercial Industrial Transport Generation Total
496 263 854 28 851 2492
20% 11% 34% 1% 34% 100%
Previous market characterization studies for California have determined the breakdown and end
use of natural gas and electricity within the industrial sector. 76 The breakdown of natural gas
usage indicates that approximately 86% is used for process heating or to produce steam (Figure
15) while only 11% of the electricity consumed in California industry was for process heating
and a small, unspecified amount was for steam production (Figure 16). Hence, the primary
conventional source that SIPH will compete with is natural gas.
Figure 15. Industrial natural gas end use for California as of 2005 77
23
Figure 16. Industrial electrical end use for California as of 2005 78
A 2014 California Energy Commission (CEC) study listed natural gas consumption for the
industries in California. 79 The MECS data do not provide information at the state level; however,
assuming the MECS 2010 U.S. data to be representative of the state level, the natural gas
consumption specifically for direct process heating and conventional boiler use can be estimated
for California. For example, in the MECS 2010 data, the food industry in the U.S. consumed
approximately 59% of its total natural gas consumption for applications of direct process heating
and conventional boiler use (Figure 13). Assuming this percentage holds for the food industry in
California, we estimate that 10,200 GWhth/yr were consumed for direct process heating and
conventional boiler use in the state. 80 This methodology was continued across all MECS sectors
to arrive at the data in Table 10.
Table 10 estimates the thermal energy used in California by the MECS industries identified as
the biggest consumers of natural gas for direct process heating and conventional boiler use per
Figure 13. Californias food, paper, petroleum, chemical, and primary metals industries, demand
about 48 TWhth/yr for direct process heating and steam production. For comparison, a 2012
study for Germany estimated the annual process heat demand at 134 TWhth/yr for temperatures
less than 300C. 81 The CEC concluded industries in California such as food processing,
chemicals, petroleum and primary metals manufacturing represent prime areas of opportunity
for reducing natural gas use. 82
Table 10. Estimated natural gas consumption for direct process heating and boiler use in
California for select MECS industries
Natural Gas Consumption for

NAICS Code MECS sector Process Heating (GWhth/yr)
311 Food Manufacturing 10,200
322 Paper Manufacturing 1,244
324 Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing 31,211
325 Chemical manufacturing 3,526
331 Primary Metal Manufacturing 2,134
24
Within the food processing industry in California, heat recovery measures such as the preheating
of air and water for food processing, the pasteurization of dairy products, and canned vegetables
have been identified as opportunities for significant natural gas reductions. 83 The CEC estimated
conservatively that a 1% annual reduction in the energy consumption from natural gas within the
food industry could be equivalent to saving the food processing industry in California
$3.4M/year, based on a 2012 gas price of $5.7/MMBtu, with environmental benefits of 31,800
metric tons of CO2 saved annually. 84
4.3 Natural Gas Prices for Industry Across the U.S. Southwest
Figure 17 illustrates the annual industrial natural gas price for the southwestern U.S. states from
2009 to 2014. The U.S. industrial average gas price is also shown. Over the period, Texas has
had the lowest industrial gas prices within the Southwest region. Over the same period,
California has had relatively high industrial natural gas prices, and exceeded the U.S. average by
approximately $2.4/MMBtu. It should be noted that discussions with SIPH developers in
California indicate that industrial sites and customers often have price contracts that vary greatly
from reported industrial gas prices. Thus, site-specific factors must be considered when assessing
specific opportunities. Importantly for this discussion, in the last three years (2012-2014),
California has had steady increases in industrial gas prices and is now near the top of U.S.
industrial natural gas prices.
Figure 17. Natural gas prices for industry for the southwestern United States (2009 to 2014) 85
As illustrated in earlier sections, natural gas consumption by industries in California is
considerable and as such, any rises in industrial natural gas price will have a significant
economic impact for companies and industrial units who have high natural gas consumption for
process heat requirements. This may have cost California food processors some $411M, based
on natural gas consumed in 2011. 86 The economic impact on companies and industries that can
save on the purchase of natural gas (e.g. through greater efficiency or the integration of SIPH to
25
provide process heat) is significant. In solar-rich areas like the Southwest, SIPH offers the
potential to provide process heat, and could displace the use of natural gas, which can decrease
the operating costs of industrial companies and bring down the carbon emissions from natural
gas combustion.
4.4 Southwestern U.S. DNI and Solar-Thermal Energy Potential

This study creates an initial outlook for the potential of SIPH in the southwest, covering the
states of California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. As shown in
Figure 18, this region contains the highest annual DNI in the United States. Focusing on these
seven states does not imply they are the only areas suitable for SIPH, but that they could offer
the best initial entry point for the technology. The temperature and steam demands for process
heat in most industries are readily achievable by existing solar-thermal collectors; thus, the
applicability of SIPH is unlikely to be limited by demand.
Figure 18. U.S. annual average DNI map (data from 1998 to 2009) 87
IPH demands have been met with solar-thermal systems even in places like Canada and
Germany, where the average DNI is lower than in the Southwest. For example, in Qubec,
Canada, Rackham Technologies has set up several plants using PTCs that provide process heat
and steam for industries such as food and paper. 88 The DNI in Qubec and most parts of
Germany is less than 3.5 kWh/m2/day, which is significantly less than the 5.0 kWh/m2/day
limitation used for this study.
The DNI resource in Figure 18 shows only the raw resource potential. The technical thermal
energy potential has been defined as the achievable energy generation of a particular
technology given system performance, topographic limitations, environmental and land-use
constraints, according to a prior NREL study that explored the potential for electricity
generation in the Southwest by CSP technology. 89 The constraints for CSP electricity generation
applied in that study included:
26
Average DNI taken over the period 1998 2005 at a 10-km horizontal spatial resolution,
with DNI greater than 5 kWh/m2/day required for consideration 90
Dry-cooled PTC power plants with six hours of thermal storage at a solar multiple of two
Land with slope greater than 3% excluded.
One of the key assumptions utilized in the prior NREL analysis was that contiguous land area of
greater than or equal to 1 km was required for consideration. 91 While an area limit of greater
than one square kilometer (247 acres) is reasonable for electricity-generating CSP plants, this is
not the case for smaller SIPH plants. For example, the Modesto SIPH plant, which is one of the
larger SIPH plants in the world, occupies only about 4.5 acres. 92 That is, nearly 55 Modesto
SIPH plants could fit into the 1 km2 constraint. As will be seen, even with this constraint,
California has an enormous technical thermal energy potential.
This study assumes SIPH systems are deployed on the ground. As highlighted earlier in this
study, adjacent land area or roof area (e.g., in the case of LFs and roof-mounted PTCs 93) can be
utilized for the solar field to provide the heat and steam to an industrial plant. A refinement for
the future would include roof area into the theoretical potential. As in the German study for
solar-thermal potential, 94 satellite and GIS data can be used to understand available roof space
that could be utilized if adjacent land was unavailable. For industrial players in the Southwest,
adjacent land may not be a significant limiting factor due to the vast availability of land.
However, inclusion of roof area could be valuable for future studies, particularly in densely
developed areas.
NRELs 2012 solar resource study 95 was used as the basis for estimating the technical thermal
energy potential for SIPH, subject to several modifications. A commercial PTC system was still
assumed, but without storage and with a solar multiple of 1.4. For determining the heat
generation potential, the formula below was used:
State MWh = [ ( ) 139.3 /

(% ) 8760 ]
The thermal power density of 139.3 MWth/km2 was derived from the electric power density used
in the prior NREL study (of 49.4 MWe/km2) divided by the thermo-electric power cycle
efficiency of that study (35.5%). 96 This energy density was debited based on the quality of the
DNI resource for the land area in question using an estimate of capacity factor. Table 11 lists the
capacity factors allocated for thermal generation by DNI resource class.
27
Table 11. Thermal Power Density and Capacity Factor by DNI Class
Trough, without Storage, Solar Multiple = 1.4. Thermal power

density = 139.3 MWth/km2
DNI resource
DNI Class (kWh/m2/day) Capacity Factor
1 5 - 6.25 0.199
2 6.25 7.25 0.248
3 7.25 7.5 0.277
4 7.5 7.75 0.284
5 0.295
Utilizing this method, the technical solar-thermal energy generation potential for California using
PTCs has been estimated in the available areas. Figure 19 shows the annual thermal energy
generation potential in California based on the constraints listed above. The annual thermal
energy generation potential per county is given in Appendix C.
Figure 19. Solar-thermal energy potential (MWhth/km2) for California based on DNI and land area
constraints
The technical thermal energy potential for PTCs was estimated using NRELs System Advisor
Model (SAM). The estimated value of 22,887 TWhth/yr is several orders of magnitude greater
than the 48 TWhth/yr demand for the selected Californian industries. Figure 19 highlights that the
28
most thermally rich areas of California are in the south, including San Bernardino, Kern,
Riverside, and Imperial counties, although the Central Valley also has good solar resource.
4.5 Locations of California Industries Using IPH

An objective for this report is to tie specific industries known for high use of IPH to their local
solar-thermal energy potential. For this study, the food industry and sample sub-industries in
California were considered prime candidates. These include the MECS sub-industries of animal
food processing, breweries, and dairy products. To highlight that the thermal demand of these
industries can be theoretically met with SIPH potential found for California, maps overlaying the
location of the industries in California and the estimated thermal energy potential are shown.
Figure 20 shows the locations of known animal food processing plants, breweries, and dairy
products along with the technical thermal energy potential. Each figure is shown separately in
Appendix C.
Figure 20. Locations of animal-food processing, breweries, and dairy products plants across
California along with annual solar-thermal energy potential
The thermal energy potential for PTCs in Californias Central Valley, while of a lower resource
level than the states top solar areas, exhibits good proximity with industries that need steam.
Most of the locations of animal food processing, breweries, and dairy industries industrial sites
that use steam are far from the best solar resources in southern California. This is not surprising
as the best solar resource regions correspond with Californias deserts. However, as can be seen
in Figure 20, significant concentrations of these food related subindustry manufacturers are
clustered throughout the Central Valley of California, where resource has been identified as
good. There are fewer sites in the exceptionally sunny south that could benefit from SIPH;
however, these facilities might make excellent case studies for further investigation. The Central
Valley is appropriate for targeting the numerous industries located in the valley that could benefit
from SIPH.
29
Unlike electricity, which can be transmitted hundreds of miles or more, heat and steam must be
generated fairly close to the location of use. The city of Fresno has been chosen to highlight the
proximity of the solar-thermal energy supply to the potential industrial users in the Central
Valley. Fresno was a good example where the CSP IPH potential was found to be adjacent to
clusters of Food processors, on what was identified as available land. This land would allow a
CSP IPH solar field to be built. Areas within California will need to be investigated to determine
the specific areas and actual land availabilty at the industrial site. Figure 21 shows the locations
of the animal processing, breweries, dairy product manufacturing, and processed fruit and
vegetable producers in and near Fresno, overlaid with the solar-thermal energy supply. The
developed city areas and other exclusion zones are shown in white.
Figure 21. Close up of Fresno showing the solar-thermal generation potential and potential user
industries
Clusters of multiple users near a potential SIPH plant site increases the likelihood of favorable
economics. Furthermore, the 1 km2 siting constraint of the prior solar resource study is likely too
restrictive for SIPH installations, and there may be sites within the city limits that could be
developed for SIPH. As demonstrated in the figure, while the majority of the potential users are
within the Fresno city limits, there are clusters of specific industries outside the city limits that
could potentially benefit from SIPH plants. As can be seen, clusters A, B, and C of fruit and
vegetable manufacturing plants potentially have available land for solar developers to install
SIPH facilities and provide heat to augment steam production processes. This information would
be elucidated in site-specific case studies.
30
4.6 IPH Collector Costs and LCOH
With increasing interest in the potential of SIPH, several solar developers have sought to
introduce or pursue PTCs and LFs for supply of thermal energy or steam. In 2014, NREL
queried over a dozen collector manufacturers known to be in the SIPH market regarding the
estimated price for their hardware. The data were requested with the understanding that specific
companies would not be identified. Nine suppliers responded, with the results presented in
Figure 22. The specified project assumptions given to the suppliers were:
Site land area available was 20 ha (approx. 450 m by 450 m, or 50 acres)

Desired thermal product was saturated steam at 200C
Desired thermal capacity was at least 10 MW
Solar field hardware (collector, receiver, and drive system) prices were to be provided as
Free on Board (FOB) at the manufacturing location.
As seen in Figure 22, the range of uninstalled collector costs quoted for the SIPH application was
between $63-243/m2.
Figure 22. Quoted FOB uninstalled collector costs ($/m2)

NREL estimated shipping costs from the country of origin to the port of San Diego, California
based on the number of 40-ft intermodal containers needed to ship the material and hardware.
Trucking costs were added to a hypothetical inland site. Total shipping costs amounted to only
about $1-2/m2. Lastly, NREL estimated the installation costs based on prior estimates for a large
parabolic trough power plant. Solar field installation costs (foundation and pylons, field wiring,
and assembly labor) were estimated using merit-shop labor rates for Arizona. 97 This source is
for large troughs, and several vendors report low installation costs due to their design, 98 so a high
and a low range were applied to installation costs. The high range was set by adjusting costs
from 2009 to 2013 using Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Indices (CEPCI). 99 The low range
was taken to be 50% lower. Actual installed costs are expected to vary with system design and
fall between these limits (i.e., within the hashed range of the bars in Figure 23).
31
Figure 23. Estimated installed collector costs per m2 for a 20-ha SIPH installation
Note: Aperture area that can be placed on such a site depends on the technology.
The LCOH is defined as a convenient metric for estimating lifetime cost of a solar collector
system for process heat applications. LCOH is defined analogously to LCOE, which
conventionally refers to electric energy. In its simplest form, LCOH is defined as:
( ) ( )+( & )
= (1)
where the FCR is the fixed charge rate. The FCR depends on a range of financial parameters that
can have a significant influence on LCOH, and includes the weighted average cost of capital
(WACC) and construction financing. NRELs SAM includes various ways of estimating LCOE.
The latest release (SAM version 2015-06-30) includes a procedure for estimating and using the
FCR method, which is used in this study. We list the WACC as well, as this may be a more
familiar metric to many readers. More information on the approach is summarized in Appendix
D.
The LCOH can be used to estimate whether solar collectors for process heat are competitive with
alternative sources of thermal energy. Figure 24 illustrates the LCOH estimated for a range of
solar resource and solar/project cost. The financial parameters used to estimate the FCR are
taken as SAMs default values, with the exception of the construction period. Here we assume
these smaller, simpler IPH systems are built in less than one year whereas SAMs default case is
for large CSP plants that take approximately two to three years for construction.
32
Figure 24. Estimated LCOH for different solar resource and solar field costs compared with two
LCOHs from the use of natural gas at U.S. and Californian Industrial natural gas prices
Note: Natural gas prices from Figure 17, data from 2014. Total installed project cost includes solar field, site
preparation, HTF system piping, HTF heat exchanger, and other project costs. Gas costs include $200/kW burner
cost and 80% efficiency. Based on FCR = 0.101 (WACC = 6.2%), see Appendix D for more detail.
Based on Figure 23, a realistic value for the installed cost of a SIPH solar field is about $200/m2.
As depicted in Figure 24, at that cost, solar-thermal energy is competitive with natural gas
combustion for heat at its average California price of $7.6/MMBtu, when the solar DNI is about
6.0 kWh/m2/day or greater. However, the same solar field cost is not competitive with natural
gas at its reported national average price of $5.4/MMBtu, even at DNI equal to 7.5 kWh/m2/day.
The data suggest that economic SIPH applications can be found in California at existing solar
hardware costs and market gas prices. However, project viability will be strongly dependent on
the specific solar project costsincluding any incentivesand the specific gas pricing contract
in place. The deployment of a few successful cases would be expected to spur further utilization
of SIPH with a concomitant decrease in project development costs.
4.7 U.S. Incentives for SIPH

Within the United States, many states have financial and tax incentives for SIPH, 100 and
California has more incentives for industrial solar-thermal systems than almost any other state. 101
As of July 2014, California increased the available budget for commercial projects that utilize
solar-thermal to displace natural gas through its CSI-T program. 102 In the first stage of the
program, industrial- or commercial-sized systems greater than 250kWth can receive
$10.10/therm of displaced natural gas, up to a maximum of $800,000 per site for up to four sites.
The installer can receive a Performance Based Incentive (PBI) dependent on the amount of
natural gas displaced due to the installation of a SIPH system. The PBI has rigorous thermal
monitoring, to ensure that the incentive is given for the best performing systems. However, as of
June 2015, no SIPH plant has been built to take advantage of this program.
33
Discussions with solar developers have highlighted that several companies are endeavoring to
establish commercial SIPH projects in California under the CSI-T. The urgency is that the
program expires at the end of 2017. At good DNI sites, based on the current prices of natural gas,
at least one developer of PTCs has quoted potential industrial customers a payback period of
under three years based on the CSI-T incentive.
To understand the market and economic potential of SIPH, the financial incentives must also be
factored in for future analysis. This report has not explored the detailed nature or different types
of the state incentives for SIPH or how industries could best benefit from their implementation.
Future analysis would be worthwhile for understanding which incentives and programs are most
suited and for which SIPH size ranges. Further studies could also highlight the best states where
the incentives foster the adoption of SIPH for displacement of fossil fuels.
4.8 U.S. Case Studies for SIPH Plants

As of March 2015, there were a total of 18 registered SIPH projects in the United States, all but
two using flat-plate, solar-thermal collectors. 103 Additionally, the authors know of PTC plants in
the United States that are used for hot water are not listed in the SHIP database. For example,
Abengoa Solar systems at federal prisons in Phoenix, Arizona and Lakewood, Colorado. As
shown in Figure 25, the two listed PTC SIPH plants are the Frito Lay food processing plant in
Modesto, California and the WaterFX desalination plant in Panoche County, California.
Figure 25. Modesto and Panoche SIPH plants as of Sept. 2014
4.8.1 Modesto Frito Lay Food Processing Plant

The Frito Lay plant in Modesto, California was engineered and built by Industrial Solar
Technology, now part of Abengoa Solar, and started operation in 2008. The solar field has an
installed net collector area of 5,387 m2 (57,969 ft2) and provides pressurized hot water exiting
the solar field at 246C for the heating of the oil used to fry potato chips. 104 The PTCs used at the
site can be seen in Figure 26 both at the noon and morning positions.
34
Figure 26. PTCs at the Frito Lay Modesto food processing plant 105
The goal of the project was to reduce natural gas consumption in the plant, especially during
summer peak days, by approximately 20% and to demonstrate that the trough technology was
cost effective, safe, and a reliable source of thermal energy. 106 Natural gas at the site is used by a
conventional boiler to heat the oil used for the chip frying. Prior to the installation of the PTCs,
the average yearly natural gas consumption was approximately 100 billion Btu/year. 107 The
NREL feasibility studies of the site indicated that approximately 14 billion Btu/year of thermal
energy could be delivered from the solar field, leading to a 20 billion Btu/year displacement of
natural gas. 108
The troughs used in the project employ aluminum frame structures and silver-film reflective
materials. The use of reflective film and aluminum, instead of glass and steel, significantly
decreased the weight of the collectors. The full sized solar field consisted of 384 collector
modules in strings of 24. The final construction costs of the project were ~$0.439 per Btu/hr of
thermal energy delivered, or $1,500/kWth. 109 The reported installed cost was $3.95M or $733/m2,
and the estimated payback period, based on the then-current natural gas price of $9/MMBtu, was
7 to 10 years. 110
As of 2010, the operation of the plant revealed that the natural gas displacement due to the solar
integration was 12 billion Btu/year rather than the modeled and designed 20 billion Btu/year. 111
The primary issues related to the lower solar-thermal output included: 112
Removal of the low-grade heat dump as part of the original design, which led to a
decrease in the energy yield from the solar field
An additional 1,000ft of distribution piping, which led to significant increases in the
thermal energy lost from the solar field
Local soiling impacts which were higher than predicted, reducing the solar-thermal
output from the field by nearly 6%
Fewer hours of solar-thermal operation due to conditions at the site and a decreased
energy utilization the solar field from 100% to 86%.
Lesser natural gas savings at Modesto relative to the modeled simulations increased the payback
period of the SIPH plant. This was exacerbated by lower-than-predicted gas prices in California,
where since 2009, the annual average industrial price of natural gas has remained under
$7.5/MMBtu. 113
35
Discussions with Abengoa Solar have indicated that as a first project, this was considered a
success and the company has further plans to supply SIPH using the Model PT-1 trough.
Reductions in the cost of this design and improvements in system modeling and operating
experience suggest that the limitations listed above can be overcome with subsequent
installations. Overall, the California industry and government are still keen on developing SIPH
plants and has stated:
[I]nland areas of California represent a resource to the citizens which can be
harvested to produce process heat used by many industries in the state and that it
is a viable way of decreasing GHCs. 114
4.8.2 Desalination and Californias Need for Water

For the past several years, the western United States and California in particular have been
experiencing severe drought. Figure 27 shows the U.S. Drought Monitor Map for June 9, 2015,
and Figure 28 highlights how the region of extreme and exceptional drought has grown in the
past year alone.
Figure 27. Drought Monitor Map of the United States as of June 9, 2015 115
36
Figure 28. Western U.S. drought maps comparing June 9, 2015 and June 10, 2015 116
California, in particular, has been hard hit with persistent drought. As of June 2015, over 37
million Californians were affected by drought. 117 Current drought and future water uncertainty
has led California to examine alternative sources of water. One example of this is increasing
interest in the desalination of seawater or impaired water sources as a source of fresh water. For
example, the San Diego County Water Authority placed a 30-year water purchase agreement for
fresh water from the 50 MGD Carlsbad Desalination Project on the California coast. 118
In April 2015, Governor Brown passed Executive Order B-29-15 outlining a strategy to deal
with the unprecedented conditions. The Governors plan calls for more conservation as well as
promotion of renewable-energy-powered desalination systems and other technological advances:
This program will achieve water and energy savings and greenhouse gas
reductions by accelerating use of cutting-edge technologies such as renewable
energy-powered desalination, integrated onsite reuse systems, water-use
monitoring software, irrigation system timing and precision technology, and on-
farm precision technology.
California is ideally suited for solar desalination with excellent solar resources and also high
levels of agricultural waste and brackish water available as source water. 119 Availability of
brackish groundwater in states such as California, New Mexico, and Texas offers potential
sources of water for desalination that could be used as an alternative fresh water supply.
4.8.2.1 Desalination Technologies and the fit with Solar-Thermal

Over the last decade there has been growing interest in the use of renewable energy for
desalination processes. 120 For example, wind or solar-electric (PV or CSP) systems can supply
power to operate reverse osmosis (RO) plants, or heat from CSP steam systems can be used
directly within thermal desalination processes.
Desalination is the removal of salt and the purification of brine or brackish water to produce
potable water. Drought and scarcity of drinking water is becoming a key issue in many parts of
37
the world. In the arid Middle East, counties such as Qatar and Kuwait rely entirely on desalinated
water for domestic and industrial supplies. 121
Several studies have reviewed the current state of desalination technologies, including solar and
CSP desalination. 122 Desalination technologies can be subdivided by the primary energy type
required (e.g., thermal or electric), or by the nature of the system hardware (e.g., membrane-
based or evaporation-based systems). A breakdown of desalination technologies by the process is
provided in Table 12.
Table 12. Overview of Desalination Technologies 123
Process Driving
Power Evaporation Membrane-based
Multi-stage Flash (MSF)
Multi-effect Distillation (MED)
Thermal Solar Stills
Multi-effect Humidification
Membrane Distillation (MD)
Electrodialysis
Electrical Mechanical Vapor Compression
Reverse Osmosis (RO)
Note: Membrane distillation straddles the usual desalination categories in that it is a membrane-based, evaporative
technology.
Worldwide, desalination is dominated by RO, MSF, and MED. As of 2013, RO made up about
68% of the global market for desalinated water and the thermal processes MSF and MED made
up 30%. This amounted to a global production capacity of desalinated water of 81 million
m3/day. 124 The lowest-cost desalination technology is RO, while thermal desalination techniques
such as MSF and MED offer more robust operation and the ability to treat water with very high
salinity levels. Worldwide, the wholesale cost of desalinated seawater is in the range of $0.7 to
$1.1/m3, depending on the technology and cost of energy. 125 This compares with the median
retail price for water in U.S. cities is about $1.5/m3. 126 Comparing the cost for desalinated water
(of any source) with the average price of potable water in U.S. cities suggests that the economic
deployment of solar desalination requires first finding applications where desalinated water of
any form is economically viable and then providing a case for the ability of solar energy sources
to provide lowest-cost energy (thermal or electric) for the process.
Thermal desalination processes such as MED and MSF evaporate water at temperatures of 55-
70C and 90-120C respectively. 127 RO processes water with membranes, using high pressure to
overcome the normal osmotic pressure and drive water through the membrane while excluding
ions. 128 NREL published a review of renewable energy and desalination in 2013; 129 in the
present report we will focus on the thermal technologies that could be integrated with solar-
thermal collectors.
With regards to solar-thermal desalination, there are several system possibilities that have been
researched and/or pilot tested. These include CSP-RO, CSP-MED, CSP-MSF and CSP-RO-
MED. 130 Figure 29 shows the potential configurations for CSP-desalination systems. In a power
only CSP-RO configuration, electric power from a CSP plant drives the RO system. This design
could just as easily pull electric power off the grid, so the challenge for such a design is no
38
different than any electric generation CSP application, namely, the CSP plant must produce cost-
competitive electricity. Heat only or CHP designs offer more opportunity for synergistic
integration with solar-thermal collector technologies. A CSP-RO-MED plant where the thermal
requirements of MED are met by CSP or steam-cycle waste heat and the electricity produced
drives the RO process has been proposed, though none have been built. 131
Figure 29. CSP configurations currently under interest using RO and MED 132
Working in collaboration with the Advanced Water Technology Center (AQWATEC) at the
Colorado School of Mines, NREL is exploring the attributes of thermal desalination technologies
for integration with renewable energy sources such as geothermal and solar thermal. 133 The team
has identified membrane distillation (MD) as a technology of particular interest for geothermal
and solar-thermal desalination. MD was originally proposed in the 1960s, but has only recently
been the subject of commercial interest because the technology to produce thermally stable
membranes has improved. Traditionally MD was seen as inferior to RO, however, MD offers
several potential advantages including:
Produces superior product water quality compared to RO. High-purity product water is a
general characteristic of thermal-desal technologies
Can treat higher salinity brines than RO
Utilizes low-grade heat for its primary energy input (<90 C)
Accommodates sensible (e.g., hot water) heat input
Operates at near-ambient pressure
Uses lower cost membranes due to pressure and temperature conditions that allow use of
inexpensive plastics (e.g., polyvinylidenefluoride (PVDF), polypropylene) as
construction material and a pore size orders of magnitude larger than required for RO
membranes
Can accommodate a modular design that is amenable to small-scale facilities
Can tolerate variable operating conditions, including recurring stop/start cycles.
39
The basic components of a MD system are depicted in Figure 30. There are various
implementations of the basic MD technology to improve efficiency (for example, air-gap MD,
vacuum-MD, and sweep-gas MD), but they share the attributes listed above.
Figure 30. Basic MD system

A heat source (e.g., solar energy) warms the saline water to 50-70C allowing water vapor to permeate through the
membrane (left). Upon contact with the incoming cool source water, the water vapor condenses (and preheats).
The economics of MD systems depend greatly on the availability of low-cost thermal energy. 134
Camachos review of the literature indicates that MD can produce high-purity water from poor-
quality source water at a cost in the range of $1.2/m3, which could be lowered to less than
$0.5/m3 if low-cost heat is available. For comparison, the lowest-cost desalination technology
(RO) is nominally between $0.5/m3 and $1.0/m3. 135 While certain researchers have proposed the
use of CSP-RO, particularly for the Arabian and Mediterranean areas, 136 there is a significant
weakness in that approach as the thermal energy from the CSP plant is first converted from heat
to electricity to drive the RO process. As such, the potential advantage for CSP or solar-thermal
collectors providing heat directly is lost.
Competing with electric-RO desalination will require low-cost thermal energy from the solar
field, combined with an effective thermal-desalination process. The most likely desalination
technologies for integration with a solar-thermal heat source are MED or MD. While MED is a
commercial technology, MD offers the potential for small, modular units and less sensitivity to
varying operating conditions. The ability of these technologies to operate at modest temperatures
(e.g., less than 70C) also opens the possibility of utilizing flat-plate or solar pond collectors,
such as illustrated in Figure 31.
40
Figure 31. Solar thermal-gradient pond paired with a MED thermal desalination system 137
4.8.2.2 Case Study of Solar Desalination at the Panoche Desalination Plant

The largest example of a CSP-MED desalination plant is the solar desalination demonstration in
the Panoche Water & Drainage District in Californias Central Valley (Figure 32). This pilot
desalination plant, built and operated by WaterFX, has been in operation since 2013 and has a
net installed collector area of 656 m2. 138 Broomfield, Colorado-based SkyFuel provided a
SkyTrough solar collector assembly that provides approximately 0.4 MWth of heat from the solar
field to a conventional hot-water boiler. 139 While designed for CSP electricity generation, the
SkyTroughs design for easy assembly in the field make them amenable to smaller applications
such as this pilot unit, and more generally SIPH.
Figure 32. SkyTrough CSP collector at the Panoche desalination pilot plant 140
The Panoche facility uses a 3-effect MED desalination plant. The unit was constructed to test the
commercial readiness of the technology and the expected energy saving for inland desalination
plants. The impaired source water for project is agricultural drainage water, which is a disposal
liability for the Panoche Water & Drainage District. Project objectives include demonstrating a
high rate of recovery of desalinated water and that the technology configurations are
economically feasible and reliable. Successful demonstration could help increase the
sustainability of agricultural land in California by reviving arid agricultural land through the
production of clean water from agricultural wastewater.
To date, two configurations have been tested at the Panoche plantnamely, with and without an
absorption heat pump (AHP). Trials at the site have found that the thermal energy consumption
without the AHP averaged approximately 262 kWhth/m3. With the AHP the thermal energy
consumption reduced to 133 kWhth/m3 (i.e., approximately half the energy demand without the
AHP). 141 These values correspond to a Gained Output Ratio (GOR) of 2.4 to 4.7 for the
41
distillation process. GOR is defined as the mass of water produced per mass of steam fed to the
process, where the mass of steam is a surrogate for the latent heat of steam. Typical GOR for a
commercial MED system is about 6 to 10. 142 The HTF in the solar field was a food-grade
mineral oil known as Therminol XP, which was heated by the PTCs to 180C. The pilot plant
has successfully been operating and the thermal energy provided for the evaporation and
distillation of the brackish/agricultural waste water has been shown to desalinate 14,000
gallons/day or about 53 m3/day. 143
As noted, the SkyTrough was designed for electric-power generation while the Panoche plant
operates at a solar field exit temperature of 180C. This is a significant underutilization of the
SkyTrough collector as optical and thermal validation have shown that the SkyTrough can reach
390C. 144 A key issue that the demonstration revealed is that PTCs developed for electricity
generation may require adaption and redesign for use in solar-thermal desalination. Discussions
with WaterFX have indicated that further development of PTCs is needed, particularly because
of cost implications for installing large PTCs.
Cost information related to the Panoche desalination pilot has not been released, and the cost of
desalinated water, regardless of energy source, continues to be expensive compared to alternative
sources. Importantly, this project benefits from two sources of valueit mitigates the problem of
disposal of saline agricultural drainage water while producing fresh water as a product. It is
likely that such dual-benefit designs will be necessary to make desalinated water economically
viable. In July 2015, WaterFX announced a planned expansion of the project to a 35-acre site.
WaterFX has highlighted that the continued success at the Panoche plant makes it viable to build
a commercial scale, 10-effect CSP-MED desalination plant. The strategic focus for WaterFX will
remain the agricultural wastewater market. The new plant is expected to utilize a 24-MWth solar
field of CSP concentrators and potentially produce 2,000 acre-ft of water per year, or 2 MGD. 145
WaterFX highlighted that the plant is expected to utilize thermal energy storage to allow for 24-
hour operation. After demonstrating success at this first commercial site, WaterFX intends to
construct commercial solar-thermal desalination plants at other sites in California.
42
5 Conclusions
This study considers the use of solar-thermal energy for application to IPH in the United States,
with focus on the state of California. For most industrial applications, the steam or direct-heat
temperature required typically is less than 260C. This temperature is beyond the range that can
be achieved with flat-plate collectors, but ideal for concentrating solar collectors such as
parabolic troughs and linear Fresnel systems. This study examines applications for these linear-
focus collectors, which can readily achieve these temperatures with hot liquid or steam heat
transfer fluids.
A key part of this study has been matching known areas of high DNI to both states and industries
that utilize high quantities of natural gas, specifically for direct process heating and conventional
boiler use to generate steam. The investigation utilized previous research to identify the five
industrial sectors that are the biggest users of steam at less than 260C at both the national and
California state level: food, paper, petroleum, chemicals, and primary metals.
As of 2014, California was the third-biggest user of industrial natural gas in the United States,
behind only Texas and Louisiana. Due to its use of natural gas to provide steam or heat for
industrial processes, coupled with excellent DNI conditions, California is well-suited to consider
deploying SIPH. At the time of writing, Californias CSI-T incentive program offers industrial
sites up to $800,000 to set up a SIPH plant for the displacement of natural gas. Solar technology
developers estimate that under this program, even with the relatively low gas prices today,
simple payback on these projects could be less than three years. This will need confirmation
through further NREL analysis, but with the high DNI levels, excellent gas displacement
incentives and high industrial gas use for California, this may be a feasible payback period. A
complementary follow-on analysis to this study would be site-specific case studies that identify
promising early adopter locations to promote deployment of SIPH within the state.
Within California the thermal energy demand of the food, paper, petroleum, chemicals, and
primary metals industries derived from the use of natural gas was calculated. It was found that
these five key industries in California had an estimated demand of about 48 TWhth/yr for direct
process heating and conventional boiler use. This was shown to be two orders of magnitude less
than the states technical thermal energy potential from solar-thermal collectors. The annual 48
TWhth demand within the state is the thermal energy equivalent of about 140 Nevada Solar One-
size solar-thermal plants. 140 such large sized plants spead across California is a reasonable
amout to meet a significant amount of the states industrial heat demand. As mentioned, SIPH
plants for IPH provision would be much smaller than a Nevada Solar One solar field and so
would require significantly less capital expenditure, making them more feasible for industry.
SIPH has been shown to be directly usable in many industries and processes due to the heat and
steam that can be provided by concentrating solar collectors. SIPH plants have been utilized as
far north as Canada and Germany, where the DNI resource is much lower than that available in
California. At the time of writing, of the 155 worldwide SIPH plants in the international
database, only 18 of these global SIPH sites employed parabolic trough (PTCs) or LF
concentrators. To note, there were 18 SIPH sites within the U.S. where both concentrating and
nonconcentrating collectors were used. Of the 18 SIPH sites in the U.S., only two utilized PTCs
(both in California).
43
However, several additional parabolic trough plants not listed in the database are known to
operate in the United States, producing hot water at federal prison sites. The research has found
that globally, PTC and LF collectors have been used by breweries, dairy and milk processing
producers, pharmaceuticals, paper, food and meat processing, enhanced oil recovery, and
desalination. At the time of writing, PTCs were more common in the market for SIPH compared
to LFs.
Based on developer information, a realistic cost for an installed SIPH solar field is about
$200/m2. At that cost, and including other costs for piping, pumps, and heat exchangers, solar-
thermal energy is competitive with natural gas combustion at the average California price of
$7.6/MMBtu (2014) for locations with solar DNI greater than about 6.0 kWh/m2/day. However,
the same solar field cost is not competitive with natural gas at its reported national average price
of $5.4/MMBtu, regardless of DNI level. Other reasons industrial users could opt for SIPH
deployment at the industrial site could also be long-term hedging against fuel-price volatility and
for industries such as Food, Dairy and Beverage, increasing the green image of their products.
The data suggest that economic SIPH applications can be found in California at existing solar
hardware costs and market gas prices. However, project viability will be strongly dependent on
the specific solar project costsincluding any incentivesand the specific gas pricing contract in
place. It will be important to validate that SIPH for specific industrial sites are both feasible and
provide real economic benefit.
44
6 Future Analyses Possibilities
One result of this study has been the identification of areas where future investigation could
facilitate the deployment of solar-thermal collectors for SIPH. These recommendations include:
1. Undertake a higher-resolution assessment of the technical thermal energy potential for

SIPH in the Southwest.
o Key assumptions made in this investigation would be refined to account for solar
collectors specifically designed for SIPH at less than 260C and the smaller
amount of land needed for SIPH facilities. Such revisions are likely to increase
the thermal energy potential of SIPH in California and the Southwest.
o A higher-resolution understanding of the technical thermal energy potential will
provide a more accurate assignment of available land adjacent to potential user-
industry sites. This would highlight the best potential SIPH locations.
2. Identify case studies of potentially attractive SIPH projects to disseminate facts and data
regarding the SIPH potential, which could increase deployment interest.
o Case study development would benefit from interaction with industrial partners
and solar hardware developers. Accordingly, NREL and DOE could consider
fostering relationships with SIPH developers and industrial partners to identify
potential cost-shared case studies.
o Identifying good candidate projects for SIPH could help industry and the solar
developers explore and develop early-adopter projects. NRELs expertise can be
utilized to provide independent validation of the potential and the subsequent
performance of SIPH projects (for example determining the solar thermal yield
and the expected payback period). Dissemination of success stories could aid
expansion of the SIPH market.
o Identify locations requiring IPH, but without access to natural gas. Natural gas
prices in the United States are very low compared to historic values and most of
the world. Locations without access to natural gas pipelines that are required to
use propane, fuel oil or electricity for IPH would provide much better economics
for SIPH.
3. Track SIPH applications and research worldwide.
o NREL has been instrumental in developing databases and tracking CSP project
development. It would be valuable to perform similar market analysis for SIPH
applications.
o This research has highlighted industries such as food, paper, and petroleum
sectors that could benefit from SIPH integration due to the steam and temperature
requirements. This research has looked at the overall industry level, and with
future efforts; it will be worthwhile investigating specific subsectors in a specific
industry (e.g. the Dairy Producers in the Food Industry, MECS 3115).
o Market tracking of SIPH applications and research around the world will allow
technology developments to be identified for potential use in the United States.
This engagement would be enhanced by NREL reconnecting with the
45
international research community for SIPH via collaborative projects e.g IEA
Task 49.
4. Understand industrial natural gas consumption and burner tip pricing in each state within
the Southwest for the food, paper, petroleum, chemical and primary metals industries.
o Estimate the thermal energy demand for natural gas in each state and industry and
compile the data into a public database.
o Understanding the thermal energy demand by industry and state where natural gas
is utilized for steam production will highlight the potential to significantly
decrease natural gas use using solar-thermal and SIPH.
46
Appendix A. Industry Sectors with Potential for SIPH
Application
Table 13. Studies globally regarding industries that could be suitable for SIPH applications 146
Spain and
Industry Sector Austria Portugal Italy Netherlands Greece Germany Australia
Food Products
Wines and
Beverage
Beer and Malt
Tobacco
Textiles
Leather and
Products
Pulp and Paper
products
Chemical
47
Appendix B. Fuel Use by Type and End Use
Table B-1. End use fuel consumption for all MECS 2010 industries in the United States
Net
Natural Gas Coal
End Use Category Electricity
Trillion Btu Trillion Btu Trillion Btu
Indirect End Use (Boiler Fuel) 44 2,134 572
Conventional Boiler Use 44 733 72
CHP and Cogeneration Process 0 1,401 500
Direct End Use 2,304 2,623 289
All Process Uses
Process Heating 318 2,362 280
Process Cooling and Refrigeration 208 25 0
Machine drive 1,454 120 1
Electrochemical Processes 263 0 0
Other Process Uses 60 117 8
All Non-Process Uses
Facility Heating, Ventilation and Air 3
236 306
Conditioning
Facility Lighting 177 0 0
Other Facility Support 51 36 *
Onsite Transportation 5 1 0
Conventional Electricity Generation 0 19 1
Other Non-Process Use 10 7 1
End use Not Reported 59 86 1
Total 2,886 5,211 572
Figure 33 and Figure 34 show the MECS 2010 end-use subcategories for natural gas and
electricity, respectively. Natural gas is most often used for process heating, conventional boiler
use, and CHP or cogeneration. In contrast, electricity is most commonly used for direct machine
drive with some use in process heating. Steam generation with electricity is rare.
48
Figure 33. 2010 MECS overall natural gas breakdown by end use 147
Figure 34. 2010 MECS overall electricity end use breakdown 148
49
Appendix C. Thermal Energy Potential of California
Table C-1. Annual technical thermal energy potential by county in California
County Name Total GWhth County Name Total GWhth

Alameda 9,699 Riverside 1,240,830
Alpine 1,365 Sacramento 323,108
Amador 30,814 San Benito 58,989
Butte 311,319 San Bernardino 4,353,578
Calaveras 22,724 San Diego 178,912
Colusa 323,691 San Joaquin 637,502
Contra Costa 53,609 San Luis Obispo 172,113
El Dorado 6,273 Santa Barbara 81,642
Fresno 1,358,464 Santa Clara 17,896
Glenn 288,736 Santa Cruz 1,117
Imperial 2,055,429 Shasta 246,310
Inyo 757,030 Sierra 44,215
Kern 2,245,593 Siskiyou 480,529
Kings 673,973 Solano 248,577
Lake 29,051 Sonoma 14,692
Lassen 738,986 Stanislaus 447,001
Los Angeles 515,857 Sutter 279,979
Madera 473,668 Tehama 312,606
Mariposa 11,408 Trinity 2,211
Mendocino 34,442 Tulare 797,613
Merced 656,964 Tuolumne 7,995
Modoc 1,142,840 Ventura 46,707
Mono 196,907 Yolo 374,672
Monterey 174,323 Yuba 142,275
Napa 25,318
Nevada 6,487 California Total 22,897,337
Orange 393
Placer 109,635
Plumas 131,270
50
Figure 35. Solar technical thermal energy potential of CA overlaid on animal-food processing sites
51
Figure 36. Solar technical thermal energy potential of CA overlaid on the breweries
52
Figure 37. Solar technical thermal energy potential of CA overlaid on locations of dairy product
manufacturers
53
Appendix D. LCOH Calculation and Assumptions
The LCOH is calculated in a spreadsheet using the formula for fixed charge rate (FCR) as
described in SAM version 2015-06-30. The explanation below is excerpted from SAMs help
menu. An example calculation is shown using the default values for the CSP parabolic trough
model in SAM 2015-06-30, with the exception of the construction period being set to one year
rather than SAMs default value of three years. This change is realistic because SIPH plants are
much smaller than CSP electric-generation facilities.
Table D-1. LCOH calculation method patterned after the fixed charge rate LCOE calculation in
SAM 2015-06-30. Calculated values are defined in the text below.
Fixed Charge Rate Calculation for LCOE from SAM 2015-06-30.
Assumptions
analysis period 20 years
inflation 2.5% per year
IRR 13% per year
Project debt fraction 50% of CAPEX
Nominal debt interest rate 8% per year
Effective tax rate 40% per year
Depreciation 20% 32% 20% 14% 14% Enter percent of CAPEX for each year up to 5 years
Annual cost during constructi 100% 0% 0% Enter percent of CAPEX for each year up to 3 years (Must sum to 100%)
Nominal construction interes 0% per year Set = 0 so that CFF = 1.0
Calculated Values
RROE 0.102439024 Real return on investment
RINT 0.053658537 Real debt interest rate
WACC 0.062439024 Weighted average cost of capital
CRF 0.088918714 Capital recovery factor
PVDEP 0.799302997 present value of depreciation
PFF 1.133798002 Project financing factor
CFF 1 Construction financing factor
FCR 0.1008 fixed charge rate = CFR*PFF*CFF
LCOH = [(CAPEX)*FCR + (annual O&M)] / (Annual thermal generation)
SAMs LCOE Calculator uses a simple method to calculate a projects LCOE using only the
following inputs:
Total Capital Cost, $ (TCC)

Fixed Annual Operating Cost, $ (FOC)
Variable Operating Cost, $/kWh (VOC)
Fixed Charge Rate (FCR)
Annual Electricity Production, kWh (AEP).
The LCOE Calculator uses the following equation to calculate the LCOE:
The fixed charge rate is the revenue per amount of investment required to cover the investment
cost. For details, see pages 22-24 of reference (Short, Packey and Holt 1995). This method is an
alternative to the cash flow method used by SAMs other financial models. It is appropriate for
very preliminary stages of project feasibility analysis before many details about the projects
costs and financial structure surface. SAM does not contain a geothermal hybrid model, so direct
use of SAMs other financial models is not possible.
54
Capital and Operating Costs
Capital cost
The projects total investment cost.
Fixed operating cost
Annual operating costs that do not vary with the amount of electricity the system generates.
Variable operating cost
Annual operating costs in dollars per kilowatt-hour that vary with the amount of electricity the
system generates.
Summary
The Summary values are the inputs to the LCOE equation. These values are calculated from the
inputs you specify.
Fixed charge rate
The project fixed charge rate, or revenue per amount of investment required to cover the
investment cost. Calculated from the financial details you enter.
Capital cost
The total overnight investment cost in dollars.
Fixed operating cost
The fixed annual operating cost in dollars. It is either the value you enter or a value that SAM
calculates based on the value you enter in dollars per kilowatt.
Variable operating cost
The variable annual operating cost in dollars per kilowatt-hour that you enter.
Financial Assumptions
The fixed charge rate represents details of the project's financial structure.
Calculate fixed charge rate
SAM calculates the fixed charge rate from a set of financial assumptions. SAM uses the
following equation to calculate the value from the capital recovery factor, project financing
factor, and construction financing factor (see below for all equations):
Fixed charge rate

The projects fixed charge rate. Note that the value is a factor (between 0 and 1) rather than a
percentage.
Analysis period
The number of years that the project will generate electricity and earn revenue.
55
Inflation rate
The annual inflation rate over the analysis period.
Internal rate of return
The project's annual rate of return requirement.
Project term debt
The size of debt as a percentage of the capital cost.
Nominal debt interest rate
The annual nominal debt interest rate. SAM assumes that the debt period is the same as the
analysis period.
Effective tax rate
The total income tax rate. For a project that pays both federal and state income taxes, where the
state income tax is deducted from the federal tax, you can calculate the effective tax rate as:
Depreciation schedule
The annual depreciation schedule. The depreciation basis equals the project's capital cost.
Annual cost during construction
The annual construction cost as a percentage of the project's capital cost. If the construction
period is one year or less, enter a single value. If it is more than one year, enter a schedule of
annual percentages.
Nominal construction interest rate
The annual interest rate on construction financing.
Capital recovery factor (CRF)
SAM calculates this value from the inputs you specify as described below.
Project financing factor (PFF)
Factor to account for project financing costs. SAM calculates this value from the effective tax
rate and depreciation schedule, as described below.
Construction financing factor (CFF)
Factor to account for construction financing costs. SAM calculates the value from the
construction cost schedule, effective tax rate, and construction interest rate, as described below.
56
Equations for FCR Calculation
When you use the Calculate fixed charge rate option, SAM uses the following equations to
calculate the financing factors.
Nomenclature
c = Construction year
C = Construction period in years
CON = Construction schedule
DF = Project term debt fraction
i = Inflation rate
n = Analysis year
N = Analysis period
IRR = Nominal return on investment
NINT = Nominal debt interest rate
PVDEP = Present value of depreciation
RINT = Real debt interest rate
RROE = Real return on investment
TAX = Effective tax rate
WACC = Weighted average cost of capital (real).
The capital recovery factor (CRF) is a function of the weighted average cost of capital (WACC)
and analysis period (N):
Where:
57
The project financing factor (PFF) is a function of the effective tax rate and depreciation
schedule:
Where:
The construction financing factor (CFF) is a function of the construction cost schedule, effective
tax rate, and nominal construction financing interest rate:
58
Notes
2
Charles F. Kutscher et al., Design Approaches for Solar Industrial Process Heat Systems.
3
Stephen L. Sargent et al., Solar industrial process heat.
4
Clifton Carwile and Russell Hewitt, Barriers to Solar Process Heat Projects: Fifteen Highly Promising (But
Cancelled) Projects.
5
International Energy Agency Solar Heating and Cooling Programme, Programme Description.
6
SolarPACES, TASK IV: Solar Heat Integration in Industrial Processes.
7
SHIP Plants, AEE Intec, Solar Thermal Plants Database.
8
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), Renewable Industrial Process Heat.
9
Ibid.; Fox, Sutter, and Tester, The Thermal Spectrum of Low-Temperature Energy Use in the United States.
10
Lauterbach et al., The Potential of Solar Heat for Industrial Processes in Germany.
11
Capital Surini Group International, Inc. and Energetics, Incorporated, Roadmap for Process Heating Technology:
Priority Research & Development Goals and Near-Term Non-Research Goals To Improve Industrial Process
Heating.
12
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), Renewable Heating and Cooling - RHC Technologies and
Applications.
13
Ibid.
14
Christoph Brunner, Solar Heat for Industrial Production Processes: Latest Research and Large Scale
Installations.
15
Ibid.; IEA (International Energy Agency), Technology Roadmap: Solar Heating and Cooling - Foldout.
16
Christoph Brunner, Solar Heat for Industrial Production Processes: Latest Research and Large Scale
Installations.
17
18
19
Hans Schweiger et al., The Potential of Solar Heat in Industrial Processes: A State of the Art Review for Spain
and Portugal.
20
Ibid.; IEA-ETSAP and IRENA, Solar Heat for Industrial Processes: Technology Brief; Beath, Industrial
Energy Usage in Australia and the Potential for Implementation of Solar Thermal Heat and Power; Calderoni et al.,
Solar Thermal Plants for Industrial Process Heat in Tunisia.
21
22
and Portugal; IEA-ETSAP and IRENA, Solar Heat for Industrial Processes: Technology Brief; Beath, Industrial
Energy Usage in Australia and the Potential for Implementation of Solar Thermal Heat and Power; Calderoni et al.,
Solar Thermal Plants for Industrial Process Heat in Tunisia.
23
Calderoni et al., Solar Thermal Plants for Industrial Process Heat in Tunisia; Ramos, Ramirez, and Beltran,
Potential Assessment in Mexico for Solar Process Heat Applications in Food and Textile Industries.
24
25
Ibid.
26
Beath, Industrial Energy Usage in Australia and the Potential for Implementation of Solar Thermal Heat and
Power.
27
Lauterbach et al., The Potential of Solar Heat for Industrial Processes in Germany; Hans Schweiger et al., The
Potential of Solar Heat in Industrial Processes: A State of the Art Review for Spain and Portugal; Calderoni et al.,
Solar Thermal Plants for Industrial Process Heat in Tunisia; Ramos, Ramirez, and Beltran, Potential Assessment
in Mexico for Solar Process Heat Applications in Food and Textile Industries.
28
Julia Chan, South Americas first solar thermal plant comes online.
29
30
Ibid.
31
Hennecke, Solar Process Heat and Co-Generation - A Review of Recent Developments.
32
SHIP Plants, AEE Intec, Cremo SA.
33
Solarlite CSP Technology GmbH, CSP Technologies in Practice.
34
Solarlite CSP Technology GmbH, The Sun Is Shining for You as Well.
35
Solarlite CSP Technology GmbH, CSP Technologies in Practice.
59
36
Solarlite CSP Technology GmbH, TSE 1 Kanchanaburi, Thailand.
37
Utilities ME Staff, German Firm Installs CSP System at Jordan Factory.
38
CSP-F, Ribbon-Cutting for the First Italian CSP Fresnel Plant in the Agrobusiness.
39
Ibid.
40
CSP-F, Solar Cooling Gorla Maggiore with Fresnel Mirrors.
41
Saleem Qadir Tunio et al., Comparison of Different Enhanced Oil Recovery Techniques for Better Oil
Productivity.
42
Petros Group, EOR Classification.
43
Alvarez and Han, Current Overview of Cyclic Steam Injection Process.
44
Gregory and Omom, Solar Enhanced Oil Recovery: An in-Country Value Assessment for Oman; Brightsource
Energy, Coalinga: Project Facts.
45
Gregory and Omom, Solar Enhanced Oil Recovery: An in-Country Value Assessment for Oman; GlassPoint
Solar Inc., Sealed From Dust.
46
Glasspoint Solar Inc., Use Less Gas For EOR.
47
Ibid.
48
GlassPoint Solar Inc., GlassPoint PDO Fact Sheet.
49
Christopher Helman, Ironic Or Economic? Oil Giant To Build Worlds Largest Solar Project.
50
Brightsource Energy, Coalinga: Project Facts; eSolar Inc., EOR - Enhanced Oil Recovery.
51
Brightsource Energy, Coalinga: Project Facts.
52
Lopez et al., U.S. Renewable Energy Technical Potentials: A GIS-Based Analysis.
53
54
55
Ibid.
56
and Portugal; Beath, Industrial Energy Usage in Australia and the Potential for Implementation of Solar Thermal
Heat and Power.
57
Beath, Industrial Energy Usage in Australia and the Potential for Implementation of Solar Thermal Heat and
Power.
58
59
60
61
EERE (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy), Sankey Diagram of
Process Energy Flow in U.S. Manufacturing Sector.
62
Ibid.
63
EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration), 2010 MECS Survey Data - Table 5.3, End Use of Fuel
Consumption.
64
Consumption.
65
Ibid.
66
Fox, Sutter, and Tester, The Thermal Spectrum of Low-Temperature Energy Use in the United States;
XENERGY Inc., California Industrial Energy Efficiency Market Characterization Study.
67
EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration), Annual Energy Review 2011, Table 2.3.
68
69
Ibid.
70
71
Consumption.
72
Shehabi, Morrow, and Masanet, United States Industrial Sector Energy End Use Analysis.
73
EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration), State Energy Data 2013: Updates by Energy Source, Table F19:
Natural Gas Consumption Estimates, 2013.
74
Ibid.
75
Ibid.
60
76
XENERGY Inc., California Industrial Energy Efficiency Market Characterization Study; Friedmann et al.,
California Industrial Energy Efficiency Potential.
77
Friedmann et al., California Industrial Energy Efficiency Potential.
78
Ibid.
79
Schrupp, The Natural Gas Research, Development, and Demonstration Program: Proposed Program Plan and
Funding Request for Fiscal Year 2013-14.
80
Ibid.
81
82
Ibid.
83
84
Ibid.
85
EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration), Natural Gas Prices.
86
87
NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory), Solar Prospector.
88
Rackham Technologies, Case #01 - Deploying an Icarus Heat System in the Food Industry: Chagnon Dairy,
Waterloo, Quebec; Rackham Technologies, Case #02 - The Sun Shines over Quebec: The Case of the Pulp and
Paper Industrial Complex in Kingsey Falls.
89
90
Walter Short et al., Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDs).
91
92
Ruby, Industrial Process Steam Generation Using Parabolic Trough Solar Collection.
93
CSP-F, Solar Cooling Gorla Maggiore with Fresnel Mirrors.
94
95
96
Ibid.
97
Turchi, Parabolic Trough Reference Plant for Cost Modelling with the Solar Advisor Model (SAM).
98
Mason and Reitze, Establishing Bankability for High Performance, Cost Reducing SkyTrough Parabolic Trough
Solar Collector.
99
Turchi, Parabolic Trough Reference Plant for Cost Modelling with the Solar Advisor Model (SAM).
100
DSIRE, Summary Maps - Solar Thermal Process Heat.
101
Ibid.
102
Center for Sustainable Energy et al., California Solar Initiative - Thermal: Program Handbook.
103
104
Ruby, Industrial Process Steam Generation Using Parabolic Trough Solar Collection; Walker et al., Design
and Analysis of a Large Solar Industrial Heat Plant for Frito Lay in Modesto California.
105
106
Ibid.
107
Ibid.
108
Walker et al., Design and Analysis of a Large Solar Industrial Heat Plant for Frito Lay in Modesto California.
109
110
NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory), Solar Prospector; Ruby, Industrial Process Steam Generation
Using Parabolic Trough Solar Collection.
111
112
Ibid.
113
EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration), Natural Gas Prices.
114
115
Miskus, U.S. Drought Monitor - June 9, 2015.
116
United States Drought Monitor, U.S. Drought Monitor - West.
117
United States Drought Monitor, U.S. Drought Monitor - California.
118
Charley Cameron, San Diego Is Building a Massive $1 Billion Desalination Plant to Fight Severe Drought.
119
Stuber, Solar Thermal Desalination of Agricultural Drainage for Reuse: Optimal Design and Case Study.
61
120
Al-Karaghouli and Kazmerski, Energy Consumption and Water Production Cost of Conventional and
Renewable-Energy-Powered Desalination Processes.
121
Ghaffour et al., Renewable Energy-Driven Desalination Technologies.
122
Ibid.; Sharon and Reddy, A Review of Solar Energy Driven Desalination Technologies; Reif and Alhalabi,
Solar-Thermal Powered Desalination; Al-Karaghouli and Kazmerski, Energy Consumption and Water
Production Cost of Conventional and Renewable-Energy-Powered Desalination Processes.
123
Trieb et al., Combined Solar Power and Desalination Plants: Techno-Economic Potential in Mediterranean
Partner Countries.
124
125
Ziolkowska, Is Desalination Affordable?
126
Walton, Price of Water 2015: Up 6 Percent in 30 Major U.S. Cities; 41 Percent Rise Since 2010.
127
128
Sharon and Reddy, A Review of Solar Energy Driven Desalination Technologies.
129
130
Hassabou, Spinnler, and Polifke, Tecnoeconomic Analysis of Medium and Large-Sacle Desalination Plants
Driven by Concentrated Solar Systems in the Mena Region; Trieb and Mller-Steinhagen, Concentrating Solar
Power for Seawater Desalination in the Middle East and North Africa; Iaquaniello et al., Concentrating Solar
Power (CSP) System Integrated with MEDRO Hybrid Desalination; Palenzuela, Alarcn-Padilla, and Zaragoza,
Large-Scale Solar Desalination by Combination with CSP.
131
Iaquaniello et al., Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) System Integrated with MEDRO Hybrid Desalination.
132
Trieb et al., Combined Solar Power and Desalination Plants: Techno-Economic Potential in Mediterranean
Partner Countries.
133
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2015 GTO Peer Review.
134
Camacho et al., Advances in Membrane Distillation for Water Desalination and Purification Applications.
135
136
Palenzuela, Alarcn-Padilla, and Zaragoza, Large-Scale Solar Desalination by Combination with CSP.
137
138
Stuber et al., Pilot Demonstration of Concentrated Solar-Powered Desalination of Subsurface Agricultural
Drainage Water and Other Brackish Groundwater Sources.
139
WaterFx, Product - Aqua4.
140
Ibid.
141
142
DESWARE Encyclopedia of Desalination and Water Resources, Energy Requirements of Desalination
Processes.
143
Fagan, California Drought: Solar Desalination Plant Shows Promise.
144
SkyFuel Inc., SkyTrough Thermal Efficiency.
145
Keller, Valley Projects Look to the Sun for Clean Water.
146
147
Ibid.
148
Ibid.
62
Bibliography
Al-Karaghouli, Ali, and Lawrence L. Kazmerski. Energy Consumption and Water Production
Cost of Conventional and Renewable-Energy-Powered Desalination Processes.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 24 (August 2013): 34356.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.12.064.
Alvarez, Johannes, and Sungyun Han. Current Overview of Cyclic Steam Injection Process,
July 2013.
Beath, Andrew C. Industrial Energy Usage in Australia and the Potential for Implementation of
Solar Thermal Heat and Power. Energy, 2nd International Meeting on Cleaner
Combustion (CM0901-Detailed Chemical Models for Cleaner Combustion), 43, no. 1
(July 2012): 26172. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2012.04.031.
Brightsource Energy. Coalinga: Project Facts. Oakland, California: Brightsource Energy,
March 30, 2015.
http://www.brightsourceenergy.com/stuff/contentmgr/files/0/ad5d33a2bc493a5079b5dda
609724238/folder/bse_coalinga_fact_sheet_033015.pdf.
Brunner, Christoph. Solar Heat for Industrial Production Processes: Latest Research and Large
Scale Installations. October 15, 2014. http://task49.iea-
shc.org/data/sites/1/publications/SHC-2014--Brunner--Solar-Heat-for-Industrial-
Processes.pdf.
Calderoni, Marco, Marcello Aprile, Salvatore Moretta, Aristotelis Aidonis, and Mario Motta.
Solar Thermal Plants for Industrial Process Heat in Tunisia: Economic Feasibility
Analysis and Ideas for a New Policy. Energy Procedia, 1st International Conference on
Solar Heating and Coolingfor Buildings and Industry (SHC 2012), 30 (2012): 1390
1400. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2012.11.153.
Camacho, Lucy Mar, Ludovic Dume, Jianhua Zhang, Jun-de Li, Mikel Duke, Juan Gomez, and
Stephen Gray. Advances in Membrane Distillation for Water Desalination and
Purification Applications. Water 5, no. 1 (January 25, 2013): 94196.
doi:10.3390/w5010094.
Cameron, Charley. San Diego Is Building a Massive $1 Billion Desalination Plant to Fight
Severe Drought. Inhabit.com, May 13, 2015. http://inhabitat.com/san-diego-county-is-
building-a-massive-1-billion-desalination-plant-to-address-drought/.
Carwile, Clifton, and Russell Hewett. Barriers to Solar Process Heat Projects: Fifteen Highly
Promising (but Cancelled) Projects. Golden, Colorado: National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, 1994.
Capital Surini Group International, Inc. and Energetics, Incorporated. Roadmap for Process
Heating Technology: Priority Research & Development Goals and Near-Term Non-
Research Goals To Improve Industrial Process Heating. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, March 16,
2001.
https://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/tech_assistance/pdfs/process_heating_0401
.pdf.
Center for Sustainable Energy, Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
and Southern California Gas Company. California Solar Initiative - Thermal: Program
Handbook. San Francisco: California Public Utilities Commission, February 2015.
http://www.gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov/documents/CSI-Thermal_Handbook.pdf.
63
Chan, Julia. South Americas first solar thermal plant comes online. PV Tech, January 3, 2013.
http://www.pv-tech.org/news/south_americas_first_solar_thermal_plant_comes_online.
CSP-F. Ribbon-Cutting for the First Italian CSP Fresnel Plant in the Agrobusiness. CSP-F
Solar, May 20, 2015. http://www.cspfsolar.com/blog/ribbon-cutting-for-the-first-italian-
csp-fresnel-plant-in-the-agrobusiness/.
. Solar Cooling Gorla Maggiore with Fresnel Mirrors. CSP-F Solar, November 7,
2014. http://www.cspfsolar.com/blog/news/solar-cooling-gorla-maggiore-fresnel-
mirrors/.
DESWARE: Encyclopedia of Desalination and Water Resources. Energy Requirements of
Desalination Processes. DESWARE, 2015. http://www.desware.net/.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2015 GTO Peer Review. Energy.gov, 2015.
http://energy.gov/eere/geothermal/events/2015-gto-peer-review.
DSIRE. Summary Maps - Solar Thermal Process Heat, 2015.
http://programs.dsireusa.org/system/program/maps.
EERE (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy).
Sankey Diagram of Process Energy Flow in U.S. Manufacturing Sector. Energy.gov,
2015. http://www.energy.gov/eere/amo/sankey-diagram-process-energy-flow-us-
manufacturing-sector.
EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration). 2010 MECS Survey Data - Table 5.3, End Use
of Fuel Consumption. EIA, March 2013.
http://www.eia.gov/consumption/manufacturing/data/2010/.
. 2010 MECS Survey Data - Table 5.4, End Use of Fuel Consumption. EIA, March
2013. http://www.eia.gov/consumption/manufacturing/data/2010/.
. Annual Energy Review 2011, Table 2.3. Washington, D.C.: Energy Information
Administration, September 2012.
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=ptb0203.
. Natural Gas Prices. EIA, May 29, 2015.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_SCA_a.htm.
. State Energy Data 2013: Updates by Energy Source, Table F19: Natural Gas
Consumption Estimates, 2013. Washington, D.C.: Energy Information Administration,
March 20, 2015. http://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/pdf/fuel_use_ng.pdf.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). Renewable Heating and Cooling - RHC Technologies
and Applications, May 8, 2015. http://www2.epa.gov/rhc/rhc-technologies-and-
applications.
. Renewable Industrial Process Heat, May 8, 2015.
http://www2.epa.gov/rhc/renewable-industrial-process-heat.
eSolar Inc. EOR - Enhanced Oil Recovery. eSolar.com, 2013.
http://www.esolar.com/applications/eor/.
Fagan, Kevin. California Drought: Solar Desalination Plant Shows Promise. San Francisco
Chronicle, March 18, 2014. http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/California-drought-
Solar-desalination-plant-5326024.php#photo-6028210.
Fox, Don B., Daniel Sutter, and Jefferson W. Tester. The Thermal Spectrum of Low-
Temperature Energy Use in the United States. Energy & Environmental Science 4, no.
10 (September 27, 2011): 373140. doi:10.1039/C1EE01722E.
64
Friedmann, Rafael, Fred Coito, Ernst Worrell, Lynn Price, and Eric Masanet. California
Industrial Energy Efficiency Potential. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy, 2005.
http://aceee.org/files/proceedings/2005/data/papers/SS05_Panel06_Paper07.pdf.
Ghaffour, Noreddine, Jochen Bundschuh, Hacene Mahmoudi, and Mattheus F. A. Goosen.
Renewable Energy-Driven Desalination Technologies: A Comprehensive Review on
Challenges and Potential Applications of Integrated Systems. Desalination 356 (January
15, 2015): 94114. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2014.10.024.
GlassPoint Solar Inc. GlassPoint PDO Fact Sheet. Fact Sheet. Fremont, California: GlassPoint
Solar Inc., 2013. http://www.glasspoint.com/media/2013/05/GlassPoint-PDO-Fact-Sheet-
FINAL.pdf.
. Use Less Gas For EOR. www.glasspoint.com, 2015.
http://www.glasspoint.com/technology/use-less-gas/.
. Sealed From Dust. www.glasspoint.com, 2015.
http://www.glasspoint.com/technology/sealed-from-dust/.
Gregory, Mark, and David Omom. Solar Enhanced Oil Recovery: An in-Country Value
Assessment for Oman. London: Ernest & Young LLP, January 2014.
http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY-Solar-enhanced-oil-recovery-in-Oman-
January-2014/$FILE/EY-Solar-enhanced-oil-recovery-in-Oman-January-2014.pdf.
Hassabou, Abdel Hakim, Markus Spinnler, and Wolfgang Polifke. Tecnoeconomic Analysis of
Medium and Large-Sacle Desalination Plants Driven by Concentrated Solar Systems in
the Mena Region. Energy Procedia 42 (2013): 73544.
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2013.11.076.
Helman, Christopher. Ironic Or Economic? Oil Giant To Build World's Largest Solar Project.
Forbes, July 8, 2015. http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2015/07/08/oil-
giant-to-build-worlds-largest-solar-project/.
Hennecke, Klaus. Solar Process Heat and Co-Generation - A Review of Recent Developments.
presented at the SolarPACES, Beijing, China, September 2014.
http://elib.dlr.de/92330/1/SolarPACES2014Plenary_Hennecke_ProcessHeat_Cogeneratio
n.pdf.
Iaquaniello, G., A. Salladini, A. Mari, A. A. Mabrouk, and H. E. S. Fath. Concentrating Solar
Power (CSP) System Integrated with MEDRO Hybrid Desalination. Desalination 336
(March 3, 2014): 12128. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2013.12.030.
IEA (International Energy Agency). Technology Roadmap: Solar Heating and Cooling -
Foldout. Paris: International Energy Agency, July 2012.
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/IEA_Solar_HC_Roadmap_
FoldOut_Print.pdf.
IEA-ETSAP, and IRENA. Solar Heat for Industrial Processes: Technology Brief. Paris and
Abu Dhabi: International Energy Agency and International Renewabe Energy Agency,
January 2015. http://www.solarthermalworld.org/sites/gstec/files/news/file/2015-02-
27/irena-solar-heat-for-industrial-processes_2015.pdf.
International Energy Agency Solar Heating and Cooling Programme. Programme Description,
2015. http://www.iea-shc.org/programme-description.
Keller, Ben. Valley Projects Look to the Sun for Clean Water. The Business Journal, July 21,
2014. http://www.thebusinessjournal.com/news/technology/13064-valley-projects-looks-
to-the-sun-for-clean-water.
65
Lauterbach, C., B. Schmitt, U. Jordan, and K. Vajen. The Potential of Solar Heat for Industrial
Processes in Germany. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16, no. 7
(September 2012): 512130. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.04.032.
Lopez, Anthony, Billy Roberts, Donna Heimiller, Nate Blair, and Gian Porro. U.S. Renewable
Energy Technical Potentials: A GIS-Based Analysis. Golden, Colorado: National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, July 2012. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51946.pdf.
Mason, A., and E. Reitze. Establishing Bankability for High Performance, Cost Reducing
SkyTrough Parabolic Trough Solar Collector. Energy Procedia 49 (2014): 15562.
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2014.03.017.
Miskus, David. U.S. Drought Monitor - June 9, 2015. National Drought Mitigation Center,
June 11, 2015. http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/data/pdfs/20150609/20150609_usdm.pdf.
NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). Solar Prospector. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, 2012. http://maps.nrel.gov/prospector.
Palenzuela, Patricia, Diego-Csar Alarcn-Padilla, and Guillermo Zaragoza. Large-Scale Solar
Desalination by Combination with CSP: Techno-Economic Analysis of Different Options
for the Mediterranean Sea and the Arabian Gulf. Desalination 366 (June 15, 2015):
13038. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2014.12.037.
Petros Group. EOR Classification. Petros Group, 2015.
http://petros.ru/eng/worldmarketoil/?action=show&id=287#3.1.
Rackham Technologies. Case #01 - Deploying an Icarus Heat System in the Food Industry:
Chagnon Dairy, Waterloo, Quebec. Rackham, 2014.
http://rackam.com/fr/studies/chagnon/.
Rackham Technologies. Case #02 - The Sun Shines over Quebec: The Case of the Pulp and
Paper Industrial Complex in Kingsey Falls. Rackham, 2014.
http://www.rackam.com/en/studies/cascades/.
Ramos, C., R. Ramirez, and J. Beltran. Potential Assessment in Mexico for Solar Process Heat
Applications in Food and Textile Industries. Energy Procedia, Proceedings of the
SolarPACES 2013 International Conference, 49 (2014): 187984.
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2014.03.199.
Reif, John H., and Wadee Alhalabi. Solar-Thermal Powered Desalination: Its Significant
Challenges and Potential. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 48 (August
2015): 15265. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.065.
Ruby, Steve. Industrial Process Steam Generation Using Parabolic Trough Solar Collection.
Denver: American Energy Assets, November 2010.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2011publications/CEC-500-2011-040/CEC-500-2011-040.pdf.
Sargent, Stephen L., Barbara H. Glenn, and David W. Kearney. Solar industrial process heat.
Environmental Science and Technology 14:5 (May 1980): 518522.
doi:10.1021/es60165a605.
Schrupp, Linda. The Natural Gas Research, Development, and Demonstration Program:
Proposed Program Plan and Funding Request for Fiscal Year 2013-14. Sacramento:
California Energy Commission, March 2013.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2013publications/CEC-500-2013-014/CEC-500-2013-014.pdf.
Schweiger, Hans, Joao Farinha Mendes, Nikolaus Benz, Klaus Hennecke, Germn Prieto, Merc
Cus, and Helder Gonalves. The Potential of Solar Heat in Industrial Processes: A State
of the Art Review for Spain and Portugal. Barcelona: AIGUASOL Enginyera, January
2011.
66
Sharon, H., and K. S. Reddy. A Review of Solar Energy Driven Desalination Technologies.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 41 (January 2015): 10801118.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.09.002.
Shehabi, Arman, William Morrow, and Eric Masanet. United States Industrial Sector Energy
End Use Analysis. Berkeley, California: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, no
date. https://ies.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-5993e_1.pdf.
SHIP Plants, AEE Intec. Cremo SA, 2015. http://ship-plants.info/projects/149.
. Solar Thermal Plants Database, 2015. http://ship-plants.info/solar-thermal-
plants?country=United+States&page=1.
Short, Walter, Patrick Sullivan, Trieu Mai, Matthew Mowers, Caroline Uriarte, Nate Blair,
Donna Heimiller, and Andrew Martinez. Regional Energy Deployment System
(ReEDs). Golden, Colorado: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2011.
SkyFuel Inc. SkyTrough Thermal Efficiency. Arvada, Colorado: SkyFuel Inc., August 2010.
http://www.skyfuel.com/downloads/SkyTroughEfficiency%28SkyFuel%29.pdf.
Solarlite CSP Technology GmbH. CSP Technologies in Practice. IHK zu Rostock, Germany,
July 29, 2014.
http://www.rostock.ihk24.de/linkableblob/hroihk24/international/downloads/3024446/.3./
data/Erfolgreich_mit_gruenen_Technologien_aus_MV_-_Ein_Praxisbericht-data.pdf.
. TSE 1 Kanchanaburi, Thailand. Solarlite CSP Technology GmbH, 2014.
http://solarlite-csp.com/en/reference/tse-1-kanchanaburi-provinz-thailand/.
. The Sun Is Shining for You as Well. Solarlite CSP Technology, June 2014.
http://solarlite-csp.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/lye_solarlite_faltblatt_casestudies_brauerei_lektoriert.pdf.
SolarPACES. TASK IV: Solar Heat Integration in Industrial Processes, 2015.
http://www.solarpaces.org/tasks/task-iv-solar-heat-integration-in-industrial-processes.
Stuber, Matthew D. Solar Thermal Desalination of Agricultural Drainage for Reuse: Optimal
Design and Case Study, Forthcoming.
Stuber, Matthew D., Christopher Sullivan, Spencer A. Kirk, Jennifer A. Farrand, Philip V.
Schillaci, Brian D. Fojtasek, and Aaron H. Mandell. Pilot Demonstration of
Concentrated Solar-Powered Desalination of Subsurface Agricultural Drainage Water
and Other Brackish Groundwater Sources. Desalination 355 (January 1, 2015): 18696.
doi:10.1016/j.desal.2014.10.037.
Trieb, Franz, and Hans Mller-Steinhagen. Concentrating Solar Power for Seawater
Desalination in the Middle East and North Africa. Desalination 220, no. 13 (March 1,
2008): 16583. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2007.01.030.
Trieb, Franz, Massimo Moser, Jrgen Scharfe, Tomasek Marie Luise, Jrgen Kern, Thomas
Nieseor, Nicolas Cottret, Pinhas Glueckstem, Inbal David, and Menahem Priel.
Combined Solar Power and Desalination Plants: Techno-Economic Potential in
Mediterranean Partner Countries. Stuttgart, Germany: DLR: Institute for Engineering
Thermodynamics, June 2009.
http://www.solarthermalworld.org/sites/gstec/files/Technology%20Review%20and%20S
election%20of%20CSP%20and%20Desalination%20Configurations.pdf.
Tunio, Saleem Qadir, Abdul Haque Tunio, Naveed Ahmed Ghirano, and Ziad Mohamed El
Adawy. Comparison of Different Enhanced Oil Recovery Techniques for Better Oil
Productivity. International Journal of Applied Science and Technology 1:5 (2011): 143
53.
67
Turchi, Craig. Parabolic Trough Reference Plant for Cost Modelling with the Solar Advisor
Model (SAM). Golden, Colorado: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, July 2010.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/47605.pdf.
United States Drought Monitor. U.S. Drought Monitor - California, June 11, 2015.
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?CA.
. U.S. Drought Monitor - West, June 11, 2015.
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/RegionalDroughtMonitor.aspx?west.
Utilities ME Staff. German Firm Installs CSP System at Jordan Factory. Utilities-Me.com,
May 19, 2015. http://www.utilities-me.com/article-3547-german-firm-installs-csp-
system-at-jordan-factory/.
Walker, Andy, Chuck Kutscher, Al Halvorsen, Chris McKenna, Dave Chambers, and Ken May.
Design and Analysis of a Large Solar Industrial Heat Plant for Frito Lay in Modesto
California. In ASME Proceedings, 65762. Long Beach, California: Midwest Research
Institute, 2007. doi:10.1115/ES2007-36050.
Walker, Andy. Frito-Lay North American/NREL CRADA: Cooperative Research and
Development Final Report. Golden, Colorado: National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
June 2013. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/58095.pdf.
Walton, Brett. Price of Water 2015: Up 6 Percent in 30 Major U.S. Cities; 41 Percent Rise
Since 2010. Circleofblue.org, April 22, 2015.
http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2015/world/price-of-water-2015-up-6-percent-in-
30-major-u-s-cities-41-percent-rise-since-2010/.
WaterFx. Product - Aqua4, 2015. http://waterfx.co/aqua4/.
XENERGY Inc. California Industrial Energy Efficiency Market Characterization Study.
Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Oakland, California: XENERGY Inc.,
December 2001.
http://www.calmac.org/publications/California%20Ind%20EE%20Mkt%20Characterizati
on.pdf.
Ziolkowska, Jadwiga R. Is Desalination Affordable?Regional Cost and Price Analysis.
Water Resources Management 29, no. 5 (December 18, 2014): 138597.
doi:10.1007/s11269-014-0901-y.
68

Initial Investigation Into The Potential of CSP Industrial Process Heat For The Southwest United States

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Initial Investigation Into The Potential of CSP Industrial Process Heat For The Southwest United States

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Initial Investigation Into The Potential of CSP Industrial Process Heat For The Southwest United States

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Initial Investigation into the

Potential of CSP Industrial

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Report

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Available electronically at SciTech Connect http:/www.osti.gov/scitech

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

U.S. Department of Energy

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

NREL prints on paper that contains recycled content.

1.1 How Solar Thermal can Meet the Needs of IPH

Table 1. Typical Applications for IPH 11

Fluid Metal and Non- Curing and

2.2 Existing PTC Plants for SIPH

2.3 Global Examples of Concentrating SIPH Systems

Figure 7. LF system installed on a roof 40

2.4 Temperature Ranges for SIPH

Table 2. Temperature regions relevant for SIPH

2.4.1 Candidate HTFs

Table 3. Physical properties and costs for candidate HTFs

3.1 Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up Analysis

3.2 Limitations for the Chosen Method and Study

NAICS Code Individual Sector Title

Steam Energy Temperature Distribution (%)

Natural Gas Consumed per Year

4.2 California Industrial Natural Gas Consumption

Natural Gas Consumption for

4.4 Southwestern U.S. DNI and Solar-Thermal Energy Potential

Land with slope greater than 3% excluded.

State MWh = [ ( ) 139.3 /

Trough, without Storage, Solar Multiple = 1.4. Thermal power

4.5 Locations of California Industries Using IPH

Site land area available was 20 ha (approx. 450 m by 450 m, or 50 acres)

Figure 22. Quoted FOB uninstalled collector costs ($/m2)

4.7 U.S. Incentives for SIPH

4.8 U.S. Case Studies for SIPH Plants

Figure 25. Modesto and Panoche SIPH plants as of Sept. 2014

4.8.1 Modesto Frito Lay Food Processing Plant

4.8.2 Desalination and Californias Need for Water

4.8.2.1 Desalination Technologies and the fit with Solar-Thermal

Table 12. Overview of Desalination Technologies 123

Figure 30. Basic MD system

4.8.2.2 Case Study of Solar Desalination at the Panoche Desalination Plant

1. Undertake a higher-resolution assessment of the technical thermal energy potential for

County Name Total GWhth County Name Total GWhth

LCOH = [(CAPEX)*FCR + (annual O&M)] / (Annual thermal generation)

Total Capital Cost, $ (TCC)

Fixed charge rate

You might also like