In recent years, linear Fresnel (LF) collector systems have been developed as a technical alternative to parabolic trough (PT) collector systems. While in the past, LF systems focused on low- and medium-temperature applications, today, LF systems are equipped with vacuum receivers and, therefore, can be operated with similar operating parameters as PT systems. Papers about the technical and economical comparison of specific PT and LF systems have already been published (Dersch et al., 2009, "Comparison of Linear Fresnel and Parabolic Trough Collecor Systems—System Analysis to Determine Break-Even Costs of Linear Fresnel Collectors," Proceedings of the 15th International SolarPACES Symposium, Berlin; Giostri et al. 2011, "Comparison of Two Linear Collectors in Solar Thermal Plants: Parabolic Trough vs. Fresnel," ASME 2011 5th International Conference on Energy Sustainability, Washington, DC; and Morin et al., 2012, "Comparison of Linear Fresnel and Parabolic Trough Collector Power Plants," Sol. Energy, 86(1), pp. 1–12). However, the present paper focuses on the systematic differences in optical and thermodynamic performance and the impact on the economic figures. In a first step the optical performance of typical PT and LF solar fields (SFs) has been examined, showing the differences during the course of the day and annually. Furthermore, the thermodynamic performance, depending on the operating temperature, has been compared. In a second step, the annual electricity yield of typical PT and LF plants has been examined. Solar Salt has been chosen as the heat transfer fluid. Both systems utilize the same power block (PB) and storage type. Solar field size, storage capacity, and PB electrical power are variable, while all examined configurations achieve the same annual electricity yield. As expected for molten salt systems, both systems are the most cost-effective with large storage capacities. The lower thermodynamic performance of the LF system requires a larger SF and lower specific SF costs in order to be competitive. Assuming specific PT field costs of 300 €/m2 aperture, the break-even costs of the LF system with Solar Salt range between 202 and 235 €/m2, depending on the site and storage capacity. In order to confirm the major statements, within a sensitivity analysis, it is shown that a variation of SF and storage costs does not have a significant impact on the relative break-even costs of the LF system.
Skip Nav Destination
Article navigation
November 2014
Research-Article
Energetic Comparison of Linear Fresnel and Parabolic Trough Collector Systems
Heiko Schenk,
Heiko Schenk
German Aerospace Center (DLR),
Stuttgart 70563,
e-mail: Heiko.Schenk@dlr.de
Institute of Solar Research
,Wankelstraße 5
,Stuttgart 70563,
Germany
e-mail: Heiko.Schenk@dlr.de
Search for other works by this author on:
Tobias Hirsch,
Tobias Hirsch
German Aerospace Center (DLR),
Stuttgart 70563,
e-mail: Tobias.Hirsch@dlr.de
Institute of Solar Research
,Wankelstraße 5
,Stuttgart 70563,
Germany
e-mail: Tobias.Hirsch@dlr.de
Search for other works by this author on:
Jan Fabian Feldhoff,
Jan Fabian Feldhoff
German Aerospace Center (DLR),
Stuttgart 70563,
e-mail: Jan.Feldhoff@dlr.de
Institute of Solar Research
,Wankelstraße 5
,Stuttgart 70563,
Germany
e-mail: Jan.Feldhoff@dlr.de
Search for other works by this author on:
Michael Wittmann
Michael Wittmann
German Aerospace Center (DLR),
Stuttgart 70563,
e-mail: Michael.Wittmann@dlr.de
Institute of Solar Research
,Wankelstraße 5
,Stuttgart 70563,
Germany
e-mail: Michael.Wittmann@dlr.de
Search for other works by this author on:
Heiko Schenk
German Aerospace Center (DLR),
Stuttgart 70563,
e-mail: Heiko.Schenk@dlr.de
Institute of Solar Research
,Wankelstraße 5
,Stuttgart 70563,
Germany
e-mail: Heiko.Schenk@dlr.de
Tobias Hirsch
German Aerospace Center (DLR),
Stuttgart 70563,
e-mail: Tobias.Hirsch@dlr.de
Institute of Solar Research
,Wankelstraße 5
,Stuttgart 70563,
Germany
e-mail: Tobias.Hirsch@dlr.de
Jan Fabian Feldhoff
German Aerospace Center (DLR),
Stuttgart 70563,
e-mail: Jan.Feldhoff@dlr.de
Institute of Solar Research
,Wankelstraße 5
,Stuttgart 70563,
Germany
e-mail: Jan.Feldhoff@dlr.de
Michael Wittmann
German Aerospace Center (DLR),
Stuttgart 70563,
e-mail: Michael.Wittmann@dlr.de
Institute of Solar Research
,Wankelstraße 5
,Stuttgart 70563,
Germany
e-mail: Michael.Wittmann@dlr.de
Contributed by the Solar Energy Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF SOLAR ENERGY ENGINEERING. Manuscript received May 24, 2013; final manuscript received May 22, 2014; published online June 20, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Wojciech Lipinski.
J. Sol. Energy Eng. Nov 2014, 136(4): 041015 (11 pages)
Published Online: June 20, 2014
Article history
Received:
May 24, 2013
Revision Received:
May 22, 2014
Citation
Schenk, H., Hirsch, T., Fabian Feldhoff, J., and Wittmann, M. (June 20, 2014). "Energetic Comparison of Linear Fresnel and Parabolic Trough Collector Systems." ASME. J. Sol. Energy Eng. November 2014; 136(4): 041015. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4027766
Download citation file:
Get Email Alerts
Analysis of Erosion of Surfaces in Falling Particle Concentrating Solar Power
J. Sol. Energy Eng (April 2025)
Related Articles
Assessment of a Molten Salt Heat Transfer Fluid in a Parabolic Trough Solar Field
J. Sol. Energy Eng (May,2003)
Optimal Design of a Molten Salt Thermal Storage Tank for Parabolic Trough Solar Power Plants
J. Sol. Energy Eng (November,2009)
Evaluation of Annual Performance of 2-Tank and Thermocline Thermal Storage Systems for Trough Plants
J. Sol. Energy Eng (August,2011)
Development of a Molten-Salt Thermocline Thermal Storage System for Parabolic Trough Plants
J. Sol. Energy Eng (May,2002)
Related Proceedings Papers
Related Chapters
Modeling and Thermal Performance Investigation of Parabolic trough Receiver
Inaugural US-EU-China Thermophysics Conference-Renewable Energy 2009 (UECTC 2009 Proceedings)
Experimental Investigation and Analysis on a Parabolic trough Solar Collector Using Triangle Cavity Receiver
Inaugural US-EU-China Thermophysics Conference-Renewable Energy 2009 (UECTC 2009 Proceedings)
Solar Energy Storage in Water
Case Studies in Transient Heat Transfer With Sensitivities to Governing Variables