Folie 1

1
Work Packages 1. Technologies (combination of
CSP and desalting technologies) 2. Water
Resources and Solar Energy Resources 3. Demand
Side Scenario 4. Market Potential 2000-2050
5. Socio-Economic Impacts 6. Environmental
Impacts 7. Literature ? Final Report a la
MED-CSP and TRANS-CSP by end 2007
2
WP 1 Technologies Desalination Overview
3
WP 1 Technologies Desalination Overview
4
WP 1 Technologies CSP Overview
5
WP 1 Technologies Reference Plant Definition
MED Multi-Effect-Distillation RO Reverse
Osmosis Membrane Desalination
6
WP 1 Technologies Reference Plant Definition

• Low temperature, low cost direct heat
• Novatec Fresnel and Solitem Trough

7
WP 1 Technologies Reference Plant Definition

• High temperature solar heat
• Steam Cycle with Trough, Tower or Fresnel
• Combined Cycle or Gas Turbine with Tower
• REFOS Concept DLR (USHYNE Project)

8
WP 1 Technologies Reference Plant Definition

• High temperature solar heat
• Steam Cycle with Trough, Tower or Fresnel
• Combined Cycle or Gas Turbine with Tower
• REFOS Concept DLR (USHYNE Project)

9
WP 1 Technologies Reference Plant Selection
Possible combinations of CSP and desalination
which one could be the reference case for the
AQUA-CSP study?
Parabolic Trough
Central Receiver
Linear Fresnel
Steam Turbine
Gas Turbine
Combined Cycle
MED
RO
10
WP 1 Technologies Reference Plant Selection

• Why Linear Fresnel as CSP-Reference?
• Best Land Use Efficiency ? seashore, populated
  areas, industry, tourism
• Low Weight Simple Structure ? Potential for
  Low Cost
• Easy Integration to Environment ? shade,
  agriculture, parking etc.
• Less wind load and easier cleaning ? lower
  operation maintenance cost
• Using Fresnel as Reference does not exclude other
  CSP Technologies!

11
WP 1 Technologies Reference Plant Selection
Specific weight of solar field per aperture area
Fresnel (Novatec) 28 kg/m² Trough (Andasol)
135 kg/m² Tower (Solar Tres) 122 kg/m²
Output of 110,000 m² (land area) solar field
12
WP 1 Technologies Reference Plant Selection
Novatec
Andasol
PS 10
13
WP 1 Technologies Reference Plant Analysis
Task 24,000 m³/day 21 MW net power for 7
different sites in MENA
14
WP 1 Technologies Reference Plant Analysis
15
WP 1 Technologies Reference Plant Analysis
Status 2007
130,000 m²
120,000 m²
25 MW gross
25 MW gross
24,000 m³/d
24,000 m³/d
16
WP 1 Technologies Reference Plant Analysis
Status 2007
Increasing thermal energy storage increasing
cost
17
WP 1 Technologies Reference Plant Analysis
Status 2020
Increasing thermal energy storage decreasing
cost
18
WP 1 Technologies Reference Plant Analysis

• Comparison of CSP/MED and CSP/RO Reference
  Plants
• CSP/MED requires about 10 less input energy
  than CSP/RO
• Investment for CSP/MED is about 10 higher than
  for CSP/RO
• Overall cost of water of CSP/MED is about 10
  lower than for CSP/RO
• Contradiction to Literature

19
WP 1 Technologies CSP vs. other Renewables
Task 10 MW Firm Power Capacity for
RO CSPStorage 10 MW installed, 10
Fuel PVBackup 20 MW installed, 75
Fuel WindBackup 20 MW installed, 60 Fuel
20
WP 1 Technologies Conclusions

• Base load capability makes CSP best suited
  renewable source for large scale
  desalination
• MSF is the least efficient desalination
  technology with high energy demand
• CSP/MED and CSP/RO have similar technical and
  economic performance, no preference for
  either one can be seen without detailed site
  assessment
• Linear Fresnel collector fields are particularly
  well suited for seawater desalination
• Present cost of CSP desalination between 1 - 2
  /m³
• Medium term cost of 0.2 - 0.3 /m³ is achievable
  in combination with power generation and
  using solar energy storage
• ? CSP technology is ready for the seawater
  desalination market