Filter Content by Section

Annual Technology Baseline 2018

National Renewable Energy Laboratory


Recommended Citation:
NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2018. 2018 Annual Technology Baseline. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. http://atb.nrel.gov/.


Please consult Guidelines for Using ATB Data:
https://atb.nrel.gov/electricity/user-guidance.html

Concentrating Solar Power

Representative Technology

Concentrating solar power (CSP) technology is assumed to be molten-salt power towers. Thermal energy storage (TES) is accomplished by storing hot molten salt in a two-tank system, which includes a hot-salt tank and a cold-salt tank. Stored hot salt can be dispatched to the power block as needed, regardless of solar conditions, to continue power generation and allow for electricity generation after sunlight hours. In the ATB, CSP plants with 10 hours of TES are illustrated. Ten hours is the amount of storage at the Crescent Dunes CSP plant in Nevada, which is representative of most new molten-salt power tower projects.

Molten-salt power towers (with 10 hours of storage) were selected as the representative technology over the parabolic trough with synthetic oil-heat transfer fluid for two main reasons. First, most new global capacity of CSP plants in development or under construction are molten-salt power towers. From 2015, 3.7 GWe of molten-salt power towers were in development or under construction (IRENA 2018 and SolarReserve 2018), compared to 1.3 GWe of parabolic trough (IRENA 2018). Second, current indications are that molten-salt power towers have the greatest cost reduction potential, in terms of both CAPEX and LCOE, and they are part of the U.S. DOE Generation 3 (Gen3) roadmap for the next generation of commercial CSP plants (Mehos et al. (2017)).

The first large molten-salt power tower plant in the United States, Crescent Dunes (110 MWe with 10 hours of storage) was commissioned in 2015 with a reported installed CAPEX of $8.96/WAC (Danko (2015); Taylor (2016)). No new molten salt storage CSP plants were commissioned in the United States in 2017 or 2018. Molten-salt power tower plants are being bid and built in Australia, Chile, and Dubai (NREL n.d.). The United States currently has only one announced project; for the Sandstone project, it has been announced that up to 2 GWe consisting of up to 10 molten-salt power tower systems could be built, each with approximately 10 hours of storage (SolarReserve 2018).

Resource Potential

Solar resource is prevalent throughout the United States, but the Southwest is particularly suited to CSP plants. The direct normal irradiance (DNI) resource across the Southwest, which is some of the best in the world, ranges from 6.0 to over 7.5 kWh/m2/day (NREL 2018). The raw resource technical potential of seven western states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Texas) exceeds 11,000 GW-which is almost tenfold current total U.S. electricity generation capacity-considering regions in these states with an annual average resource > 6.0 kWh/m2/day and after accounting for exclusions such as land slope (> 1%), urban areas, water features, and parks, preserves, and wilderness areas (Mehos, Kabel, and Smithers (2009)).

map: mean U.S. solar resource available to CSP systems
Map of mean solar resource available to CSP systems in the United States

Renewable energy technical potential, as defined by Lopez et al. 2012, represents the achievable energy generation of a particular technology given system performance, topographic limitations, and environmental and land-use constraints. The primary benefit of assessing technical potential is that it establishes an upper-boundary estimate of development potential. It is important to understand that there are multiple types of potential-resource, technical, economic, and market (Lopez at al. 2012; NREL, Renewable Energy Technical Potential").

The Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement identified 17 solar energy zones for priority development of utility-scale solar facilities in six western states. These zones total 285,000 acres and are estimated to accommodate up to 24 GW of solar potential. The program also allows development, subject to a more rigorous review, on an additional 19 million acres of public land. Development is prohibited on approximately 79 million acres.

According to NREL's Concentrating Solar Power Projects website and the CSP Today Global Projects Tracker (New Energy Update 2018), 12 of the 14 currently operational CSP plants greater than 5 MWe in the United States use parabolic trough technology, and two are power tower facilities-Ivanpah (392 MWe) and Crescent Dunes (110 MWe).

Base Year and Future Year Projections Overview

For the ATB, three representative sites were chosen based on resource class to demonstrate the range of cost and performance across the United States:

  • CAPEX is determined using manufacturing cost models and is benchmarked with industry data. CSP performance and cost are based on the molten-salt power tower technology with dry-cooling to reduce water consumption.
  • O&M cost is benchmarked against industry data.
  • Capacity factor varies with inclusion of TES and solar irradiance. The listed projects assume power towers with 10 hours of TES at these locations:
  • Fair resource (e.g., Abilene Regional Airport, Texas 5.59 kWh/m2/day based on the site TMY3 file)
  • Good resource (e.g., Las Vegas, Nevada 7.1 kWh/m2/day based on the site TMY3 file)
  • Excellent resource (e.g., Daggett, California 7.46 kWh/m2/day based on the site TMY3 file).
  • Representative CSP plant size is net 100 MWe.

The CSP costs originated from a NREL survey leading to updated cost estimates in SAM 2017.09.05. These 2017 costs were deflated to the ATB Base Year of 2016 via the consumer price index. The SAM 2017 costs translate to costs in 2020 in the ATB due to the three-year construction period. (SAM costs are based on the project announcement year, while the ATB is based on the plant commissioning year).

Future year projections are informed by published literature and technology pathway assessments for CAPEX and O&M cost reductions. Three different projections were developed for scenario modeling as bounding levels:

  • Constant Technology Cost Scenario: no change in CAPEX, O&M, or capacity factor from current estimates (2020 for CSP) to 2050; consistent across all renewable energy technologies in the ATB
  • Mid Technology Cost Scenario: the median of published literature projections for future CAPEX; it is expected based on literature that there could be a 25% CAPEX reduction by 2030 from the 2015 costs (Feldman et al. 2016). From 2030 to 2050, a further 20% reduction in CAPEX is assumed.
  • Low Technology Cost Scenario: originates from the lowest CAPEX projections in literature to 2025 (IRENA 2016) and is extended to later years based on DOE research targets.

CAPital EXpenditures (CAPEX): Historical Trends, Current Estimates, and Future Projections

Capital expenditures (CAPEX) are expenditures required to achieve commercial operation in a given year. These expenditures include the generation plant, the balance of system (e.g., site preparation, installation, and electrical infrastructure), and financial costs (e.g., development costs, and interest during construction) and are detailed in CAPEX Definition. In the ATB, CAPEX reflects typical plants and does not include differences in regional costs associated with labor, materials, taxes, or system requirements. The related Standard Scenarios product uses regional CAPEX adjustments. The range of CAPEX demonstrates variation with resource in the contiguous United States.

The following figure shows the Base Year estimate and future year projections for CAPEX costs. Three cost scenarios are represented: Constant, Mid, and Low. The estimate for a given year represents CAPEX of a new plant that reaches commercial operation in that year.

R&D Only Financial Assumptions (constant background rates, no tax or tariff changes)

Base Year Estimates

CAPEX is unchanged for resource class because the same plant is assumed to be built in each location. The capacity factor will change with resource.

TES increases plant CAPEX but also increases capacity factor and annual efficiency. TES generally lowers LCOE for power towers.

The CAPEX estimate (with a base year of 2016) is approximately $7,870/kWe in $2016. It is for a representative power tower with 10 hours of storage and a solar multiple of 2.4. Based on recent assessment of the industry and expected project completion in 2020, the CAPEX estimate for 2020 is $6,640/kWe in $2016 .

Future Year Projections

Three cost projections are developed for CSP technologies:

  • Constant Technology Cost Scenario: no change in CAPEX, O&M, or capacity factor from current estimates (2020 for CSP) to 2050; consistent across all renewable energy technologies in the ATB
  • Mid Technology Cost Scenario: the median of published literature projections for future CAPEX; it is expected based on literature that there could be a 25% CAPEX reduction by 2030 from the 2015 costs (Feldman et al. (2017)). From 2030 to 2050, a further 20% reduction in CAPEX is assumed
  • Low Technology Cost Scenario: originates from the lowest CAPEX projections to 2025 (IRENA 2016) and is extended to later years based on DOE research targets.

A detailed description of the methodology for developing future year projections is found in Projections Methodology.

Technology innovations that could impact future O&M costs are summarized in LCOE Projections.

CAPEX Definition

Capital expenditures (CAPEX) are expenditures required to achieve commercial operation in a given year.

The ATB represents the year in which a plant starts commercial operation. Accordingly, for plants whose construction duration exceeds one year, CAPEX costs will represent technology costs that are lagging current-year estimates by at least one year. For CSP plants, the construction period is typically three years.

For the ATB-and based on based on EIA 2016a, Turchi et al 2010, and Turchi and Heath 2013 - the CSP generation plant envelope is defined to include:

  • CSP generation plant
  • Solar collectors
  • Solar receiver
  • Piping and heat-transfer fluid system
  • Power block (heat exchangers, power turbine, generator, and cooling system)
  • Thermal energy storage system
  • Installation
  • Balance of system, including installation, land acquisition, electrical infrastructure, and project indirect costs
  • Land acquisition, site preparation, and installation of underground utilities, access roads, fencing, and buildings for operations and maintenance
  • Electrical infrastructure, such as transformers, switchgear, and electrical system connecting modules to each other and to control the center; the generator voltage is 13.8 kV, the step-up transformer is 13.8/230kV, and the transmission tie line is 230 kV
  • Project indirect costs, including costs related to engineering, distributable labor and materials, construction management start up and commissioning, and contractor overhead costs, fees, and profit
  • Financial costs
  • Owners' costs, such as development costs, preliminary feasibility and engineering studies, environmental studies and permitting, legal fees, insurance costs, and property taxes during construction
  • Onsite electrical equipment (e.g., switchyard), a nominal-distance spur line (< 1 mile), and necessary upgrades at a transmission substation; distance-based spur line cost (GCC) not included in the ATB
  • Interest during construction estimated based on three-year duration accumulated 80%/10%/10% at half-year intervals and a nominal interest rate (ConFinFactor).

CAPEX can be determined for a plant in a specific geographic location as follows:

CAPEX = ConFinFactor × (OCC × CapRegMult + GCC)
(See the Financial Definitions tab in the ATB data spreadsheet)

Regional cost variations and geographically specific grid connection costs are not included in the ATB (CapRegMult = 1; GCC = 0). In the ATB, the input value is overnight capital cost (OCC) and details to calculate interest during construction (ConFinFactor).

In the ATB, CAPEX represents a typical solar-CSP plant with 10 hours of thermal storage and does not vary with resource. Regional cost effects associated with labor rates, material costs, and other regional effects as defined by EIA 2016a expand the range of CAPEX. Unique land-based spur line costs based on distance and transmission line costs expand the range of CAPEX even further. The following figure illustrates the ATB representative plant relative to the range of CAPEX including regional costs across the contiguous United States. The ATB representative plants are associated with a regional multiplier of 1.0.

R&D Only Financial Assumptions (constant background rates, no tax or tariff changes)

Standard Scenarios Model Results

ATB CAPEX, O&M, and capacity factor assumptions for the Base Year and future projections through 2050 for Constant, Mid, and Low technology cost scenarios are used to develop the NREL Standard Scenarios using the ReEDS model. See ATB and Standard Scenarios.

CAPEX in the ATB does not represent regional variants (CapRegMult) associated with labor rates, material costs, etc., but the ReEDS model does include 134 regional multipliers (EIA 2016a).

The ReEDS model determines the land-based spur line (GCC) uniquely for each potential CSP plant based on distance and transmission line cost.

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

Operations and maintenance (O&M) costs represent the annual expenditures required to operate and maintain a solar CSP plant over its lifetime of 30 years, including:

  • Operating and administrative labor, insurance, legal and administrative fees, and other fixed costs
  • Utilities (water, power, and natural gas) and mirror washing
  • Scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, including replacement parts for solar field and power block components over the technical lifetime of the plant.

The following figure shows the Base Year estimate and future year projections for fixed O&M (FOM) costs. Three cost scenarios are represented. The estimate for a given year represents annual average FOM costs expected over the technical lifetime of a new plant that reaches commercial operation in that year.

Base Year Estimates

FOM is assumed to be $67/kW-yr until 2020. Variable O&M is approximately $4.1/MWh until 2020 and $3.50/MWh after that (Kurup and Turchi (2015)).

Future Year Projections

Future FOM is assumed to decline to $50/kW-yr by 2030 in the Mid cost case (i.e., approximately a 25% drop) and the SunShot target of approximately $41/kW-yr by 2030 in the Low cost case (DOE (2012)).

A detailed description of the methodology for developing future year projections is found in Projections Methodology.

Technology innovations that could impact future O&M costs are summarized in LCOE Projections.

Capacity Factor: Expected Annual Average Energy Production Over Lifetime

The capacity factor represents the expected annual average energy production divided by the annual energy production, assuming the plant operates at rated capacity for every hour of the year. It is intended to represent a long-term average over the lifetime of the plant. It does not represent interannual variation in energy production. Future year estimates represent the estimated annual average capacity factor over the technical lifetime of a new plant installed in a given year.

Capacity factors are influenced by power block technology, storage technology and capacity, the solar resource, expected downtime, and energy losses. The solar multiple is a design choice that influences the capacity factor.

The following figure shows a range of capacity factors based on variation in the resource for CSP plants in the contiguous United States. The range of the Base Year estimates illustrates the effect of locating a CSP plant at a site with fair, good, or excellent solar resource. The future projections for the Constant, Mid, and Low technology cost scenarios are unchanged from the Base Year. Technology improvements are focused on CAPEX and O&M cost elements.

Base Year Estimates

For illustration in the ATB, a range of capacity factors is associated with three resource locations in the contiguous United States, as represented in the ReEDS model for three classes of insolation:

  • Fair resource: Abilene, Texas: 5.59 kWh/m2/day based on the site TMY3 file equals 42% capacity factor
  • Good resource: Las Vegas, Nevada: 7.1 kWh/m2/day based on the site TMY3 file equals 56% capacity factor
  • Excellent resource: Daggett, California: 7.46 kWh/m2/day based on the site TMY3 file equals 59% capacity factor.

Future Year Projections

The CSP technologies are assumed to be power towers, but with different power cycles and operating conditions as time passes:

  • 2016: a molten-salt (sodium nitrate/potassium nitrate, aka, solar salt) power tower with direct two-tank TES combined with a steam-Rankine power cycle running at 574° C and 41.2% gross efficiency
  • 2020: similar design with identified near-term reductions in heliostat and power system costs
  • 2030 Mid: longer-term reductions (e.g., in the heliostats and power system)
  • 2030 Low: molten-salt power tower with direct two-tank TES combined with a power cycle running at 700° C and 55% gross efficiency.

Over time, CSP plant output may decline. Capacity factor degradation due to mirror and other component degradation is not accounted for in ATB estimates of capacity factor or LCOE.

The ATB capacity factors are generated from Constant, Mid and Low technology cost plant simulations in SAM 2017.09.05.

Estimates of capacity factors for CSP in the ATB represent typical operation. The dispatch characteristics of these systems are valuable to the electric system to manage changes in net electricity demand. Actual capacity factors will be influenced by the degree to which system operators call on CSP plants to manage grid services.

Standard Scenarios Model Results

ATB CAPEX, O&M, and capacity factor assumptions for the Base Year and future projections through 2050 for Constant, Mid, and Low technology cost scenarios are used to develop the NREL Standard Scenarios using the ReEDS model. See ATB and Standard Scenarios.

CSP plants with TES can be dispatched by grid operators to accommodate diurnal and seasonal load variations and output from variable generation sources (wind and solar PV). Because of this, their annual energy production and the value of that generation are determined by the electric system needs and capacity and ancillary services markets.

Plant Cost and Performance Projections Methodology

When comparing the ATB projections with other projections, note that there are major differences in technology assumptions, radiation conditions, field sizes, storage configurations, and other factors.

The Low ATB projection is based on the SunShot Vision Study (DOE (2012); Mehos et al. (2016)) and has been vetted with solar industry representatives.

Projections of future utility-scale CSP plant CAPEX and O&M are based on three different technology cost scenarios were developed for scenario modeling as bounding levels:

  • Constant cost
    • Modeled as molten-salt (sodium nitrate/potassium nitrate, aka, solar salt) power tower with direct two-tank TES combined with a steam-Rankine power cycle running at 574° C and 41.2% gross efficiency in 2016
    • Costs stay the same from the 2020 estimate through 2050, consistent with ATB renewable energy technologies
  • Mid cost
    • Based on published projections that highlight an overall CSP CAPEX reduction of 25% by 2030 compared to 2015 costs, and which represent a potential median compared to other published CSP projections until 2050 (Feldman et al. 2016; IRENA 2016)
    • Gradual reductions in heliostat and power system cost due to greater deployment volume assumed for 2020 and onwards based on current state of industry
    • CAPEX and O&M both drop by 25% by 2030, relative to 2015 costs
    • A further 20% overall CAPEX decrease is assumed from 2030 to 2050. All three components of the CSP CAPEX (the turbine, storage, and the solar field), decrease proportionately by 20% from 2030 to 2050.
  • Low cost
    • Significant reductions in heliostat and power system cost due to greater deployment volume and R&D are used for 2020; the plant was modeled as an advanced molten-salt power tower with direct two-tank TES combined with a power cycle running at 700° C and 55% gross efficiency in 2030 (Mehos et al. (2017)).
    • SunShot CAPEX and O&M targets are approximately met in 2030, including new high-efficiency power cycles and low-cost heliostats.
    • A further 20% overall CAPEX decrease is assumed from 2030 to 2050 based on potential deployment in the United States. The 20% decrease in overall CSP CAPEX is split over the three components: the turbine, storage, and the solar field. It can be expected that greater cost reductions could be achieved for the power block/turbine and the solar field than for the storage.

Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) Projections

Levelized cost of energy (LCOE) is a simple metric that combines the primary technology cost and performance parameters: CAPEX, O&M, and capacity factor. It is included in the ATB for illustrative purposes. The ATB focuses on defining the primary cost and performance parameters for use in electric sector modeling or other analysis where more sophisticated comparisons among technologies are made. The LCOE accounts for the energy component of electric system planning and operation. The LCOE uses an annual average capacity factor when spreading costs over the anticipated energy generation. This annual capacity factor ignores specific operating behavior such as ramping, start-up, and shutdown that could be relevant for more detailed evaluations of generator cost and value. Electricity generation technologies have different capabilities to provide such services. For example, wind and PV are primarily energy service providers, while the other electricity generation technologies such as CSP can provide capacity and flexibility services in addition to energy. These capacity and flexibility services are difficult to value and depend strongly on the system in which a new generation plant is introduced. These services are represented in electric sector models such as the ReEDS model and corresponding analysis results such as the Standard Scenarios.

The following three figures illustrate LCOE, which includes the combined impact of CAPEX, O&M, and capacity factor projections for power-tower CSP across the range of resources present in the contiguous United States. For the purposes of the ATB, the costs associated with technology and project risk in the U.S. market are represented in the financing costs, not in the upfront capital costs (e.g. developer fees, contingencies). An individual technology may receive more favorable financing terms outside of the U.S., due to less technology and project risk, caused by more project development experience (e.g. offshore wind in Europe), or more government or market guarantees. The R&D Only LCOE sensitivity cases present the range of LCOE based on financial conditions that are held constant over time unless R&D affects them, and they reflect different levels of technology risk. This case excludes effects of tax reform, tax credits, technology-specific tariffs, and changing interest rates over time. The R&D + Market LCOE case adds to these the financial assumptions (1) the changes over time consistent with projections in the Annual Energy Outlook and (2) the effects of tax reform, tax credits, and tariffs. For example, the projected LCOE could potentially increase from the end of 2020 due to the decreasing levels of the ITC. The ATB representative plant characteristics that best align with those of recently installed or anticipated near-term CSP plants are associated with Tower-Excellent Resource. Data for all the resource categories can be found in the ATB data spreadsheet. Note: the future projection of the " good resource" (i.e. for a CSP plant built in Las Vegas, Nevada) is not shown in the figures to simplify the figures and because the projection lies between the Excellent and the Fair Resource projections.

R&D Only | R&D + Market

R&D Only
The ATB representative plant characteristics that best align with those of recently installed or anticipated near-term CSP plants are associated with Tower - Excellent Resource.
R&D Only Financial Assumptions (constant background rates, no tax or tariff changes)
R&D + Market
The ATB representative plant characteristics that best align with those of recently installed or anticipated near-term CSP plants are associated with Tower - Excellent Resource.
R&D Only + Market Financial Assumptions (dynamic background rates, taxes, and tariffs)

The methodology for representing the CAPEX, O&M, and capacity factor assumptions behind each pathway is discussed in Projections Methodology. In general, the degree of adoption of technology innovation distinguishes the Constant, Mid, and Low technology cost scenarios. These projections represent trends that reduce CAPEX and improve performance. Development of these scenarios involves technology-specific application of the following general definitions:

  • Constant Technology Cost Scenario = Base Year (or near-term estimates of projects under construction) equivalent through 2050 maintains current relative technology cost differences
  • Mid Technology Cost Scenario = technology advances through continued industry growth, public and private R&D investments, and market conditions relative to current levels that may be characterized as "likely" or "not surprising"
  • Low Technology Cost Scenario = Technology advances that may occur with breakthroughs, increased public and private R&D investments, and/or other market conditions that lead to cost and performance levels that may be characterized as the " limit of surprise" but not necessarily the absolute low bound.

To estimate LCOE, assumptions about the cost of capital to finance electricity generation projects are required, and the LCOE calculations are sensitive to these financial assumptions. Three project finance structures are used within the ATB:

  • R&D Only Financial Assumptions: This sensitivity case allows technology-specific changes to debt interest rates, return on equity rates, and debt fraction to reflect effects of R&D on technological risk perception, but it holds background rates constant at 2016 values from AEO 2018 and excludes effects of tax reform, tax credits, and tariffs.
  • R&D Only + Market Financial Assumptions: This sensitivity case retains the technology-specific changes to debt interest, return on equity rates, and debt fraction from the R&D Only case and adds in the variation over time consistent with AEO 2018, as well as effects of tax reform, tax credits, and technology-specific tariffs. For a detailed discussion of these assumptions, see Changes from 2017 ATB to 2018 ATB.
  • ReEDS Financial Assumptions: ReEDS uses the R&D Only + Market Financial Assumptions for the "Mid" technology cost scenario.

A constant cost recovery period -over which the initial capital investment is recovered-is assumed for all technologies throughout this website, and can be varied in the ATB data spreadsheet.

In general, differences among the technology cost cases reflect different levels of adoption of innovations. Reductions in technology costs reflect the cost reduction opportunities that are listed below.

  • Power tower improvements
    • Better and longer-lasting selective surface coatings improve receiver efficiency and reduce O&M costs.
    • New salts allow for higher operating temperatures and lower-cost TES.
    • Development of the power cycle running at approximately 700° C and 55% gross efficiency improves cycle efficiency, reduces powerblock cost, and reduces O&M costs.
    • Lower-cost heliostats developed due to design changes and automated and high-volume manufacturing.
  • General and " soft" costs improvements
    • Expansion of world market leads to greater and more efficient supply chains, and reduction of supply chain margins (e.g., profit and overhead charged by suppliers, manufacturer, distributors, and retailers).
    • Expansion of access to a range of innovative financing approaches and business models

The LCOE range shown is based on locations with fair (Abilene, Texas), good (Las Vegas, Nevada), and excellent (Daggett, California) resources. The CAPEX is the same at each resource as the same plant is used. Future-year projections for the " good" case are not shown to simplify the figure.

References

IRENA 2018. Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2017. Abu Dhabi: International Renewable Energy Agency. http://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2018/Jan/IRENA_2017_Power_Costs_2018.pdf

The Power to Change: Solar and Wind Cost Reduction Potential to 2025. June 2016. Paris: International Renewable Energy Agency. http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/IRENA_Power_to_Change_2016.pdf.

Danko, Pete. 2015. "SolarReserve: Crescent Dunes Solar Tower Will Power Up in March: Without Ivanpah's Woes." Breaking Energy. February 10, 2015. http://breakingenergy.com/2015/02/10/solarreserve-crescent-dunes-solar-tower-will-power-up-in-march-without-ivanpahs-woes/.

Details as in the sheet: NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). n.d. "Concentrating Solar Power Projects." https://www.nrel.gov/csp/solarpaces/

Details as in the sheet: SolarReserve. 2018. "Sandstone." Project overview. http://www.solarreserve.com/en/global-projects/csp/sandstone.

Details: NREL. February 2018. "Direct Normal Irradiance 1998 – 2016", forthcoming at https://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar.html

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2012. SunShot Vision Study. DOE/GO-102012-3037. February 2012. https://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/47927.pdf.

EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration). 2016a. Capital Cost Estimates for Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. November 2016. https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost/pdf/capcost_assumption.pdf.

EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration). 2018. Annual Energy Outlook 2018 with Projections to 2050. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. February 6, 2018. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/AEO2018.pdf.

Feldman, David, Jack Hoskins, and Robert Margolis. 2017. Q2/Q3 2017 Solar Industry Update. U.S. Department of Energy. NREL/PR-6A42-70406. November 13, 2017. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/70406.pdf.

Feldman, David, Robert Margolis, Paul Denholm, and Joseph Stekli. 2016. Exploring the Potential Competitiveness of Utility-Scale Photovoltaics plus Batteries with Concentrating Solar Power, 2015–2030. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-6A20-66592. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/66592.pdf.

Kurup, Parthiv, and Craig S. Turchi. 2015. Parabolic Trough Collector Cost Update for the System Advisor Model (SAM). Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-6A20-65228. November 2015. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/65228.pdf.

Lopez, Anthony, Billy Roberts, Donna Heimiller, Nate Blair, and Gian Porro. 2012. U.S. Renewable Energy Technical Potentials: A GIS-Based Analysis. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-6A20-51946. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51946.pdf.

Mehos, Mark, Craig Turchi, Craig, Judith Vidal, Michael Wagner, Zhiwen Ma, Clifford Ho, William Kolb, Charles Andraka, and Alan Kruizenga. 2017. Concentrating Solar Power Gen3 Demonstration Roadmap. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-5500-67464. January 2017. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/67464.pdf.

Mehos, Mark, Craig Turchi, Jennie Jorgenson, Paul Denholm, Clifford Ho, and Kenneth Armijo. 2016. On the Path to SunShot: Advancing Concentrating Solar Power Technology, Performance, and Dispatchability. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-5500-65688. May 2016. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/65688.pdf.

Mehos, Mark, Dan Kabel, and Phil Smithers. 2009. "Planting the Seed: Greening the Grid with Concentrating Solar Power." IEEE Power and Energy Magazine 7(3, May/June 2009): 55–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MPE.2009.932308.

New Energy Update. 2018. "CSP Today Global Tracker." http://tracker.newenergyupdate.com/tracker/projects/.

Taylor, Phil. 2016. "Nev. Plant Solves Quandary of How to Store Sunshine." E&E News. March 29, 2016. http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060034748.

Turchi, Craig S., and Garvin A. Heath. 2013. Molten Salt Power Tower Cost Model for the System Advisor Model (SAM). Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-5500-57625. February 2013. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57625.pdf.

Turchi, Craig, Mark Mehos, Clifford K. Ho, and Gregory J. Kolb. 2010. Current and Future Costs for Parabolic Trough and Power Tower Systems in the US Market. Preprint. Presented at SolarPACES 2010, Perpignan, France, September 21-24, 2010. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/CP-5500-49303. October 2010. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/49303.pdf.