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.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Meta-Analysis of Estimates of 

Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions from Concentrating 

Solar Power

Preprint

Garvin A. Heath 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

John J. Burkhardt III 

Abengoa Solar Inc.

To be presented at SolarPACES 2011

Granada, Spain

September 20 - 23, 2011

Conference Paper

NREL/CP-6A20-52191

September 2011
NOTICE

The submitted manuscript has been offered by an employee of the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC 

(Alliance), a contractor of the US Government under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308. Accordingly, the US 

Government and Alliance retain a nonexclusive royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of 

this contribution, or allow others to do so, for US Government purposes.

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 http://www.osti.gov/bridge

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

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

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

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx

Cover Photos: (left to right) PIX 16416, PIX 17423, PIX 16560, PIX 17613, PIX 17436, PIX 17721

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste.
1 

META-ANALYSIS OF ESTIMATES OF LIFE CYCLE GREENHOUSE 

GAS EMISSIONS FROM CONCENTRATING SOLAR POWER

Garvin A. Heath1

1 PhD, Senior Scientist, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 1617 Cole Blvd, MS RSF300, Golden, 

CO 80401-3393 USA, 1-303-384-7460, 

*

, John J. Burkhardt III2

garvin.heath@nrel.gov, 2 MSME, Research Analyst, National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory; Current position: Performance Analyst, Abengoa Solar Inc.,

Abstract

In reviewing life cycle assessment (LCA) literature of utility-scale CSP systems, this analysis focuses on 

clarifying central tendency and reducing variability in estimates of life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 

through a meta-analytical process called harmonization. From 125 references reviewed, 10 produced 36 

independent GHG emission estimates passing screens for quality and relevance: 19 for parabolic trough 

technology and 17 for power tower technology. The interquartile range (IQR) of published GHG emission 

estimates was 83 and 20 g CO2eq/kWh for trough and tower, respectively, with medians of 26 and 38 g 

CO2eq/kWh.

Two levels of harmonization were applied. Light harmonization reduced variability in published estimates by 

using consistent values for key parameters pertaining to plant design and performance. Compared to the 

published estimates, IQR was reduced by 69% and median increased by 76% for troughs. IQR was reduced by 

26% for towers, and median was reduced by 34%. A second level of harmonization was applied to five welldocumented trough LC GHG emission estimates, harmonizing to consistent values for GHG emissions embodied 

in materials and from construction activities. As a result, their median was further reduced by 5%, while the 

range increased by 6%. In sum, harmonization clarified previous results.

Keywords: parabolic trough, central receiver, power tower, dish stirling, life cycle assessment, meta-analysis

1. Introduction

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is well-recognized as a holistic and standard approach for quantifying 

environmental impacts of renewable energy technologies because they characteristically do not emit significant 

quantities of greenhouse gases (GHGs) during their operation. LCAs account for the impacts resulting from all 

activities that transpire over the life of a power plant, including those that are upstream and downstream from 

their operation. After an exhaustive literature search, many published LCAs were identified that estimate the life 

cycle (LC) GHG emissions of the three CSP technologies in greatest use today: parabolic trough (trough), power 

tower (tower), and parabolic dish (dish). Currently, significant variability can be found in estimates of LC GHG 

emissions reported in the CSP LCA literature, which is caused by a range of factors including the type of 

technology being investigated, scope of analysis, assumed performance characteristics, location, data source, and 

the impact assessment methodology used.

Aims of the present meta-analysis include identifying, explaining, and, where possible, reducing—through a 

meta-analytical process called “harmonization”—variability in as-published estimates of LC GHG emissions for 

utility-scale CSP systems. This was accomplished by establishing more consistent methods and assumptions 

between LCA studies. The purpose of this analysis (and its umbrella project that examines other electricity 

generation technologies, the LCA Harmonization Project of the United States’ National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory which is supported by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy of the US Department 

of Energy) is to clarify estimates of central tendency and to reduce variability of estimates to better inform 

decision making and future analyses that rely on such estimates. The reader should keep in mind, however, the 

LC GHG emissions of a specific power plant will depend on many factors and could legitimately differ from the 

generic estimates generated by the harmonization approach described herein.
2 

Three major LC phases are defined for the purposes of this study, with typical CSP activities listed: 

• Upstream processes: extraction of raw materials, materials manufacturing, component manufacturing, 

site improvements, and plant assembly.

• Operational processes: manufacture of replacement components and their transportation to the site, fuel 

consumption in cleaning/maintenance vehicles, on-site natural gas combustion, and electricity consumption from 

the regional power grid.

• Downstream processes: plant disassembly and disposal or recycling of plant materials.

2. Harmonization Methods

2.1. Literature Collection/Screening Approach

An exhaustive search of English-language literature yielded 125 references pertaining to the environmental 

impacts of CSP electricity generation. Multiple GHG emission estimates from a single reference were possible if 

alternative CSP electricity generation scenarios or technologies were analyzed. Although a reference wasn’t 

necessarily eliminated if only one of its estimates was screened out, most screening criteria applied to the 

reference as a whole, therefore the results of screening are reported at the level of the reference.

Through multiple screening steps, studies were assessed with regard to the quality of the LCA and GHG emission 

accounting methods (including a requirement that 2 of the 3 major LC phases were evaluated), the completeness 

of reporting including the inputs and the results of the analysis, and the modern or near-future relevance of the 

technology. Only GHG emission estimates that were reported numerically (i.e., not only graphically) and 

provided sufficient detail on the analyzed system to evaluate the reasonableness of the data were included for 

harmonization. Duplicate estimates from one study quoting another or from the same author group publishing 

the same estimate multiple times were not retained for analysis. 

Surviving the screens were a total of 13 references that provided 42 GHG emission estimates (19 trough, 17 

tower, and 6 dish). Because the pool of literature for dish CSP only provided six LC GHG emission estimates 

after screening, this paper will focus on the results obtained for the trough and tower technologies. Thus, 36 

estimates for trough and tower systems were evaluated with a first level of harmonization (Table 1). A more 

intensive level of harmonization requires more complete documentation of inputs and assumptions, for which 

five trough studies providing five estimates were selected (Table 2). 

2.2. Harmonization Approach

Two levels of harmonization were devised. The first level harmonizes at a more gross level the entire set of 

literature estimates of LC GHG emissions passing screens. It does so by proportional adjustment of the estimate 

of LC GHG emissions to consistent values for several influential performance characteristics and, by addition or 

subtraction, to a common system boundary (at the level of major LC stage). For brevity, we refer to this first 

level of harmonization as “light” harmonization.

The second, more resource-intensive level of harmonization was reserved for those studies that completed the 

light harmonization process and passed the additional screen for exceptional documentation of LCI data. 

Because the LC GHG emissions of CSP technologies are typically not dominated by the combustion of fossil 

fuels, unlike coal and natural gas, the embodied GHG emissions of plant materials and emissions from 

construction and decommissioning represent the majority of total LC GHG emissions. Therefore, the goal of this 

second level of harmonization is to further reduce variability in the published estimates of LC GHG emissions by 

selecting consistent global warming intensity (GWI – defined in section 2.4) values for all items reported in the 

LCI of each of the five studies which passed the additional screening process. From this point forward, we will 

refer to this second level of harmonization as, “GWI Harmonization.”

Throughout the screening and harmonization process, estimates were not audited for accuracy and no exogenous 

assumptions were employed.
3 

2.3. Light Harmonization Parameters

Several characteristics pertaining to scope and plant performance are reported in nearly all studies and can be 

extracted with minimal effort—these characteristics act as light harmonization parameters. Table 1 reports the 

as-published values of the parameters used for light harmonization and other important characteristics of each 

study. Each light harmonization parameter was set to a standardized value and used to calculate a new, 

harmonized LC GHG emission estimate. If the value for a harmonization parameter was not reported, that 

harmonization step was not applied to that estimate. The description of each parameter and the value selected for 

light harmonization are listed below.

Solar Fraction: The percentage of electricity produced only from solar energy. A CSP facility with a 

solar fraction of 1 (or 100%) is defined here as a “solar-only” operating plant. A facility with a solar fraction less 

than 1 is a “hybrid” operating plant that combusts natural gas (hereafter referred to as natural gas co-firing) to 

generate a portion of its electrical output. The harmonization value for solar fraction was chosen to be 100% to 

better estimate the GHG emissions resulting from a solar-only CSP plant.

Direct Normal Irradiance (DNI): The amount of solar energy per unit area incident upon the collector 

area of the solar field during one year. The harmonization value for DNI was chosen to be 2400 kWh/m2/yr. 

This value was not chosen to be reflective of any one location, but rather is a “high” quality solar resource (CSP 

developers typically require about 2,000 kWh/m2/yr to justify construction) [1] that is incident upon thousands of 

square kilometers in several global locations, including areas in northern Africa, Australia, central South 

America, northern China, the Middle East, and the southwest U.S. [2]. 

Lifetime: The assumed life span of the power plant used for the LCA analysis. The harmonization value 

for lifetime was chosen to be 30 years. This 30 year lifetime duration is frequently used in CSP LCA and in 

economic analyses of CSP plants (e.g., [3]). 

Solar-to-Electric Efficiency: The percentage of solar energy converted to electricity at the CSP facility. 

The harmonization values for solar-to-electric efficiency are chosen to be 15%, 20%, and 25%, for trough, tower, 

and dish technologies, respectively. These solar-to-electric efficiencies are representative of current state-of-theart designs for each technology [1]. 

Global Warming Potentials (GWPs): A metric used to measure the radiative forcing of a given GHG 

over a 100-year time period relative to that of CO2 (GWPCO2 = 1). The GWPs of two major GHGs, methane 

(CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), were harmonized by updating the GWP values to those reported in the latest 

IPCC assessment report [4]. 

Auxiliary Natural Gas Combustion: Natural gas used during miscellaneous O&M activities, such as heat 

transfer fluid (HTF) freeze protection activities and system start-up procedures. This auxiliary natural gas use, 

which does not include co-fired natural gas, is often neglected in CSP LCAs, especially those which evaluate 

solar-only plants. Therefore, the published system boundaries have, in many cases, been expanded to include 

auxiliary natural gas combustion. Auxiliary natural gas use is estimated using the value assumed in [5]. Because 

the only estimate for auxiliary natural gas combustion was representative of trough technology, this system 

boundary expansion was applied only to trough estimates, as the uses of auxiliary natural gas will vary by 

technology. The harmonization value for auxiliary natural gas combustion was chosen to be 91,000 MJ/MW of 

installed capacity per year of operation.

Auxiliary Electricity Consumption: Electricity drawn from the regional grid used to satisfy the plant’s 

parasitic load when the plant is not generating its own power. Like auxiliary natural gas, this too is often 

neglected in LCAs of CSP plants; therefore, published system boundaries have, in many cases, been modified to 

include operational electricity consumption. Auxiliary electricity consumption is estimated using the only two 

values reported in the pool of 13 quality-screened trough references: [6] reports an electricity consumption rate of 

327 MWh/MW per year while [5] reports 36 MWh/MW per year. Because it is unclear what causes the 

discrepancy between the two electricity consumption values, the average (181 MWh/MW/yr) is taken as the 

harmonization value, although a sensitivity analysis is also conducted on the wide range in estimates. Like 

auxiliary natural gas, since the only estimates for auxiliary electricity consumption are representative of trough 

technology, this system boundary expansion is applied only to trough estimates.
4 

Equation 1 displays how most of the above-listed parameters are used to estimate life cycle GHG emissions

where, the numerator of equation 1 is sum of the three major GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O) emitted during the plant’s 

LC, converted to carbon dioxide equivalents using up-to-date GWPs. The denominator of equation1 is the LC 

energy output from the plant and is a function of solar-to-electric efficiency (η), DNI, and lifetime (t). In general,

the as-published LC GHG emission values are harmonized through two main operations:

- Multiplying the denominator of equation 1 by the ratio of the harmonized parameter value and the 

published parameter value

- Adding or subtracting GHG emissions from the numerator or energy output from the denominator.

2.4. GWI Harmonization

Although there are several additional aspects of a LCA that could be addressed during more intensive 

harmonization, all cannot be addressed due to limitations in data availability and documentation. The embodied 

emissions of plant materials and other construction activities reported in the LCI are important variables that 

strongly influence the total LC GHG emissions of a CSP plant. Because there may be dozens of unique materials 

and processing activities reported in the LCI of a study, each with its own GWI, even small inconsistencies in the 

GWI may lead to significant variability in the final LC GHG emission value. To address this source of 

variability, we selected consistent values for the GWI of each material and construction activity in each of the 

five studies’ LCIs.

GWIs are defined as the mass of GHGs emitted from the production of common materials and from other 

activities (e.g., transportation, diesel burned in building machines) per functional unit (e.g., mass of material, unit 

distance transported). With the exception of the nitrate salt storage medium and the synthetic oil heat transfer 

fluid (HTF), the GWI of all other LCI entries were estimated using unit processes from the EcoInvent v2.0 LCI 

database [7]. The EcoInvent LCI database is commonly accepted as one of the industry’s leading databases and 

contains up-to-date information that is thoroughly documented and peer reviewed. Because it is the only 

electrical infrastructure common to all entries in the EcoInvent database, all materials that undergo harmonization 

are assumed to use the average U.S. electricity generation profile. Using engineering judgment, each material in 

the LCIs of the five studies was paired with an EcoInvent entry (or [5]). 

The GWIs of nitrate salts and HTF were estimated using values reported in [5], which were obtained directly 

from manufacturers, to improve the accuracy of their GWIs compared to the use of EcoInvent. Nevertheless, 

there are uncertainties in the use of the manufacturers’ data; see [5] for further discussion. Using the GWI 

harmonization approach outlined here, not only are GWIs of common materials made consistent but are also 

updated to the latest available information. Table 2 lists the five studies selected for GWI harmonization and the 

LCI database used.

Because GWI harmonization is labor intensive, it was decided to focus resources on just one CSP technology. 

Trough was selected because it had the most LC GHG emission estimates that provided the documentation 

necessary for GWI harmonization. In addition, troughs account for the largest share of the current CSP market 

[1]. 

3. Results and Discussion

Of 125 references identified in an exhaustive literature search, 10 references related to trough and tower systems 

passed screens to provide a total of 36 LC GHG emissions estimates for two CSP technologies: 19 for trough 

technology and 17 for tower.

The IQR of the published LC GHG emission estimates was 83 and 20 g CO2eq/kWh for trough and tower, 

respectively. The median of the published estimates was 26 and 38 g CO2eq/kWh for trough and tower, 

respectively.

(1)
5 

The harmonization parameter that is most effective in reducing variability in the published LC GHG emission 

estimates for trough CSP is the solar fraction. When applied independently, the IQR decreases by 85% after solar 

fraction harmonization. Two factors contributed to the magnitude of the decrease: high LC GHG emissions from 

natural gas co-firing compared to solar-only CSP, and the relatively large fraction of the trough literature 

evaluating hybrid plants. As for the published LC GHG emission estimates for towers, because only 2 references 

(providing 2 LC GHG emissions estimates) evaluated hybrid plants, the largest reduction in IQR results from the 

lifetime harmonization step (-25%). This reduction is realized because 9 of the 17 LC GHG emissions estimates 

for towers assume a lifetime less than 30 years, while only 2 estimates assume a lifetime greater than 30 years.

The harmonization parameter that has the most significant impact on central tendency is the addition of auxiliary 

electricity consumption; the median estimate of LC GHG emissions for trough estimates increase by 50% from 

application of this harmonization step alone. Because of its influence on total LC GHG emissions, a bounding 

sensitivity analysis was applied to the estimate of consumed electricity that was assumed for trough systems for 

the purposes of harmonization, resulting in median values of LC GHG emissions ranging from 31 to 69 g 

CO2eq/kWh based on light harmonization.

Harmonizing the as-published data cumulatively by all of the harmonization parameters decreases the trough IQR 

by 69% (to 26 g CO2eq/kWh) and increases median by 76% (to 46 g CO2eq/kWh). As for the tower dataset, IQR 

and median are reduced by 26% (to 15 g CO2eq/kWh) and 34% (to 25 g CO2eq/kWh), respectively. The median 

value of LC GHG emissions for trough technology increases significantly due to most previous studies neglecting 

to account for auxiliary electricity consumption, which has been found to contribute a significant portion of LC 

GHG emissions [5]. The harmonized estimate of LC GHG emissions for tower systems would likely increase 

similarly if harmonization for electricity consumption were undertaken, where a lack of data prevented this step 

from being applied.

A second, more resource-intensive level of harmonization (GWI harmonization) was applied to five LC GHG 

emissions estimates of troughs, which provided sufficient documentation to carry out additional analysis. By 

harmonizing the values of GWIs for each material and construction activity provided in the LCI of each study, 

the median value of the 5 LC GHG emissions was reduced by an additional 5% (to 69 g CO2eq/kWh), while the 

range increased by 6% (to 49 g CO2eq/kWh), compared to the results of light harmonization. When these results 

are pooled with the remaining 14 LC GHG emissions estimates obtained from light harmonization, the results 

from GWI harmonization reduce the IQR by an additional 9%.

5. Conclusion

Published estimates of LC GHG emissions from CSP passing screens ranged from near zero to nearly 250 g 

CO2eq/kWh, leading to confusion over CSP’s GHG emission profile and relative benefits compared to fossilfueled generation technologies. By adjusting published estimates to consistent gross system boundaries and to 

consistent values for key input parameters, the meta-analytical process called harmonization clarifies the existing 

literature in ways useful for decision-makers and analysts. The median estimate of life cycle GHG emissions 

from parabolic trough CSP after harmonization is 69 g CO2eq/kWh and for power tower CSP is 25 g 

CO2eq/kWh. The difference is mainly due to one aspect of CSP plant operation – auxiliary electricity 

consumption – that could not be included in harmonization for tower systems owing to lack of data. Variability, 

as indicated by the IQR, for trough CSP estimates was reduced by more than 70% while for tower CSP the IQR 

was reduced by 26%. Greater reduction in variability through harmonization of the trough estimates results from 

the fact that more trough LCAs evaluated hybrid CSP plant designs than tower LCAs. Furthermore, both CSP 

technologies have characteristic life cycle GHG emissions significantly below those for fossil fueled electricity 

generation technologies [19].

The LC GHG emissions of a specific power plant will depend on many factors and could legitimately differ from 

the generic estimates generated by the harmonization approach, but the results presented in this article provide a 

useful first approximation of LC GHG emissions for generic CSP facilities.
6 

# Ref.

Pub.

Year Tech.

Cap. 

(MW)

C.F. 

(%)

S.F. 

(%)

DNI 

(kWh/m2/yr)

Life 

(yrs)

Eff. 

(%)

Temp.

Vint.

Data 

Type

Study 

Loc.

1 [8] 2006 1 50 37 76 2,373 30 14 H T USA

2 [5] 2011 1 103 47 100 2,724 30 16 H T USA

3 [5] 2011 1 103 49 100 2,724 30 15 H T USA

4 [5] 2011 1 103 47 100 2,724 30 16 H T USA

5 [5] 2011 1 103 47 100 2,724 30 16 H T USA

6 [5] 2011 1 103 47 100 2,724 30 16 H T USA

7 [9] 2006 1 104 88 100 2,835 30 12 F T DZA

8 [9] 2006 1 104 87 100 2,802 30 12 F T EGY

9 [9] 2006 1 104 89 100 2,865 30 12 F T LBY

10 [6] 2008 1 50 44 85 2,016 25 16 H T ESP

11 [10] 1997 1 80 35 75 NR 30 NR C T USA

12 [11] 2008 1 50 44 82 2,000 30 15 C T ESP

13 [11] 2008 1 200 73 100 2,000 35 16 F T ESP

14 [11] 2008 1 200 73 100 2,000 35 16 F T ESP

15 [11] 2008 1 400 73 100 2,000 40 16 F T ESP

16 [11] 2008 1 400 73 100 2,000 40 16 F T ESP

17 [11] 2008 1 200 73 100 2,000 35 19 F T ESP

18 [11] 2008 1 400 73 100 2,000 40 19 F T ESP

19 [12] 1998 1 80 36 75 2,300 30 14 C T USA

20 [13] 1990 2 100 40 100 2,848 30 19 C T USA

21 [6] 2008 2 17 71 85 1,997 25 17 H T ESP

22 [14] 1999 2 100 38 100 2,500 25 16 C T AUS

23 [14] 1999 2 100 38 100 2,500 25 16 C T AUS

24 [14] 1999 2 30 26 100 2,500 25 15 F T AUS

25 [14] 1999 2 100 35 100 2,500 25 18 F T AUS

26 [14] 1999 2 30 26 100 2,500 25 15 F T AUS

27 [14] 1999 2 100 35 100 2,500 25 18 F T AUS

28 [14] 1999 2 30 26 100 2,500 25 15 F T AUS

29 [14] 1999 2 100 35 100 2,500 25 18 F T AUS

30 [15] 1992 2 100 38 100 1,914 30 20 H T USA

31 [11] 2008 2 15 71 82 2,000 30 16 C T ESP

32 [11] 2008 2 180 73 100 2,000 35 18 F T ESP

33 [11] 2008 2 180 73 100 2,000 40 18 F T ESP

34 [12] 1998 2 30 30 75 2,300 30 14 C T N/A

35 [12] 1998 2 30 36 63 2,300 30 14 C T N/A

36 [12] 1998 2 30 36 75 2,300 30 14 C T N/A

Abbreviations: # = scenario number; Ref. = reference number; Pub. Year = year of publication for the given reference; Tech. = 

technology type. 1 = trough, 2 = tower, 3 = parabolic dish; Cap. = capacity; C.F. = capacity factor; S.F. = solar fraction; DNI = 

direct normal irradiance; Life = lifetime; Eff. = solar-to-electric efficiency; Temp. Vint. = temporal vintage (C = existing 

technology case study, H = existing technology hypothetical study, F = future technology); Data type: E = primarily empirical 

data, T = primarily theoretical data; Study Loc. = primary country or location for the study based on United Nations 3-letter 

codes [16]; “NR,” or “not reported,” indicates no value reported for that parameter.

Table 1: Published values of light harmonization parameters and other important characteristics of 

studies that passed quality and relevance screens.

Scenario Author Pub. Year LCI Database

2 Burkhardt 2011 EcoInvent v2.0 [7]

10 Lechon 2008 EcoInvent v1.2 [7]

11 Martin 1997 TEMIS [17]

12 Viebahn 2008 EcoInvent v1.3 [7]

19 Weinrebe 1998 ETH Zurich [18]

Scenario corresponds to the scenario number, as shown in 

Table 1. Pub. Year = Publication year.

Table 2: List of references used in GWI harmonization and their LCI database.
7 

Figure 1: As-published and harmonized box plots for all CSP electricity generation technologies.

Acknowledgements

Please see the Journal of Industrial Ecology Special Issue on Meta-Analysis of LCA, scheduled for publication in 

early 2012, for additional analysis and discussion of this research. The authors wish to acknowledge funding from 

the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Many NREL and U.S. DOE 

staff members helped guide this project, most importantly Margaret Mann (NREL), and also Austin Brown 

(formerly at U.S. DOE, now at NREL), Ookie Ma (DOE), and Gian Porro (NREL). Elliot Cohen as an intern at 

NREL contributed significantly to collecting and categorizing CSP LCA literature. Additional contributors to the 

LCA Harmonization project include Pamala Sawyer, Stacey Dolan, Patrick, O’Donoughue, and Ethan Warner, all 

of NREL, and Vasilis Fthenakis and Hyung-Chul Kim of Brookhaven National Laboratory.

References

[1] International Energy Agency (IEA). 2010. Technology roadmap: Concentrating solar power. Paris: 

International Energy Agency. http://www.iea.org/papers/2010/csp_roadmap.pdf

[2] Trieb, F., C. Schillings, M. O’Sullivan, T. Pregger, and C. Hoyer-Klick. 2009. Global Potential of 

Concentrating Solar Power. Berlin: SolarPACES. http://www.trecuk.org.uk/reports/Solar_Paces_Paper_Trieb_Final_Colour_corrected.pdf

[3] Turchi, C. Parabolic Trough Reference Plant for Cost Modeling with the Solar Advisor Model (SAM). 

NREL Report No. TP-550-47605; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, 2010, pp.122. 

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/47605.pdf

[4] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Contribution of working group I to the 

fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Direct global warming 

potentials. Chap. 2.10.2, edited by S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. 

Averyt, M. Tignor, and H. L. Miller. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. 

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html. Accessed January 2011. 
8 

[5] Burkhardt, J., G. Heath, and C. Turchi. 2011. Life Cycle Assessment of a Parabolic Trough 

Concentrating Solar Power Plant and the Impacts of Key Design Alternatives. Environmental Science & 

Technology. 45: 2457–2464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es1033266

[6] Lechon, Y., C. De La Rua, and R. Sáez. 2008. Life cycle environmental impacts of electricity 

production by solarthermal power plants in Spain." Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, Transactions 

of the ASME 130(2): 0210121–0210127.

[7] Swiss Center for Life Cycle Inventories (LCI). 2010. EcoInvent v1.2 – 2.0. Duebendorf, Switzerland: 

Swiss Center for Life Cycle Inventories. http://www.ecoinvent.ch/

[8] Becerra-Lopez, H. R. and P. Golding. 2007. Dynamic energy analysis for capacity expansion of regional 

power-generation systems: Case study of far West Texas. Energy 32(11): 2167–2186.

[9] German Aerospace Center (DLR), Institute of Technical Thermodynamics. 2006. Trans-Mediterranean 

interconnection for concentrating solar power. Final Report. Stuttgart: German Aerospace Center 

(DLR), Institute of Technical Thermodynamics.

http://www.dlr.de/media/Portaldata/1/Resources/portal_news/newsarchiv2008_1/algerien_trans_csp.pdf

[10] Martin, J. A. 1997. A total fuel cycle approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions: Solar generation 

technologies as greenhouse gas offsets in U.S. utility systems." Solar Energy (Selected Proceeding of 

ISES 1995: Solar World Congress. Part IV) 59(4–6): 195–203.

[11] Viebahn, P., S. Kronshage, F. Trieb, and Y. Lechon. 2008. Final report on technical data, costs, and life 

cycle inventories of solar thermal power plants. Project no: 502687, New Energy Externalities 

Developments for Sustainability. Project Co-funded by the European Commission within the Sixth 

Framework Programme (2002-2006). http://www.needsproject.org/RS1a/RS1a%20D12.2%20Final%20report%20concentrating%20solar%20thermal%20power

%20plants.pdf

[12] Weinrebe, G., M. Bohnke, and F. Trieb. 1998. Life cycle assessment of an 80 MW SEGS plant and a 30 

MW PHOEBUS power tower. Solar Engineering 417–424.

[13] Kreith, F., P. Norton, and D. Brown. 1990. CO2 emissions from coal-fired and solar electric power 

plants. Golden, CO: Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI).

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/old/3772.pdf

[14] Lenzen, M. 1999. Greenhouse gas analysis of solar-thermal electricity generation. Solar Energy 65(6): 

353–368.

[15] Vant-Hull, L. 1992. Solar thermal electricity: An environmentally benign and viable alternative. 

Perspectives in Energy 2: 157–166.

[16] United Nations. 2010. Countries or areas, codes and abbreviations. 

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49alpha.htm. Accessed January 2011. 

[17] TEMIS. 2008. Life cycle inventory database. http://www.temis.com/?id=42&selt=14. Accessed January 

2011.

[18] ETH Zurich. 1996. Life cycle inventory database. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich. 

http://www.ethz.ch/index_EN. Accessed January 2011. 

[19] Sathaye, J., O. Lucon, A. Rahman, J. Christensen, F. Denton, J. Fujino, G. Heath, S. Kadner, M. Mirza,

H. Rudnick, A. Schlaepfer, A. Shmakin, 2011: Renewable Energy in the Context of Sustainable Energy. 

In IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation [O. Edenhofer, 

R. Pichs‐Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. 

Hansen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom 

and New York, NY, USA.

This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC36-08-GO28308 with the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory.