In addition to reducing the electrical efficiency of \(PV\) cells, the high temperatures to which a \(PV\) cell system is subjected damage its backsheet, encapsulants, edge seals, and optical coatings [7]. 5. The system cost. Due to the low efficiency of \(PV\) cells, \(NCPV\) systems require large \(PV\) cell surfaces. In contrast, \(CPV\) systems are equipped with cheaper optical materials (e.g., mirrors or lenses), which reduces the cost of these devices. Even so, it has been estimated that the cost of an \(LCPV\) system can be more than double (2.3 times) the cost of an \(NCPV\) system [8]. However, [PERSON] et al. [9] presented a study showing that under certain conditions ((i) high beam solar irradiance (\(>\)2.5 (MWh/m\({}^{2}\)year)) and (ii) at utility scale) \(CPV\) technologies can be competitive with \(NCPV\) systems. 6. Waste \(PV\) cells. The lifetime of \(PV\) modules is estimated at 25 years. \(PV\) modules must be recycled after this period. In its report [10], the International Energy Agency Photovoltaic Power Systems (\(IEA-PVPS\)) estimates that 1.7 million tonnes of \(PV\) modules will need to be recycled by 2030 and 60 million tonnes by 2050. \(CPV\) systems use a fraction of the \(PV\) cell surface area that \(NCPV\) systems use, so the resulting waste in \(CPV\) systems will also be a fraction. This is one of the main advantages of \(CPV\) systems. * The cogeneration system. Cogeneration systems are a very important element nowadays in reducing global warming [11]. Both thermal energy and electrical energy are necessary in the building sector. \(CPV\) systems can produce heat and electricity simultaneously, for increased efficiency, whereas \(NCPV\) systems can only produce electrical energy. * The surface area required for system implementation. The deployment of \(PV\) technologies in buildings is limited by the available surface area on building roofs. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [12] presented a study showing that \(LCPV\) systems require 60% less surface area to produce the same thermal and electrical performance compared to the combined use of flat thermal and \(NCPV\) systems. The traditional concentrators used in \(CPV\) systems are (i) parabolic trough concentrators, (ii) parabolic dish concentrators, and (iii) linear Fresnel reflectors. Concentrators (i) and (ii) use curved reflecting surfaces [13], resulting in a low level of uniformity in the illumination of the \(PV\) cells and, therefore, a noticeable decrease in the electrical efficiency of the \(PV\) cells. In contrast, linear Fresnel reflectors can be equipped with flat mirrors, which allows a high level of solar irradiance uniformity on the \(PV\) cells [14]. This difference, together with their lower cost and lower maintenance [15], allows linear Fresnel reflectors to improve the overall efficiency of \(CPV\) systems. In addition, several studies have concluded that \(CPV\) systems are effective technologies for increasing power output and reducing investment cost [16; 17; 18]. \(HCPV\) systems characterised by a high geometric concentration ratio always have a high cost [19]. However, an \(LCPV\) system with a low geometric concentration ratio will have a low cost [19], meaning it is more suitable for concentrating solar \(PV\) power production [20; 21]. A linear Fresnel reflector (\(LFR\)) collects sunlight using rows of mirrors to reflect the Sun's rays onto a linear receiver at the top. These mirrors are flat, long, and narrow. Due to the large dimensions of large-scale \(LFRs\), their design is characterised by the following: (i) the rows of mirrors are parallel to the horizontal plane, and (ii) the receiver is parallel to the horizontal plane. In contrast, small-scale linear Fresnel reflectors (\(SSLFRs\)) can incorporate some geometric modifications designed to improve their efficiency given that they are smaller in size. In [22], a parametric study of an \(SSLFR\) was presented analysing four configurations in which the rows of mirrors and/or the receiver were tilted with respect to the horizontal plane.