# Techno-Economic Assessment of an Innovative Small-Scale Solar-Biomass Hybrid Power Plant
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Levelized Cost of Energy  
The combination of annual balances of biomass consumption and gross electricity production (Section 3.2) with the previously mentioned economic parameters (Section 2.3) allowed for the characterization of the LCOE for the different plant configurations analyzed in this study. However, before proceeding to the analysis of the obtained results, it is necessary to quantify a series of relevant parameters. Firstly, although the LCOE associated with CSP technology strongly depends on factors such as the employed technology, the plant location, and the inclusion of thermal energy storage systems, representative values exceeding cEUR 23/kWh [44; 45] are considered, while the corresponding value for biomass combustion plants is estimated at cEUR 18/kWh [46]. Figure 11 displays the results regarding the LCOE (cEUR/kWh) as a function of the SM and the biomass consumption limit for the two considered values of BFF. The obtained results demonstrate that increasing the biomass consumption limit leads to a reduction in LCOE, as the initial investment remains unchanged (constant SM and BFF) and the higher energy production compensates for the increased operation cost resulting from higher biomass consumption. In other words, for the considered biomass cost (EUR 65/ton), the most attractive scenarios in terms of minimizing the LCOE are those in which the majority of production is achieved through biomass combustion. Regarding the proposed hybrid  
Figure 10: Annual gross electric energy generated (GWh/year) as a function of SM and biomass consumption limit for the two considered BFF values. Figure 9: Annual biomass consumption (kton/year) as a function of SM and biomass consumption limit for the two considered BFF values. plant configuration, the results indicate that for any considered biomass consumption limit, the optimal LCOE corresponded to SM = 1.5. This indicates that in designs with higher SM values, the increase in electricity production does not compensate for the cost increment. Since, as shown in Figure 11, for the two considered values of BFF, the optimal LCOE corresponded to the extreme case associated with the absence of biomass consumption limits, Figure 12 presents the LCOE (cEUR/kWh) as a function of the SM in this scenario, as well as the biomass contribution (%) to annual electricity production. Under such circumstances, it can be concluded that lower BFF values resulted in a higher obtained LCOE. In other words, the lower investment and operating costs associated with the configuration with BFF = 50% failed to compensate for the lower annual electricity production. Additionally, it should be clarified that, given a BFF value, the SM value that optimized the LCOE did not correspond to 1.5, contrary to what was indicated earlier. This is because Figure 12 compares cases with different biomass contributions (Figure 12 right), whereas the SM = 1.5 optimum corresponds to constant biomass contributions. However, the previous scenario where there are no limits on biomass contribution to annual electricity production is not representative of legal frameworks that prioritize renewable energies and provide incentives. In these situations, solar contribution is usually prioritized over biomass. As mentioned in Section 3.2, this is achieved by establishing a  
Figure 11: LCOE (cEUR/kWh) as a function of SM and biomass consumption limit for the two considered values of BFF. Figure 12: LCOE (cEUR/kWh) (**left**) and biomass contribution (%) to annual electricity production as a function of SM for the case without biomass consumption limits for the two considered values of BFF. limit on biomass consumption, with a 50% limit being quite representative. For this reason, Figure 13 shows the LCOE (cEUR/kWh) as a function of SM for a 50% biomass contribution limit. It can be observed that for the BFF = 100% configuration, there is no case of SM = 1, as the minimum biomass contribution was 55%, which exceeded the maximum limit of 50%.