Previous Article in Journal
Computational Intelligence-Based Modeling of UAV-Integrated PV Systems
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Solar Heat for Industrial Processes (SHIP): An Overview of Its Categories and a Review of Its Recent Progress

College of Engineering, University of Buraimi, Al Buraimi 512, Oman
Solar 2025, 5(4), 46; https://doi.org/10.3390/solar5040046 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 21 August 2025 / Revised: 29 September 2025 / Accepted: 9 October 2025 / Published: 11 October 2025

Abstract

The term SHIP (solar heat for industrial processes) or SHIPs (solar heat for industrial plants) refers to the use of collected solar radiation for meeting industrial heat demands, rather than for electricity generation. The global thermal capacity of SHIP systems at the end of 2024 stood slightly above 1 GWth, which is comparable to the electric power capacity of a single power station. Despite this relatively small presence, SHIP systems play an important role in rendering industrial processes sustainable. There are two aims in the current study. The first aim is to cover various types of SHIP systems based on the variety of their collector designs, operational temperatures, applications, radiation concentration options, and solar tracking options. SHIP designs can be as simple as unglazed solar collectors (USCs), having a stationary structure without any radiation concentration. On the other hand, SHIP designs can be as complicated as solar power towers (SPTs), having a two-axis solar tracking mechanism with point-focused concentration of the solar radiation. The second aim is to shed some light on the status of SHIP deployment globally, particularly in 2024. This includes a drop during the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings of the current study show that more than 1300 SHIP systems were commissioned worldwide by the end of 2024 (cumulative number), constituting a cumulative thermal capacity of 1071.4 MWth, with a total collector area of 1,531,600 m2. In 2024 alone, 120.3 MWth of thermal capacity was introduced in 106 SHIP systems having a total collector area of 171,874 m2. In 2024, 65.9% of the installed global thermal capacity of SHIP systems belonged to the parabolic trough collectors (PTCs), and another 22% of this installed global thermal capacity was attributed to the unevacuated flat plate collectors (FPC-Us). Considering the 106 SHIP systems installed in 2024, the average collector area per system was 1621.4 m2/project. However, this area largely depends on the SHIP category, where it is much higher for parabolic trough collectors (37,740.5 m2/project) but lower for flat plate collectors (805.2 m2/project), and it is lowest for unglazed solar collectors (163.0 m2/project). The study anticipates large deployment in SHIP systems (particularly the PTC type) in 2026 in alignment with gigascale solar-steam utilization in alumina production. Several recommendations are provided with regard to the SHIP sector.

1. Introduction

1.1. Classifications of SHIP Systems

Solar thermal (ST) technologies refer to the use of solar heat in the form of thermal radiation of electromagnetic waves emitted by the sun [1] in useful applications other than electricity generation. This thermal radiation encompasses a wide spectrum, such as the visible portion and the ultraviolet portion. However, the infrared portion of this thermal radiation from the sun has more contribution to the solar heating power. Solar thermal technologies can be divided into two major branches based on the main use of the collected solar heat [2].
The first major branch of solar thermal (ST) technologies [3] is concentrated solar power (CSP) [4], which aims to ultimately convert the collected solar heat into electricity in a way similar to conventional heat engines and thermal power plants [5], with the difference being the use of renewable clean solar energy [6] rather than combustible fuels or nuclear fuels [7,8]. In order to meet the high temperatures and intensified heating rates required for electricity generation [9], the concept of concentrating the collected solar irradiance is adopted in CSP collectors [10]. Such concentrating collectors can magnify the incoming solar radiation by a multiplicative factor of 30–80 for line-focused designs (line-concentrators) and by a multiplicative factor of 200–4000 for point-focused designs (point-concentrators) [11,12,13,14].
In Table 1, I classify various solar concentrating collectors based on the geometric shape of the concentrated reflected solar radiation, which can be either a line or a point.
It is worth differentiating here between compact linear Fresnel reflectors (CLFRs) and linear Fresnel reflectors (LFRs). A solar power system having compact linear Fresnel reflectors (CLFRs) in fact resembles the simpler one having linear Fresnel reflectors (LFRs), but differs in terms of the ability of these collector mirrors to transmit their reflected concentrated radiation to two or more overhead heat absorbers (receivers), rather than to one absorber only as in the case of the simpler LFR [15,16]. Point-focused CSP systems permit higher temperatures compared to line-focused systems. The solar power tower (SPT) and the parabolic dish collector (PDC) types of point-focused collectors can heat the working fluid in the heat absorber to above 1000 °C [17,18,19,20,21,22], while the parabolic trough collector (PTC) and the linear Fresnel reflector (LFC) types of line-focused collectors can heat the working fluid in the heat absorber to about half of this, with the possibility of reaching 550 °C [23,24,25,26].
The PTC, LFR/CLFR, and SPT types of CSP (concentrated solar power) systems typically utilize the two-phase Rankine thermodynamic cycle [27,28] for converting the absorbed solar heat into mechanical shaft power that, in turn, can be converted into electric power using an electric generator [29,30]. The working fluid can be water with two phases, namely an incompressible liquid [31] and a compressible vapor/gas [32]. The PDC type of CSP systems utilizes the single-phase Stirling cycle and principles of gas dynamics and thermodynamics [33,34], where the working fluid is always in the gaseous phase, and this gas is commonly helium or hydrogen [35,36,37].
Like photovoltaic (PV) solar power systems, concentrated solar power (CSP) systems generate clean electricity produced without any combustion process [38,39,40]. This clean electricity can be used in transitioning the economy with its various sectors, particularly the buildings sector [41,42,43], the transportation sector [44,45,46,47], the industrial sector [48,49,50,51], and the electricity generation sector [52,53,54,55,56], into a net-zero emission alternative. In addition, this clean (green) electricity allows producing clean (green) hydrogen [57,58,59] by water electrolysis, and this green hydrogen can be used directly as a clean fuel [60,61,62,63] or can be further processed to produce green synthetic fuels.
The second major branch of solar thermal (ST) technologies is the solar heat for industrial processes (SHIPs) [64,65,66], in which the collected solar heat is used in various heat-demanding processes, such as boiling, distillation, wood drying, food drying, paint drying, textile dyeing, nitrate melting, pulping, space heating, water heating for residential use, agricultural greenhouse heating, industrial heat treatment, sterilizing, and solar heating via vapor absorption refrigeration cycles [67,68,69,70].
SHIP collectors include those mentioned earlier for the CSP (concentrated solar power) applications, in which radiation concentration allows elevated temperatures. However, for SHIP applications, such concentrator collectors are designed to have a temperature rise below the range needed for electricity generation, with SHIP temperature ranges limited to about 400 °C. It is worth mentioning that higher-temperature SHIP uses are possible but are not common [71].
There are non-concentrating SHIP collectors, used only for SHIP applications (not commonly used in CSP applications). These non-concentrating SHIP collectors can be divided into three categories based on the operational temperature range (the range of the temperature rise occurring in the heated fluid). This classification is illustrated in Table 2.
The explanation for the above classification (by the target temperature rise) is that low-temperature-rise SHIP collectors are those without the ability to concentrate the collected solar radiation. On the other hand, SHIP collectors with the ability to concentrate collected solar radiation are intended for either medium or high temperature rises. Their geometric complexity and capital cost do not justify using them for low-temperature rises, while other simpler and cheaper non-concentrating SHIP systems can achieve this target. The extreme solar concentration levels offered by the SPT (solar power tower) design make it a unique option among the concentrating SHIP systems in terms of being more relevant for high temperature rises in excess of 150 °C, rather than for medium temperature rises below that.
The stated temperature rise for each application in the above table is dictated by the heating process involved in the application itself. For example, chemical boiling for distillation purposes is a common separation process for homogeneous liquid mixtures [76]. This chemical process can take place at the low-temperature range (below 75 °C) for distillation processes performed in a partial vacuum (where the boiling pressure is reduced) or for liquids with naturally low boiling points (BPs). For example, bio-oil produced from algae can be distilled with vacuum distillation at 50 °C at a reduced absolute pressure of 40 mmHg (5.3 kPa), while it may require 120 °C for atmospheric distillation at a normal atmospheric pressure of 760 mmHg (101 kPa) [77]. Crude oil distillation, either in the initial atmospheric distillation unit (ADU) or the subsequent vacuum distillation unit (VDU) [78], involves temperatures above 350 °C [79,80], making high-temperature SHIP ranges relevant.
Another way to classify SHIP systems is by their solar tracking capability. These systems can be the following:
(1)
Stationary: no sun tracking, no moving parts.
(2)
Single-axis movable: the collector can tilt with one degree of freedom (DOF) only. The term degree of freedom here refers to an axis permitting rotation to adjust the orientation [81,82].
(3)
Dual-axis movable: the collector can tilt with two degrees of freedom (DOFs). Therefore, the collector can directly orient itself toward the sun [83,84,85].
The above classification is provided in Table 3.
Like CSP systems, energy storage, using phase change material (PCM), for example, can be incorporated into SHIP systems [86,87]. Such energy storage units enable endured periods of heat supply and compensate for time-dependent variations in the solar radiation during the day, and thus even out fluctuations in their supplied heat [88,89].

1.2. Objectives

The current study has two main objectives, which are as follows:
(1) Providing an overview of various designs of SHIP systems.
(2) Presenting selected data about the recent progress of the deployment of SHIP technologies.
Through these objectives, this study serves as a point of reference regarding SHIP technologies and SHIP growth. The study can be used within educational content [90,91,92,93,94] for college or school students to introduce them to solar energy in general and CSP (concentrated solar power) and SHIPs in particular, given the organized and simple way of presenting these concepts here.

2. Method

2.1. SHIP Capacity Relative to Other Power Sources

The global thermal power capacity of SHIPs at the end of either 2023 or 2024 is about 1 GWth. In order to identify the scale of this SHIP capacity, I contrast it with other power capacities that span several orders of magnitude in Table 4 (in descending order). From the table, it can be seen that the SHIP capacity is very small (comparable to the small global capacity of ocean/marine power) and contributes a minute fraction to the global power demand and supply. To illustrate this, the worldwide thermal power capacity of SHIP systems is equivalent to the incoming solar irradiance (under a standard test condition of 1 kW/m2) over a land area of only 1 km2. Despite this, one should evaluate the contribution of SHIP systems in light of their scope, which is not commercial large-scale electricity generation but local small-scale heat generation. While being generally small in magnitude, these SHIP systems contribute to sustainability by replacing non-renewable heat sources [95,96] with renewable solar energy, thereby reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [97,98] and helping in combating global warming and climate change [99,100].

2.2. Estimated Solar Radiation Power

It is useful here to justify the computed solar radiation data mentioned in the above table. The listed value (3.849 × 1017 GW) for the power radiated from the sun is computed using the following nonlinear blackbody radiative power law, which is a reasonable approximation for the sun [134,135,136]:
Q s u n = σ   T s u n 4   A s u n
where ( Q s u n ) is the estimated radiative power from the sun when approximated as a blackbody, ( σ = 5.67 × 10 8   W / ( m 2 . K 4 ) ) is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant [137,138], ( T s u n ) is the estimated absolute temperature at the sun’s surface, and it is taken here as 5780 K (5506.85 °C) [139,140,141], and ( A s u n ) is the estimated surface area of the sun when approximated as a sphere with an optical radius ( r s u n ) of 6.957 × 108 m [142,143,144]. Thus, I have
A s u n = 4   π   r s u n 2
The above expression gives a surface area of
A s u n   6.0821 × 10 18   m 2
Thus, the estimated total emitted radiative heat from the sun is estimated as
Q s u n   3.8490 × 10 26   W
which is equivalent to the value of (3.849 × 1017 GW) that was listed in the previous table.
The listed value of (0.0633 GW) for the power radiated per unit area (1 m2) of the sun, this heat flux is denoted here by the symbol ( q s u n ), was computed as
q s u n = σ   T s u n 4 = Q s u n / A s u n
The above equation gives a value of
q s u n 6.3284 × 10 7   W / m 2
which is equivalent to the value of (0.0633 GW) that was listed in the previous table.
It is worth mentioning that the fraction of the solar radiation reaching the Earth (which is 1.8 × 108 GW) of the total solar radiation is about (5 × 10−10, more precisely 4.68 × 10−10).
It is also worth mentioning that the solar radiation reaching the Earth (1.8 × 108 GW) is about 20,000 times the global electricity capacity in 2023.

2.3. Outline of the Study

As mentioned in the last section, the current study has two main objectives. In the current subsection, I describe how I achieve them in my study.
To achieve the first objective of contrasting various designs of SHIPs, I organized these designs into nine categories. The first five SHIP categories belong to the low-temperature range of operation (below 75 °C) or the medium-temperature range of operation (75–150 °C). These are mostly non-concentrating systems, where the incoming solar radiation is collected and directed to the absorbing medium or conduit without being focused on a small zone. The other four SHIP categories belong to the high-temperature (150–400 °C) range of operation, and they all use concentrating collectors. Under each category, subcategories may exist due to design variations, such as using evacuation as a method of thermal insulation for better heating. For each of the nine SHIP categories, I describe the design and provide one or more illustrative sketches.
For achieving the second objective related to describing the progress in SHIP technologies, I present informative statistical graphs and tables depicting the historical progress in global SHIP deployment, as well as the recent (2024) status of the global SHIP market. This part also includes some country-based details, but it is mostly concerned with global SHIP use.

2.4. Use of Third-Party Illustrations

The first objective of the current study (contrasting various designs of SHIP systems) required the use of various illustrative schematics. A total of 12 sketches are used for illustration. Three of these sketches are self-made. The remaining nine sketches are taken from one of two external sources, provided that they are in the public domain (due to being US government work [145]), and thus do not pose copyright violation and do not require obtaining prior permission from the authoring agency. Sketches taken from an outside source are identified by a dedicated reference to each sketch in their caption. Nine sketches were taken from a public source; five of them were taken from the public website of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), and four more sketches were taken from the public website of the United States Department of Energy (US DOE), where the term “Department” here is equivalent to the term “Ministry” in some countries. Other sketches not assigned such a reference in the caption are made directly by us.

2.5. Contribution of the Current Study

While the raw data for these descriptive statistics graphs and tables were not collected directly by us, I still claim a contribution to the SHIP field through curating, filtering, processing, validating, and visualizing these data and synthesized information not contained in the raw data, making parts of the presented data broader, novel, more valuable, and more informative than their original sources. All raw data were taken from public sources, making them replicable and verifiable by the readers. I provide several references with regard to the data sources used here.
Several questions can be conveniently answered with the aid of the current study, such as the following:
  • What was the SHIP installation in 2024?
  • What was the SHIP type with the largest installation capacity in 2024?
  • Was the SHIP installation affected by the COVID-19 pandemic?
  • What is the historical progress in SHIPs between 2017 and 2024?
  • What are the top 10 countries in terms of installed SHIP capacity in 2024?
  • What are the different types of SHIP systems?
  • How are SHIP systems classified?
  • Can SHIP systems replace natural gas combustion for enhanced oil recovery (EOR)?
  • What is the anticipated size of the SHIP installation for steam installation in mining?
  • What are the challenges of small-scale non-SHIP solar thermal systems?
  • What are the recommendations for SHIP systems for improved deployment?
  • What are the nine main categories of SHIP designs?
  • Can the photovoltaic–thermal (PVT) technology be used with bifacial photovoltaic systems?
  • What was the average capacity for a parabolic trough collector (PTC) system in 2024?
  • What SHIP designs are also used for CSP (concentrated solar power) applications, and why?
  • What is the significance of tube evacuation in SHIP systems?
  • What are the approaches and tools suitable for modeling SHIP systems?
  • Can SHIP systems be used for retrofitting an existing steam generation system, and is there a successful case like this?
  • What is the meaning of PV-to-heat configuration (PVH)?
  • What is the expected contribution of the Maaden Solar I to the SHIP sector, and when?
  • What is the technological difference between a transpired solar air collector SHIP system and a plate solar air collector SHIP system?
  • What does (low temperature) SHIP system mean?
  • What are the applications for SHIP systems at high temperatures?
  • How does the global SHIP capacity compare to the global capacity of renewable energy technologies as power sources?
  • Was evacuation a commonly adopted feature in flat plate collectors in 2024?
  • What was the average collector area of an unglazed solar collector in 2024?
  • What was the total number of SHIP projects in 2024?
  • How big is the disparity in terms of project size among SHIP designs?
  • What was the 2024 distribution of new SHIP collector areas by type?
  • What was the total collector area of SHIP systems in 2024?

3. Results (Part 1: SHIP Designs)

This section starts with contents pertaining to the first objective of the study, where I provide a technical review of various SHIP systems, particularly the collector designs. I organize these designs into nine categories, starting with the non-concentrating cases (lower-temperature applications) and ending with the concentrating cases (higher-temperature applications).

3.1. Overview of Solar Collectors

A solar collector can be defined as a device that harnesses solar radiation by collecting it, and sometimes concentrating it also, as a source of thermal energy. This collected clean renewable heat is transferred to a working heat-transfer fluid. This fluid can be water or air. The solar-heated fluid can then be transported to a point of use, where a heat demand exists, or it can be stored for subsequent use. The use of solar collectors can be found at a small scale, such as for domestic water heating. Solar collectors can be used at a large scale in the form of sizable arrays in solar thermal power plants to generate green electricity or in commercial facilities to perform industrial processes that require a source of heat. In the current section, we explain the types of solar collectors for industrial applications.

3.2. SHIP Applications

Table 5 lists various applications of SHIP systems, classification by the application sector, and process.
The shown list manifests a wide diversity not only in terms of the sectors (such as agriculture, buildings, and chemical plants), but also in the temperature range. Thus, SHIP systems can meet the needs of many processes.

3.3. Some Published Works

Different studies were published recently about SHIP systems. In the current subsection, we summarize some of them in Table 6.

3.4. SAC (Solar Air Collector)

I start with the solar air collector (SAC) category of SHIP systems. As the name implies, these systems are used to heat the ambient air rather than to heat water or another liquid. The temperature rise is relatively small. These systems are limited to specific applications, such as space heating and crop drying [151,152].
There are two versions of solar air collectors (SACs). First, there is the plate version (SAC-P), in which the heat absorber element is a black plate [153,154]. This version is illustrated in Figure 1.
The other version of the solar air collector (SAC) is the transpired solar air collector (SAC-T), in which air is pulled by a fan through a dark (with high absorptivity and low reflectivity [155,156]) perforated metal cladding layer mounted on an existing exterior wall [157,158]. As a result of the heat transfer from the hotter metal cladding to the colder air, the air is heated before it is distributed to its point of use. This version is illustrated in Figure 2. A similar solution is used for heating and ventilating buildings [159].

3.5. PVT (Photovoltaic–Thermal)

I then move to the second category of SHIP systems, which is the photovoltaic–thermal (PVT) design.
This type takes advantage of the fact that typical crystalline-silicon (c-Si) photovoltaic (PV) cells and modules only convert a fraction (nearly 20%) of the incoming solar radiation (particularly in the visible “VIS” and near-infrared “NIR” spectral bands of light [161,162,163,164,165]) into electricity, while a larger fraction of this incoming solar radiation is either reflected (near 3%) or absorbed (near 77%) by the panel, causing it to heat [166,167,168]. Thus, this unexploited heat can be collected from the rear side of the PV modules and then used for heating a liquid (such as water). This is illustrated in Figure 3.
The hybrid PVT design generates both direct solar electricity (from the PV module) and solar heat (in the form of heated fluid), making it a combined heat and power (CHP) system [169,170].
The advantage of the hybrid PVT system is not only in producing additional thermal power but also in cooling the PV module by directing the absorbed heat to the heated fluid. Such a reduction in the PV cell temperatures improves the energy conversion efficiency of the PV solar cells, because this efficiency drops as the temperature increases; this is reflected in a negative power temperature coefficient [171].
The hybrid PVT design can be used not only with monofacial PV modules but also with bifacial PV modules, in which the direct conversion of incoming radiation into electricity occurs for both the front face and the rear face of the PV module [172].

3.6. USC (Unglazed Solar Collector)

The third category of SHIP systems I present here is the unglazed solar collector (USC) [173,174,175]. As the name implies, the main characteristic of this design is the lack of a glazing layer (a front layer of clear glass or plastic). This makes the design simple, but it does not permit the heat-trapping feature provided by the missing glazing. Therefore, this type is intended for small temperature rises, within about 10 °C only. Consequently, this type is especially suitable for heating swimming pools.
Figure 4 illustrates the operation principle of this SHIP design.
The top layer in this figure is a dark-colored sheet of non-glazing heat-absorbing material (metal or plastic) that absorbs incident heat and then transfers it to the collector tubes beneath it. The bottom dark layer beneath the collector tubes in the figure provides structural support and further secondary heat absorption from the rear side.

3.7. FPC (Flat Plate Collector)

The fourth category of SHIP systems I present here is the flat plate collector (FPC) [177,178,179]. This is an upgraded form of the previous unglazed solar collector (USC), where a glazing layer is added at the front. Thus, heat losses are reduced, and a larger temperature difference between the absorber and the ambient air becomes possible. The temperature rise in the FPC can be multiples of the one achieved using the USC. The operation of the FPC is illustrated in Figure 5.
The heat absorption zone beneath the glazing layer can be evacuated (vacuum) [181,182,183], leading to a version called a flat plate collector with an evacuated absorber (FPC-E) or high-temperature flat plate collector [184,185]. Alternatively, the heat absorber space can be unevacuated (ordinary), leading to the flat plate collector with an unevacuated absorber (FPC-U), also called a low-temperature flat plate collector. The FPC-E design is more complicated than the FPC-U design, but it offers the advantage of attenuating convective heat loss, and this allows a larger temperature difference between the absorber and the ambient air.

3.8. ETC (Evacuated Tube Collector)

The fifth category of SHIP systems I present here is the evacuated tube collector (ETC) [186,187,188].
Through evacuating the tubes that carry the heat transfer fluid (HTF), heat loss is reduced, and thus the HTF temperature can be largely elevated. Also, using individual tubes as absorbers (either the cylindrical surface of each tube is coated with a black heat-absorber coating and/or a metal heat-absorber fin is attached to each tube [189,190,191]) has a geometric advantage, where there is more chance of reaching the absorber perpendicularly. The ETC design is illustrated in Figure 6.
Instead of having one common large absorber plate (as in the USC or the PFC), the ETC design may have small heat absorber plates (fins) attached to each tube [193].
Depending on the absorber tube, the ETC system can be divided into two versions. The first is the single-phase (liquid) version, and the second is the two-phase [194] (liquid-vapor) heat pipe version [195,196,197].
Depending on the number of fluids involved in the ETC system, it can also be divided into two versions. The first version is the single-fluid configuration, where the heat transfer fluid within the evacuated tubes (vacuum tubes) is also the heated fluid that is aimed to be heated using solar radiation. This configuration is also referred to as a “wet” connection ETC system. The second version is the two-fluid configuration, where the heat transfer fluid within the evacuated tubes (vacuum tubes) is different from the heated fluid that is aimed to be heated using solar radiation. This configuration is also referred to as a “dry” connection ETC system, where the two fluids are not in contact with each other. The “dry” version has the advantage of the flexibility of choosing the heat transfer fluid (HTF), which can be optimized and controlled independently of the fluid to be heated [198,199,200,201] using proper computational fluid dynamics (CFDs) [202,203,204] and computer-aided design (CAD) tools [205,206,207].
Combining an ETC (evacuated tube collector) system with a stationary compound parabolic concentrator (CPC), as shown in Figure 7, allows for concentrating the collected and reflected solar radiation, and this greatly improves the performance of the SHIP system at the expense of added cost and complexity [208].

3.9. PTC (Parabolic Trough Collector)

The sixth category of SHIP systems I present here is the parabolic trough collector (PTC) [209,210,211,212].
This SHIP system incorporates a line concentrator in the shape of a parabola, such that incoming parallel sunlight beams are focused at the tube located at the parabola’s focal point, as illustrated in Figure 8.
The parabolic trough collectors are movable with one-degree-of-freedom rotation, such that the aperture angle is optimized during the day to absorb the maximum possible amount of solar radiation.
Depending on the heat absorber tube, the parabolic trough collector (PTC) can be offered in an unevacuated version (PTC-U) or an evacuated version (PTC-E). The evacuated version is better, and it is associated with higher temperature rises due to suppressing convective heat losses from the absorber tube that contains the fluid to be heated. This absorber tube is now encapsulated within a clear enclosure with an annular vacuum gap in between.
The PTC design is commonly used in SHIP applications and CSP (concentrated solar power) applications. The PTC (parabolic trough collector) design is the most mature compared to other CSP options (SPT, PDC, and LFR), which are also used in SHIP applications [214,215,216].

3.10. LFR (Linear Fresnel Reflector)

The seventh category of SHIP systems I present here is the linear Fresnel reflector (LFR) [217,218,219].
This is another line-concentrator design (like PTC), but multiple flat plate reflector mirrors concentrate the incoming radiation to the common heat absorber (instead of having one absorber per reflecting mirror). The linear Fresnel reflectors are movable with one-degree-of-freedom rotation, similar to the PTC mirrors. The LFR design is illustrated in Figure 9.
When two or more overhead heat absorbers (heat receivers) exist within the same area of the LFR mirrors, this design is referred to as a compact linear Fresnel reflector (CLFR) [221,222,223]. I may here consider the single-absorber LFR and the multiple-absorber CLFR as one class due to the identical surfaces used for radiation collection/reflection.

3.11. PDC (Parabolic Dish Collector)

The eighth category of SHIP systems I present here is the parabolic dish collector (PDC) [224,225,226].
Like parabolic trough collectors (PTCs), PDC units couple each collector mirror with its own heat absorber. However, instead of using line concentrators, the PDC units have point concentrators, as shown in Figure 10.
Similarly to the PTC and LFR, the PDC is commonly used in CSP applications. In the case of CSP, the focal point of the parabolic dish has an attached heat engine (Stirling type) that converts the absorbed heat into mechanical rotation (shaft power), which is then converted into electricity using a connected electric generator. Such an engine-generator element is not present in SHIP applications.
Unlike the PTC and LFR, the solar tracking mechanism of the PDC is a two-degree-of-freedom, where both the azimuth and zenith angles (the heading and elevation angles) are adjustable for fully following the sun disk.

3.12. SPT (Solar Power Tower)

The ninth and last category of SHIP systems I present here is the solar power tower (SPT) or simply the solar tower (ST) [228,229,230]. The solar tower here should not be confused with the solar chimney (SC), which is sometimes called solar tower (ST), solar-wind tower (SWT), or solar updraft tower (SUT) [231,232,233,234]. The solar chimney is a very different concept from solar power towers (SPTs) for SHIP/CSP applications. In the case of a solar chimney, solar radiation induces an internal upward flow of air inside a chimney-like hollow column (heat energy is converted into kinetic energy), which then operates an indoor wind turbine to produce electricity [235,236,237].
In the SPT design, a large array of ground-mounted movable mirrors (called heliostats) is tilted such that the solar irradiance can be reflected from them to a common heat-absorber receiver at the top of a centralized tower, as illustrated in Figure 11 and Figure 12.
Similarly to the PTC, LFR, and PDC, the SPT can be used for both electric power generation (CSP mode) and process heat generation (SHIP mode).
Similarly to PDC, the solar tracking mechanism in the case of the SPT is two-axis (two-degree-of-freedom). However, this mechanism is not responsible for tilting a single-piece parabolic dish but for tilting the heliostats such that they resemble a large parabolic dish (but discretized) whose focal point is the receiver at the top of the solar tower. Due to the lower maturity, larger capital investment, more complex control/optimization of the tilt angles, poor modularity, and heavier demand for land area in the case of SPT projects, the PDC and PTC are more suitable for small-scale projects that are frequently encountered in SHIP applications [240,241,242,243,244,245]. When used as a power plant for CSP electricity generation, a minimum capacity of about 50 MWe (electric) is recommended [246]. One kWe (electric) of CSP capacity using the SPT may require a land area of 45 m2, while this drops by one-half, to below 25 m2/kWe (electric) in the case of CSP-PTC [247,248,249].

4. Results (Part 2: SHIP Progress)

This section is the second and last part of the two-part results of the current study. This part pertains to the second objective of the current study, where I present selected data regarding the progress of the SHIP systems, particularly the utilization expansion that occurred in 2024. I organize these results into two subsections. I dedicate the first subsection to the historical progress in the global deployment, sampled annually. I then dedicate the second subsection to the expansions in SHIP deployment that took place in 2024 (last year as of the time of preparing this study).

4.1. SHIP Historical Growth

I start with the annual growth of SHIP systems that were installed globally. This growth is expressed here in terms of the number of the following aspects:
(1) New commissioned SHIP systems per year.
(2) New SHIP collector areas added per year.
(3) New SHIP thermal capacity added per year.
The last growth metric (added SHIP thermal capacity) is actually derived from the added collector area by assuming a reasonable conversion factor of
1   m 2 700   Wth = 0.7   kWth = 7 × 10 4   MWth
This conversion factor is reasonably used in solar thermal applications [250,251,252]. For curved collectors, where the term (collector area) may become ambiguous, the collector area is typically interpreted as the aperture area of the collector mirrors [253,254,255,256]. For flat collectors, the collector area can be considered as the total flat area of the collector mirrors (as in LFRs) [257].
The source of the data in the current subsection is the web-based platform (Solarthermalworld.org), which was established in 2008 by the International Copper Association Europe (ICA Europe), based in Brussels, Belgium [258,259]. In turn, these data were obtained by Solarthermalworld.org using annual surveys of the suppliers of SHIP systems, and these surveys were conducted by the German agency (Solrico) [260,261].
The historical global counts of SHIP systems are shown in Figure 13 for the period between 2017 and 2024. While this graph does not show a clear trend, it shows that the number of annually commissioned SHIP systems in the last three years (2022, 2023, and 2024) has exceeded 100. The smallest number of new SHIP systems was in 2021, when 73 systems were added globally. Thus, there was a jump from 73 systems in 2021 to 116 systems in 2022.
Like any energy system in general, the number of systems by itself is not a good indication of the size of these systems collectively, because there can be a big variation in the capacity of individual systems. Thus, while the above historical graph is useful in expressing the generic interest in SHIP systems as reflected in a continuous demand for them, a better representation should be in terms of the added thermal capacity or the added collector area. The historical values of two alternative metrics are shown in Figure 14. The sharp jump in the number of added SHIP systems between 2021 and 2022 (as observed from the previous graph) is totally altered into a small decline in the collector area (or the equivalent thermal capacity). In the last three years (2022, 2023, and 2024), the added collector area has been increasing. Over the period 2017–2024, the smallest SHIP addition was in 2022 (34,664 m2, 30.6 MWth), while the largest addition was in 2019 (358,641 m2, 251.0 MWth). Thus, the annual additions varied significantly by one order of magnitude, reflecting the instability of the global demand. However, the sharp decline between 2019 and 2020 and the mild decline between 2020 and 2021 can be attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, when various business activities were negatively impacted and reduced [262,263,264]. Despite this decline in the installed SHIP capacity, it has never been zero during the pandemic period.
A summary of the 2024 additions and their percentage relative to the cumulative deployment of SHIP systems at the end of 2024 is listed in Table 7.

4.2. SHIP Additions in 2024

The final part of the results that I present in the current study is concerned with the new SHIP installations in the last calendar year (2024).
Figure 15 shows the top six countries in terms of the SHIP installed capacity in 2024 [265]. In this figure, I apply a filter to show only the countries having a new capacity of 1 MWth or more in 2024. China was by far the leading investor in SHIP technologies, with an added capacity of 84.6 MWth. Then comes Germany with an added capacity of 21.8 MWth. Thus, China and Germany together installed about 106.4 MWth of SHIP systems in 2024, and this represents approximately 88% of the global added capacity in 2024 (120.3 MWth). The other four countries that exceeded 1 MWth of SHIP installation in 2024 are the Netherlands (3.6 MWth), Austria (2.9 MWth), Mexico (2.6 MWth), and India (1.6 MWth). In addition to these six top countries listed in the figure, 14 more countries also commissioned one or more SHIP systems in 2024, but with smaller capacities below 1 MWth. The total installed SHIP thermal capacity by these 14 countries is 2.9 MWth. These 14 countries with small SHIP installations, along with the six countries with larger installations, are as follows:
  • China.
  • Germany.
  • Netherlands.
  • Austria.
  • Mexico.
  • India.
  • Italy.
  • Brazil.
  • USA.
  • France.
  • Panama.
  • Jordan.
  • Serbia.
  • Spain.
  • Kenya.
  • Ecuador.
  • Finland.
  • Morocco.
  • Colombia.
  • Cuba.
Figure 16 and Figure 17 illustrate the distribution of the 2024 added SHIP collector area globally (171,874 m2) when divided according to the SHIP category [266]. This distribution is expressed as percentages in the former figure and then as absolute areas in the latter figure. The number of SHIP categories here is 10, which represents the nine categories I discussed in the previous section, but the flat plate collector (FPC) category is split into two categories due to considering the unevacuated FPC version (FPC-U) as a category and considering the evacuated FPC version (FPC-E) as another separate category. The parabolic trough collector (PTC) was the dominant category in 2024, with about two-thirds (65.9%) of the added collector area belonging to this category alone. This testifies to the maturity and reliability of this PTC technology type of SHIP. Unevacuated flat plate collectors (FPC-Us) had a share of 22.0% in 2024, which is a considerable portion that also indicates successful operation and wide acceptance of this FPC-U technology type of SHIPs. The evacuated version of the FPC (FPC-E) had a much smaller share of 1.0% in 2024. If I combine the share of the PTC and FPC (both the unevacuated version and the evacuated version), I achieve a combined share of about 89%. While the evacuated tube collector (ETC) type had an appreciable share of 5.0%, the unglazed solar collector (USC) had the smallest share of only 0.2%. This smallest share corresponded to a USC collector area of 326 m2. It is noticeable that the other three medium-temperature concentrating technologies, other than the PTC (namely, the LFR, PDC, and SPT), contributed together about 2.5% only of the added SHIP collector area in 2024.
Figure 18 shows the distribution of the 2024 SHIP systems (a total of 106 globally) over the same 10 SHIP categories as the two previous figures. It is interesting that 48 systems (a count share of 45.3% out of the total of 106 systems) belonged to the unevacuated flat plate collector (FPC-U) category, although this category was responsible for only 22.0% of the total added collector area. When the single evacuated flat plate collector (FPC-E) system that was installed in 2024 is combined with the 48 FPC-U systems installed in 2024, I obtain 49 FPC systems installed in 2024. It is even more interesting that the parabolic trough collector (PTC) category, which was the dominant category in terms of added collector area (area share 65.9%), had only three SHIP projects in 2024. This reflects the large size of individual PTC projects compared to FPC-U projects. When the average collector area per SHIP system is computed for the three PTC systems of 2024, I obtain 37,740.5 m2/project. On the other hand, the average collector area per SHIP system for the 49 FPC projects of 2024 is 805.2 m2/project. Considering the whole 106 SHIP systems of 2024, the average collector area per SHIP system is 1621.4 m2/project (computed as 171,874 m2 divided by 106 systems). Thus, on average, PTC systems tend to be very large (in terms of the collector area), while FPC systems tend to be small.
In Table 8, I list my computed average collector area per SHIP system for each of the 10 SHIP categories and the overall average over all 10 categories. I also compute this average area for the flat plate collector (when I treat it as a single category that covers both the FPC-U and FPC-E) and consider this combination as an 11th category in the table. Among the tabulated results, the SHIP category with the largest collector area per system (for the installed systems in 2024) is the parabolic trough collector (PTC) category, with a value of 37,740.5 m2/project, while the SHIP category with the smallest average collector area per system is the unglazed solar collector (USC), with a value of only 163.0 m2/project.

4.3. Small-Scale Non-Industrial Solar Thermal Applications

While the focus in the current study was on industrial heating processes, because it is the application domain of SHIP systems, the scope of solar thermal applications is much broader. There are numerous low-temperature and medium-temperature solar thermal applications that play a critical role in residential and community settings, especially in developing regions [267]. These important use cases are briefly discussed here to provide a more complete overview of the solar thermal domain.
Solar cookers are one example of such non-industrial solar thermal uses [268]. Many solar cookers were aimed at use as zero-cost alternatives that do not consume fuel or electricity [269]. Several initiatives in different regions of the world promoted and raised awareness about solar cookers as integrated local solutions to problems involved in traditional cooking, such as air pollution, fuel costs, deforestation caused by cutting trees for wood, and the exhausting work for women who spend a lot of time collecting firewood [270,271]. Another important example of small-scale non-industrial solar thermal devices is domestic solar hot water systems [272,273]. The efficiency of domestic-scale solar water heaters can be near 70% [274]. On the other hand, using photovoltaic modules to convert solar radiation into electricity and then converting this electricity into heat via an electric water heater results in a much lower overall energy conversion efficiency of around 17% only [275]. Despite the environmental benefits of domestic solar water heaters, their larger size compared to electric heaters, more expensive capital cost compared to electric heaters, and the need for an outdoor area to collect solar radiation [276,277] hinder the widespread adoption of domestic solar water heaters.

4.4. PV-to-Heat Configuration (PVH)

There is one more method to produce heat using solar radiation that was not listed among the nine main SHIP categories in my classification by design type. This additional tenth method is based on a two-step energy conversion. In the first step, incoming solar radiation is converted into direct current electricity using photovoltaic solar modules (panels). An inverter may be used to further change the electric power from the fixed-polarity direct current (DC) to the alternating current (AC) sinusoidal waveform. In the second step, this electricity is converted into heat using a conventional electric heater [278].
It is true that, in this method, the incoming solar radiation is eventually converted into heat. However, the power generation system remains purely of an ordinary photovoltaic type, rather than a solar thermal type. Primarily, the visible portion of the irradiance spectrum is utilized, not the infrared heating portion, as in the solar thermal concept. The heat is produced through a resistive electric load, irrespective of the solar radiation. Therefore, I prefer not to classify this method as a solar thermal (ST) technology. Instead, it seems closer to the solar photovoltaic (PV) technology. The reader may disagree with this view. In such a case, this PV-to-heat, or PVH, configuration is considered the tenth category of SHIP.

4.5. Thermal Modeling Tools

This review can benefit from a summary of thermal modeling approaches found in the literature for SHIP systems. This topic is covered here.
One modeling technique for SHIP systems is the energy balance calculation. This can be in the form of solving a governing scalar equation with hourly or subhourly variations. Specifically, the energy generated by the solar thermal collector can be computed starting from the incident radiation and the active collector’s area and collector’s efficiency. Part of this energy is lost by conduction and radiation to the ambient surroundings. The net heating rate becomes useful thermal power [279]. This simplified process may be implemented using hand computations, a spreadsheet, or a simple computer code.
Instead of a single overall energy equation, a system of energy balance equations, as well as the mass continuity equations, can be solved to model the various subsystems (such as the water tank, the solar collector, and the pump) of the overall SHIP system, rather than simply focusing on the collector alone [280]. Specialized software tools such as the Modelica object-oriented open-source language [281,282] or the OpenModelica open-source environment facilitate this more realistic modeling approach [283,284].
Instead, the SHIP modeling can be handled as a dynamic control system using the state space technique of modern control [285]. This modeling option is particularly useful for control purposes and controller-based automation and optimization [286]. The commercial simulation software MATLAB (version 2020 and later), its block-diagram environment Simulink, and its Optimization Toolbox are very relevant in this approach [287,288].
A more detailed approach to modeling SHIP systems is the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) technique [289], where the governing partial differential equations for the fluid part and the thermal part of the SHIP system are discretized and integrated in both time and space to generate an approximate numerical solution [290]. Specific CFD methods for such thermal problems include the finite difference method (FDM), where the physical domain is approximated as a structured grid of discrete points and the solution is sought only at these points rather than in the whole continuum domain [291,292]. Another CFD method for thermal systems is the finite volume method (FVM), where the spatial domain is split into contiguous three-dimensional finite cells (such as tetrahedra) and the mass conservation law, momentum conservation law, and energy conservation law are numerically enforced at the cell level. The Ansys Fluent commercial software is a powerful tool for implementing this modeling approach [293,294].

4.6. Perspectives and Recommendations

In this subsection, I provide some expectations and suggestions regarding SHIP systems.
As presented earlier, the largest SHIP deployment in 2024 by collector area was in the parabolic trough collector (PTC) type, with an average collector area of 37,740.5 m2/project. With the rule-of-thumb conversion factor of 0.7 kWth/m2 or 0.0007 MWth/m2, the estimated average thermal capacity per PTC project is 26,418 kWth/m2 or 26.418 MWth/m2. This is a fairly large capacity. I expect this PTC type to remain the dominant and most successful SHIP type, and I expect it to grow significantly. This PTC type enjoys maturity and proven success in medium-scale and large-scale SHIP projects, which supports its ability to attract more interest for these project sizes. For example, this PTC type was successfully demonstrated in the world’s first pilot-scale and commercial-scale solar thermal enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects in the Sultanate of Oman. In these PTC systems, steam near 310 °C is produced using an array of PTC rows that heat water to produce steam for injection in a crude oil reservoir to facilitate production of crude oil that is difficult to extract using conventional methods [295]. Conventional thermal enhanced oil recovery (TEOR) requires burning large amounts of a fossil fuel (commonly natural gas) [296] due to the enormous heat demands in order to supply steam steadily (24/7) [297]. The PTC steam generator operated along with a previous natural gas boiler as an overall hybrid dual-source system because the PTC system is not able to produce steam at night. The PTC system was able to reduce natural gas consumption by about 25%. This results in large amounts of avoided CO2 emissions.
A gigascale parabolic trough collector (PTC) project is expected to start production in 2026 (construction started in 2024) in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This prospective project is “Maaden Solar I”, with an impressive planned peak thermal capacity of 1.5 GWth (1500 MWth) and a planned annual thermal heat output of 3000 GWh/year. Maaden Solar I is expected to produce steam at a daily rate of 14,000 tonnes/day and is expected to occupy a solar field area of 6 km2 and a total project area of 7 km2 [298]. This project is expected to be the world’s largest SHIP plant. It aims to produce solar steam for use in refining bauxite ore into alumina (aluminum oxide, Al2O3). This is a preparatory process that precedes the primary operation of aluminum production [299,300] using the Hall–Héroult process that involves the electrolysis of alumina dissolved in molten cryolite mineral (sodium aluminum fluoride, Na3AlF6) to produce metal aluminum [301,302]. Maaden Solar I is developed for Maaden (Saudi Arabian Mining Company, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia), which is Saudi Arabia’s national mining company (state-owned) and the largest mining and metals company in the Middle East [303].
Given the highlighted challenges facing small-scale domestic solar water heaters when attempted for installation by individual residential users, such systems may not be able to compete with the more convenient, cheaper, and compact options of electric water heaters and gas-fired water heaters. In light of this, I recommend replacing these small decentralized systems with a large centralized one through solar district heating (SDH) [304]. In a similar manner, it is recommended to explore further the potential of solar district cooling (SDC) [305], where central thermally driven (absorption-type) chillers are used instead of conventional compression chillers. Despite the low coefficient of performance (COP) for absorption chillers (about 0.5 only [306], compared to about 3.0 for air-cooled compression chillers and 5.0 for water-cooled compression chillers [307]), their clean solar thermal operation renders them attractive routes to achieve sustainability and national zero-carbon targets. I also recommend governmental subsidies and awareness campaigns for the small-scale (below 1 MWth) SHIP projects.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

In the current study, a technical review of various types of SHIP systems was provided. These SHIP systems were grouped according to more than one classification method. The SHIP systems were grouped based on (1) solar concentration, (2) collector type, (3) temperature rise, and (4) solar tracking. The SHIP systems were divided into nine main categories, and the working principle for each of them was explained with the aid of illustrative sketches. Some of these nine categories can be further divided into subcategories, and this was clarified.
In addition, the recent global thermal capacity of SHIP was contrasted with various thermal and electric power capacities, and this comparison manifested the relatively small size of SHIPs. By curating and processing public data about the progress and recent (2024) installations of SHIP systems, useful insights about the development of SHIP systems were given, including the countries that installed more SHIP capacity recently and the SHIP categories that seem to be more successful and widely adopted than others. This analysis reveals the large disparity in the system size when different SHIP categories are compared.
The current analysis shows that more than 1300 SHIP systems were commissioned worldwide by the end of 2024 (cumulative number), constituting a cumulative thermal capacity of 1071.4 MWth, with a total collector area of 1,531,600 m2. In 2024 alone, 120.3 MWth of thermal capacity was introduced in 106 SHIP systems having a total collector area of 171,874 m2. In 2024, 65.9% of the installed global thermal capacity of SHIP systems belonged to the parabolic trough collectors (PTCs), and another 22% of this installed global thermal capacity was attributed to the unevacuated flat plate collectors (FPC-Us). Considering the 106 SHIP systems installed in 2024, the average collector area per system was 1621.4 m2/project. With a generic rule of 0.7 kWth/m2, the average thermal capacity becomes 1.135 MWth/project. However, this area largely depends on the SHIP category, where it is much higher for parabolic trough collectors (37,740.5 m2/project) but lower for flat plate collectors (805.2 m2/project, equivalently 0.564 MWth/project), and it is lowest for unglazed solar collectors (163.0 m2/project, equivalently 0.114 MWth/project).
The current did not intend to provide forecasting for the expected deployment of the SHIP systems. It is admitted that the statistical analysis performed here is descriptive rather than inferential and evaluative. However, the available data are not sufficient to provide reliable predictions. Despite this, the presented analysis here is still considered useful. Also, the current work did not cover economic aspects of SHIP systems, particularly a comparative cost analysis (including metrics such as the levelized cost of heat, payback periods, and operational costs). While this topic is a valuable area, such investigations are major extensions of the current work that deserve a separate study with preferably cooperative institutional involvement, with industrial partners on both the SHIP manufacturers’ side and the SHIP users’ side.
The current work can be extended in several ways by addressing the above-mentioned limitations. For example, the comparisons between different SHIP designs here excluded the economic aspects. These may be considered to assess the feasibility of the various SHIP options and the suitability of each for a certain capacity range.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable (this research does not involve human participants, human data, human tissue, animal subjects, or environmental hazards).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable (this research does not involve humans).

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available within the article itself and through the relevant cited sources.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

  1. Modest, M.F. Radiative Heat Transfer, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Boston, MA, USA, 2003; ISBN 978-0-12-503163-9. [Google Scholar]
  2. Howell, J.R.; Mengüc, M.P.; Daun, K.; Siegel, R. Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer, 7th ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2020; ISBN 978-0-429-32730-8. [Google Scholar]
  3. Peuser, D.F.A.; Remmers, K.-H.; Schnauss, M. Solar Thermal Systems: Successful Planning and Construction; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; ISBN 978-1-315-06724-7. [Google Scholar]
  4. Romero, M.; González-Aguilar, J. Solar Thermal CSP Technology. WIREs Energy Environ. 2014, 3, 42–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Smith, G.A.; Barnes, S.A. Electrical Power Generation from Heat Engines. In Proceedings of the IEE Colloquium on Power Electronics for Renewable Energy (Digest No: 1997/170), London, UK, 16 June 1997; pp. 5/1–5/6. [Google Scholar]
  6. Marzouk, O.A. Radiant Heat Transfer in Nitrogen-Free Combustion Environments. Int. J. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 2018, 19, 175–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Fernández-Arias, P.; Vergara, D.; Orosa, J.A. A Global Review of PWR Nuclear Power Plants. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 4434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hashemian, H.M. On-Line Monitoring Applications in Nuclear Power Plants. Prog. Nucl. Energy 2011, 53, 167–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Marzouk, O.A. Subcritical and Supercritical Rankine Steam Cycles, under Elevated Temperatures up to 900 °C and Absolute Pressures up to 400 Bara. Adv. Mech. Eng. 2024, 16, 16878132231221065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Marzouk, O.A. Technical Review of Radiative-Property Modeling Approaches for Gray and Nongray Radiation, and a Recommended Optimized WSGGM for CO2/H2O-Enriched Gases. Results Eng. 2025, 25, 103923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gallo, A.; Marzo, A.; Fuentealba, E.; Alonso, E. High Flux Solar Simulators for Concentrated Solar Thermal Research: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 77, 1385–1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mir-Artigues, P. The Economics and Policy of Concentrating Solar Power Generation; Green Energy and Technology Series; Springer International Publishing AG: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; ISBN 978-3-030-11937-9. [Google Scholar]
  13. Chien, J.C.-L. Concentrating Solar Thermal Power: A Viable Alternative in China’s Energy Supply. Master’s Thesis, Lauder Institute of International Studies, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  14. EASAC (European Academies Science Advisory Council). Concentrating Solar Power: Its Potential Contribution to a Sustainable Energy Future; EASAC (European Academies Science Advisory Council): Halle (Saale), Germany, 2011; pp. 1–67. [Google Scholar]
  15. Zhu, J.; Chen, Z. Optical Design of Compact Linear Fresnel Reflector Systems. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2018, 176, 239–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Rungasamy, A.E.; Craig, K.J.; Meyer, J.P. Comparative Study of the Optical and Economic Performance of Etendue-Conserving Compact Linear Fresnel Reflector Concepts. Sol. Energy 2019, 181, 95–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Khan, M.I.; Gutiérrez-Alvarez, R.; Asfand, F.; Bicer, Y.; Sgouridis, S.; Al-Ghamdi, S.G.; Jouhara, H.; Asif, M.; Kurniawan, T.A.; Abid, M.; et al. The Economics of Concentrating Solar Power (CSP): Assessing Cost Competitiveness and Deployment Potential. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2024, 200, 114551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Palacios, A.; Calderón, A.; Barreneche, C.; Bertomeu, J.; Segarra, M.; Fernández, A.I. Study on Solar Absorptance and Thermal Stability of Solid Particles Materials Used as TES at High Temperature on Different Aging Stages for CSP Applications. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2019, 201, 110088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Giostri, A.; Macchi, E. An Advanced Solution to Boost Sun-to-Electricity Efficiency of Parabolic Dish. Sol. Energy 2016, 139, 337–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhai, H.; Wang, S.; An, B.; Dai, X. Performance and Parameter Sensitivity Comparison of CSP Power Cycles under Wide Solar Energy Temperature Ranges and Multiple Working Conditions. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 218, 112996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Giostri, A. Preliminary Analysis of Solarized Micro Gas Turbine Application to CSP Parabolic Dish Plants. Energy Procedia 2017, 142, 768–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. García-Ferrero, J.; Merchán, R.P.; Santos, M.J.; Medina, A.; Calvo Hernández, A. Brayton Technology for Concentrated Solar Power Plants: Comparative Analysis of Central Tower Plants and Parabolic Dish Farms. Energy Convers. Manag. 2022, 271, 116312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Giaconia, A.; Iaquaniello, G.; Metwally, A.A.; Caputo, G.; Balog, I. Experimental Demonstration and Analysis of a CSP Plant with Molten Salt Heat Transfer Fluid in Parabolic Troughs. Sol. Energy 2020, 211, 622–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Cipollone, R.; Cinocca, A.; Gualtieri, A. Gases as Working Fluid in Parabolic Trough CSP Plants. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2013, 19, 702–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Abbas, R.; Muñoz, J.; Martínez-Val, J.M. Steady-State Thermal Analysis of an Innovative Receiver for Linear Fresnel Reflectors. Appl. Energy 2012, 92, 503–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hofer, A.; Cuevas, F.; Heimsath, A.; Nitz, P.; Platzer, W.J.; Scholl, S. Extended Heat Loss and Temperature Analysis of Three Linear Fresnel Receiver Designs. Energy Procedia 2015, 69, 424–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. He, Y.-L.; Qiu, Y.; Wang, K.; Yuan, F.; Wang, W.-Q.; Li, M.-J.; Guo, J.-Q. Perspective of Concentrating Solar Power. Energy 2020, 198, 117373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Al-Sulaiman, F.A. Exergy Analysis of Parabolic Trough Solar Collectors Integrated with Combined Steam and Organic Rankine Cycles. Energy Convers. Manag. 2014, 77, 441–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Al-Sulaiman, F.A. Energy and Sizing Analyses of Parabolic Trough Solar Collector Integrated with Steam and Binary Vapor Cycles. Energy 2013, 58, 561–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Struchtrup, H. Thermodynamics and Energy Conversion, 1st ed.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2014; ISBN 978-3-662-43715-5. [Google Scholar]
  31. Marzouk, O.A. Direct Numerical Simulations of the Flow Past a Cylinder Moving With Sinusoidal and Nonsinusoidal Profiles. J. Fluids Eng. 2009, 131, 121201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Marzouk, O.A. A Two-Step Computational Aeroacoustics Method Applied to High-Speed Flows. Noise Control Eng. J. 2008, 56, 396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mehrpooya, M.; Ghadimi, N.; Marefati, M.; Ghorbanian, S.A. Numerical Investigation of a New Combined Energy System Includes Parabolic Dish Solar Collector, Stirling Engine and Thermoelectric Device. Int. J. Energy Res. 2021, 45, 16436–16455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Marzouk, O.A. The Sod Gasdynamics Problem as a Tool for Benchmarking Face Flux Construction in the Finite Volume Method. Sci. Afr. 2020, 10, e00573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Barreto, G.; Canhoto, P. Modelling of a Stirling Engine with Parabolic Dish for Thermal to Electric Conversion of Solar Energy. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 132, 119–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Marzouk, O.A. Reduced-Order Modeling (ROM) of a Segmented Plug-Flow Reactor (PFR) for Hydrogen Separation in Integrated Gasification Combined Cycles (IGCC). Processes 2025, 13, 1455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Backes, J.G.; D’Amico, A.; Pauliks, N.; Guarino, S.; Traverso, M.; Lo Brano, V. Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of a Dish-Stirling Concentrating Solar Power Plant in the Mediterranean Area. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2021, 47, 101444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Adeoti, O.; Oyewole, B.A.; Adegboyega, T.D. Solar Photovoltaic-Based Home Electrification System for Rural Development in Nigeria: Domestic Load Assessment. Renew. Energy 2001, 24, 155–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Marzouk, O.A. Adiabatic Flame Temperatures for Oxy-Methane, Oxy-Hydrogen, Air-Methane, and Air-Hydrogen Stoichiometric Combustion Using the NASA CEARUN Tool, GRI-Mech 3.0 Reaction Mechanism, and Cantera Python Package. Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 2023, 13, 11437–11444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Chatzimouratidis, A.I.; Pilavachi, P.A. Objective and Subjective Evaluation of Power Plants and Their Non-Radioactive Emissions Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 4027–4038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Patel, A.; Soni, A.; Baredar, P. Green Buildings Integrated with Solar Thermal Energy Systems in India—Concepts, Utilization and Potential. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Electrical Power and Energy Systems (ICEPES), Bhopal, India, 21–22 June 2024; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  42. Marzouk, O.A. Compilation of Smart Cities Attributes and Quantitative Identification of Mismatch in Rankings. J. Eng. 2022, 2022, 5981551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Yousef, B.A.A.; Obaideen, K.; AlMallahi, M.N.; Alajmi, N.; Radwan, A.; Al-Shihabi, S.; Elgendi, M. On the Contribution of Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A Bibliometric Analysis. Energy Strategy Rev. 2024, 52, 101356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jia, L.; Ma, J.; Cheng, P.; Liu, Y. A Perspective on Solar Energy-Powered Road and Rail Transportation in China. CSEE J. Power Energy Syst. 2020, 6, 760–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Marzouk, O.A. Urban Air Mobility and Flying Cars: Overview, Examples, Prospects, Drawbacks, and Solutions. Open Eng. 2022, 12, 662–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Al-Ghussain, L.; Darwish Ahmad, A.; Abubaker, A.M.; Mohamed, M.A.; Hassan, M.A.; Akafuah, N.K. Optimal Sizing of Country-Scale Renewable Energy Systems towards Green Transportation Sector in Developing Countries. Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 2022, 39, 102442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bartłomiejczyk, M. Potential Application of Solar Energy Systems for Electrified Urban Transportation Systems. Energies 2018, 11, 954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Aprà, F.M.; Smit, S.; Sterling, R.; Loureiro, T. Overview of the Enablers and Barriers for a Wider Deployment of CSP Tower Technology in Europe. Clean Technol. 2021, 3, 377–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Marzouk, O.A. Performance Analysis of Shell-and-Tube Dehydrogenation Module. Int. J. Energy Res. 2017, 41, 604–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ziuku, S.; Seyitini, L.; Mapurisa, B.; Chikodzi, D.; van Kuijk, K. Potential of Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) in Zimbabwe. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2014, 23, 220–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bijarniya, J.P.; Sudhakar, K.; Baredar, P. Concentrated Solar Power Technology in India: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 63, 593–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Marzouk, O.A. Detailed Derivation of the Scalar Explicit Expressions Governing the Electric Field, Current Density, and Volumetric Power Density in the Four Types of Linear Divergent MHD Channels Under a Unidirectional Applied Magnetic Field. Contemp. Math. 2025, 6, 4060–4100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rodat, S.; Thonig, R. Status of Concentrated Solar Power Plants Installed Worldwide: Past and Present Data. Clean Technol. 2024, 6, 365–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Marzouk, O.A. Detailed and Simplified Plasma Models in Combined-Cycle Magnetohydrodynamic Power Systems. Int. J. Adv. Appl. Sci. 2023, 10, 96–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Furlan, G.; You, F. Robust Design of Hybrid Solar Power Systems: Sustainable Integration of Concentrated Solar Power and Photovoltaic Technologies. Adv. Appl. Energy 2024, 13, 100164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Marzouk, O.A. Estimated Electric Conductivities of Thermal Plasma for Air-Fuel Combustion and Oxy-Fuel Combustion with Potassium or Cesium Seeding. Heliyon 2024, 10, e31697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Marzouk, O.A. Power Density and Thermochemical Properties of Hydrogen Magnetohydrodynamic (H2MHD) Generators at Different Pressures, Seed Types, Seed Levels, and Oxidizers. Hydrogen 2025, 6, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Soni, N.; Reddy, K.S. Techno-Economic Assessment of Concentrated Solar Power Technologies Integrated with Thermal Energy Storage System for Green Hydrogen Production. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2024, 72, 1184–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Muhammad, H.A.; Naseem, M.; Kim, J.; Kim, S.; Choi, Y.; Lee, Y.D. Solar Hydrogen Production: Technoeconomic Analysis of a Concentrated Solar-Powered High-Temperature Electrolysis System. Energy 2024, 298, 131284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Reddy, V.J.; Hariram, N.P.; Maity, R.; Ghazali, M.F.; Kumarasamy, S. Sustainable E-Fuels: Green Hydrogen, Methanol and Ammonia for Carbon-Neutral Transportation. World Electr. Veh. J. 2023, 14, 349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Marzouk, O.A. Hydrogen Utilization as a Plasma Source for Magnetohydrodynamic Direct Power Extraction (MHD-DPE). IEEE Access 2024, 12, 167088–167107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bellotti, D.; Rivarolo, M.; Magistri, L. Clean Fuels Synthesis from Green Hydrogen: A Techno-Economic Comparative Analysis. E3S Web Conf. 2021, 238, 03001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Meda, U.S.; Rajyaguru, Y.V.; Pandey, A. Generation of Green Hydrogen Using Self-Sustained Regenerative Fuel Cells: Opportunities and Challenges. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 28289–28314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Marzouk, O.A. Facilitating Digital Analysis and Exploration in Solar Energy Science and Technology through Free Computer Applications. Eng. Proc. 2022, 31, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Gil, J.D.; Topa, A.; Álvarez, J.D.; Torres, J.L.; Pérez, M. A Review from Design to Control of Solar Systems for Supplying Heat in Industrial Process Applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 163, 112461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Jia, T.; Huang, J.; Li, R.; He, P.; Dai, Y. Status and Prospect of Solar Heat for Industrial Processes in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 90, 475–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Solar Payback Market Segments. Available online: https://www.solar-payback.com/markets (accessed on 18 April 2025).
  68. Marzouk, O.A. Zero Carbon Ready Metrics for a Single-Family Home in the Sultanate of Oman Based on EDGE Certification System for Green Buildings. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. SHE (Solar Heat Europe). Solar Energy for Heating and Cooling. Available online: https://solarheateurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/2-graphs_2023_sector_heat.png (accessed on 18 April 2025).
  70. Sarbu, I.; Sebarchievici, C. Review of Solar Refrigeration and Cooling Systems. Energy Build. 2013, 67, 286–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. SHC (Solar Heating and Cooling Programme). Solar Heat for Industrial Processes (SHIP); IEA (International Energy Agency): Paris, France, 2024; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  72. Kalogirou, S.A. Solar Thermal Collectors and Applications. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2004, 30, 231–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Barone, G.; Buonomano, A.; Forzano, C.; Palombo, A. Chapter 6—Solar Thermal Collectors. In Solar Hydrogen Production; Calise, F., D’Accadia, M.D., Santarelli, M., Lanzini, A., Ferrero, D., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 151–178. ISBN 978-0-12-814853-2. [Google Scholar]
  74. Goswami, D.Y. Principles of Solar Engineering, 4th ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2022; ISBN 978-1-00-324438-7. [Google Scholar]
  75. Sheikholeslami, M. Solar Thermal Systems and Applications: New Design Techniques for Improved Thermal Performance; Elsevier: London, UK, 2024; ISBN 978-0-443-15839-1. [Google Scholar]
  76. Lei, Z.; Li, C.; Chen, B. Extractive Distillation: A Review. Sep. Purif. Rev. 2003, 32, 121–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Chan, Y.H.; Loh, S.K.; Chin, B.L.F.; Yiin, C.L.; How, B.S.; Cheah, K.W.; Wong, M.K.; Loy, A.C.M.; Gwee, Y.L.; Lo, S.L.Y.; et al. Fractionation and Extraction of Bio-Oil for Production of Greener Fuel and Value-Added Chemicals: Recent Advances and Future Prospects. Chem. Eng. J. 2020, 397, 125406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. KROHNE KROHNE|Distillation in the Chemical Industry—Atmospheric and Vacuum Distillation Measuring. Available online: https://www.krohne.com/en-us/industries/chemical-industry/distillation (accessed on 10 August 2025).
  79. Gu, W.; Huang, Y.; Wang, K.; Zhang, B.; Chen, Q.; Hui, C.-W. Comparative Analysis and Evaluation of Three Crude Oil Vacuum Distillation Processes for Process Selection. Energy 2014, 76, 559–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Atta, M.S.; Khan, H.; Ali, M.; Tariq, R.; Yasir, A.U.; Iqbal, M.M.; Din, S.U.; Krzywanski, J. Simulation of Vacuum Distillation Unit in Oil Refinery: Operational Strategies for Optimal Yield Efficiency. Energies 2024, 17, 3806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Hafez, A.Z.; Yousef, A.M.; Harag, N.M. Solar Tracking Systems: Technologies and Trackers Drive Types—A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 91, 754–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Marzouk, O.A. Coupled Differential-Algebraic Equations Framework for Modeling Six-Degree-of-Freedom Flight Dynamics of Asymmetric Fixed-Wing Aircraft. Int. J. Appl. Adv. Sci. 2025, 12, 30–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Marzouk, O.A. Tilt Sensitivity for a Scalable One-Hectare Photovoltaic Power Plant Composed of Parallel Racks in Muscat. Cogent Eng. 2022, 9, 2029243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Beily, M.D.E.; Sinaga, R.; Syarif, Z.; Pae, M.G.; Rochani, R. Design and Construction of a Low Cost of Solar Tracker Two Degree of Freedom (DOF) Based On Arduino. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Applied Science and Technology (iCAST), Padang, Indonesia, 24 October 2020; pp. 384–388. [Google Scholar]
  85. Marzouk, O.A. Characteristics of the Flow-Induced Vibration and Forces With 1- and 2-DOF Vibrations and Limiting Solid-to-Fluid Density Ratios. J. Vib. Acoust. 2010, 132, 041013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Safari, A.; Saidur, R.; Sulaiman, F.A.; Xu, Y.; Dong, J. A Review on Supercooling of Phase Change Materials in Thermal Energy Storage Systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 70, 905–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Zheng, H. Chapter 2—Solar Energy Utilization and Its Collection Devices. In Solar Energy Desalination Technology; Zheng, H., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 47–171. ISBN 978-0-12-805411-6. [Google Scholar]
  88. SINTEF Solar Heat in Industrial Processes (SHIP). Available online: https://www.sintef.no/en/expert-list/sintef-energy-research/solar-heat-in-industrial-processes-ship (accessed on 20 April 2025).
  89. Bees Group Solar Heat for Industrial Process—SHIP. Available online: https://www.beesgroup.energy/en/services/solar-heat-for-industrial-process-ship (accessed on 20 April 2025).
  90. Marzouk, O.A. Globalization and Diversity Requirement in Higher Education. In Proceedings of the 11th World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (WMSCI 2007)—The 13th International Conference on Information Systems Analysis and Synthesis (ISAS 2007), Orlando, FL, USA, 8–11 July 2007; IIIS (International Institute of Informatics and Systemics): Orlando, FL, USA, 2007; Volume III (3), pp. 101–106. [Google Scholar]
  91. Korkut, T.B.; Rachid, A. EduSolar: A Remote-Controlled Photovoltaic/Thermal Educational Lab with Integrated Daylight Simulation. Solar 2024, 4, 440–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Marzouk, O.A. Benchmarks for the Omani Higher Education Students-Faculty Ratio (SFR) Based on World Bank Data, QS Rankings, and THE Rankings. Cogent Educ. 2024, 11, 2317117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Ciriminna, R.; Meneguzzo, F.; Pecoraino, M.; Pagliaro, M. Rethinking Solar Energy Education on the Dawn of the Solar Economy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 63, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Marzouk, O.A. Benchmarking Retention, Progression, and Graduation Rates in Undergraduate Higher Education Across Different Time Windows. Cogent Educ. 2025, 12, 2498170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Ghomshei, M.; Villecco, F. Energy Metrics and Sustainability. In Computational Science and Its Applications—ICCSA 2009; Gervasi, O., Taniar, D., Murgante, B., Laganà, A., Mun, Y., Gavrilova, M.L., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; pp. 693–698. [Google Scholar]
  96. Marzouk, O.A. Temperature-Dependent Functions of the Electron–Neutral Momentum Transfer Collision Cross Sections of Selected Combustion Plasma Species. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 11282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Lima, M.A.; Mendes, L.F.R.; Mothé, G.A.; Linhares, F.G.; de Castro, M.P.P.; da Silva, M.G.; Sthel, M.S. Renewable Energy in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Reaching the Goals of the Paris Agreement in Brazil. Environ. Dev. 2020, 33, 100504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Marzouk, O.A. Assessment of Global Warming in Al Buraimi, Sultanate of Oman Based on Statistical Analysis of NASA POWER Data over 39 Years, and Testing the Reliability of NASA POWER against Meteorological Measurements. Heliyon 2021, 7, e06625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Philander, S.G. Encyclopedia of Global Warming and Climate Change: A–E; SAGE: London, UK, 2008; ISBN 978-1-4129-5878-3. [Google Scholar]
  100. Marzouk, O.A. Portrait of the Decarbonization and Renewables Penetration in Oman’s Energy Mix, Motivated by Oman’s National Green Hydrogen Plan. Energies 2024, 17, 4769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. RMG (Royal Museums Greenwich). Calculating the Energy Output of the Sun; RMG (Royal Museums Greenwich): London, UK, 2017; pp. 1–2. [Google Scholar]
  102. SWS (Australian Space Weather Forecasting System). The Solar Constant. Available online: https://www.sws.bom.gov.au/Educational/2/1/12 (accessed on 18 April 2025).
  103. Adel, M.M. Religion-Scientific Study of Solar Resting Phase and Solar-Lunar Finality: Solar Resting Phase and Solar-Lunar Finality. AL-IKHSAN Interdiscip. J. Islam. Stud. 2023, 1, 82–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Thirugnanasambandam, M.; Iniyan, S.; Goic, R. A Review of Solar Thermal Technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 312–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Marzouk, O.A. Land-Use Competitiveness of Photovoltaic and Concentrated Solar Power Technologies near the Tropic of Cancer. Sol. Energy 2022, 243, 103–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. WEC (World Energy Council). World Energy Resources: 2013 Survey; WEC (World Energy Council): London, UK, 2013; pp. 1–468. [Google Scholar]
  107. Mathew, S. Analysis of Wind Regimes. In Wind Energy: Fundamentals, Resource Analysis and Economics; Mathew, S., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2006; pp. 45–88. ISBN 978-3-540-30906-2. [Google Scholar]
  108. Eni. World Energy Review (WER), 23rd ed.; Eni S.p.A.: Rome, Italy, 2024; pp. 1–328. [Google Scholar]
  109. Marzouk, O.A. Expectations for the Role of Hydrogen and Its Derivatives in Different Sectors through Analysis of the Four Energy Scenarios: IEA-STEPS, IEA-NZE, IRENA-PES, and IRENA-1.5 °C. Energies 2024, 17, 646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. IEA (International Energy Agency). World Energy Outlook (WEO) 2023, 26th ed.; IEA (International Energy Agency): Paris, France, 2023; pp. 1–355. [Google Scholar]
  111. IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency). World Energy Transitions Outlook (WETO) 2023: 1.5 °C Pathway, 3rd ed.; IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency): Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2023; Volume 1, pp. 1–258. [Google Scholar]
  112. WEF (World Economic Forum). Fostering Effective Energy Transition—INSIGHT REPORT; WEF (World Economic Forum): Geneva, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 1–58. [Google Scholar]
  113. IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency). Renewable Capacity Statistics 2025; IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency): Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2025; pp. 1–75. [Google Scholar]
  114. Ember. Global Electricity Review 2025; Eni S.p.A.: London, UK, 2025; pp. 1–118. [Google Scholar]
  115. Kennedy, R. Solar Supplied over 10% of Global Electricity Consumption in 2024. Available online: https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2025/04/15/solar-supplied-over-10-of-global-electricity-consumption-in-2024 (accessed on 16 April 2025).
  116. IEA (International Energy Agency). Global Energy Review 2025; IEA (International Energy Agency): Paris, France, 2025; pp. 1–43. [Google Scholar]
  117. Casey, J.P. IEA: World Reaches 2.2TW of Cumulative Installed Solar Capacity. Available online: https://www.pv-tech.org/iea-world-reaches-2-2tw-cumulative-installed-solar-capacity (accessed on 16 April 2025).
  118. Siemens Gamesa Siemens Gamesa|Onshore Business. Available online: https://www.siemensgamesa.com/global/en/home/products-and-services/onshore.html (accessed on 28 July 2025).
  119. Marzouk, O.A. Wind Speed Weibull Model Identification in Oman, and Computed Normalized Annual Energy Production (NAEP) From Wind Turbines Based on Data from Weather Stations. Eng. Rep. 2025, 7, e70089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency). Renewable Capacity Highlights 2025; IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency): Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2025; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  121. REN21 Market and Industry Trends|CSP. Available online: https://www.ren21.net/gsr-2024/modules/energy_supply/02_market_and_industry_trends/02_csp (accessed on 18 April 2025).
  122. IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency). Renewable Energy Benefits: Leveraging Local Capacity for Concentrated Solar Power; IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency): Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2025; pp. 1–56. [Google Scholar]
  123. Pag, F.; Jesper, M.; Vajen, K.; Jordan, U. Oversizing Solar Heating Plants in Industry: A Cost-Effective Solution to Increase Solar Fractions. Sol. Energy Adv. 2024, 4, 100071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. REN21 Market and Industry Trends|Solar Thermal Heating. Available online: https://www.ren21.net/gsr-2024/modules/energy_supply/02_market_and_industry_trends/08_solarthermal (accessed on 18 April 2025).
  125. REN21 Market and Industry Trends|Ocean Power. Available online: https://www.ren21.net/gsr-2024/modules/energy_supply/02_market_and_industry_trends/06_oceanpower (accessed on 18 April 2025).
  126. Melikoglu, M. Current Status and Future of Ocean Energy Sources: A Global Review. Ocean Eng. 2018, 148, 563–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Marzouk, O.A.; Nayfeh, A.H. Characterization of the Flow over a Cylinder Moving Harmonically in the Cross-Flow Direction. Int. J. Non-Linear Mech. 2010, 45, 821–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Martínez, M.L.; Vázquez, G.; Pérez-Maqueo, O.; Silva, R.; Moreno-Casasola, P.; Mendoza-González, G.; López-Portillo, J.; MacGregor-Fors, I.; Heckel, G.; Hernández-Santana, J.R.; et al. A Systemic View of Potential Environmental Impacts of Ocean Energy Production. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 149, 111332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Fernández-García, A.; Zarza, E.; Valenzuela, L.; Pérez, M. Parabolic-Trough Solar Collectors and Their Applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 1695–1721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. OTT HydroMet Kipp & Zonen|Introduction (Solar Radiation). Available online: https://www.kippzonen.com/Knowledge-Center/Theoretical-info/Solar-Radiation/Introduction (accessed on 18 April 2025).
  131. Korevaar, M.A.N. Measuring Solar Irradiance for Photovoltaics. In Solar Radiation—Measurement, Modeling and Forecasting Techniques for Photovoltaic Solar Energy Applications; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2022; ISBN 978-1-83968-859-1. [Google Scholar]
  132. Marzouk, O.A. Lookup Tables for Power Generation Performance of Photovoltaic Systems Covering 40 Geographic Locations (Wilayats) in the Sultanate of Oman, with and without Solar Tracking, and General Perspectives about Solar Irradiation. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Golive, Y.R.; Singh, H.K.; Kottantharayil, A.; Vasi, J.; Shiradkar, N. Investigation of Accuracy of Various STC Correction Procedures for I-V Characteristics of PV Modules Measured at Different Temperature and Irradiances. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 46th Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC), Chicago, IL, USA, 16–21 June 2019; pp. 2743–2748. [Google Scholar]
  134. Zhu, Y.; Zhu, H.; Zhu, R.; Zhou, Y.; Qiu, M.; Li, Q. Photon-Engineered All-Day Radiative Warming Utilizing Solar and Atmospheric Energy. Adv. Opt. Mater. 2025, 13, 2402432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Marzouk, O.A.; Nayfeh, A.H. New Wake Models With Capability of Capturing Nonlinear Physics. In Proceedings of the ASME 2008 27th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE 2008), Estoril, Portugal, 15–20 June 2008; ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers): Estoril, Portugal, 2009; pp. 901–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Lawson, D. A Closer Look at Planck’s Blackbody Equation. Phys. Educ. 1997, 32, 321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Lévesque, L. Law of Cooling, Heat Conduction and Stefan-Boltzmann Radiation Laws Fitted to Experimental Data for Bones Irradiated by CO2 Laser. Biomed. Opt. Express BOE 2014, 5, 701–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Crepeau, J. Josef Stefan and His Contributions to Heat Transfer; American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection; American Society of Mechanical Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 669–676. [Google Scholar]
  139. Hoyt, D.V.; Schatten, K.H. The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1997; ISBN 978-0-19-535748-6. [Google Scholar]
  140. Boyd, C.E. Solar Radiation and Water Temperature. In Water Quality: An Introduction; Boyd, C.E., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 21–39. ISBN 978-3-030-23335-8. [Google Scholar]
  141. Miroshnichenko, L. Main Characteristics of the Sun. In Solar-Terrestrial Relations: From Solar Activity to Heliobiology; Miroshnichenko, L., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 7–20. ISBN 978-3-031-22548-2. [Google Scholar]
  142. Lapenta, G. Chapter 8—Space Weather: Variability in the Sun-Earth Connection. In The Dynamical Ionosphere; Materassi, M., Forte, B., Coster, A.J., Skone, S., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 61–85. ISBN 978-0-12-814782-5. [Google Scholar]
  143. Menezes, F.; Selhorst, C.L.; Valio, A. The Subterahertz Sun. Bol. Soc. Astronômica Bras. 2020, 31, 57–61. [Google Scholar]
  144. del Burgo, C.; Allende Prieto, C. Accurate Parameters for HD 209458 and Its Planet from HST Spectrophotometry. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2016, 463, 1400–1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. CENDI (United States Commerce, Energy, NASA, and Defense Information). Frequently Asked Questions about Copyright; CENDI (United States Commerce, Energy, NASA, and Defense Information): Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  146. Tasmin, N.; Farjana, S.H.; Hossain, M.R.; Golder, S.; Mahmud, M.A.P. Integration of Solar Process Heat in Industries: A Review. Clean Technol. 2022, 4, 97–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Masera, K.; Tannous, H.; Stojceska, V.; Tassou, S. An Investigation of the Recent Advances of the Integration of Solar Thermal Energy Systems to the Dairy Processes. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2023, 172, 113028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Mohammadi, K.; Khanmohammadi, S.; Immonen, J.; Powell, K. Techno-Economic Analysis and Environmental Benefits of Solar Industrial Process Heating Based on Parabolic Trough Collectors. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2021, 47, 101412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Ismail, M.I.; Yunus, N.A.; Hashim, H. Integration of Solar Heating Systems for Low-Temperature Heat Demand in Food Processing Industry—A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 147, 111192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Said, Z.; Ghodbane, M.; Tiwari, A.K.; Ali, H.M.; Boumeddane, B.; Ali, Z.M. 4E (Energy, Exergy, Economic, and Environment) Examination of a Small LFR Solar Water Heater: An Experimental and Numerical Study. Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 2021, 27, 101277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). Solar Heating and Cooling Technologies. Available online: https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/rhc/solar-heating-and-cooling-technologies (accessed on 19 April 2025).
  152. OpenLearn (The Open University). Can Renewable Energy Sources Power the World? Available online: https://www.open.edu/openlearn/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=73759&section=7 (accessed on 19 April 2025).
  153. Vengadesan, E.; Senthil, R. A Review on Recent Developments in Thermal Performance Enhancement Methods of Flat Plate Solar Air Collector. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 134, 110315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Ramani, B.M.; Gupta, A.; Kumar, R. Performance of a Double Pass Solar Air Collector. Sol. Energy 2010, 84, 1929–1937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Tripanagnostopoulos, Y.; Souliotis, M.; Nousia, T. Solar Collectors with Colored Absorbers. Sol. Energy 2000, 68, 343–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Marzouk, O.A. Dataset of Total Emissivity for CO2, H2O, and H2O-CO2 Mixtures; over a Temperature Range of 300-2900 K and a Pressure-Pathlength Range of 0.01-50 Atm.m. Data Brief 2025, 59, 111428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Badache, M.; Rousse, D.R.; Hallé, S.; Quesada, G. Experimental and Numerical Simulation of a Two-Dimensional Unglazed Transpired Solar Air Collector. Sol. Energy 2013, 93, 209–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Karim, M.A.; Hawlader, M.N.A. Development of Solar Air Collectors for Drying Applications. Energy Convers. Manag. 2004, 45, 329–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Myroniuk, K.; Furdas, Y.; Zhelykh, V.; Adamski, M.; Gumen, O.; Savin, V.; Mitoulis, S.-A. Passive Ventilation of Residential Buildings Using the Trombe Wall. Buildings 2024, 14, 3154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). EPA Sketch|Transpired Solar Air Collectors. Available online: https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/medium/public/2014-11/transpired.png (accessed on 12 April 2025).
  161. García, J.; Socolovsky, H.; Plá, J. On the Spectral Response Measurement of Multijunction Solar Cells. Meas. Sci. Technol. 2017, 28, 055203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Simon, M.; Meyer, E.L. The Effects of Spectral Evaluation of C-Si Modules. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2011, 19, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Zhang, G.; Liu, C.; Wang, J.; Kuang, X.; Su, Q. A Dual-Mode Solar Spectral Converter CaLaGa3S6O:Ce3+,Pr3+: UV-Vis-NIR Luminescence Properties and Solar Spectral Converting Mechanism. J. Mater. Chem. 2012, 22, 2226–2232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Farina, A.; Carlotto, A.; Varas, S.; Chiasera, A.; Pietralunga, S.M. An Asymmetric Low Concentrator and Spectral Splitting Approach to Bifacial Four-Terminal Photovoltaic Modules. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2023, 31, 1299–1314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Ferrada, P.; Marzo, A.; Cabrera, E.; Chu, H.; del Campo, V.; Rabanal, J.; Diaz-Almeida, D.; Schneider, A.; Kopecek, R. Potential for Photogenerated Current for Silicon Based Photovoltaic Modules in the Atacama Desert. Sol. Energy 2017, 144, 580–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Zhao, J.; Song, Y.; Lam, W.-H.; Liu, W.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, D. Solar Radiation Transfer and Performance Analysis of an Optimum Photovoltaic/Thermal System. Energy Convers. Manag. 2011, 52, 1343–1353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Law, A.M.; Jones, L.O.; Walls, J.M. The Performance and Durability of Anti-Reflection Coatings for Solar Module Cover Glass—A Review. Sol. Energy 2023, 261, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Sjerps-Koomen, E.A.; Alsema, E.A.; Turkenburg, W.C. A Simple Model for PV Module Reflection Losses under Field Conditions. Sol. Energy 1996, 57, 421–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Herrando, M.; Pantaleo, A.M.; Wang, K.; Markides, C.N. Solar Combined Cooling, Heating and Power Systems Based on Hybrid PVT, PV or Solar-Thermal Collectors for Building Applications. Renew. Energy 2019, 143, 637–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Lorestani, A.; Ardehali, M.M. Optimization of Autonomous Combined Heat and Power System Including PVT, WT, Storages, and Electric Heat Utilizing Novel Evolutionary Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm. Renew. Energy 2018, 119, 490–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Ishak, M.A.A.B.; Ibrahim, A.; Fazlizan, A.; Fauzan, M.F.; Sopian, K.; Rahmat, A.A. Exergy Performance of a Reversed Circular Flow Jet Impingement Bifacial Photovoltaic Thermal (PVT) Solar Collector. Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 2023, 49, 103322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Rajani, A.; Said, D.M.; Noorden, Z.A.; Ahmad, N.; Atmaja, T.D.; Fudholi, A. Performance Evaluation of Bifacial Photovoltaic Thermal Systems in Environmental Condition. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Power Engineering and Energy (APEE), Johor Bahru, Malaysia, 10–11 September 2024; pp. 53–58. [Google Scholar]
  173. Mahmood, A.J. Experimental Study for Improving Unglazed Solar System. Cogent Eng. 2021, 8, 1961564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Medved, S.; Arkar, C.; Černe, B. A Large-Panel Unglazed Roof-Integrated Liquid Solar Collector––Energy and Economic Evaluation. Sol. Energy 2003, 75, 455–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Shemelin, V.; Matuska, T. Unglazed Solar Thermal Collector for Building Facades. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 605–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). EPA Sketch|Unglazed Solar Collector. Available online: https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2014-11/unglazed.png (accessed on 12 April 2025).
  177. Dagdougui, H.; Ouammi, A.; Robba, M.; Sacile, R. Thermal Analysis and Performance Optimization of a Solar Water Heater Flat Plate Collector: Application to Tétouan (Morocco). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 630–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Klein, S.A. Calculation of Flat-Plate Collector Utilizability. Sol. Energy 1978, 21, 393–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Pandey, K.M.; Chaurasiya, R. A Review on Analysis and Development of Solar Flat Plate Collector. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 67, 641–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). EPA Sketch|Flat-Plate Solar Collectors. Available online: https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2014-11/flat-plate.png (accessed on 12 April 2025).
  181. Griffiths, P.W.; di Leo, M.; Cartwright, P.; Eames, P.C.; Yianoulis, P.; Leftheriotis, G.; Norton, B. Fabrication of Evacuated Glazing at Low Temperature. Sol. Energy 1998, 63, 243–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Marzouk, O.A. InvSim Algorithm for Pre-Computing Airplane Flight Controls in Limited-Range Autonomous Missions, and Demonstration via Double-Roll Maneuver of Mirage III Fighters. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 23382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Ghosh, A.; Norton, B.; Duffy, A. Measured Thermal Performance of a Combined Suspended Particle Switchable Device Evacuated Glazing. Appl. Energy 2016, 169, 469–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Collins, R.E.; Robinson, S.J. Evacuated Glazing. Sol. Energy 1991, 47, 27–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Ghosh, A.; Norton, B.; Duffy, A. Effect of Sky Clearness Index on Transmission of Evacuated (Vacuum) Glazing. Renew. Energy 2017, 105, 160–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Sampathkumar, K.; Arjunan, T.V.; Senthilkumar, P. The Experimental Investigation of a Solar Still Coupled with an Evacuated Tube Collector. Energy Sources Part A Recovery Util. Environ. Eff. 2013, 35, 261–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Chopra, K.; Tyagi, V.V.; Pandey, A.K.; Sari, A. Global Advancement on Experimental and Thermal Analysis of Evacuated Tube Collector with and without Heat Pipe Systems and Possible Applications. Appl. Energy 2018, 228, 351–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Sabiha, M.A.; Saidur, R.; Mekhilef, S.; Mahian, O. Progress and Latest Developments of Evacuated Tube Solar Collectors. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 51, 1038–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Chai, S.; Yao, J.; Liang, J.-D.; Chiang, Y.-C.; Zhao, Y.; Chen, S.-L.; Dai, Y. Heat Transfer Analysis and Thermal Performance Investigation on an Evacuated Tube Solar Collector with Inner Concentrating by Reflective Coating. Sol. Energy 2021, 220, 175–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Sobhansarbandi, S.; Martinez, P.M.; Papadimitratos, A.; Zakhidov, A.; Hassanipour, F. Evacuated Tube Solar Collector with Multifunctional Absorber Layers. Sol. Energy 2017, 146, 342–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Chen, X.; Yang, X. Heat Transfer Enhancement for U-Pipe Evacuated Tube Solar Absorber by High-Emissivity Coating on Metal Fin. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 50, 104213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). EPA Sketch|Evacuated Tube Solar Collectors. Available online: https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2014-11/evacuated-tube.png (accessed on 12 April 2025).
  193. AET (Alternative Energy Tutorials). Evacuated Tube Collector for Solar Hot Water System. Available online: https://www.alternative-energy-tutorials.com/solar-hot-water/evacuated-tube-collector.html (accessed on 19 April 2025).
  194. Marzouk, O.A.; Huckaby, E.D. Simulation of a Swirling Gas-Particle Flow Using Different k-Epsilon Models and Particle-Parcel Relationships. Eng. Lett. 2010, 18, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  195. Jafari Mosleh, H.; Jahangiri Mamouri, S.; Shafii, M.B.; Hakim Sima, A. A New Desalination System Using a Combination of Heat Pipe, Evacuated Tube and Parabolic Trough Collector. Energy Convers. Manag. 2015, 99, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Elsheniti, M.B.; Kotb, A.; Elsamni, O. Thermal Performance of a Heat-Pipe Evacuated-Tube Solar Collector at High Inlet Temperatures. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2019, 154, 315–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Ayompe, L.M.; Duffy, A. Thermal Performance Analysis of a Solar Water Heating System with Heat Pipe Evacuated Tube Collector Using Data from a Field Trial. Sol. Energy 2013, 90, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Tauquir, A.; Singh, S.K. Analysis of Evacuated Tube Heatpipe Collectors Using Oil and Foamed Metals:—A Review. Int. J. Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. 2022, 8, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  199. Marzouk, O.A. Evolutionary Computing Applied to Design Optimization. In Proceedings of the ASME 2007 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (IDETC-CIE 2007), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 4–7 September 2007; ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers): Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2009; Volume 2, pp. 995–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Rybár, R.; Beer, M. The Comparative Field Performance Study of Heat Pipe Evacuated Tube Collectors with Standard Design Manifold Header and Parallel Flow Manifold Header Based on the Metal Foam Structural Element. Sol. Energy 2015, 122, 359–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Ratismith, W.; Favre, Y. Novel Non-Tracking Solar Collector with Metal-to-Water Contact. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 15th International Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering (EEEIC), Rome, Italy, 10–13 June 2015; pp. 347–351. [Google Scholar]
  202. Marzouk, O.A.; Nayfeh, A.H. A Study of the Forces on an Oscillating Cylinder. In Proceedings of the ASME 2007 26th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE 2007), San Diego, CA, USA, 10–15 June 2007; ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers): San Diego, CA, USA, 2009; pp. 741–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Lim, C.S.L.; Sobhansarbandi, S. CFD Modeling of an Evacuated U-Tube Solar Collector Integrated with a Novel Heat Transfer Fluid. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2022, 52, 102051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Marzouk, O.A. One-Way and Two-Way Couplings of CFD and Structural Models and Application to the Wake-Body Interaction. Appl. Math. Model. 2011, 35, 1036–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Marzouk, O.A. Contrasting the Cartesian and Polar Forms of the Shedding-Induced Force Vector in Response to 12 Subharmonic and Superharmonic Mechanical Excitations. Fluid Dyn. Res. 2010, 42, 035507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Fok, S.C.; Tan, F.L.; Leow, K.K. CAD Modelling of Solidification Phase Front around a Vertical Finned Tube. Int. J. Comput. Aided Eng. Technol. 2012, 4, 420–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Marzouk, O.A. Flow Control Using Bifrequency Motion. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 2011, 25, 381–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Rosa, C.; Panagiotis, T.; Vassiliki, D. Optical Analysis of an Evacuated Tube Collector with Built-in Compound Parabolic Concentrator for Process Heat Applications. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 410, 012040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Jebasingh, V.K.; Herbert, G.M.J. A Review of Solar Parabolic Trough Collector. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 54, 1085–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Manikandan, G.K.; Iniyan, S.; Goic, R. Enhancing the Optical and Thermal Efficiency of a Parabolic Trough Collector—A Review. Appl. Energy 2019, 235, 1524–1540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Naveenkumar, R.; Ravichandran, M.; Stalin, B.; Ghosh, A.; Karthick, A.; Aswin, L.S.R.L.; Priyanka, S.S.H.; Kumar, S.P.; Kumar, S.K. Comprehensive Review on Various Parameters That Influence the Performance of Parabolic Trough Collector. Environ. Sci Pollut. Res 2021, 28, 22310–22333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Kalogirou, S.A. A Detailed Thermal Model of a Parabolic Trough Collector Receiver. Energy 2012, 48, 298–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). EPA Sketch|Concentrating Solar Systems (Parabolic Trough Collector). Available online: https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2014-11/concentrating-solar.png (accessed on 12 April 2025).
  214. Gharat, P.V.; Bhalekar, S.S.; Dalvi, V.H.; Panse, S.V.; Deshmukh, S.P.; Joshi, J.B. Chronological Development of Innovations in Reflector Systems of Parabolic Trough Solar Collector (PTC)—A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 145, 111002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Upadhyay, B.H.; Patel, A.J.; Ramana, P.V. A Detailed Review on Solar Parabolic Trough Collector. Int. J. Ambient Energy 2022, 43, 176–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Goel, A.; Manik, G.; Mahadeva, R. A Review of Parabolic Trough Collector and Its Modeling. In Soft Computing: Theories and Applications; Pant, M., Sharma, T.K., Verma, O.P., Singla, R., Sikander, A., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 803–813. [Google Scholar]
  217. Mokhtar, G.; Boussad, B.; Noureddine, S. A Linear Fresnel Reflector as a Solar System for Heating Water: Theoretical and Experimental Study. Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 2016, 8, 176–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Abbas, R.; Montes, M.J.; Piera, M.; Martínez-Val, J.M. Solar Radiation Concentration Features in Linear Fresnel Reflector Arrays. Energy Convers. Manag. 2012, 54, 133–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Wang, G.; Wang, F.; Shen, F.; Jiang, T.; Chen, Z.; Hu, P. Experimental and Optical Performances of a Solar CPV Device Using a Linear Fresnel Reflector Concentrator. Renew. Energy 2020, 146, 2351–2361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. DOE (United States Department of Energy). DOE Sketch|Linear Fresnel Reflector Systems. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_article_width/public/linear_frisnel.gif (accessed on 12 April 2025).
  221. Wang, G.; Ge, Z.; Lin, J. Design and Performance Analysis of a Novel Solar Photovoltaic/Thermal System Using Compact Linear Fresnel Reflector and Nanofluids Beam Splitting Device. Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 2022, 35, 102167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Wang, G.; Wang, F.; Shen, F.; Chen, Z.; Hu, P. Novel Design and Thermodynamic Analysis of a Solar Concentration PV and Thermal Combined System Based on Compact Linear Fresnel Reflector. Energy 2019, 180, 133–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Babu, M.; Sekhar Babu, P.; Raj, S.S.; Saravanan, S. Theoretical Design, Material Study and Material Selection for Compact Linear Fresnel Reflector Concentrating System. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 45, 1671–1678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Kumar, K.H.; Daabo, A.M.; Karmakar, M.K.; Hirani, H. Solar Parabolic Dish Collector for Concentrated Solar Thermal Systems: A Review and Recommendations. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 32335–32367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  225. Maurya, A.; Kumar, A.; Sharma, D. A Comprehensive Review on Performance Assessment of Solar Cavity Receiver with Parabolic Dish Collector. Energy Sources Part A Recovery Util. Environ. Eff. 2022, 44, 4808–4845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Vishnu, S.K.; Senthil, R. Experimental Performance Evaluation of a Solar Parabolic Dish Collector Using Spiral Flow Path Receiver. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2023, 231, 120979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. DOE (United States Department of Energy). DOE Sketch|Dish/Engine System. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_article_width/public/dish_receivers.gif (accessed on 12 April 2025).
  228. Srilakshmi, G.; Venkatesh, V.; Thirumalai, N.C.; Suresh, N.S. Challenges and Opportunities for Solar Tower Technology in India. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 45, 698–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Segal, A.; Epstein, M. The Optics of the Solar Tower Reflector. Sol. Energy 2001, 69, 229–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. Milidonis, K.; Blanco, M.J.; Grigoriev, V.; Panagiotou, C.F.; Bonanos, A.M.; Constantinou, M.; Pye, J.; Asselineau, C.-A. Review of Application of AI Techniques to Solar Tower Systems. Sol. Energy 2021, 224, 500–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. Zhou, X.; Yang, J.; Xiao, B.; Hou, G.; Xing, F. Analysis of Chimney Height for Solar Chimney Power Plant. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2009, 29, 178–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  232. Zhou, X.; Wang, F.; Ochieng, R.M. A Review of Solar Chimney Power Technology. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 2315–2338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Marzouk, O.A. Energy Generation Intensity (EGI) of Solar Updraft Tower (SUT) Power Plants Relative to CSP Plants and PV Power Plants Using the New Energy Simulator “Aladdin”. Energies 2024, 17, 405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  234. Shi, L.; Zhang, G.; Yang, W.; Huang, D.; Cheng, X.; Setunge, S. Determining the Influencing Factors on the Performance of Solar Chimney in Buildings. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 88, 223–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  235. Ong, K.S. A Mathematical Model of a Solar Chimney. Renew. Energy 2003, 28, 1047–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. Ong, K.S.; Chow, C.C. Performance of a Solar Chimney. Sol. Energy 2003, 74, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Afonso, C.; Oliveira, A. Solar Chimneys: Simulation and Experiment. Energy Build. 2000, 32, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. DOE (United States Department of Energy). DOE Sketch|Power Tower System (Solar Electricity and Industrial Process Heat). Available online: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_article_width/public/2023-05/Concentrating-Solar-Thermal-Power-Applications.PNG (accessed on 12 April 2025).
  239. DOE (United States Department of Energy). DOE Sketch|Power Tower System. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_article_width/public/power_tower.gif (accessed on 12 April 2025).
  240. Mubarrat, M.; Mashfy, M.M.; Farhan, T.; Ehsan, M.M. Research Advancement and Potential Prospects of Thermal Energy Storage in Concentrated Solar Power Application. Int. J. Thermofluids 2023, 20, 100431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  241. Alexopoulos, S.; Hoffschmidt, B. Concentrating Receiver Systems (Solar Power Tower). In Solar Thermal Energy; Alexopoulos, S., Kalogirou, S.A., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 63–110. ISBN 978-1-07-161422-8. [Google Scholar]
  242. Okoroigwe, E.; Madhlopa, A. An Integrated Combined Cycle System Driven by a Solar Tower: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 57, 337–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  243. Collado, F.J.; Guallar, J. A Review of Optimized Design Layouts for Solar Power Tower Plants with Campo Code. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 20, 142–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  244. Boretti, A.; Castelletto, S.; Al-Zubaidy, S. Concentrating Solar Power Tower Technology: Present Status and Outlook. Nonlinear Eng. 2019, 8, 10–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  245. Reddy, K.S.; Ravi Kumar, K.; Devaraj, V.A. Feasibility Analysis of Megawatt Scale Solar Thermal Power Plants. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2012, 4, 063111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  246. Pavlović, T.M.; Radonjić, I.S.; Milosavljević, D.D.; Pantić, L.S. A Review of Concentrating Solar Power Plants in the World and Their Potential Use in Serbia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 3891–3902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  247. Poullikkas, A. Economic Analysis of Power Generation from Parabolic Trough Solar Thermal Plants for the Mediterranean Region—A Case Study for the Island of Cyprus. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2009, 13, 2474–2484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  248. Kaltschmitt, M.; Streicher, W.; Wiese, A. (Eds.) Solar Thermal Power Plants. In Renewable Energy: Technology, and Environment Economics; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 171–228. ISBN 978-3-540-70949-7. [Google Scholar]
  249. Ahmed, M.H.; Rady, M.; Amin, A.M.A.; Montagnino, F.M.; Paredes, F. Comparison of Thermal and Optical Performance of Linear Fresnel and Parabolic Trough Concentrator. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Applications (ICRERA), Palermo, Italy, 22–25 November 2015; pp. 626–629. [Google Scholar]
  250. Abu-Bakar, S.H.; Muhammad-Sukki, F.; Ramirez-Iniguez, R.; Burek, S.; Mallick, T.K.; McLennan, C.; Munir, A.B.; Yasin, S.H.M. Renewable Heat Incentive for Solar Thermal Systems in the United Kingdom: The next Big Thing? In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International Conference on Power and Energy (PECon), Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, 2–5 December 2012; pp. 626–631. [Google Scholar]
  251. Grubler, A.; Wilson, C. Energy Technology Innovation: Learning from Historical Successes and Failures; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013; ISBN 978-1-107-72918-6. [Google Scholar]
  252. Lizárraga-Morazán, J.-R.; Picón-Núñez, M. Optimal Determination of the Q/A Factor for Parabolic Concentrator Solar Collector Networks. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2024, 114, 319–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  253. SSC WG (Small-Scale Working Group). Annex 3 Analysis and Explanation of the Conversion Factor for Solar Thermal Collectors; UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change): Bonn, Germany, 2007; pp. 1–3. [Google Scholar]
  254. Reddy, K.S.; Kumar, K.R. Solar Collector Field Design and Viability Analysis of Stand-Alone Parabolic Trough Power Plants for Indian Conditions. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2012, 16, 456–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  255. Perers, B.; Karlsson, B. External Reflectors for Large Solar Collector Arrays, Simulation Model and Experimental Results. Sol. Energy 1993, 51, 327–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  256. Obstawski, P.; Bakoń, T.; Czekalski, D. Comparison of Solar Collector Testing Methods—Theory and Practice. Processes 2020, 8, 1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  257. Cau, G.; Cocco, D. Comparison of Medium-Size Concentrating Solar Power Plants Based on Parabolic Trough and Linear Fresnel Collectors. Energy Procedia 2014, 45, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  258. Solarthermalworld Solarthermalworld|About Us. Available online: https://solarthermalworld.org/about-us (accessed on 20 April 2025).
  259. EEF (European Energy Forum). ICA Europe. Available online: https://www.europeanenergyforum.eu/associate-member/european-copper-institute (accessed on 20 April 2025).
  260. Solar Payback Solar Payback|Suppliers. Available online: https://www.solar-payback.com/suppliers (accessed on 20 April 2025).
  261. Solrico Solrico|Contact Us. Available online: https://www.solrico.com/index.php?id=12 (accessed on 20 April 2025).
  262. Fairlie, R.; Fossen, F.M. The Early Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Business Sales. Small Bus Econ 2022, 58, 1853–1864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  263. Meyer, B.H.; Prescott, B.; Sheng, X.S. The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Business Expectations. Int. J. Forecast. 2022, 38, 529–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  264. Szczygielski, J.J.; Brzeszczyński, J.; Charteris, A.; Bwanya, P.R. The COVID-19 Storm and the Energy Sector: The Impact and Role of Uncertainty. Energy Econ. 2022, 109, 105258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  265. Solarthermalworld Solarthermalworld|2024 Global SHIP Market According to New Capacity per Country. Available online: https://solarthermalworld.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2024-Global-SHIP-market-according-to-new-capacity-per-country.png (accessed on 21 April 2025).
  266. Solarthermalworld Solarthermalworld|2024 Global SHIP Market According to Collector Type. Available online: https://solarthermalworld.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2024-Global-SHIP-market-according-to-collector-type.png (accessed on 21 April 2025).
  267. Otte, P.P. Solar Cookers in Developing Countries—What Is Their Key to Success? Energy Policy 2013, 63, 375–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  268. Cuce, E.; Cuce, P.M. A Comprehensive Review on Solar Cookers. Appl. Energy 2013, 102, 1399–1421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  269. Arunachala, U.C.; Kundapur, A. Cost-Effective Solar Cookers: A Global Review. Sol. Energy 2020, 207, 903–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  270. Padonou, E.A.; Akabassi, G.C.; Akakpo, B.A.; Sinsin, B. Importance of Solar Cookers in Women’s Daily Lives: A Review. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2022, 70, 466–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  271. Wentzel, M.; Pouris, A. The Development Impact of Solar Cookers: A Review of Solar Cooking Impact Research in South Africa. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 1909–1919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  272. Xiaowu, W.; Ben, H. Exergy Analysis of Domestic-Scale Solar Water Heaters. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2005, 9, 638–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  273. Buckles, W.E.; Klein, S.A. Analysis of Solar Domestic Hot Water Heaters. Sol. Energy 1980, 25, 417–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  274. Nanda, I.R.; Pambudi, N.A.; Aziz, M. Review on the Progress of Solar Water Heaters and Their Future Perspectives. Energy Technol. 2023, 11, 2300191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  275. Jaisankar, S.; Ananth, J.; Thulasi, S.; Jayasuthakar, S.T.; Sheeba, K.N. A Comprehensive Review on Solar Water Heaters. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 3045–3050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  276. Al-Badi, A.H.; Albadi, M.H. Domestic Solar Water Heating System in Oman: Current Status and Future Prospects. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 5727–5731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  277. Kalogirou, S.A. Environmental Benefits of Domestic Solar Energy Systems. Energy Convers. Manag. 2004, 45, 3075–3092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  278. Ayadi, O.; Al-Dahidi, S. Comparison of Solar Thermal and Solar Electric Space Heating and Cooling Systems for Buildings in Different Climatic Regions. Sol. Energy 2019, 188, 545–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  279. Artur, C.; Neves, D.; Cuamba, B.C.; Leão, A.J. Comparison of Two Dynamic Approaches to Modelling Solar Thermal Systems for Domestic Hot Water. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2018, 30, 292–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  280. Nafey, A.S. Simulation of Solar Heating Systems—An Overview. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2005, 9, 576–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  281. Oliveira, M.C.; Iten, M. Modelling of A Solar Thermal Energy System For Energy Efficiency Improvement In A Ceramic Plant. Renew. Energy Environ. Sustain. 2021, 6, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  282. Modelica Association Modelica|Modelica Language. Available online: https://modelica.org/language (accessed on 11 August 2025).
  283. OSMC (Open Source Modelica Consortium). OpenModelica|Projects. Available online: https://openmodelica.org/research/projects (accessed on 11 August 2025).
  284. OSMC (Open Source Modelica Consortium). OpenModelica|Modelica.Thermal. Available online: https://build.openmodelica.org/Documentation/Modelica.Thermal.html (accessed on 11 August 2025).
  285. Ferhatbegović, T.; Zucker, G.; Palensky, P. Model Based Predictive Control for a Solar-Thermal System. In Proceedings of the IEEE Africon ’11, Victoria Falls, Zambia, 13–15 September 2011; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  286. Marzouk, O.A.; Nayfeh, A.H. Mitigation of Ship Motion Using Passive and Active Anti-Roll Tanks. In Proceedings of the ASME 2007 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (IDETC-CIE 2007), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 4–7 September 2007; ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers): Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2009; pp. 215–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  287. da Silva, R.M.; Fernandes, J.L.M. Hybrid Photovoltaic/Thermal (PV/T) Solar Systems Simulation with Simulink/Matlab. Sol. Energy 2010, 84, 1985–1996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  288. Marzouk, O.A.; Nayfeh, A.H. Control of Ship Roll Using Passive and Active Anti-Roll Tanks. Ocean Eng. 2009, 36, 661–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  289. Marzouk, O.A.; Nayfeh, A.H. Fluid Forces and Structure-Induced Damping of Obliquely-Oscillating Offshore Structures. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference (ISOPE-2008), Vancouver, BC, Canada, 6–11 July 2008; ISOPE (International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers): Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2008; Volume 3, pp. 460–468. [Google Scholar]
  290. Marzouk, O.A.; Nayfeh, A.H. Reduction of the Loads on a Cylinder Undergoing Harmonic In-Line Motion. Phys. Fluids 2009, 21, 083103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  291. Malvi, C.S.; Dixon-Hardy, D.W.; Crook, R. Energy Balance Model of Combined Photovoltaic Solar-Thermal System Incorporating Phase Change Material. Sol. Energy 2011, 85, 1440–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  292. Marzouk, O.A.; Nayfeh, A.H. Loads on a Harmonically Oscillating Cylinder. In Proceedings of the ASME 2007 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (IDETC-CIE 2007), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 4–7 September 2007; ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers): Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2009; pp. 1755–1774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  293. Lamnatou, C.; Mondol, J.D.; Chemisana, D.; Maurer, C. Modelling and Simulation of Building-Integrated Solar Thermal Systems: Behaviour of the System. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 45, 36–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  294. Tijani, A.S.; Roslan, A.M.S.B. Simulation Analysis of Thermal Losses of Parabolic Trough Solar Collector in Malaysia Using Computational Fluid Dynamics. Procedia Technol. 2014, 15, 841–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  295. Bierman, B.; Al-Lawatia, H.; DiFilippo, M.; O’Donnell, J. Deploying Enclosed Trough for Thermal EOR at Commercial Scale. AIP Conf. Proc. 2018, 2033, 030002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  296. Vajpayee, S.; Rawat, T.; Bhalala, V. Mathematical Modeling of Thermal Enhanced Oil Recovery Method. JME 2023, 13, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  297. EPCM EPCM|An Overview and History of Oil Recovery from On-Shore Oil Reserves. Available online: https://epcmholdings.com/an-overview-and-history-of-oil-recovery-from-on-shore-oil-reserves (accessed on 11 August 2025).
  298. GlassPoint GlassPoint|Maaden Solar I. Available online: https://www.glasspoint.com/projects/maaden-solar (accessed on 11 August 2025).
  299. Kar, M.K.; Önal, M.A.R.; Borra, C.R. Alumina Recovery from Bauxite Residue: A Concise Review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2023, 198, 107158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  300. Donoghue, A.M.; Frisch, N.; Olney, D. Bauxite Mining and Alumina Refining: Process Description and Occupational Health Risks. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2014, 56, S12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  301. Mahadevan, H.; Ramachandran, T.R. Recent Trends in Alumina and Aluminium Production Technology. Bull. Mater. Sci. 1996, 19, 905–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  302. Metson, J. Alumina. In Fundamentals of Aluminium Metallurgy; Lumley, R., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing Series in Metals and Surface Engineering; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2011; pp. 23–48. ISBN 978-1-84569-654-2. [Google Scholar]
  303. Maaden (Saudi Arabian Mining Company). Maaden|About Maaden. Available online: https://maaden.com/discover-us/about-maaden (accessed on 11 August 2025).
  304. Huang, J.; Fan, J.; Furbo, S. Feasibility Study on Solar District Heating in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 108, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  305. Perez-Mora, N.; Bava, F.; Andersen, M.; Bales, C.; Lennermo, G.; Nielsen, C.; Furbo, S.; Martínez-Moll, V. Solar District Heating and Cooling: A Review. Int. J. Energy Res. 2018, 42, 1419–1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  306. de Vega, M.; Almendros-Ibañez, J.A.; Ruiz, G. Performance of a LiBr–Water Absorption Chiller Operating with Plate Heat Exchangers. Energy Convers. Manag. 2006, 47, 3393–3407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  307. Yu, F.W.; Chan, K.T.; Sit, R.K.Y.; Yang, J. Review of Standards for Energy Performance of Chiller Systems Serving Commercial Buildings. Energy Procedia 2014, 61, 2778–2782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Illustration of a SAC-P (solar air collector, plate version) SHIP system. This sketch is self-made (not taken from an external source).
Figure 1. Illustration of a SAC-P (solar air collector, plate version) SHIP system. This sketch is self-made (not taken from an external source).
Solar 05 00046 g001
Figure 2. Illustration of a SAC-T (solar air collector, transpired version) SHIP system. Adapted from a sketch in the public domain by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) [160].
Figure 2. Illustration of a SAC-T (solar air collector, transpired version) SHIP system. Adapted from a sketch in the public domain by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) [160].
Solar 05 00046 g002
Figure 3. Illustration of a PVT (photovoltaic–thermal) SHIP system. This sketch is self-made (not taken from an external source).
Figure 3. Illustration of a PVT (photovoltaic–thermal) SHIP system. This sketch is self-made (not taken from an external source).
Solar 05 00046 g003
Figure 4. Illustration of the USC (unglazed solar collector) SHIP system. Adapted from a sketch in the public domain by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) [176].
Figure 4. Illustration of the USC (unglazed solar collector) SHIP system. Adapted from a sketch in the public domain by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) [176].
Solar 05 00046 g004
Figure 5. Illustration of the FPC (flat plate collector) SHIP system. Adapted from a sketch in the public domain by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) [180].
Figure 5. Illustration of the FPC (flat plate collector) SHIP system. Adapted from a sketch in the public domain by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) [180].
Solar 05 00046 g005
Figure 6. Illustration of the ETC (evacuated tube collector) SHIP system. Adapted from a sketch in the public domain by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) [192].
Figure 6. Illustration of the ETC (evacuated tube collector) SHIP system. Adapted from a sketch in the public domain by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) [192].
Solar 05 00046 g006
Figure 7. Illustration of an ETC-CPC (evacuated tube collector with compound parabolic concentrator) SHIP system. This sketch is self-made (not taken from an external source).
Figure 7. Illustration of an ETC-CPC (evacuated tube collector with compound parabolic concentrator) SHIP system. This sketch is self-made (not taken from an external source).
Solar 05 00046 g007
Figure 8. Illustration of the PTC (parabolic trough collector) SHIP system. Adapted from a sketch in the public domain by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) [213].
Figure 8. Illustration of the PTC (parabolic trough collector) SHIP system. Adapted from a sketch in the public domain by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) [213].
Solar 05 00046 g008
Figure 9. Illustration of the LFR (linear Fresnel reflector) SHIP system. Adapted from a sketch in the public domain by the United States Department of Energy (US DOE) [220].
Figure 9. Illustration of the LFR (linear Fresnel reflector) SHIP system. Adapted from a sketch in the public domain by the United States Department of Energy (US DOE) [220].
Solar 05 00046 g009
Figure 10. Illustration of the PDC (parabolic dish collector) SHIP system. Adapted from a sketch in the public domain by the United States Department of Energy (US DOE) [227].
Figure 10. Illustration of the PDC (parabolic dish collector) SHIP system. Adapted from a sketch in the public domain by the United States Department of Energy (US DOE) [227].
Solar 05 00046 g010
Figure 11. Illustration of the SPT (solar power tower) SHIP system. Adapted from a sketch in the public domain by the United States Department of Energy (US DOE) [238].
Figure 11. Illustration of the SPT (solar power tower) SHIP system. Adapted from a sketch in the public domain by the United States Department of Energy (US DOE) [238].
Solar 05 00046 g011
Figure 12. Another illustration of the SPT (solar power tower) SHIP system. Adapted from a sketch in the public domain by the United States Department of Energy (US DOE) [239].
Figure 12. Another illustration of the SPT (solar power tower) SHIP system. Adapted from a sketch in the public domain by the United States Department of Energy (US DOE) [239].
Solar 05 00046 g012
Figure 13. Historical records of annually added SHIP systems, from 2017 to 2024. This graph is self-made (not taken from an external source). Data source [260].
Figure 13. Historical records of annually added SHIP systems, from 2017 to 2024. This graph is self-made (not taken from an external source). Data source [260].
Solar 05 00046 g013
Figure 14. Historical records of annually added SHIP collector area and dependent annually added SHIP thermal capacity, from 2017 to 2024. This graph is self-made (not taken from an external source). Data source [260].
Figure 14. Historical records of annually added SHIP collector area and dependent annually added SHIP thermal capacity, from 2017 to 2024. This graph is self-made (not taken from an external source). Data source [260].
Solar 05 00046 g014
Figure 15. Countries with at least 1 MWth of newly added SHIP thermal capacity in 2024. This graph is self-made (not taken from an external source). Data source [265].
Figure 15. Countries with at least 1 MWth of newly added SHIP thermal capacity in 2024. This graph is self-made (not taken from an external source). Data source [265].
Solar 05 00046 g015
Figure 16. Percentage of added SHIP collector area in 2024, classified by system type. This graph is self-made (not taken from an external source). Data source [266].
Figure 16. Percentage of added SHIP collector area in 2024, classified by system type. This graph is self-made (not taken from an external source). Data source [266].
Solar 05 00046 g016
Figure 17. Added SHIP collector area in 2024, classified by system type. This graph is self-made (not taken from an external source). Data source [266].
Figure 17. Added SHIP collector area in 2024, classified by system type. This graph is self-made (not taken from an external source). Data source [266].
Solar 05 00046 g017
Figure 18. Number of added SHIP systems in 2024, classified by system type. This graph is self-made (not taken from an external source). Data source [266].
Figure 18. Number of added SHIP systems in 2024, classified by system type. This graph is self-made (not taken from an external source). Data source [266].
Solar 05 00046 g018
Table 1. Classification of solar concentrating collectors by focusing zone.
Table 1. Classification of solar concentrating collectors by focusing zone.
Line-Focused (Line-Concentrator)Point-Focused (Point-Concentrator)
Type 1LFR (linear Fresnel reflector)
CLFR (compact linear Fresnel reflector)
PDC (parabolic dish collector)
Type 2PTC (parabolic trough collector)SPT (solar power tower) or heliostats
Table 2. Classification of SHIP systems by the temperature rise [71,72,73,74,75].
Table 2. Classification of SHIP systems by the temperature rise [71,72,73,74,75].
Collector TypeLow Temperature Rise
(Below 75 °C)
Medium Temperature Rise
(75–150 °C)
High Temperature Rise
(150–400 °C)
SAC (solar air collector)
PVT (photovoltaic–thermal)
USC (unglazed solar collector)
FPC-U (flat plate collector, unevacuated)
FPC-E (flat plate collector, evacuated)
ETC (evacuated tube collector)
ETC-CPC (evacuated tube collector with compound parabolic concentrator)
PTC-U (parabolic trough collector, unevacuated absorber)
PTC-E (parabolic trough collector, evacuated absorber)
LFR-U (linear Fresnel reflector, unevacuated absorber); also, CLFR-U (compact linear Fresnel reflector, unevacuated)
LFR-E (linear Fresnel reflector, evacuated absorber); also, CLFR-E (compact linear Fresnel reflector, evacuated)
PDC (parabolic dish collector)
SPT (solar power tower) or heliostats
Table 3. Classification of SHIP systems by the solar tracking capability.
Table 3. Classification of SHIP systems by the solar tracking capability.
Collector TypeStationarySingle-Axis TrackingTwo-Axis Tracking
SAC (solar air collector)
PVT (photovoltaic–thermal)
USC (unglazed solar collector)
FPC (flat plate collector)
ETC (evacuated tube collector)
PTC (parabolic trough collector)
LFR (linear Fresnel reflector)
PDC (parabolic dish collector)
SPT (solar power tower) or heliostats
Table 4. Examples of various power capacities (from largest to smallest).
Table 4. Examples of various power capacities (from largest to smallest).
Power Capacity TypeValueReference(s)
Power radiated from the sun3.849 × 1017 GW[101,102,103]
Solar power reaching the Earth1.8 × 108 GW[104,105,106,107]
Global electricity, 20238900 GW[108]
Global electricity, 20228643 GW[109]
Global electricity, 20218230 GW[110]
Global electricity, 20207694 GW[111]
Global renewable power, 20244448 GW[112]
Global renewable power, 20233863 GW[113]
Global solar power, 20242200 GW
(almost entirely photovoltaic “PV”)
[114,115,116,117]
Global hydropower, 20241283 GW[118,119,120]
Global wind power, 20241133 GW
Global bio power, 2024151 GW
Global geothermal power, 202415 GW
Global CSP, 20236.7 GW[121]
Global CSP, 20206.4 GW[122]
SHIP, 20230.951 GW[123]
SHIP, 20220.857 GW[124]
Global marine (ocean) power, 20230.513 GW[125,126,127,128]
Power radiated from 1 m2 of the sun0.0633 GW[129,130,131]
Standard test condition (STC) of solar radiative power to 1 m2 of the Earth10−6 GW[132,133]
Table 5. Classification of SHIP systems by application sector and process.
Table 5. Classification of SHIP systems by application sector and process.
Application Process
Application SectorLow Temperature Rise
(Below 75 °C)
Medium Temperature Rise
(75–150 °C)
High Temperature Rise
(150–400 °C)
AgricultureGreenhouse heating
Drying
BuildingsSpace heating
Showering
Washing
Cleaning
Cooking
District heatingFeeding into heat networksFeeding into heat networks
IndustryHeat treatment
Drying
Distilling
Pulping
Drying of paint
ChemicalDistillingDistillingDistilling
Food and beverageDryingBoiling
Pasteurizing
Sterilizing
MiningCopper electrolytic refining
Mineral drying processes
Copper electrolytic refining
Mineral drying processes
Nitrate melting
Alumina production
TextileWashingBleaching
Dyeing
Dyeing
WoodSteaming (steam bending)Steaming (steam bending)Drying
Table 6. Summary of selected previous SHIP studies.
Table 6. Summary of selected previous SHIP studies.
Main AimSystem TypeMain FindingsReference
Integrating solar process heat in industriesFlat plate, parabolic trough, air collectorIn the (food, beverage, and agriculture) sector, 51% of the solar process heat integration takes place at the supply level, while 27.3% takes place at the process level.[146]
Integration of solar thermal energy systems into the dairy processesParabolic trough, linear FresnelThe dairy industry has a big potential to utilize solar energy for heating. Parabolic trough collectors and linear Fresnel reflectors are the most suitable solar collectors for this sector. Solar-powered cooling through the use of solar absorption chillers can be implemented.[147]
Techno-economic-environmental analysis for using a 5 MWth systemParabolic trough collectorA SHIP plant in Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, can deliver an annual thermal energy of 15,389.24 MWth/year. Compared to a natural gas plant, the SHIP plant was found to be able to avoid annual emissions of CO2 at the level of 3582.4 tonnes/year.[148]
Integration of SHIP systems for meeting low-temperature heat demands in the food processing industryFlat plate collectorFlat plate collector systems were the most adopted SHIP type in the food industry, with a share of 38%. The most frequent heating applications are preheating, cleaning, and pasteurization.[149]
4E (Energy, Exergy, Economic, and Environment) examination of a small LFR solar water heaterLinear Fresnel reflectorThe study was performed in the Blida area in Algeria during the winter season. The optical efficiency was found to exceed 42%. The thermal efficiency was found to exceed 29%.[150]
Table 7. Additional and cumulative SHIP deployment at the end of 2024.
Table 7. Additional and cumulative SHIP deployment at the end of 2024.
Quantity 2024 AdditionCumulative (End of 2024)Percentage of the 2024 Addition (Relative to the Cumulative Value at the End of 2024)
Number of SHIP systems10613158.06%
Collector area [m2]171,8741,530,60011.23%
Thermal power [MWth]120.31071.411.23%
Table 8. Computed average collector area per SHIP system based on new 2024 installations.
Table 8. Computed average collector area per SHIP system based on new 2024 installations.
Category NumberSHIP Category2024 Added Systems2024 Added Collector Area [m2]Average Collector Area per System for New Systems in 2024 [m2/project]
1Parabolic trough (PT)3113,22137,740.5
2Unevacuated flat plate (FP-U)4837,740786.3
3Evacuated tube (ET)248577357.4
4Solar air collector (Air)195146270.9
5Parabolic dish (PD)31715571.8
6Evacuated flat plate (FP-E)117151715.5
7Solar power tower/heliostats (SPT)117151715.5
8Photovoltaic–thermal (PVT)31029343.1
9Linear Fresnel (LF)2686343.1
10Unglazed (Ung)2326163.0
Total (Overall)106171,8741621.4
11flat plate (FP)4939,456805.2
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Marzouk, O.A. Solar Heat for Industrial Processes (SHIP): An Overview of Its Categories and a Review of Its Recent Progress. Solar 2025, 5, 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/solar5040046

AMA Style

Marzouk OA. Solar Heat for Industrial Processes (SHIP): An Overview of Its Categories and a Review of Its Recent Progress. Solar. 2025; 5(4):46. https://doi.org/10.3390/solar5040046

Chicago/Turabian Style

Marzouk, Osama A. 2025. "Solar Heat for Industrial Processes (SHIP): An Overview of Its Categories and a Review of Its Recent Progress" Solar 5, no. 4: 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/solar5040046

APA Style

Marzouk, O. A. (2025). Solar Heat for Industrial Processes (SHIP): An Overview of Its Categories and a Review of Its Recent Progress. Solar, 5(4), 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/solar5040046

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop