02018nas a2200253   4500000000100000008004100001653003200042653002300074653003100097653003400128653001900162100001600181700001800197700001500215700001700230700001800247700002000265245011800285856007200403300001400475490000800489520125300497022001401750       2017                            d10aSolar organic Rankine cycle10aSolar photovoltaic10aTechno-economic assessment10aLevelized cost of electricity10aEnergy storage1 aVikas Patil1 aVijay Biradar1 aR. Shreyas1 aPardeep Garg1 aMatthew Orosz1 aN.C. Thirumalai00aTechno-economic comparison of solar organic Rankine cycle (ORC) and photovoltaic (PV) systems with energy storage  uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148117306110  a1250-12600 v1133 aIn this work, we compare the technical and economic performance of a solar organic Rankine cycle (s-ORC) system with thermal energy storage (TES) and a solar photovoltaic (PV) system with battery storage at a capacity of 50 kWe. A two-dimensional variable space, comprising solar field area and storage capacity is swept for optimum operational zones of five performance indicators, namely annual energy generation, capacity utilization factor (CUF), capital cost, levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) and energy wasted. Minimum LCOE estimated for the s-ORC system was 0.19 USD/kWh with a CUF of 0.56. For the same CUF value, the PV system incurs a LCOE of at least 0.26 USD/kWh. The minimum LCOE of the PV system yields an attractive value of 0.12 USD/kWh, but it includes no battery storage and thus delivers a significantly lower CUF of 0.27. The results indicate that for achieving minimum LCOE, the operational zones of the two technologies differ in terms of storage requirement. The s-ORC technology potentially offers improved reliability of power supply through cost-effective TES. Visualization of annual energy and costs in the form of contour maps facilitates a holistic comparison of the two technologies with their storage options.  a0960-1481