[Newsseeker]

Also interesting is that it is secretive.

[Tanada]

OptiSolar

A secretive Hayward, Calif. company has just announced it will build the largest solar power “farm” in North America, using solar cells manufactured in Silicon Valley.
The company, called OptiSolar, is backed by private equity firms apparently with oil connections. It has studiously avoided saying anything until this announcement.
The deal is significant, not merely for its size, but because it was scooped by such an unknown company.

40-megawatt capacity, 365 hectares, estimated $300 million to build, and operational by 2010.

Interesting that the announcement of this deal came out of nowhere.

300/40=7.5 Million $ per megawatt = $7,500 per kWh just for construction.

The French Energy Secretariat in 2003 published updated figures for new generating plant. The advanced European PWR (EPR) would cost EUR 1650-1700 per kilowatt to build, compared with EUR 500-550 for a gas combined cycle plant and 1200-1400 for a coal plant. The EPR would generate power at 2.74 cents/kWh, competitively with gas which would be very dependent on fuel price. Capital costs contributed 60% to nuclear's power price but only 20% to gas's. While the figures are based on 40-year plant life, the EPR is designed for 60 years.

Which makes this project a non starter in terms of cost benefit.

[Valdemar]

I'd sure like to know the cost of maintaining those shiny, awfully delicte pieces of technology too. PV cells and mirrors require they be nice and clean to give what little peak efficiency they have.

[Tanada]

I'd sure like to know the cost of maintaining those shiny, awfully delicte pieces of technology too. PV cells and mirrors require they be nice and clean to give what little peak efficiency they have.

Proposed solution, coat the PV panels with Rainex type surfaces so that water beads and drains off, then install a sprinkler system and wash them every day about 10 AM so that they are at peak clarity when the sun is at peak inclination over the horizon.

[Sheb]

Close...you are getting the units a little bit mixed up, though. But you have the right idea--VERY expensive electricity. Consider...

It's *estimated* construction budget is $300,000,000. It's estimated construction time is 3 years. But with technology development, the only one universal truth: It will take longer and cost more. However, for the sake of analysis, let's consider that it does come in on time and within budget.

Assuming that the 40-MW output power is it's *rated* output, which is typical for solar energy generation. Then it's time-averaged output over each year will be about 14-MW (total integrated power in, over time, divided by total time). This means that it will produce 122,724,000 kW-hrs of electricity per year.

Assuming 80% delivery efficiency (from panels to transformer substations, to house meter), this means a delivered energy to the customers of 98,179,200-kW-hrs per year. Of course, that is if it runs AT CAPACITY, all the time, providing its maximum output. That is the best case energy-production scenario. More likely, it will not do this. 75% is more likely.

However, to be generous let's also assume that it is feeding power at its full yearly capacity, as just calculated, all year long, every year, without outages, into the California utilities. Sounds like alot of energy, right? Wrong. For this thing to be economically viable, the sale of this power must *not only* cover the costs of its operation, but it must recoup the cost to build the thing.

Let's just look at recouping building costs over, say, 5 years. Right off the bat, if the $300M cost is spread out evenly over the 3-year construction period, then that is, averaged out, 1.5 years of the recoup time, leaving only 3.5 years of running time to sell electricty in order to pay for its construction. In 3.5 years, in the best of scenarios, the delivered energy output will be:

(3.5-years)*(98,179,200-kw/year) = 343,627,200-kW-hrs.

So, the cost attached to each sold kw-hr *just to cover construction* will be:

$300,000,000/343,627,200-kW-hrs = $0.87/kw-hr.

Again, that's just to cover the best-case construction forecast. But remember, these projects ALWAYS take longer & cost more. And this is not including the operation & maintenance costs. Not to mention that a profit must be built in (to address for risk).

From my planning and budgeting experience, I would expect the actual portion of electricity cost from this, just for its construction, as it would show up on an electric bill to be $2.50/kw-hr. And taking into account operations and maintenance, I would forecast:

********************************
Likely Electric Bill Charges: $3.00/kWhr.
********************************

Phew!

Just as a side note to see how much fuel oil would have to cost, per gallon, at a generation rate of 0.075-gal/kWhr and assuming half of the cost is due to the burning of fuel:

0.5*($3.00/kWhr) / (0.075-gal/kWhr) = $20/gallon.

This is rough, but it gives an close-order approximation at what we are looking for.

This plan for a solar farm is foolish for that reason. Don't get me wrong...*Solar Power* is great. But it's biggest strength is it's applicability to be installed at point of use, thus eliminating a costly and delicate infrastructure. This project seems overlook that completely, saddling a great technology with all of it's own inherant costs combine all costs of a conventional power grid infrastructure.

I know this seems unbelievable, as in "How could they even *think* of doing this". But I have worked with people on similar projects. Those involved and driving usually have $'s and stars in their eyes and NEVER actually look at the numbers the we just have in the above paragraphs.

(Disclaimer...these are rough back-of-napkin calculations. I welcome any critique of them:) )

[Omnitir]

Interesting post Sheb. This makes me wonder what the true deal is then. Surely someone would have conducted a feasibility report and figured out what posters here quickly figured out. So why would they be going ahead with the project?

Is there some government scheme making Calif. green energy companies viable? Or perhaps, since the co. apparently has connections to the oil industry, is this just a big tax scheme to take advantage of some loophole? Or is there some factor here making this thing viable that we are just missing?

Regardless, I think it's great to see investment in solar power, even if it is an expensive power source at this point.

[SoothSayer]

I think that you will find some "interesting" facilities located at or near this solar cell site.

Perhaps a satellite communications station, probably a hospital, some special government offices, some rich peoples homes.

I doubt that any of this electricity is going to reach YOUR home if the grid fails!

Long term 100% reliable electricity in today's turbulent world MUST have a price premium.

[Valdemar]

You have to wonder what good keeping Silicon Valley making technology will do when the rest of the world collapses thanks to poor energy infrastructure. It's not as if we'll be chummy with Intel and Microsoft or Apple when we can't get enough power to keep the A/C or heating on or get to work.

[SoothSayer]

Just a thought: is this site going to be powerful enough to run ... a solar cell factory?

Now THAT would be useful come a power down!

[stock]

Its not that secretive. The farm is to be built in Sarnia, Ontario, Canada. The reason for this location is apparently due to the 0.42c kw/h standard offer program that Ontario offers. OptiSolar apparently manufactures the panels and equipment so I think the costs are lower than usual. I suspect they are using it as a demonstration plant for their equipment.

There is some more info at http://tyler.blogware.com/

[Sheb]

Its not that secretive. The farm is to be built in Sarnia, Ontario, Canada. The reason for this location is apparently due to the 0.42c kw/h standard offer program that Ontario offers. OptiSolar apparently manufactures the panels and equipment so I think the costs are lower than usual. I suspect they are using it as a demonstration plant for their equipment.

There is some more info at http://tyler.blogware.com/

$0.42/kW-hr is not going to come close to cutting it (see my post above). I'll grant you, though, that maybe they are foreseeing a *much* higher per-kWhr rate in three-to-five years. Or, it may be, as Omnitir indicated, an isolatable privately owned sub station built by an organization who simply does not want to be without power--for much the same reason that any of us would put up solar panels and/or wind. (which, mind you I am currently working on:) )

Again, for an estimated $300M, that's way beyond the scope of a technology/product demonstrator. While it may serve that purpose, I don't think that would be the goal.

Thank you for posting the link for us, Stock. In spite of my gloom-and-doom economic forecast, I am a big fan of solar power and the project does interest me. But then, so do train-wrecks

[Sheb]

Its not that secretive. The farm is to be built in Sarnia, Ontario, Canada. The reason for this location is apparently due to the 0.42c kw/h standard offer program that Ontario offers. OptiSolar apparently manufactures the panels and equipment so I think the costs are lower than usual. I suspect they are using it as a demonstration plant for their equipment.

There is some more info at http://tyler.blogware.com/

$0.42/kW-hr is not going to come close to cutting it (see my post above). I'll grant you, though, that maybe they are foreseeing a *much* higher per-kWhr rate in three-to-five years. Or, it may be, as Omnitir indicated, an isolatable privately owned sub station built by an organization who simply does not want to be without power--for much the same reason that any of us would put up solar panels and/or wind. (which, mind you I am currently working on:) )

Again, for an estimated $300M, that's way beyond the scope of a technology/product demonstrator. While it may serve that purpose, I don't think that would be the goal.

Thank you for posting the link for us, Stock. In spite of my gloom-and-doom economic forecast, I am a big fan of solar power and the project does interest me. But then, so do train-wrecks

[Sheb]

Its not that secretive. The farm is to be built in Sarnia, Ontario, Canada. The reason for this location is apparently due to the 0.42c kw/h standard offer program that Ontario offers. OptiSolar apparently manufactures the panels and equipment so I think the costs are lower than usual. I suspect they are using it as a demonstration plant for their equipment.

There is some more info at http://tyler.blogware.com/

$0.42/kW-hr is not going to come close to cutting it (see my post above). I'll grant you, though, that maybe they are foreseeing a *much* higher per-kWhr rate in three-to-five years. Or, it may be, as Omnitir indicated, an isolatable privately owned sub station built by an organization who simply does not want to be without power--for much the same reason that any of us would put up solar panels and/or wind. (which, mind you I am currently working on:) )

Again, for an estimated $300M, that's way beyond the scope of a technology/product demonstrator. While it may serve that purpose, I don't think that would be the goal.

Thank you for posting the link for us, Stock. In spite of my gloom-and-doom economic forecast, I am a big fan of solar power and the project does interest me. But then, so do train-wrecks

[ohanian]

Close...you are getting the units a little bit mixed up, though. But you have the right idea--VERY expensive electricity. Consider...

It's *estimated* construction budget is $300,000,000. It's estimated construction time is 3 years. But with technology development, the only one universal truth: It will take longer and cost more. However, for the sake of analysis, let's consider that it does come in on time and within budget.

Assuming that the 40-MW output power is it's *rated* output, which is typical for solar energy generation. Then it's time-averaged output over each year will be about 14-MW (total integrated power in, over time, divided by total time). This means that it will produce 122,724,000 kW-hrs of electricity per year.


Let's just look at recouping building costs over, say, 5 years. Right off the bat, if the $300M cost is spread out evenly over the 3-year construction period, then that is, averaged out, 1.5 years of the recoup time, leaving only 3.5 years of running time to sell electricty in order to pay for its construction. In 3.5 years, in the best of scenarios, the delivered energy output will be:

(3.5-years)*(98,179,200-kw/year) = 343,627,200-kW-hrs.

So, the cost attached to each sold kw-hr *just to cover construction* will be:

$300,000,000/343,627,200-kW-hrs = $0.87/kw-hr.

You are being far too negative. If you want to play with numbers then I can play with numbers too.

(1) Assume 40 MegaWatt is the time average power output over 1 year of sunshine.

(2) Assume it takes 50 years to recover back the cost of construction.

(3) Assume a minimum 4 hours of sunshine per day.

Calculate the cost of construction in dollars per kilowatt hour.



Total kilowatt-hour generated over 50 years is

50 years * 365 days/year * 4 hours/day * 40 megawatt =

2.92E12 watt_hour = 2.92E9 kilowatt_hour

Next divide $300 million (2007 dollars) by 2.92E9 kilowatt_hour

= $0.10 per kilowatt_hour




So it only adds an extra 10 cents (2007 cents) to each kilowatt_hour of electricity to recover back the cost of construction.



Next we shall calculate how much each kilowatt_hour of electricity will cost.

In 1 year, we get

365 days/year * 4 hours/day * 40 megawatt = 5.84E10 watt_hour = 5.84E7 kilowatt_hour




So each kilowatt_hour will cost the consumer

Price = 0.10 + ( AnnualProfit + OperatingCost ) / 5.84E7


Where $0.10 would be the construction cost that we just calculated.

[Sheb]

You are being far too negative. If you want to play with numbers then I can play with numbers too. --snip--
So it only adds an extra 10 cents (2007 cents) to each kilowatt_hour of electricity to recover back the cost of construction.

Ohanian, Please tell me you are playing devil's advocate. If not, than the difference between you and me is that I was not playing number games. I'm a licensed engineer and do this stuff for a living. You can make up any numbers you want...but you cannot change the laws of physics. Let's look at your numbers:

1.) You assume 40 MegaWatt is the time average power output over 1 year of sunshine. Sorry chief, that's not how it works. The panels are *rated* at 40-Megawatts. For your assumption to hold up, you would have to have to have the sun shining over Ontario for 24-hrs a day. How do you propose that one?

(2) You assume it takes 50 years to recover back the cost of construction. Well, one man *never* recover those costs, but that's a different issue. But if one is going to set a price of the output (the product they are selling) in order to actually have the thing be other than economic flop, then five years is fairly typical. Ten would be generous. Fielded technologies like Solar cells need need to be replaced, refurbished or re-manufactured in 10-to-20 years. Oh, and what investor will invest at a ROI of 1.5% to 2% per year? If you know them, I'd love to meet them!

(3) You assume a minimum 4 hours of sunshine per day. Huh? your solar input is already addressed in #1. You assumed 24-hrs of sunshine a year. No offense meant, but do you have any idea what you're talking about?

I really don't mean to be hard on you about this, Ohanian, but, you should really try to understand what these numbers mean before tossing them about. Numbers actually have meanings and every assumption must have a justification. Actually, I was being generous, and not taking into the high latitude of the site's location (and resulting longer passage of the light through the atmosphere).

I have also served as lead engineer on energy production projects where the principles ignored fundamentals, as you had above, and simply "played number games", as you suggest anyone can do. Fortunately, they only sapped trusting investors (friends, family, and fellow church members) of a few hundred thousand dollars and 10,000 man-hours...that and ended up investigated and shut down by the State Corporation Commission.

Try not to play with numbers...you might hurt someone;)

[SolarDave]

-snip- It's *estimated* construction budget is $300,000,000. It's estimated construction time is 3 years. But with technology development, the only one universal truth: It will take longer and cost more.
-snip- This means that it will produce 122,724,000 kW-hrs of electricity per year.
-snip-For this thing to be economically viable, the sale of this power must *not only* cover the costs of its operation, but it must recoup the cost to build the thing. Let's just look at recouping building costs over, say, 5 years.
-snip-So, the cost attached to each sold kw-hr *just to cover construction* will be: $300,000,000/343,627,200-kW-hrs = $0.87/kw-hr. Likely Electric Bill Charges: $3.00/kWhr.

Last time I checked, photovoltaic power plants only operated during periods of peak demand. Not by design, but by coincidence. Try running your numbers with the PV plant compared to a Nat. Gas Fired Peaker Plant. That's a better comparison, because building lots of PV plants would not reduce the construction of baseload power plants. They -would- reduce the number of Peaker Plants.

Here is a starting place:Wisvest Corp. opens new peaker plant

Some highlights from the article:"The Calumet Energy Team Plant will run no longer than 1500 hours per year, only during periods of high demand for electricity in Chicago."

That's comparable to the PV plant."The Calumet generator and turbine "set," which will be connected with another kit already on the site, has a capacity of 150 megawatts. When the sets are combined, the plant will have a capacity of 300 megawatts. "

It's lots bigger than the PV plant, but it's nice to know the precise ratio of size between the two fro calculations of costs. "The turbines, which are essentially jet engines, are fueled by natural gas."

Don't forget to include fuel costs for the Fossil Fuel peaker when comparing long-term power costs. ""Peakers may run one to two hours a day and may only run for 5 to 10 percent during the year," Parker said. Because peaker plants only produce energy for peak usage, "they get a higher price for energy," he said and added that "[t]hey definitely serve a purpose."

Generally, the price per megawatt hour on the wholesale energy market is about $22 but the price has jumped to more than $6,000 per megawatt hour during peak times." Looks like the PV plant can sell into a market willing to pay as much as $6,000/Megawatt-hour. I'd say it can make a profit. And these are all year 2000 prices. Think they have gone up? "The total cost of the project will range between $120 million and $150 million"

That is for adding the second turbine and generator. Total cost if I recall for the 300 MW capacity was $300 million. Now crank the numbers. And since the Peaker cost numbers are from 2000, jack them up, as you say. Comparing PV to baseload is as silly as comparing Peaker Plant costs to baseload. It's apples and porpoises. Bonus round: Will the Fossil Fueled Peaker ever recoup costs? (since we seem to think the PV plant has to...)

[Sheb]

SolarDave,

$6/kWhr? Whew...that's a primo market! If those forecasts are truly in the bones, *that* could make such an endeavor economically viable.

Thanks for providing all that information, I look forward to cruching the numbers.

For now, I just got two packs of raw solar cells (just the disks + leads)--one pack of Siemens/Shell, ad one pack from a dissassembled solar car. You'll have to forgive me, but I feel like a kid on Christmas day!

[IslandCrow]

There is a thread that asks "Where have all the Cornucopians gone?" So in their absence it is up to me to post the following WE ARE SAVED link

At some point before 2050, satellites collecting solar power and beaming it back to Earth will become a primary energy source, streaming terawatts of electricity continuously from space.

The one thing that makes me think that some of this might actually be put into place is that the US military is interested in it. Is that enough of an interest that we will see at least some systems launched?

The US army could also use such a device to deliver electricity to its troops. Military units in forward areas pay $1 per kilowatt hour,... Lives could be saved by cutting long and vulnerable logistics chains

Credit to Leanan for finding this gem

[Andrew_S]

Does technology to stream terawatts from space actually exist today?
Or is this just pie in the sky?

[SolarDave]

Does technology to stream terawatts from space actually exist today?
Or is this just pie in the sky?

Judging from the pictures of the solar panels on we are seeing of the International Space Station, we are better at "tearing watts in space" than terawatts from space.

Seriously, if NASA can't put a solar panel in orbit now, what makes anyone believe they can do millions of then in the future?

The math may work out - so many joules to manufacture, so many to blast into orbit, so many collected, so many beamed to Earth, so many lost and wasted through inefficiency, and so many left to do important things like watch the Colbert Report.

Math proving the possibility of the concept is one thing. Execution of the concept is another. It's the ability of us to execute this scheme that I highly doubt.