Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric who wrote (45147)	12/23/2013 6:38:38 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Then you have to subtract for cloudy conditions, and to a lesser extent things like sand storms, local smog, etc. Plus time eventually maintenance time. ---hat for PV is significantly flatter; thus fluctuations at short time scales are larger relative to those at long time scales for PV than for wind. While wind's capacity factor varies from 32% at the sites examined to 40% at excellent sites, the capacity factor for a 4.6 MW PV array in Arizona is determined to be 19% over two years." treehugger.com What is a realistic CUF (Capacity Utilisation Factor) for solar in India? Say, for a 1 MW plant in a top location in Rajasthan. Recently published data has varied widely and added to the confusion.Tobias E. Managing Director and Founder, Bridge to India Pvt. Ltd. Top Contributor We are planning with around 19% for our projects linkedin.com Typical Clean Energy Boondoggle November 7, 2013, 9:31 am Master Resource looks at the California Valley Solar Ranch In a realistic appraisal of the CVSR we should note the following: · An investment of $1.6 billion 250 MW breaks down to an extravagant $6,400,000 per megawatt. · The Solar Ranch covers 1,500 acres. · The CVSR is projected to produce 482,000 MWh per year, implying an operating capacity factor of around 22%. · Given a reasonable appraisal of the value of 482,000 MWh per year, it is not possible that the solar panels will be able to provide a return sufficient to pay back the $1.6 billion investment within their functional life (not even close), even when ignoring annual operating and maintenance costs. Hundreds of millions of dollars will be lost (see Updated CSVR Cash Flow). .... A much more viable alternative to a solar generation facility, although not the only one, is a plant using natural gas. A natural gas combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) facility capable of 250 MW would have required less than one-fourth the capital investment, would be capable of making four times the electricity per year at 88% capacity factor, and would fit on a single acre. Also, a CCGT facility could have been located closer to the point(s) of actual use of the electricity, and could provide dispatchable energy which could be increased or decreased as demand fluctuates; something the solar facility is incapable of providing. So why is this project even happening? Because most of the project was funded by a taxpayer-gauranteed loan. And then many of the players got direct subsidies and tax breaks. And finally the electricity from the project gets bought at an above-market subsidized rate. coyoteblog.com ...Apparently the better sites in Germany have the same solar potential as ... Seattle! The sliver of absolute best sites in Germany have approximately the same solar potential as Buffalo, NY. So we have a company whose fortunes are dedicated almost entirely to selling solar panels into one of the most unpromising solar sites in the world. Why is Germany buying so much solar? OK, here is the third bit of information. For years Germany had enormous feed-in tariffs (mandated above-market minimum prices) for solar electricity: The German feed-in tariff scheme has been in operation since 1991 and is regarded as one of the most successful in the world. In Germany, feed-in tariff rates are differentiated according to the source of the renewable energy. Separate tariffs are determined for biogas, biomass, hydroelectric, geothermal, solar and wind energy sources. The tariff paid for solar generators varies between EUR 45.7c/kWh and EUR 57.4c/kWh, depending on the capacity of the system and other design features. The tariff is greater for generators that are attached to the roof of a building or structure and greater again for generators that are attached to another part of a building. In Germany, the feed-in tariff is paid for a period of 20 years Note the language from several years ago where "most successful" is determined without references to costs. 0.574 Euros per kWh is equal to about $0.75 today and even more several years ago when exchange rates were higher. Remember this is a wholesale price, and should be compared to a $0.04 to $0.06 wholesale electricity price in the US (I use US numbers to as its not clear to me Europe has a particularly competitive wholesale market. The French have some sort of fixed price system set around $0.06). However one wants to look at it, these are enormous subsidies. People putting up solar panels in Germany were getting paid 10-15x what a market price for the same electricity might have been. Finally, here is the fourth piece of evidence leading to First Solar's woes. In 2010 and 2011 Germany, whose consumers began to balk at paying the highest electricity rates in the world in order to subsidize the method of electrical generation least suitable to Germany, began substantially cutting these tariffs. In 2012 they will cut them even further: German Environment Minister Norbert Roettgen and Economy Minister Philipp Roesler are set to hold a press conference on Thursday to outline the government's new approach on subsidies. However, the indications are that the cuts will be heavier than the market has been expecting: a 30% cut in the feed-in-tariff (FIT) to 13.5 cents per kilowatt hour for new large solar installations and a 20% cut in the FIT to 19.5 cents for new small plants The market has of course been expecting cuts in the German FIT system. However, this news is decidedly worse than expected and likely to continue to pressure solar stocks - particularly those such as Yingli (YGE) with a significant exposure to German solar demand. From a peak of $0.75 per kWh, Germany will now pay $0.255 per kWh for smaller installations, still four times the market price for wholesale electricity but only a third of what they paid during First Solar's boom years. As I wrote yesterday, Germany was essentially paying $2 for milk from brown cows and $25 for milk from black cows. This can't be sustained. If one assumes a wholesale electricity price of 6 cents, First Solar's German customers were getting a 92% subsidy... coyoteblog.com