photo: green wombat
California is looking to tap green energy projects in bordering states to meet its ambitious renewable energy targets. The California Public Utilities Commission last week approved a $6 million study to consider the feasibility of building new transmission lines to transmit green electricity from solar power stations and wind farms that could be built in isolated areas of the state as well as in Nevada and Arizona. The move is good news for solar entrepreneurs hoping to develop power plants in the sunny triangle of Arizona, California and Nevada.
The region boosts some of the best solar resource in the country but faces the conundrum that renewable energy-rich areas often are far off the grid. By locating such projects across the California border, developers can avoid the state’s intensive regulatory process while reaping the benefits of selling it green power. California utilities are under the gun to obtain 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2010 and 33 percent by 2030. Adding to the pressure, regulators earlier this year barred utilities from signing long-term contracts with out-of-state coal-fired power plants, which provide about 20 percent of California’s electricity.
"Many renewable resource areas are located far from the grid and load centers and often require extensive and expensive transmission upgrades," the commission stated.
The CPUC is a member of California Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative, a consortium of state energy agencies. "Meeting Californias renewable policy goals will require rapid development of renewable resource areas throughout the state and possibly in adjoining states," states the group. "It will also require the construction of new transmission infrastructure to deliver energy from those renewable resource areas to the electric grid."
Southern California Edison (EIX) lead the study, which is backed by the state’s other big utilities, PG&E (PCG) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SRE). Also on board are renewable energy companies like BrightSource Energy and Solel, both of which are set to build large-scale solar power plants for PG&E.
Arizona already said NO. What part of NO doesnt California understand. Were not covering our state in mirrors so they can get the benefits. You want it….then build it there.
How about Nevada? They can charged for the electricity to flow thourgh the state.
If not, Mexico will say yes.
I guess I missed the part where Arizona said, “NO”. Do you have any sort of link or reference?
AFAIK, anyone with transmission can sell their product into the CA-ISO. Of course, getting transmission is expensive and not cost effective for a solar generator…
Brent…they are other links but this one sums it up. AZ does not want to be a power farm for California. They need to build their own plants.
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/business/198167.php
I work in the industry and hope that California builds the plants in Califorina. They have plenty of availible land and it would be stupid to ship the jobs out of the state. California also has better solar sites than Arizona.
One correction to the link Parker posted is that Calforina has built new power plants in the last decade. They, along with everyone else, have not built any new nuclear plants.
Thanks Parker and Steve. I was aware of the reluctance of AZ to be a power farm for California. Southern California imports much of their energy from the Palo Verde area as it is, and the air regs mean that it is virtually impossible to build new, in basin generation.
I also work in the industry and am well aware of many new power plants that have been built here in CA over the last ten years. Lots of peakers and a handful of combined cycle. I am hopeful that a lot of solar capacity gets built in CA because we have such great sites here and I am also hopeful that a lot of solar capacity gets built in AZ.
The ACC has a specific carve out in their RPS for solar, which is better than California’s time of delivery adjustment factors. Currently the MPR in CA does not support building solar, which is a shame.
I was wondering if you work in the solar industry or electrical generation in general?
Not sure what all your acronyms mean specifically MPR. I would be curious on how Arizona deals with solar compared to California. Like I said I work in the industry and know how our PPA (Power Purchase Agreement) works. I would agree it is unworkable as a future model and really does not encourage efficiency to reach maximum profit.
I am familiar with the new Nevada 1 plant near Las Vegas and heard that they get a standard rate per MW no matter when they produce it. I am not 100% sure of this but it would seems to me that this would be better than the Peak system we use.
Arizona said “NO!” when they voted 0-5 at the Arizonz Corporation Commission (“ACC”) not to approve a second power line from Palo Verde, Arizona to Deavers (near Palm Springs), California. The merchant natural gas fired capacity is wanted by Phoenix and Tuscon and they do not want California to run up the price for that power.
Steve,
I’ve worked for IPP’s over the last decade, and have been involved with natural gas fired generation as well as geothermal. Sounds like you’re probably on the utility side of the business. I’m currently focused on project development in the western US which includes gas, wind and solar.
MPR means “Market Price Referent”, which essentially sets a ceiling for energy prices. A solar project can be bid in at a higher price than MPR, and may even be awarded a PPA. However, that solar project will not be given credit by the lenders for anything above the MPR because the money comes from the CEC in the form of SEP’s (Supplemental Energy Payment). Lenders will not give credit for revenues coming from a CA state agency because they can change their mind at any given moment.
Here’s a link:
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/FINAL_DECISION/37383.htm
I was just wondering what you think of all the new projects that have been anounced in California? I don’t think that most will ever get started but some do seem promising. The new contract PG&E signed with Solel sounds like it has half a chance. I know my company has been actively aquiring options on property to build new plants. Do you think this is all just wishful thinking or maybe there is going to be a change in policy. I do know there has been a lot more interest at my plant the last couple of years.
To: Brent, Steve, Bob
Gentlemen
Issue 1: The De-De-Deregulation and Re-Re-Structuring Forecast.
1.1 The IOUs will own the developed solar thermal electric hybrid super combined cycle power plants, 5 years thereafter commenced operation. Future RFOs, may be having contingency (not just an option) of Paragraph 1.1.
1.2 The IOUs, trough consortium of affiliates will be developing such power plants of Paragraph 1.1 (It is termed as De-De-Deregulation and Re-Re-Structuring in California) and is best for the IOUs to retain the D&Os. (Although unbiased, have to reason what is the best. There is nothing unethical in IOUs in doing so. The IOUs are better positioned than the Wall Street-Hedge Funds, to create the best balance portfolio and in favor of the ratepayers).
Issue 2: The reduced to D&Os IPPs Forecast.
2.1 In the past, the IPPs dream to own and operate utility-scale electric power plants, recently ended, by virtue of being either absorbed by IOU’s affiliates and/or Wall Street / Hedge Funds.
2.2 Whereas, the IPPs can only function as D&Os (Developers and Operators) for the 100% Owners of electric power plants, termed as EIPPs (Equity Independent Power Producers), which implies that the D&Os are developing these plants on account and on behalf thereof the EIPPs, without any ownership.
2.3 The D&Os as developers, can only be entitled to the standard in the industry: (i) In exchange for the D&Os land holdings ownership and the D&Os Copyright User’s License of the D&Os Designer’s viable power plant design (not really a technology), the EIPPs contracts with the D&Os to exclusively develop and operate the EIPPs 100% owned facilities; (ii) Permitting Processing fees of the D&Os are at an average of 3% of project costs; (iii) Securing PPAs on behalf thereof the EIPPs is at an average of 3% of project costs due the D (iv) Copyright User’s License lease, that includes plans and engineering, is at an average of 4% of project costs due to the Designer; (v) The D&Os developer’s fee is at an average of 5% of project costs due the D and the D&Os O&M fee only is at the sliding scale of 4% on EBITDA revenue, regardless that amortization is the EIPPs capital, for purpose of calculating revenue thereafter O&M.
Issue 3: Due to RPS in California.
3.1 Short Listing an EIPP is one issue, contracted PPAs are another, and however turn-on the switch on power plant is the real issue.
3.2 Whereas, regardless of how many MW (megawatts) were contracted, the percentage of 20% by 2010 on “turned-on-switches” on developed power plants is to be counted. (May be not in 2010, in California).
3.3 Although, wind farms Name Plates are at, for example 1,000 MW, divided that by 3 (33% max. capacity factor), yields only a 333 MW, counted toward the 20% by 2010.
3.4 The most promising, in terms of net MW production, renewable hybrid energy are the four major design systems:
(i) Osborn-Stirling Dish-Tower, with over 55% capacity factor; (ii) Goldberg-BrightSource (LUZ-II) Heliostat’s trackers-Water Tower with hybrid gas-fired, that can reach up to 96% capacity factor when more that 25% of total mWh is by gas-fired; (iii) Avi-Solel tried-and-true parabolic collectors with pipe receivers, with hybrid gas-fired, that can reach up to 96% capacity factor when more than 25% of total mWh is by gas-fired; and Panchevs-Solar MW Energy perfected to Twin Parabolic Collectors with Twin Parabolic Receivers design system, with 3-MS storage tanks, hybrid with Wartsila reciprocating gas-fired engines, that can reach up to 98% capacity factor.
3.5 The issues therein the California RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standards 20% by 2010) can be satisfied, predominantly by these four design systems, although other renewables can also contribute to the fuel mix.
Issue 4: More that Probable (Not just feasible).
4.1 These 4 design systems can be implemented today, (no need for more study, wasting more Government money on such study).
4.2 Land Availability Hurdles: BLM is already (lease-sale recent auction) releasing acreage for renewable energy power plant’s siting, at reasonable $ 14,000 per acre.
4.3 These D&Os who outright own land, in private ownership, (desert land in proximity to the BLM land), can call the shots, i.e. if permitting not obtained, their exit strategy are to sell it to BLM, for at least $ 14,000/acre (under the doctrine of Takings for Just Compensation, i.e., no permit, than take my land and pay-for-it (Federal Laws).
4.4 On the other hand, the EIPPs, being a consortium of Wall Street and Hedge Funds, are also calling the shots, by 100% ownership of such power plants.
4.5 Equilibrium: Although, the EIPPs are calling the shots with their capital, the D&Os are also calling their shots with privately own land and Copyrighted Designs of the most promising, viable and profitable (with niche market) designs for the best fuel mix – renewables+gas-fired power plants.
Any question, please call the commenter of this post. Contact
Oh I wish I could sit back and laugh at you Americans, but environmentalists are just as stupid here in Australia; and just like the US they are in charge of the media.
If I was an alien I’d pay 50 bucks an hour to watch this comic act.
“Destroy yourselves or the world will destroy you!” Would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
Nick I have to admit I had a little trouble following your post. I think I understand most of what you are saying. I am in the industry but have nothing to do with developing or financing of projects. I work for a company that operates several solar plants in the Mojave. Those of you who know anything about solar thermal know it is a very small industry and exactly who I work for. As such I have to say my views are mine and not my employers.
Ok one of points you brought up is the availability of land. Luckily for us we seem to have a large amount of it that would be perfect here in the desert. I guess $14,000 an acre is reasonable but it seems damn expensive to me. One problem is that many of the best lands for solar dont have transmission lines near enough or enough available space on those lines. It can take years to get permission to build it.
Of the four types of solar you mentioned I am familiar with three of them. They announced a large solar project using the Stirling Dishs here in Victorville. My gut tells me it will never be built but I could be wrong. The Luz II towers seems like they might work well too but other than signing the agreement with PG&E I have seen little to make me believe the will actually start to build them. I am very familiar with the Solel solar troughs because that is the type of plant I operate. Solargenix recently built a plant near Las Vegas and PG&E recently signed an agreement with Solel so I am hopeful that maybe will actually start to build more of them.
I do not know anything about Panchevs Solar but I would love to hear more about it. I will assume that you are the Panchev that designed the system Nick. If you have a website or any other information I would be very interested in it.
I am not a big fan of the solar hybrid system as we now use it. I guess it could be a good idea if they could develop a more efficient way of using natural gas in the plants. It seems to me that stand alone solar plants, like the one Solargenix built, backed up more efficient gas plants would be the way to go. I know in our plant we sometimes have to sacrifice efficiency for the contract. Nick I would love to hear how efficient your type of plant is when it is forced to run strictly on natural gas and also how does the cost to build the plant compare with the more traditional Solel system?
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Steve
Steve
Who you work for is fine. No need to know. It is all confidential and we shall keep it that way. Not to mention that we are all subject to NDAs.
web site is: http://www.esecorp.org
However. Due to NDA with….. We cannot say to m ….. Therefore, the web site is for entertainment purposes only. No news. Nada. Nicht.
The piers in the solar thermal utility-scale IPPs are supper seasoned veterans. They know how to do solar thermal…
The issue is how to design solar thermal supper hybridized with gas-fired. That is what Wall Street and the Hedge Funds want (at least 23% ROI) (Such are hundred percent equity participants (owners of power plants).
Guess the ROI on Nevada Solar One? Try max. 62% capacity factor which includes from MS storage and max. allowed 25% gas-assist, whereas, Nominal 64MW means net 40MW x 345 x 17 = 234,600 mWh/year x market price referent (confidential) Bottom line: Calculate.
Basically, the other 2 design systems are at about the same capacity factor.
Now try this:
Panchev’s design – system 4)
From solar field-HTF receiver-1 (average 8 hours operation)=33% capacity factor.
From solar field HTF receiver-2 to a 3- HTF MS Storage tanks (average 8 hours operation)=33% capacity factor.
From gas-assist Wartsila gas-fired reciprocating engine (allowed max. 25%)=18% capacity factor.
From hot exhaust, plumes from Wartila’s engines, re-routed to Waste Heat Recovery Generator – another 13% capacity factor.
Now you have 97% capacity factor – same as gas-fired and all other fossil fuel plants.
And costs to develop-same as gas fired plant.
How do you do that? All components are made in China, modular, pre-assembled and ……..
The rest is a trade secret.
The tackle issue: Land.
Only BLM has that much USA land.
Whereas, not like us and Harper Lake LLC/Solucar, the rest are may be landless, or in a process waiting for the Next BLM Action to the highest bidder. (Last BLM Auction was recently slated). The next is may be in a year.
For 553MW solar thermal plan it is needed at least 2,500 acres + another 2,500 at min. 1:1 land mitigation ratio at whim of the CDF&G.
And that translates to 5,000 acres $70 million, which is 10% of project costs for 553MW, as a minimum adder.
As to proximity to CA ISO Grid SP-15, all of us are within max of 5 miles and as near as 800 feet, like our SME-1 plant near Kramer Junction, Cluster 7, SCE Kramer Substation, and not to mention within 50 feet of PG&E 34 inch gas main.
As to water for the cooling towers, we had also invented a super system that makes rain and only falls on top of our power block ?
Thanks Steve.
Call Nick for other questions.
909-263-2868
This may be oversimplified plan but here are a couple things we can do:
1. Add solar cell panels to existing wind turbines poles that are already connected to the power grid…No need to run more transmission lines to remote sites.
2. Contract with a company that provides the funding for solar cell panels to be placed on the roofs of commercial and residential buildings. They get the return on their investment by having the company or consumer buy the power that is generated from those cells and any excess is already wired into the grid that is sold/credited to the utility company. A group of say 1000 installations with a certain rate of return can be packaged into a security and sold to the market with a defined rate of return for a particular period of time..reduced market exposure for the finance company..The consumer gets a more reliable energy source..less chance of a brown-out or rolling blackout on heavy energy demand days.
Just a thought..
Nick thanks for all the information. Like I said before I am an operator and not an engineer. (Dropped out of college for that one and still mad at myself) I am just trying to figure out what is in our future. I see how your system could be much more efficient than the ones we presently use. I have several friends who work at the Nevada 1 plant. As I understand it the natural gas backup is only used to keep the HTF warm in the winter and capable of making a very small load of 4 mws or so. I was told what they got for a contract, by someone I trust, and it was a good one.
I heard that the lines near Kramer only had 100 MWs of excess capacity without being upgraded? I am not sure if this is true but I heard that was one of our limiting factors in building new plants near where the existing ones are. As for the water issue I would guess that is a big one for new plants. They do use a lot of water.
Derek in the future PV cells may get efficient enough to do what you are proposing but for now I think it would be unworkable. I work for a company that owns a huge amount of wind turbines all over the US but they are not usually in the best places to put solar. On Nicks website he has a solar map. It is a very good thing to look at for the most cost effective places to build. PV is simply not near as efficient as the systems we now use for commercial production. In the end you only have so much money and in my humble opinion we are wasting far too much money on things that will probably be years off, while ignoring systems that are ready to go now. PV will be important for our future but so will large scale utility sized solar hybrid projects of 250 mws or larger.
I operate a plant that has been in operation for more than 15 years so I know the technology works and certainly is not new. The new heat collecting tubes are much more efficient than the ones we originally used. As it stands now solar is still more expensive than gas and especially coal. In California we have pretty much decided that we wont build anymore new coal or nuclear plants, so that pretty much leaves us with natural gas, wind and solar. Wind is doing great and I think solar could too if we would just serious about using it. I believe that in a few short years it will be cheaper to produce electricity with solar than gas. The more we build the cheaper and more efficient it will become. The great thing about solar is that it produces the most load when you need it the most.
Hello Steve,
That is great info, thanks for the feedback. I live in the Palm Springs area so naturally I am always thinking about how we can best try to utilize our resources better and solar seems like a great option out here. I am just not up on all the technology and the size applications needed to do what I had proposed. Do you have any thoughts on taking flexible PV and placing them on the tops of golf carts to recharge the batteries while they are in use on the course?
The area on top could support a 4’L X 3’W PV.
Out here they are in the sun anyway, may as well recharge the batteries while playing a round.
Derek I dont live too far from you up here in Victorville. I cant see any reason why PV wouldnt work for that but I really dont know much about PV. I do know it is less efficient than solar thermal but that is about it. I, like you, am trying to learn as much as I can about everything and I have some opinions on what direction we should be headed. In areas like ours I believe PV will someday be used on almost every house. We are in a great area for it. The beauty of large scale solar thermal is that we can produce enough energy to transport it to areas where solar would not normally be cost effective. We have huge areas of the desert, here in California, which would be perfect for it.
The problem with solar now is that it costs more money now than natural gas does. I dont believe that will be the case for long but trying to convince the public is not always easy. Staying away from the whole global warming debate I feel that one of the most important things for our countries security is energy independence. I feel that solar and many of the other new technologies could go a long ways towards that goal. I look to many of the new technologies as investments for our future, every bit as important as some of our other defense projects.
cody_cassady@yahoo.com
Steve, I agree that it is a most important topic to look for different ways to help generate our power needs. With all that I read and research about in regards to solar, there is no doubt we will be able to make PV cells more efficient over the next few years.
Steve
As you know, several large Hedge Funds are acquiring F’s…portfolio of III-VII and VIII-IX.
Kramer to Lugo substations will be upgraded by SCE to add approx. 1,000 additional MWe at costs over $250m.
Harper/Solucar are at 250MWe, we are at 121MWe solar thermal+664 gas-fired Wartsila, to a total of 914MWe. Others in queue are dreaming.
(Lease-Sale by BLM at $14,000/acre (Not ROW), have to be by a BLMs auction to the highest bidder, or Washington folks are going to hear from screaming stakeholders, as well as marching to the Ninth Circuit)
There are more than 80 broken mirrors at No.IX. If the mirrors ware from us-thermoplastic – unbreakable, many at the O&M may be without job. (Im constantly observing the station)
Be positive, (so what, as drop-out). You are in challenging energy industry, where a lots of IPPs will need you.
Nick I did know there were some new partners in Segs. I dont really know how it will affect things but I am betting very little change will happen for the people on the ground.
Good to know about the Kramer-Lugo upgrade. Any idea when this is going to happen? Like I said before I operate a plant but not really in the loop on the business end of things. Segs transmission lines to Kramer were originally built for 5 plants so I am sure they have excess capacity if the Kramer to Lugo line is upgraded.
Well I would guess that there are way more than 80 mirrors broken out at IX. If my math is correct there are almost 200,000 mirrors on IX. Maybe you have already done it but why dont you submit a proposal to supply mirrors. I am sure they would set up a test loop for them. Now I am sure you know this but unbreakable is great, but reflectivity is hugely important, along with how well that reflectivity lasts. The wind and sand are hard on things in the desert.
And no I am definitely not worried about my job. I feel that the more projects, with the more different owners the better. In the end it is still just a steam turbine. All this can only help improve my job prospects and earning potential.