Difference between revisions of "Financing Concentrating Solar Power"
***** (***** | *****) |
***** (***** | *****) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | |||
+ | = Introduction = | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">The parameters that determine the optimal plant </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">design are many. An important consideration is the </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">role of thermal energy storage. Thermal energy storage </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">increases costs, but allows higher capacity factors, </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">dispatchable generation when the sun is not shining and/ </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">or the maximisation of generation at peak demand times. </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">Costs increase, because of the investment in thermal </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">energy storage, but also if the solar field size is increased </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">to allow operation of the plant and storage of solar heat </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">to increase the capacity factor<ref>2012_IRENA_Costs of CSP</ref>.</span> | ||
<span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">The role of independent regulators </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">should be strengthened. In particular, they </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">need to be equipped with an adequate, separate </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">budget, clearly defined powers to make </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">binding decisions, and irrevocable, fixed-term </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">appointments for senior staff.</span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">Independently of the specific market design </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">and industry structure, it is essential that costreflective </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">price signals exist and are able to </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">trigger investments. The phase-out of all fossil </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">fuel subsidies is a key tool to achieve this. </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">While cost-reflective price signals are needed </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">to ensure energy efficiency and to relieve state </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">budgets, it must be ensured that electricity </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">does not become unaffordable for vulnerable </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">consumers. </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">This section elaborates on the key actions required </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">today to facilitate the transition to renewables </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">beyond 2020. It treats all indispensable </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">elements of the transition: the investment </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">framework, renewables support, (international) </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">transmission as well as industrial policy and </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">local value creation.</span> | <span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">The role of independent regulators </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">should be strengthened. In particular, they </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">need to be equipped with an adequate, separate </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">budget, clearly defined powers to make </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">binding decisions, and irrevocable, fixed-term </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">appointments for senior staff.</span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">Independently of the specific market design </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">and industry structure, it is essential that costreflective </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">price signals exist and are able to </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">trigger investments. The phase-out of all fossil </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">fuel subsidies is a key tool to achieve this. </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">While cost-reflective price signals are needed </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">to ensure energy efficiency and to relieve state </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">budgets, it must be ensured that electricity </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">does not become unaffordable for vulnerable </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">consumers. </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">This section elaborates on the key actions required </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">today to facilitate the transition to renewables </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">beyond 2020. It treats all indispensable </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">elements of the transition: the investment </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">framework, renewables support, (international) </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">transmission as well as industrial policy and </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">local value creation.</span> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <br/> | ||
+ | |||
+ | = Comparison of CSP Technologies = | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">Parabolic trough plant are the most widely commercially </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">deployed CSP plant, but are not a mature technology and </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">improvements in performance and cost reductions are </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">expected. Virtually all PTC systems currently deployed </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">do not have thermal energy storage and only generate </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">electricity during daylight hours. </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">Most CSP projects currently under construction or </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">development are based on parabolic trough technology, </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">as it is the most mature technology and shows the lowest </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">development risk. </span><br/> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">Parabolic troughs and solar towers, </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">when combined with thermal energy storage, can meet </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">the requirements of utility-scale, schedulable power plant. </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">Solar tower and linear Fresnel systems are only beginning </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">to be deployed and there is significant potential to </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">reduce their capital costs and improve performance, </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">particularly for solar towers. However, parabolic trough </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">systems, with their longer operational experience of </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">utility-size plants, represent a less flexible, but low-risk </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">option today. </span><br/> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;"></span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">Solar towers using molten-salt as a high temperature </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">heat transfer fluid and storage medium (or other high </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">temperature medium) appear to be the most promising </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">CSP technology for the future. This is based on their </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">low energy storage costs, the high capacity factor </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">achievable, greater efficiency of the steam cycle and </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">their firm output capability. </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">While the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) of parabolic </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">trough systems does not tend to decline with higher </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">capacity factors, the LCOE of solar towers tends to </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">decrease as the capacity factor increases. This is mainly </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">due to the significantly lower specific cost (up to three </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">times lower) of the molten-salt energy storage in solar </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">tower plants.</span> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">CSP technologies offer a great opportunity for local </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">manufacturing, which can stimulate local economic </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">development, including job creation. It is estimated that </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">solar towers can offer more local opportunities than </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 0.85em;">trough systems (Ernst & Young and Fraunhofer, 2010)<ref>2012_IRENA_Costs of CSP</ref>.</span> | ||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
Line 15: | Line 31: | ||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
− | = CSP DropBox = | + | == <span class="mw-headline" id="Costs">Costs</span><span class="mw-editsection" style="-webkit-user-select: none; font-size: small; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; padding-right: 0.25em; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;"><span class="mw-editsection-bra">[</span>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Concentrated_solar_power&action=edit§ion=10 Edit section: Costs]<span class="mw-editsection-bra">]</span></span> == |
+ | |||
+ | As of 9 September 2009, the cost of building a CSP station was typically about US$2.50 to $4/Watt <ref>Poornima Gupta and Laura Isensee (11 September 2009). Carol Bishopric, ed. "Google Plans New Mirror For Cheaper Solar Power". Global Climate and Alternative Energy Summit. San Francisco: Reuters & businessworld.in.</ref>. Thus a 250 MW CSP station would cost $600–1000 million. New CSP stations may be economically competitive with fossil fuels. <br/> | ||
+ | |||
+ | Nathaniel Bullard, a solar analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, has calculated that the cost of electricity at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Solar_Power_Facility Ivanpah Solar Power Facility], a CSP.<br/> | ||
+ | |||
+ | [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRENA IRENA] has published on June 2012 a series of studies titled: "Renewable Energy Cost Analysis". The CSP study shows the cost of both building and operation of CSP plants. Costs are expected to decrease, but there are insufficient installations to clearly establish the learning curve. As of March 2012, there were 1.9 GW of CSP installed, with 1.8 GW of that being parabolic trough<ref>Renewable Energy Cost Analysis – Concentrating Solar Power. irena.org</ref>. | ||
+ | |||
+ | <br/> | ||
+ | |||
+ | = Levelized Cost of Electricity<br/> = | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span style="font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 0.85em; line-height: 1.5em;">The LCOE of renewable energy technologies varies by </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 0.85em;">technology, country and project based on the renewable </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 0.85em;">energy resour</span> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 0.85em;">ce, capital and operating costs, and </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 0.85em;">the efficiency / performance of the technology. The </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 0.85em;">approach used in the analysis presented here is based on </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 0.85em;">a disc</span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 0.85em;">ou</span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 0.85em;">nted cash flow (DCF) analysis. This method of </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 0.85em;">calculating the cost of renewable energy technologies is </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 0.85em;">based on discounting financial flows (annual, qua</span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 0.85em;">rterly </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 0.85em;">or monthly) to a common basis, taking into consideration </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 0.85em;">the time value of money. Given the capital intensive </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 0.85em;">nature of most renewable power generation technologies </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 0.85em;">and the fact fuel costs are low, or often zero, the </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 0.85em;">weighted average cost of capital (WACC), often also </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 0.85em;">referred to as the discount rate, used to evaluate the </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 0.85em;">project has a critical impact on the LCOE. </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 0.85em;">There are many potential trade-offs to be considered </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 0.85em;">when developing an LCOE modeling approach. The </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 0.85em;">approach taken by IRENA is relatively simplistic, given the fact </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 0.85em;">that the model needs to be applied to a wide range of </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em; font-family: arial, helvetica; font-size: 0.85em;">technologies in different countries and regions.</span> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <br/> | ||
+ | <div> | ||
+ | [[File:LCOE CSP.jpg|thumb|center|480px]] | ||
+ | |||
+ | <br/> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <br/> | ||
+ | |||
+ | == <span style="font-size: 22.22222328186035px; line-height: 30.464000701904297px; font-family: arial, helvetica;">CSP DropBox</span> == | ||
For more information on financing of CSP Projects check out the [https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hfdl5xd3vo6w5om/3ikqMUkqs6 CSP DropBox] | For more information on financing of CSP Projects check out the [https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hfdl5xd3vo6w5om/3ikqMUkqs6 CSP DropBox] | ||
Line 22: | Line 62: | ||
<references /><br/> | <references /><br/> | ||
+ | </div> | ||
+ | <br/> | ||
+ | [[Category:Concentrating_Solar_Power_(CSP)]] | ||
[[Category:CSP]] | [[Category:CSP]] | ||
− |
Revision as of 20:01, 18 March 2014
Introduction
The parameters that determine the optimal plant design are many. An important consideration is the role of thermal energy storage. Thermal energy storage increases costs, but allows higher capacity factors, dispatchable generation when the sun is not shining and/ or the maximisation of generation at peak demand times. Costs increase, because of the investment in thermal energy storage, but also if the solar field size is increased to allow operation of the plant and storage of solar heat to increase the capacity factor[1].
The role of independent regulators should be strengthened. In particular, they need to be equipped with an adequate, separate budget, clearly defined powers to make binding decisions, and irrevocable, fixed-term appointments for senior staff.Independently of the specific market design and industry structure, it is essential that costreflective price signals exist and are able to trigger investments. The phase-out of all fossil fuel subsidies is a key tool to achieve this. While cost-reflective price signals are needed to ensure energy efficiency and to relieve state budgets, it must be ensured that electricity does not become unaffordable for vulnerable consumers. This section elaborates on the key actions required today to facilitate the transition to renewables beyond 2020. It treats all indispensable elements of the transition: the investment framework, renewables support, (international) transmission as well as industrial policy and local value creation.
Comparison of CSP Technologies
Parabolic trough plant are the most widely commercially deployed CSP plant, but are not a mature technology and improvements in performance and cost reductions are expected. Virtually all PTC systems currently deployed do not have thermal energy storage and only generate electricity during daylight hours. Most CSP projects currently under construction or development are based on parabolic trough technology, as it is the most mature technology and shows the lowest development risk.
Parabolic troughs and solar towers, when combined with thermal energy storage, can meet the requirements of utility-scale, schedulable power plant. Solar tower and linear Fresnel systems are only beginning to be deployed and there is significant potential to reduce their capital costs and improve performance, particularly for solar towers. However, parabolic trough systems, with their longer operational experience of utility-size plants, represent a less flexible, but low-risk option today.
Solar towers using molten-salt as a high temperature heat transfer fluid and storage medium (or other high temperature medium) appear to be the most promising CSP technology for the future. This is based on their low energy storage costs, the high capacity factor achievable, greater efficiency of the steam cycle and their firm output capability. While the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) of parabolic trough systems does not tend to decline with higher capacity factors, the LCOE of solar towers tends to decrease as the capacity factor increases. This is mainly due to the significantly lower specific cost (up to three times lower) of the molten-salt energy storage in solar tower plants.
CSP technologies offer a great opportunity for local manufacturing, which can stimulate local economic development, including job creation. It is estimated that solar towers can offer more local opportunities than trough systems (Ernst & Young and Fraunhofer, 2010)[2].
Capital Flow CSP[3]
- Abengoa Solar – financed PS10, PS20, Solnova ( 2 x 50MW) in Spain and Algeria & Morocco ISCCS with bank debt and same plan for APS Solana (280 MW) in US
- Solar Millennium - financed Andasol 1 & 2 in Spain with bank debt
- Acciona – financed Nevada Solar 1 (64MW) in US with bank debt
- GEF provided $200M for ISCCS projects in Morocco (in construction), Egypt & Mexico - - India project was cancelled.
- Trough companies didn’t anticipate major problems attracting tax equity investors/commercial debt as the ITCs were renewed last year but the global financial crisis has created new uncertainty and US projects are now being delayed
- Ample equity available for start-ups as evidenced by: Ausra, SkyFuel, eSolar, Bright Source and Solar Reserve all conducting successful VC fund raises
Costs[Edit section: Costs]
As of 9 September 2009, the cost of building a CSP station was typically about US$2.50 to $4/Watt [4]. Thus a 250 MW CSP station would cost $600–1000 million. New CSP stations may be economically competitive with fossil fuels.
Nathaniel Bullard, a solar analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, has calculated that the cost of electricity at the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility, a CSP.
IRENA has published on June 2012 a series of studies titled: "Renewable Energy Cost Analysis". The CSP study shows the cost of both building and operation of CSP plants. Costs are expected to decrease, but there are insufficient installations to clearly establish the learning curve. As of March 2012, there were 1.9 GW of CSP installed, with 1.8 GW of that being parabolic trough[5].
Levelized Cost of Electricity
The LCOE of renewable energy technologies varies by technology, country and project based on the renewable energy resour
ce, capital and operating costs, and the efficiency / performance of the technology. The approach used in the analysis presented here is based on a discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis. This method of calculating the cost of renewable energy technologies is based on discounting financial flows (annual, quarterly or monthly) to a common basis, taking into consideration the time value of money. Given the capital intensive nature of most renewable power generation technologies and the fact fuel costs are low, or often zero, the weighted average cost of capital (WACC), often also referred to as the discount rate, used to evaluate the project has a critical impact on the LCOE. There are many potential trade-offs to be considered when developing an LCOE modeling approach. The approach taken by IRENA is relatively simplistic, given the fact that the model needs to be applied to a wide range of technologies in different countries and regions.
CSP DropBox
For more information on financing of CSP Projects check out the CSP DropBox
References
- ↑ 2012_IRENA_Costs of CSP
- ↑ 2012_IRENA_Costs of CSP
- ↑ 2009_International Finance Cooperation_CSP and the Green Technology Fund
- ↑ Poornima Gupta and Laura Isensee (11 September 2009). Carol Bishopric, ed. "Google Plans New Mirror For Cheaper Solar Power". Global Climate and Alternative Energy Summit. San Francisco: Reuters & businessworld.in.
- ↑ Renewable Energy Cost Analysis – Concentrating Solar Power. irena.org