Profile Network Activity Comments Articles Blog Bookmarks Contact
 

DoE Guarantees $1.45 Billion Loan for 250MW Abengoa Solar Thermal Project

By Pete Singer
December 22, 2010   |   38 Comments

Do you like this blog post?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

38 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 38
December 23, 2010
This loan will NEVER be repaid and this Solar Plant will never generate enough power to pay for maintenance. DOE is wasting money that could be put to much better use.

The only ones that will make any money are the "developers," the politically-connected developers.

This silly plant is rated at 300 MW, but it will produce less than 50 MW. Don't they have "Google" at the DOE? Don't they research these things? Who is going to clean the millions of mirrors? Oh, the taxpayers.
Comment
2 of 38
December 23, 2010
Solar thermal power costs around $288 per megawatt- hour compared with $60 for coal-fired power plants, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

That means $.28 per kWh, but this plant will never meet capacity and the cost will be close to $.40 per kWh.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/acciona-becomes-biggest-solar-thermal-producer-with-spain-plant.html
No image available
Comment
3 of 38
Anonymous
December 24, 2010
Interesting - and you're probably right Andrew. That's a huge amt of money for technology / system that's not very effecient - tho even at the higher cost, the benefits (environmental, progress towards independence from filthy oil, etc.) are probably worth it. And we could afford this stuff comfortably if we were not creating wars all over and trying to police and manipulate the world, AND, bailing out fraudulent criminal scamming banks (that we need to get rid of anyway), etc. to the tune of trillions. And then, especially when there is low cost, more effecient technology / systems available - low enough in cost to be able to wipe out tax liabilities - where ownership in a power system is completely covered by tax savings, here: tnns.org/energy
Comment
4 of 38
December 24, 2010
@Anonymous: I guess you want to tax and punish our way out of the energy problem. I'd rather innovate our way to clean, affordable electricity.

This loan by DOE is a complete waste of money.
Comment
5 of 38
December 28, 2010
"DOE" is what Homer Simpson says when he makes a mistake

This 1.45 Billion dollar investment will Never Ever Lower your Energy Costs. This is a scam on the American Public.

The people running this "DOE" outfit should be tarred and feathered for throwing away this money.

Current technologies are being tested that will make solar obsolete. Yet when the DOE is shown this technology they ignore it.

A proven technology exist that cost less then $50 million to make 250 megawatt power plant or $200,000 per megawatt

Compare that with $5,800,000 per megawatt at this solar plant.

At $200,000 per megawatt this proven technology would make over 7000 megawatts.

Thats is why they are running around saying "DOE" or is it "Dough"

Heads are going to roll over this one.

www.electric-energy-today.com
Comment
6 of 38
December 28, 2010
DOE has done a few of these "politically connected" development deals including a wind farm in Texas made up of notable Democrats. It's a free handout to wealthy Democrats and makes no financial sense whatsoever.

Renewableenergyworld should have the guts to write about that reality. Some have:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40565987/ns/business-going_green/

http://www.iwastaken.com/forum/breaking-political-news/wind-their-backs-powerful-democrats-help-chinese-energy-firm-chase-stimulus-money-2165.html
Comment
7 of 38
December 29, 2010
DOE (who should be leading the world on renewables) is known for investing in yesterday's technology - tomorrow. In this age of $3/gallon gasoline can anyone tell me why less than 10% of DOE's $30M+ budget is directed towards renewable energy? Theodore Sumrall, Ph.D.
Comment
8 of 38
December 29, 2010
A $1.45 billion loan guarantee

It's a loan guarantee. That's all.

DOE is not paying anything. You freaking over nothing.

You'd rather kill the earth with coal..........
Comment
9 of 38
December 29, 2010
A different angle on this issue is that this is EXACTLY the type of investment the DOE should be doing, to jump start large renewable energy projects that have tremendous potential for the future. Subsidies are needed at this time to get the industry started, so that more experience is gained and future costs will come down.

Otherwise we will continue to fall behind in the future of renewable energy.
Comment
10 of 38
December 29, 2010
@Bruce: I would agree if it was an efficient technology. Spain uses the technology and it has a 19% efficiency rating. It means this "250 MW Plant" is really only 50 MW. It is a ridiculous price to pay and DOE should know that.

DOE should offer a $1 billion REWARD for a BREAKTHROUGH "clean, affordable electricity." This deal isn't a breakthrough, it isn't even attractive economically.
Comment
11 of 38
December 29, 2010
@Theodore: I believe DOE's budget is $30 billion for 2010. A good portion of the "stimulus funds" went through DOE.

DOE should offer a $1 billion PRIZE for the elusive BREAKTHROUGH that will provide "clean, affordable electricity." Instead, Dr. Chu will hand out money to Democrats. The prize wouldn't be paid UNLESS there was a BREAKTHROUGH. It's a lot smarter than what we typically get from government.
Comment
12 of 38
December 29, 2010
Andrew W,
You appear to be mis-informed and full of yourself. How you arrived at 19% efficiency is interesting and uneducated. When PS 20 in Spain went online, it is producing 20 MW power, not 4 as you would project. Solana is a 280 MW plant, it will produce significantly more than 50 MW.
The people posting comments bashing the DoE, you are all obviously much smarter than all of the scientists working the current issues, so please propose an alternative energy that will save the world from coal and oil and not cost anymore money. Come on, you guys recognize poor performance, tell us what you would build.
Comment
13 of 38
December 29, 2010
@mrjqp69: The 19% efficiency figure comes from their website and they are "projecting" 20-25% from Abengoa. Abengoa is "250 MW" and 20% would be 50 MW. I don't think they've ever achieved 25% and that is partly due to the amount of sunshine. 20% is a fair number.

DOE has given away millions for wind farms that are not "clean, affordable electricity" just like this silly solar scheme.

If DOE wanted to be productive they would offer a PRIZE for a BREAKTHROUGH, instead of giving away money to friends. And, yes - that's a lot "smarter" than "all the scientists working at DOE." Perhaps you understand that DOE would be paying for RESULTS, not bad development deals.

We need a breakthrough, not more bad development deals. Having MORE wind farms or solar deals doesn't magically make them feasible. They are a waste of money. In this single case, $1.45 billion.

If you have some DOE success stories, please post them.
Comment
14 of 38
December 29, 2010
Andrew W, I concluded that you are a sucker troll. Abengoa's website state that net power capacity is 250MW compared to the installed 280MWe capacity. That's a 250/280x100= 89% conversion of captured incoming free sun rays energy into electricity. Got it now ? And your cheap coal is a dead end : it is a finite resource, you should know that, since you are a Peabody shareholder.

See abengoa's link to verify the figure : http://www.abengoasolar.com/corp/web/en/our_projects/solana/index.html

And here another link to educate you about solar power electricity.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/is-CSP-doomed/
When quality and storage are required, solar thermal comes out cheaper than nuclear. The capital costs for nuclear plants are $6,000 a kilowatt, or $6 a watt, or more, not including waste storage, and often rise higher than expected. Thermal plants may not run all night, but they provide consistent power in the day when needed. In 2010, the price to build a CSP park run by troughs, power towers or dish engines will cost between $5.00 and $6.55 per watt (AC). By 2020, the CSP solutions are expected to be in the $2.40 to $3.80 per watt (AC) range. The better comparison is levelized cost of energy (LCOE). By 2020, the CSP technologies are expected to be in the $0.10-$0.12/kWh range, whereas PV is forecast between $0.07 and $0.08/kWh. The question is whether the CST industry can survive until its competitive advantages are truly valued by the utilities. That is to say that if PV will see annual installations of 20 000 MW per year in the middle of this decade, perhaps CST will be more in the realm of 200 MW to 2 000 MW per year. Not a particularly rosy outlook. It's like that old, painful axiom in semiconductors: don't bet against silicon.
Comment
15 of 38
December 29, 2010
@a-b: What are you smoking?

look at their White Paper here: http://www.abengoasolar.com/corp/export/sites/solar/resources/pdf/en/Solnova_1.pdf

#5 "With the local solar resource and an installed capacity of 50 MW, Solnova 1 is capable of generating 114.6 GWh of clean energy annually."

Here's the math:

50 MW at full capacity would be 50,000*24*365=438,000,000 kWh, or 438 GWh every year.

So 114.6/438=26% capacity factor, which is about typical for Solar in an above-average sunny region.

The 250 MW proposed will do about 20% of the 250MW or 50 MW. It is a huge waste of money. The DOE loan will never be paid back because they can't sell the electricity for a high enough price. After a while they won't be able to keep the mirrors clean.

But, the good news is the Developers will make several hundred million up front. Americans will take the risk, lose $1.4 billion and end up with a bunch of dirty mirrors.

It's a stupid deal.
Comment
16 of 38
December 29, 2010
DOE has Levelized Costs for 2016 here:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/2016levelized_costs_aeo2010.pdf

Solar is projected at $.26-$.39 per kWh

That's NOT affordable. Wind and Solar energy are NOT affordable. We are still looking for a BREAKTHROUGH.
Comment
17 of 38
December 29, 2010
Sorry Dennis, we can't compare the BREAKTHROUGH of Semiconductors to wind and solar schemes.

DOE is not subsidizing innovation with wind and solar schemes, they are subsidizing developers and their friends. Big difference.

Try again.
Comment
18 of 38
December 30, 2010
Andrew, you shouldn't be so negative and cynical about this. DOE has mandates to try to get all forms of renewable industries improved and started. And improving existing technologies is not a waste of money.

CST is a proven technology that has trememdous potential to move away from carbon fuels and reduce greenhouse gases. Just because it is not as cheap as the Really old technologies (e.g. coal, which is subsidized and has hidden costs) doesn't mean we shouldn't move in this direction. Waiting for a "breakthrough" is Not the way to go. We will fall further and further behind in the Renewable arena if we do this, as well as waste any chance of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.
Comment
19 of 38
December 30, 2010
@bruce-michael:

It's not being "negative" to expect our government to be accountable. I didn't suggest "waiting" for a breakthrough, i suggested the DOE pay for a breakthrough.

This solar deal is $1.45 billion "development deal," it isn't about research. It's being investigated now and I believe is will show about 20% of the money going to well-connected developers and consultants.

Wasting money isn't progress. We are losing the energy economy because we are not seeking real breakthroughs - we are simply subsidizing mediocrity.
No image available
Comment
20 of 38
Anonymous
January 4, 2011
a-b writes in comment #14:
"Abengoa's website state that net power capacity is 250MW compared to the installed 280MWe capacity. That's a 250/280x100= 89% conversion of captured incoming free sun rays energy into electricity."

This clearly isn't what the quoted 250 MW and 280 MWe numbers refer to. Solar thermal plants use a steam turbine to generate electricity just as coal or nuclear power plants do, so the thermal energy to electricity conversion rates are governed by thermodynamics, which depend on the upper and lower temperature limits and at common operating conditions are ~35%. Thus, clearly the company isn't claiming an 89% efficiency for converting solar insolation to electricity.

My guess is that the 250 MW power figure refers to the peak power output from their turbine. Thus, on midday in summer they will be producing 250 MW of power. The percentage of the day that they can produce this peak rating depends on the size of the collector array relative to the size of the turbine; this is a design parameter probably chosen to minimize cost. In the limit that the turbine is very expensive compared to the array you would size it so that you get peak output for most of the day (which means you generate more thermal energy than you can use or store for a significant part of the day); in the limit that the array is very expensive compared to the turbine, you would size the turbine so that no thermal energy is wasted, which would mean that peak output would occur only under optimal conditions occurring only for a small percentage of the total operating time. This consideration makes the total energy produced over a year hard to estimate only given the peak power output. Clearly, however, the capacity factor is going to be well below 50% merely because it is dark 50% of the time. The ~26% value Andrew_W uses, which is based on a different installation probably isn't qualitatively wrong.
Steven
No image available
Comment
21 of 38
Anonymous
January 4, 2011
Andrew_W writes in comment #16:
"DOE has Levelized Costs for 2016 here:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/2016levelized_costs_aeo2010.pdf

Solar is projected at $.26-$.39 per kWh

That's NOT affordable."

It is true the the cost is quite high for current installations. However, solar thermal technology is expected to become significantly cheaper as production capacity increases and further improvements are made and may well drop below $0.10 per kWh in a decade or two. If so, the technology will be competitive with other generation schemes and it is appropriate that some funding for further development be given. A massive buildout of solar thermal generation is not justified at these prices but further development is.
Steven
No image available
Comment
22 of 38
Anonymous
January 4, 2011
TheodoreSumrall writes in comment #7:
"In this age of $3/gallon gasoline can anyone tell me why less than 10% of DOE's $30M+ budget is directed towards renewable energy?"

DOE labs serve many important roles. One of their major responsibilities is to ensure the safety of the nations nuclear weapons, which isn't obvious from the department's name, and isn't a job we want underfunded. The DOE also either performs or funds a large variety of basic research activities. The percentage of its funding that it spends on renewables is a poor metric of its important to the renewable industry. Instead it would be better to concentrate on the amount of funds it provides (i.e., the absolute numbers rather than the percentage of its budget).

I also note that the 2011 DOE budget was ~$28 Billion--a number dramatically different than TheodoreSumrall refers to.

Steven
Comment
23 of 38
January 4, 2011
@ Steve:

I agree with your comments. Thank-you. My point is that DOE should not be wasting two-thirds of their budget on "development deals" but they should instead invest in research to find a breakthrough. Another smart idea would be to offer a $1 billion PRIZE for "clean, affordable electricity." Nobody has discovered that yet and a prize would inspire imagination and effort.

DOE is wasting most of their (our) money.
No image available
Comment
24 of 38
Anonymous
January 4, 2011
Andrew:
These loan guarantee programs are going to cost the tax payer almost nothing. Abengoa Solar is a relatively established player in this field building established technology (it may be expensive but it is also fairly predictable--mirrors are only so tricky--so cost overruns and technical complications are not an especially high risk) for a ready and very stable customer. The solar thermal industry would benefit from modest and stable growth, and loan guarantees during the current economic crisis will help ensure such an environment. These "development deals" as you call them are not taking funds away from the DOE's regular activities--they are merely an additional role the department is playing that is funded by a separate appropriation. I'd like to see a greater focus on and a higher budget for R&D at the DOE, but that is a separate issue from the department's role of providing loan guarantees for a modest number of renewable energy projects. No government agency is without a measure of waste, but I think you would be hard pressed to come up with a case that the DOE is wasting even a small fraction of the claimed "two-thirds of their budget" that you refer to in comment #23.
Steven
Comment
25 of 38
January 4, 2011
@Steven:

It's not a "modest" amount that's going to bad deals - it is at least $12 billion (we don't have full disclosure on all "stimulus deals" yet).

This particular deal (250 MW) will only generate about $75 million in annual revenues. $1.4 billion at 20 years = $84 million/Year. How do you propose they will pay this loan back?

DOE would be much smarter to simply offer prize money (rewards) for breakthroughs. These little development deals (DOE has 43 of them in the last 18 months) are NOT progress, they are politically-connected payoffs.
No image available
Comment
26 of 38
Anonymous
January 4, 2011
Andrew:
I think you are off by as much as a factor of two on the revenue this project will generate. No doubt AZ has agreed to pay a premium price for the electricity generated by this project (probably in the ballpark of $0.30 per kWh; I have not seen any publicly available figures on the power purchase agreement deal), which would be sufficient for the company to not only pay its loan off but also to make a nice profit. If the company has a long term power purchase agreement it should be able to predict the financial details of the project with high accuracy and it is reasonable to assume they are competent enough to choose projects that have a very high likelihood of performing well (and that the DOE has checked their projections).

The size of the loan guarantees is much larger than the cost to the government because almost all (if not all) of these projects will pay off their loans. The electricity generation business is not one that is especially volatile and companies have high visibility concerning costs and revenue.

I also note that the DOE does not have the discretion to repurpose the funds for this program. Their role in the financing of these projects is entirely distinct from their R&D role.

I also see no evidence that these are "politically-connected payoffs". The federal government has decided to offer loan guarantees in this time because the credit markets are still not functioning optimally. This seems to be a very efficient way to stimulate the economy--far more efficient that having the government spend money directly (which it is also doing to the tune of Trillions of dollars).
Steven
No image available
Comment
27 of 38
Anonymous
January 4, 2011
Andrew writes in comment #25: "DOE would be much smarter to simply offer prize money (rewards) for breakthroughs."

There are instances where prizes are awarded for specific research accomplishments, but these are typically for very specific goals that are likely to be achievable within a short time horizon. Trying to encourage major breakthroughs via huge rewards is a problematic approach. Very few organizations are capable of funding the level of research that would be required to achieve a breakthrough of the type you envision in the speculative hope that they would eventually win a major prize. Much of the basic research done today is performed in academia or in national labs and the researchers need up front funding to sustain this type of work. Small corporate entities funded by venture capital need a measure of visibility of potential profitability to secure working capital. Only very large corporations would be able to fund major research efforts from their own funds and these organizations are often the least effective at innovation. Stockholders are interested in the next quarter's profits not the possibility of a huge payoff 10 or 20 years from now. Thus, if the government offered huge prizes for research breakthroughs these would have a very limited influence on the pace of technological advancement. As it is, the possibility of patenting technology already provides a similar incentive at no cost to the government.
Steven
Comment
28 of 38
January 4, 2011
@Steven:

First of all we don't have any idea if providing a prize of $1 billion for "clean, affordable electricity" would work because we've never tried it. Speculation aside, the truth is it would be spent without a result and that's much better than what we're doing today.

If Arizona is paying $.30 per kWh then they are paying 3 times the average rate for electricity in their State. That's stupid. Because of this $1.4 billion investment nothing will be learned, advanced or made more efficient. It's just a terrible economic deal that ONLY rewards the DEVELOPERS. It doesn't move our nation forward or help solve our energy problem.

DOE has done a terrible job with it's research programs and all this free money for well-connected developers. Many of those stories will be a big part of the news in 2011.
No image available
Comment
29 of 38
Anonymous
January 5, 2011
Andrew in comment #28 writes: "If Arizona is paying $.30 per kWh then they are paying 3 times the average rate for electricity in their State. That's stupid. Because of this $1.4 billion investment nothing will be learned, advanced or made more efficient. It's just a terrible economic deal that ONLY rewards the DEVELOPERS."

Stupid is a strong word; it is perhaps extravagant but the first few of these solar thermal developments need to be considered as akin to pilot plants. Prices will decline quite significantly from these levels as the kinks are worked out and the industry scales up and AZ may one day have a large reliable supply of renewable electricity on it hand. It would not be prudent to rush out and build dozens of these projects now, but a few will serve to push the technology forward.

Andrew also writes: "DOE has done a terrible job with it's (sic) research programs and all this free money for well-connected developers"

A loan guarantee isn't nearly the same thing as free money. Also you seem to be conflating the funds for this program with DOE's regular budget. This loan guarantee program was authorized by a special appropriation; it is not competing with research funding. I see no evidence that DOE has done a "terrible" job with its research programs. Perhaps Andrew would care to give a few examples rather than make vague and broad accusations...
Steven
Comment
30 of 38
January 5, 2011
@Steven:

Here's a deal from DOE that is intended to benefit Democrats, not America or our energy challenges:

http://energyandenvironmentblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/12/the-political-connections-behi.html

There are plenty more on the way. DOE's "loan guarantee" is only secured by this project - a project that cannot economically repay the loan amount.

It's a $1.4 billion grant to politically-connected friends.
Soon, we'll learn how much went to Developers and how much simply e v a p o r a t e d in the SUN.
Comment
31 of 38
January 5, 2011
@ Steven:

There is NO evidence that prices will decline based on results at this project. None. Asa matter of fact, the PRICES have never been made public.

Wouldn't you like to know e x a c t l y how the money is being spent? It's your money.
Comment
32 of 38
January 5, 2011
To keep things in perspective, it's a loan guarantee, not a loan, not a grant. Others are providing the money, and the DOE will pay the lenders only if Abengoa defaults on its loan. So far the DOE hasn't given any money to anybody.

That being said, $1.45 billion for 250MW is expensive compared to the other big DOE loan guarantee a week earlier of $1.3 billion for a 845MW wind project (the largest in the world so far).
No image available
Comment
33 of 38
Anonymous
January 5, 2011
greenjobsguru writes in comment #32: "That being said, $1.45 billion for 250MW is expensive compared to the other big DOE loan guarantee a week earlier of $1.3 billion for a 845MW wind project (the largest in the world so far)."

The price is not out of line for solar thermal. This technology is less mature than wind power but has reached the point that some modest development would help achieve economies of scale as well as further refinements. Solar thermal will provide reliable power during the peak demand period, both in terms of the time of day as well as the peak season (summer) for the US south west, so it is reasonable that AZ explore this alternative. Intermittent wind power is less valuable in this market.
Steven
Comment
34 of 38
January 5, 2011
@greenjobsguru: It's a loan guarantee for a project that has NO CHANCE of repaying the loan. That would be a "grant."

It's another waste of $1.4 billion by Dr. Chu and the DOE.
Comment
35 of 38
January 5, 2011
@Steven: I'm sorry, but it is simply insane for you to keep pimping how wonderful this project is when the electricity will cost $.30-$.40 per kWh.

It's a bad deal. It's a stupid deal.

The $1.4 billion would be better spent as an incentive than a political give-away.
Comment
36 of 38
January 8, 2011
If there's no chance the $1.45B will ever be spent, presumably on the basis that the plant is 'certain' to succeed, why is the guarantee as high as $1.45B? Wouldn't $100M be enough? This as a pretty mature technology - I think it's disgraceful that the average taxpayer is being called upon to underwrite it. Or just perhaps the plant isn't such a cert after all . . .
No image available
Comment
37 of 38
Anonymous
January 8, 2011
Tony writes: "If there's no chance the $1.45B will ever be spent, presumably on the basis that the plant is 'certain' to succeed, why is the guarantee as high as $1.45B? Wouldn't $100M be enough?"

Suppose you went to an insurance agent for fire insurance on your home and they told you: "OK you home is worth $300,000 but because your home is almost certain not to burn to the ground we will insure it for $50,000." Would you be happy? Banks are risk adverse entities (at least when they are working well) and are not comfortable with the relatively small risks associated with this project. Naturally, they want protection in the even of a total loss; a 7% level of insurance isn't going to suffice.
Steven
No image available
Comment
38 of 38
Anonymous
January 8, 2011
Steven says:

"the relatively small risks associated with this project."

100% guaranteed by the US Government because of the "small risks."

Priceless. That made my night.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Pete Singer

View Pete Singer's Profile
About: Pete Singer is editorial director of Photovoltaics World magazine. more »

Advertise With Us

Admirals Bank REC Solar Information & Technology Management Westinghouse Solar Nextronex, Inc. Apricus, Inc. SCHOTT Solar PV, Inc.
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters