The Worlds #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Monday, May 20, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • All Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search

Home Solar PV Cheaper Than Concentrating Solar Power

John Farrell
February 24, 2011  |  41 Comments

A residential rooftop solar PV system in Los Angeles, CA, has a cheaper cost per kilowatt-hour of electricity delivered than the most cost effective, utility-scale concentrating solar power plant. 

In 2010, a buying group called Open Neighborhoods openly advertised an opportunity to get a solar PV system installed for $4.78 per Watt (not including any tax credits, rebates, or grants), a system that would produce approximately 1,492 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year (AC) for each kilowatt of capacity (DC). 

Based on the best available public information about the costs and performance of operational concentrating solar thermal power plants, the PS10 solar power tower – an 11 MW installation in Spain – has the lowest levelized cost of operation of any concentrating solar power plant that produces electricity.  PS10 had an installed cost of $4.15 per Watt and produces 2,127 kWh per kW of capacity. 

However, due to higher operations costs and a higher cost of capital (8% rather than 5%) for a concentrating solar power plant, the levelized cost of the residential rooftop system (17.3 cents per kWh) is less than that of the power tower (19.9 cents per kWh).

This analysis also does not include any transmission infrastructure or efficiency losses, either of which would increase the levelized cost of the concentrating solar power plant.  It also did not include the lower price point from Open Neighborhoods, which advertised a possibility of driving the price down to $4.22 per Watt (driving the levelized cost down to 15.3 cents per kWh).

The Southern California Edison project, also featured in the chart, is another example of low-cost distributed solar PV, with the 250 MW project spread across commercial rooftops in 1-2 MW increments but still achieving large scale. 

It's possible that concentrating solar power will see cost reductions as more projects are developed.  After all, so far there have been just over 20 projects built for a combined capacity of 1,000 MW, whereas Germany alone installed 3,000 MW of PV on thousands of rooftops in 2009.  But PV costs are also declining, making the competition for concentrating solar that much fiercer and the potential for distributed solar that much greater.

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.

41 Comments

Register To Comment
ANONYMOUS
October 19, 2011
Regarding Alison's comment #42:
18 Gallons of water evaporated per kWh of hydro generated electricity is about right. See this report for the citations to the original literature for such estimates:
http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report51-WaterFootprintHydropower.pdf
Steven
Alison Tottenham
Alison Tottenham
October 19, 2011
Clee, I suspect that you will find that it is 18gals of water from the river passing through the hydro electric plant to 1kWh electricity and not 18gals evaporated! I have found that the UK government does not use knowledgeable proof readers, and I suspect that it is the same in USA.
Thomas Garven
Thomas Garven
March 7, 2011
To Glenn-doty:

Sorry to have mis-lead you but I do not have the system purchased or installed yet. My home is 40 decrees off South so need to build a support structure first. Want to do this anyway since pool needs to be shaded to keep it from getting too hot. I can see the comments now - too hot, LOL. Yes by July my in-ground pool can reach 85-90 degrees. Sometimes I run a small pumps just to spray water into the air to cool the pool by evaporation. We don't need no stinking pool heaters in Arizona, LOL. Well, unless you want to go swimming in March or April.

System purchased will be about 5.0 kW and should provide most of my electrical needs since I live in the best solar area in Arizona [Southwestern part of state]. My annual usage is slightly less than 11,800 kW per year but lots of energy conservation things are yet to be done. Utility rebate is $1.60/kW DC. Arizona tax credit is $1,000 plus Fed. 30%. However as retired individual most of the tax credits will be of little value.

To date I have upgraded insulation to R-39, installed CFL's almost everywhere and installed dual pane Low E windows.

Work remaining is to install new exterior doors with foam cores, build shading for p.m. sun exposed side of home, replace canned lights in kitchen [they leak air like crazy] and install new HVAC 16-22 SEER system. Also need to buy and install 2 solar powered roof ventilators.

In Arizona we can install the system ourselves so will be purchasing a kit from some recognized on-line company. Will hire some local labor for a day to help with some of the work I can't legally do [licensed electrician]. Final connection to grid will be done by licensed electrician, inspected by utility and local city inspectors.

Hope this answers your question.
Glenn Doty
Glenn Doty
March 7, 2011
Tomgarven,

Can you tell us what you spent on those 2 220 W solar panels? Does your solar array have tracking? If so how many axes does it track on?

I figure that while we're at it we can get a true cost-to-cost comparison... though if you hooked up the solar cells yourself then the numbers won't compare well, since you'd be paying a qualified plumber for the solar how water option.
ANONYMOUS
March 7, 2011
Tom:
Assuming you save $33/month on you electricity bill the payoff period for the SHW system with the conditions in comment #42 is just over 148 months or 12.3 years. That is a long time, but I suspect residential solar PV never pays off under a similar analysis if you are only paying 12 cents/kWh.
Steven
Thomas Garven
Thomas Garven
March 7, 2011
Steven is correct - it should have been months. So Steven, please tell me the payoff period with the following assumptions since I don't have the necessary math skills.

System cost = $4,200
Loan cost @ 6%
Utility Rebate of $750
Cost per kW = $.12

Thank you
ANONYMOUS
March 6, 2011
Tomgarven's SHW analysis seems flawed. If you assume you borrow the $4300 at 0% interest and that your electricity bill remains the same, you can pay it off in 130.3 months not years using the numbers he assumes. Neither is a great assumption and a realistic payoff is longer but he is still off my about an order of magnitude. He then provides no payoff analysis for solar PV; a comparison on the same footing would be interesting....
Steven
Thomas Garven
Thomas Garven
March 6, 2011
I guess I will chime in on the solar hot water thing. Living in Arizona would seem like a no brainer to have solar hot water. However, almost none exist in my town so the question become why? I believe it's all about cost.

Two years ago I got two quotes from local contractors for solar hot water. One 4' X 7' panel, pumps, valves, sensors, etc. Both companies were well recognized national companies. One bid was about $5000.00 and the other bid was about $4300.00. If I take 30% of my $110.00/mo electric bill and assume that $33.00/month is for hot water; it will take 130.3 years to recover my investment. Sorry but I won't be alive in 130 years. Of course there are Utility, State and Federal rebates but even then the time period is excessive.

So to make a long story short - I have decided to just add two more 220 watt solar panels to my array. Of course this will not cover the full amount of my hot water but you have to realize that during Jul, Aug and Sept we can turn our water heaters off. The water coming out of the tap is just right for a shower LOL.
Thomas M
Thomas M
March 6, 2011
SHW costs from my experience is much lower and has faster payback than most PV systems. Components are readily available for purchase and those in the know can purchase these components for very little cost when compared to a contractor, installer or salesman's prices. Used solar hot water panels are available if one knows where to look at little of no cost. Recycling materials to use in hot water or hot air systems can make the installation free. Degradation is not a factor as in PV. Copper's properties do not change much over time and any leaks or corrosion can be easily and cheaply repaired. Break or damage a PV panel and it's toast. SHW has the potential to be used in several ways as opposed to just plain old electricity, especially when power produced is concerned. I am sure we all realize that if we try to use PV power for heating of hot water or air, the cost related to the amount of power needed would be astronomical and since most of a home's energy cost are related to heating, using the potential of solar for this purpose would seem the right way to go.
In my opinion, the reason for SHW being scrutinized and not pushed like PV is that there is no way to "truly" monitor energy gained other than looking at your utility bills. Monitoring of electrical systems is much easier, therefore outside influences can figure ways to charge and profit from production.
So when it comes to SHW, do your homework....
Tam Hunt
Tam Hunt
March 4, 2011
Steven, time will tell whether my views are Panglossian or not. With solar pretty much at grid parity now (for larger projects) or headed there in the next couple of years (for all sizes), all bets are off.
Glenn Doty
Glenn Doty
March 4, 2011
Steven,

I'm not trying to be contrarian here, but I thought that you should know... Nationwide electricity demand increased by nearly 5% in 2010 over 2009. The total demand was still slightly less than 2008 and 2007, but those are likely the only years in U.S. history that exceeded 2010's energy demand.

In regional terms, Tx saw a 3.7% increase (~14 TWhs) in the first 11 months, while the West North Central region (the core of the wind corridor) saw a 5.9% (17 TWh) increase in demand for those same first 11 months.

The situation for the wind industry is stark. On any given night that the wind is blowing in any region throughout the wind corridor there is large scale curtailment and widespread negative pricing. The grid is the limiter for continued growth, and they simply cannot expand it very quickly.

We're working as diligently as we can for WindFuels development... but I'm only scheduled to work on the project for 12-15 hours/week. We still have no funding (because the renewables media has refused to cover us while lying about the prospects of some of our alternatives), so this is self-funded through a small business. The work of the small business, therefore, must continue to have priority.

I'm (YAWN) working on a novel RF collector coil this month. It does offer some exciting advantages over current technology, but you probably don't care.
:)
ANONYMOUS
March 3, 2011
Glenn,
I think you overestimate the degree to which other energy sources are linked to oil. Sure, coal is mined by vehicles powered by diesel and sometimes transported that way too. However, what percentage of the total cost of coal comes from oil use? I'd guess only a few percent. If you double oil prices there will be real pain and people are going to do a lot of car pooling but the effect on coal prices is going to be small so its use won't be nearly as constrained. Wind turbines and solar panels are transported by oil consuming vehicles too--increased transportation costs are not going to have a large influence on the market share of various types of electricity generation schemes.

I don't think the wind market has neared saturation yet. The slump in 2010 was much more closely related to the drop in natural gas prices, the decline in the demand for electricity, and in the difficult financing market that it is due to intermittency concerns. To the degree that intermittency is already a concern much of this could be alleviated by improved transmission infrastructure (which unfortunately does not seem to be nearly as appealing as financing residential PV). Of course, if some nascent technologies to provide grid stability got off the ground that would be nice too--hopefully you are working hard on that (grin).
Steven
ANONYMOUS
March 3, 2011
Tam:

Extrapolation of market share from very low levels is a process fraught with peril. This would be true even if the market had not been overheated by oversized subsidies (some as high as 70 cents/kWh) by the Europeans. Such subsidies cannot continue as PV starts to gain appreciable market share and already subsidies are being dialed back at a very rapid rate--which is why there is now such a large gap between production capacity and expected production. Demand for energy in developed markets such as the US tends to grow at a rate of about 2% per year. Even if renewables got 100% of the new growth and all the market share from facilities that need to be replaced you would be overly optimistic to expect a 50% share by 2030. With no viable dispatchable renewable technologies a significant portion of new growth is still going to be in natural gas fired plants. In the developing world, where pricing is a critical factor, coal is going to be very hard to compete with for many years. The notion that renewables are going to coast to a dominant market position is downright Panglossian.
Steven
Glenn Doty
Glenn Doty
March 3, 2011
Steven and Tam,
This is a civil thread, and I will endeavor to keep it so. First, I'd like to point out that Tam and I are largely seeing eye-to-eye in this thread on the price of solar. Both options have potential, and both have their specific markets. Also, John Farrell seems to be using a different means of assessing levelized cost than any I've ever encountered... and is coming up with very strange conclusions resulting from his very strange LCOE calculations. (he's completely off).

I think Steven is right to question the likelihood of continued geometric growth. Wind enjoyed a rapid ascent for 5 years, and then 2010 saw less than half the installed capacity of 2009. 2011 is likely to see even less.

The low-hanging fruit for renewable power is the energy levels that can easily be accommodated by the grid despite its variability in the case of wind (this is rapidly becoming saturated), and the amount of energy that can be paid for with massive subsidies in the case of solar.

Finally, concerning the impact of oil on renewable energy: remember that coal is mined and transported with diesel machines. The price of a ton of coal will rise and fall in a trend that is closely correlated to the price of oil. 2008 also saw the highest cost of electricity that this country had ever seen, with the highest cost of natural gas (directly competes with both oil and coal, so demand increases from substitution), uranium (mined with oil and refined with natural gas), and coal (again, mined with oil).

Oil prices do affect the fossil-sourced power prices, they just largely do so indirectly.

Finally, I'd like to throw in a reminder that novel innovation is still out there. Wind could easily continue at a 20-25% growth rate if WindFuels were deployed to stabilize the grid, and a dual-sourced heat engine could make CSP and geothermal much cheaper... who knows what other innovation could be world-changing? Of course, that means looking for solutions.
;)
Tam Hunt
Tam Hunt
March 3, 2011
Steven, your caution regarding extending exponential growth rates from early stages is warranted. However, PV has been around for 50 years and it is only in the last ten years that it has reached scale. We passed the 1 GW annual production figure in 2006 and now just a few years later we're looking at literally 25 GW of annual production capacity (actual production will probably be less than half this in 2011). This is world-changing potential even if we assume half the rate of growth over the next decade as we've seen in the last decade. As I wrote about in a recent piece, doubling every 2 or 3 years very quickly leads to huge percentages. If we assume in the US the same rate of growth for wind and solar by 2020 as we've seen in the last ten years we would literally have 50% of our power coming from these renewables. And if we assume half the rate of growth we get there by 2030 or so.

As for oil prices, it's all connected and many fuels are fungible. High oil prices drive concerns about energy supplies (rightfully), so even though the US obtains only a very small fraction of its electricity from oil, high oil prices send a very strong market signal regarding renewables. Keep in mind that the doubling rates of growth I just mentioned have happened in exactly the same time period that saw oil go from $10 a barrel in 1998 to $147 a barrel in 2008. And keep in mind that solar saw a 50% rate of growth in the US in 2010 even during the recession. Wind power did not fare so well due to the effect you raise: declining economic activity led to declined power demand led to declining natural gas prices led to declining economic comparisons for wind. However, this is probably a short term trend b/c I don't see the shale gas phenomenon panning out quite like the investors are pushing. Shale gas wells reach peak very quickly and then decline. And we're also seeing a backlash due to the environmental impacts of shale gas.

In short, stay tuned for world-changing renewables.
ANONYMOUS
March 3, 2011
Tam,
The solar market share in the US is quite small suggesting it isn't as cost competitive as many would hope. Growth rates are an entirely different story--those are high. However, one would be very cautious about extrapolations from very low levels. In the early years prices were dominated by panel costs and the drop in prices for panels has been quite favorable (note that prices in the last few years have been distorted first by a silicon shortage and more recently a production glut and these distortions have been exacerbated by instabilities in subsidy programs). However, declines in the balance of system costs, which are an increasingly important portion of total costs, don't follow the same trend lines as panel prices. The PV market will see fair growth rates, but we are a long way from "world-changing exponential growth" unless by this you mean a few percent of the electricity generation market in favorable or highly subsidized places.

I also note that while oil prices will likely spike, oil in't used to generate electricity in most places (Hawaii is one of the exceptions and perhaps their tepid renewables market will finally get a boost) so you should not be counting on this as a driver of PV growth. In fact, high oil prices could contribute to an economic downturn thereby reducing demand for electricity and dampening the PV market--which is the reverse of the effect you seem to envision.
Steven
Tam Hunt
Tam Hunt
March 3, 2011
Steven, I don't have anything handy to point you to for solar hot water costs but when I did some market research a few years ago for CA solar hot water I was very surprised to find that it was in fact more expensive than solar PV at that time. CA has a new solar hot water rebate program so this may have brought the costs even or even lower than solar PV by now. But either way, solar hot water is not in CA as sure-fire a proposition as generally presumed. Costs for solar hot water in China and other places are clearly different, judging by their huge popularity (China has about 75% of all solar hot water in the whole world).

As for home-scale solar PV, tiered pricing isn't a gimmick - it's a smart policy designed to save ratepayers money by encouraging conservation and discouraging peak power use. Solar PV takes advantage of this smart pricing structure by eliminating peak power demand. State rebates have in fact gone away in much of CA now, due to much higher demand than expected under the CA Solar Initiative, a ten year rebate program that was supposed to last until 2017. This is good for the market but has placed a bit of a speed bump in continued expansion.

As for PV growth rates more generally, solar PV has in fact doubled about two years in the US and globally over the last decade, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. We are in the elbow of a world-changing exponential growth curve for PV and other renewables. Hold on to your hat - the ride is about to get very interesting as we enter another oil super price spike and move further up the exponential growth curve for renewables.
ANONYMOUS
March 3, 2011
Tam:
Do you have cost estimates for solar hot water (SHW)? SHW is already quite popular in places such as China where purchasers are likely to be pretty price sensitive and where PV is not catching on....

I recall that you recently agreed that the CA MPR will likely go down by as much as 20% when it is next updated due to lower natural gas prices. Additionally, CA electricity prices are much higher than the US average, which is about 10 cents/kWh including costs of distribution which were not included in your 28 cent/kWh estimate of residential PV of comment #3. Most of the US also does not have to deal with the tiered pricing of the CA market. All this suggests to me that grid parity (sans subsidies--which are not sustainable at large market penetrations) is still some years away (even in favorable locations) and that, in particular, residential PV isn't "highly economical". If PV was really such a bargain US sales would not be so low.

Steven
Tam Hunt
Tam Hunt
March 3, 2011
Steven, solar hot water is actually more expensive than PV in most locations. I urge you to research installation costs and do the math.

As for solar PV grid parity, we are arguably already at that point if we include the federal cash grant or tax credit. As you surely know, since I've mentioned it a number of times in various threads, SCE recently forwarded about 15 contracts for 5-20 MW solar PV projects to the CPUC for approval. All of these contracts are for 20 years contracts below the Market Price Referent. The MPR is a proxy for grid parity (for new power plants), so these projects, if built at the contractual costs suggested, will be supplying power at below grid parity. This is a remarkable development so let's cross our fingers that these projects actually get built and prove the model.

As for residential PV economics, it's already highly economical to go solar for most homeowners and businesses due to federal tax credit or cash grant and state rebates. Also, very importantly, well-designed home PV systems are scaled to cut off the top tiers of electricity use, which are far more expensive to consumers, and leave the lower tier electricity from the grid alone. When this is done, payback times of 4 or 5 years is fairly common in CA, for both homes and businesses. And costs continue to come down precipitously so it's only getting better and better even though CA state rebates have dropped a lot in recent years also.
ANONYMOUS
March 3, 2011
Tam:
I agree 100% that larger systems are much less expensive (I like to avoid use of the word "cheaper" when comparing costs for two options where neither is cheap) than small residential ones. I will even grant you that in favorable locations, utility- or commercial-scale solar may reach grid parity eventually (although I think is will be a few years later than you seem to). Grid parity for residential PV systems seems very far off unless there is a major breakthrough in building integrated PV that lowers installations costs significantly (even if solar panels were free to residential users the costs would still be prohibitive compared to electricity from the grid in most locations). Solar hot water is a good choice for residential users, but PV is not.
Steven
Tam Hunt
Tam Hunt
March 2, 2011
Steven, keep in mind that solar is much cheaper for larger systems. The 28.3 c/kWh is purely for small residential systems, which are much more expensive still. The price is about half this (14 c/kWh or so) for systems 5 MW and above where insolation is good, 30% cash grant or tax credit is included, capital costs are under $4/watt now and capacity factors can be over 25% with single or dual axis tracking. We are in fact very close to grid parity for larger systems.
Tam Hunt
Tam Hunt
March 2, 2011
John, I don't think those changes get you to a place where your main conclusion is accurate: CSP and large PV (even medium-scale PV) is still quite a lot cheaper than residential rooftop PV and probably will be in perpetuity. (I urge to play with the calculator I linked to).

My view is that we need them all - but we must realize that small rooftop PV simply can't do the job by itself.

Here's a piece I wrote some time ago on this issue:

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2008/12/the-goldilocks-problem-54328
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
March 1, 2011
Thank you for explaining the trends for solar power. I live near Tehachapi, CA where investors, LADWP and others have pushed their way through virgin, critical wildlands and rural neighborhoods to put as many 500 foot tall turbines on every hill top and piece of land on the ground they can purchase cheaply. It is apparent all of you are intelligent and attempting to research and identify the most effective, low cost means to move away from fossil fuels. The actions of the wind energy industry is deplorable, ignoring, pushing aside, mitigating away and completely destroying land and watersheds that should rightfully remain intact for this and future generations that must live with the decisions made today. The California condors, brought back from 11 and ever so carefully brought back to viable numbers are again at risk of extinction because of the massive numbers of turbines placed into their habitats, hunting ranges and breeding areas. It is the same of many other species equally at risk. Industrial turbines should be retracted from acceptable sources of renewable energy. The noise and light trespass is incredibly intense and deadly to the very species, including ourselves that we are diligently attempting to preserve. Birds, individual, migrating or raptors cannot see in the dark or in fog and fall victim in large numbers to the 200 mph spinning blade tips. They are not built using renewable materials and overall fail at every level to be "green". Thanks for listening. Let's work together to make solar rooftop energy and storage a reality and a unit where all we need to do is to drive to our nearest home center, purchase a unit for $600, plug it in, and the rest is FREE!
ANONYMOUS
March 1, 2011
Ahhh .. an almost civil discussion. A few points:

While technical line losses, i.e. power disipated in wire, transformers, switch-gear and line stabilizers, should be around 7 to 8% this does not include operational losses -- the capacity factor of the grid is never 100% and combinations of congestion, scheduling and market quantization, dispatch latency, line leveling, backfeed, etc. results in a much higher loss.

Storage costs money and is lossey. While it can firm variable generation, it has a substantial impact on the net capacity of the generator. The cheapest and most efficient storage is virtual hydro where hydro generation is varied inversely to variable sources. Since this lowers the capacity factor of the hydro station, it's not strictly free, unless your running out of water(See Hoover Dam).

Any central power station needs a grid. It doesn't matter whether its solar or nuclear, hydro, etc. Solar has an advantage in that it can be sited in many open spaces while nuclear, hydro, coal and gas need to be near the water. Coal also near a railroad. Gas also near a pipeline. In many cases, solar farms can be sited near existing grid (some smart native Americans I know, farm sunshine next to their existing hydro dam). Other plants cannot be sited primarily to minimize the cost of transmission lines. Power tower CPV's thirst for water puts it somewhere in between.

Solar and wind have a very low lifetime green-house gas footprint compared to other power technologies (after fossil fuel power generation, cement and steel making are the next worse GHG sources). Human health and environment should also be considerations as much as cost.

Nukes are a drag. Let the tax payer finance the liability and decommisioning. Use up to 1/3 as much water as the equivalent hydro dam. Uranium is scarce. The LCA for green house gasses is bad due to the high GHG content of the construction materials. If you know how to get >90% capacity, call Bruce Power, please!
John Farrell
John Farrell
February 28, 2011
I agree with many of you that the ultimate goal is to maximize renewable energy and that in an ideal world we would not select technological winners. We would "need it all." But in a resource-constrained world, it's important to look at whether the renewable/solar/energy choices we make are the most cost-effective.

For CSP v. PV, it's also an issue of who benefits. PV can be deployed by just about anyone, spreading the economic benefits of attaining our renewable energy goals. The profits from CSP aren't going to local neighborhoods, but to the few large developers with sufficient capital to deploy it. So if CSP also costs more, it's two strikes against it.

For more on the issue of where we put scarce dollars, as well as storage, read Bill Powers's Dec. 2010 piece from the journal Natural Gas & Electricity entitled "Federal Government Betting on the Wrong Solar Horse."
John Farrell
John Farrell
February 28, 2011
@Tam_Hunt

The major difference is probably that I assumed that the homeowner would have a cost of capital / discount rate of 5% (not 8%) and that they would be able to finance over 20 years instead of 10 years. The latter assumption is big, because a 10 year debt term would increase the levelized cost by about 7 cents per kWh.
ANONYMOUS
February 26, 2011
Comment #14 lists 11 points in Solar energy's favor. Here are just a couple for why it won't be a panacea:

1) The price is extremely high even after decades on the market. Tam estimates in comment #3 a 28 cents/kWh cost for a very favorable location (and Tam is a solar energy backer). This estimate does not include costs for grid transmission or to mitigate intermittency.

2) In many locations there is a huge seasonal variation in solar insolation. In parts of the UK, for instance, they have a factor of 10 difference in insolation between the months of July and January. They also typically have peak demand during winter nights. Eventually we will also need to stop heating with fossil fuels so the number of regions where peak demand is at night is only going to increase.

It will be interesting to see how much PV and solar thermal eventually contribute to the energy generation mix, especially if the grid is enhanced so that one can consider large remote solar thermal plants, but we also need a plan for something that is more robust....
Steven
William Fitch
William Fitch
February 26, 2011
Hi:

My dad is 97 and still going, some...
SO, don't count yourself out to quickly...
Thomas Garven
Thomas Garven
February 26, 2011
Looks like Steven has given a good summary of some of the posters points. As someone who worked in the utility industry for 20 years, there are more reasons for large scale and distributed solar PV than a state mandate. Here are just a few of the reason utilities like solar.

1. You sit a solar panel in the sun and for the next 30-40 years it produces power.
2. It produces no ash, no ozone, NOx, CO2 or any other emission.
3. It is basically automatic power. If you check the weather report for the next day you can plan for how much power will be available.
4. Solar PV creates power during MOST of the peak load period.
5. Very few operators are needed for a solar PV plant and therefor Operating and Maintenance costs are low.
6. With few employees needed, employee costs like wages and benefits are low and labor contracts are simple.
7. Solar PV shuts itself down at the end of the day automatically and starts the next morning without operator interventions.
8. If a small segment of a solar field should have a problem, that small loss of power would have very little affect on the grid.
9. Solar PV is silent and can be used on homes, factories or anywhere the sun shines.
10. You can plan when solar PV power will be available by looking at a local radar map. You know when clouds or rain are going to occur.
11. Solar PV is distributed power generation, meaning it can be installed almost anywhere which in some cases reduces the need for new transmission lines.

I could go on but hopefully this list gives some insight into why many utilities are now re-thinking large scale, multi-billion dollar power stations. Once Solar PV hits less than $1.00/watt and panel efficiencies hit 40% there will be little need for the burning of fossil fuels. Other forms of renewable energy like hydro, wind, geothermal and nuclear will carry the grid loads at night.

At the age of 70, I will not live long enough to see this day come but it will come and it will be a very good day.
ANONYMOUS
February 26, 2011
Tam's estimate of 28.3 cents/kWh for solar PV (from comment #3) suggests the conclusion in the title of the story is wrong. Concentrating solar thermal also produces reliable power if thermal storage is used whereas PV is only intermittent. Once PV market penetration rates exceed a few percent intermittency is going to be a major concern.

A major theme of Farrell's blog posts is that distributed solar saves the ~7% line losses from transmission. However, much of the electricity generated by PV is also transmitted over the grid because it is generated during midday when residents are often at work and not using much electricity. If you get battery storage for your PV system (at great expense) you will find that the 7% line losses are small compared to the losses from the inefficiency of storage.

Joe writes in comment #6 "Anyway - compare to nuclear - over 9 USD / W..."
He should also factor in the PV capacity factor of ~18% compared to the nuclear capacity factor of 90+%. Once you do that it seems to me that nuclear power is a big winner. Furthermore, nuclear power will work well in any location whereas solar PV is going to be problematic in many locations and solar thermal totally unworkable in most locations.

David in comment #6 writes: " I am particularly intrigued by the potential for concentrating solar's potential for storing heat energy for night generation"

I don't think any of the extant systems operate at night on stored power (a few can use the turbines with natural gas power at night). A typical plan for thermal storage might be 4 hours, which allows much of the generation to be at a constant value, allows for a smaller turbine while utilizing the full solar insolation, and pushes production several hours into the evening when rates are still high. Nighttime generation usually isn't economical--it would amount to shifting production from high daytime rates to low night rates.
Steven
Anumakonda Jagadeesh
Anumakonda Jagadeesh
February 26, 2011
Yes. Normal PV power cost less per kilowatt-hour of electricity delivered than the most cost effective, utility-scale concentrating solar power plant. Concentrating Solar Power plants are meant for large projects of commercial nature.

Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore (AP), India
Todd Holmes
Todd Holmes
February 25, 2011
Excellent posts all. T.M 14505 - That's the race I would love to win. The roof top solar argument makes the most sense to me. As my limited understanding of PV goes, doesn't the solar electric interface of many installed local residential and commercial roof top units actually ease the burden on an exiting grid? Peak electrical usage (like daytime air conditioning load) would seem to dovetail well with peak solar output. Net metering is already a well established practice. Another important feature is that if Utility rates are unfavorable to local micro-producers, then the producer can simply add electrical storage (although at considerable cost), and use the collectors on their property to provide some fractiion of thier own usage. At sufficient scale this might actually provide some sort of brake on what rate utilities might set for electrical energy. In today's world there is also a value in having electricity available in a decentalized way.
I admit I would love to build a forest of heliostats all tracking in concert...focused on a tower with a loop of molten salt powering huge turbines or charging some immense tank of something for electrical production after the sun goes down. However, it must be admitted that the minute the huge solar farms are built then a whole new set of problems are created. All these cost money. The interconnection of the distant solar generation site reqires a huge outlay of money to secure a path for the wire, build the wire, maintain the wire, and deal with a whole new set of engineering challenges to balance the grid. These additional expenses do not address the issue that is an essential aspect of the centralized large scale utility style solar infrastructure; the only way you turn on electricity in your home or buisness is to pay the utility company on their terms.
Rooftops first, including thermal DHW. Then the utility style solar. Agile modular Nat gas units for primary geration. No more war for oil.
Thomas M
Thomas M
February 25, 2011
Agree with others that you can't compare apples to oranges. If you took the same cost and/or installation area of the larger and installed smaller, local, dedicated, point of use systems I am sure the PV would win as far as ROI.
Of course, add real solar thermal for hot water/air to the equation and I think we all know who would win that race.
Thomas Garven
Thomas Garven
February 25, 2011
I have to agree with David that we will need every renewable and power source we can find to met our future needs. Solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, wave, flowing rivers, trash to energy and maybe even some new nuclear units to burn up our existing waste. We also should get much better at both conservation and energy efficiency.

There is little appreciation for the amount of energy it is going to take to change from a fossil fuel society to an electric society. The rewards of such a change however will be great.
David Chmielewski
David Chmielewski
February 25, 2011
One system may be slightly less expensive than the other, but as we wean ourselves from coal and natural gas both types will be important. I am particularly intrigued by the potential for concentrating solar's potential for storing heat energy for night generation. In order to make the whole system work we will need wind, all types of solar, hydro, and whatever comes in addition to intensive efforts to make our energy use more efficient. It's not one technology OR the other. It's all.
ANONYMOUS
February 25, 2011
This is the raw cost. From another press release: "Participants in the program can purchase all-inclusive fully installed solar panels made by SolarWorld USA for as low as $4.22/watt DC (STC). Federal tax credits and utility rebates bring the cost down further.".

It's not easy to compare tower-of-power CSP to local flat plate. Given the same weather conditions (other than in an arid desert), flat-plate will have a higher cpacity factor due to it's ability to utilize diffuse sunlight and cruise through haze and precipitiation (optical distortion and diffusion has a much greater effect on mirrors than flat plate absorbers). Also, central plants have substantial grid loss, although what that is is a best kept secret. Technical losses should account for ~7.5% but effective losses are typically ~12% mostly due to network management losses, congestion and curtailment(although some of the difference is known to be due to billing errors and theft). There's also the capex and maintenance of the grid to be factored in. On the other hand, behind the distribution transformer, local solar can also supplant grid and LDU build-out which results in an effective negative distribution cost.

When one factors in capacity factor differential, grid losses and distribution overhead costs, one has to multiply the cost of central CSP by ~1.2 X.

On one hand, hybrid solar thermal CSP has an advantage of being able to share grid resources between solar and NG. On the other, local hybrid PV/thermal may has its own improved cost/benefit. Depending on its water utilization, CSP may have extra operating costs.

In another comparison, peaking NG in California costs something like $0.165+/-.01/kWh. Since it has a relatively smaller distribution overhead, the appropriate delivered cost is something like 1.13X or ~$0.19/kWh before factoring in any environmental and health costs. One difference, the cost of NG will go up while the cost of solar will go down.
Joe Wojcicki
Joe Wojcicki
February 25, 2011
Anyway - compare to nuclear - over 9 USD / W
and "risk of undelivered energy [outages]" = losses in food, medical emergency etc.
William Fitch
William Fitch
February 24, 2011
Hi:

This is somewhat of an off balance comparison in that solar concentration anything is very regional where as 1x sun PV is governed only by the total amount of solar energy, not the form of the solar energy. This difference in the two techs will alter the dollar aspects very widely depending on location.

.....Bill
Tam Hunt
Tam Hunt
February 24, 2011
Sorry, 28.3 c/kWh for LA home solar, not 23.3 (typo).
Tam Hunt
Tam Hunt
February 24, 2011
John, can you explain your numbers further for LA home-based PV and SCE's 1-2 MW solar PV projects? I think your levelized cost analysis is significantly off, though I am supportive of all types of solar.

Using NREL's simplified LCOE calculator, I get 23.3 c/kWh for $4.48/watt LA PV, before any tax credits or rebates are applied, assuming 25 year life, 18% net capacity factor, and 8% discount rate.

Edison's 250 MW program (projects it will own directly as opposed to the third party projects it has put out to bid, for another 250 MW) was initially approved at up to 26 c/kWh levelized cost. However, this is the upper limit for pricing that the CPUC approved in 2009 and the idea is that SCE will find the best prices available, over the five-year program, by working with various installers to construct these systems for the lowest possible price. I haven't, however, seen any public pricing information from the first 10 completed projects by SCE. Do you have this data are you assuming a capital cost figure?

Here's NREL's calculator:

http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech_lcoe.html

It's very basic but good for discussions like this.
ANONYMOUS
February 24, 2011
It is too early to judge the long term market potential of solar thermal given the very limited number of installations; by comparison, PV has been given an extensive opportunity to prove itself with limited success thus far. Naively one might think that mirrors have to be cheaper in the long term than PV cells and labor costs for small rooftop installations are going to be hard to reduce. Furthermore, solar thermal offers the possibility of affordable storage so that it generates reliable power rather than intermittent electricity. I would not use the term "cheap" for either technology.
Steven

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
John Farrell

John Farrell

John Farrell directs the Energy Self-Reliant States and Communities program at ILSR and he focuses on energy policy developments that best expand the benefits of local ownership and dispersed generation of renewable energy. His latest paper,...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Create a free account and start adding your blogs.

Create an Account

Most Commented

  • 55
    Energy Expert Predicts Solar Could Upend Major Utility in California on Price
  • 27
    Fighting Blackouts: Japan Residential PV and Energy Storage Market Flourishing
  • 17
    The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • 12
    Massachusetts Solar: Healthy Mix of Business Sense, Environmental Awareness and Public Engagement

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Creotecc Solar Mounting Systems
  • AR Power Company, Ltd.
  • Parker Hannifin - Precision Cooling Systems
  • Solar FlexRack
  • Navigant
  • Associated Renewable
  • Talesun Solar USA, Ltd.
  • EcoFasten Solar
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
  • News
  • Conference & Expo
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen 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 Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information