Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Delivering a Zero-Day Payback Time for Solar

By Matt Cheney, MMA Renewable Ventures, CEO
April 9, 2007   |   22 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
For the renewable energy market at large, third-party finance directs large amounts of capital into what is currently a relatively fragmented, inefficient marketplace. Like the car loan did for the auto industry and the calling plan did for cellular technologies, the rise of the PPA and other new finance models streamline the market and enable the speedy adoption of solar energy.

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

22 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 22
April 10, 2007
I think that companies have to target specific uses for solar power. If a system is developed to use solar power in conjunction with LED lighting or with computers, then the extra expense of up front investment could be more easily justified since the pay back time would be quicker. Since LED's and computers use low voltage DC, then the value of the electricity produced is enhanced; electricity need not be lost during any conversion process.

Right now, I think that what is holding back PV solar is its more efficient use in direct operations. Most companies do not wish to invest in PV as electricity for inlining to grids because of the long pay back time. Rather, the benefits of PV are in direct use of the power. In this manner, the PV units could, at least for now, be kept to fairly low and conservative power levels at which the investment could be quickly recouped.

This boils down to efficiency in solar investment.

adrianakau@aol.com
Comment
2 of 22
April 10, 2007
Matt,

Excellent article! Applying a long-term financing model to solar is brilliant. Moving to scale (gigawatts) on PV cell production may also drive down the installed kilowatt costs like when DRAMs and flat screen TVs moved to scale.

Bob
Comment
3 of 22
April 11, 2007
Dear MMA Renewable Ventures,

How about offering renewable energy bonds that investors could purchase? This would provide extra capital to expand your initiatives and allow motivated investors to put their money where their values are and earn attractive returns. Many socially responsible investors already own shares in MMA but would like to target additional capital to renewable energy.

Hal Brill
Natural Investment Services, LLC
www.naturalinvesting.com
Comment
4 of 22
April 11, 2007
Thanks for spelling that out so simply. It's the basis for a notoriously hopeful MLM, but is actually viable today (especially in the commercial realm). I'm hoping to apply that model to both PV and solar water heating, which has an even quicker rate of return. Strangely, the US is one of the few places that doesn't use the sun to heat water, but because it's not as "sexy" as PV, it has been largely ignored.
Comment
5 of 22
April 11, 2007
Continue

Unless FERC intervenes, Wall Street Investment Bankers are not bearish, and an amicable resolution is adopted by the Regulatory, the ongoing fiasco of "Green-Green" will continue for another decade, or two.

So, based upon the "green fiasco" we keep-on voting for the elected officials.
Are the elected officials also going to vote for the solar boys, by at least guarantee the credit facility for development (no subsidy), so the Wall Street Investment Bankers can facilitate?
Comment
6 of 22
April 11, 2007
Continue

However, these are not at-issue matters. Wall Street is 'brain-washed" by the gas-fired turbine plant's boys, blind-folded in understanding that the levelized costs, spread over 20y of solar thermal plans, is now almost the same as gas-fired turbine's plants.
Just about 9.78 cents/kWh. And if NG rises to over $8.25/, the costs of solar thermal will be at 6 cents/kWh.

The CFO,s of proposed solar thermal electric power plants (STEPP), have to cross the "barrier-to-entry", particularly at Wall Street Investment Bankers, as well as "what is in the IOU's wallet", i.e. who pays up-front for the trunklines and connection to CAISO's grid. Who have more $, the IOU's or the IPP,s. Indubitably, the IOU's, and IOU's can deduct the costs of such trunklines from the IPP's pay check, amortized over 20y.
Comment
7 of 22
April 11, 2007
Matt Cheney:

As Albert Einstein had stated: "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them" and Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931): "What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that".

The IOU's have 20y PPC. Long term, sufficient in pro forma to justify the levelized costs over 20y, applicable to over 20MWe "green" solar thermal power plants.
The base tariff is at $61.50/MWh, and the credits are at $0.0017/kWh.
Whereas, it is set, particularly for SCP-Tech's solar thermal electric power plants (no NG) with MSS tanks in the aggregate of 66% capacity factor.
Comment
8 of 22
April 11, 2007
Thank you, Matt, for your article. The prospects for turning PV power projects into PPA is great: breaking apart the current costs from the future gains and bringing in the expertise of banks.
One area was not expressly discussed - PPAs would be an act of selling risk to a third party who expects to see returns on that investment. When thought of this way, are there expectations of sufficient returns on PV projects with 10 year payback periods?
My guess is that there are ways to mitigate those risks, through Futures contracts, diversification of assets, etch. I would love to hear your thoughts.
Comment
9 of 22
April 11, 2007
Mr. Schmidt, since you apparently flunked econ, or slept through it, I'll try to explain it. PV systems are good for 30 years. This, coincidentally IIRC, is how long they can be amortized over, for tax purposes. However, they can be amortized over about 10 years, based on old tax info. This cuts apparent (as opposed to actual) costs. Add in state/local/federal tax credits (cut taxes actually paid), and it lowers the total cost.
How it works is, the customer "knows" electricity will go up at X% a year (3-5% in cost). They pay an agreed amount per kWH, over _30_ years. In early years, the "owner/lessor" makes money from tax credits (lowers _their_ tax bill), and from actual income, in later years.
They make money, the "customer" makes money by lowering potential costs in later years, and keeps a steady cost. It really is win-win. No gimmicks, no "smoke and mirrors." Even an accounting idiot like me can understand it. :-)
Comment
10 of 22
April 11, 2007
Great article Matt, sounds like you've been around the block. Green is nice, but the bottom line in any company is making money. Anything less gets you fired. To promote PV I would focus on remote installations where power lines don't exist yet; areas where power outages or surges wack out critical systems such as emergency lighting, computers etc. PV systems provide very clean, reliable power and are an excellent choice if you have the real estate for an arry of collectors. Also how come a company can't finance a system and obtain insurance on that loan based on their excellent stability?
Comment
11 of 22
April 11, 2007
Rick,
The new S.O.L.A.R. law that has been placed before both the Senate and the House will open up non-net-metering states. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1016

Go out and do everything you can to convince your Congressional representation to support the bills, and get all your friends and relatives to support them, too.

There is a petition available for this at:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=9598476&content_dir=ua_congressorg&mailid=custom
Comment
12 of 22
April 11, 2007
The long term "financability of solar" is a reality that deserves front page Wall Street Journal or NYT scaled publicity.

Designers working with "home scale solar thermal energy" (both passive and active) in the 1970's and early 80's argued against using short term payback analysis instead of "solar future present value" amortized (over 30 year mortgages methodology. Many projects that were built during that time delivered 50 to 70% of domestic space heating and have paid for themselves 3-5 times already.

George Reynoldson
Comment
13 of 22
April 11, 2007
This should work. Corporations have ROI hurdles for investment which can range from 30% to 100%. Energy projects have ROI's in the 10% to 15% range so they cannot compete with projects that "make more widgets." If financing can be had at say 7%, the third party could take the difference of 3-8% as profit. That may produce enough cash flow to make a viable business. Hmmm....let's get busy.
Comment
14 of 22
April 11, 2007
Matt,
Can you explain who a third-party lender might be, and what interest rates they would expect for providing the loan? I have difficulties working out how this could work, since the payback is very slow and ROI should be low. Who will provide the third-party financing?

Martin
Comment
15 of 22
April 11, 2007
O.K. Matt,

These lenders won't get as excited to come to a state like mine which is absent state incentives for renewables. Isn't that right?

Rick
Comment
16 of 22
April 11, 2007
This model is simular to what is happening in the residential market.

Start here for your research: www.sunfedhomes.com

I agree... Hang on everybody!

'Times... they are a change'n'
Comment
17 of 22
April 11, 2007
Matt,

This was an excellent article. I've been tracking solar power progress for the past decade waiting on a business model that will deliver an IRR conducive to business but have not seen one that I believe. To your knowledge has a risk assessment of a sloar project been facilitated to improve ROI and reduce installation costs.

Ralph Kneisley
rkneisley@windstream.net
Comment
18 of 22
April 11, 2007
So, basically what this idea would be doing is acting like a buffer? The cost over the lifetime of the PV system including, replacements parts, is actually higher but the customer doesnt know this because its all diced up from day one and streched out thin over time?
Kind of like charging someone $0.25 each to shine 20 quarters but instead of laying one bill on them for $5.00 that day, you convince them to pay $0.10 a day over 53.5 days and then by that time the quaters are ready to be shined again. Ingenious! Not only does this mean more money for more people from the same PV array, the best part is the company doesnt even know they are paying more for that PV array over its lifetime,
and the PV industry thinks the answer is in more efficient manufacturing process of PV cells. Who knew the answer was in financial "prestidigitation" all along.
Comment
19 of 22
April 11, 2007
Matt
Greetings and congratulations for putting your thoughts together on this subject. I am from India and my experience is that Solar energy harnessing is becoming difficult day after day because of rising costs, especially in developing countries. We enjoy plenty of sunshine but have yet to come out with a cost effective method of harnessing that sunshine which willbe beneficial to the community. As a result,community is still dependent upon conventional power which is causing more and more dangers to the ecology. Congrats once again and Cheers.
Abhirutu Consultans
abhirutu@rediffmail.com
Comment
20 of 22
April 11, 2007
Matt,

Nice article. I agree with you in your analysis. We are also venturing into the PPA model of alternative energy...although not with solar. Should you have interest in incorporating urban wind energy into your projects, feel fre to contact me. PacWind could expand your options with installations quite immensely...with minimal footprint as well.

Excuse our current website, should you visit. The new one is days away. Shoot me an email and I'll send you a brochure.

Best,
Ken Johnson
PacWind, Inc
Comment
21 of 22
April 12, 2007
In looking to "Zero Day" How about this idea.

I already have "partners" we are thinking of the following schedules in regard to Windmill that we will manufacture.

Please give us your feedback.

1- Pay next to nothing to have one windmill installed then you pay for the amount of electricity it generates for 5 years.
2- You purchase one with plus option to sell back if it does not pay by itself in 3-1/2 years.
3- Purchase one out right.
If you wonder what about our windmill you can take a look at:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wind+wave+turbine&search=Search

Thanks

Phi
Comment
22 of 22
April 15, 2007
Phi. I think you have the right idea. If costs per Kwh are low, then magical acts should not be necessary for financing. The present problem with solar is its high Kwh cost.

With a good wind source, there should not be a problem with pay-back time. Also, with concentrated solar, the Kwh should be lower than with PV units and the pay back time should also be much less.

Good investments mean good returns. An investement where the rate of returns are high (low Kwh cost) are where people are looking to place their capital.

adrianakau@aol.com
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

Advertise With Us

Renewable Energy World Asia The Switch Zep Solar Comment:Visions SolarTech Solar Leadership Summit 2012 Southwest Windpower American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America 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 Photovoltaics World Magazine 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