Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Spanish PV After the Crash

By Alasdair Cameron, Contributor
April 29, 2010   |   26 Comments
While PV is not booming in Spain anymore, it is still a 600 MW market.

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
"Spanish PV companies have shown a great resistance and great capacity to adapt to really bad times. We are growing now and continue growing more in the medium and long term."

-- Tomás Diaz, Spanish Photovoltaic Industry Association
26 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 26
April 30, 2010
The spanish government was certainly shortsighted. A Feed in tariff at .43 center kWh of produced energy? I am only paying .10 per kWh currently. That kind of a wealth transfer policy could only encourage a boom/bust. I think any federal incentives should be base on tax credits/incentives (allowing us to keep larger and larger percentages of our own money) rather than redistributing the money of others. What free market economist could argue with reducing/avoiding taxes? None.

Randy
SimpleEnergyWorks.com
Comment
2 of 26
April 30, 2010
While President Obama claims he is not raising taxes on any citizen making uder $200,000 the DIT priciple turns that statement in a lie. Anyone in any state or looks at Federal Grants being handed out along with the various FIT will evenually wake up and see the tax has been bundled up in the utility bill or the federal taxes they pay. Ironically Spain has come forth and it has ben said they lost two jobs for evry job created in the solar sector. One other question remains, What if carbon dioxide is not a green house gas causing global warming or in fact causing the weather to change ? What a financial burden to apply to everyone.
Comment
3 of 26
April 30, 2010
Very high FITs don't maximize economic efficiency as Randy implies.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas but the amount of warming is limited to a degree or two making it difficult to predict any climate change or to result in a significant loss of the antarctic ice sheet. There is only a limited amount of fossil fuels available, so very high levels of CO2 can't be reached.

PV is dropping in price and will be competitive with fossil fuels for electricity production in a few years and will only need a small incentive to keep improvements on track. Remote spots (off the grid) are already finding PV cost effective. PV should first be installed in areas that receive large amounts of direct sunlight, not the northern latitudes.

Wind turbines are competitive with natural gas generation now in certain areas.

Particulate air pollution is a major cause of morbidity and that is another good reason to accelerate migration to wind and solar.
Comment
4 of 26
May 1, 2010
Define "small"?
How about 0.0/kWh feed-in tariff. Only help would be some form of tax credits associated with the initial capital investment.
Comment
5 of 26
May 1, 2010
If .10 is the average, how about .10, floating with what average is, or if peak use is at peak sun, how about peak?

If the objective is to have power near use and not to build energy-hungry pollution machines at a distance, why not feed-in this way?

Set it at something people can understand, with reasonable genuflection to externals such as reducing asthma and other easily identified pollution-disease, -aesthetic and -inconvenience factors.

Many put solar in believing in the inevitability of increasing energy costs.

If for some mysterious reason inflation does not happen, solar is still installed. What can be changed is performance by tweak, such as changing inverters, say.

Tweaking a system, whether solar, small-wind, or geothermal, can be tracked and fiddled with no matter what the source of juice. Large systems already have to deal with unpredictable change.

Tolerating tinkerers should be an ability of a large system. Most people into logging and tracking stuff will go above ground, though there will be some under-grounders, which the system also monitors to detect.

When I cut my phantom loads, I got a visit. I suspect they suspected me of something. I asked so many questions, I think they were relieved when they were done testing my meter.

Everybody I know with solar, in Portland, is happy with it, pleased they did it, and getting more power than they were promised. Granted, they are geeks and they stay on top of things, but so what.

Assuming people are incapable of maintenance is the dysfunction of insufficient expectations.

Oregon is still mostly net-metered, with excess in the course of a year going to low-incomers, a boost to power companies who might suffer more reduction in use without these programs.

Allegedly, we will soon get the ability to roll over credit year to year. When it does, maybe costly paperwork will simplify.
Comment
6 of 26
May 3, 2010
Well, the many Spanish PV companies will now conquer the world markets, so that's a good side of it, there's good sides to everything. And anyhow, such tariff regimes, oppressors of the poor, aren't all that fair
-Anand@cleantick.com - your global clean technology professional network
www.cleantick.com
No image available
Comment
7 of 26
Anonymous
May 3, 2010
In comment #3 Ron writes: "There is only a limited amount of fossil fuels available, so very high levels of CO2 can't be reached."

This is a specious argument. There is more than enough coal available that if we were to burn it all the atmospheric levels of CO2 would increase by a significant multiple--and this is almost certainly enough to cause dramatic changes to the climate. Most people would say that levels sufficient to cause dramatic climate change would qualify as "very high."
Steven
Comment
8 of 26
May 3, 2010
Increasing distaste for the dirty nature of using mined fuels is powering change that may not so easily be detected by looking at collected data, and it may be this is going on in unexpected places. I see evidence of change by walking around, though I know my neighborhood is unusual. Lost in state and federal statistics is information about neighborhoods that are beginning to look and function differently. Finding small-scale examples of good practice would not mean that what works in one micro-climate can go to scale through imitation. Still, it would be good to see some exemplary or small installations detailed here, just to prime the pump with innovative beginnings. For vendors, installers, and service-providers, it might be useful to send prospective clients somewhere independent to look at finished installations that have been operating a while. You can get this from product websites, but they tend to go stale and just be left up there. An independent, searchable archive could make an on-line portfolio for particular technologies in particular places.
Comment
9 of 26
May 4, 2010
For the ones against FIT's as leveling mechanism to increase penetration of clean energy resources : what have YOU personally done to get clean energy to your accommodation and reduce your carbon footprint ?

I live in Belgium, north of Spain, and now pay a flat rate of 18 cents per kWh to get grid electricity supplied to my home. Many parts of the world already have electricity rates that are over $0.40/kWh. Solar today averages $0.25/kWh. In almost all of Africa, Pakistan, Hawaii, Italy, The Netherlands and large portions of Japan or India, the price of electricity is already in excess of what the cost of electricity is when coming from solar PV.

I just purchased a 4.2kW solar roof PV installation : 14% Photovoltech cells integrated in Bisol 245Watt panels, connected to two SMA 2100TL inverters with 96% DC/AC efficiency conversion, yearly sun insulation power production rates are around 850kWh per 1000Watt PV panels, PV panels facing 20° from the south to the east, with a 45° roof angle.

I paid 15 520 to get it all installed, I produce 3540 kWh of power the first year. With the yearly 0.008 power production loss factor due to aging PV cells, in 20 years, my installation will have produced 65 674 kWh, and after that, will keep continue producing power for decades.

15 520 investment divided by 65 674 kWh produced = 24 cents per produced kWh fixed for the next 20 years.

I can get a 40% tax rebate capped at 3600 per year. 40% of 15 520 = 6 200.

I am allowed to ask for this tax rebate in the following 4 tax returns (2011 till 2015). I therefore have to wait for two tax returns refunds to be able to capitalize the tax rebate on this investment.

Once the tax rebates earned, my capital investment drops to 15 520 – 6 200 = 9 320.

9 320 divided by 65 674 kWh produced = 14 cents per kWh for the next 20 years. I already pay 18 cents per kWh now for grid electricity, being raised by 2% each year as an inflation adjustment factor.
Comment
10 of 26
May 4, 2010
I also can enjoy a FIT of 35 cents per produced kWh for 20 years. I earn 0.35/kWh x 65 674 kWh produced = 23 000 over 20 years, being paid by fossil fuel energy users taxed at a 1.5 cents per used kWh, as compensation for the pollution they generate.

http://www.thesolarfuture.nl/nieuws/tag/future

14 cents per kWh is less than half the current utility peak power price now being paid in California by home owners using fossil fuel generated electrical power. 24 cents per kWh is about 70% of the current utility peak power price now being paid in California by home owners using fossil fuel generated electrical power. In other words, if you install PV panels close to users in California, you come ahead compared to new fossil fueled E-generators, given that new fossil fueled E-generators also need new distribution grids to get the juice flowing to where it is used.

2009-2019 US Oil&Gas companies subsidy = $36.5 billion.
ExxonMobil 2009 NET profits = $45 Billion
ExxonMobil paid no federal income tax in 2009
2009 US military spending to protect foreign oil&gas supply routes : $ 650 000 millions
2000-2009 US military spending to protect foreign oil&gas supply routes : $ 4 733 000 millions

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/06/exxon-tax/
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6103RM20100201
Comment
11 of 26
May 4, 2010
"Very high FITs don't maximize economic efficiency as Randy implies"
Sorry, but it seemed to me that simplenergy said the exact opposite of this. He said - rather than implied - that boom and bust could be expected with such a high tarrif.
I think my brain is in the right way round, but doo let me know !
Comment
12 of 26
May 4, 2010
If the cost of electricity is high, then PV is a solution.

If someone is receiving a FIT subsidy, it doesn't reduce the cost of electricity for society as a whole.

Why should PV have a higher FIT then wind power?

Peak power generators are needed even if PV and wind are utilized. Peak power in the US is supplied by gas turbines and should in all fairness be costed at the price of natural gas. (Natural gas in very available now in the US.)
Comment
13 of 26
May 4, 2010
Ideas such as "accelerate migration to wind and solar" are from armchair theorists. Ask them how much have they "migrated" recently and all you get is more excuses. This is because they have done neither the homework nor the practical to enable them to realise that "migrating" requires Energy. We hear a lot of Talk about the "stuff" these days. This energy has to be supplied by something, and currently it is supplied by the burning of the atmoshere with oil and gas. We ( or should I say "they" ) burn 153M quids worth to make a "Windfarm" which then returns 0.2M quid of energy each year. (Llandeilo, uk, July '05) If we can multiply .2 by 25? years, we see that this is several whole percent of the cost of building another. So "migration" - without rather a lot of "help" from BP, etc. - is going to be a trifle slow - and waste of oil and air anyway. But we can gaze out of our cars / cattle trucks - and see "Windpower" - all over the place. - And maybe a solar panel here and there.. Silicon could quite possibly actually GROW (though) - but on energy WHICH IT SUPPLIED !!!
Comment
14 of 26
May 4, 2010
The article says that Spain is cutting its FIT because of soaring costs.

Simpleenergy recommends that investment tax credit be used instead.

Anonymous thinks that global warming is an urgent problem and is why PV and wind power should be adopted.

Mary Saunders mentions the problem with fossil fuel extraction.

A-b mentions personal responsibility.

I feel that were running out of fossil fuels and need to develop alternatives.

We all have our favorite view of the elephant.
Comment
15 of 26
May 4, 2010
Tour de force, a-b. I'm hoping the solar guys working a plan for my house can give me that kind of detail. I am so glad you posted that here.
No image available
Comment
16 of 26
Anonymous
May 5, 2010
a-b-24958's analysis neglects a number of important factors. Perhaps the largest is the opportunity cost associated with paying 20 years of electricity costs up front. Using his assumptions for rate increases (2%/yr), efficiency loss, etc., if he takes 15,520 and invests it at 6% interest (a conservative value for long term equity investments) and adjusts his investment yearly by the cost of electricity, in 20 years he would have ~23,500 instead of a 20 year old set of solar panels. If instead you use the cost after rebates, 9320, after 20 years he would have ~4700 instead of a set of 20 year old panels and his government could put the rebate he didn't apply for to better use--such as R&D or upgrading a heating system in a government building (either of which would probably leave the environment better off than if the rebate funds are squandered on inefficient solar installations).

He also assumes that he will have no maintenance costs over the 20 year time frame, which seems optimistic. Further, he assumes that the utility will be forced to provide him--free of charge--with the benefit of grid connectivity. Possibly this is guaranteed in Belgian law, but in most localities it is a very poor assumption that net metering benefits with be continued for so long. Eventually, as solar adoption rates increase the utilities will have to be allowed to recover the costs of grid connection from solar users who are using the grid as a de facto storage device. My utility claims that the value of this service is about 40% of the total cost of my electricity so this is a nontrivial concern.


Steven
Comment
17 of 26
May 5, 2010
I do not find the 6% interest to be a reliable assumption in these times, unless your friends can help you front-run, and that requires running in pretty tony circles.

In that case, you could make more than 6% and throw the average off for the people unfortunate enough to be on the other end of the front-running.

Good quality solar panels can yield longer than 20 years.

I do not find that government reliably uses money well. I also do not find that upgrading government buildings is necessarily of benefit to modest-income people, unless the locality has a good record of inclusiveness and high value of service with costs of service that are not regressive.

Governments frequently have fancy buildings that they heat all night, but they do not allow unemployed or homeless to stay there, using the heat on a hostel-like basis.

Some advocates and some officials find under-utilization of government space to be inefficient and wasteful, especially in times of high unemployment.

I used to work in social work. I know how much people want to work and how much they need community. I also briefly owned a retail bookstore. I feel I was saved from harm by an unemployed window washer who happened in when some fancy guys with a fancy car came in my store and asked for a kind of literature they could see I did not have.

In some climates, maintenance costs are minimal, and many owners are capable of doing it themselves.

Perhaps some utilities will make advances in storage capacity and will be happy not to have the expense and liability of constructing large, often remote plants and then protecting supply lines against acts of God and Man.

Not all utilities make the same claims regarding how inconvenient they find renewables to be.

Increasing pressure for transparency could also change the cost structure of utilities.

There are many variables here. It would be interesting to hear more feedback on these issues.
Comment
18 of 26
May 5, 2010
20 year US municipal bonds now go for 5% effective yield which is better than 6% taxable yield.

It's difficult to be certain as to the life of photovoltaic systems. The PV cells are only part of the system since there is also the problem of mounting the cells, orienting them for maximum power, protecting them from inclement weather, and converting the power to the grid.

If you don't like government policies, elect politicians that will change those policies.

Solar and wind resources are remote from the population centers of the US, a national grid system needs to be established to move that power across the country (see AMSC).
Comment
19 of 26
May 5, 2010
Birmingham, Alabama, just had a huge municipal bond scandal, the largest since Orange County, some years ago. It is unlikely Birmingham is the only locality with this challenge. Unfunded mandates have caused rising livings costs on top of employment losses.

Many localities may be in trouble, and the population may not be able to afford the rates arranged for them. Ratepayers frequently find those 15- to 20% rate increases when the bill comes. Other utility costs affect how much people can afford for power. The thermostat may have to go down.

In spite of the Freedom-of-Information Act and other local rules, it can be difficult to get debt statistics from governments, especially if they have used derivatives. Nonetheless, advocacy for transparency persists.

It will be easier to put distributed energy and micro-grids in some places than in others. When ordinary people hear the advantages of distributed energy, they tend to like the concept.

Local control may mean tenacity in research, advocacy, and changing out politicians when their true constituencies have moved away from the localities where they were elected. High and lengthy unemployment statistics may make it more likely people will do this work. Utility costs affect employment.

Logging characteristics and variables and striving for transparency allow both individuals and organizations to put their resources and energy where learning can happen. A side benefit could be the energy required for secrecy would be less. Both regulators and company officials have the option of shrugging and going along with increasing transparency initiatives.

If the rationale for the granting of monopoly is reliability and cost-effectiveness, measuring this on a continuing basis can be made an accessible academic exercise. When somebody then says, "I didn't know," the retort can be "It's on-line, accessible at the public library."
No image available
Comment
20 of 26
Anonymous
May 5, 2010
Mary:
6% is a pretty conservative value for long term return on investments, but if you want to quibble a 30 year treasury bond yields something like ~4.5% so that is an absolute floor on the time-value of money although a-b...'s analysis assumes 0%.

Maintenance costs are typically a significant concern and warranties have no value if the company that sells you the system goes bankrupt--and the solar business is going to see a lot of companies that bet on the wrong technologies fade away.

If you are one of those people who derives considerable intangible pleasure from having the latest gadgets and a highly visible sign that you are an "eco-saint," or you simply have money to burn, then solar PV may be for you. Otherwise, I'd be wary of the numbers bandied about by solar system vendors as they are--to be overly polite--misleading. Solar hot water and geothermal heat pumps may be reasonable purchases but PV is a huge gamble with an extremely poor rate of return.

Another factor to consider is that prices are dropping and quality is improving with time so waiting could be the best strategy. PV integrated with ceiling tiles or other building integrated strategies are coming eventually, so in 20 years your PV panels--should they last that long--are going to seem like a clunky and expensive boondoggle compared to what your more-patient neighbors eventually get.
Steven
Comment
21 of 26
May 5, 2010
I haven't yet put in a system, but Portlanders are installing systems at a steady clip. Those who have done it seem quite satisfied, but there are unique issues here. Many of us have no need for cooling, for example. The cost of drilling for geothermal is high, and figuring out other issues with ground-source are also a bit challenging, e.g., placement of thermostats and a need to monitor for fast-cycling, which causes greater electricity use.

Our dry season is often brief, so rain washes panels constantly.

I appreciate your caution about manufacturers. The group buys warrant that they are vetting carefully. There is risk, but there is risk in breathing. Investing in the stock market or in home improvement is about hope, faith, and curiosity rather than about certainty, for most people. To me, it is more about making a bet than it is about being a saint.

What some people have said, in my climate, is that they get higher output than they were promised, and there is one guy who is still using a massive installation he put in years ago and which has lasted far longer than its warranty. He speaks at solar interest groups.

The debt crisis and technology changes can cause commodity prices to drop, but expenses in my area are going up alarmingly. Industry executives may not notice this so much, but ordinary people do, and they may change how they decide to use what resources they have because they see living costs as lurching out of control.

I have been at public meetings where retired doctors and laborers have threatened to leave town because their budgets are no longer working for them as utility costs rise. The sort of person testifying about this may not make the evening news where if it bleeds it leads.

Local officials vote against these voices over and over.

Some industries will respond.
Comment
22 of 26
May 5, 2010
Portland has low electric costs since much of the power is supplied by hydropower. Where would anyone go to get lower rates?

The mountains and ridge lines are great sites for wind turbines.

Solar seems like the least economical non-fossil fuel energy source in Portland.

I think that Oregon has some good geothermal sites.
Comment
23 of 26
May 6, 2010
Some of the dams will be coming down. We do have wind, in part of the state, and Southern Oregon has had geothermal that has worked well for a long time. We also have a coal plant that some want de-commissioned. Of late, we are being constantly warned of major earthquake risk. Portland is the largest city in Oregon. Power from the eastern part of the state, where much of it is generated, by wind, hydro, and coal, could be interrupted by earthquake. Part of the push for efficiency and renewables is about not being dependent on long supply lines and not requiring new fossil generation, with the debt for new plants and with pollution. Factors like this can have an effect in some markets, even if return-on-investment may not seem likely to perform as well as the history we are not supposed to rely on in the boilerplate of stock or bond prospectuses. I don't know exactly what the installed solar base will be in a few years, but I expect it will be greater than what might have been expected, given our reputation for being all wet.
Comment
24 of 26
May 9, 2010
$ 2 bill euros is a lot considering that Spain, like Greece, Italy and a dozen US States, are virtually bankrupt. Chalk that up to bad luck - i.e. the financial fraud crisis. While the government officials can't be blamed for bad luck, they really should have had performance controls on projects to insure only the good ones got funded. In many US states with incentives, systems must perform at 80%+ of a benchmark average yearly kwhr production based on latitude tilt/180 azimuth. Funding projects with taxpayer funded incentives needs some controls like this or something similar.
No image available
Comment
25 of 26
Anonymous
May 21, 2010
I live in Spain. Eliminating the FIT will be ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC for the domestic consumer. Net payback would be a wonderful frosting on the cake. Up to now FIT has been a game that could only be played by the fat cats and the utilities. The basic cost of permitting alone, being the same for a 2 kW system as a 50 MW system, roughly 8,000 Euros, prohibited grid connections for all but very large systems. Systems are limited to either being grid connected or isolated. W/o net-back schemes, including battery costs for a domestic consumer to use power at night were often necessary for a system to be domestically useful. All that meant that FIT was a game that only the fat cats, investment banks and utilities could play. I've long advocated the implementation of net-back here, but the large utilities, banks and telecoms have an iron fist control of Spain. At least it seems that the "Crisis", as it is known here, has finally brought that financial fat-pig feeding trough to end. Hopefully solar power, the ideally distributed power source, will be able to be used where it is generated instead of wheeled around the country on a week grid from 100 MW conglomerated utility scale solar power stations, where voltage fluctions can go on for 15 minutes and have burned out both my fridge and TV power blocks. Yes, give us back the SUN on our own rooftops and the freedom to use the power where we need it. Fat cats and pigs.. move on to other countries. We don't need you here. The mayor's real estate development permit corruption schemes are more than enough to keep the Spanish system fed and happy.
No image available
Comment
26 of 26
Anonymous
May 21, 2010
Now if they could only do something about the rediculuous permit cost, both in Euros and time. Maybe they will find the resolve to fix the cost problem, but I fear they'll NEVER solve the time problem.
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

Alasdair Cameron

View Alasdair Cameron's Profile
About: MushyPea is a UK-based writer and campaigner on environmental issues. Particular interests include wildlife conservation, climate change and renewable energy. more »

Advertise With Us

Nextronex, Inc. AEG Power Solutions Midwest Renewable Energy Association Growth Energy Rittal Corporation Conergy Inc. Admirals Bank
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