The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Friday, May 24, 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
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured 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
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? Click Here to Register! ×

Spain and Portugal Lead the Way on Renewable Energy Transformation

Tam Hunt, Contributor
February 07, 2011  |  39 Comments

Rapid energy transformation at the national level is possible. Transformation is also necessary if we are to mitigate the impacts of climate change and peak oil. The kind of transformation we need in the U.S. has been demonstrated vividly by an increasing number of nations shifting rapidly to a renewable energy economy. Spain and Portugal are currently the most powerful examples of this transformation.

Spain has grown from using just two percent wind and solar power to almost 20 percent in a decade. Figure 1 demonstrates this growth at the same time as Spain’s electricity consumption grew rapidly – by 50 percent – from 2000 to 2008, only to drop equally rapidly from recession and price-induced conservation since 2008.

Spain now enjoys about 35 percent total renewables, when we include large hydroelectric, with the rest of its power coming from natural gas, coal and nuclear. Moreover, Spain is a good comparison to California because its population and climate are very similar to ours.

Figure 1. Spain’s electricity sector transformation, 2000 to 2010 (Source: EIA Int’l energy statistics).

Spain’s solar sector plummeted after 2008, however, due to major changes in its feed-in tariff law prompted by broader economic problems. A number of solar companies recently sued the Spanish government for retroactively changing contract prices under the feed-in tariff, illustrating the need to craft policies wisely and take into account various scenarios.

Portugal has demonstrated an even more remarkable transformation in the last five or so years. In 2004, Portugal had just two percent wind and solar, but by the end of 2009 (the latest year for which data are available) this had risen to over fifteen percent!  Its electricity consumption remained fairly level during the last decade.

Figure 2. Portugal’s electricity sector transformation, 2000 to 2009 (Source: EIA Int’l energy statistics).

Now, let’s compare these nations to California, generally perceived as the leading state on renewable energy in the U.S. Figure 3 shows that wind and solar penetration has generally been stagnant in California for the last decade. It’s only in 2009 and 2010 that an increase has occurred, but wind and solar have remained below three percent despite some recent growth. The rest of California’s renewables come from geothermal, biomass and small hydro (large hydro doesn’t count as renewable under California law).

Figure 3. California’s electricity sector, 2000 to 2010 (Source: California Energy Commission).

It’s important to note that this figure does not include net-metered solar because only wholesale data are included. However, if we included net-metered solar (under the California Solar Initiative), it would add only a small amount to the total amount of wind and solar. This is the case because even though California’s net-metered solar market is by far the largest in the country it is still a small fraction of the wholesale renewable energy market. Also note that these figures are for California as a whole, not just for the big three investor-owned utilities, which are tracked in CPUC reports and are a little different.

It’s also important to note that 2010 was a good year for California’s renewables market, adding twice the megawatts that were added in 2009. Early numbers (not yet finalized by the Energy Commission) suggest that the total renewables went up a couple of percentage points again in 2010 (perhaps as high as 18 percent for the large utilities and about 16 percent for the state as a whole), so the Renewable Portfolio Standard is starting to have a significant effect – eight years after it became law. We are, then, on track to achieve the 20 percent mandate by 2012 or so, in compliance with current law. It is far less clear if we are on track to achieve the more ambitious 33 percent mandate by 2020.

Last, let’s look at Texas, the leader in the U.S. in wind power. Texas grew from almost no wind power in 2000 to about 10,000 megawatts of wind – almost eight percent of Texas’ total electricity consumption – and has at times provided literally one quarter of all electricity in Texas. ERCOT stated in a recent press release: “ERCOT recorded a new wind output record of 7,227 megawatts (MW) at 7:16 am on Dec. 11, 2010, representing 25.8 percent of the load at the time.  The new peak beat the 2009 record by almost 1,000 MW.”

Texas has almost no solar power generation.

Figure 4. Texas’ electricity sector, 2002 to 2010 (Source: Electric Reliability Council of Texas).

Let’s compare all four side by side:

Each jurisdiction is different, of course, with its own mix of land use and pricing policies for renewables. Interestingly, California’s boom period for renewables occurred in the 1980s and early 1990s, reaching the high teens before diminishing as a percentage from the early 1990s until 2007. This was a result of the first robust feed-in tariff in the world: the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), which mandated that states offer contracts to renewable energy and cogeneration producers.

California implemented this law aggressively and saw about 10,000 megawatts of wind, solar and geothermal come online in just a few years – until the boom ended due to a reduction in fossil fuel costs, which acted as the proxy for contract pricing, as well as an end to tax credit programs.

Similarly, feed-in tariff laws prompted the booms in Spain and Portugal. Spain’s solar sector, as mentioned, is suffering from dramatic changes to the law, but the wind power sector – far larger than the solar sector – continues to grow dramatically. So the debate over feed-in tariffs will continue but it is simply not the case, as some critics insist, that countries like Spain show the folly (boom and bust) of feed-in tariffs for all renewables. The discussion in this article demonstrates this point.

I need to also mention Germany and China, which have seen similar robust growth in renewables. While their capacity additions are very impressive – Germany has by far the largest solar capacity and China now has the world’s largest wind power capacity – their percentage of renewables is not as impressive as Spain or Portugal. Germany’s wind and solar percentage rose from two percent in 2000 to about 7.5 percent at the end of 2009; China is still below one percent wind and solar even though its wind power sector doubled each year in five of the last six years (which will lead to very high penetration if this pace continues).

Another very encouraging trend is the decline in wind and solar power costs over the last few years, which I wrote about recently. Wind and solar are, when compared accurately to the appropriate baseload, load-following or peak power resources, cost-effective today. This is a very important point that should be spread far and wide.

So what is California to do in light of these analyses?

My client, the Clean Coalition (formerly the FIT Coalition) is leading the campaign in California to reach the Governor's target of 12,000 megawatts of distributed renewables.  We are working to create CLEAN (Clean Local Energy Accessible Now) programs that use the best elements of successful feed-in-tariff programs around the world, save money for California ratepayers, and create good local jobs. A recent report from the Center for American Progress provides strong support for CLEAN programs as effective tools for promoting renewables.

Our goal with the CLEAN California bill is to achieve the same transformation Spain, Portugal and Texas have experienced in the last decade – and that California achieved in the 1980s.

Tam Hunt is president of Community Renewable Solutions, LLC, a renewable energy consulting and project development company. He is also a Lecturer in climate change law and policy at UC Santa Barbara’s Bren School of Environmental Science & Management. His blog, Thought, Spirit, Politik, is at www.tamhunt.blogspot.com. 

39 Comments

Register To Comment
Tam Hunt
Tam Hunt
February 14, 2011
Steven, I don't know unfortunately and it would take a lot of digging to figure out why EIA's numbers are so much lower. The current MPR is from 2009 (they haven't updated it yet), so it will probably drop quite a bit again when the CPUC does update it, perhaps by as much as 20%, due to natural gas prices at only about $4/MMbtu right now.
ANONYMOUS
February 12, 2011
Tam,
Perhaps you could explain the large discrepancy between the CA MPR and the EIA estimate of levelized cost for new combined cycle natural gas obtained here:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html

The EIA lists mean levelized cost values of 6.6 cents/kWh for conventional and 6.3 cents/kWh for advanced combined cycle turbines. Their regional variation estimates range from 5.7 to 7.4 cents/kWh. The MPR is more than 50% above the EIA figures, which seems like a very large variation....
Steven
Iggy Dalrymple
Iggy Dalrymple
February 11, 2011
Calif, Spain, & Portugal,
birds of a feather,
going bankrupt together.
Tam Hunt
Tam Hunt
February 11, 2011
Steven, the Market Price Referent includes a GHG component designed to incorporate the anticipated costs of future regulation and it amounts to about 3% of the total payment (0.3 c/kWh currently). It's negligible. The MPR is designed explicitly to capture the cost of electricity from a new 500 MW natural gas combined cycle power plant. Believe me on this. I've been involved at the CPUC in various proceedings for seven years now.
luis Sousa
luis Sousa
February 11, 2011
Find out more about what Portugal is doing in RE.

http://lusitanaehabilitas.blogspot.com/2011/02/more-renewable-energy-from-portugal.html
Lisbon Lux
Lisbon Lux
February 11, 2011
Parking spots with electric car powering stations are already a common sight in Lisbon and in other Portuguese cities as can be seen here: http://www.lisbonlux.com/magazine/is-climate-change-and-global-warming-a-reality-or-a-hoax-in-lisbon-it-doesnt-matter/

Leaving Lisbon, heading north on the A8 highway you also see that wind turbines are now part of the landscape. This is the future and it's only a matter of time for countries not making renewable energy a priority like in Portugal to follow the lead.
ANONYMOUS
February 11, 2011
Tam writes in comment #24:
"All of these contracts are for below Market Price Referent, which is the price of a 500 MW natural gas plant."

The Market Price Referent (MPR) is related to the price of natural gas but they are not the same. For example, the MPR includes a significant surcharge for the amount of CO2 produced. The current price of natural-gas-generated electricity is significantly cheaper than the MPR and we should not so readily conflate the two.
Steven
Tam Hunt
Tam Hunt
February 10, 2011
Keller, your facts are wrong or inaccurate (as I mentioned, the size of the subsidies is important and all energy sources get some subsidies). But it doesn't matter what you or I think - the facts on the ground (new renewables doubling in the US every two years over the last decade) speak for themselves and will continue to speak even louder for themselves over time.
Michael Keller
Michael Keller
February 10, 2011
The developers of those project are relying on large subsidies. Fact.

An "apples-and-apples" comparison using a straight, unfettered Pro Forma analysis clearly shows that solar is significantly more expensive than a combined-cycle power plant unless the price of gas is extremely high (roughly $15/mmBTU. It currently sits at around $5/mmBTU). Fact.

Again, the only way solar can compete is by picking the pockets of the consumer and taxpayer.
Tam Hunt
Tam Hunt
February 10, 2011
Keller, one last time, to be entirely clear: on a cents per kilowatt hour basis, apples to apples, solar is now cheaper than natural gas electricity, if the projects SCE has proposed for approval are in fact built.

So there is no pocketbook issue. Solar is better for the environment and also cheaper for ratepayers. And when we throw in the job creation and technology export benefits, as well as increasing energy independence and climate change mitigation benefits, it becomes very abundantly clear that solar and other renewables are the way to go.

The only thing holding us back is ignorance about the true costs and benefits.
Michael Keller
Michael Keller
February 10, 2011
Tam,
It is the debt repayment coupled with the limited production hours that screw up solar and the reason that, at the moment, subsidies and mandates are present. Are such contrivances a good thing relative to ultimately driving down the cost of solar? Maybe, but that has to be balanced out against the near term downside of consumers having less money in their pockets. I think the downside greatly exceeds the benefits, given the dismal state of our economy.

Technology will continue to chip away at solar costs but it is not quite ready for "prime time", in my opinion. When the economy gets back on an even keel, then we will have a better ability to move at a faster space.
Tam Hunt
Tam Hunt
February 10, 2011
Keller, you're not listening. I've demonstrated to you that your facts are simply wrong. Please go back and read what I wrote and check out the links I sent you. It is NOT a fact that solar costs are expensive when compared to status quo fossil fuel sources such as natural gas (and coal is also becoming more expensive), as I've demonstrated. Capital costs are the lion's share of solar power costs, but this is not the key analysis. The key analysis is the cost of electricity, which is a function of capital costs, fuel costs, financing costs and operations and mainentance. So while capital costs are high for solar compared to natural gas, there are no fuel costs and O&M costs are quite low. Financing costs vary.
Warren Rosenkranz
Warren Rosenkranz
February 10, 2011
Goes to show you there is more wind in Texas than most foreign countries. Just kidding- We need to grab the nay saying politicians make them listen. Forward thinking people who are actually interested in preserving the earth for future generations realize if we don't do something immediately we are doomed. Peak Oil has passed, and now we are experiencing weather anomalies both heat and cold. And this is normal? Think again!
Michael Keller
Michael Keller
February 10, 2011
Tam,

The capital cost of an investment is a key element of the price that must be charged to make a profit. Solar is expensive. Fact. That means, even when siphoning money from the public trough, the price that must be charged is going to be high.

There is simply no question that without renewable mandates and massive subsidies, solar would not be built because it costs too much.

Apparently you do not possess the ability to conduct a civil and logical defense of you position without resorting to ad hominem attacks. I gather you are a Democrat.
Chaz Ott
Chaz Ott
February 10, 2011
I really appreciate this article. The use of graphs is highly effective and communicates more than a thousand words to me.

I am disheartened by the negativity in some of the reader comments. It is clearly representative of the battle that renewable energy advocates must wage against the incumbents.

The bottom line - Sustainability is not an option we must choose, but rather a responsibility we must fulfill to protect the future of the human species. Please continue to look forward to solutions. Thank you.
Tam Hunt
Tam Hunt
February 10, 2011
Keller, read what I suggested you read before you make such unsupported claims. All you're doing is revealing your ignorance here. We have increasingly solid proof, with actual contracts (rather than cost projections) of the competitiveness of solar with SCE's request for CPUC approval of a number of solar PV contracts for 5 to 20 MW projects (250 MW total) from its 2010 Renewables Standard Contracts solicitation. This program includes all renewables but all of the competitive bids in the 2010 solicitation were apparently solar. And California utilities like solar over wind nowadays because, as mentioned, solar is a good peak power resource. Here's the story:

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/02/solar-pv-becoming-cheaper-than-gas-in-california

All of these contracts are for below Market Price Referent, which is the price of a 500 MW natural gas plant. So if these projects are built at the prices locked in for a 20 year PPA, ratepayers will benefit enormously because the prices don't appreciate. They're locked. For 20 years. At prices lower than today's natural gas power in CA.

This is possible because the capital costs of solar PV are now below $4/watt and, as mentioned, because solar plants can get paid up to three times the base price for peak power, which adds about a net annual 30% premium for the solar developer on top of the base PPA price.

There is one wrinkle that should be acknowledged: solicitations encourage low bids, by definition, because low bids win, so there is a race to the bottom for pricing. And this can often lead to projects locking in PPAs at prices that can't support the projects. This is why I caveat my statement above with "if these are built," because there is some doubt that these projects will be doable at these prices. But given recent cost trends for solar PV, diminishing about 30% in the last two years, and 2011 projected to have far more supply than demand for solar, it seems these projects may get built.
Michael Keller
Michael Keller
February 10, 2011
Saying that solar is "valued at up to three times base load ..." is not accurate. The price of peaking power is much higher than base load because of market demand forces. What supplies the peaking power really does not matter.

Combined-cycle plants generally employ duct burners with the steam generators and that allows them to up power generation during peaking periods. Generally, combined cycle plants can be ramped down to about 60% load. Below that level, emissions typically exceed permit limits. Also, combined cycle units with multiple gas turbines can shut down units. Generally, because combined-cycle plants are pretty flexible, they are run so long as the price of power exceeds the cost of fuel.

Not sure what really goes on with the California grid due to the unusual politics of the state, but in the rest of the US a power plant can contract to supply power in the day-ahead market for a set price. However, if you can not guarantee the delivery of the energy into the grid, the price is significantly lower. You can also provide power into the hourly real time market at whatever price you can get.

The only reason solar plants are being built is due to mandates on the use of renewable energy in California, as the economics of solar are absolutely horrific. The California utilities really do not care as the costs are simply passed through to the hapless consumer. As the folks in California are apparently happy with the arrangement, then so am I. However, kindly do not foist such lunacy on the rest of us by way of Federal requirements. Each state should decide their own energy mix as they see fit and as driven by the availability of energy resources.
Jorge Montero
Jorge Montero
February 10, 2011
Its interesting why its so uphill for some system operators or regions to deal with renewable energy. Maybe they've had it too easy too long ...

Costa Rica generates about 95% renewable energy (ok, ok, 93% for 2010) for many years now. Combines some baseload hydro, geothermal, many run-of-the-river hydro, and some wind and biomass. Then some diesel and bunker plants used in the dry season, producing usually around 5% of the yearly energy.

No blackouts, no brownouts, no rationing. Competitive prices (rather low compared to the region).

Its probably a consecuence of no-nonsense policies (develop renewable only) and commitment from different governments effectively making it policy of State. Seems building powerlines to the energy resources, ie, considering them as part of a generation project, has helped too.

And also the system operator seems confortable juggling with all those "unpredictable" renewables. No whining about not enough baseload ...

Perhaps short and long term planning make a difference also.

Mario Montero
Arno A. Evers
Arno A. Evers
February 10, 2011
We have to be careful here to not up up and down with joy on the wrong foot. Just take a closer look at Concentrating Solar Power Plants, which are now installed comercially as being "green technology". The laws of thermodynamics and the small printed of the proposals, given by the (German) initiators for a (Spanish) CSP Plant in Southern Spain will teach you a lot.

Advertsing says, that CSP can also work at night, when they store the heat energy in molten salt (or other heat storage media).
How long this storage will keep the CSP Power plants running at night, depends upon regulations which are governing the feed-in-tariff in the country of so called renewable energies into the electricity grid.
Sales Brochures for the Ibersol Fonds, which is operated by Solar Millenium Invest AG, which is owned by Solar Millenium AG, located in Erlangen, Germany, dated October 2010 says among others:
>>>According to Spanish law...the ctual annual online time of solar power plants with a storage capacity of seven hours have to be limited to 3.950 full-load-hours
per year...(my remark: one year has 8.760 hours..)
...To maintain the temperature of the heat storage medium, gas of up to 15 percent of the actual total electricity output can be applied to the system...
(Page 48)...
At page 52, they are talking about efficiency of those, new to be built Solar Thermal Power Plants, with todays latest available (German) technology:
Efficiency of a planned solarthermic power plant:
Solarfield
Peak Efficiency: approx. 70 percent
Mean efficiency/year: approx. 50 percent
Turbine circle:
Peak Efficiency: approx. 40 percent
Mean Efficiency/year: approx 30 percent
Total Plant:
Peak Efficiency: approx. 28 percent
Mean Efficiency/year: approx 15 percent.

Please feel free to make your own maths in subtracting the 15% needed for the additional heating of the storage fluid with fossil fuels. What to do next?

Source: Solar Millenium Invest AG, Erlangen, Germany.
www.solarmillennium-invest.de
R E Stroot
R E Stroot
February 10, 2011
All great comments, but, last week Texas had rolling brownouts, again this week, not enough baseload power
Tam Hunt
Tam Hunt
February 9, 2011
Steven, you're right that "peak" refers to different types of products for balancing the grid, but solar PV is in fact valued at up to three times the base price of power in CA because providing power during peak demand times is so important. And in this sense it is entirely accurate to call solar PV a peak resource - and this is widely acknowledges by all of CA's regulatory agencies. So when a solar plant sells power to a utility, it sells power at a base price (the Market Price Referent generally) but can earn up to 3 times that base price for power produced on peak (noon to six during summer), which provides a net 30% boost to PPA prices on an annual basis for a good solar resource.

So even though solar PV plants without storage can't ramp up and down to balance short-term variation to the grid, it is still a more accurate comparison between solar PV and simple cycle than solar PV and combined cycle.

Regardless, the recent 250 MW of solar PV contracts for which SCE is seeking regulatory approval will demonstrate (if they are built) that solar PV is here now on a competitive basis, because as I mentioned all of these projects have signed PPAs at below Market Price Referent. And this is the case even for medium-scale projects between 5 and 20 MW (which is what SCE focused on in their Renewables Standard Contracts program), let alone much larger projects.
Anumakonda Jagadeesh
Anumakonda Jagadeesh
February 9, 2011
Yes.Growth of Renewables in Spain and to some extent in Portugal is spectacular.

Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India
ANONYMOUS
February 9, 2011
Continuation of comment #16:

Solar PV cannot provide grid stabilization by rapidly increasing on decreasing output so it is wrong to consider PV as a replacement for the simple cycle peaking plants that provide this service. Some solar thermal has a storage capacity and could provide variable output (although it typically is designed to provide base load power) but these resources generate power via steam turbines and would have response times that are significantly slower than simple cycle natural gas turbines and not dramatically different than combined cycle natural gas turbines.
Steven
ANONYMOUS
February 9, 2011
Tam writes in comment #15: "it is simply inaccurate to compare solar to combined cycle natural gas. CCGTs are a baseload resource. Solar is a peak resource. Peak resources are up to three times more valuable in California. The accurate comparison is solar to a simple cycle peaker natural gas plant, which the Energy Commission's 2009 levelized cost of energy report found costs about 50 c/kWh. "

I emphatically disagree. Simple cycle natural gas plants are used for "peaking" power because of their very rapid response times. They have relatively low efficiencies and low utilization factors so they are quite expensive when considered on a cents/kWh basis, but they provide a critical capacity to rapidly respond to variation in demand. Solar is often referred to as a "peak" resource but in a completely different sense than that used for simple cycle natural gas and other "peaking" resources. Solar simply overlaps well with peak demand and, although it is intermittent, when averaged over a wide region it reduces the overall demand during peak consumption times without significantly impacting the short term variability in demand (to the extent that is does impact this it leads to slightly increased variability). Thus, solar does nothing to smooth out the short term variability in demand and is NOT a replacement for peaking power plants with rapid response times such as simple cycle natural gas. If you add a lot of solar power to the grid in CA you will see lower utilization rates for the combined cycle natural gas plants but you won't greatly decrease the need for the plants that provide rapid response. CA may use combined cycle natural gas plants for base load capacity, but in many areas of the country these plants are used mostly to meet peak demand that can be met with the intermediate-level response times which this type of facility possesses.
Continued....
Tam Hunt
Tam Hunt
February 9, 2011
Steven, as I've mentioned in previous threads, it is simply inaccurate to compare solar to combined cycle natural gas. CCGTs are a baseload resource. Solar is a peak resource. Peak resources are up to three times more valuable in California. The accurate comparison is solar to a simple cycle peaker natural gas plant, which the Energy Commission's 2009 levelized cost of energy report found costs about 50 c/kWh. With solar even at the mid-20s this is obviously cost-effective and solar is a reliable peak power supply b/c in places like CA power demand peaks when the sun is strongest. And as Stephen Lacey's article today mentioned, solar PV costs are now coming in at or below Market Price Referent (similar to PURPA's avoided cost). But Stephen didn't mention the Time of Delivery boost that these projects receive, which adds about 30% value to these projects because of their peak power ability.

As for wind, check out Lawrence Berkeley's annual wind market report, demonstrating that in every region of the US wind power prices have been competitive with wholesale power prices.

So, again: renewables are cost-effective here and now, as demonstrated by the most authoritative and credible reports and the most recent market developments.
Tam Hunt
Tam Hunt
February 9, 2011
PS. The reason the wind sector has fits and starts when subsidies stop is because wind developers will of course seek to maximize their revenue and if they have good reason to believe the production tax credit will be renewed the year after it has expired, as it has a number of times, it is economically rational for them to do so. But keep in mind that the PTC is, while significant, only about 25% of the revenue for today's wind farms, depending on region (2.2 c/kWh). This makes a big difference to the bottomline for developers but a student of mine found last year that many jurisdictions around the country could support cost-effective wind without this subsidy. This is why I hope the wind industry can do without the subsidy after the next renewal and stop the interminable complaints about subsidies (which ignore subsidies for fossil fuels).
Tam Hunt
Tam Hunt
February 9, 2011
Keller, educate yourself a bit before making statements that there is "no way" renewables are cost-effective. As I already mentioned, literally all of California's renewables (mainly wind) in the 1980s and 1990s were cost-effective - by law. This is the case because, as I already mentioned, PURPA required that projects be cost-effective when compared to the status quo natural gas power plants.

Check out my recent article on the true cost of renewables:

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/print/article/2010/12/the-true-cost-of-renewable-energy

Bottomline: in many jurisdictions today renewables are already cost-effective, even without subsidies (as the Energy Commission my article links to demonstrates).
ANONYMOUS
February 8, 2011
Tam writes: "Our goal with the CLEAN California bill is to achieve the same transformation Spain, Portugal and Texas have experienced in the last decade – and that California achieved in the 1980s."

The latest version of Power monthly states the average CA electricity price is 14.05 cents/kWh as compared to the value for TX of 9.41 cents/kWh. This is in spite of the large amounts of relatively affordable hydro and geothermal power that CA has and that TX does not enjoy. Both states rely heavily on natural gas and the TX rate has dropped in the last year (consistent with lower natural gas prices) whereas the CA rate has increased. CA might do well to emulate the TX success....
Steven
ANONYMOUS
February 8, 2011
Keller writes in comment #3: "The parallels between Spain and California are more ominous than positive. Diverting massive amounts of money into intermittent and unreliable forms of generation only drives up energy costs, which in turn reduces economic vitality. Unconvinced? Look at the unemployment rates in California, Spain and Portugal."

It is hyperbole to blame Spain's unemployment rate on its renewable energy expenditures. Spain had a very serious real estate and construction bubble which was sufficient to explain its current economic situation. Spain's PV program was a disaster no one would want to emulate, but this was a small problem compared to the crisis in its financial system.
Steven
ANONYMOUS
February 8, 2011
Tam writes: "Another very encouraging trend is the decline in wind and solar power costs over the last few years, which I wrote about recently. Wind and solar are, when compared accurately to the appropriate baseload, load-following or peak power resources, cost-effective today. This is a very important point that should be spread far and wide."

Wind is competitive after the production tax credit. Solar PV, even in markets such as CA and even after substantial subsidies, still costs well above what energy from a combined cycle natural gas plant would cost at current market prices. Furthermore, the natural gas is dispatchable power and the PV is intermittent so the comparison isn't entirely apt. Solar prices are coming down at a decent clip of late, but it remains an exaggeration to say PV is as cheap as natural gas.
Steven
ANONYMOUS
February 8, 2011
Tam writes: "Germany's wind and solar percentage rose from two percent in 2000 to about 7.5 percent at the end of 2009; China is still below one percent wind and solar even though its wind power sector doubled each year in five of the last six years"

Germany's non-hydro renewables at the end of 2010 were at ~13.4% of demand (16.5% with hydro). The Germans have a significant biomass component that often does not receive the focus it deserves.

It seems most unlikely that China still gets less than 1% of its electricity from wind power. Both its electricity demand and its wind capacity are roughly similar to US values so it probably produces a similar percentage (~2%) of electricity from wind that the US does. Grid connection of wind turbines in China remain a problem, with nearly half of capacity only usable by localities, so their wind generation is probably underreported in their national totals though.

Steven
Michael Keller
Michael Keller
February 8, 2011
As international oil & gas companies are profitable, are you saying your firm is not? Unclear what oil & gas has to do with this.

I do not know how MPR is calculated. I do know that at a natural gas price of around $5/mmBTU, the sell price of power from a new combined-cycle plant is about $55/megawatt-hour. The sell price from a solar unit (concentrated solar trough) is around $240/megawatt-hour.

Using Tams observation that percentage of GDP associated with Spain's renewable subsidies is small, I suspect that the net contribution of solar to the economy is small as well.

Is Spain's investment in solar energy a reasonable means to meet their long-range energy demands? At this point, I'd say no because it is so costly. However, if the cost of solar can be brought down significantly so it can compete without subsidies, then yes. Will technology be able to achieve such cost reductions? Probably but that is likely to be achieved by low-cost Chinese manufacturing, which pretty much up-ends creating jobs in Spain.
ANONYMOUS
February 8, 2011
Keller - as an employee for a 'Spanish renewable energy fat cat' I can say that these companies have generated more wealth for Spain with international operations than they have siphoned off from the country. And if you look at our margins and balance sheets there is very little resemblance between our financials and those of - say - an international oil and gas company.

Countries need to develop businesses that they can export - and this is a great example of that working.

Also please note that SoCalEdison's latest round of PV PPA signings (250MW worth announced this week) all came in at less than the MPR (market price reference). That means that without subsidies SoCal Edison is paying less per MWh for PV than for Nat Gas.

Yes - Spain's gov't has run out of funds to support renewable energy at past levels (and has capped the MWh that they will support with FiT), but at this point the industry is self-sufficient and bringing in returns from it's international operations. It has created an industry that is hiring and a base of expertise at a time when other industries are laying people off - what's not to like?

Also Spain is now less dependent on nat gas in a region where this commodity can be used by some nations to bring others to their knees.
Karen Grigoryan
Karen Grigoryan
February 8, 2011
As a result of long works of searching alternative sources of energy done by me I succeeded in receiving an engine , which works using fluid /water/ and concentrated air. In my opinion, new engine, in near future will be the most available source of energy receiving, because during its work it uses two components, which are practically inexhaustible by their reserves in nature – water and atmospheric air. Perhaps the "use" word can be applied here with the proviso.In that case the work of the engine takes place owing to the air that seems to be rented from the atmosphere, which should be concentrated, used and returned to the atmosphere. The recovery of the reserves of concentrated air takes place during the work of engine. I think that it wouldn't be superfluous to point also that this engine is ecologically clean and absolutely secure, because it doesn't perform burning and has no discharge.
The expertise made with the purpose licensing the new engine has shown, that it is a really novelty and has fairly great future. Because of the absent of corresponding financial and material-technical means I still have not succeed in preparing a prototype of the engine and in showing its ability in practice. I'am looking for partnership & cooperation. That is the reason why I decided to apply with the proposal of cooperation to interested persons inviting to put a finish to the works of engine's preparation.According to the made accounts for construction of a sample will be necessary $ 70000-85000. Also, I want to inform, that in order to carry out the idea it is necessary to do some theoretical and practical works & in my opinion a workgroup consisted of several specialists who have such kind of experience in case of corresponding conditions' presence identically and during half-year will be able to carry the calculations to the final completion and to construct the sample copy of the mechanism (engine). I am ready for participating to the works of prototype's mak
Michael Keller
Michael Keller
February 8, 2011
There is no way "renewables" are cost effective. Even with heavy government subsidizes, renewable energy can not compete in the open market, as even the most rudimentary of financial Pro Forma quickly demonstrates. Companies have to be forced (as in "mandated") to use renewable energy.

Absent subsidies and mandates, investors would not build renewable facilities, as we have seen on several occasions when the federal money spigot dried up.

As we have seen in Spain, driving up energy costs causes businesses to leave or cut back. Simple economics in action. Spain's unemployment rate is somewhere around 20%. What a really great time to siphon off money from a suffering populace and give it to renewable energy fat cats.

PURPA was a government attempt to influence the free market. Large numbers of otherwise financially nonsensical power projects sprang up.
Tam Hunt
Tam Hunt
February 8, 2011
Keller, as an exercise why don't you find out what percentage of GDP Spain spends on renewable energy subsidies. Here's a hint: a tiny amount. The end result: large numbers of new jobs, increased energy independence, climate change mitigation and technology exports (note that companies like Abengoa are already setting up shop in the US.)

Also note that California's boom period with renewables was by definition cost-effective for ratepayers due to the structure of PURPA requiring pricing at avoided costs, judged at that time by a proxy natural gas plant.

See my earlier article on the true costs of renewable energy and you'll see that renewables are in fact cost-effective today and have been for many years.
Michael Keller
Michael Keller
February 8, 2011
The parallels between Spain and California are more ominous than positive. Diverting massive amounts of money into intermittent and unreliable forms of generation only drives up energy costs, which in turn reduces economic vitality. Unconvinced? Look at the unemployment rates in California, Spain and Portugal.

The purported "boom" is not market driven, but rather the result of massive government intervention in the form of subsidies and forced use of renewable energy. As with all socialist schemes, sooner or later you run out of other people's money and the "bubble" pops. Spain is a pretty good example of the end result.
John Moran
John Moran
February 8, 2011
Excellent article, concise and informative, it shows what can be done if the policy is right.
alok misra
alok misra
February 8, 2011
Somehow or the other Portuguese have always given immense respect to Electrical Engineers and This I say from personal experience.I can say that uin past they used to appoint electrical Engineers as Governors such as In Mozambique where I served.Needless to say they also have a liking for the latest things and while I was there they were getting the latest technologies from Sweden. But in other countries I have not found that kind of urge. So really I amn not surprised!!

Add Your Comments

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

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Tam Hunt

Tam Hunt

Tam Hunt is managing member of Community Renewable Solutions LLC, a renewable consulting and project development company focused on community-scale wind and solar. He is also a lecturer at UC Santa Barbara’s Bren School of Environmental...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • The Future of Solar in Latin America
  • Fighting Blackouts: Japan Residential PV and Energy Storage Market Flourishing
  • The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • Are Run-of-River Hydroelectric Systems Ready to Ride US Currents?
  • Moniz Unanimously Confirmed As New DOE Chief

Most Commented

  • 8
    San Antonio Solar Fans Delay Introduction of SunCredit Program
  • 6
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK
  • 3
    Texas Legislature Passes Commercial and Industrial PACE Bill
  • 3
    French and German Ministers Call for 2030 Renewable Energy Targets

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Chaloux Environmental Communications, Inc. (CEC)
  • Intersolar
  • groSolar
  • Prudent Living, Inc.
  • Conergy Inc.
  • Helios Solar Works
  • Brightergy
  • Met Office
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
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