The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Tuesday, June 18, 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

New Mexico Solar Deal Details Point to Parity -- and Pain

James Montgomery, Associate Editor, RenewableEnergyWorld.com
February 01, 2013  |  35 Comments

Print

Unusually public details about a newly signed solar project deal in New Mexico raise some interesting questions about the purchasing power of solar energy, how close it's getting to grid parity -- and just how much pressure is on upstream suppliers to fulfill that objective.

First Solar has acquired a 50-megawatt (MW) solar power project in New Mexico from the solar division of Element Power. The deal is billed as the state's largest solar project; it also, according to some unusually public information revealed in a regulatory filing, raises some interesting questions about the purchasing power of solar energy.

The Macho Springs Solar Project is on land leased from the New Mexico State Land Office in Deming (Luna County); it's expected to be completed in 2014. (Element Power also has a 50-MW wind project at Macho Springs, selling power to Tucson Electric Power.) Electricity will be purchased by El Paso Electric, which had sought more electric peaking resources for its current energy mix. In a statement, the companies said the project's PPA is still subject to regulatory approvals, which is expected to happen "in the first half of 2013."

In fact, a regulatory filing from the New Mexico Public Regulatory Commission (PRC) is already loose in the wild, revealing exactly what El Paso Electric is paying: 5.79 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). That's almost a third of the price that thin-film solar PV projects typically sell for (16.3 cents/kWh), says Bloomberg New Energy Finance, and less than half the 12.8 cents/kWh average price for new coal plants. That's also roughly half of what First Solar will get for its marquee solar projects: Antelope Valley, Topaz, and Agua Caliente, points out Maxim Group analyst Aaron Chew. (We obtained a copy of the official document; but a quick Google search will reveal it too.)

Bloomberg points out that El Paso Power will be submitting more information about whether any renewable energy credits are being applied to the deal to lower its cost. In an interview, Chew points out that New Mexico's performance-based incentives (PBI) will probably add 2-4 cents/kWh. Assuming manufacturing cost targets of $0.60, plus $0.80 adding in balance-of-systems costs, that suggests a system price target of $1.50/W. But don't forget to factor back in the undisclosed price that First Solar paid for this project in the first place, Chew points out. "It is hard for us to fathom how it could possibly build this project profitably," he says.

Paula Mints, founder and chief market research analyst at Solar PV Market Research, says PPA prices were ranging from 8-14 cents/kWh in 2012. Even on the high-end that's a tough pill to swallow for suppliers; at the low end it's brutal. Meanwhile, she points out crystalline silicon modules have been selling in the $0.65-$0.75/W range -- roughly the same, and with higher efficiency, than First Solar's manufacturing costs alone.

We've contacted First Solar for clarifications, though they've already publicly declined to comment on the details of this deal. The project will use First Solar's thin-film panels, since the company only does EPC for projects using its thin-film technology. To that end, Chew points out that First Solar's project pipeline is stocked for probably a year and a half, but he calculates that with the company's current capacity (1.6 GW, averaged to 450 MW a quarter) it needs to keep pulling in a lot more deals -- and maybe is willing to make a little less in this deal, or is making up the difference with other projects, to keep its factories humming.

Still, the big takeaway from this new deal is that El Paso itself "is still only paying six cents for solar out of pocket," Chew notes. That means two things: yet more evidence that solar energy is becoming more attractive and competitive; and that the economics are becoming severely compressed on the manufacturing side, even more than we knew.

Lead image: Price in a C clamp, via Shutterstock

35 Comments

Register To Comment
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
February 8, 2013
Bill, I have no energy to spend trying to figure out your issue.
william payne
william payne
February 8, 2013
Hey bob,

Discharge of batteries prior to solar charging vids.

http://www.prosefights.org/battery/battery.htm#discharge

Testimony not allowed. :)
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
February 8, 2013
I would think that because the both produce the panels and build the solar farm FS could afford to make no profit off their panels, even loose some money. If they can break even overall they increase their ability to wait out the current very low priced solar market.

They can let the installation part of the corporation carry the panel manufacturing portion while they wait for less protected companies to fail.
Morrill Beckman
Morrill Beckman
February 8, 2013
Prestige for building such a site has to come into play here, amongst many other benefits. The strategy behind this particular project appears to go far beyond what is obvious, IE: ROI/Profitability. FS is truly a company built on integrity, character, and in plain and simple words, in doing what is right for the solar and renewable energy industry as a whole. Although these are my own words, I do know that FS can afford to do projects like these regardless of profitability. They consistantly raise the bar project after project. Although FS is a manufacturer of panels company, they have become extrememly effective as they're own EPC and EPCM. Further, FS will continue to make decisions that may not seem logical to most, but I assure you all are well thought out and justified. Kudo's to FS!
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
February 7, 2013
Repeating myself...

"energy payback for a solar panel is 2-3 years"
william payne
william payne
February 6, 2013
Short circuit amps and voltage measurements from three solar panels.

http://www.prosefights.org/battery/battery.htm#pved

Small scale solar generation of electricity works .. for us ... despite how many kWhs are expended in China to manufacture. :{
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
February 6, 2013
"Subsidies are things that the government covers, like tax deductions, land giveaways, etc. Non-subsidy external costs are things that get passed on to others to pay for, like with hospital bills, or are specific degradations of the environment, like mountain-top removal and water depletion."

Perhaps we can think up a good term to cover the cost we taxpayers are burdened with through both direct subsidies and external costs.

We need to fully recognize the true price we pay for the energy we use. We can't make sound financial decisions if we don't include all costs.
Richard Viers
Richard Viers
February 6, 2013
While I am not the final authority on the subject, I do have some expertise in the field and I wholeheartedly agree with both Mr. Wallace, and Mr. Lowes there are many aspects of the projects that attribute to the profitability. And as far as which way the solar panels are pointing, that is not an issue if the project is not on line and they do not have them all generating. Projects of this size are becoming more commonly financed by large investments from the private sector for a good reason. Profits and write offs. During the period while they are not making a profit the investments are balanced by deferring taxes and creating havens for shelter. Subsidies are waning and investment from the private sector is still increasing.
Oil,gas, coal and nuclear have all had their subsidies, and still do. Even though Exon is one of the most profitable companies in the history of the United State, they still do. Many of the
big coal mining operations in this country even though they rape the earth are still being subsidized. I qualify the term rape with a caveat. In many areas they are allowed to strip mine for coal. Strip mining though more efficient, and less dangerous to human life creates a void in the ecology of the land that takes years to recover from. I worked in both oil and mining when I was young, and am thoroughly familiar with the processes used. In the 1970's after serving in the military, I did a stent in drilling for oil, working on rigs as a derrick hand, and in the 80's I operated a haul truck for a mining operation that strip mined for beryllium. The experience was rewarding. Most of my life I spent in the transportation industry, and hauled a lot of materials in and out of the mines and drilling locations. I don't have any quarrel with any of the big business operations that do this, I just believe that this is the time to promote change and to do something positive for the environment. Richard Viers
Alternative Energy Products Group
Lawrence Carroll
Lawrence Carroll
February 6, 2013
Russell,

Thanks for the UCS link. UCS is always a great objective resource! :) I also like UCS's "Fission Stories" series by Dave Lochbaum.

Cheers!

jaja

Lawrence Carroll
Lawrence Carroll
February 6, 2013
Hey Russell,

That is a valid distinction you make, but in my mind the two are ultimately one since they are really both doing the same thing: passing costs to others (in both cases the citizen) that should be born by the entity causing the problem in the first place (assuming, of course, that the problem should even be allowed to come about by law).

It seems that health/environmental costs due to exemptions are both externalities and virtual subsidies regardless of whether or not tax exemptions are involved. In other words, gov't law or policy for certain industries or particular companies - either as enacted or as poorly enforcement (or whatever) - is allowing certain practices to pollute the environment/harm health without any reasonable limit, while other industries/companies/individuals are not granted the same freedom/privilages. A good example of this would be the relatively high fine the average person might pay for dumping inert trash out (think Arlo Guthrie in the famous sixties movie, Alice's Restaurant), and the relatively small fine (if any) that most large corporations have historically gotten by with (too many examples to mention here!).

Such discriminatory treatment is what really bothers me.

Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
February 5, 2013
I will try shorter words and simpler sentences.

1) Your question was stupid.

2) See #1.
william payne
william payne
February 5, 2013
Huh?

http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=2603
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
February 5, 2013
Any of them connected to the grid, Bill.

Have you ever see anyone suggest that we run a grid with nothing but wind? Or nothing but solar? Or nothing but tidal?
william payne
william payne
February 5, 2013
Well, since the energy payback for a solar panel is 2-3 years if a plant has been in production for three years then is has produced enough panels to power its operation.

I.e., we've been there for quite a while.

Which solar company is powering its plant from the solar panels it produces?

Data please>

regards.
bill
Russell Lowes
Russell Lowes
February 5, 2013
In one mode, there are two categories of external costs, a.k.a. externalities: they are subsidies and non-subsidy externalities. Subsidies are things that the government covers, like tax deductions, land giveaways, etc. Non-subsidy external costs are things that get passed on to others to pay for, like with hospital bills, or are specific degradations of the environment, like mountain-top removal and water depletion.
Lawrence Carroll
Lawrence Carroll
February 4, 2013
Thanks, Russell-Lowes and Bob Wallace!

Russell, I think too - in regard to coal - we should add in as a subsidy the exemption to environmental impacts that mountaintop removal entails.

In regard to the practice of "fracking" for natural gas, that too - under Bush-Cheney (and continued under Obama) - was exempted from the Clean Water Act requirements.

Bob, I too have pointed out before to folks that the subsidies to the oil and nuke industries have been around a much longer time! I'm glad you have put it more eloquently (and succinctly) than I could!

Of course there are all sorts of externalities to the conventional sources of energy that are never really discussed by their supporters . . . I'm glad you two (and others here) regularly mention these things!
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
February 4, 2013
Hello Bill.

Yes, some people in China are using coal to heat their houses. China is still struggling to bring cleaner power to its citizens.

What's your point?
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
February 4, 2013
"Will solar panel producers ever produce enough electricity to power their production?"

Well, since the energy payback for a solar panel is 2-3 years if a plant has been in production for three years then is has produced enough panels to power its operation.

I.e., we've been there for quite a while.

That's a rather simple concept, Bill. Do I need to use smaller words or can you grasp it?
william payne
william payne
February 4, 2013
Will solar panel producers ever produce enough electricity to power their production?

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/prccrd/schott/schott.htm

Doubt that One Stop and Thunderbolt can fuel their operations with solar paneels they produce. Coal required.

EROEI, Bob.

http://www.prosefights.org/battery/98025.htm#h2012

But neat posts, imo.
william payne
william payne
February 4, 2013
Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 4:44:55 PM
Subject: Re: china coal, belen stirling

My coworker is in China right now. Here's what he said about your article:

"There are street people here that sell big black chunks of coal on the street to people to burn in their apartments/houses/shacks for heat in the winter. That tells you something about their coal usage (and their society in general)."

Hello Bob. :)
william payne
william payne
February 4, 2013
Stirling Power NOT Operational in Belen audio explanaton

http://www.prosefights.org/battery/belen/best.mp3

Pics at
http://www.prosefights.org/prc317/prc317.htm#belen
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
February 3, 2013
"China consumes nearly as much coal as the rest of the world combined"

China is consuming a lot of coal. However they've shut down around 1,000 dirty, inefficient plants and replaced them with much more efficient plants in the last few years.

And China has announced a cap on the amount of coal that they will produce and burn starting in 2015. The cap will be equal to what they burned in 2012. This will force the construction of more non-coal generation.

At the same time China is greatly ramping up wind, solar and hydro generation. They've increased their 2015 solar goal from 5 GW to 35 GW. And they've started working on their grid. Their electric grid is in very bad shape and they waste a lot of electricity.

China gets about 80% of their electricity from coal. That percentage will be dropping from here on. Australia, in 2010, got 94% of their electricity from coal.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
February 3, 2013
bill - #11.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I took at look at that mess of a page you linked. Very strange page. Looks like someone scrapbooking on acid.

--

"Solar collectors facing north toward ground. Why?"

In the first picture on the page, I would guess that the collectors are "parked". That they are turned so that they wouldn't be generating power. That's what you'd do if you were working on the system and wanted to shut off the power.

In the second picture they are pretty nicely aimed. You'll notice that their shadow is fairly round, which is the shadow a well-aimed dish would produce.
william payne
william payne
February 3, 2013
Hey guys.

China consumes nearly as much coal as the rest of the world combined

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=9751

Scary post?
william payne
william payne
February 3, 2013
Hey bob,

Fun stuff you write.

Solar collectors facing north toward ground. Why?

http://www.prosefights.org/prc317/prc317.htm#belen

Let's try to find out. :)
william payne
william payne
February 3, 2013
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 3:01:42 PM
Subject: 12-00317-UT Staff's Motion to File Additional

Testimony Attached you will find Staff's Motion to File Additional Testimony Exhibits in the case.

Thank you.

Testimony, not data, relied upon to reach rate increase decision?

http://www.prosefights.org/prc317/prc317.htm#testimony
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
February 3, 2013
Additionally, coal and nuclear have received their subsidies for decades. Fossil fuels have received public money support for 100 years. Nuclear was developed with taxpayer money and has been subsidized since the first commercial reactor came on line in 1958.

All those decades of subsidies and the cost of their electricity keeps rising.

Thirty years ago onshore wind was $0.36/kWh. Now the median LCOE of wind is $0.06. More than a 6x decrease.

Thirty years ago solar panels were $100/watt. Now they are just above $0.50/watt. Almost a 200x decrease.

Smart investors pay attention to the investments that are performing and dump the ones that aren't. Time for us to dump fossil fuels and nuclear investments. We're simply loosing our money.
Russell Lowes
Russell Lowes
February 3, 2013
Good point, jajagabor, on how nukes and fossil fuels take the majority of subsidies, with no outcry from those who disdain solar and wind. Nuclear subsidies are over 6 cents per kilowatt-hour and coal is somewhere around 3. One problem with tracking subsidies is that there are so many subsidies from so many jurisdictions, from city and county land grants, to tax credits, to "new" technology grants (some to old technologies), to tax deductions and carry forwards, to accelerated depreciation, and much more. The best report I've found on coal admits great shortcomings and establishes a floor of over 1 cent/kWhe for coal -- looking over these shortcomings, I am guessing about 3.
The nuclear subsidy realm has been nailed down more fully. If you really care about subsidies in a fair way, and want to see the large nuclear slice of the pie, check out: http://earthtrack.net/files/uploaded_files/nuclear%20subsidies_summary.pdf
Lawrence Carroll
Lawrence Carroll
February 3, 2013
bill37 quote Bonner: "Without subsidies, loan guarantees, tax benefits and direct giveaways, the industry as we know it would not exist."

That's funny! Bonner just described oil, nuclear, coal, natural gas and every other major energy producer in our country from its inception to the current day! His disdain for "green" energy is hilarious!

I figure that if such folks were really "principled" about their disdain for subsidies then they would have consistently disdained such things from long, long ago - but they never have and probably never will. Such people are not "libertarian" in the least - they just count on that portion of the public's extremely short attention span and its love of sensationalism to "expose" the "lie" of green energy!

Of course, if they really were libertarian and/or "free market" (and such people do exist), then their point would be much more inclusive and wide ranging. They would not confine their critisism to just a few of the players, whether the date is "today" or 50-100 years ago (or anytime).

The same phenomena certainly exists amongst the left (particularly the mainstream left), not just the right. Democratic presidents have regularly either declared or escalated many of our major wars of the past or present century, yet most of those who say - voted for Obama - claim that they're against war as a solution! While that may have (at least superficially) nothing to do with energy topics, one can be certain that same hypocracy exists regarding almost everything.

I'll never stop laughing at the great jab Stolkey Carmichael directed at LBJ. It went something like this: "LBJ says 'violence is not a solution' to us [the militant black activists of the sixties], and then bombs Vietnam to rubble!"

If Bonner and other "conservative, free market" commentators ever stop being hypocrites, and if mainstream "lefties" ever mean what THEY say, then I'll be happy to take them seriously. Until then, forget it.
william payne
william payne
February 2, 2013
From: ?

To: bpayne37@comcast.net
Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2013 6:18:29 PM
Subject: RE: prc, facebook and twitter.

Bill,
This sounds kind of like the Spaceport deal Richardson got us into.

Another
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Aviation
?
richard averett
richard averett
February 2, 2013
I have no idea what Mr. Bonner's point is, other than he favors dirty energy subsidies over clean energy subsidies. He cites a google reference, which is intended to add credibility to his arguement. Of course the reference points to more incoherent ramblings by the author.
william payne
william payne
February 2, 2013
But the feds are not only creating individual zombies, they are also creating corporate zombies. An obvious example: "green" energy. Without subsidies, loan guarantees, tax benefits and direct giveaways, the industry as we know it would not exist. Nor would the ethanol industry in the Midwest. Nor the security industry in the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, DC.

Bill Bonner
The Daily Reckoning
Monday January 7, 2012

New Mexico Public Regulation Commission in TITLE 17 PUBLIC UTILITIES AND UTILITY SERVICES CHAPTER 9 ELECTRIC SERVICES PART 572 mandates how much electricity as a percentage must be produced by year.

The PRC also approves rate increases which fund large-scale solar generation of electricity facilities.

Large-scale solar generation of electricity scam in New Mexico alleged.

Investigation progress seen with 'Case No. 12-00317-UT motion' google.
Russell Lowes
Russell Lowes
February 2, 2013
$1.50 per watt for just capital expenditures, plus the small operation and maintenance costs and inverter replacements will be the cost of this project.
Not counting discount value and just to keep this simple:
$1.50 per watt = $1500/kilowatt of capacity. 1 kWe X 8766 average hours per year X 25 years X maybe 18% capacity factor (rough guess at average electrical output/1 kWe of rating) = 39,447 kWhe over 25 years. $1500 divided by 39,447 kWhe = 3.8 cents per kWhe. However, then you add the capital costs (interest, fees, taxes). That is highly variable, so I don't have the answer here for this specific project.
Lewis Reford
Lewis Reford
February 2, 2013
Something doesn't add up - if the project capex is $1.50/W and the all-in revenue (PPA plus credits) is $0.08/kWh, then the project IRR would appear to be negative. That's no way to acheive grid parity - its artificial and unjustifiable.
Russell Lowes
Russell Lowes
February 2, 2013
This is great news about solar costs overall. While this may be a turnkey project for First Solar, they almost certainly cannot be taking on too much loss per kilowatt-hour.
What this means, as the last paragraph of your article concludes, manufacturing prices have declined substantially for this product. New solar for this project at 5.8 cents per kilowatt-hour has now become far cheaper than new coal at 12.8 cents, far cheaper than new nuclear, by my estimate at 16 cents. Note that you must add to this production cost the 7 or 8 cent/kilowatt-hour cost of transmission and distribution. Energy efficiency is averaging 3 cents (with no needed T&D cost). Combining solar and efficiency can yield a cost of less than the average 10-11 cents/kWhe. Good going, First Solar!

Add Your Comments

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

  • Create an Account!
  • Sign-In
James Montgomery

James Montgomery

Jim is Associate Editor for RenewableEnergyWorld.com, covering the solar and wind beats. He previously was news editor for Solid State Technology and Photovoltaics World, and has covered semiconductor manufacturing and related industries,...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • Residential Demand Spurs US Solar Installations in 1Q13 Residential Demand Spurs US Solar Installations in 1Q13
  • Ocean Energy Development: Apply Common Sense to Common Problems Ocean Energy Development: Apply Common Sense to Common Problems
  • Severn Barrage “No Knight in Shining Armour for UK Renewables” Severn Barrage “No Knight in Shining Armour for UK Renewables”
  • Project Permit: Cutting Red Tape for Green Energy Project Permit: Cutting Red Tape for Green Energy
  • Solar CHP Innovations Offer Efficiency Kick, Future Energy Storage Options Solar CHP Innovations Offer Efficiency Kick, Future Energy Storage Options

Most Commented

  • 9
    Country-Based Action to Achieve Universal Access to Energy
  • 4
    California Energy Storage Plan May Require $3 Billion Investment
  • 2
    Is the IRS Considering Solar REITs?
  • 2
    Integrated Distribution Planning: A Path to Sustaining Growth

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
  • Apricus, Inc.
  • Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc.
  • Motech Industries, Inc.
  • Leybold Optics
  • Rotork plc
  • EU PVSEC (European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition)
  • marcus evans
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hydro 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