[Newsseeker]

Also interesting is that it is secretive.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', '[')url=http://venturebeat.com/2007/04/27/secretive-silicon-valley-company-optisolar-builds-largest-solar-farm/]OptiSolar[/url]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') secretive Hayward, Calif. company has just announced it will build the largest solar power “farm” in North America, using solar cells manufactured in Silicon Valley.
The company, called OptiSolar, is backed by private equity firms apparently with oil connections. It has studiously avoided saying anything until this announcement.
The deal is significant, not merely for its size, but because it was scooped by such an unknown company.

[Valdemar]

I'd sure like to know the cost of maintaining those shiny, awfully delicte pieces of technology too. PV cells and mirrors require they be nice and clean to give what little peak efficiency they have.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Valdemar', 'I')'d sure like to know the cost of maintaining those shiny, awfully delicte pieces of technology too. PV cells and mirrors require they be nice and clean to give what little peak efficiency they have.

[Sheb]

Close...you are getting the units a little bit mixed up, though. But you have the right idea--VERY expensive electricity. Consider...

It's *estimated* construction budget is $300,000,000. It's estimated construction time is 3 years. But with technology development, the only one universal truth: It will take longer and cost more. However, for the sake of analysis, let's consider that it does come in on time and within budget.

Assuming that the 40-MW output power is it's *rated* output, which is typical for solar energy generation. Then it's time-averaged output over each year will be about 14-MW (total integrated power in, over time, divided by total time). This means that it will produce 122,724,000 kW-hrs of electricity per year.

Assuming 80% delivery efficiency (from panels to transformer substations, to house meter), this means a delivered energy to the customers of 98,179,200-kW-hrs per year. Of course, that is if it runs AT CAPACITY, all the time, providing its maximum output. That is the best case energy-production scenario. More likely, it will not do this. 75% is more likely.

However, to be generous let's also assume that it is feeding power at its full yearly capacity, as just calculated, all year long, every year, without outages, into the California utilities. Sounds like alot of energy, right? Wrong. For this thing to be economically viable, the sale of this power must *not only* cover the costs of its operation, but it must recoup the cost to build the thing.

Let's just look at recouping building costs over, say, 5 years. Right off the bat, if the $300M cost is spread out evenly over the 3-year construction period, then that is, averaged out, 1.5 years of the recoup time, leaving only 3.5 years of running time to sell electricty in order to pay for its construction. In 3.5 years, in the best of scenarios, the delivered energy output will be:

(3.5-years)*(98,179,200-kw/year) = 343,627,200-kW-hrs.

So, the cost attached to each sold kw-hr *just to cover construction* will be:

$300,000,000/343,627,200-kW-hrs = $0.87/kw-hr.

Again, that's just to cover the best-case construction forecast. But remember, these projects ALWAYS take longer & cost more. And this is not including the operation & maintenance costs. Not to mention that a profit must be built in (to address for risk).

From my planning and budgeting experience, I would expect the actual portion of electricity cost from this, just for its construction, as it would show up on an electric bill to be $2.50/kw-hr. And taking into account operations and maintenance, I would forecast:

********************************
Likely Electric Bill Charges: $3.00/kWhr.
********************************

Phew!

Just as a side note to see how much fuel oil would have to cost, per gallon, at a generation rate of 0.075-gal/kWhr and assuming half of the cost is due to the burning of fuel:

0.5*($3.00/kWhr) / (0.075-gal/kWhr) = $20/gallon.

This is rough, but it gives an close-order approximation at what we are looking for.

This plan for a solar farm is foolish for that reason. Don't get me wrong...*Solar Power* is great. But it's biggest strength is it's applicability to be installed at point of use, thus eliminating a costly and delicate infrastructure. This project seems overlook that completely, saddling a great technology with all of it's own inherant costs combine all costs of a conventional power grid infrastructure.

I know this seems unbelievable, as in "How could they even *think* of doing this". But I have worked with people on similar projects. Those involved and driving usually have $'s and stars in their eyes and NEVER actually look at the numbers the we just have in the above paragraphs.

(Disclaimer...these are rough back-of-napkin calculations. I welcome any critique of them:) )

[Omnitir]

Interesting post Sheb. This makes me wonder what the true deal is then. Surely someone would have conducted a feasibility report and figured out what posters here quickly figured out. So why would they be going ahead with the project?

Is there some government scheme making Calif. green energy companies viable? Or perhaps, since the co. apparently has connections to the oil industry, is this just a big tax scheme to take advantage of some loophole? Or is there some factor here making this thing viable that we are just missing?

Regardless, I think it's great to see investment in solar power, even if it is an expensive power source at this point.

[SoothSayer]

I think that you will find some "interesting" facilities located at or near this solar cell site.

Perhaps a satellite communications station, probably a hospital, some special government offices, some rich peoples homes.

I doubt that any of this electricity is going to reach YOUR home if the grid fails!

Long term 100% reliable electricity in today's turbulent world MUST have a price premium.

[Valdemar]

You have to wonder what good keeping Silicon Valley making technology will do when the rest of the world collapses thanks to poor energy infrastructure. It's not as if we'll be chummy with Intel and Microsoft or Apple when we can't get enough power to keep the A/C or heating on or get to work.

[SoothSayer]

Just a thought: is this site going to be powerful enough to run ... a solar cell factory?

Now THAT would be useful come a power down!

[stock]

Its not that secretive. The farm is to be built in Sarnia, Ontario, Canada. The reason for this location is apparently due to the 0.42c kw/h standard offer program that Ontario offers. OptiSolar apparently manufactures the panels and equipment so I think the costs are lower than usual. I suspect they are using it as a demonstration plant for their equipment.

There is some more info at http://tyler.blogware.com/

[Sheb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('stock', 'I')ts not that secretive. The farm is to be built in Sarnia, Ontario, Canada. The reason for this location is apparently due to the 0.42c kw/h standard offer program that Ontario offers. OptiSolar apparently manufactures the panels and equipment so I think the costs are lower than usual. I suspect they are using it as a demonstration plant for their equipment.

There is some more info at http://tyler.blogware.com/

[Sheb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('stock', 'I')ts not that secretive. The farm is to be built in Sarnia, Ontario, Canada. The reason for this location is apparently due to the 0.42c kw/h standard offer program that Ontario offers. OptiSolar apparently manufactures the panels and equipment so I think the costs are lower than usual. I suspect they are using it as a demonstration plant for their equipment.

There is some more info at http://tyler.blogware.com/

[Sheb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('stock', 'I')ts not that secretive. The farm is to be built in Sarnia, Ontario, Canada. The reason for this location is apparently due to the 0.42c kw/h standard offer program that Ontario offers. OptiSolar apparently manufactures the panels and equipment so I think the costs are lower than usual. I suspect they are using it as a demonstration plant for their equipment.

There is some more info at http://tyler.blogware.com/

[ohanian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sheb', 'C')lose...you are getting the units a little bit mixed up, though. But you have the right idea--VERY expensive electricity. Consider...

It's *estimated* construction budget is $300,000,000. It's estimated construction time is 3 years. But with technology development, the only one universal truth: It will take longer and cost more. However, for the sake of analysis, let's consider that it does come in on time and within budget.

Assuming that the 40-MW output power is it's *rated* output, which is typical for solar energy generation. Then it's time-averaged output over each year will be about 14-MW (total integrated power in, over time, divided by total time). This means that it will produce 122,724,000 kW-hrs of electricity per year.


Let's just look at recouping building costs over, say, 5 years. Right off the bat, if the $300M cost is spread out evenly over the 3-year construction period, then that is, averaged out, 1.5 years of the recoup time, leaving only 3.5 years of running time to sell electricty in order to pay for its construction. In 3.5 years, in the best of scenarios, the delivered energy output will be:

(3.5-years)*(98,179,200-kw/year) = 343,627,200-kW-hrs.

So, the cost attached to each sold kw-hr *just to cover construction* will be:

$300,000,000/343,627,200-kW-hrs = $0.87/kw-hr.

[Sheb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ohanian', 'Y')ou are being far too negative. If you want to play with numbers then I can play with numbers too. --snip--
So it only adds an extra 10 cents (2007 cents) to each kilowatt_hour of electricity to recover back the cost of construction.

[SolarDave]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sheb', '-')snip- It's *estimated* construction budget is $300,000,000. It's estimated construction time is 3 years. But with technology development, the only one universal truth: It will take longer and cost more.
-snip- This means that it will produce 122,724,000 kW-hrs of electricity per year.
-snip-For this thing to be economically viable, the sale of this power must *not only* cover the costs of its operation, but it must recoup the cost to build the thing. Let's just look at recouping building costs over, say, 5 years.
-snip-So, the cost attached to each sold kw-hr *just to cover construction* will be: $300,000,000/343,627,200-kW-hrs = $0.87/kw-hr. Likely Electric Bill Charges: $3.00/kWhr.

[Sheb]

SolarDave,

$6/kWhr? Whew...that's a primo market! If those forecasts are truly in the bones, *that* could make such an endeavor economically viable.

Thanks for providing all that information, I look forward to cruching the numbers.

For now, I just got two packs of raw solar cells (just the disks + leads)--one pack of Siemens/Shell, ad one pack from a dissassembled solar car. You'll have to forgive me, but I feel like a kid on Christmas day!

[IslandCrow]

There is a thread that asks "Where have all the Cornucopians gone?" So in their absence it is up to me to post the following WE ARE SAVED link

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')t some point before 2050, satellites collecting solar power and beaming it back to Earth will become a primary energy source, streaming terawatts of electricity continuously from space.

[Andrew_S]

Does technology to stream terawatts from space actually exist today?
Or is this just pie in the sky?

[SolarDave]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Andrew_S', 'D')oes technology to stream terawatts from space actually exist today?
Or is this just pie in the sky?