Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
2011 GTM Summit: Implications of Thin‐Film Technologies on Utility PV Project Financials
2011 GTM Summit: Implications of Thin‐Film Technologies on Utility PV Project Financials
2011 GTM Summit: Implications of Thin‐Film Technologies on Utility PV Project Financials
2011 GTM Summit: Implications of Thin‐Film Technologies on Utility PV Project Financials
2011 GTM Summit: Implications of Thin‐Film Technologies on Utility PV Project Financials
2011 GTM Summit: Implications of Thin‐Film Technologies on Utility PV Project Financials
2011 GTM Summit: Implications of Thin‐Film Technologies on Utility PV Project Financials
2011 GTM Summit: Implications of Thin‐Film Technologies on Utility PV Project Financials
2011 GTM Summit: Implications of Thin‐Film Technologies on Utility PV Project Financials
2011 GTM Summit: Implications of Thin‐Film Technologies on Utility PV Project Financials
2011 GTM Summit: Implications of Thin‐Film Technologies on Utility PV Project Financials
2011 GTM Summit: Implications of Thin‐Film Technologies on Utility PV Project Financials
2011 GTM Summit: Implications of Thin‐Film Technologies on Utility PV Project Financials
2011 GTM Summit: Implications of Thin‐Film Technologies on Utility PV Project Financials
2011 GTM Summit: Implications of Thin‐Film Technologies on Utility PV Project Financials
2011 GTM Summit: Implications of Thin‐Film Technologies on Utility PV Project Financials
2011 GTM Summit: Implications of Thin‐Film Technologies on Utility PV Project Financials
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

2011 GTM Summit: Implications of Thin‐Film Technologies on Utility PV Project Financials

411

Published on

David F. Taggart presents data and examples of how through design optimization, thin film fixed tilt PV plants can beat the financials of tracking crystalline plants, even in TOU markets

David F. Taggart presents data and examples of how through design optimization, thin film fixed tilt PV plants can beat the financials of tracking crystalline plants, even in TOU markets

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
411
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
12
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Implications of Thin‐Film Technologies on Project FinancialsGreentech Media’s 2011 Solar SummitDavid F. Taggart, President/COO Confidential: Not for External Distribution
  • 2. Belectric USA’s Mission: to provide turn‐key utility‐grade PV  power plants that enable safe, reliable, and efficient generation of  power from the Sun, at costs competitive with combustive power… A Better Electric!►Our strengths: Pocono Raceway PV Plant  Singular focus: utility PV   Factory‐in‐the‐field efficiency  Project optimization  Vertical integration  Flexibility  Corporate culture and track record… Confidential:  Not for External Distribution
  • 3. • Belectric/Beck Energy is now the largest  PV systems integrator in the world • Belectric USA focuses on the North  American market • 330MW of PV generation in 2010 • $700M combined annual revenue • 1500 combined employees • Largest user of thin film technology  worldwide Confidential:  Not for External Distribution
  • 4. ►Optimizing for the site►Optimizing for the system►Optimizing for the highest return Confidential:  Not for External Distribution
  • 5. Interdependence of site and system parameters 1200000► Module technology 1000000 Energy Output (Whr) 800000  Temperature 600000  Irradiance 400000 200000  Efficiency 0 3 6 9 12 15 18  Cost Hours (in one day)► Structural solution  Fixed tilt vs. tracking There are a lot of knobs that we   Installation rate and cost can turn to directly impact ► System design project financials!  Row to row spacing  Azimuth  DC/AC ratio  Tilt  System losses  O&M costs Confidential:  Not for External Distribution
  • 6. Two key North American markets► Las Vegas vs. Baltimore Southwest► Module technologies  XSi, 285W, 14.8%  CIGS/CIS, 130W, 12.1%  CdTe, 80W, 11.2%  DJ‐ASi, 125W, 8.8% ► Structural solutions   Fixed tilt (20o for TF, 25o for XSi) at zero azimuth  Single axis tracker, NS axis, zero azimuth, +45/‐45, backtrack Northeast Confidential:  Not for External Distribution
  • 7. Designing for temperature► Nameplate efficiencies are based on 25C module temperature  Module temperatures vary widely by site  Modules typically operate at higher temperatures   Losses at higher temperatures vary by module technology and mounting Annual Daylight Temperature Distributions  for Las Vegas ‐ fixed & tracked 60% % annual daylight hours 50% T‐ambient 40% 30% T‐module Fixed 20% T‐module 10% Tracked 0% Temperature bin (C) Confidential:  Not for External Distribution
  • 8. Designing for temperature► Higher losses associated with XSi and tracking systems  We need good performance at the higher temperatures too! System Losses due to temperature Fixed Tilt Tracked CdTe XSi CdTe XSi Las Vegas 5.5% 9.5% 5.9% 10.5% Baltimore 2.2% 3.7% 2.5% 4.3% Confidential:  Not for External Distribution
  • 9. Designing for irradiance► Module efficiencies quoted at 1000 W/m2  Actual time a plant spends at 1000 W/m2 is small  Orientation of module helps, but still not much time at 1000 W/m2  We need good performance at the lower irradiance levels too! Annual Irradiance for Las Vegas, horizontal vs. in‐plane tracked and fixed tilt  % of daylight hours 12% Horizontal 9% Irradiance 6% Fixed In‐plane Irradiance 3% Tracked In‐plane 0% Irradiance Irradiance Bin (W/m2) Confidential:  Not for External Distribution
  • 10. Designing for efficiency► Efficiency vs. irradiance varies with module technology  Which is best for the site? Efficiency vs. Irradiance at T=55C  13% Module Efficiency at 55C 12% 11% CdTe 10% XSi CIGS/CIS 9% DJ‐ASi 8% ASi 7% 6% 200 400 600 800 1000 Irradiance (W/m2) Confidential:  Not for External Distribution
  • 11. Designing for combined effects► Effect of efficiency, irradiance, and temperature combined  Difference in efficiency gets smaller as irradiance drops and/or module  temperature increases XSi Module Efficiency Advantage 4.0% ∆ Efficiency (XSi ‐ CdTe) 3.5% 3.0% Module @ 25C 2.5% Module @ 55C 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 100 300 500 700 900 1100 Irradiance (W/m2) Confidential:  Not for External Distribution
  • 12. Optimizing the project financials► Model the financials of projects at each location, selecting the best  parameters for each site using fixed and tracking design solutions► Consider for each system/location:  Optimizing for system yield  Unlevered financial returns analysis► Assumptions  PPA agreement:  1 MWAC, $0.13/kWh   Land Use:  closest match to 5 acres  DC/AC ratio: fixed to 1.25  PVsyst parameters per standard practice Confidential:  Not for External Distribution
  • 13. System yields► No surprise, tracked systems have higher yields  Deltas are higher in Las Vegas than in Baltimore  Are they high enough to offset install and O&M costs? Annual Yield: Various Systems WRT Fixed CdTe  12% Yield WRT to Fixed CdTe Tracked XSi 9% Fixed XSi 6% Fixed DJ‐ASi 3% Fixed CIGS/CIS 0% ‐3% ‐6% Las Vegas Baltimore Site Location Confidential:  Not for External Distribution
  • 14. Financial analysis► Unlevered Financial Returns  48% Tax Equity Investor, Return = 15%  52% Sponsor Equity► Benchmark for comparison is:  Base Case Install Costs O&M Costs Fixed CdTe System $2.75/Wp $0.02/Wp► Then compare to the other module/mounting approach via:  Install Price  O&M cost Confidential:  Not for External Distribution
  • 15. Financial analysis► Las Vegas IRR matching:  Picking module technology and mounting  approach, any combination of installed cost and O&M below the line  represents a higher IRR compared to the fixed CdTe benchmark Equivalent Rate of Return Lines to Fixed CdTe Benchmark $0.04 O&M Price ($/Wp) Tracked XSi Fixed DJ‐ASi Tracking O&M $0.03 Fixed XSi Fixed O&M $0.02 Fixed CIGS/CIS $0.01 Turnkey Install Price ($/Wp) Confidential:  Not for External Distribution
  • 16. Conclusions► Module nameplate efficiency and module price is simply  misleading when it comes to project financials► Numerous parameters available for optimizing a “fixed” system  including azimuth, DC/AC ratio, tilt, row spacing, module  technology…► Fixed thin film systems can beat the economics of trackers even in  the most challenging Southwest markets in the USA► This becomes more true as commodity prices continue to rise, and  TF efficiency continues to improve► Fixed systems are the path to the “commodity floor”► Similar results for TOU or non‐TOU markets Fixed thin film plants can beat contemporary  project financials via system‐level optimization Confidential:  Not for External Distribution
  • 17. A Better Electric! www.belectric‐usa.com David F. Taggart david.taggart@belectric‐usa.com Confidential:  Not for External Distribution

×