Tendencias 2020 y Costo de Energia Solar

8/3/2019 Tendencias 2020 y Costo de Energia Solar

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tendencias-2020-y-costo-de-energia-solar 1/34

Engineered Organisms for Making Cheap Sugar One company's method for low-cost, high-yield sugar production could help

biofuels compete with fossil fuels.

y MONDAY, MARCH 28, 2011

y B Y KEVIN BULLIS

E-mail| Audio »|Print

In a bid to make biofuels cheaper, a startup called Proterro, based in Princeton, New

Jersey, is developing a way to cut the cost of making sugar, a basic building block for

ethanol. The company is engineering photosynthetic microorganisms to secrete large

amounts of sugar, and it is designing a bioreactor for growing the organisms using small

amounts of water.

Photosynthetic microorganisms, such as algae, are usually prized for their ability to

produce oils. Proterro chose to focus on sugar production because that's the source for biofuel ethanol, and it's also the starting point for new processes for making other types of

biofuels.

Today, almost all of the sugar for biofuels is made from corn or sugarcane, and several

companies are developing processes for making sugar from abundant cellulosic materials

such as grass and wood chips. But as a feedstock to make biofuels, "sugar is still too

expensive," says Kef Kasdin, Proterro's CEO. Only sugar from sugarcane is cheap enough

to make economic sense, and that can only be grown inexpensively in some locations,

such as Brazil.

Proterro's microorganisms, a type of cyanobacteria, can produce far higher yields of sugar

per acre than sugarcane and other conventional sources, Kasdin says. Sugarcane plants

use water and energy from the sun to produce a lot of biomass that isn't sugar, and then

that bulky biomass has to be transported, and the sugar extracted, which contributes to its

cost. In Proterro's system, more of the water and energy in sunlight is directed into making

sugar instead of supporting biomass, and the organisms don't need to be harvested²

instead, they continuously secrete sugar in a form that's easy to use to make biofuels.

Proterro's microbes naturally produce sucrose when the water that they're growing in

becomes too salty²it's a defense mechanism to keep water from being sucked out of

them into the surrounding water via osmosis. The company has identified the genes that

trigger this mechanism, and engineered the organisms to switch it on. The researchers

have also engineered the organisms to secrete the sugar, which makes it easier to collect.



In conventional approaches to making fuels using algae or cyanobacteria, the organisms

have to be harvested and dewatered²the oil or sugar is then isolated from the rest of the

biomass, which is one reason algae fuels are expensive.

Why less is more: how thin-film manufacturing is findingmomentum

A new generation of thin-film silicon technology is regaining cost and performanceleadership with key innovations helping to drive down cost and increase energyoutput and reliability to make solar power competitive.

Chris O¶Brien, Oerlikon Solar, Trübbach, SwitzerlandCost reduction is the key objective of the photovoltaics (PV) industry as itstrives to position solar power as a low-cost choice for new energy capacity. Threeyears ago, silicon wafer prices were high and PV modules were in short supply.With crystalline silicon cells making up ~80% [1] of the PV energy capacityproduced annually, fluctuations in supply and cost of polysilicon [2] in recent yearscreated a window of opportunity for thin film technology innovation, driven bymanufacturing equipment suppliers seeking new high-growth businessopportunities and by module manufacturers looking for ways to diversify and/or enter a fast-growing world PV market. Within a short period, many existing andnew PV manufacturers began choosing thin-film silicon technology to reduce their

strategic dependence on polysilicon and to capitalize on new innovations in thinfilm technologies promising an advantageous manufacturing cost.

Then the world PV market changed in 2009. Today, silicon wafers and PV modulesare in more ample supply, and negotiating power has shifted back to the buyer,though the near term outlook for c-Si components is somewhat uncertain becauseof accelerating demand. With cost leadership now a matter of survival in a tight PVmarket, the competitiveness of thin-film technologies has been challenged.However, a new generation of thin-film silicon technology is poised to regain costleadership within the industry. Key innovations are helping to drive down cost andincrease efficiency and reliability to reinforce thin film¶s competitive advantages inend user markets.

The fundamental advantages of thin-film silicon have not changed. Thin-film siliconPV modules require far less silicon than traditional methods (less than 1/100th of awafer thickness) and use widely available, comparatively inexpensive materials.Thin-film silicon technology is inherently suitable for achieving very lowmanufacturing cost because the entire manufacturing process from bare glass to acomplete PV module requires significantly fewer manufacturing steps thanconventional crystalline technologies. Another key positive factor is that thin-film



silicon technology uses only environmentally friendly, non-toxic substances.Finally, thin-film silicon panels have an inherent advantage in real energyperformance, due primarily to the fact that thin-film silicon has a temperaturecoefficient ³penalty´ that is almost 50% lower than most conventional crystalline. Inhot climates, this advantage results in 5% to10% higher output per installed watt

compared to crystalline silicon.We recently announced that our Thin Fab manufacturing line design has improvedproductivity, reducing the expected cost of production to ¼ 0.50/Wp and at thesame time, a 100% increase in the output capacity and a 50% reduction in thecapex per Watt. Together with improved stabilized lab cell efficiency of 11.9% for our Micromorph technology and a 10% stabilized module efficiency, theseachievements are the result of innovations in cell and module design, equipmentand facilities, silicon and TCO depositions, laser tools, and materials. Each of these is discussed below.

Thin-film cell/module design innovation

The efficiency of Micromorph cells and modules is the result of a combination of interrelated design innovations that significantly lower manufacturing costs.Improved transparent conductive oxide glass-coating (TCO) increases thetransmissivity of the front glass and also enhances light scattering, increasing lightcapture (Fig. 1). Thinner amorphous and microcrystalline silicon ³absorber layers´increase stabilized efficiency while reducing material costs and increasingmanufacturing throughput. Finally, a new highly reflective white lamination foilenhances light capture and efficiency by reflecting photons back into the absorber layers of the cell. Figure 2 illustrates the improvement in reflectance that isachieved by using a white lamination foil instead of a layer of white paint. Theintroduction of a white lamination foil also helped to accelerate manufacturingproductivity, as previously two manufacturing steps (applying white paint, thenadding a transparent lamination foil) were replaced by one simpler manufacturingstep (applying a white lamination foil). The combined effect of all of theseimprovements is a dramatically lowered production cost, now estimated to be

¼0.50/W with the new equipment. Also, the capital expenditure for Watt-peakpower (Wp) is significantly reduced, largely as a result of increased equipmentproductivity. Finally, these changes have improved module performance with thenew design yielding an expected production average module efficiency of 10%(stabilized). This new efficiency standard for thin film silicon will result in additionalcost savings for installed PV systems.



Figure 1. Transmittance of Oerlikon Solar¶s TCO on white glass compared withother TCO alternatives and glass types.

Figure 2. Comparison of white foil lamination to white paint.



Equipment and facility innovation

In addition to cell and module improvements, new advances in manufacturingequipment and manufacturing processes also play a critical role in reducing thecost of thin film silicon technology. Over the past year there has been significantprogress in accelerating throughput and increasing expected reliability and yield for

several key manufacturing tools used in the production of Micromorph thin filmsilicon panels.

Silicon deposition. A new design for silicon-deposition PECVD tool, the KAI MT,was announced earlier in 2010. This tool builds on a well-proven design, includinga high-frequency 40MHz Plasmabox reactor design that enables comparativelyfaster and uniform silicon deposition. The new design incorporates two significantchanges that result in increased capacity and reduced footprint. First, the newdesign incorporates three deposition chambers per tool, with each depositionchamber capable of handling 10 modules at a time. The new configuration can beseen in Fig. 3a, where ³PM´ refers to deposition chambers. Previously, the KAI had

just two deposition chambers per tool. This new design provides a 50% increased

glass coating area and throughput, with no significant increase in equipment cost.Productivity is further enhanced by a modification in the silicon deposition itself,whereby both the a-Si top cell and the microcrystalline bottom cell are deposited inthe same chamber, eliminating the need to expose the glass to atmosphere inbetween deposition processes and improving overall deposition speed and quality.Finally, the configuration of the deposition tools has been made significantly morecompact by shifting the location of auxiliary equipment (e.g. vacuum pumps) to amezzanine above the system, resulting in a 50% reduction in footprint.

Figure 3a and 3b. Layout of KAI MT vacuum deposition tool for Micromorph.

TCO deposition. A second example of significant equipment performance andproduction cost improvements is seen with the equipment used for deposition of ³transparent conducting oxide´ (TCO). This deposition is done in a low-pressurechemical vapor deposition (LPCVD) process and toolset. The integration of thisTCO deposition tool into the thin film silicon manufacturing process allows for twokey advantages over the use of pre-coated glass. First, on-site TCO depositionallows for the use of zinc oxide (ZnO) for the TCO layer, a material that yields a



significantly higher performance than commercially-coated glass (which uses tin-oxide). Second, including the TCO deposition tool in the thin film siliconmanufacturing line allows for optimization of the interface between the TCO andsilicon absorber layers, resulting in enhanced light scattering, which results inincreased light capture and higher module efficiency. Furthermore, the integration

of TCO deposition into the thin film silicon manufacturing line allows manufacturersto use plain uncoated glass as a feedstock, resulting in a cost savings of ¼10 per panel or more compared with the cost of using pre-coated glass.

The most current version of our TCO deposition tool, incorporates severalsignificant improvements. For example, optimized shields allow significantlystretched cleaning intervals. the deposition rate has been improved substantially¶and the back transport of the glass has been changed for easier maintenance. Asa result, the tool achieves higher uptime and throughput in the field.

Laser tool. The third example of ³core´ manufacturing equipment used in theproduction of thin-film silicon PV modules is the laser tool, used to sculpt the thin-film silicon and TCO layer stacks to form interconnected PV cells. Two key laser

performance parameters that help to drive down production cost are the laser accuracy and the laser tool¶s processing speed / throughout. Improved laser accuracy results in a reduced ³dead zone´ between cells resulting from laser scribes. Figures 4a and 4b show the dramatic progress that has been made in thisarea to reduce the losses resulting from laser scribing processes in its most recentThinFab design. The laser tools included in this manufacturing line are nowcapable of producing Micromorph modules with a dead zone of ~200m, roughlyhalf of the dead zone thickness that was typical for production just two years ago(and that is still typical for many thin-film module manufacturers today). The resultis a reduction in the area loss within the module and higher module power.Furthermore, our newest laser tool (LSS) has doubled the number of laser heads,

resulting in a 100% increase in throughput compared with previous generationtools, with increased reliability and uptime.



Figure 4. a) Comparison of laser design changes on dead zone width; and b) deadzone reduction track record. Source: Oerlikon Solar.

In sum, the changes outlined above to the ³core´ manufacturing equipment toolshave resulted in substantially increased performance and productivity with 1) amore than 50% throughput increase, 2) a more than 50% module cost reduction, 3)a 100% increase in output capacity, and 4) overall fab line yields of ~97%.

Materials innovation

In thin-film silicon manufacturing, materials (e.g., glass, lamination foil, junctionbox, etc.) represent over 50% of the total cost of a thin-film silicon PV module.Reduction in the amount and price of key materials is a major factor in drivingdown the total cost of module production. Technology providers can greatly reducethe expected cost of module manufacturing by optimizing the design of the moduleitself, while aggressively working with suppliers of key materials to qualify severalcompeting vendors of key materials for the modules. We have achieved a 50%reduction of material cost over the last three years, thanks in part to qualification of new suppliers and optimizing the minimum requirement specifications. In additionto the white lamination foil example described above, other significant material costreductions have been achieved in the junction box, contacts, encapsulants, and thefront glass.



That's more than cumulative material costs for CdTe (9%) and CIGS (12%), andabout even with a-Si (16%).

c-Si isn't the driver. Not too long ago silicon cost $150/kg, so it made nearlythree-quarters of total PV module materials costs; other materials costs for cells

and modules were just 27% of total costs. Now with Si at around $40/kg, silicononly represents 53% of total costs, and other materials 47%.

The case for paste. The cost of paste is going up due to dependence on metals(e.g. silver), but so is quality which increases cell conversion efficiency, and thatmeans using less of it (gm/cell). Net result: paste cost in terms of $/Wp will actuallydecrease over time. Note that if anything, silver prices have risk to the upside,forecasted to top $25/lb.

CIGS takes the thin-film wheel. Thin-film materials, a $1.5B market in 2010, willmore than double to $3.1B by 2014 (a 19.5% CAGR). CdTe was the dominant

factor in 2010, but CIGS production will now take over to drive this train -- CIGSmaterials will increase from $218M to $928M over that period.

Total PV materials revenue share (crystalline silicon and thin-film), 2010±2014. (Source:

GTM Research)



2011 Outlook for Nuclear Power

Published: Jan 1, 2011

2011 could seen the first licenses for new nuclear construction in

the U.S

By Brian Wheeler, Associate Editor

Work surrounding the nuclear power industry in the United States started quickly in 2010

as the Department of Energy in February awarded the first loan guarantee for new reactorsto be constructed. The award of $8.3 billion for two additional reactors at the Vogtle plantin Georgia marked the beginning of a possible nuclear renaissance in the States. The loan,though, is conditional until the plant receives the combine construction and operatinglicense from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is expected sometime in 2011. Todate, the NRC is currently reviewing 13 applications for 22 new reactors after placing thereviews of five applications on hold at the request of the applicants.

³Just a few years ago, few people anticipated this high level of interest in new reactor construction,´ said Gregory B. Jaczko, chairman of the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, in a speech in October. ³Even as recently as 2005, when I first joined the

Commission, discussions around the agency generally revolved around the future possibility of one or two new reactors.´

Roughly 1,300 workers will continue work on the Vogtle site through 2011. To date, thesite was been excavated and the backfill process is taking place.



One slight setback for the renaissance took place on Oct. 8 when Constellation Energy backed out of negotiations on a $7.5 billion loan guarantee from the federal government to build new reactors in Maryland.

But some companies strive to move forward. NRG Energy is looking to build two new

1,350 MW Advanced Boiling Water Reactors at the South Texas Project ElectricGenerating Station, located about 90 miles southwest of Houston, and could be a possiblefront-runner for the remaining federal loan guarantee money.

³These new projects would be the foundation that would help the nuclear renaissance getstarted and get to the point where the financial industry has confidence in nuclear and thatwe can build new nuclear on time and on budget and we would not need to go loanguarantees,´ said David Knox, NRG spokesman.

SCANA Corp. is also seeking to help revive nuclear power in the U.S. by building two new1,100 MW AP1000 Pressurized Water Reactors at the V.C. Summer station in South

Carolina. Like the Southern Co.-led consortium, the V.C. Summer expansion is planned ina regulated market. While SCANA is still in the loan application process, they said a loanguarantee is not absolutely necessary for their new nuclear project and said uponnotification from DOE, ³they will determine if the terms are in the best interest of our customers and our company.´ SCANA is also waiting on its combined license.

And the nuclear industry could benefit from the Republican takeover as part of the cleanenergy legislation following the Nov. 2 midterm elections. Today there are 104 operatingreactors in the U.S. and ³these reactors are operating at near record capacity, at about 92 percent capacity factors, and are generating a lot of electricity,´ said Alex Flint, Nuclear Energy Institute senior vice president of governmental affairs. Historically there has been astrong call for building more reactors from some Republicans. But ³this administration hasfollowed through with a commitment to nuclear energy´ and that has changed some of the politics with Democrats, said Flint.

³We do believe that it is the middle ground on which both parties can compromise and if we are going to pursue energy legislation it is one the foundation elements in that policygoing forward,´ he said.

Nuclear energy is now the center of the political spectrum of the debate on energy policygoing forward. President Obama¶s 2011 budget calls for an additional $36 billion in loanguarantees to continue new nuclear build out, although it is still pending before Congress.

And while ³loan guarantees are a very effective way for the government to effect policy ata minimum cost,´ according to Flint, there are still frustrations with the implementation of current loan guarantee program. Flint said the DOE needs to work with the Office of Management and Budget to effectively implement the loan program and look at eachnuclear loan application individually. As of now, OMB has fixed assumptions for the creditsubsidy for the loan guarantees.



But funding of new projects is not the only concern for 2011. The EnvironmentalProtection Agency is expected to release new regulations that will affect electricitygeneration. More specifically, the North American Reliability Commission said Section316(b) of the Clean Water Act, which sets out rules related to fish impingement andentrainment, will cause the most impact. 316(b) requires that the location, design,

construction and capacity of cooling water intake reflect the best available technology for minimizing the environmental impact on fish and other aquatic life. Regulations for existing facilities under section 316(b) were previously made known in both 2004 and 2006under Phase II. Litigation followed both of these actions, and now EPA is looking tocombine and re-proclaim rules for all existing cooling water intake structure facilities. Flintsaid the regulation must be site-specific due to many variables such as cost and thefeasibility of permitting and construction.

³If there is a blanket determination on what to do with 316(b) it will have a significantimpact upon operations and we suspect a number of operations would close because itwould be uneconomic to build new cooling towers,´ said Flint.

Flint said that cooling towers cost anywhere between $600 million and $2 billion toconstruct.

And 316 (b) is not the only environmental concern as the debate on nuclear wastecontinues. NEI said the industry must wait on the Blue Ribbon Commission¶srecommendations, which the draft is expected in May and a final report is expected at endof year, before making a decision on the future of used nuclear fuel. Flint said used fuel hasalways been looked as a bipartisan issue and having broad based support and that thisCongress may be one that addresses this issue quite substantively. Recommendations fromthe Blue Ribbon Commission are very important because it determines what theadministration¶s position is and how much the administration supports Blue RibbonCommission¶s recommendations.

As the industry waits on those recommendations, President Obama continues to promotenuclear power, like stated in his State of the Union address.

³There¶s been discussion about how we can restart our nuclear industry as a means of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and reducing greenhouse gases,´ Obama saidduring a speech the day after the midterm elections. ³Is that an area where we can moveforward?´

It could be. Opponents to nuclear say funding will continue to be a challenge. So 2011should give the industry a better look at the future of nuclear power in the U.S. NEI projects new nuclear build out will continue and four to eight reactors will be online and producing energy by 2020.

Canada

The most significant development for nuclear power generation in 2011 is the uncertainfuture of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), the owner of the Candu reactor



technology. The AECL is currently being restructured with a view to bring in at least oneinvestor to help take the Candu technology forward.

³We are hoping that the decision in Ontario will be made very soon and that would put uson the front end of the wave in the Western countries in new build,´ said Neil Alexander,

president of the Organization of Candu Industries.

For new build, Ontario Power Generation has submitted an Environmental ImpactStatement and supporting documentation to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for its License to Prepare a Site application to build up to four new reactors that would generateup to 4,800 MW at the Darlington nuclear generating station. Due to that uncertain futureof AECL the project has been stalled. But Alstom, the French-based company that suppliedfour condenser units as well as debris filters and cleaning systems to the OGP-ownedPickering refurbishment, recognizes the need for nuclear power in the region.

³There is still a need for at least 2,000 MW,´ said Pierre Gauthier, president of Alstom in

the U.S. and Canada. ³We know the Ontario government would like to have this supplied by additional nuclear power plants.´

In Canada several refurbishment projects will continue moving towards completion in2011. Bruce Power is working to return Units 1 and 2 to service through a complete rebuildof the reactors and upgrades of major components, such as pressure tubes, calandria tubesand steam generator replacements. Units 1 and 2 are expected to be restarted in 2011 for another 25 years of power production. The units will generate nearly 1,500 MW whencommercial operation begins in 2012 and will bring Bruce Power¶s output to almost 6,300MW.

In the province of New Brunswick the 635 MWe Point LePreau station, operated by NewBrunswick Power, will continue work on a full half-life refurbishment that includesreplacing all 380 calandria tubes, steam generators and instrument and control systems. Thecalandria tubes, each containing a fuel channel and a pressure tube that holds the fuel bundles to power the reactor, had been inserted last April but must be removed as problemswere encountered in producing consistently tight tube seals.

The refurbishment project started in 2008 and was originally expected to be complete bylate 2009. Now, AECL said the project will not be completed until 2012.



2011 Outlook for Renewable Energy

A slow market for wind is creating a flight to quality and pressure

on costs.

By Stephen Lacey, Editor/Producer, Renewable Energy World.com

While still at very small penetrations, solar is making incredible progress. Ten years ago,global solar PV installations were at 170 MW. This year, due to solid policy support andrapid price declines, they were at 17,000 MW. And in 2010, the U.S. solar PV industryfinally broke the 1 GW mark in installations. The Solar Energy Industries Association projects that the U.S. will be installing more than 20 GW of capacity each year beyond

2020.

The Canadian province of Ontario represented a major growth market for solar PV as well.Helped out by a generous feed-in tariff program for roof and ground-mounted systems, theOntario solar market became the third largest in North America, behind California and NewJersey. But pay attention to the program in 2011: The Ontario Power Authority may decideto reduce tariffs further if the market overheats.



This year also formed the foundation for solid growth in the concentrating solar power space in 2011 and 2012. More than 1 GW of projects were approved by the U.S.government, with a number them already under construction. If 2010 was the year of solar PV, 2011 will be the year of CSP in the U.S.

Wind

After a few years of record-breaking growth, 2010 was a less-than-impressive year for the North American wind market. The wind industry was hit especially hard by the aftershocksof the 2008 financial crisis. With the drop in demand for power, suppressed natural gas prices and the continued caution in the capital markets, wind project developers had a verydifficult time making projects pencil out. 2010 was on track to post a 40 percent drop ininstallations in the U.S.

But there¶s always a silver lining. The slow market has created a ³flight to quality,´ forcingdevelopers to reduce costs any way they can. On the manufacturing side, turbine andcomponent producers are focusing heavily on internal R&D efforts in order to continue

lowering costs. Many folks in the wind industry say the downturn is encouragingcompanies to innovate and differentiate their products.

The big unknown for the U.S. wind industry will be in the policy arena. The AmericanWind Energy Association has been pushing hard for a federal renewable electricitystandard (RES), which the organization says will boost the manufacturing base and helpcompanies get more projects in the ground. If Congress doesn¶t act to extend tax credits andcreate an RES, 2011 could be another hard year for wind. If projects can¶t make it in theU.S., look for more developers and manufacturers to move up to Ontario to take advantageof the Province¶s feed-in tariff or head down to Mexico where the government has set atarget of getting 3,000 MW in the ground by 2014.

Geothermal

On the surface, 2010 seemed like a down year for geothermal. Yes, there was less capacityadded in the U.S. during the year than in 2009, but that doesn¶t tell the full story. Because ittakes up to five years to put together a geothermal power plant, the key metric of success isthe number of projects in later stages of development. Helped by Department of Energyloan guarantees and the Treasury grant program, geothermal companies have a recordamount of projects in the pipeline for 2011. If all goes well, the industry could add up to700 MW of capacity this year and in 2012.

That¶s a big ³if,´ however. The number of projects completed in the next two years will

depend on investor sentiment and equipment availability. There are worries in the industrythat financial institutions won¶t be willing to put up all the capital needed to see all these projects through. And with competition for drilling rigs between the geothermal industryand oil and gas industries getting more intense, the possibility of not having enoughequipment to finish projects is very real.

As the third-largest geothermal market in the world, Mexico may offer a few more chunksof capacity too. But don¶t expect anything from Canada. Even though 27 percent of



development in the U.S. comes from Canadian companies, there are no utility-scalegeothermal plants in the country all.

Bioenergy

As one of the most mature renewable energy technologies, biomass hasn¶t seen immense

growth in the last few years like wind and solar have. But it¶s an incredibly diverseresource that can be used for electricity production, heating and cooling, transportationfuels and chemicals. The vast number of applications will ensure that biomass remains astrong piece of the renewables mix.

2010 brought some interesting developments, both positive and negative, for bioenergy inthe U.S. In October, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) raised the ethanol blendwall from 10 percent to 15 percent for automobiles made after 2007. The ethanol industrysays the higher blend wall will create stronger demand for cellulosic ethanol. However, theEPA also issued a ruling in June that may require biomass power plant operators to installexpensive emissions-control equipment. Biomass advocates say the ruling could stifle

growth in the sector in 2011. Look for updates to both of those rulings in the comingmonths.

In Canada and the U.S., where biomass already makes up a substantial portion of theelectricity mix, much of the new development in the power sector will likely be in co-firingat coal facilities. With utilities in both countries concerned about a price on carbon,replacing coal with biomass is an attractive way to hedge against such regulations.

Hydro

The U.S. has seen a decline in hydro electricity production over the last couple of decades.The industry hopes to change that not by focusing on large-scale power plants, but on

smaller projects and incremental improvements to existing facilities. Hydro advocates saythat an additional 30 to 70 GW could be added to the electricity mix in the next decade withsuch a strategy. However, the big hold-up in hydro is the long, expensive permitting process. If the federal government doesn¶t streamline permitting for developers, it¶sunlikely that the U.S. will come close to adding that much capacity.

Canada, the second-largest producer of hydropower in the world, is also looking to expandthe sector and continue exporting electricity to the U.S. Canada gets 60 percent of itselectricity from hydro. But experts estimate that there are still over 160 GW of untapped potential in the country. Provinces like Ontario and British Columbia have expressed their intent to harness those resources in the coming years.

Much of the innovation in hydropower will come from companies developing wave, tidaland in-stream hydrokinetic devices. These technologies could provide tens of thousands of MW to coastal areas. But progress in this sector will be fairly slow; companies are runninginto serious technical and financial challenges. Most of the installations in 2011 will besmall commercial or demonstration-scale, not utility-sized projects.



2011 Outlook for Fossil Power

Hydraulic fracturing is proving to be a gamechanger for the power generation industry.

By David Wagman, Chief Editor

Power generators with coal and natural gas-fired assets will pay close attention to rulesfrom the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that may well affect fortunes of bothgeneration sources.

As 2010 closed, the EPA was showing signs of struggle as it worked to finalize rules andimplementation timelines to regulate smog, ozone, nitrous oxides and sulfur dioxideemissions from power plant boilers and stacks, among other large industrial emissionsources. It also faced the task of prodding 13 states to amend their air permit plans toaccommodate greenhouse gas rules. And the agency was feeling pressure fromenvironmentalists and natural gas exploration and production companies alike as itconsidered rules related to hydrocarbon fracturing, a technique whose growing use hasexpanded the size of potentially economically recoverable natural gas resources.



Use of fracking techniques has opened new geologic formations to natural gas developmentand extended estimates for supply from 30 years to as much as 100 years. ³It¶s almostmiraculous,´ said Barry Worthington, executive director of the U.S. Energy Associationduring the Renewable Executive Roundtable featured in this issue. ³Particularly when youlook at shale gas formations in the mid-Atlantic²the Marcellus Shale formation²you see

the potential for a game-changer,´ he said.

Power Outlook

The Energy Information Administration¶s short-term outlook issued in December projectedthat total electric power sector generation will increase by 0.2 percent during 2011. Itforecast a 0.9-percent increase in nuclear power and a 7.2 percent increase in conventionalhydropower generation, the latter due to an assumed return to near-normal precipitationlevels. Both forms of generation are expected to offset a projected 1.7 percent reduction incoal-fired generation. EIA said it expects the share of total generation fueled by natural gasto fall slightly in 2011 as projected cooler summer temperatures reduce the need for peaking capacity.

Brattle Group on Ret irements

The Brattle Group December 8 added to the debate around what might happen to coal-firedgeneration as a result of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rules.

Their report suggests that 40,000 to 55,000 MW of capacity could retire if scrubbers andselective catalytic reduction equipment were required by 2015. Another 1,000 to 12,000MW could retire if cooling towers are mandated.

The cost to install scrubbers, SCRs and cooling towers could cost $100 to $180 billion, thereport said. Gas demand could rise by 5.8 billion cubic feet a day, equal to around 10

percent of all natural gas demand.

Brattle Group says most of the retirements would be in the merchant fleet. Up to 75 percentof the entire merchant capacity could be affected. Capacity owned by regulated utilitieswould be less affected.

Regions likely to be most affected include the Midwest ISO, ERCOT and PJM.

NERC on Ret irements

The North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) October 26 said four potential EPAregulations could result in a loss of up to 19 percent of fossil-fired steam capacity in the

United States by 2018. NERC said the industry-wide effort to manage, coordinate andschedule an environmental control retrofit would present ³considerable operationalchallenges.´

The analysis was included in a report called ³Potential Resource Adequacy Impacts of U.S.Environmental Regulations.´ It said the EPA regulations potentially could affect planningreserve margins and that the industry could need more resources beyond those alreadyidentified in existing plans to maintain bulk power system reliability. Bottom line was that



NERC identified up to a 78 GW reduction of coal, oil and gas-fired generating capacitythrough early retirement during the 10-year period included in its analysis. A combinationof demand-side management, power imports and new construction (most of it natural gas-fired) presumably would fill the gaps.

Four key rules under development by EPA could result in forced retrofits or unitretirements between 2015 and 2018. These include:

y The Clean Water Act- Section 316 (b), involving cooling water intake structures

y Title I of the Clean Air Act National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

(NESHAP) for the electric power industry, also known as the maximum achievable control

technology (MACT) standard

y Clean Air Transport Rule (CATR) and

y Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) Disposal Regulations.

The report said EPA has some flexibility in setting its compliance schedule except for MACT. Current EPA schedules and past implementation schedules suggest EPA¶s air andsolid waste regulations will likely be finalized by the end of 2011 with full complianceexpected by 2015 to 2016. The 316(b) water regulations could be finalized in July 2012. Atleast five years are expected to be provided for compliance.

One concern is the possibility for supply chain bottlenecks as environmental construction projects move in parallel with replacement generating capacity projects. Bottlenecks anddelays could be possible in engineering, permitting and construction phases of environmental and replacement projects.

NERC¶s assessment did not consider the possibility that the industry might not be able tomeet compliance deadlines. However, its ³strict case´ analysis for 316(b) and MACT useda 25 percent cost increase to account for potential effects if the industry proves unable toengineer, permit, build or finance required retrofit environmental controls within EPAguidelines.

The assessment found the Section 316(b) cooling water intake structure rule has thegreatest potential to affect planning reserve margins. If implemented as proposed, the EPAregulations create a need for prompt industry response and action. NERC said as much as36 GW of generating capacity may be ³economically vulnerable´ to retirement if the proposed EPA rules require power suppliers to convert to recirculating cooling water systems. In addition, planning reserve margins in almost half of NERC regions andsubregions could end up falling below reference margin levels by 2015.

For example, planning reserve margins fall by 18 percentage points to zero in the SERC-Delta subregion, which includes parts of Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas. Other ³significantly affected´ subregions include NPCC-New England and New York.

NERC said the MACT rule alone could trigger retirement of 2 to 15 GW of existing coalcapacity by 2015. (The big range reflects NERC¶s moderate vs. strict complianceassumptions.) Compliance could drive planning reserve margins of eight regions and



subregions below NERC reference margin levels. To comply, owners of the remainingcapacity need to retrofit from 277 to 753 units with additional environmental controls. NERC said an anticipated ³hard stop´ compliance deadline of 2015 proposed by EPAmakes retrofit timing a ³significant issue and potentially problematic´ issue.

The CATR could have impacts as early as 2015, resulting in 3 to 7 GW of potentialretirements and derated capacity. It could require retrofitting anywhere between 28 and 576 plants with environmental controls by 2015, depending on the severity of the impact.

NERC said the CCR rule is projected to have the least impact, possibly trigging theretirement of up to 12 coal units representing 388 MW of capacity.

³The results of this assessment show a significant potential impact to reliability should thefour EPA rules be implemented as proposed,´ said Gerry Cauley, president and CEO of NERC in a statement when the report was released. ³To ensure bulk power systemreliability, the proposed rules should provide sufficient time to acquire replacement

resources, offsetting the reductions in capacity from unit retirements and deratings fromenvironmental control retrofits.´

Environmental rules²and their effect²will dominate much of the power generationindustry for 2011 as well as the foreseeable future.

More Power Engineering Issue Articles

What will be the top energy trends by 2020?

London, January 25, 2011 ² The global energy industry is undergoing unprecedentedchanges. Rapid increase in energy consumption in the developing world will be the keydriver of growth for the global energy market. China is becoming the world's largest energyconsumer.

Huge demand for power will come from Africa and India as well, thanks to thedevelopment and electrification in rural regions. Market participants have to start preparingfor the oncoming spike in demand.

To help companies effectively navigate the market as well as successfully achieve growthobjectives, Frost & Sullivan presents the Top Ten Global Energy Trends expected todominate by 2020.

Beatrice Shepherd, Frost & Sullivan's Director CEE, Russia & CIS, in a presentationentitled "Energy Policy of the Future: Top Ten Global Trends" noted, "In today'sincreasingly changing and competitive environment, market participants must continuously



look for promising business opportunities. The energy industry, a key sector to the worldeconomy, is particularly important and must be closely monitored to maximize investmentreturns by understanding what is impacting the market."

The main trend in the global energy industry is power demand growth, as the world energy

consumption is projected to increase by 44 percent from 2006 to 2030 (Energy InformationAdministration, 2009).

Europe, with its ageing fleet of power plants would require about 25 GW of additionalgeneration capacity annually up to 2020, according to Frost & Sullivan estimation.

Demand for power in Africa, China and India will rise with rural electrification efforts.Developed countries will support the energy demand by endorsing expansion of the electricand hybrid vehicles. Global electrification will reach 80 percent by 2020.

A new age of natural gas is coming with the massive boost in LNG availability.

"The really interesting development is the quick rise in what is called 'unconventional gas'supplies," says Shepherd. "The U.S. has already overtaken Russia in 2009 as the world'slargest gas producer due to surging production of shale and coal seam gas." The search for unconventional gas is developing in China and Europe; however the procedures of extracting gas are still being considered.

Clean coal commercialization is the next important trend listed by Frost & Sullivan.

"Clean coal technologies will continue to play an important part in the coal power generation industry over the next few years with increased investments in the area," notesShepherd. Technologies that have a long-term potential are carbon capture and IntegratedGasification Combined Cycle.

A global revival of the nuclear sector, mainly driven by China, India and Russia, is another significant theme in the energy industry. Nuclear energy is considered one of the most cost-effective technologies to meet the ever-increasing demand for electricity and also a crucialcontributor to energy independence and security of supply.

The number of partnerships and co-operation agreements is increasing along the entirenuclear value chain to keep pace with the strong global demand.

Governments around the world have declared policies supporting renewable energy development ² the EU plans to achieve 20 percent of energy generation from renewablesources in 2020, 22 of the U.S. have 10-20 percent renewable targets while China aims atgenerating 100 GW of renewable energy by 2020.

These developments coupled with technology advancements will eventually result in "grid parity" ² a point where cost of producing electricity from fossil fuels is equal or cheaper tothe cost of producing energy from renewable sources.



It is likely to happen in countries, where the renewable resources hold the important sharein the energy mix. Countries with economies based on fossil fuels will reach this point inthe much longer run.

The demand for electricity has far exceeded existing grid capacity and coupled with the

rising number of decentralized energy generation units is forcing most of the utilities toimprove their measurement and monitoring network structure by implementing smarttechnologies.

Smart meters form an integral part of the bigger movement towards the smart grid. TheU.S. and Europe have already started implementing smart meters, with Italy leading therace.

"The smart grid is becoming a multi-billion dollar market, which is expected to scaleunprecedented heights in the near future," adds Shepherd.

The next important drive in the energy sector is energy efficiency. Most developedcountries are actively creating and implementing energy efficiency policies for appliances,regulating the minimum energy performance standards and associated labeling for agrowing list of appliances.

Technologies related to reducing fuel consumption and cutting carbon emissions such asenergy management tools, green buildings and clean transportation are key enablingtechnologies that will bring about energy efficiency and cut down carbon dioxideemissions.

Electric and hybrid vehicles and also renewable energy require efficient energy storagesystems, which is the key enabling technology under development, according to Frost &Sullivan. Among the factors affecting the future potential of energy systems are thefundamental properties and nature of the storage systems and also the type of materialsused.

The biggest potential is seen in fuel cells with their flexible capacity and flywheels for aspecific, narrow set of applications. The global storage market was worth $43.5 billion in2008 and expected to increase to $61 billion in 2013.

The latest trend is the energy market is liberalization, which is limiting the activity of largeenergy monopolistic utilities and opening up the energy market for competition. Acustomer should be able to choose an electricity supplier.

In fact, the idea of cross-border trading of electricity, supported by the EuropeanCommission and implemented worldwide, could help pave the way for a continental highvoltage direct current electrical grid capable of easily transmitting renewable energy across borders.

Putting a price on integrated solar power



Integrated solar combined-cycle power plants appear to have a bright future in the Middle East.

However, their development and implementation depend on feed-in tariffs and other measures

that pay generators per MWh, which can be difficult to calculate because of the complexity of such

plants. Josef Petek of VTU Energy discusses a possible solution.

Dr Josef Petek , VTU Energy, Austria

As part of global efforts to reduce the carbon footprint of fossil fuel power generation,various policy instruments have been introduced by a number of governments to subsidize preferred technologies. Feed-in tariffs are intended to help new technologies reach maturityin spite of the initial high cost of generating electricty.

In the case of integrated solar combined-cycle (ISCC) power plants, the solar portion of theoverall power output of the plant may be subject to such favourable feed-in tariffs.However, the actual settlement of a power purchase agreement (PPA), including suchtariffs, faces the problem that the portion of electricity that is accountable as renewable

energy is not accessible to direct physical metering.

Thus, the PPA requires additional model-based procedures besides the production meters todetermine the applicable tariff, which is calculated from the portion of the overall power output from the combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plant that can be attributed to the solar field which provides additional thermal energy to the power plant.

This article describes a comprehensive accounting and settlement system that processes adual-tariff PPA utilizing a reference plant model to determine the solar portion of theoverall electrical output. Using a detailed model of an ISCC plant, various operationalscenarios are investigated.

Benef its of ISCC

ISCC is a hybrid power technology that brings together a concentrating solar power (CSP) plant with a modern CCGT power plant.

There are two major benefits of this technology compared to a stand-alone CSP plant.

Firstly, since the fossil fuel fired CCGT plant can operate continuously, the start-up andshutdown losses of the solar plant can be minimized, and secondly the incremental costs for a larger steam turbine in the CCGT plant are less than the overall unit costs in a CSP plant.

In addition, the larger plant capacity, as well as the shared operation and maintenance costs,has the potential to make ISCC a very attractive option from a commercial point of view.

Nevertheless, ISCC technology still depends on favourable feed-in tariffs which are appliedas a policy instrument to promote power generation technologies from renewable energysources.



Consequently, new complexity is added for the PPA of an ISCC plant by the solar contribution to the energy input of the plant.

In an earlier publication1 the authors compared various methodologies to determine thefraction of the overall power output of an ISCC plant that is attributable to the CSP plant

and concluded that a model-based approach is required to correctly assess this value.

Model-based output allocat ion

The model-based approach to determine the solar contribution to ISCC power output uses adetailed thermodynamic plant model, as shown in Figure 1, that is executed twice, firstlywith both solar heat and fossil fuel present as operated, and secondly without thermal inputfrom the solar field but with the same input of fossil fuel as in the first case.

Figure 1. Screenshot of the Ebsilon heat balance model for the Kuraymat ISCC power plant Source:

VTU

The latter calculation represents a theoretical operating case and is referred to as the

Reference Plant. The difference in calculated electrical output between as operated and asdetermined from the Reference Plant represents the solar contribution to the overall plantoutput under current operating conditions.

This work uses a heat balance model representing the Kuraymat ISCC power plant inEgypt, one of the first ISCCs in operation. Data for the plant were made available byFichtner Solar GmbH in a publication by Brakman et al at the SolarPACES 2009conference in Berlin2.



The model of the plant was generated with the Ebsilon Professional heat balance software3,which includes a library of component models for solar applications that was co-developedwith the German Aerospace Centre (DLR).

This library includes parabolic trough and linear Fresnel type collectors, distributing and

collecting headers and a special component to calculate the sun position as a function of thelocation, date and time.

Table 1 lists the results of the baseload operation at plant reference conditions (21 March atsolar noon, 700 W/m2 DNI, 20 oC ambient) with and without steam import from the solar field.

Table 1. Results of the baseload operation at plant reference conditions, with or without steam

imports from the solar field Source: VDU

Under reference conditions the solar contribution to the overall plant output is calculated to be 22 MW which represent 17.5 per cent of the overall baseload output of 125.7 MW.

Fuel demand model

The concept of the fuel demand model (FDM) was developed during the first independentwater and power plant (IWPP) projects in the Middle East and is currently being applied to practically all independent power projects within the Gulf region.

The purpose of the FDM is to produce accurate predictions of the fuel consumption of the plant as per the PPA to allow the execution of the performance guarantees in the settlement procedure.

The FDM is a detailed physics-based thermodynamic model of the plant that reflects thecontract guarantees with very high accuracy. Since the PPA typically only includes alimited number of guarantee points, most of the operating conditions of day-to-dayoperation do not coincide with the operating conditions stipulated in the PPA.

Simple interpolation between individual guarantee points is very likely to produceerroneous or even physically improbable results. Thus, the model-based approach of theFDM, which reflects the plant through thermodynamic models of the major plant



components, has proven to be a much more reliable measure to assess conformity withwell-acknowledged PPA performance guarantees.

Given the quality and accuracy requirements of the FDM as currently applied in MiddleEast PPAs, the FDM will represent the plant performance guarantees under all possible

operating conditions, including periods without steam generation from the solar field.

Plant account ing system

In order to process the PPA it is necessary to collect a variety of data from the plant and theinterface points to the grid.

The inputs to the formulae of the PPA comprise both on-line data and manual inputs. Theycan be categorized as follows: production meters; fuel meters and operational data for theFDM; availability data; start-up data; and contractual and manual inputs.

With regards to ISCC, additional meters to account for the solar portion of the plant have to

be considered.

For the assessment of the solar contribution to the overall electrical output of the plant, asdescribed in detail above, the metering of the high-pressure (HP) feedwater flow to thesteam generator of the solar plant, as well as the conditions of the steam returning to thesteam cycle of the CCGT plant have to be recorded.

A particular requirement of the data acquisition for a settlement system applied to an ISCC plant is the refined granularity of certain data to allow for detection of non-steady operationof the solar field ± such as, for instance, the case of cloud passage.

In the case of such short-term discontinuity of thermal input from the solar field, therespective drop in solar share in the overall electricity output needs to be recorded.

As power generation through CSP is, by its essential nature, a transient process ± as thelevel of irradiation continuously changes with every minute ± the use of integral metering isrecommended to capture the overall production for the settlement period.

All data collected by the plant accounting system have to be accessible to the user throughreports that contain not only the values of the data, but also additional information about thestatus and the validity of the information.

As an example, Figure 2 shows the entry screen to Bahrain¶s Al Dur IWPP¶s accountingand settlement system, with the navigation bar at the left hand side that allows the user toquickly access various reports.



Figure 2. Sample screenshot from the plant accounting and settlement system of the Al Dur plant

Source: VDU

PPA settlement

The settlement of the PPA includes the consideration of all formulae of the PPA withregards to the following aspects of the plant operation: production of power and combined products such as water, if applicable; plant availability; and plant efficiency.

The invoice is calculated and the necessary supporting documentation has to be prepared.In the case of a special feed-in tariff for the solar share a separate parallel process for thesettlement of the solar share of the plant output also has to be applied.

Crit ical quality criteria

Due to the large amount of data to be processed and the complexity of the procedures, thesettlement system should provide as much automation as possible. Advanced logging andalarming features, as well as the provision of analysis tools are essential for the detectionand reporting of problems or errors in the most transparent way.

Signal quality is by far the most frequent root cause of problems in the settlementapplications. Therefore the system should provide detailed reports on signal problems and



offer easy-to-use facilities to replace missing or faulty data. Figure 3 shows a SignalValidation Report as an example of how the system should allow tracing back errors in theinvoice generation to the individual signal that causes the event.

Figure 3. Sample screenshot of the Signal Validation Report for the analysis of signalquality during the settlement period Source: VTU

In order to keep such manual interactions transparent to all contract parties, state-of-the-artauthorization management and detailed automated logging features should be included.

Finally, it should be noted that since the settlement system is a business critical system for the plant, it is of high importance that the supplier is capable of providing continuoustechnical support for the system ± to ensure its maximum availability and reliability. It isalso essential that direct user support and training for the plant¶s staff is provided so that therequired skill sets can be maintained among the plant¶s users, regardless of issue such as

staff turnover or fluctuation. MEE

References

1. J. Petek, P. Pechtl, P. Hartner, Accounting for the Solar Contribution in ISCC Power Generation, POWER-GEN Europe, 2010, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

2. G. Brakman, F. A. Mohammad, M. Dolejsi, M. Wiemann, Construction of the ISCCKuraymat, SolarPACES 2009, Berlin, Germany



3. R. Pawellek, T. Hirsch, T. Löw, EbsSolar ± A Solar Library for EBSILON Professional,SolarPACES 2009, Berlin, Germany

About the authors

Josef Petek is product line manager for VTU Energy. This article was co-authored with

Peter Hartner and Peter Pechtl. For more information visit www.vtu.com.

Creating "Future Proof" Solar By Andrew Williams, Contributor | 6 de enero de 2011 | 9 Comments

Will solar panels be able to self-replicate? Will power electronics make iteasy to swap in more efficient panels? Here's a look at some big ideas for thefuture of solar energy.

London, UK -- Desertification and land degradation caused by climate change maybe "the greatest environmental challenge of our time" and a "threat to global wellbeing," according to some experts but it looks as if deserts can help the planet too.

At least that¶s the theory of the University of Tokyo researchers behind the SaharaSolar Breeder project, an initiative that aims to produce a staggering 50 percent of the planet's electricity with sun and sand by 2050 and create a ³paradigm shift´ inthe world¶s energy system by distributing solar energy through a superconductingsupergrid.

The project, due to start this year, will construct manufacturing plants around the

desert that extract silica from sand to make solar panels, which will then be used tobuild solar power plants in the desert. The idea is that power generated by the firstwave of plants would be used to ³breed´ more silicon manufacturing and solar energy plants, which would in turn be used to breed yet more in a ³self-replicating´system.

³If we can use desert sand to make a substance that provides energy, this will bethe key to solving the energy problem. This is probably do-able,´ says projectleader Professor Hideomi Koinuma of the University of Tokyo.

The initiative is funded by Japan¶s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science

and Technology (JST) and the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)under the auspices of the International Research Project on Global Issues, whichwill fund the project to the tune of 100 million Yen ($1.2 million USD) annually for five years.

However, the team, (made up of researchers from several universities, includingTokyo University, the National Institute for Materials Science, Hirosaki University,Tokyo Institute of Technology, Chubu University and the Universite des Sciences



et de la Technologie d¶Oran in Algeria) admit that even that large sum of moneywon¶t be enough to complete the project. Instead, the key aim of this initial five-year phase will be to demonstrate the possibility of manufacturing high qualitysilicon from desert sand and of building a high-temperature superconducting long-distance DC power supply system.

³The goal of the research will [also] be to obtain data on issues such as how deepthe superconducting pipeline must be buried to minimize temperature fluctuations,´says Koinuma. However, while agreeing that a supergrid of this type is technicallypossible, some observers argue that it goes against the grain of current industrythinking regarding distributed energy systems.

³Yes, we will power 50% of our electricity globally with solar by 2050 easily. Butthe trend is toward distributed, not ever more centralized, generation,´ says Jigar Shah, Founder of SunEdison and CEO of the Carbon War Room.

³This plant will be built in the deserts around the world, not in just one. Eachcontinent has rooftops, excess land areas, buffer land, deserts, etc. All of theseareas will be exploited for solar production,´ he adds.

Critics are also dubious of the chances of such a grand undertaking beingcompleted soon enough to mitigate the damaging effects of climate change.

³Superconductor lines for long distances are not available now and, as the [projectteam members] say, may need about 20 years to become commercial,´ says HaniNokraschy, Co-Founder and Vice Chairman of the Supervisory Board of theSahara-based Desertec Foundation, which itself hopes to generate 15 percent of Europe's electricity by 2050 using solar plants in the region.

³Climate change is not waiting for it. We have to act now with available proventechnologies, including large array PV fields,´ he adds.

³Future Proof´ Solar

The novel technological approach suggested by the Sahara ³Breeder´ team is notthe only one under consideration by solar industry stakeholders as they seek toshape the development of the sector over the next half century. With today¶scrystalline solar panels expected to last around 50 years, a key challenge for manycompanies lies in developing an understanding of how they can operate plants insuch a way that every solar panel continues to produce the maximum amount of energy possible in the midst of repairs and replacements.

³This is important because the O&M reserve being set aside for the profitability of solar plants includes the capital replacement costs, but assumes the plant willcontinue to operate through the maintenance,´ says Shah.



One possible solution is to use power electronic systems, which enable maximumpeak power tracking (MPPT) of modules at the module level. This means thatevery single module can dynamically change its voltage and amperage to get thehighest possible power output ± so that when one module gets dirty, it doesn¶taffect the production of all the other modules. Some of these technologies can

even power track between cells within a single module.

³Even if some modules fail in fifty years, with DC-DC chips you can just leave themout there and it won¶t affect the performance. Just replace them with the newestmodule available on the market,´ says Shah.

³On DC-DC chips, you are seeing eight or more companies vying for the top slotand all are in advanced testing with manufacturers to be included in [the] junctionbox. This allows for very low cost module-to-module µmaxpeak¶ power tracking aswell as data collection. In the future, these chips also allow for mismatchedmodules to be put next to each other without any performance degradation. For example, a 180W panel could be replaced with a 240W panel,´ he adds.

Free and Easy?

So, looking into the future, will there ever be a time when solar energy like the typeproduced by the Sahara Solar Breeder project will be practically free?

³No, never,´ says Shah. ³Solar will always cost something upfront. Thetechnologies promising very low upfront costs will always have a diffusionproblem.´

However, Shah does predict that solar will reach grid-parity with around 50% of electricity sold globally by 2020 ± a significant improvement on today¶s figure of around 10%.

³After 20 years, the variable cost of solar PV will be less than $0.01/kWh, which willmake [it] seem free, just like nuclear today. You will see big announcements fromthe middle east pursuing this model in the next 18 months,´ he adds.

Costo de energia solar

Solar PV Becoming Cheaper than Gas in California?

By Stephen Lacey, Editor | 8 de febrero de 2011 | 27 Comments



California -- We hear it every day: "Solar is too expensive." Well, not according to

the California utility Southern California Edison.

In a recent filing to the state's Public Utilities Commission, SCE asked for approval

of 20 solar PV projects worth 250 MW ± all of which are expected to generate a

total of 567 GWh of electricity for less than the price of natural gas.

Although the exact details of the 20-year contracts for the projects are kept

confidential for a few years, the utility reports that all winning solar developers

issued bids for contracts below the Market Price Referent, which is the estimated

cost of electricity from a 500-MW combined-cycle natural gas plant.

What does that mean? It means that a large number of solar PV project developers

believe they can deliver solar electricity at a very competitive price. And these

aren't mega-projects either. All of the installations will be between 4.7 MW and 20

MW ± a sweet spot for PV projects.

Although the price of natural gas has plummeted in recent years because of

excessive production and lower demand for power, the cost of solar projects and

the price of solar electricity has dropped in tandem. With stong solar requirements

in states like California, demand for PV has stayed strong.

"Solar energy is a natural hedge against rising energy costs ± a hedge that

regulators and utilities are turning to lower electricity costs for their customers,"

said Rhone Resch, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association.

California regulators seem to agree that mid-sized solar PV installations, which

capture economies of scale but suffer fewer regulatory and transmission

constraints, are an important part of the market.

These latest projects were solicited through SCE's Renewables Standard

Contracts program, a reverse auction mechanism implemented by the utility in

2010. The program is a precursor to California's Reverse Auction Mechanism

(RAM) that was approved last December. That 1-GW program requires California's



three largest utilities to hold auctions twice a year to solicit bids from developers of

mid-sized (i.e. 1-20 MW) solar PV projects.

The 250 MW of contracts sent to the CPUC for approval is in addition to a 500-MW

solar program initiated by SCE in 2009.

According to SCE's filing, the utility seems to be genuinely positive about the

prospects for solar PV:

³Solar PV is a mature and proven renewable energy technology that has been

supplying a substantial amount of renewable energy to SCE and other California

load-serving entities (³LSEs´) for several years.´

While large-scale concentrating solar power projects have been gaining ground in

California and other southwestern states, PV is looking like the better option in

many cases. Due to the steady declines in the cost of production and price of

modules, as well as improvements in Balance of Systems technologies (i.e. power

electronics, racking and wiring) that make installations more efficient, solar PV is

leading the way.

³The solar industry has done a great job in bringing down costs ± long a promise,

now a reality,´ said Adam Browning, executive director of the Vote Solar Initiative,

in a response to the recent SCE announcement. ³These are price-points that can

really scale, and will encourage policymakers to think big.´

In a recent report from GTM Research comparing similar-sized CSP and PV

projects, the authors forecast that electricity from utility-scale PV plants will be

considerably lower than some CSP technologies. In the next decade, the research

firm projects CSP plants will be generating electricity in the $0.10 to $0.12 per kWh

range and PV will be producing electricity in the $0.07 to $0.08 kWh range. (On the

flip side, CSP technologies can offer storage capabilities and hybrid natural gas

components, providing value that PV can't necessarily deliver.)



With high peak demand, lots of expensive ³spinning reserve´ power plants and

ample sunlight, California is the likely place for PV to compete. But with project

costs continuing to drop and utilities promoting the technology, the steady march

toward grid parity will spread to other markets as well, said Vote Solar's Browning.

³Though California does have world-class sunlight, solar is modular and adaptable,

and similar results can be had throughout the country.´

Tendencias 2020 y Costo de Energia Solar

Documents

Transcript of Tendencias 2020 y Costo de Energia Solar