Tri-State to build solar plant near Springer NM (Albuquerque, Cimarron: 2009, condo)

[mortimer]

Tri-State to build solar plant in northeast NM - Forbes.com

Tri-State to build solar plant in northeast NM

A 500,000-panel solar photovoltaic power plant ... 30 MW
stretch for nearly a mile ... between Springer and Cimarron.

This plant is also featured in an article
on the front page of the Albuquerque Journal.

First Solar :: Lowering the Cost of Solar Electricity :: Home

This is pretty cool stuff.

In a perfect world where there is an unlimited supply of solar
panels, I wonder if it would be better to have a couple of panels
on every roof of every house than to string them together in a
huge facility like this.

Nothing is being given out regarding the cost per kWh of the
energy supplied, but solar energy costs have been coming down
these last many years.

On the one hand, a big plant like that can have economy of scale
with inverters (convert dc to ac) and transformers. They can also
store energy by pumping water.

On the other hand, distributing the production and using it at the
point of production would smooth out the load.

[Towanda]

Very cool stuff, indeed.

Thanks for posting this article, mortimer!

[rybert]

Great post!

Too bad they're keeping their cards so close... I want to know more about generation costs!

[Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by mortimer

In a perfect world where there is an unlimited supply of solar
panels, I wonder if it would be better to have a couple of panels
on every roof of every house than to string them together in a
huge facility like this.

Ideally, yes. But then you'd be relying on homeowners to maintain them or allowing access to maintain them, and you'd have to deal with tree shading, other buildings, putting in thousands of inverters versus tens or hundreds.. Probably not worth it.

Nothing is being given out regarding the cost per kWh of the
energy supplied, but solar energy costs have been coming down
these last many years.

I've heard guesstimates of 15c/kWh, but the figure is essentially meaningless; do you capitalize the plant over 5 years? 10? 25? 50?. This number has a huge effect on the cost per kWh, since you have the hour term in there.

On the one hand, a big plant like that can have economy of scale
with inverters (convert dc to ac) and transformers. They can also
store energy by pumping water.

Having driven that road, I'm not sure where you'd pump the water. Aren't that many big mountains nearby, and building a tower would be pretty bad idea. Use-it-or-lose-it is the best way to make use of that power.

Pretty important development, and I'm glad to see NM's rural electric cooperatives pulling their weight in terms of portfolio.

[mortimer]

Zoidberg weighed in:

> I've heard guesstimates of 15c/kWh,
> but the figure is essentially meaningless;

Right, but it's still nice to have some point of comparison.
Some of the low numbers thrown around for coal plants don't take
into account some of the costs of recovering the areas where the
coal is mined.

Still, it's nice to know that it's below 20c since that is in the range
of peak rate cost in areas like Phoenix where they offer peak/off-peak.

It's also not 50c which is where it was (inflation-adjusted) in the '70's.

Someday, it might be 1c when spray-on surfaces with nanoparticles
become reality. Maybe.

> ... not sure where you'd pump the water. ...

Water was just an example. You could also compress air. Fortunately,
the peak output of the plant will be around the peak needs of the users.

[rruff]

Originally Posted by mortimer

Nothing is being given out regarding the cost per kWh of the energy supplied, but solar energy costs have been coming down
these last many years.

Just taking a guestimate, if the whole thing costs $2/W (they state $1/W as an eventual goal for the panels). Then ~5 hrs/day x 365 days /1000 = 1.8 kw-hr/yr for that $2. Figuring 8% return on investment, we have ~9 cents/kw-hr just in capital costs. Add in maintenance and repair and replacement (lifespan), and it's probably around 15-20 cents. I didn't include losses associated with converting that DC current to AC... not sure how much that is.

What is the current wholesale cost of electric production... 2-4 cents?

Though these types of solar panels are fine if you need electricity in a remote location, I frankly don't understand using them on a large scale. Wind turbines and solar *thermal* (create steam to drive a generator), are more economical.

[GregW]

IMHO - New Mexico has nearly perfect conditions for developing pumped hydro energy storage. These are a modest size stream and 1,000 ft change in elevation within a mile. Eagle Nest Lake might make a good lower reservoir. These plants do not consume water but there would be evaporative losses in the storage reservoirs. Pumped storage was developed in the early 20th century to level out the loading of base load, originally coal fired and then nuclear, power plants.

A pumped storage designed to level the power output from a solar plant this small would not be economical but if enough solar, wind and nuclear were added to the grid an pumped storage plant would make sense.

My problem with private ownership of electric utilities is simple. The private business NEVER provides accurate financial information to stock holders, customers or regulators. This was proven when the TVA started to build coal fired power plants and competed with American Electric Power Co. it turned out that AEP had been exaggerating costs and getting higher rates for decades.

[mortimer]

rruff calculated:

> Just taking a guestimate, if the whole thing costs $2/W
> (they state $1/W as an eventual goal for the panels).

They are stating $0.98/W as the current cost for solar panels.
The solar panels are, by far, the largest cost component in building
a solar power plant, so $2/W sounds high to me.

> Then ~5 hrs/day x 365 days /1000 = 1.8 kw-hr/yr for that $2.

On average, there are 12 daylight hours the panels will produce
power. Your ~5 hours seems awfully conservative since even at
low light levels some power is produced. You may have 5 hrs where
production is at 100%, 2 hrs on either side of that where production
is 75-80% and another 4 hrs at 60% on average (more in summer,
less in winter). Now, that's more like 3.6 kw-hr/year.

> ... current wholesale cost of electric production... 2-4 cents?

That's the current *price* of wholesale electricity. I would suspect
the cost is much higher. It reflects the need to keep facilities
running when there is no demand at that site. It's like getting a shirt
for $5 when it normally sells for $50. If the manufacturer sold shirts
for $5 all the time, they would go out of business.

> I frankly don't understand using them on a large scale.

I don't think anybody does. Such facilities simply haven't existed
- exept on the drawing board. Some should be built to see if
they are worth it or just maintenance nightmares.

> Wind turbines and solar *thermal* ... are more economical.

No argument there. They are, for now. I can't imagine what kind
of technology will drive their prices down much further in the
future the way prices are coming down for photovoltaic panels.

GregW also added:

> My problem with private ownership of electric utilities
> ... private business NEVER provides accurate financial
> information ... AEP had been exaggerating costs ...

Is this a call for nationalization of electric utilities? Isn't that throwing
the baby out with the bathwater? All you need is better auditing.
Actually, that goes for a lot of public/private entities, but I digress ...

Back in the time of building TVA, there was no such thing as consumer
"watchdog" groups, consumer reports, etc. Profitability of electric
utilies isn't all that impressive. In my judgement, they aren't ripping
anyone off.

People that whine about their $500 monthly utility bills need to figure
out how they can use less energy if they don't want to pay.

[GregW]

Mortimer - thanks for your comments. Public vs. private utilities is another discussion for another time. My utility bill hits $350 pr month in the winter because I sort of heat my condo with electricity. I do not want flames of any kind in that tinder trap. I also think it is kind of neat to heat with nuclear power (Seabrook Unit 1).

[RKW]

Lumping all the panels together reduces maintenance costs. Electric comsumers have the option NOW of going solar on an indivdual, case-by-case basis. This is Tri-State's baby. They are going to do it on their terms.

Because the panels generate DC current, the electric needs not be converted to AC until it is delivered to the general point of consumption. There is zero line losses when wheeling DC power.