BY PANOS PREVEDOUROS PHD – A five megawatt facility with solar thermal collectors is planned on Department of Hawaiian Homes Lands (DHHL) lands. The provider and contractor is a local firm that has a smaller deployment on the Big Island.
The Big Island facility has used millions of taxpayer money in the form of technology credits to provide basically a tiny amount of usable energy, if any. As shown in the list below, depending on the source, the Big Island facility is mentioned as being able to generate 2000 KW (2 MW), 500 KW or 100 KW and to be feeding power to HELCO, the Big Island utility. The watt (W) is a measurement of electric power; KW is kilowatt and is equal to 1,000 watts; MW is megawatt and is equal to one million watts.
- Source (1) says that the power purchasing agreement started in January 2010 for 2 MW.
- A description of the same Big Island facility specifies 2 MW for $20 million invested using 1,008 solar concentrating panels on 4 acres of land; see source (2). That’s $10 Million per MW which is expensive. It comes to $10 per watt whereas rooftop photovoltaic (PV) panel system costs about $5 per watt (See note 1).
- The company’s CEO said to me in person —and in source (3) cited below—that the facility produces 500 KW. That’s $40 Million per MW which is absurdly expensive because now the cost is $40 per watt.
- The Nevada based electric generator manufacturer who sold the Green Machines that presently operate on the Big Island facility in question specifies two 50 KW generators. So the 4 acre site has a maximum power generation of just 100 KW; source (4). The CEO of the Big Island facility is quoted saying this: “The delivery and performance of the Green Machines have allowed us to fully utilize our solar field…” This means that indeed all that this facility can do on a sunny day without clouds is 100 KW. Now the cost per MW is clearly in the stratosphere at $200 Million per MW or $200 per watt.
- The Hawaii Electric Industries (HEI) annual report ending December 31, 2010 shows all their active Power Purchasing Agreements (PPA) and the subject Big Island concentrated solar panel facility is not listed as a source of purchased power. Source: HEI table below.
The reduction from all this information is that 1,008 panels and 4 acres are required to produce 0.1 MW which is mostly used internally and none of it is sold to HELCO. Unlike a PV system, this concentrated solar panel system requires a lot of electricity to operate pumps, valves, and sun-tracking motors. This means that the amount of electricity sent to the grid is less than the 100 KW stated above, which further increases the cost per MW.
Oahu’s daily needs exceed 1,200 MW. If this technology were to power Oahu it would require 48,000 acres and zero cloud cover over the panels 365 days a year. In addition a very large quantity of water would be needed to cool down the generators.
It appears that this locally developed technology of micro solar collectors (sun tracking troughs) can physically produce a small amount of electric power, but it does so at an exorbitant cost, especially when compared to other environmentally benign renewables such as PV.
Given all these facts, now I have several questions:
Were 1,008 solar troughs, that cost millions of dollars in high technology tax credits, installed for HECO TV commercials, politician photo ops, and investor enrichment?
Do HECO and the Public Utilities Commission have any idea as to what works, what doesn’t, and at what cost?
How can a solar plant with 1,008 collectors produce 2 MW per day and have zero sales to the utility? My home solar panels produce 0.0016 MWh per day and HECO knows all about it.
Have we legislated mandates that promote unreasonable ratepayer charges? Right now Hawaii power customers pay over 250% more for electricity than the mainland. Why do we develop policies and select options that make this premium go even higher?
One of the five stated purposes of Hawaii’s PUC is to “Foster and encourage competition or other alternatives where reasonably feasible in an effort to provide consumers with meaningful choices for services at lower rates that are just and reasonable.” Purchasing power from a power generating facility at a cost exceeding 22 cents per KWh is very expensive. Why does the PUC entertain rates higher than 25 cents per KWh specifically for “Concentrating Solar Power” as stated in the Feed-in Tariff (FIT) rates?
This preferential rate for a single technology is twice the baseline FIT rate of 13.8 cents per KWh for other renewable energy technologies. Why?
Such a discriminatory pricing begs another question: Is Hawaii so desperate for a local success story that we waste millions of taxpayer and ratepayer dollars in uncompetitive overpriced technologies?
My questions point to a lack of due diligence or breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the utility industry in Hawaii, its regulators and our legislators. The governor must obtain an understanding of the realities of the renewable energy game in Hawaii. Or perhaps the governor is the problem – I mention it as a possibility, but I suspect that he’s never received an unbiased briefing.
Hawaii’s energy arena needs clear metrics and performance based contracting, not fake promises and preferential treatment. Hawaii needs fact-based energy leadership, not rhetoric and commercials.
REFERENCES
Source (1): https://www.nrel.gov/csp/solarpaces/project_detail.cfm/projectID=71
Source (2): https://www.power-technology.com/projects/holanikuatkeaholepoi/
Source (3): https://darrentkimura.com/2010/01/
Source (4): https://www.electratherm.com/press-release13.html
Note (1): A Price Point for Rooftop Solar Panels (https://fixoahu.blogspot.com/2011/06/price-point-for-rooftop-solar-panels.html)
$200 per watt is absurd. Checked the sources and they seem legit. What is missing? Has anyone visited the facility? No company can be that incompetent and stay in business.
True, but generally speaking, several start-ups are very good at burning venture capital and tax credits for long periods with little or nothing to show for it at the end.
$200/watt is preposterous! What is the rationale for that? Did the CEO say how much power it delivered to the grid last year? And, how much tax credit money are we talking about that could have been used for school furloughs or budget deficits? If all this is true then it is shameful and embarrassing. How is this different than PV, which is so much cheaper? After all the tax credits, my neighbor paid only $2.50/watt for her PV system.
I have to say, this doesn’t surprise me. We’ve all heard Mr. Kimura talk about renewables but avoid the discussion of cost. He assures us ‘it will get better’ but $200/watt compared to $7/watt for PV? How much better does he really think it will get?
Just think – $20 million @ $7 / watt would have purchased a nearly three megawatt (3,000 kilowatt) system. Sopogy produced $20 milllion @ $200 / watt (100 kilowatts). That’s not a good use of anyone’s money, taxpayer *or* investor. Who thinks this is a good idea?
– Bill
What I don’t understand us how HECO allows this to continue and then has these TV commercials touting how much they support this. It seems they want to support a loser so they can continue with the existing system, but still say they tried. And, I heard MECO is asking for a 6 to 7% increase because of renewables. You would think the rates would go down not up. The only losers are us. But does this sun tracking trough system Panos is talking about have a better future potential than PV? It seems PV is so much simpler. My neighbor, in her 60s doesn’t do anything with her system. Can someone (the CEO possibly) please explain how the trough system works and what are the pros and cons. Maybe $200/watt now is ok if it can go to $2/watt in the near future. Since it’s our money, we should see the projections and business plans.
There are no substantial economies of scale for this system. There is a reason that solar collectors need to be very large and run the oil at a high rate so that substantial thermal energy can be generated. Micro collectors can heat the oil to high temp but the rate that it flows needs to be very slow. It is simple an issue of math and physics, and most people pay no attention to these.
I found a pretty good explanation of the system here:
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/is-CSP-doomed/
It sounds like it can never be competitive with PV on a price basis, even before you talk about how complicated it is or how much water it uses.
Those teachers taking a 5% cut could use $20 million about now.
– Bill
Besides looking at cost/watt, one should also factor in thermal efficiency. A system that costs $10/watt might not be considered “expensive” if the efficiency was 100%, when compared to a typical $7/watt PV system with efficiency of only 14%. Although $200/watt is indefensible, the article does not provide an complete argument since utilities care about the output and the quality of the output. Power plants operate on the Rankine Cycle, and generally higher temperatures result in higher efficiencies. The proposed system is low temperature and probably does not generate steam. At best, it is like a waste heat recovery system.
Your comments on the efficiency of the cycle are spot on. And waste heat recovery systems are called waste heat for a reason, you can get it as ‘waste’ from other processes. Why have an expensive solar thermal system to generate it when you can get it as a byproduct? Low temperature and electrical generation does not work. Preferably hot, dry steam is needed to achieve a reasonable efficiency – and therefore reduce cost/watt.
The $10/watt is not applicable to the Kona solar collector plant. It’s much higher than that. At the same time your 14% efficiency comes close to it. So the bottom line is “ridiculously expensive.”
The science stuff is great, but I cant get the business question out of my head. How does a company, 1) make a product that is more expensive than a competitor technology, 2) blow 20M on a project with no output, and 3)
stay in business. The VC investments had to dry up immediately, yet Sopogy is still going strong. I expect that sopogy gets the 30% Fed and 35% HI Solar tax credits, just like PV. Does anyone know the particulars of the QHTB? How much did they get?
Speaking generally, it is called “burning money” and it can by done successfully for a few years. It’s only been a couple of years. I’ll leave the statement “Sopogy going strong” up to you to prove it.
Something doesn’t smell right. I think Panos needs to dig deeper and get more answers.
Based on one of the references provided in the article the system cost is around $10/watt. That’s what I’d expected for the size and a new technology (actually it’s quite competitive, if we compare it with lasrge scale commercial CSP). It’s around two times more expensive that conventional CSP and PV. However, since this is just a demonstration for a new technology, it’s normal to be more expensive. As for the rated power, the reader should not confuse the rate of each unit converting thermal energy to electricity (50kW) and the overal rater power of the plant.
In my opionion, solar thermal is not competitive with PV to produce electricity. Even the argument of CSP is more efficient than PV is not true. Using the same cost structure (apple to apple), Sunpower system (cost around around $6/W) is much more efficient than CSP. Please see my recent article on this subject: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pip.998/abstract
As I shown in this article, the main weakness of CSP, is the high cost of operation and maintenance (O&M).
However, Sopogy design is probably the best technology to adress the air conditionning requirements in Hawaii and many other places around the world. Instead, of converting solar to thermal energy, then to electricity and then use electricty to drive the compressor in an air-conditionner, why not use the thermal energy to drive directly the air conditionner. I think policy and decision makers have to adapt their FIT programs (and the renewable program in general) to adress this issue (Hawaii/USA is not alone on this). Overall efficiency should be an important factor in the decision making. I can’t blame a company trying to make money with its technology.
Cheers
Farid
Farid: That may be the case with the Sopogy technology regarding air conditioning. However, the focus of my article was on the facts about the Kona power plant and the implications for the proposed one in Kalaeloa. Both of them are for electricity generation.
Your statement that the “cost of $10/watt” for the Kona powerplant and your statement that solar thermal is not a power generation technology… how are they compatible? The facts do not support a cost of $10/watt.
[…] See the full report here. […]
One only needs to calculate the Carnot Efficiency (theoretical maximum efficiency of a heat engine) to understand why waste heat is not always worth recovering. This being 1-TempCold/TempHot. TempCold is from domestic water or seawater, whilst TempHot is from the heat source, both in degrees Kelvin. The Carnot Efficiency is directly related to the heat source temperature and lower heat source temperatures result in lower theoretical maximum efficiencies. Simple as that. The only way a low temperature hot liquid heat source system compares favorably to a high temperature steam source system is if the low temperature system is free or very very cheap. And $200/watt is not cheap. Where I’m from the proof is in the pudding!
Whenever a heavily taxpayer subsidized project such as this is pursued, one should look closely at who stands to benefit. According to Sopogy’s own website, Tim Wong, Sopogy’s Vice President and General Manager, is a former Securities Administrator at HECO. On Sopogy’s Board of Directors is T. Michael May, “the recently retired President and Chief Executive Officer” of HECO. Is the intent then to develop new economically feasible energy sources, or is it to cleverly exploit technology tax credits?
It seems like there is a lot of activity, but not very much of it is targeted at actually supplying useful amounts of energy. Instead it’s focused on self-promotion, business maneuvering and finding some way to benefit from a non-starter technology.
At the same time HECO needs to appear greener, but would rather not actually change. Supporting projects like Sopogy’s fulfills both of those, TV commercials and all.
The State really needs some technically skilled people vetting technology projects of all types. It’s too easy for fast talkers to overwhelm our elected representatives without divulging the entire story.
– Bill
Comments are closed.