© copyright 2014, first solar,...

2

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

site: San Luis Obispo, USA

size: 550MW

owners: MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company

TOPAZ SOLAR FARM

Largest investment grade renewable bond in history

4

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Solar is Less Expensive than Diesel

• PV electricity prices have reduced over 50%

Sources: Diesel Pricing US Energy Information Administration; Solar Pricing: DOE, Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory

• Diesel prices remain highly volatile and have steadily increased

Small PV System Median Installed Price 2003–2012 WTI Crude Oil Prices 2003–2013

5

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

PV is Highly Compatible with High Ambient Temperatures

• Thermal energy output decreases when PV energy output increases

7

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

• Operate as a secondary power source

• Will not replace existing thermal infrastructure/fleet

• Are commercially viable due to operational fuel savings alone

First Solar FuelSmart™ Hybrid Systems

Think of solar as a source of fuel, not just additional capacity.

8

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

First Solar FuelSmart™ Benefits

• Economic

• Operational

• Environmental

10

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

How It Works

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

0:00

2:00

4:00

6:00

8:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

16:00

18:00

20:00

22:00

24:000

250

500

750

1000

1250

0:00

2:00

4:00

6:00

8:00

10:00

12:00

14:00

16:00

18:00

20:00

22:00

24:00

LOAD

PV POWER PLANT THERMAL FUEL SOURCE

11

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Solar as a Negative Load

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

0:0

0

1:0

0

2:0

0

3:0

0

4:0

0

5:0

0

6:0

0

7:0

0

8:0

0

9:0

0

10

:00

11

:00

12

:00

13

:00

14

:00

15

:00

16

:00

17

:00

18

:00

19

:00

20

:00

21

:00

22

:00

23

:00

00

:0

• As diesel generator output nears minimum partial load solar output is throttled by SFS

• Temporary reduction protects diesel generator from damage and ensures efficient operation

Load

Available Solar Power

Regulated Solar Power

Genset Load (kW)

Generator Min. Partial Load

12

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

0 4 8 12 16 20 240.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Total Load

Diesel Power

PV Hybrid – Design Optimization

• Optimize design according to weighted criteria:

Maximize reliability

Maximum reduction of diesel

• Optimized for a simple load or a highly variable load

Lowest LCOE

Highest NPV

13

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Fuel Savings

Monthly Fuel Cost WITHOUT Solar

Thermal Fuel Costs

Monthly Fuel Cost WITH Solar

Thermal Fuel Costs

Solar Costs

SAVINGS

14

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Hybrid Project’s Description

• IPP business model used for this analysis

• Site proposed for this analysis

• Flat load assumption used

• No land lease incorporated

• No upfront financial fees and development costs included

• The fuel is considered as a pass-through from Saudi Aramco to the IPP company owner

• Gensets are HFO-based engines

• Discount rate for calculation of levelized electricity price and NPV of fuel savings: 8%

• Total Power Capacity of 54.4MW

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

15

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Hybrid Model – Assumptions Overview (cont’d)

COMBINED CAPEX/OPEX ASSUMPTIONS

• Total Capex (incl. IDC): US$ 115M

• Total First Year Opex (excl. fuel cost): US$ 7.5M

Optimization of the EPC cost during the construction period through the combination of construction capabilities

Optimization of the O&M cost through remote control of the PV portion and combination of the labor force on-site

Case Study: Hybrid project including a 54.4MWAC Genset facility and a 37.8MWac PV plant

Schedule

• Construction period: 15 months

• Project lifetime: 20 years

OTHER KEY ASSUMPTIONS

EPC/O&M CONSORTIUM

IPP SPV OWNER HYBRID PROJECT

OFFTAKER SAUDI ARAMCO

POTENTIAL HYBRID BUSINESS MODEL WITH SAUDI ARAMCO AS FUEL PROVIDER & ELECTRICITY OFFTAKER

Electricity cost

4.8 $cents / kWh instead of

3.7 $cents / kWh

(excl. fuel cost)

Optimized EPC and

O&M prices

Fuel supply: 635,742 barrels per year instead

of 762,875 barrels

16

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

First Year Comparison

Case Study: Hybrid project including a 54.4MWAC Genset facility and a 37.8MWac PV plant

Conventional Hybrid Delta

Unit Total $ (M) Unit Total $(M) Total $(M)

Fixed Cost/Kwh

$0.037 $17.5 $0.048 $22.7 $5.2

Fuel 762,875 $21.4 635,742 $17.8 ($3.6)

$38.9 $40.5 $1.6

127,133 B/Yr

17

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Hybrid Model – Daily Energy Generation

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

MW

Hours

PV Generation Gensets Generation

FLAT LOAD: 54,471 MW

ENERGY GENERATION SPLIT BY TECHNOLOGY

18

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Hybrid Model – Fuel Savings Overview

CUMULATED FUEL SAVINGS (in barrels)

FUEL SAVINGS PER YEAR (in barrels)

127,133 barrels per year

-

25,000

50,000

75,000

100,000

125,000

150,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Fuel savings in barrels

Total 20y: 2,542,653 barrels

-

700,000

1,400,000

2,100,000

2,800,000

3,500,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Cumulative Fuel savings in barrels

19

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Hybrid Model – Net Savings Evolution for Saudi Aramco

NET PRESENT VALUE OF NET SAVINGS (In US$ M) / HFO PRICE ANALYSIS (In US$ per tons)

ARAMCO BENEFIT IN HYBRID PROJECTS

1 NPV(Fuel saved in tons * Fuel price)

2 NPV(Δ Tariff * Total energy generated) -

+

= >0 WHEN HFO PRICE > $247/Tons

@ Discount rate of 8%

Fuel Price

In $ Millions 0 247 687

HYBRID (50) 0 88 (100)

(80)

(60)

(40)

(20)

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

In $

Mill

ion

s

Fuel Price in $ / tons

GENSET - 37.8MW PV GENSET - 0MW PV

20

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Oceans 96.5%

Other Saline Water 0.9%

Fresh Water 2.5%

Water Availability

• More than two-third of earth’s surface is covered with water

• Most of the available water is seawater or icebergs in Polar Regions

• About 97% of earth’s water is salty and the rest is fresh water

• Less than 1% of fresh water is within human reach

Source: Perlman, Howard, 2013

Breakdown of Earth’s Freshwater Reserves

Fresh Water 1.2%

68.7% Glaciers & Ice Caps

30.1% Groundwater

69.0% Ground Ice & Permafrost

20.9% Lakes

3.8% Soil Moisture

3.0% Atmosphere Swamps 2.6%

River 0.49%

Living Things 0.26%

21

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Return Flow Ratio Global Horizontal Irradiation

Regions of Water Stress are the Ones Rich in Solar Irradiance

Source: Gassert, Francis, et. al. (January 2013). Aqueduct Metadata Document

Sustainable seawater desalination relying on solar energy is the right approach

22

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

MARKET OVERVIEW

DESALINATION PROCESSES & TECHNOLOGIES

PRESENTING PV-RO WHITE PAPER

KEY TAKEAWAYS

MARKET OVERVIEW

23

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

The Global Need for Water Desalination

• The deployment of desalination plants has been led by MENA

— ~2,800 desalination plants produce 27M m³/day of water

— ~ 38% of the global capacity

• It is estimated that only 0.8% of global desalination capacity is currently supplemented by solar power

Source: IRENA EA-ETSAP, 2012 & MEDAD Executive Summary, 2014

Top 15 Market Potential for Desalination in the World From 2012–2016

24

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Saudi Desalination Plants & Water Allocation

KSA is a country of about 30 million people who are highly concentrated along the East & West coasts

Source: SWCC Annual Report, 2012 and Solargis, 2013

Desalination Plants & Water Pipelines

25

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Saudi Roll-out & Phases of Development

King Abdullah Initiative for Solar Desalination

Building a desalination plant with a production capacity of three hundred thousand cubic meters per day (300,000m³/day) at a site that will be chosen later. The implementation period for this is three years, and will start after the completion of the first phase.

PHASE II (2013–2015)

Building a desalination plant with a capacity of thirty thousand cubic meters per day (30,000m³/day) to meet the needs of one hundred thousand dweller of Al-Khafji City (Arabian Gulf). Power an RO Plane from a solar energy farm.

PHASE I (2010–2013)

The implementation of several water desalination plants using solar energy in various locations of the Kingdom. This phase will start after the completion of second phase.

PHASE III (2016–2018)

26

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Water Consumption Relative to Different Power Generation Technologies

Solar is How We Get it Done Each Drop Represents 100 Liters of Water

CSP WET Cooling

NUCLEAR COAL CSP DRY Cooling

PV FIRST SOLAR PV

Water Volume used by Different Generation Technologies to Produce 1Mwh of Power

27

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.


MARKET OVERVIEW



KEY TAKEAWAYS


28

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

MED 15%

RO 16%

MSF 69%

Common Desalination Technology Types Two Broad Categories of Desalination Technologies

1. Thermal Desalination Technologies use heat to vaporize water

— Multi Stage Flash (MSF)

— Multi Effect Distillation (MED)

— Vapor Compression (VC)

2. Non-thermal Desalination Technologies use membrane based methods for water desalinations

— Reverse Osmosis (RO)

— Electrodialysis (ED)

Almost 80% of the world’s desalination capacity is provided by MSF & RO

Overview of Desalination Technologies

Source: KAUST, Volume 1, 2014

MSF+MED = 84% of Production Share

Reverse Osmosis = 16% of Production Share

29

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Solar Desalination Processes

Source: Technology Brief, IRENA 2012

Relative Power Requirements for Various Solar Desalination Processes

MSF MED MCV RO ED

CSP thermal

PV electric

30

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

RO Desalination Plant

The Salinity Content > 41,000 PPM in Arabian Gulf & Red Sea Source: EA-ETSAP. 2012

Concentrate

Product

Feed

Permeate Carrier

Membrane

31

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.


MARKET OVERVIEW



KEY TAKEAWAYS

PRESENTING PV-RO CASE STUDY

32

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Water Desalination Cost Analysis

6.5¢/kWh = grid electricity cost

+ 10% Solar PV penetration

@LCOE 13¢/kWh

Blended cost:

0.9 × 6.5 +0.1 ×13 = 7.15 $/kWh

(10% increase)

ONLY 3% increase in water costs

COST ANALYSIS Assume 30% electricity cost/m³ of water

$0.29

$0.24

$0.03

$0.10

$0.07$0.02

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Parts

Chemicals

Labor

Membranes

Electrical Energy

Amortised Capex

US

$ pe

r m

3pe

r da

y

Seawater RO

$0.76

(Global Water Intelligence, Volume 11, Issue 9, September 2010)

33

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

• Both CdTe PV systems resulted in lower LCOE costs than CPV system; lower capital costs of PV systems

• CdTe PV performs better over the CPV designs as tracking errors, atmospheric dust and dust accumulation would have a greater effect on the 2-axis beam

“New Prospects for PV Powered Water Desalination Plants: Case studies in Saudi Arabia” Vasilis Fthenakis et al.

HOMER Inputs CPV Dual-axis tracking

CdTe I Fixed at 20.7° tilt

CdTe II 1-axis tracking

PV capital cost ($/kWdc) 2894 1750 2050

PV O&M cost ($/kWdc/year) 41 35 36

Global Horizontal Irradiation (daily inputs) (total kWh/m2/yr) 2128 2128 2128

PV module dc efficiency (%) 311 142 14

PV Lifetime (years) 25 25 25

Grid purchase price ($/kWh) 0.04 0.04 0.04

Grid selling price ($/kWh) 0.04 0.04 0.04

Average RO Load (kW) 1000 1000 1000

Discount Rate (%) 6 6 6

HOMER Outputs

GHI (kWh/m2/yr) 2128 2128 2128

Global Irradiation on plane (kWh/m2/yr) 2963 2235 2888

LCOE Solar Electricity ($/kWh) 0.155 0.100 0.089

LCOE Mix Electricity into RO ($/KWh) 1MW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3MW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0.062 0.108

0.051 0.075

0.052 0.077

RESULTS - GRID CONNECTED SOLAR RO SYSTEMS

34

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

1.25

1.21 1.22

1.42

1.3 1.31

$1.10

$1.15

$1.20

$1.25

$1.30

$1.35

$1.40

$1.45

CPV 1MW CdTe Lat-Tilt 1MW CdTe Axis Tracking 1MW

Wat

er P

rod

uct

ion

Co

st in

$/m

³

Total Water Production Costs for 6,550 m³/day RO Desalination

PV Electricity Costs ($/m3) is Lower for PV CdTe Modules than CPV

CPV 1MW CdTe Lat-Tilt 1MW

CdTe Lat-Tilt 3MW

CdTe 1-Axis

Tracking 1MW

CdTe 1-Axis

Tracking 3MW

CPV 3MW

CdTe PV has Lower LCOE

35

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Power Accounts for 20% of Water Production Cost for RO Desalination

Water Production Cost Breakdown for 6,550 M3 / day RO Desalination Powered by a 3MW CdTe PV Plant

Annualized Capital of RO Plant 56%

Management 3%

Labor 8%

Material 9%

Insurance 4%

PV System Capital Costs 13%

PV System O&M Costs 3%

Net Grid Purchases 4%

Power 20%

36

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Water Production Cost for Standalone RO/PV Scenarios

Fthenakis et al., “TECHNO-ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF STAND-ALONE, PV-POWERED, SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANTS IN SAUDI ARABIA”

RO produces 6,550 m3 of freshwater per day at 213 ppm TDS from seawater at 40,000 ppm TDS

37

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Fuel Consumption for Standalone RO/PV Scenarios

Fthenakis et al., “TECHNO-ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF STAND-ALONE, PV-POWERED, SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANTS IN SAUDI ARABIA”

Potential savings of 2.4 million liters of diesel per year, 6,408 metric tons of annual CO2 avoidance

39

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Project Timeline

40

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Key Technical Challenges

HEAT + HUMIDITY SITE RISK SOILING LOCAL CODE

𝑇𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙 = 𝑇𝑎𝑖𝑟 +

𝑁𝑂𝐶𝑇 − 20

80𝑆

• Health & Safety • @50C, Cell is 81C • Avg Humidity 50% • Ramadan work hours

• Piles rejected • Highly Corrosive • Thermal Resistivity • UXO

• Sandstorms • Up to 30% monthly

losses • Enclosure Ratings

• No precedent for PV • Extended review times • Early projects set

benchmark • Green Building

41

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Challenge #2: Site Risk: Desert Pavement (CALCISILTITE Rock)

Cable Trenching done with Rock Hammer

Concrete Foundations: • 500mm diameter hole • Sand bed • Precast Concrete Ballast

• Corrosion paint • Epoxy-coated rebar

• Slurry

42

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Solution #2: Adapted Construction Methods

40 holes / machine / day; 5-step process

300 posts / machine / day 1-step process (First Solar Standard)

vs

43

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Challenge #3: Soiling

Primary Concerns:

• Accumulation of Soiling (energy loss)

• Surface Abrasion (‘sandblasting’)

• Ingress into sensitive electronic enclosures

• Shifting Sands

*Soiling is the 3rd most important PV energy performance factor, behind only insolation and temperature

44

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Heavily Soiled vs. Wet Clean —Inverter Power Output Curves

• Data taken halfway through first cleaning of plant

• Illustrates soiling loss after 2 months without cleaning

Clean Arrays

Soiled Arrays

35% loss

45

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Solution #3a: Dust Monitoring and Cleaning

• Calibrated control modules placed in the arrays and in a dedicated weather station at power plant site

• Modules are cleaned daily for soiling data benchmarking

• Provides confidence in Energy Predictions, allows O&M to judge when to clean

46

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Solution #3b: Operational Cleaning — Trolley vs. Broom

Dubai is low-cost labor market with low water availability; two manual dry methods are appropriate:

Brush Trolley

• Double brush with suspension

• Requires two workers/unit

Dust Broom

• Velocity: 4 Workers = 1MW/night

47

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Clean Arrays – Inverter Output

• Inverter Outputs after first cleaning, during normal operations

48

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

DEWA 13 – Proof of Superior Thin-Film Performance

Plant performance output curves from April 2014

49

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Client Testimony

“The project was a showcase in safety, achieving over 1.5m man-hours without any safety incident. Since Commissioning completion, the plant performance and power output is exceeding the guaranteed values.”

- Mansoor Al Suwaidi, VP, Projects & Engineering, DEWA

50

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

On Time, Incident-Free

Phase I, Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Solar Park, Dubai (13MW)

30 Weeks from ground-breaking to grid-connection

1,280 Number of personnel onsite at the peak of construction activity

1,500,000 Incident-free man hours to complete the plant

51

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Challenge #4: Codes and Specifications

≠

52

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

DEWA – Overall Localization results

Module 30%

Local Spend 50%

OH 5%

Imported BOS 15%

53

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Local Partnerships - Human Capital Development

Key to Success is Strong Local Partnerships

• Launched a joint initiative - the Solar Energy Engineering and Commercialization Course – with DEWA and Arizona State University to share knowledge and insights with the UAE

• Regional research partnership with the King Abdullah University for Science & technology (KAUST)

• Founding Member of MESIA and SASIA, the region’s largest organizations representing the solar industry

54

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

An Award-Winning Project

Solar Project of the Year – Middle East

Power Project of the Year – UAE

Power Project of the Year – GCC, MEED

55

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

1000MW Solar Park Plan

13MW

100MW

Advantages of First Solar Modules In Rooftop Applications

57

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Advantages of First Solar Modules

Higher Energy Yield than C-Si Modules

Robust against partial shading

Easy Handling

Appealing Aesthetics

Industry-leading Product Reliability &

Durability

1

2

3

4

5

58

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Module Performance – Comparison to c-Si

Shaded Area

Min.

Short side of module

Robust against shading in landscape orientation (perpendicular to cells)

FSLR Power loss is ~proportional to shading: 10% shading = ~10% output power loss

Typical c-Si Power loss: 10% shading = ~30% output power loss

Minimizes early morning and late evening energy loss while allowing row spacing (array

footprint) to be minimized

59

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

First Solar modules offer an appealing ‘look & feel’ on roofs

More Appealing Aesthetics Than Competitors

Sources: Solar City, Phoenix Solar, First Solar

60

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Solar Energy Energy Efficiency

1- Raising awareness Campaigns → weak without higher energy rates

2- Adopt energy efficiency measures & upgrade units & refurbishments → Costly

3- Harnessing solar PV → Achieves net effect of all previous methods

How do we reduce energy consumption in buildings?

Building 79%

Agriculture 3%

Industrial 18%

Energy Consumption in Saudi Arabia

Governmental 15.1%

Commercial 12.2%

Residential 52.2%

Source: SEC, 2009

A solar PV Model is a good path to achieving same goals as an Energy Efficiency Program, with high socio- economic impact

61

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Solar Peak Shaving resembles Solar Demand Side Management (SDSM)

•NO need for smart Metering devices

•NO need for permitting from utility company

•System is integrated in harmony with grid, No grid impact or stability issues

•Solar PV yield energy efficiency targets, with fast, cost effective and easy implementation

•Reduces electricity bill, energy consumption & carbon emissions

•Peak Shaving requires less space

How do we reduce energy consumption in buildings?

Merits:

“Peak shaving allows for additional capacity by freeing up peak demand”

No export meter

62

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

24 hour Residential Load Profile

Grid

Electricity consumption from Grid (Conventional) Daily load profile (kWh) day & night

Electricity Meter

1:0

0…

2:0

0…

3:0

0…

4:0

0…

5:0

0…

6:0

0…

7:0

0…

8:0

0…

9:0

0…

10

:0…

11

:0…

12

:0…

1:0

0…

2:0

0…

3:0

0…

4:0

0…

5:0

0…

6:0

0…

7:0

0…

8:0

0…

9:0

0…

10

:0…

11

:0…

12

:0…

Example of Electrical Load Profile

Peak load occurs at 3-4 PM

63

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

With Solar PV System and with(out)

Peak Shaving model (after PV System Installed) Electricity consumption from Solar PV System, in addition to grid (After PV System Installed)

With PV System

1:0

0 A

M

2:0

0 A

M

3:0

0 A

M

4:0

0 A

M

5:0

0 A

M

6:0

0 A

M

7:0

0 A

M

8:0

0 A

M

9:0

0 A

M

10

:00

…

11

:00

…

12

:00

…

1:0

0 P

M

2:0

0 P

M

3:0

0 P

M

4:0

0 P

M

5:0

0 P

M

6:0

0 P

M

7:0

0 P

M

8:0

0 P

M

9:0

0 P

M

10

:00

…

11

:00

…

12

:00

…

load withoutsolar PV

10% peaksolar output

load withsolar PV

Peak Shaving Effect on net Load, with and without PV

Project Profiles

65

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Site: Correns, France

System Size: 131kW

Project Developer:

Conergy AG

Project Profiles- Europe

Site: Niederrasen, Italy

System Size: 49kW

Project Developer:

BELECTRIC

Site: Redways Farm, Oxford

System Size: 30kW

Project Developer:

Colexon Energy AG

66

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Site: Gescher, Germany

System Size: 1.4MW

Project Developer:

COLEXON Energy AG

Project Profiles- Germany

Site: Undenheim, Germany

System Size: 31kW

Project Developer:

Juwi Solar GmbH

Site:

Bodman-Ludwigshafen Germany

System Size: 211kW

Project Developer:

Phoenix Solar AG

67

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Project Profiles

Site: Perryville, USA

System Size: 2,674.9 kWp

Area 768,972 m2

Number of Panels 18,576

Site: Perrysburg, USA

Total Capacity: 2.3 MWp

Area 267 m2

68

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Solar Technologies (Heat & Electric)

Solar Technologies

Solar Thermal Photovoltaics

(PV)

Source: Flagsol

presentation, 2009 Source: Mike

McGehee , Stanford

University, 2003

69

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Technology Companies Cost - 2012

($/W) Cost - 2015

($/W) Comments

1 Parabolic

Trough

• Abengoa NextEra Skyfuel

• With storage

$5-6*

$6-8 $3.7

• Most mature technology, first plant built in 1970s

• Highest market share • Limited cost reduction potential

2 Central Tower

• BrightSource SolarReserve eSolar • With storage

$6 - $9

$7-20 $4.8 - $7

• High efficiency potential • Several new CSP Plants being

built using the technology

3 Fresnel

Lenses

Areva Novatec Solar

$7-4.75* $2.4

• Simpler design with potential to be cheaper

• Limited Commercial traction

4 Dish Infinia N/A N/A

• No commercial plants in operation

• Very high efficiency potential • SES out of business in 2010

CSP Technologies

*Utility Scale Solar by Sun Shot , 2013

70

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Levelised Cost of Electricity (CSP and PV), Q2 2013 ($/MWh)

• Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Coal fired

Natural gas CCGT

CHP

Nuclear

Small hydro

Large hydro

Biomass - anaerobic digestion

Landfill gas

Geothermal - flash plant

Biomass - incineration

Municipal solid waste

Wind - onshore

Geothermal - binary plant

PV - c-Si

Biomass - gasification

PV - c-Si tracking

PV - thin film

STEG - tower & heliostat …

STEG - parabolic trough

Wind - offshore

Fuel cells

STEG - parabolic trough + storage

STEG - tower & heliostat

STEG - LFR

Marine - tidal

Marine - wave

Global LCOE range Regional scenarios Q1 2013 central Q2 2013 central

1059

861

531

CSP has much higher levelized cost than PV

Data from GreenTech Media

First Solar CdTe PV

CSP Parabolic Trough,

No storage

CSP Parabolic Trough,

With storage

CSP Tower

With storage

LCOE ($/kWh) 0.08-0.14 0.14-0.15 0.145-0.155 0.115-0.12*

* Power Tower projects need 150MW minimum design size to achieve this LCOE as cost for storage is too high for smaller systems

71

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

• PROS • CONS

• CSP advocates frame their value proposition in terms of green energy first, cost second.

• PV + Fuel hybrid systems have 24/7 capability, lower capital costs and LCOE, and displace 20% - 50% of the fuel vs. fuel alone approaches (depending on the application)

• LCOE for a CSP system with storage is at least 40% higher than PV and requires large scale projects > 60 MW to allow for economies of scale, etc.

• To win the cost debate CSP advocates push the 24/7 nature of their technology and argue that PV + battery (or other) storage is just as expensive as CSP

• Storage systems for CSP are still unproven experiments and have not been industrially scaled.

• Thermal heat storage comes at an added cost in terms of oversizing the solar field and adding storage tanks, aside from molten salt management

• Easier to localize as most BOM already existing in local industry

• Inherent heat storage • Allows for dispatch ability

• CSP BOM has specialized technology that requires knowhow that may not exist in local industry like concave mirrors etc. There is not value add to local industry otherwise

Typical Pro-CSP Argument vs. Cons. For internal use Only

72

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Ivanpah CSP Plant- Energy Production Falling Well Short of Expectations

75

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

MA

INTE

NA

NC

E

Se

rvic

es

Preventative Maintenance

Warranty Administration

Annual Operations Planning and Report

Corrective Maintenance

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E

En

gin

ee

rin

g

ADvise Web Portal

Weekly Performance Engineering Review

DC Health Performance Recommendations

Monthly Performance Report

TOTA

L A

SS

ET

Ma

na

gem

ent Availability Guaranteed

Lifetime Asset Maintenance/Management (No Owner Risk)

Spare Parts Procurement & Management

Weather & Energy Generation Forecasting

OP

ER

ATI

ON

S

Se

rvic

es

24x7 Plant Monitoring

24x7 Alarm Notification

Utility Interface, NERC/FERC Reporting


PlantView Web Portal

First Solar Energy Services — O&M Products

OPERATIONS Services

Real-Time Assets Operation • Power Plant Controls

• Event Detection & Notification

• Interfacing with the Utility

Outage Notification

Energy Forecasting

Energy Scheduling

• Event Detection & Notification

• Communication with Site Personnel

• Compliance & Reporting

OP

ER

ATI

ON

S

Se

rvic

es






MA

INTE

NA

NC

E

Se

rvic

es





PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E

En

gin

ee

rin

g

ADvise Web Portal




TOTA

L A

SS

ET

Ma

na

gem





MAINTENANCE Services

Preventive Maintenance • Warranty Compliance

• Training & Procedure Creation

• Emergency Response

• Field Engineering

• MV/HV Testing

• Corrective Maintenance

• Spare Parts Management

• Supply Chain Management

• Continuous Improvement

• Planning & Scheduling

• Field Telemetry Calibration

MA

INTE

NA

NC

E

Se

rvic

es





PERFORMANCE Engineering

Optimization • Automated Diagnostics

• Performance Reporting

• DC Health Monitoring

• Performance Recommendation

• Plant Performance Modeling

• Guarantee Administration

• Customer Support

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E

En

gin

ee

rin

g

ADvise Web Portal




TOTAL ASSET Management

Guarantees & Assurances

• Lifetime Asset Management

• Long-Term Operations Planning

• PPA & LGIA Management TOTA

L A

SS

ET

Ma

na

gem





76

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Real-Time Performance Management

• 24x7 real-time plant monitoring

• Active power plant control

• Weather forecasting and energy predictions

• Compliance

• Performance reporting to utilities, owners and site personnel

O&M Product — OPERATIONS Services

Fully integrated operations with automated controls ensure plant is operational and generating optimal energy production.

77

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Preventive, Predictive and Corrective Maintenance

• Long range maintenance planning

• Warranty administration & advocacy

• Technical training and procedure creation

• Emergence response

• Field engineering (Inverters, HV/MV, SCADA, etc.)

• Spare parts and inventory management

• Supply chain management

• Planning & scheduling

• Field telemetry testing and calibration

O&M Product — MAINTENANCE Services

Minimizing downtime, eliminating equipment failures and reducing operations risks for an effective availability rate of >99%.

78

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Long-term Optimization of Assets

• Daily DC Health analytics

• Daily Sensor validation analytics

• Weekly Performance Engineering Review

• DC Health Performance Recommendations

• Plant Performance Modeling

• ADvise Web Portal

• Monthly Performance Report

O&M Product — PERFORMANCE Engineering First Solar ADvise

Solar asset owners leverage our experience, proprietary technologies, and performance engineering expertise to maximize plant output and reduce operational expenses.

79

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

Guaranteed Plant Performance

• Lifetime Asset Management

• Availability Guarantee

• Accompanied by the complete suite of First Solar O&M Services

O&M Product — TOTAL ASSET Management

Complete lifetime cost and risk coverage to owners with a performance guarantee for the most bankable and reliable O&M service product.

80

© C

op

yrig

ht

20

14

, Fi

rst

Sola

r, I

nc.

First Solar Energy Services — O&M Products O

pe

rati

on

s S

erv

ice

s






Ma

inte

na

nce

S

erv

ice

s





Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e

En

gin

ee

rin

g

ADvise Web Portal




Ass

et

Ma

na

gem

ent

Availability Guaranteed

Lifetime Asset Maintenance/Management



Total Asset Mgmt Guarantee/ No Worry

(Cost + to Owner)

O&M Services Standard Services

ADvise Performance Optimization

Operations Plus Operations + ADvise

© copyright 2014, first solar,...

Documents