2011 gtm summit: implications of thin‐film technologies on utility pv project financials

Confidential: Not for External Distribution

Implications of Thin‐Film Technologies on Project Financials

Greentech Media’s 2011 Solar SummitDavid F. Taggart, President/COO


Belectric USA’s Mission: to provide turn‐key utility‐grade PV power plants that enable safe, reliable, and efficient generation of power from the Sun, at costs competitive with combustive power…

A Better Electric!

►Our strengths: Singular focus: utility PV

Factory‐in‐the‐field efficiency

Project optimization

Vertical integration

Flexibility

Corporate culture

and track record…

Pocono Raceway PV Plant


• Belectric/Beck Energy is now the largest PV systems integrator in the world

• 330MW of PV generation in 2010

• Belectric USA focuses on the North American market

• Largest user of thin film technology worldwide

• $700M combined annual revenue

• 1500 combined employees


►Optimizing for the site

►Optimizing for the system

►Optimizing for the highest return


► Module technology Temperature Irradiance Efficiency Cost

► Structural solution Fixed tilt vs. tracking Installation rate and cost

► System design Row to row spacing Azimuth DC/AC ratio Tilt System losses O&M costs

Interdependence of site and system parameters

There are a lot of knobs that we can turn to directly impact

project financials!

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

3 6 9 12 15 18

Energy

Outpu

t (Whr)

Hours (in one day)

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

3 6 9 12 15 18

Energy

Outpu

t (Whr)

Hours (in one day)


► Las Vegas vs. Baltimore

► Module technologies XSi, 285W, 14.8%

CIGS/CIS, 130W, 12.1%

CdTe, 80W, 11.2%

DJ‐ASi, 125W, 8.8%

► Structural solutions Fixed tilt (20o for TF, 25o for XSi) at zero azimuth Single axis tracker, NS axis, zero azimuth, +45/‐45, backtrack

Two key North American markets

Southwest

Northeast


► Nameplate efficiencies are based on 25C module temperature Module temperatures vary widely by site Modules typically operate at higher temperatures Losses at higher temperatures vary by module technology and mounting

Designing for temperature

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

% ann

ual d

aylight hou

rs

Temperature bin (C)

Annual Daylight Temperature Distributions for Las Vegas ‐ fixed & tracked

T‐ambient

T‐module Fixed

T‐moduleTracked

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

% ann

ual d

aylight hou

rs

Temperature bin (C)

Annual Daylight Temperature Distributions for Las Vegas ‐ fixed & tracked

T‐ambient

T‐module Fixed

T‐moduleTracked


► Higher losses associated with XSi and tracking systems We need good performance at the higher temperatures too!

Designing for temperature

System Losses due to temperature

Fixed Tilt Tracked

CdTe XSi CdTe XSi

Las Vegas 5.5% 9.5% 5.9% 10.5%

Baltimore 2.2% 3.7% 2.5% 4.3%

System Losses due to temperature

Fixed Tilt Tracked

CdTe XSi CdTe XSi

Las Vegas 5.5% 9.5% 5.9% 10.5%

Baltimore 2.2% 3.7% 2.5% 4.3%


► Module efficiencies quoted at 1000 W/m2

Actual time a plant spends at 1000 W/m2 is small Orientation of module helps, but still not much time at 1000 W/m2 We need good performance at the lower irradiance levels too!

Designing for irradiance

0%

3%

6%

9%

12%

% of d

aylight hou

rs

Irradiance Bin (W/m2)

Annual Irradiance for Las Vegas,horizontal vs. in‐plane tracked and fixed tilt

HorizontalIrradianceFixed In‐planeIrradianceTracked In‐planeIrradiance0%

3%

6%

9%

12%

% of d

aylight hou

rs

Irradiance Bin (W/m2)

Annual Irradiance for Las Vegas,horizontal vs. in‐plane tracked and fixed tilt

HorizontalIrradianceFixed In‐planeIrradianceTracked In‐planeIrradiance


► Efficiency vs. irradiance varies with module technology Which is best for the site?

Designing for efficiency

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

13%

200 400 600 800 1000Mod

ule Efficiency at 55C

Irradiance (W/m2)

Efficiency vs. Irradiance at T=55C

CdTe

XSi

CIGS/CIS

DJ‐ASi

ASi

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

13%

200 400 600 800 1000Mod

ule Efficiency at 55C

Irradiance (W/m2)

Efficiency vs. Irradiance at T=55C

CdTe

XSi

CIGS/CIS

DJ‐ASi

ASi


► Effect of efficiency, irradiance, and temperature combined Difference in efficiency gets smaller as irradiance drops and/or module

temperature increases

Designing for combined effects

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

100 300 500 700 900 1100

∆ Efficiency (XSi ‐Cd

Te)

Irradiance (W/m2)

XSi Module Efficiency Advantage

Module @ 25C

Module @ 55C

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

100 300 500 700 900 1100

∆ Efficiency (XSi ‐Cd

Te)

Irradiance (W/m2)

XSi Module Efficiency Advantage

Module @ 25C

Module @ 55C


► Model the financials of projects at each location, selecting the best parameters for each site using fixed and tracking design solutions

► Consider for each system/location: Optimizing for system yield

Unlevered financial returns analysis

► Assumptions PPA agreement: 1 MWAC, $0.13/kWh

Land Use: closest match to 5 acres

DC/AC ratio: fixed to 1.25

PVsyst parameters per standard practice

Optimizing the project financials


► No surprise, tracked systems have higher yields Deltas are higher in Las Vegas than in Baltimore Are they high enough to offset install and O&M costs?

System yields

‐6%

‐3%

0%

3%

6%

9%

12%

Las Vegas Baltimore

Yield WRT

to Fixed

CdTe

Site Location

Annual Yield: Various Systems WRT Fixed CdTe

Tracked XSi

Fixed XSi

Fixed DJ‐ASi

Fixed CIGS/CIS

‐6%

‐3%

0%

3%

6%

9%

12%

Las Vegas Baltimore

Yield WRT

to Fixed

CdTe

Site Location

Annual Yield: Various Systems WRT Fixed CdTe

Tracked XSi

Fixed XSi

Fixed DJ‐ASi

Fixed CIGS/CIS


► Unlevered Financial Returns 48% Tax Equity Investor, Return = 15% 52% Sponsor Equity

► Benchmark for comparison is:

Financial analysis

► Then compare to the other module/mounting approach via: Install Price O&M cost

Base Case Install Costs O&M Costs

Fixed CdTe System $2.75/Wp $0.02/Wp

Base Case Install Costs O&M Costs

Fixed CdTe System $2.75/Wp $0.02/Wp


► Las Vegas IRR matching: Picking module technology and mounting approach, any combination of installed cost and O&M below the line represents a higher IRR compared to the fixed CdTe benchmark

Financial analysis

$0.01

$0.02

$0.03

$0.04

O&M Pric

e ($/W

p)

Turnkey Install Price ($/Wp)

Equivalent Rate of Return Linesto Fixed CdTe Benchmark

Fixed XSi

Fixed CIGS/CIS

Fixed DJ‐ASiTracked XSi

$0.01

$0.02

$0.03

$0.04

O&M Pric

e ($/W

p)

Turnkey Install Price ($/Wp)

Equivalent Rate of Return Linesto Fixed CdTe Benchmark

Fixed XSi

Fixed CIGS/CIS

Fixed DJ‐ASiTracked XSi

Tracking O&M

Fixed O&M


Conclusions

►Module nameplate efficiency and module price is simply misleading when it comes to project financials

► Numerous parameters available for optimizing a “fixed” system including azimuth, DC/AC ratio, tilt, row spacing, module technology…

► Fixed thin film systems can beat the economics of trackers even in the most challenging Southwest markets in the USA

► This becomes more true as commodity prices continue to rise, and TF efficiency continues to improve

► Fixed systems are the path to the “commodity floor”

► Similar results for TOU or non‐TOU markets

Fixed thin film plants can beat contemporary project financials via system‐level optimization


A Better Electric!www.belectric‐usa.com

David F. Taggartdavid.taggart@belectric‐usa.com

2011 gtm summit: implications of thin‐film technologies on utility pv project financials

Documents