AZ: Solar energy development cancelled

[phantom power]

27 September 2010-- Tessera Solar North America, the developmental unit of Stirling Energy Systems Inc., has ended plans to jointly construct a 250 MW solar power plant with the city of Phoenix, according to an article in the Phoenix Business Journal.

The company was in the planning stages of developing the project, which would have been located at a city-owned landfill, but was unable to find a utility to purchase the power output and had problems with financing as well, the article stated.

http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/7953740510/articles/powergenworldwide/Business/contracts-and-projects/2010/09/Phoenix-solar-project-cancelled.html

[drmeow]

1. I'm surprised

given AZ's requirement that 15% of energy generated by utilities need to come from renewable resources by 2025.

[phantom power]

2. I suspect the recession, but I don't know any details.

[drmeow]

3. I think it is more likely

that they wanted to sell the power at a higher rate than utility companies were willing to pay. As far as I know SRP (one of the utility companies in the Phoenix metro area) is still offering a 30% rebate/incentive for homeowners installing solar systems on their houses and SRP buys any excess power back (I can't remember the rate but I'm pretty sure it is not hugely less than the sell rate).

[Viking12]

4. Pure speculation here....

But a lack of investors for solar may be similar to the lack of investors for other large projects -- long term payback. Most investors today want an immediate return on investment, not something that will take years to materialize. It is a major roadblock for nuclear power too. Even in the newspaper industry, where newspapers are profitable they are still losing investment dollars because the rate of return is not "sufficient"

[Radical Activist]

11. Energy consumption is very low right now.

It's not a good time to be selling a new power plant. Considering the hundred or so coal projects that have been abandoned in the past few years, one failed solar plant isn't so bad.

[kristopher]

5. What I think you are seeing...

The City of Phoenix is located 60 miles from Stirling's HQ.

The SunCatcher system is a new system that was first put into use in 2009 at the 1.5MW scale - results were reported as very good, especially in regard to low water use.

The City of Phoenix owns land and has renewable targets it would like to meet.

It contracted with Stirling's offshoot to develop, on behalf of the city, a renewable project on the brownfield site the city owned.

The economics of the project clearly didn't work; but it isn't possible to easily know why.

That is reflected in the lack of a power purchase agreement with the utility.

Without a power purchase agreement, it is almost impossible to get affordable financing for any project.

This is really just a trial balloon by the City of Phoenix.


And finally, commenting on the post comparing the financing difficulty of nuclear with this - they are not the same. Nuclear has a 60 year payback with a 50/50 probability of going bankrupt. Utility scale solar projects generally have a 20 year payback with virtually no expectation of bankruptcy.

[Nihil]

6. That's going to cause a bit of indigestion ...

If they are unable to make a solar power plant work in Phoenix Arizona
it doesn't bode that well for less sunny sites ...
:shrug:

[kristopher]

7. That isn't true.

Since you have no idea what soured the proposition, you can't possibly use it to generalize.

To examine the way your desire to badmouth renewables in order to promote nuclear power is causing you to skew your "opinion", let's apply your logic to a situation where solar is succeeding well - New Jersey is the second largest market in the US.

Is the insolation in New Jersey better than that in Arizona?

Top 10 Solar Friendly States
...The top 10 solar-friendly states, then, are by latitude and attitude, mainly how much support there is among the citizenry, the available incentive and policy programs in place, and days of sunshiny weather.

New Mexico
Annual Sunny Days: 320-340
Total Savings Available from State/Federal Programs (%): 50-55%

Colorado
Annual Sunny Days: 300-320
Total Savings Available from State/Federal Programs (%): 70-85%

Pennsylvania
Annual Sunny Days: 160-180
Total Savings Available from State/Federal Programs (%): 50-55%

Maryland
Annual Sunny Days: 200-220
Total Savings Available from State/Federal Programs (%): 35%


Massachusetts
Annual Sunny Days: 200-220
Total Savings Available from State/Federal Programs (%): 35-45%


Connecticut
Annual Sunny Days: 200-220
Total Savings Available from State/Federal Programs (%): 45%

New Jersey
Annual Sunny Days: 240-260
Total Savings Available from State/Federal Programs (%): 55%

California
Annual Sunny Days: 320-340
Total Savings Available from State/Federal Programs (%): 50%

Oregon
Annual Sunny Days: 260-280
Total Savings Available from State/Federal Programs (%): 35%

Minnesota
Annual Sunny Days: 180-220
Total Savings Available from State/Federal Programs (%): 45%

http://solar.coolerplanet.com/Articles/top-10-solar-friendly-states.aspx

[Nihil]

8. Oh ... I hear a stomach rumbling already ...

> Since you have no idea what soured the proposition, you can't possibly
> use it to generalize.

Same applies to you.


> To examine the way your desire to badmouth renewables in order to
> promote nuclear power is causing you to skew your "opinion", ...

Fail.

[kristopher]

9. It was spot on.

And I'm not the one that used it to generalize, so "same to you" seems a particularly childish response.

[DrGregory]

10. Where are those black pots and kettles...

And I'm not the one that used it to generalize, so "same to you" seems a particularly childish response.
=============================================

Talk about childish responses; how about someone who
refuses to address any issue brought up and only
reposts the same ERROR-RIDDLED tripe, over, and over,
and over, and OVER, and OVER, and OVER.....

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

14. Your responses were pure garbage - nothing more.

You screwed the pooch and you know it. It is old hat with you.

[Dogmudgeon]

12. We know EXACTLY what killed the deal

"Since you have no idea what soured the proposition, you can't possibly use it to generalize."

We know EXACTLY what killed the deal:

(Tessera Solar North America) was unable to find a utility to purchase the power output and had problems with financing as well ...

These are EXACTLY the same circumstances that you and other opponents of nuclear energy cite, with considerable gloating, when orders for nuclear power plants are canceled.

This is why I've frequently warned the gloaters against premature glee. We're in a bad financial environment for construction, power development, and infrastructure as a whole. It's killed a couple of nuke orders already, it's killing wind and solar projects, and it's killed several newly-ordered oil platforms, all of it at a bad time from the standpoint of the environment. It is similar in many ways to the stagnation that led to the energy crises of the 1970s -- only it's lasted longer and has hurt OPEC as badly as everyone else.

No one is disputing that Arizona gets plenty of sunlight. However, the economy is still in the toilet, energy demand has actually declined in the last few years, and most investment capital is "scared money". It may be tempting to see this as part of some sort of nuclear conspiracy, but I can guarantee that people in the energy industry don't see it that way. It's not about the politically charged opinions on energy from a bunch of anonymous Internet pundits, it's about money.

--d!

[kristopher]

13. That's bunk; it bears absolutely no similarity to nuclear.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x259562#259583

The City of Phoenix is located 60 miles from Stirling's HQ.

The SunCatcher system is a new system that was first put into use in 2009 at the 1.5MW scale - results were reported as very good, especially in regard to low water use.

The City of Phoenix owns land and has renewable targets it would like to meet.

It contracted with Stirling's offshoot to develop, on behalf of the city, a renewable project on the brownfield site the city owned.

The economics of the project clearly didn't work; but it isn't possible to easily know why.

That is reflected in the lack of a power purchase agreement with the utility.

Without a power purchase agreement, it is almost impossible to get affordable financing for any project.

This is really just a trial balloon by the City of Phoenix.


And finally, commenting on the post comparing the financing difficulty of nuclear with this - they are not the same. Nuclear has a 60 year payback with a 50/50 probability of going bankrupt. Utility scale solar projects generally have a 20 year payback with virtually no expectation of bankruptcy.

If you'd like a wall of primary sources to support those statements I trust you know I'm good for them.