a Business Spectator publication

Solar flagships may fly at half mast

The federal government's $1.5 billion Solar Flagships program faces delays, with neither winning consortium likely to meet the mid-December deadline for locking down finance.

Both the $1.2 billion Solar Dawn project, which proposes to build a 250MW solar thermal facility in Queensland, and the $923 million Moree Solar Project, which plans a 150MW solar PV facility in the north of NSW, are having difficulty striking power purchase agreements (PPAs). While both are still hoping to meet the December 15 deadline, this is highly unlikely and it is understood they have won approval from the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism for an extension.

The progress of the Solar Flagships projects is being keenly watched – both in the context of these projects, and for the rollout of large-scale solar in Australia, which continues to drag behind Spain, the US, the Middle East and north Africa, to the disbelief of international energy companies. The success of these projects also have deep implications for the prospects of a second round of funding in the flagships program, the structure of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and the political rhetoric around clean energy, which has become nearly as divisive in Australia and the US as the often confected polemic around climate science.

The delay in financing is not unexpected. The scale of what the two projects are attempting to achieve in this market, already a difficult one for finance, and for PPAs, is extraordinary. They are seeking finance for the two largest renewable energy projects, using technologies that have never been seen at anything approaching this scale. Not only do they need to convince utilities to sign a PPA, something they have been reluctant to do with cheaper wind, they need innovative deals that reflect the value of the energy being provided during the daytime peaks - (say $130-160/MWh, as opposed to $100/MWh for wind) and then need to convince bankers to accept the technology risk.

These were the types of problems anticipated when then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd first announced in 2009, in an act of political vanity, that he wanted to build two large-scale projects of this size, without first taking smaller steps. The government's decision to put all its eggs into one basket has been lamented by the industry, who fear the deployment of large-scale solar is at risk of being retarded, rather than advanced, by the grandiose scale of the venture. And some still wonder why the government did not go with the lower risk option of choosing a technology that is already being rolled out at this scale overseas. These issues are likely to be rectified in round two of the Flagships, where it is now agreed that half a dozen smaller projects should be selected, but there is concern that delays in round one, and budget constraints, could mean that round two would never materialise, and its funds are absorbed into the proposed CEFC.

There are several scenarios being discussed in the solar industry as to what may happen if financing agreements cannot be closed on the current terms – and the losing bidders are keeping their project plans alive, just in case. These include two ventures between First Solar and TRUenergy and AGL, an Infigen/Suntech venture, and in the solar thermal space, the Solar Flare project including Siemens, Parsons Brinckerhoff and John Holland.

The more likely scenario, if financing cannot be sealed, is for the ambition of the projects to be scaled back. In the case of the Moree project – backed by BP Solar, Spanish developer Fotowatio and Australia’s Pacific Hydro – this would be easily achievable. Indeed, its original intention was to roll out the facility progressively, with 20-30MW by 2013 and the rest by 2015. (Read this to be reminded of how BP Solar viewed the funding challenge at the time of the project win). The government may consider applying some of the funding flexibility it has recently granted the Geodynamics geothermal project, allowing it to accelerate the draw-down of some funds for the first stage of the project, and reduce the amount accessible for the second stage.

The Solar Dawn project may also be scaleable, given that it comprises two separate units of 125MW each. But it is also fighting against a global trend that has seen solar thermal projects, even those approved, dumped in favour of solar PV, simply on the basis of cost. Only those solar thermal projects accompanied by storage are going ahead at this scale, because the ability to better match demand load profiles means the value of their output can rise by as much as 50 per cent. In effect, these facilities are acting as peaking plants, a role previously reserved for gas.

Solar Dawn has no storage option (although it does have a gas boosting option, but it is not clear whether this is designed to lift the temperature of the steam to boost efficiency, or to offer a lift over troughs in output). Solar Dawn has been trying to strike a PPA with Ergon Energy, but it would require that utility to sign the largest ever such deal, and it may not be clear how it fits into their portfolio. Still, Solar Dawn does have the advantage of a deep pocketed backer in Areva, the French nuclear giant – which could accept the project risk itself and plough ahead on a merchant basis, as some wind farm developers have been prepared to do.

Of course, some suggest that a delay may suit a government that will find it tough to balance the budget. It has promised $465 million to the Solar Dawn project and $306 million to Moree. (The NSW and Queensland governments are also pitching in funds). Both the Labor government and their coalition predecessors have a history of announcing grants for clean energy projects (often more than once), and then spending little or nothing. Indeed, Labor has little in the way of large projects to show for its policies of the last four years, which is exactly why the CEFC was proposed, to replace the non-commercial nature of the grants system and take the choice of picking winners away from ministers and bureaucrats, and into the hands of markets and financiers.

But if Federal Labor leaders want to be photographed in front of a large-scale solar facility to decorate their Clean Energy Future pitch during the next election campaign, they will either have to catch a plane to visit the WA (conservative) government-sponsored 10MW facility at Geraldton, or cozy up to the chief minister of the ACT, which is much more likely to have projects up and running by 2013.

Next week, the ACT’s proposed large-scale feed-in tariff will be debated in the legislative assembly and, if passed, will likely see several projects amounting to 40MW built in coming years. The ACT government has been quite shrewd in the structure of its tariff. Rather than setting an arbitrary number, it requires a competitive bid from developers, and is structuring it in a way that the cost exposure is capped, and may even be reduced, depending on the performance of the facilities.

Some analysts say this should be the model for such developments on the national scale. Because it is a competitive bid, the winning projects will inevitably be solar PV rather than solar thermal, because of their current cost advantage. At least two projects will be selected, but it is likely there will be a handful, with individual project sizes ranging from 3MW to 15MW.

Follow @gilesparkinson on Twitter

Comments on this article

Hello,I love reading through

Hello,I love reading through your blog, I wanted to leave a little comment to support you and wish you a good continuation. Wishing you the best of luck for all your blogging efforts.642-902 dumps// 70-236 dumps// 220-601 dumps// 310-200 dumps// 1z0-053 dumps// 1z0-050 dumps// A00-211 dumps// 70-643 dumps//

government money

Government money -- our money -- in "the real world" is squandered on all sorts of useless stuff (wars and coal mines) and also invested in all sorts of useful stuff (roads, health services).

There's nothing wrong with people asking for taxpayers' money to be diverted from fossil fuel subsidies to renewable electricity development.

There is no question that some renewable power technologies *are* competing.  Large-scale hydroelectricity is the cheapest form of electric power generation anywhere in the world.  Electricity from new PV and new wind turbines is certainly not as cheap as electricity from already-amortised coal-fired power stations burning coal purchased way below market rates, but it is actually cheaper than electricity from *new* coal-fired power stations paying market price for fuel.

Dumb and dumber!

If our politicians want to look better to look better in front of cameras, they should consider drinking less, dressing better and maybe even have a cosmetic surgery. This would be far cheaper than wasting hundreds of Millions of Dollars on “mine is bigger than yours” solar show projects.  If the politicians are serious about solar power, we still have millions of roofs which can be used to provide solar power and we can save on building new ugly massive transmission towers.  

Flagship Fantasy

Do you really believe, given the track record on the Insulation Scheme, ZeroGen and the Australian Magnesium Corporation debacle, that bureaucrats are capable of delivering a large scale solar power station under this program? The government does not have a good track record in picking winners, and throwing a half a billion dollars of public funds at it will not guarantee success either - let the industry and the financial markets pick the worthwhile projects and then make this money available to these projects rather than waste it on a bureaucratic fantasy called Solar Flagships.

At $6 million a Megawatt more than just risky.

Whereas there was obviously a lot of focus group research put into Solar Flagships and maybe even the massive $1.5 billion Solar Dawn project name, you can snow voters with cute names but cant get finance with crazy numbers.

In the current market it would cost about $3 million a megawatt to install PV on people's homes.  Half the cost of these projects which no doubt will also have a distribution cost and which will inevitably lose effectiveness in the transmission grids.

These numbers suggest that large scale solar is not the way to go if it is twice as expensive as distributed PV.

Psssttt .. want to buy a dirty brown coal generator ... only $2 billion dollars for 2000 megawatts ... that's a steel .. cheap even with $23 a tonne carbon tax ... whick only adds $16 a megawatt to the cost of sale to business and households ... 70% or so of which you can pass on anyway.  

Wouldn't want to spoil the Green/Labour Coalitions track record of doing little except increases taxes, increase the cost of living by all of their borrowing and growing the emissions shifting business.

Large-scale solar risky?

So large-scale solar is risky according to the Industry?

Well stone the crows, what a shock?

Someone needs to have a word with Beyond Zero and Matthew Wright, they want to spend $370 Billion on it.

Very sad business, really.

Striving to lead is glamorous and commendable but a pincer movement (NBN & Solar Power) in the Hi Tech world is very costly business and, clearly Australia cannot afford the luxury. 

When will this megalomania end and we begin our journey by taking a first step. 

yes indeed, the real world

Mr. Winch, I don't think such hurdles have existed for fossil-fuel-related projects from (your?) bygone era(s).

Our day and age is such that any kind of significant project needs to go through many regulatory, financial, environmental and societal (stakeholders, stockholders, communities) hoops before moving ahead.  This is regardless of whether its a renewable energy, fossil-fuelled energy power station, whether its a minerals and metals mine, pulp mill or meat abattoir.

We live in a different world these days, with increasing complexities and complications.  Whether the reasons for the existence of such constraints is justifiable or not, is a debate over the system(s) we choose to setup for our society to operate within - not over our energy production and consumption choices.

ACT silly enough to waste money on solar

Yes.  You're probably right.  Only the ACT could be Green enough and silly enough to waste public funding on a solar power station at about then times the cost of conventional electricity generation.

 

The CO2 abatement costs would be about $280/tonne CO2 avoided.

Welcome to the real world

Lamenting all the impediments and how they should not exist for such sexy projects is itself lamentable - hurdles have existed for fossil projects for years.

Permitting and regulatory environments constantly changing, political back-flips, bankers rubbing rabbits feet, constructors going broke midway, abhorence of technology risk, getting off-takers to sign up..

welcome to the real world..light years away from the pipe dreams of those who glibly suggest "lets just do it", or worse "..... the suspension of democratic processes." 

Utimately those who pay are taxpayers.  The initial funding comes from banks, and possibly even retirement funds if some regulations are changed - again this money is owned ultimately by ordinary people - also taxpayers.   

Generous proponents advise "just do it"  - always with other peoples money  -even the governments money is our money.  I expect nothing less than extreme prudence when proposing to combine peoples savings with profligate projects.

So, absolutely no surprise to anyone charged with delivering projects that the hill is steep, and also no surprise that renewable energy supporters see it as a plot against them.  Idealism cloaks out reality that has existed since forever.

The fact is technologies proposed are not ready to compete.  There is real risk of creating forever white elephants.  Instead of lamenting why your favourite renewable project is not getting up, step back and instead of restricting the technology outcomes embrace anything that works... can be delivered on-time, for a competive cost and with reliable supply. Think nukes, some PV, wind and storage.