Failing Ivanpah solar power plant gets temporary repreive, but is producing 'prohibitively expensive' electricity

Last week we reported that the Ivanpah solar power plant might be forced to close if it didn’t get a break from the California Public Utilities Commission. According to this article in the Press Enterprise, it got the break:

California electric utility regulators on Thursday, March 17, approved a deal between Pacific Gas & Electric and the owners of Ivanpah solar plant that gives plant operators more time to increase electricity production.

The plant’s owners have agreed to pay PG&E an undisclosed sum in exchange for getting time to improve the plant’s electricity output. The deal followed realizations that the plant is failing to meet its production obligations to the utility.

In return, PG&E won’t declare that its power purchase agreement with the plant owners is in default.

The California Public Utilities Commission unanimously approved the deal during a meeting in San Francisco – despite objections by the Office of Ratepayer Advocates over concerns about the cost of electricity from the plant.

The deal, called a forbearance agreement, sets a July 31 deadline for the plant get its production up, and has a mechanism to extend that deadline by an additional six months, according to a CPUC report.

…

Last year, its second year of operations, the plant produced 624,500 megawatt hours of solar power, according to numbers from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That is about two-thirds of its annual production goal that was made public by the U.S. Department of Energy.

Remember that number when the other third is added ~ 1,000,000 MWh

Elevated from a comment by Peter Lang at Dr. Judith Curry’s website, with some graphics inserted by me from the references cited, this set of calculations from the readily available information about Ivanpah suggests that it could never be profitable.

Peter Lang | March 18, 2016 at 10:43 pm

Ivanpah, will cost about $19/W of average power delivered (data from their presentation below)

http://www.ecc-conference.org/past-conferences/2012/BrightSource_ECC_Presentation_combined.pdf.

Nameplate capacity = 370 MW.

Expected average energy generation per year = 1,000,000 MWh.

This means average power output is 114 MW (about 1/10th of a new nuclear plant).

Capacity factor is 31%.

Cost = US $2.2 billion = $19/Watt average power delivered.

This is around 3x the cost of some recent nuclear power plant builds that most environmentalists have accused of being prohibitively expensive.

The heliostats used in the project weigh in at 30,000 tonnes. That’s 262 tons of heliostats per MW electric average. That’s just for the heliostats, not even the foundations, not to mention the tower and power block.

The power plant area that had to be bulldozed over is 20x larger than a nuclear reactor of equivalent average (real) capacity.

Lastly, nuclear is safer than any other electricity generation technology, including wind and solar:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html

That’s a huge waste of money. All that money we are wasting damages our economy, people’s standard of living and people’s wellbeing.

0 0 votes

Article Rating

177 Comments

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Ack

March 21, 2016 10:12 am

How many roof top setups would have 2.2 billion funded?

GTL

Reply to Ack

March 21, 2016 12:28 pm

In New Jersey roof top setups are a great way to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich.
The rich can afford them, and allows them to receive subsidies from the poor who cannot. The utility companies act as the transfer agents. By increasing rates on those who cannot afford solar and paying absurd prices for power generated by these systems in the form of “generation credits” sold on an exchange. The utility never actually receives any of the power generated; the homeowners typically use it all but still receive the saleable “generation credits”. The purchases are forced upon the utility by State Statute in order to meet “renewable energy” targets. This effectively forces the utilities to pay many times the value of the minuscule amounts of energy they do not have to generate.
I am no longer a resident of NJ largely due to this kind of stupidity at every level of government in the State.

Paul

Reply to Ack

March 21, 2016 12:40 pm

“How many roof top setups would have 2.2 billion funded?”
Private sector: ~880,000,000 DC nameplate Watts @ur momisugly$2.50 per.
Government: about 1,200 or so.

Retired Kit P

Reply to Ack

March 21, 2016 5:32 pm

Do you mean smoke emitting diodes?
Fires are an inherit risk of producing power. Most steam plants have a fire brigade. Electrical fires can not be fought until deenergized which begs the question of how you turn of PV panels.
Rooftops implies building with with people in them. Hope the evacuation plan is well practiced.

redc1c4

March 21, 2016 10:20 am

i’m wondering where they get their “death rates”… out of thin air?

gaelansclark

March 21, 2016 10:39 am

Do I have this correct?……
370mW at 31% capacity = 114mW….per hour of operation at full capacity.
1,000,000 / 31% = 8,771
8,771 / 365 = 24.032
The solar plant has to run 24/7/365 in order to get to 1,000,000 mW hours of production!?!?
Are the numbers correct?

gaelansclark

Reply to gaelansclark

March 21, 2016 10:41 am

1,000,000 / 114 = 8,771….
Okay…fixed that mosh-up.

jake

Reply to gaelansclark

March 21, 2016 4:59 pm

The predicted Capacity Factor of 31 % indicates a 120 MW expected actual average output from Ivanpah. This is designed for output.
The 2200 M$ price per those 120 MW represents 18 $/W investment. By way of comparison, another nonpolluting source of electricity, nuclear power plant, the Millstone reactor No. 2 in Connecticut, operating at 880 MW since 1975, cost 0.5 $/W then; Ivanpah is thus 36 times more expensive (inflation excluded).
With about 1000 employees receiving salary and benefits, the annual outlay for that alone is roughly 100 M$. Selling the annual 3.8 EJ at the projected 0.028 $/MJ yields 106 M$. Ouch – only
6 M$ left for other expenses, notably for natural gas whose burning produces 8 % or more of the total output. For comparison again, the Millstone nuclear plant complex employs also about 1000, and its two reactors have been producing 1870 MW actual electrical output. Assuming the same salaries, benefits, and the electricity selling price, the operating expense is 15 times higher at Ivanpah.
Notice, these numbers are not PERCENTS. The represents thousands of percent.

Grey Lensman

Reply to gaelansclark

March 21, 2016 8:30 pm

No. Its a calculation of its true size. If it produces one million kw/h in a year, you divide thast by 365, then 24 to get its average hourly output. You can then compare it with every other electrical generator and cost it.
I needed to explain that?

n.n

March 21, 2016 10:47 am

There is a vast store of untapped wealth (and debt) in American homes, land, resources, labor, capital, etc. The lobbyists for the “green” industry are the same as the lobbyists for the medical industry are the same as… the lobbyists for whatever special or peculiar interest.
Establishment of a modern orthodoxy is prohibitively expensive.

Resourceguy

March 21, 2016 10:58 am

This is an old, outdated approved project. The modern ones involve taxpayer funds sent to Africa for renewable energy projects and we find out where the money actually went later, years later.

Chip Javert

Reply to Resourceguy

March 21, 2016 6:02 pm

From the email I keep getting, it’s definitely sent to Nigeria.

Bud St.Rong (@Schlomoguy)

March 21, 2016 11:06 am

Who has legal standing to sue? Why should shareholders of for profit companies be forced to pay above market rates? Time to shine some light on the roaches.

Chip Javert

Reply to Bud St.Rong (@Schlomoguy)

March 21, 2016 6:06 pm

Bud St. Rong
You call these “for profit companies”when they’re really “maybe some profit gets distributed to shareholders heavily regulated government sponsored monopolies”.
Among other sins, they have to do this crazy stuff to keep their operating licenses.

TCE

March 21, 2016 11:08 am

The energy share table needs work. Here is data from 2102. Renewables currently have a slightly higher percentage of total energy produced. Death rate excludes energy consumed for cooking and heating fires.
Energy Source Death Rate per TWh Energy Provided
Coal 60 30% of world energy, 50% of electricity
Coal for electricity – USA 15
Oil 36 33% of world energy
Natural Gas 4 24% of world energy
Biomass and geothermal 12 .8%
Solar .44 .2%
Wind .15 .9%
Hydro .10 6.7%
Nuclear .04 4.4%

inconveniencetruth

March 21, 2016 11:22 am

Solyndra comes to mind. This technology should have been demonstrated on a smaller scale. What we now have is anvembarassing albatross that enriched the builders and promoters, is suckingnin more $, only to try and remedy that embarrassment, and it will end up bankrupt, too expensive to maintain, a $2Billion + decaying hulk like some of the wind farms. These technologies should be first developed to be reliable and cost effective instead of funding politicians Pork barrel constituents. This embarrassment will not go away. It’s going to get worse. Perhaps Donald Trump can do better than the clowns we have had in government since Truman

Tom O

March 21, 2016 11:34 am

An extension to July – gets the plant safely passed the primaries and political conventions with a mechanism to extend if for 6 more months – which gets it safely passed the general elections, so no greenie pol has to worry about the big waste being in the media to do them harm.
I see a lot of calls of “Go nuclear” and am wondering. I still haven’t read any place where the waste can safely be stored as yet. Did I miss out on something somewhere, or are we still to assume it is perfectly natural and “safe” to store the “spent rods” in a holding pool indefinitely? Thought Fukishima might have made some sort of statement regarding the practice. No, I’m not anti-nuclear, just am wondering if safety practices and storage have changed in the past couple of years.

Janice Moore

Reply to Tom O

March 21, 2016 11:40 am

Tom O:
Re: nuclear waste safe storage
Yes. Your education has a large gap in it. You can easily fill it, however! 🙂
Try: “dry cask storage” and “French nuclear waste storage in U.S.” and “Yucca Mountain waste storage” and like search terms to get the facts.
Your last MEMO appears to have been from the 1950’s….
Have fun learning and rejoicing in the great storage options of the 1980’s and beyond!
Janice

Curious George

Reply to Janice Moore

March 21, 2016 1:08 pm

I am with Tom on this one. The nuclear waste storage is a political problem, not a technical one.

Janice Moore

Reply to Janice Moore

March 21, 2016 1:51 pm

Uh, Curious George? I think…, annoying as it may be to you, that it means you go with Janice on that one… . And I am glad you do! 🙂

TonyL

Reply to Tom O

March 21, 2016 11:52 am

Safe permanent storage was to be supplied by the Yucca Mountain Repository. Work on the site was officially started by the NRC way back in 1978. In reality, the site had already undergone years of extensive development under the old AEC. The site has been a political football ever since, providing lifetime employment for both those who advocate for, and against, the site. The program was finally canceled by the Obama administration, in it’s second term.

Retired Kit P

Reply to TonyL

March 21, 2016 6:22 pm

DOE is responsible for spent fuel storage. NRC is responsible for regulation things nuclear. Work on Yucca Mountain decision when Clinton was POTUS. POTUS Bush made the decision to go ahead. Application was made to the NRC under Bush but Obama stopped the review as one of his first acts as POTUS.
It took a while but the courts explained that Obama that he is not above the law. The review is ongoing and the project is not cancelled. It might be replaced by a better idea but that would require congress to act.

Charlie

March 21, 2016 11:50 am

They should have built one like the Sierra Sun Tower in Lancaster, California. It got an award. In December 2009, editors of Power Engineering magazine selected Sierra SunTower as the winner of the “Best Renewable Project”. Then it got another award – In February 2010, Sierra SunTower won Renewable Energy World’s “Renewable Project of the Year” award,
Oh, perhaps not.
As of 2015, the Sierra Sun Tower is not in commercial operation, as it has been deemed to costly to operate on but the sunniest of days. As a technology demonstrator, it mirrors the less than predicted, real-world outcomes being observed around the world by concentrated solar power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_SunTower#cite_note-4

Resourceguy

Reply to Charlie

March 21, 2016 12:24 pm

“Technology demonstrator” is the opt out wording for all of the full scale industrial sized plants and the whole taxpayer funded program too.

Svend Ferdinandsen

March 21, 2016 12:44 pm

The most striking is that they forgot to make realistic models of the power output.
The sunshine, mirrors , collector and a steamoperated powerplant is all known technology with only small errors in predictability.

Resourceguy

Reply to Svend Ferdinandsen

March 21, 2016 1:10 pm

Why check details when you can walk away with the money and reward bonuses as in the case with Solyndra execs.

Chip Javert

Reply to Svend Ferdinandsen

March 21, 2016 6:11 pm

Svend
Probably recycled some old climate models showing higher generation…awww, just forget it.

indefatigablefrog

March 21, 2016 1:05 pm

It doesn’t matter that this is a dumb idea that doesn’t work.
Providing that a large swathe of the population can be convinced that it “deserves” their support and congratulation.
It has a convincingly technology and futuristic appearance.
It produces energy from “free sunlight”.
It represents an aspiration to “dream the impossible” or “think the unthinkable” or “believe in better” or somesuch crap.
So, anyone who attempts to criticize it according to a rational “hard-headed” analysis of its expense or disappointing performance, or complete failure to deliver the promised cheap energy – that person will be deemed to be a rascal or an anti-renewables big-oil funded shill, or similar.
And that is the reason why the Green blob can still keep hoovering up and pocketing other people’s money.
They are now immune to reason.
They have convinced themselves that there is a merit in all kinds of stupid squandering and B.S.
They can turn a practical failure into a P.R. success.
The ongoing juggernaut can not be stopped by rational opposition.
Therefore I am recommending that if anyone wants to make money in the future then sell sensible and invest in bullcrap. Because bullcrap is going to be a growth industry.
And it’s infinitely scalable.
At least for as long as they can keep the money-presses rolling!!!

Retired Kit P

March 21, 2016 1:18 pm

“What do you do with the waste?”
This comes under the general category for anti-s of there are too many unanswered questions. Of course, the questions are all answered but anti-s are not interested in the answer.
What anti-nukes fail to realize is that the same tactic can be used by the anti-solar nut jobs. So what about the hazardous waste for Ivanpah?
I actually know where to find the answer to that question. It is in the EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) which I read. I have also read the EIS for nuke projects outside of California. The answer to the question, why not build solar instead?
Solar does not work! When the solar industry actually demonstrated that solar can replace a nuke plant, then the economics can be considered.
Trying to prove something works is not a waste of money. The nuclear industry did 55 years ago and has been paying lots of taxes since.

DredNicolson

March 21, 2016 1:27 pm

Uttering the words “nuclear power” still conjures up the specter of Chernobyl for many. Never mind that the technology and level of safety have grown by several leaps and bounds since then, making another such meltdown exceedingly unlikely. (You’d be more likely to win a multi-million$ lottery than to see a major meltdown in your lifetime, I’ll wager.) And a media eternally stuck in the 70s as far as coverage of nuclear power is concerned.
While the statistically minuscule death rate for nuclear is eye-opening, people tend to focus on the manner of death over the quantity or likelihood. Like someone who is more afraid of flying than driving, despite many more people dying in traffic accidents than in plane crashes. A car crash is over quickly and you might not even know what hit you. A plane can take several minutes to crash land, during which time you get to fret over your lack of agency and wonder if your number’s up (or if the pilot’s number is up).
And “death by radiation” ranks high on a lot of peoples’ *Don’t Wanna Go That Way* list.

Chip Javert

Reply to DredNicolson

March 21, 2016 6:23 pm

DredNicolson
I be careful with that bet: “You’d be more likely to win a multi-million$ lottery than to see a major meltdown in your lifetime, I’ll wager”
This article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown) identifies 19 reactor melt-downs (including Soviet nuclear subs) since about 1955 – I know that’s in the past and you’re referring to the future, but core melt-downs are not exactly black swans.

Retired Kit P

Reply to Chip Javert

March 21, 2016 7:36 pm

Here is what Chip and Dred do not understand. Regulatory approval to build a power plant is not based on irrational fears. Plants must be shown to be safe with insignificant environmental impact.
For example there have been 4 LWR meltdowns. No one was hurt. Having worked on the designs and at many of the plants, I can explain why to the satisfaction of regulators.
To simplify to the civilian: time, distance, and shielding. LWR meltdowns are a slow process. You have time to walk away. Fission products are contained in a building away from people. The containment building has thick concrete walls.
One reason that a meltdown might prevent building new nukes is the loss of an asset. TMI cost a lot to clean up but not as much as a coal ash spill. In Japan, many assets were toast because the earthquake exceeded the design basis of the plant. The meltdown made the decommissioning more expensive.
The point is that power plants are a complex decision with 75 years of unknowns. One thing for sure is that critics are not going to put you out of business by making electricity.

Steven Burnett

March 21, 2016 2:08 pm

Units are inaccurate though context is understood

Walter Sobchak

March 21, 2016 2:10 pm

The plant is mostly famous its ability to barbeque birds on the wing.
If we could get turkeys to fly, it might be useful, but:

Longer version for those of you who are too young to remember one of the greatest sit-com episodes ever is at lf3mgmEdfwg on You Tube.

DredNicolson

Reply to Walter Sobchak

March 21, 2016 3:21 pm

Wild turkeys can fly, and fly quite well. They’ll roost in tall trees at night if they’re available. Domesticated turkeys put on too much weight to fly, and/or are slaughtered before their flight feathers fully grow in.

Walter Sobchak

Reply to DredNicolson

March 21, 2016 3:29 pm

My only contact with Wild Turkey is the 100 proof Rye, which is one of my favorite whiskeys.

ntesdorf

March 21, 2016 2:54 pm

Headline should read “Failing Ivanpah solar power plant gets temporary ‘reprieve’ (not repreive), but is producing ‘prohibitively expensive’ electricity” Unfortunately such correction will not improve its costs or make it run at night.

Peter

March 21, 2016 3:44 pm

I hope they keep it open long enough for me to go see the “streamers”. Maybe they could sell tours to help pay for the exorbitant costs?
Politicians were talking about putting one of these in Australia, holding Ivanpah up as the gold standard. We have some beautiful raptors and other stunning bird species, I hope they don’t. Why do the Greens dislike birds so much?

stan stendera

Reply to Peter

March 21, 2016 5:43 pm

I’ve often wondered the same thing. Why do the greens hate birds so much? Not to mention bats.

J. Philip Peterson

March 21, 2016 3:53 pm

“The plant’s owners have agreed to pay PG&E an undisclosed sum in exchange for getting time to improve the plant’s electricity output.”
And who’s money are they using to pay PG&E if they are not making money with their “white elephant” power plant?

David L. Hagen

March 21, 2016 4:02 pm

Commercial PV at $49/MWh
The Saudi Electric Company is setting the solar cost benchmark by offering < $0.05/kWh ($49/MWh).
Record: Saudi Electric Company Lands Solar PPA Under 5¢/kWh
August 12th, 2015 by James Ayre

Solar energy prices are continuing to fall rather rapidly around the world, but especially in the Middle East, as evidenced by a new deal that will see the Saudi Electric Company develop a 50 megawatt (MW) solar energy project that already has a power purchase agreement (PPA) secured for 0.1875 Riyals ($0.049) per kilowatt-hour (kWh). . . .
s Saudi Arabia is currently aiming to invest upwards of $109 billion into solar energy in the coming years — as a means of keeping up with growing electricity demand, and as a means of decreasing local oil use (thereby increasing exports) — it’ll be interesting to see how low future PPAs in the region can get.

(PS Saudis bought a PV chip plant to manufacture the panels etc.)

Retired Kit P

Reply to David L. Hagen

March 21, 2016 7:46 pm

It must be true, it is on the internet.
My prediction is epic failure based on zero cases of actual performance meeting expectations.

David L. Hagen

Reply to David L. Hagen

March 22, 2016 8:30 am

Saudi Electric bid 200 MW PV to Dubai at 5.84c/kWh, 12.4c/kWh for CSP
Saudi power giant sees solar taking on base load fossil fuels 22 Jan 2015

The head of $25 billion Saudi power firm ACWA Power says that the cost of solar technologies are falling so quickly that within a few years the combination of solar PV and solar towers with storage will be able to compete directly with base load fossil fuels . . .
Last week, ACWA stunned the solar industry by winning an expanded tender for a 200MW solar farm in Dubai with a bid of 5.84c/kWh over 25 years. In the first year, the plant will get a tariff of just 5.1c/kWh.. . .
“What it actually shows that if you get the business model right, you can lower your transaction costs, you can source the right kind of technology, and the excellent solar resource in Abu Dhabi means you can lower your costs substantially.” . . .
Padmanathan explains that ACWA was able to reach 5.84c/kWh in the Dubai tender because the cost of financing was below 4 per cent. And while most projects get 80 per cent debt, and 20 per cent equity, this project got finance for 86 per cent of the project, while more expensive equity took just 14 per cent.. . .
He noted that the 12.4c/kWh tariff for the first year is less than half the tariff for CSP (concentrated solar power) demanded just three years ago. Over the 25-year period, the average price is 15c/kWh, but this is half the cost of CSP just three years ago. He says it can go down to 9c/kWh as more solar towers with storage are rolled out.

PS Kit P Any evidence to back your prediction?
I think I’ll take the word of a $25 billion firm committing its name and resources!

Retired Kit P

Reply to David L. Hagen

March 23, 2016 11:02 am

Not one single solar project has ever produced the amount of electricity that was claimed in marketing reports.
We love to brag about the power we produce. For example, the nuke plants in the US run at a 90% capacity factor. When we designed them, the expectation was an 80% capacity factor.

David L. Hagen

Reply to David L. Hagen

March 23, 2016 12:17 pm

Kit P. Irrelevant. The issue is whether Saudi Electric can commercially provide 200 MW or 50 MW peak electricity and provide survive being paid 5.84 c/kWh. They can obviously add enough panels to reach the 200 MW peak. The critical issue is commercially surviving on 5.84 c/kWh and then 4.9 c/kWh for the PV installed over the 25 year terms. With Saudi’s planning on investing at least $109 billion into solar, I would not bet against that. 4.9 c/kWh is a lot less expensive to the buyers than paying to make electricity from diesel fuel!

gareth

March 21, 2016 4:04 pm

I was going to comment on your units: $19/watt rather than $something/MWh, but actually it’s a good metric…
$19/watt is like paying $38,000 for a 2kW generator, admittedly with free fuel for life (and free Sunday roast, various birds).
Say the value of the electricity produced is $0.05/kWh, if we run 24/7 that’s $0.05/kWh x 2kW x 8766 h/year = $876.60 pa. But it only works daytime, so the payout is only about half, say $440 pa.
The cost of financing the £38,000 capital, even @ur momisugly 3% is £1,140 pa, about 2.5 times the income.
Not a good deal at all, unless you get paid well over market value for your electricity…
Oh, silly me, that’s what we’re doing! It’s actually quite a good deal after all (unless of course you’re the taxpayer, paying the difference, or a roasted eagle, “enjoying” Sunday supper).

H.R.

Reply to gareth

March 21, 2016 5:56 pm

Gareth, if chickens could fly… well then we’d have something. People would come from miles around for Fresh Sun-roasted Chicken.*
*Patent pending ;o)

H.R.

Reply to H.R.

March 21, 2016 6:01 pm

Oops! I was reading from bottom to top, I see above I might have competition from Big Turkey.

Karl

Reply to gareth

March 21, 2016 7:08 pm

$19 a watt installed is ridiculous when a consumer can get PV installed for $2 a watt

Lonnie E. Schubert

March 21, 2016 4:22 pm

Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
–
Those who think it important to hurt people and increase overall costs of most everything, and especially those who think incinerating birds in flight is a important, might think the waste is worthwhile.

rogerknights

March 21, 2016 5:01 pm

“60 Minutes” could add this to their sequel to their episode on the failure of the green power industry.
Oops, no they won’t–not after the furious reaction they got from their green viewers.

Eric Worrall

Admin

March 21, 2016 5:16 pm

I think this is a ridiculous way to produce energy – but I’m really curious about how they got the engineering so wrong.
Surely if its just a matter of needing more heat, they could just add a few more rows of mirrors. To increase heating by 30% would only require:
(4/3) ^ 0.5 = 15% increase in radius of the mirrors.
If the mirrors were placed on movable mounts, the array could be defocussed if necessary, on really sunny days.

Retired Kit P

March 21, 2016 6:11 pm

“My concern at the time was that getting to the point that a pumper truck was needed meant that the local fire department and a million other people died when the dam failed.”
Fair question Tom.
Now plants are installing redundant risers and staging emergency equipment on site. There are also regional response centers where additional portable equipment.
Let me put this in perspective. How many gallons of drinking water do you have for an emergency. You and your family will be rotting corpses before being contaminated by fission products.