World’s Largest Solar Array Set to Crank Out 290 Megawatts of Sunshine Power

[MindMover]

Global climate change is here, and it’s only going to get worse, according to a White House report released on Tuesday. To combat rising sea levels and blistering summers, the Obama administration has been pushing for clean, renewable energy sources that cut down on carbon emissions. Now one of its projects is poised to pan out: Agua Caliente, the largest photovoltaic solar power facility in the world, was completed last week in Arizona.

The plant comprises more than five million solar panels that span the equivalent of two Central Parks in the desert between Yuma and Phoenix. It generates 290 megawatts of power—enough electricity to fuel 230,000 homes in neighboring California at peak capacity. The Agua Caliente Solar Project represents a significant advance in the technology compared with just four years ago, when the largest solar facility in the U.S. generated only 20 megawatts. “Solar has completely arrived as a competitive energy resource,” says Peter Davidson, executive director of the Loan Programs Office at the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE).

The project, which cost a total of $1.8 billion to construct, received a million-dollar loan from the DoE as a part of its “SunShot” initiative (so-named in the spirit of president John F. Kennedy’s “moon shot” program). SunShot provides guaranteed loans to unproved ventures in solar power in the hopes of promoting innovation and making the technology more cost-effective. Although Agua Caliente (owned by U.S. energy giant NRG Energy and partner MidAmerican Solar) is now the largest photovoltaic solar facility in the world, it probably will not hold that distinction for long. Other massive solar panel facilities, such as Antelope Valley Solar Ranch One in California’s Mojave Desert, are rapidly springing up across the Southwest. “This series of large plants that are being built really mark the transition from the technology being something experimental to real energy on the grid,” agrees Robert Margolis, a senior analyst at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Solar power currently accounts for 1 percent of U.S. energy production, but it is the fastest-growing sector of the energy landscape. Margolis says that Agua Caliente proves that investing in solar power on a large scale is an effective way to make it more viable in the current market.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/world-s-largest-solar-array-set-to-crank-out-290-megawatts-of-sunshine-power/?&WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20140509

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Great news that it is located in the USA ...

[GliderGuider]

1. Don't forget to de-spin the numbers

Assuming a nominal 20% capacity factor for PV, this plant will produce only a fifth or so of its touted capacity. Say 60 MW. For 1.8 billion dollars, that's a price tag of $30 per watt of actual generation. What a deal!

[MindMover]

2. Just like any energy source the numbers will get smaller ...

and with renewable they will get much smaller ...

[Benton D Struckcheon]

3. I think you have efficiency mixed up or something.

PV gets 20% efficiency per panel, mas o menos. That <> capacity. Capacity is if all of the panels are working at their peak, if I understand it correctly. On an average day in the desert, you can probably figure on something north of 20% of that, I would think. No one's building this for $30/watt, especially not Buffett, who is famously cheap.

[GliderGuider]

4. 20% is the approximate capacity factor for PV.

The 290 MW touted for this project is the nameplate capacity. Average production (the capacity factor) could get to a bit over 20% if the plant is well sited, but it hardly ever goes much above 25%. I'll stick by my numbers.

[Yo_Mama]

6. No, GG nailed it.

Look at actual generation figures here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agua_Caliente_Solar_Project

[GliderGuider]

7. According to those numbers it's been running between 23% and 31%

Depending on the month.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

8. Erm not so fast.

I did the calculations, will put them here, someone tell me if I'm wrong:

According to that page, 200MW was installed by July 2012. Dividing the actual MW produced in July, 63631, by the max, 148800 (200 * 744, which is the number of hours in a 31 day month) I get 42.8% produced that month.
According to that page, 247MW was installed by Aug 2012. Taking Jan, which should be the worst month, we have a max of 183768 (247 * 744) for that month. Actual production was 50790, giving us 27.6% that month.
So it appears that a quick rule-of-thumb for this plant is around one-third the rated capacity, if you average in all the months, although I think it might wind up a little higher. But doing the average for all the months would require knowing the exact "nameplate capacity" in each month listed on that page, so I'd rather not try that one. I'll take one-third. I'm sure that has to do with its desert location, which had to have been picked for that reason.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

9. Aargh!! Screwed up my years.

Taking Jul 2012 at 50440 and the above, it's 33.8% that month. Taking Jan 2013 and the above, it's 18.6%, so call it 25% on average. Still materially better than 20%.
Sheesh.

[Yo_Mama]

5. Very good numbers!!!

I'm impressed.