Spanish Firm, Acciona Energy, Planning 200MW Solar Thermal Power Plant In The US
by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 11.13.07
We'd like to use this story to make two high-level points about renewable energy investments in the US. The first is political, and present. The second is about the geographic intersection of drought and solar energy.
Most of the truly large scale non-ethanol based renewable energy projects in the USA currently are controlled by foreign companies. Working from strong European governmental incentives for renewable energy technology, European firms are at least a decade ahead, and taking good early-in advantage of that lead, moving marketing and investment plans, now, to the US. We've written about this trend, with more examples, here.
Future generations of US citizens may well have their energy destiny controlled by still more foreign-owned firms, in part because the US Congress has been long controlled by a fossil fuel industry that designed its own government incentives while working hard to keep them away from competing technology purveyors.
Paradoxically, in the current administration, 'free market' principles are oft cited as a reason to keep renewable energy incentives to a minimum (compared to European countries). That free market voice can now add to its anti-incentives argument that foreign companies, mainly, will benefit from new taxpayer supported incentives in a Federal energy bill. It's too late in other words. (Not that we agree with that reasoning.)
If there every was a demonstration of why US businesses should support strong renewable energy incentives in rapid roll-out, this trend is it. Yet, US industry support remains understated. It is as if we are led by a nation of business-deer in the headlights of foreign semi trailers. Except for GE, of course.
According to this story in GreenBiz, the US Department of Energy seems now to have a grasp of the threat to US competitiveness - albeit belatedly.
Acciona Energy, which this year opened the largest solar thermal plant built in 16 years, plans a project more three times its size in a desert in the US West, its CEO said in an interview.The company, a division of construction and energy company Acciona of Spain, started up Nevada Solar One, a US$266 million 64 megawatt plant in Boulder City, Nevada and now plans to build a 200 MW plant in about three years.
"We will build another, larger solar thermal plant in the US in the 2010 time-frame," Peter Duprey, Acciona Energy's CEO told Reuters in an interview in New York.
Duprey said US power generation from solar thermal, which generates electricity with centralized solar power plants in very sunny places like deserts, should overtake by 2017 power generated by solar photovoltaic (PV) panels that go on individual homes throughout the country.
"The US has this vast solar resource in the Southwest that makes solar thermal a lot more of an interesting play than solar PV," he said.
Acciona owns both solar thermal and solar PV farms. Duprey said power generated by solar thermal costs about 15 cents per kilowatt hour, or about half the cost power from panels.
The company has draw up a short list of states in which to build the new 200 MW plant -- New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada -- Duprey said.
Our second point is technical and futuristic - but extremely critical for investment managers and public policy makers.
It seems a predetermined outcome that the high desert portions of the US West will become prolific centers of solar electricity generation, at least if the statements of the cited Acciona executive are taken at face value. That future driver would increase the sustainability of our highly-consumptive, densely-populated desert culture.
Conversely, states with great prospects to have "solarized" economies are the very same ones at highest risk of water shortage.
The outcome of the two scenario drivers, solarized development and water shortages, will be determined by which ever dominates first. A fast worsening drought will drive renewable power investments away, while a rapid build-up of solar technology will add the the political power of the dry states as they beckon for the water of the US Great Lakes.
Via::Planet Ark, "Acciona Plans Bigger Solar Thermal Plant in US" Image credit::Schott Solar, Via Renewable Energy World
266 million? Are you kidding me? That works out to about 4.16/watt. At this rate of investment, what's the holdup? That kind of money could be put together with a mutual fund via Joe Punchclock and Susie Apronstring.
We just have to want it. I'm going to look into this myself.
=== authors' response follows ===
Thanks for underscoring the point. Even if these numbers are only +/- 50% precision, the ROCE is so good looking and absent the risks of coal fired electricity that only the deer in headlights metaphor can account for why US businesses have not been more charmed by the opportunities. That and the lobby power of fossile fuel cartels.
Good for the Spanish. If I'd read that all the alternative energy companies were Saudi I might be a little upset. But the Europeans got on it while the US government didn't. Bravo for the Europeans.
The US isn't completely stagnant. The local utility Pacific Gas & Electric recently announced a deal with a Palo Alto, CA firm to build a solar thermal plant near San Luis Obispo, CA.
Say, can anyone point me to a summary of the various US gov incentives for fossil fuel production and use? I would like to be better informed
Mr Laumer,
I'm only too happy to underscore your point, though I'm really leaning towards the power lobbies and away from the hypnotized venison angle on this. But seriously now, I think my previous comment fell short, so I wanted to flesh it out a bit.
When I said I'm looking into this, I didn't mean in an informational or esoteric sense. I mean I'm going to put together a few hundred million and get into this. Luck favors the bold. Screw those guys.
I know that seems steep, and I'd be lying if I said I didn't think so too. I think it's possible, call me goofy if you want.
C'est une guerre.
This upsets me to no end. Not that the Spanish are building such a plant, but the fact that WE DID NOT.
We made a five year 500-billion-dollar investment in a war that's gotten us nowhere. Just think where we could have been with the same lead time and the same investment into energy R&D.
We could have been building these things and and we could have been well on our way to energy independence and we could have been the leaders in these technologies and we could could have been the ones exporting them to the rest of the world.
Instead, we're none of those things.
I'm not going so far as to say that our leaders are brain-dead idiots... but, well... actually, they are.
Why subsidise Global Warming?
It's as simple as that.....spam that! People will get angry and change will be made.
It's your tax dollars.
In Australia the federal elction is on in nine days.
Labor leader Kevin Rudd stole/matched the Greens policy of 60% renewable energy by 2050 and John Howard will receive his marching orders as a direct result.
People here don't want to subsidise Global Warming any longer.
It will remain the same for a long time, but the principle is there to be seen. Maybe it needs further pressure to be applied, of course, though?
With that kind of energy available from the sun (1,000 watts per square meter, if I remember correctly; the trick is to convert it efficiently) imagine what could be done with direct solar water desalination, where no conversion between heat and electricity is involved. The water problem would solve itself if we really invested in solar water desalination, both in the west and in the gulf coast.