Another consideration on the cost issue is that with the storage capability, this plant will be able to deliver electricity exactly matching the Arizona peak times... hot summer afternoons. When doing a cost comparison it would thus be more realistic to compare what the utility has to pay for other peak power.

Considering the match to peak and the fact that this has a non-risk premium... it's worth more because it's fixed price over such a long time with no exposure to fuel spikes and inflation... it's probably competitive even without CO2 pricing.

The one drawback to this type of plant is that it does require water for cooling, unlike solar PV... but it's much cheaper.

Awesome! $0.20 per kWH will be a bargain some day soon. I absolutely love these plants, there is nothing that you couldn't do with one like that.

"What is it with the Spaniards and solar energy?"

It's what happens when governments put in place policies that encourage and foster renewable energies.
It just goes to show that reducing emissions doesn't result in economic downturn but rather, can result in economic growth, and development of new industries, new companies and new jobs.
Furthermore, those countires that lead the pck (ie. Spain), will emerge as leaders in the field and ultimately end up export their technologies to those countries that are slow to follow.

Good on the Spaniards.

.20 cents a KwH hour is a relative bargain and that was as of at least a decade ago.

We are in coal rich and dirty coal electric generation Pennsylvania. A single KwH here costs 8.9 cents for a small business and 12.9 cents for a residential location. On top of that, if you factor in the 'customer charge' of $9 and $14 respectively the price per KwH hour goes up drastically. Also factor in taxes on your bill.

Also, consider the peak rate changes that a lot of areas are seeing - where during daytime 9-5 hours, the rates per KwH hour are greatly increased. Similarly, some electric utilities are tiering rates so that the more you use the higher that useage cost is.

We are using 200KwH on one service and around 400KwH on another service - the monthly price breakdown per KwH as such comes out to be 25 cents per KwH on the small business connection and 17.9 cents per KwH on the residential account.

These costs are for filthy coal generation of electricity. So 20 cents a KwH is a bargain here, at worst it's financially competitive with dirty coal today and that's without regard to the environmental costs, cleanup, radioactive pollution, etc. caused by coal.

This is nothing but a good new story. It would be nice if this power was for industry and houses had their own solar. That way it would do way with the infrastructure to deliver the power. I hope the utilities didn't here me.

As a Tempe, AZ resident, I am ecstatic that our state is finally going to use it's abundant sunshine to generate clean energy. This is great news, and seems to be getting positive spin in the local press.

Yea, $.20 per kwh might be a bargain. On the open market at the highest peak load times, the price could be well over $.40 per kwh.

Plus, if you look at this in a countrywide sense, this significantly reduces natural gas consumption, which is a net import and highly price inelastic, so even a small cut in natural gas demand produces a signficant drop in price, thus encuring more savings.

Excellent news.

Currently Phoenix receives a majority of its power from the Palo Verde nuke plant – one of the largest in the CONUS (3.8+ MW).

Along with many of the issues I have with the plant (shoddy construction seen as leaks, fires, etc - poor security and so on) is that the thing is located in the middle of desert. Oddly - Palo Verde is the only nuclear energy facility in the world that uses treated sewage effluent for its reactor cooling water. The plant obtains the effluent water from the City of Phoenix, where it is treated in an 80-acre reservoir for use in the plant's cooling towers. In the end, over than 20 billion gallons of sewage water are recycled each year in this manner.

I do find it interesting that Californians will not allow new nuke plants in California – but are happy to sue their neighbors to get additional transmission lines to use that power in SoCal.

This solar plant is a great addition to the local power supply and even better – in the event of an accident, residents won’t have to worry about generations long, deadly radiation polluting the neighborhood.

This solar plant, coupled with the recent solar plant turn-up at Nellis AFB (Las Vegas) may be the real ray of sunshine in the overall energy picture after all.

Electric bills that go from 200 to 400 doesn't sound quite as exciting to me as it does to most of you.

interesting article

$.20/kWh is indeed expensive power, make no mistake.

First, remember that that is wholesale cost, not the retail cost you see on your bill. The average around-the-clock wholesale cost of power in AZ is in the neighborhood of $.05/kWh-- more expensive during the day (when gas plants are on the margin) and less at night (when it's mostly nuclear). Make no mistake, a higher percentage of solar power will mean a higher bill.

Next, there's nothing in this posting that tells you how the contract between the utility and the plant is actually structured, so it's difficult to say "$.20 will look cheap". If the contract is a fixed price deal, then certainly it will-- in 30 years' time, at historical average rates of inflation, all else equal, conventional power will probably cost something more than twice what it does now, so the contract price won't be as far off. But is there an inflation "escalator" in the contract that would increase the price of power from this plant over time? The article doesn't say; I bet there is.

Finally, the issue of like-to-like comparison: namely, this is peak-hours power, and should be compared with higher peak-hour prices. Very true. But peak-hour prices in the wholesale market in AZ only rarely reach $.20/kWh-- certainly not every peak hour of every day. Which, if you think about it, is probably why the owners of the plant signed a long-term deal with the utility instead of just selling the power in the daily market.

This plant is cool-- severely cool. Stuff like this is why I got into the power industry. But the costs associated with renewable electric projects are not negligible.

Great story. Wouldn't it be nice if some day it could be said, "What is it with the Americans and solar energy?" Let's hope that day won't be far off.

First, I'd like thank Friend in the Business for the information. There is nothing like real numbers instead apples to oranges comparisons or worse just adjectives.

As long as the (huge) environmental cost of fossil fuel energy production isn't captured in the price it will be difficult for solar projects like this one to compete on price.

This suggests the biggest proponents of a carbon tax should be the good citizens of Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico since they have all that sun and have to compete with coal which puts all that CO2 into the atmosphere and doesn't pay for the privilege.

If the state somehow had a piece of the action, maybe the Senators and Representatives would be advocates for a carbon tax.

This is great news. Add a little competition from New Mexico, Nevada and So. California. Kick in wind energy from West Texas, California and a whole lot of other states plus the left and right coasts. Then America could be very proud of themselves.

My solar plant is bigger than your solar plant