Australia’s largest concentrated solar power plant officially launched

RenewEconomy has an article on Silex's CPV (Concentrated Solar Photovoltaic) power plant at Mildura - Australia’s largest concentrated solar power plant officially launched.

Australia’s largest concentrated photovoltaic (CPV) solar power plant was officially opened today, with the Victorian energy minister joining executives from the plant’s developer, Solar Systems, to cut the ribbon on the 1.5MW demonstration facility in Mildura.

The demonstration of the “dense array” solar technology of parent company Silex Systems is a fore-runner for what is expected to be a 100MW power plant, with construction slated to begin in 2014. Another 1MW demonstration plant is being built in Saudi Arabia, with hopes of further development as that country pushes into the start of a $100 billion solar spending program

The array – whose 40 CPV dishes have been feeding power into the national grid for almost a month, after their successful commissioning began in April – collects sunlight in more than 100 curved mirrors and focuses it onto ultra-high efficiency “mulit-junction” PV cells; technology originally developed by Boeing to power satellites.

Silex CEO Michael Goldsworthy says the cells currently boast efficiency rates of around 43 per cent – about double that of today’s best silicon-based cells and up to four times the efficiency of thin film solar cells – but he hopes this can be lifted to more than 50 per cent, or even 60 per cent, with further research.

The technology also uses ‘active cooling’ technology to maximise power output while minimising water consumption and prolonging the technology’s lifespan.

Last June Silex predicted that the levelised cost of energy (LCOE) for its technology could fall below 10c/kWh ($100/MWh) within a few years – making it cost competitive with a range of technologies such as wind and large-scale solar PV, and below the cost of new gas- and coal-fired generation.

While PV solar in it's various forms has dominated the solar power market in recent years, it seems solar thermal power is still attracting some interest, with a Vast Solar pursuing a plant in western NSW - Plans for Forbes solar thermal project

A solar thermal project near Forbes will demonstrate how cost effective renewable energy can be once its development application is approved. Three-and-a-half thousand moving mirrors, each bigger than a plasma television, will follow the sun like a field of sunflowers. The mirrors will reflect light onto five thermal receivers sitting on towers that will heat a central steam turbine, capable of producing 1.1 megawatts of electricity.

The company behind the project, Vast Solar, already has 700 mirrors and one tower at Jemalong Station. ... The company’s plan is to use a method called air condenser cooling.

Read More

RIP Nanosolar

Greentech Media has an article on the demise of thin film solar company Nanosolar (another victim of the shakeout following the solar investment boom of 5 years ago) - Nanosolar, Thin-Film Solar Hype Firm, Officially Dead.

It's official. Nanosolar, the CIGS thin-film solar panel aspirant which produced little but hype and broken promises, is done. Its assets are being auctioned off.

This should come as no surprise to GTM readers. We reported on the layoffs, the skeleton crew, and the "restructuring for sale" back in April. If you speak CIGS, then you know that "restructuring for sale" translates to "Hanergy, please buy us."

But a white knight never emerged as it did for MiaSolé, HelioVolt, and Ascent -- and so, Nanosolar joins Solyndra, AQT, SoloPower, etc. on the list of failed CIGS solar firms.

The thin film solar sector is still moving forward though, with dramatic cost improvements in the offing for CdTe based films - Thin film PV breakthrough may cut solar costs by one third.

A new Silicon Valley developer of thin film solar PV modules, backed by an Australian venture capitalist, has claimed an engineering breakthrough that could cut the manufacturing costs of PV modules by one third. RSI has broken cover after five years of development to announce it has created a 1.5 square metre cadmium telluride PV (CdTe) module, twice the size of conventional modules.

It says this will enable solar PV modules to be manufactured at a cost of less than 40c/Watt, around one third cheaper than current mass-produced thin film and silicon based modules – and hastening the charge towards grid parity for solar PV.

First Solar, currently the world’s largest thin film solar PV module manufacturer, had predicted reaching 40c/W by 2017 through increases in efficiency. RSI says it can deliver that cost in 2014 by doubling the size of the module through a process known as Rapid Efficient Electroplating on Large- areas (REEL).

thin film market leader First Solar still seems to be going strong as well - First Solar Advances 162 MW of Unsubsidized Solar in Chile.

First Solar's strategy of expanding into new, sustainable solar markets looks like it's paying off. The thin-film solar panel manufacturer and project developer has applied for permits for the $370 million, 162-megawatt Luz del Norte project, according to a filing with Chile’s environmental licensing department. The project will use more than 1.7 million panels, with construction slated to start in June 2014.

Read More

Has Peak Oil Been Vindicated Or Debunked ?

The impending demise of The Oil Drum seems to have prompted something of a resurgence in interest in peak oil.

Matthew Yglesias has a post at Slate on the state of the peak oil debate - Has Peak Oil Been Vindicated Or Debunked ?. I love the way the oil price graph demonstrates the impact the supposed flood of shale oil (combined with the great recession) has (or more accurately, hasn't) had on oil prices - as we switch from depleting conventional oil to unconventional oil, the floor price for oil gets ever higher and the environmental damage per barrel gets bigger - just as peak oil theory predicts...

I will admit that I've always found the "Peak Oil" debate to be a little bit confusing, especially because both the words "peak" and "oil" turn out to have some ambiguity to them. But recently a couple of my favorite bloggers were debating the implications of the "unconventional oil" boom for the debate, with Karl Smith proclaiming peak oil dead while Noah Smith says it lives on. My approach would be to try to skip past some of these definitional issues and look at prices.

Above you see the nominal prices for Brent Crude Oil and West Texas Intermediate. As you can see, historically the prices are identical because oil is a globally traded commodity. You can also see that in the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s the price was low—around 20 dollars a barrel. These were the happy days in which the oil crises of the 1970s had been put behind us, and everyone got to hail the economic genius of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. You can also see the supply disruption induced by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent geopolitical crisis that left George H.W. Bush without the reputation for economic mastery that Reagan and Clinton enjoy. Then you see a rise, then a fall, then a steady rise. Eventually the rise gets really crazy and people are in freak-out mode. Then comes a global recession and a huge collapse in prices. At this point we look around the wreckage and wonder wtf just happened. Was there an amazing oil bubble comparable to Irish real estate? Or has the recession just pushed prices down artificially?

Now with some subsequent years of data we can see that despite the slow growth in developed countries prices have very certainly not returned to the halcyon days of the Reagan-Clinton years. We can see that the Iraq/Kuwait price spike actually looks like a bit of a joke. We can see the impact of the unconventional oil, which has created this anomalous gap between the WTI price and the Brent price. It's a big gap. This is nothing to sneer at. Not only is it causing an economic boom in North Dakota and select portions of Texas, but it plausibly explains some of why America's overall economic performance has been so much better than Europe's. But even so, America's oil boom hasn't pushed U.S. oil prices back down to mid-aughts levels and it certainly hasn't pushed U.S. oil prices back down to 1990s levels. The good old days of genuinely abundant liquid fuel really do appear to be behind us.

It's probably worth noting the WTI - Brent spread mentioned above has disappeared now - you have to keep on drilling pretty fast if you want to maintain production from fast depleting shale oil wells - and the previously exponential rate of growth in drilling has now stopped as Stuart Staniford shows in the chart below - US Oil Rig Count and Oil Production.

The Slate article above references this blog post from Noahpinion - Peak Oil is dead! Long live Peak Oil!.

One of my favorite websites, The Oil Drum, is shutting down, and I am mad! Everyone is attributing the shutdown to the death of the "Peak Oil" meme, which in turn is attributed to fracking. The first is probably true; Peak Oil mania is over. But the second is false. Fracking has not killed Peak Oil. It just hasn't fit the narratives that many of the Peak Oilers spun.

The thesis of Peak Oil is simple: Global oil production will soon peak and begin to decline. But there were two possible stories that the Peak Oilers told about how this would happen:

"Good Peak Oil": In this case, we find something that's better than oil, and switch to that, just like we once transitioned away from whale oil. In this case, oil prices and production would both fall.

"Bad Peak Oil": In this case, we don't find something better than oil, and as oil becomes more scarce, the price would go up, while oil production and overall economic activity both contracted.

What we got was neither of these. Or more accurately, we got a little bit of both, coupled with something else that doesn't fit with either story. What happened was this:

1. Global demand for oil increased, due to growth in emerging markets, pushing up oil prices in the 2000s - from around $20 to over $100, a five-fold increase.

2. At the new higher price, it became economical to tap expensive oil sources like tight oil (fracking), deepwater oil, and oil sands.

3. Even at the new higher prices, it has not been economical to increase "conventional" oil production. Instead, all net production increases have come from "unconventional" sources. And most of that "unconventional" production is not actually "oil" at all, but "liquids", which includes things like natural gas liquids.

4. There was a several-year lag in the mid-2000s where global oil production plateaued even as prices increased. This culminated in a dramatic spike in oil prices in 2007-8 which then subsided due to the global recession and the dramatic increase in unconventional oil production.

5. Oil prices are still over $100, even as global growth has been slow. Meanwhile, oil usage in rich countries has declined significantly.

This story does not easily fit with either of the Peak Oil scenarios. But it has important elements of both.

First of all, the peak in conventional oil, coupled with a dramatic surge in unconventional oil, looks a lot like the "Good Peak Oil" scenario, in which technology produces a new alternative energy source, and we switch to the new thing.

But the seemingly permanent increase in oil prices, and the fall in oil demand in rich countries, fit the "Bad Peak Oil" story. It indicates that the world is hitting oil supply constraints.

(And of course what the Peak Oilers missed was unconventional oil itself. Some of them missed the technology entirely, while others merely failed to anticipate that the industry's terminology would switch from "oil" to the more weaselly "liquids".)

So what happened was NOT that we switched to something better than oil. We switched to something worse than conventional oil: unconventional oil, which is more expensive to extract and/or to refine into usable products. This has left us permanently poorer than we would be if conventional oil hadn't hit global supply constraints. Filling up your gas tank is twice as expensive now, in real terms, as it was two decades ago. And that looks unlikely to change. In the wider economy, increased transportation fuel costs may be a main driver of the Great Stagnation, which manifests most clearly in the stagnation of transportation technology since the 1970s.

Basically, what happened is this: Scarcity attacked humanity, and Human Ingenuity battled back. Through heroic efforts, doomsday was averted. But Ingenuity did not win a smashing victory, as it did when we switched from wood to coal, or from whale oil to oil. Instead, humanity was forced into a fighting retreat, with Ingenuity executing a brilliant rear-guard action and forcing Scarcity to call off its pursuit...for now. But humanity has lost ground.

And Scarcity may not wait very long before launching another attack. Future increases in shale oil production (including tight oil and oil shale) is likely to be a lot more expensive than the low-hanging fruit we have picked thus far. Coupled with continued rises in developing-country oil demand and continued decline in conventional oil fields, this could cause another rise in oil prices. That will bring back the "Peak Oil" meme, which only seems to interest most people as an investment story. But sadly, The Oil Drum will not be around to chronicle the return of Peak Oil.

Read More

Irony

Read More

Solar installations soar in California

Grist has a post on the growing adoption of solar power in California - Solar installations soar in California.

The Golden State is going into overdrive on solar power. California utility customers installed a record-breaking 391 megawatts of solar power systems last year. That was a banner year for the nation’s largest photovoltaic rebate scheme, with installations up 26 percent compared with 2011.

Those panels were installed with the assistance of the California Solar Initiative [PDF], a $2.2 billion program started in 2007 that aims to help residents meet the costs of installing 1,940 megawatts of solar capacity by the end of 2016.

Read More

Early Warning Monthly Oil Supply Graphs

Stuart at Early Warning has posted his monthly oil supply graphs - Monthly Oil Supply Graphs.

Read More

HUGE CAPEX = FREE CASH FLOW ? NOT IN SHALES

Energy Policy Forum has an interesting article by Deborah Lawrence Rogers about the financials of the companies frantically scraping the bottom of the barrel in the Bakken - HUGE CAPEX = FREE CASH FLOW? NOT IN SHALES.

Taking a universe of 5 shale companies, some primarily with shale gas assets and others with shale oil, it is of note that there has been a significant deterioration of free cash flow since 2010. But what is even more interesting is that some of these companies are reporting that net income has been growing though free cash is falling.

Not wishing to bore everyone with an esoteric discussion of financial statements, it is of note that when a company shows a growth in net income with a concomitant deterioration of free cash flow, it may be an indicator that management is taking aggressive steps to boost earnings artificially. Not always. But possibly.

So how much deterioration has there been in free cash flow? It is impressive.

When you adjust the figures to include capital expenditure (and dividends where appropriate), their free cash available is negative. Significantly negative.

This is highly problematic because if a company cannot generate cash from operations then it has to go outside and get the monies through borrowings or equity offerings. In other words, debt or dilution for investors.

Free cash flow of Continental Resources, a big player in the Bakken, has dropped from ($430M) to ($2.4B) since 2010, all of it negative. And Continental is not the only one. Devon Energy’s free cash flow has dropped from ($1.2B) to a significant ($3.5B) over the same time frame. Range Resources, who are drilling primarily in the Marcellus, booked a negative free cash flow of ($556M) in 2010 and this has deteriorated to ($1.0B). Kodiak Oil and Gas, another Bakken player, had negative free cash flow in 2010 of ($170M). It has now deteriorated to ($1.0B). Chesapeake is interesting because its free cash flow for 2012 ($3.3B) is now roughly equivalent to its level in 2010, ($3.4B). But over the last two years Chesapeake has liquidated approximately $13 billion in assets with no commensurate gain to free cash flow. Management still needs to move outside the company to generate cash to continue operations. And yet, shareholders have had their underlying assets disappear to the tune of $13B to pay down debt.

Clearly there is a pattern here of severe deterioration. But that is not all. CAPEX has exploded during this time which means that companies have spent enormous sums of money drilling wells that are not providing enough cash to continue drilling operations on their own. Not even close. For instance, Continental’s CAPEX grew from $1.0B to $4.1B. Devon’s CAPEX grew from $6.4B to $8.2B. In total, these 5 companies spent approximately $56B in capital expenditure since 2010 while the free cash generated from this $56B spending spree is non-existent. In fact, it is worse than non-existent because it is alarmingly negative.

This is not sustainable. It could be argued that it is not even moral. It is a failed business model of epic proportion. While companies could make the argument at one time that this was a short term downtrend, that no longer holds water because this pattern is long term.

The most troubling aspect of this is that we are fast tracking exportation of this commodity in spite of the glaring financial anomalies. It is extraordinary that some members of Congress proclaim whole heartedly for fiscal responsibility while turning a blind eye to fiscal irresponsibility among their campaign donors and promoting exportation.

Read More