Optisolar to Build Largest Solar Farm in North America

OptiSolar, Hayward, California, is developing a 550 megawatt photovoltaic (PV) solar farm, the largest in North America, covering over 6,000 acres, in San Luis Obispo County, California.

OptiSolar intends to submit an application to San Luis Obispo County for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in May. Construction is targeted to begin in 2010, after completing the local approval process. Installation of panels will occur over a period of up to three years.

OptiSolar is a vertically intigrated company manufacturing its own solar cells and panels and claims its amorphous silicon thin-film solar PV panels combine proprietary manufacturing processes and innovative design to yield affordable, durable panels that significantly reduce the cost of clean solar power. Their thin-film design requires only about 1% of the silicon used in crystalline systems, thus not being affected by the availability of crystalline silicon. The companies technology enables low-profile solar panels to be placed on simple concrete and steel ballasts with minimal grading.

Although photovoltaic solar panels are currently less efficient than solar thermal systems, OptiSolar claims that its solar cells are significantly more cost effective as they require less expensive silicon during manufacture, consume little water, and require far less maintenance than turbine based systems. In addition they avoid the need for large structures that turbine-based systems require, and do not result in the noise associated with such systems.

OptiSolar Farms Canada has 21 solar project  in Canada under various phases of development including the 60-megawatt "Sarnia Solar" park, which will be broken into six construction phases with the first 10-megawatt phase expected to be completed by year's end and the balance competed in 2009.

Thanks to Tyler Hamilton in the Toronto Star for the tip

Comments

[JohnBo]

According to this article:

http://guntherportfolio.blogspot.com/2007/04/optisolar-to-solar-electrify-sarnia.html

they are selling their power at about 20 times the cost of nuclear power. At 42 cents per kwhr this really puts the screws to the people of California.

[Cyril R.]

JohnBo you are comparing a new solar project to old amortized nuclear plants.

You should compare to new nuclear projects. These, at 5 to 8 bucks a Watt, are likely to have real levelized cost in the order of 15-25 cents per kWh. If the costs don't escalate again. And they are baseload which is not a very lucrative market; a solar plant in California for peaking can get perhaps double the revenue per kWh as a baseload plant. Also, San Luis Obispo isn't that good a solar location, there are much better sites available in the SW.

Don't worry about it. Cheap energy only leads to wasting it. We've been spoilt with cheap energy for too long and that's one of the reasons we're in trouble now.

[Clee]

The blog says that Optisolar is selling power to Canada from their Canadian solar farms for 42 Canadian cents per KWH. I see absolutely no mention of the price that Californians would be paying for the power from the California plant. I would bet that it is not anywhere near as much as 42c/KWH

[JohnBo]

Clee/Cyril,

Thanks for your comments. Perhaps you are right and the cost will only be about double that of nuclear. Californians are used to high costs so it won't make much difference...haha.

I am afraid we are going to regulate our country out of prosperity if we are not careful.

Clearly, the most damaging problem is over population. I wish the green movement would get behind population control. Rather than trying to provide less and less for more and more people there should be less people. The government rewards those with more children... this is up side down. When nature limits population, it is very unpleasant.

[Cyril R.]

Since nuclear can't provide peaking for e.g. AC needs in California, there really is no competition anyway. The PV would mostly compete with NG peakers, which aren't cheap.

I think there is some hope with regards to population growth. As people get wealthier, they generally have less children. This appears to be the case in other countries as well, it looks like population may be levelling off perhaps in the 9 to 12 billion people range. That's a workable level.

Nevertheless, there will be difficult times ahead, with the population momentum having a huge impact on resources before it starts to stabilize a bit.

[Cyril R.]

So it appears that, in order to solve the population issue, people have to get rich and use a lot of resources and energy per capita, so they have less children, in order to curb total resource and energy use in the long run.

An awkward controversy.

[Al Fin]

This plant won't begin construction until 2010 and won't be finished for at least 3 years after that. By then, the energy situation will have changed--maybe we'll get lucky and have efficient flow cell utility storage or something equivalent by then.

Until PV gets better storage, smaller local PV plants that tie directly to municipal power systems make much more sense than the huge 500 megawatt installations.

At the fast rate that the technology is developing, planning huge projects based on today's technology involves a lot of risk.

[Roger Brown]

”So it appears that, in order to solve the population issue, people have to get rich and use a lot of resources and energy per capita, so they have less children, in order to curb total resource and energy use in the long run.”

The key to reducing the birth rate is two fold: Easy access to effective birth control and a sense of future security which is not based on being taken care of by one’s children. In the capitalist economy as it currently exists, future security is based on storing up large amounts of personal wealth and is thus dependent on a ‘healthy’ (i.e. growing economy). If we do not find another path to material security, we are going to be in a world of hurt. Our future material security should come from the community which we support and which should in turn support us rather than from amassing private fortunes. I realize that in making such a statement I am exposing myself to accusations of promoting some evil sort of ism. However, in a finite world I do not see any democratic path to a sustainable economy that does not lead to voluntary simplicity (i.e. making our economic goal be to live well in a sustainable manner rather than to get richer forever) and mutual support.

In my view this conclusion has nothing to do with political ideology. It does not matter if you are a full blown Marxist who believes that dialectical materialism is the ultimate revelation of the universe’s inner workings, or if you are a libertarian who believes that anyone who shows up in a government office asking for a handout should be taken out and shot as a public nuisance. Two plus two still equals four. You cannot turn off the law of gravity. You cannot travel faster than the speed of light. An economic system in which the rich are striving to get richer forever is sooner or later going to collapse in a finite world.

[Bob Wallace]

There are a number of issues that seem to be working to reduce birth rates in large portions of the world.

1. Urbanization.

When one lives in a farming society children are an asset. Just have to give them minimal food and they start providing a labor source at an early age. (Little kids out tending the goat herd, for example.)

In urban settings children can become a liability. One must feed, clothe, and educate them and there is little chance for them to produce significant income until they are at least teenagers.

2. Education and access to birth control methods.

That one shouldn't need any explanation.

3. Empowerment of women.

As women get more control over their lives they tend to limit family size.

4. Establishment of a social safety net.

Traditionally people had lots of children in order to provide for their own old age. High birth rates were more important when survival to adulthood was lower (and probably still is in some places).

There are probably other reasons as well.

Religious decree might be one.

Out-populating your enemy might be going on in parts of the Middle East. Take a look at the Palestine birth rate.

[Cyril R.]

I realize that in making such a statement I am exposing myself to accusations of promoting some evil sort of ism.

Hardly. You have excellent points. There are several discourses out there, and something very positive can be said about each of them. In Dryzek's classification, you would perhaps be a "green radicalist": a departure from industrialism as well as a large degree of societal change. While I believe those things would be very helpful, perhaps even necessary, it's difficult to imagine how it will be brought about, and if it can be done, would there not be a serious risk of societal collapse in the process?

[Cyril R.]

The most annoying discourse is that of the denialist. Basically, if it's not proven, it's not true. And if it is proven, it's not a problem. And if it's proven to be a problem, we can't do anything about it!

The reason some people think this way is probably because most people don't.

[Cyril R.]

So what's positive about the denialist discourse? You never have to worry about responsibility :)

[Bob Wallace]

"An economic system in which the rich are striving to get richer forever is sooner or later going to collapse in a finite world."

Yes. And No.

If we don't allow individual effort/initiative to be rewarded we will likely to sink to a "let someone else do the work" system. That's what happens in a pure socialism system.

When countries have tried socialism they generally find that they need to resort to force to keep things moving along. Even small "socialistic" units such as families generally require a 'strong hand' to keep functioning.

The other end of the continuum is a monopoly where a small group of individuals own everything and everyone else ends up being their 'slaves'.

What seems to work best is something in between, a controlled capitalism with adequate safety nets for those who truly need them.

[Tom G]

Some very good discussion here regarding population. The TV show 'human footprint' on the National Geographic Channel brought it home for me. Here is a youtube link to the very short version of the TV show. Take what you see here and start multiplying it by the 2-10 million more people we get in the U.S. each year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsZAfrE2SaQ

[Roger Brown]

What seems to work best is something in between, a controlled capitalism with adequate safety nets for those who truly need them.

That depends what you mean by capitalism. If you believe (as I do) that some degree of large scale machine assisted enterprise is desirable then a method has to be found for capitalizing such enterprises, since virtually no one would be able to save up enough money out of personal wages for this purpose. However, the current version of capitalism (which I call private finance capitalism) in which monetary investors expect to get richer as a result of financing manufacturing infrastructure requires constant growth to function effectively. Ideally money represents work that its possessor did in the past. Allowing the possessors of money to get richer without doing additional work is a reasonable thing to do only in an economic system in which our productivity in constantly increasing. If you believe that such increases are going to go on forever then there is a bridge in New York City that I would like to sell you.

Then there is the question of what is really being rewarded in the current economic system. If someone works hard, efficiently and dedicatedly doing some humble, but necessary work such as picking fruit, pounding nails, hauling garbage etc. why should they receive a smaller reward than an engineer or an actuary, let alone a marketing executive? Is hard work being rewarded or is luck (genetic endowment, social background etc.) being rewarded? In a society which really valued hard work and risk taking coal miners would be among its highest paid workers. People who claim that the current system of economic rewards cannot be changed without risking productive disaster generally mean ‘my position in the rewards hierarchy should not be changed’.

Furthermore the idea that monetary rewards alone make the productive world go round is incorrect. As Henri Poincare pointed out, if the only people who engaged in scientific and mathematical research had been people concerned with immediate practical applications and short term financial rewards, then the enormous practical engineering successes of modern society would never have come into existence. There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy of monetary rewards.

[bigTom]

Roger, We are running quite a bit off topic, but I'll take the bait. I think you raise some interesting points. I'm not totally convinced that an expanding economy is a precondition for investor finacing of capital equipment however. Even in a steady state economy, old productive equipment will need to be replaced. Hopefully somewhat better production methods will be found as well (even if aggregate growth isn't happening), and some means of rasing the capital will still be needed. But the portion of return on investment that is created by a "growing" economy wouldn't be there anymore, so achieving historical levels of return on investment would not be so easy. I think you may be overamoured with fairness, versus an incentive structure designed to maximize societal value (however that is measured/defined). A maximizing social benefit incentive structure would look significantly different from a fairness maximizing one. I don't know if much economics research has gone into economic systems/social systems that are designed to fit into the no growth economy.

[Roger Brown]

Even in a steady state economy, old productive equipment will need to be replaced.

The above statement is absolutely correct, and, what is more, in the transition from a wealth increasing economy to a wealth maintaining economy we will have to reallocate capital from relatively useless production enterprises (e.g. plasma screen televisions, jet skis, SUVs etc) to more useful ones (energy efficient buildings, wind turbines, public transportation etc.). We will have to find ways to keep investing in manufacturing infrastructure and in capitalizing new enterprises. Without a doubt some of the required new enterprises will be more productive than others. However if we reach the point where society’s overall productivity is stagnant or declining then it will not be possible for one person to increase his or her purchasing power without someone else losing purchasing power. If this statement is not true then economic growth has not really come to an end. In a zero growth economy obtaining investment income is a zero sum game. If a class of investors exists who are consistently increasing their net worth by financing manufacturing infrastructure then somebody else is getting poorer.

My suggested solution to this dilemma is to replace private finance by public or community finance. The physical bottom line of financing is that somebody produces economic output and gives it to some other economic producer under the assumption that the receiver’s future productivity will pay for the loan. Neither private financiers nor the interest mechanism is required for such investments. For example we could have community banks (financed through taxes) which provide interest free financing with the purpose of making sure that goods and services needed by the community get produced. The bankers would receive salaries for services rendered but would not make money based on the total money volume of loans which they process. My idea is to preserve private enterprise and the price system, but to replace private finance by community finance. I do not know if such an idea will really work, but I have a high degree of confidence that the current system has finite lifetime.

[curt]

All this sounds so nice and intellectually friendly, but I think that there is simply not enough time for changes in the form of 'soft evolution' in modern world, considering global warming and climate changes. Scarcity of commodities and different natural disasters are going to profoundly change geo-political picture of the world.
Differences between world societies are simply too large...
Back to reality: efficiency rate of OptiSolar photovoltaics technology is going to increase a bit and production costs are going to be even lower; that's good news for the final cost per 1W of generated power.

About nuclear power plants: in UK, there is simply no data about the real cost of decommissioning old power plants, which is doubling every few years and are now estimated to more than $150 billion !!!

[Bob Wallace]

Roger, I agree with a lot of your sentiment, but I just can't see it working.

My suggested solution to this dilemma is to replace private finance by public or community finance."

Our major breakthroughs and startups do not come from community action, but with individuals pursuing a dream.

And while you might dream of an ideal community like Gaviotas, remember that our communities on the large not only with people who are willing to work for other than monetary rewards you also have to accept the slackers and barely interested.

[Roger Brown]

All this sounds so nice and intellectually friendly, but I think that there is simply not enough time for changes in the form of 'soft evolution' in modern world, considering global warming and climate changes. Scarcity of commodities and different natural disasters are going to profoundly change geo-political picture of the world.

Back to reality: efficiency rate of OptiSolar photovoltaics technology is going to increase a bit and production costs are going to be even lower; that's good news for the final cost per 1W of generated power.

It does not matter whether the evolution is ‘soft’ or hard. Even if we have to descend into chaos and then rebuild from ground up change is coming. Social institutions come into existence because someone has the imagination to conceive of them and the will to make them into a political reality. Unless you believe that you are personally going to outlive the arrival of disaster, then discussing technology costs within the context of the current economic system while ignoring the larger systemic issues seems like a choice to stick your head firmly into the sand.

[Bob Wallace]

Ah! You're assuming a great coming disaster.

Lots of us are looking at the same data and not....

[Roger Brown]

Our major breakthroughs and startups do not come from community action, but with individuals pursuing a dream.

Innovation and invention has an individual creative aspect and a social aspect, neither of which can be dispensed with. In modern complex economies in many cases invention cannot occur without access to very expensive capital equipment. If you want develop improved semiconductor circuits you need access to very expensive photo-lithography equipment and to extremely expensive vacuum deposition equipment. You may be individually brilliant and bursting with good ideas but you cannot make progress unless you persuade other people to let you have access to the necessary capital resources. You cannot develop new semiconductor processes in your garage with spare cash from your monthly check. Even in those cases where you can invent something new in your garage, most of the time volume manufacturing requires that you go to the money men and persuade them that your idea is worth pursuing, not to mention agreeing to give them a cut of the profits. When I propose community finance I am not proposing that invention should be carried out by government committees. I am proposing that the money men should be public servants rather than private profiteers. One can make a good argument that when the price of innovation includes paying for rich people's yachts and ski condos that this impedes progress rather than aids it.

And while you might dream of an ideal community like Gaviotas, remember that our communities on the large not only with people who are willing to work for other than monetary rewards you also have to accept the slackers and barely interested.

You do not seem to have read what I wrote very carefully:

My idea is to preserve private enterprise and the price system, but to replace private finance by community finance.

Nothing that I wrote suggests that people who refuse to work or who work in a shoddy half-hearted manner should not be economically punished for this choice. I assume that such punishment takes place even in government agencies. Presumably NASA has performance reviews and people who spend their time at work surfing the internet rather than doing engineering can be fired.

Perhaps you are suggesting that my idea of flattening the salary range of competent hardworking people of different natural talents would be the death of personal initiative. If by this you mean that people who are currently scientists, engineers, architects, etc. would suddenly become content to spend their lives hauling garbage or pounding nails, I don't believe you. If you mean that people who are currently corporate lawyers, marketing executives, advertising professionals, etc. would choose instead to become skilled craftspeople or organic farmers, I would regard this as a change for the better.

[Thomas Pedersen]

Zero energy growth does not necessarily entail zero economic growth. And even if it did, zero fossil/nuclear energy growth does not entail zero energy growth!

As a person from Denmark, where we pay around 42 c/kWh (taking into account the record low dollar) and use only about half-to one third power, I'm telling you that you can live happy, but less energy intensive lives. I have American friends and I've seen how much energy they spend to get essentially the save level of comfort and service as I enjoy.

So don't worry about the cost of electricity going up - it's gonna be fine. You (we) will adapt and survive!

The bottom line is, if solar power can produce electricity at 20 c/kWh or less, we have nothing to worry about! We can go on inventing new exciting stuff (like Intel slashing the power consumption of their processors by a factor of four for the same performance or Sony selling TVs with only 0.19 W standby power).

[Roger Brown]

Zero energy growth does not necessarily entail zero economic growth.

The above statement is correct. However constant percentage growth of the economy is exponential. Trusting that exponential efficiency improvements can continue forever is not an intelligent strategy. We will use the efficiency improvements you mention above to sell more televisions and more laptop computers etc., and when all 8 billion people on the planet (or whatever number the human population tops out at) have 40 inch plasma screen televisions, laptop computers, super-efficient hyper-cars, etc. we will have to keep inventing and manufacturing new toys if we want to keep the growth economy going.

Keeping the pedal to the metal on economic growth and waiting for the market or the ecosystem to give us signals that we have gone too far is the strategy of madman.

[Roger Brown]

Zero energy growth does not necessarily entail zero economic growth.

The above statement is correct. However constant percentage growth of the economy is exponential. Trusting that exponential efficiency improvements can continue forever is not an intelligent strategy. We will use the efficiency improvements you mention above to sell more televisions and more laptop computers etc., and when all 8 billion people on the planet (or whatever number the human population tops out at) have 40 inch plasma screen televisions, laptop computers, super-efficient hyper-cars, etc. we will have to keep inventing and manufacturing new toys if we want to keep the growth economy going.

Keeping the pedal to the metal on economic growth and waiting for the market or the ecosystem to give us signals that we have gone too far is the strategy of madman.