text:
Thematic Review of GEF-Financed Solar Thermal Projects Jason Mariyappan Dennis Anderson Monitoring and Evaluation Working Paper 7 October 2001 Foreword The GEF Council, at its meetings in December 1999 and May 2000, requested a review of GEF operations prior to the next replenishment, which began in 2001.1 This review, the Second Study of GEF's Overall Performance (OPS2), was carried out by a fully independent team in 2001. The OPS2 is the third major GEF-wide review to take place since the GEF was created.2 Among the broad topics the OPS2 team assessed were: • Program Results and Initial Impacts • GEF Overall Strategies and Programmatic Impacts • Achievement of the Objectives of GEF's Operational Policies and Programs • Review of Modalities of GEF Support • Follow-up of the First Study of GEF's Overall Performance To facilitate the work of the OPS2 team, GEF's Monitoring and Evaluation team, in cooperation with the imple- menting agencies, undertook program studies in three GEF focal areas—biodiversity, climate change, and inter- national waters focal areas. These program studies provided portfolio information and substantive inputs for the OPS2 team's consideration. The thematic review of GEF-financed solar thermal projects was undertaken as part of the climate change program study. Jarle Harstad Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator 1 Joint Summary of the Chairs, GEF Council Meeting, December 8-9, 1999, and GEF/C.15/11. 2 The first two studies, respectively, were Global Environment Facility: Independent Evaluation of the Pilot Phase, UNDP, UNEP, and World Bank (1994) and Porter, G., R. Clemençon, W. Ofosu-Amaah, and Michael Phillips, Study of GEF's Overall Performance, Global Environment Facility (1998). ii Acknowledgements This report was prepared by Jason Mariyappan, working under the supervision of Dennis Anderson, at the Imperial College of Science, Technology, and Medicine, London, U.K. The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance and guidance of the Global Environment Facility staff (Eric Martinot, Ramesh Ramankutty, and Frank Rittner). Because the input of many organizations was also critical to this report, the authors wish to acknowledge the generous cooperation of Bechtel/Nexant, Boeing, Deutsches Zentrum für Luft-und Raumfahrt (DLR), Duke Solar, Flabeg Solar International, IEA SolarPACES, Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW), KJC Operating Company, Kearney & Associates, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Morse Associates, Sandia National Laboratory, Solargen, Solel, Spencer Management Associates, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Weizmann Institute of Science, and the World Bank. Disclaimer This report was prepared by Jay Mariyappan (Imperial College) and supervised by Prof. Dennis Anderson (GEF STAP member) for the Global Environment Facility. The views in this report are those of the authors and do not represent the Global Environment Facility opinion or policy. No warranty is expressed or implied about the useful- ness of the information presented in this report. iii iv Table of Contents Foreword .............................................................................................................................................................. ii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................. iii Disclaimer ........................................................................................................................................................... iii 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 Objectives .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Methodologies .................................................................................................................................................... 2 2. International Technology Trends for Solar Thermal Power .............................................................................. 3 Technology Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 3 History ................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Present Market Situation ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Present Technology Status .................................................................................................................................. 8 Parabolic Troughs .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Central Receivers ............................................................................................................................................. 10 Parabolic Dishes .............................................................................................................................................. 12 Conclusions ...........................................................................................................................................................13 3. GEF Solar Thermal Power Projects Supported by the GEF............................................................................... 15 India ................................................................................................................................................................. 15 Morocco ............................................................................................................................................................ 16 Egypt ................................................................................................................................................................. 17 Mexico .............................................................................................................................................................. 17 4. Relevance and Linkages of GEF Projects to Trends .........................................................................................19 Experience So Far ............................................................................................................................................ 20 Project Sequencing ........................................................................................................................................... 22 Cross-learning From One Project to Another ..................................................................................................... 23 One Consortium Building All Four Projects ..................................................................................................... 23 Leaving Technology Choice Open to Developers .............................................................................................. 23 Maximizing the Solar Component for Hybrid Projects .................................................................................... 24 Role of Private Sector and Other Organizations in GEF Portfolio .................................................................. 24 References ............................................................................................................................................................ 26 v List of Figures Figure 2.1: SEGS III-VII at Kramer Junction—Normalized O&M Costs vs. Production .................................... 6 Figure 2.2: Parabolic Trough Power Plant with Hot and Cold Tank Thermal Storage System and Oil Steam Generator13 ............................................................................................................................................................ 10 Figure 2.3: Dispatched Electricity from Molten-Salt Central Receivers ............................................................... 12 Figure 2.4: Heliostat Price as a Function of Annual Production Volume16 ........................................................... 13 Figure 4.1: SEGS Plant Levelized Electricity Cost (LEC) Experience Curve as a Function of Cumulative Megawatts Installed17 .............................................................................................................................................. 20 Figure 4.2: Market Introduction of STP Technologies with Initial Subsidies and Green Power Tariffs .............. 22 List of Tables Table 2.1: Characteristics of the Three Main Types of Solar Thermal Power Technology ................................... 4 Table 2.2: Early Solar Thermal Power Plants ...................................................................................................... 5 Table 2.3: Key Technology Metrics Identified by the Parabolic Trough Technology Roadmap12 ....................... 9 Table 2.4: Parabolic Trough Solar Thermal Power Plant Characteristics16 ........................................................... 11 Table 2.5: Current Solar Thermal Projects in Development .................................................................................. 14 Table 3.1: The Portfolio of Solar Thermal Projects Supported by the GEF ......................................................... 15 Table 4.1: General Market Diffusion Steps for Solar Thermal Power Plants16 ..................................................... 21 List of Boxes Box 2.1: The Spanish Royal Decree for Renewables ............................................................................................ 7 vi vii 1. Introduction 1. Growing concern about environmental problems role in meeting some of the high and drastically has stimulated the development of renewable energy increasing demand for electricity in these regions, technologies, which in turn will facilitate a more with fewer emissions than the alternative: plants sustainable development of the energy system. The powered purely with fossil fuels. diffusion and adoption of these technologies will, however, depend on further development and cost- 3. Although great progress has been made in STP cutting through innovation and experience. The since the early 1980s, based on the commercial Global Environment Facility (GEF), under its climate success of the 354 MW installed in nine solar elec- programs, focuses on some of these technologies and tricity generating systems (SEGS) in California, it is fosters projects that include the private sector in the not currently cost effective in most power markets. development of markets in developing countries. GEF Thus, STP technology falls within OP7, with its aim renewable energy projects, generally, fall into two of reducing the long-term cost of low greenhouse gas- categories: emitting energy technologies. In that context, the GEF, in April 1996, approved an incremental cost grant of (a) "Barrier removal" projects, which develop and $49 million for a STP project in India. Since then, it promote markets for commercial and close-to- has approved three additional grant requests for STP commercial technologies under Operational plants in Egypt, Morocco, and Mexico. Program 5 (OP5) and Operational Program 6 (OP6) 4. These four projects represent a significant step in (b) "Cost reduction" projects which conduct support of GEF's programmatic objectives. Conse- research, demonstration, and commercialization quently, the GEF undertook a "thematic review" of the activities to lower long-term technology costs cluster of STP projects to extract lessons learned, gain under Operational Program 7 (OP7). better understanding of the relevance and linkages of GEF activities to broader international trends, track 2. The GEF has identified solar thermal power tech- replication of successful project results, and inform nology (STP) as one of the renewable energy tech- future GEF strategic directions. nologies it supports in its operational programs. Development of STP represents one of the most cost- Objectives efficient options for renewable bulk power produc- tion, and the most cost-effective way of producing 5. The purpose of the review is to suggest, based upon electricity from solar radiation. Many GEF receipient project designs and preliminary implementation expe- countries, including India, Mexico, and those in the rience, whether GEF STP projects are contributing to regions of Northern and Southern Africa and parts of technology cost reductions or other industry changes Southern America, have high levels of solar radiation as envisioned under OP7. In the absence of substan- suitable for STP. Indeed, STP could play an important tial operating experience, the review provides updated 1 perspectives on this question relative to when the proj- Methodologies ects were first proposed and early implementation experience. 7. The study was carried out as follows: 6. The review also suggests whether alternative (a) Collect data and analysis of international trends, approaches in future projects, or even revisions to the including sources such as interviews with key current portfolio of projects, could have greater influ- industry manufacturers, investors, and other organ- ence on cost and market trends for these technolo- izations gies. The work plan to achieve these objectives had (b) Collect and review available information on the three main elements: four solar thermal plant projects including sources such as project files and interviews with project (a) Review the broad international technology personnel, suppliers, and associated agencies trends for solar thermal power plants (c) Prepare a final synthesis of trends and projects, (b) Review the GEF solar thermal power projects along with conclusions and recommendations for future GEF programming. (c) Identify the relevance and linkages of GEF proj- ects to trends. 2 2. International Technology Trends for Solar Thermal Power Technology Overview steam is converted to electric energy in a conventional turbine generator (e.g., Rankine-cycle/steam turbine) 8. STP plants produce electricity in the same way as or a combined cycle (gas turbine with bottoming conventional power stations, except they obtain part steam turbine) to produce electricity. of their thermal energy input by concentrating solar radiation and converting it to high temperature steam • Central Receiver (or Power Tower) – systems use a or gas to drive a turbine or, alternatively, to move a circular array of heliostats (large individually tracking piston in a sterling engine. Essentially, STP plants mirrors) to concentrate sunlight onto a central receiver include four main components: the concentrator, mounted at the top of a tower. The central receiver receiver, transport-storage, and power conversion. absorbs the energy reflected by the concentrator and Many different types of systems are possible using by means of a heat exchanger (e.g., air/water) variations of the above components, combining them produces superheated steam. Alternatively a thermal with other renewable and non-renewable technolo- transfer medium (e.g., molten nitrate salt) is pumped gies, and, in some cases, adapting them to utilize through the receiver tubes, heated to approximately thermal storage. The three most promising solar 560oC, and pumped either to a "hot" tank for storage power architectures (from left to right) can be char- or through heat exchangers to produce superheated acterized as: steam. The steam is converted to electric energy in a conventional turbine generator (e.g., Rankine- • Parabolic Trough – systems use parabolic trough- cycle/steam turbine or Brayton-cycle gas turbine) or shaped mirror reflectors to concentrate sunlight onto in a combined cycle (gas turbine with bottoming thermally efficient receiver tubes placed at the trough steam turbine) generator. focal point. These receivers or absorption tubes contain a thermal transfer fluid (e.g., oil), which is • Parabolic Dish – systems use an array of parabolic heated to approximately 400oC and pumped through dish-shaped mirrors to concentrate sunlight onto a heat exchangers to produce superheated steam. The receiver located at the focal point of the dish. The Diagrams courtesy of U.S. Department of Energy's Concentrating Solar Program 3 receiver absorbs energy reflected by the concentrators, dron, to the early 1900s with Aubrey Eneas' first and fluid in the receiver is heated to approximately commercial solar motors and Frank Shuman's 45kW 750oC and used to generate electricity in a small sun-tracking parabolic trough plant built in Meadi, engine (e.g., Stirling or Brayton cycle) attached to the Egypt, people sought to tap solar energy1. These early receiver. designs formed the basis for R&D developments in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when STP projects Each form of STP technology has its own character- were undertaken in a number of industrialized istics, advantages, and disadvantages, some of which nations, including the United States, Russia, Japan, are shown in Table 2.1. Similarly, each technology Spain, and Italy, as shown in Table 2.11. Many of can have a number of different configurations that are these plants, covering the whole spectrum of available being developed in various parts of the world; these technology, failed to reach the desired performance are discussed on page 14 under the heading "Present levels, and subsequent R&D has continued to concen- Technology Status." trate on technology improvement and increasing size unit. History 10. Meanwhile, in the early 1980s, the Israeli 9. Efforts to construct and design devices for company Luz International Ltd. commercialized STP supplying renewable energy began some 100 years technology by building a series of nine solar electric before "the oil price crises" of the 1970s, which trig- generating stations* (SEGS) in the Californian gered the modern development of renewable, and Mojave desert. The SEGS plants ranged from 14 to 80 particularly STP, energy technologies. From the 1860s MWe unit capacities and totaled 354 MW of grid elec- and Auguste Mouchout's first solar-powered motor, tricity. During the construction of these plants from which produced steam in a glass-enclosed iron caul- 1984-1991, significant cost reductions were achieved Table 2.1: Characteristics of the Three Main Types of Solar Thermal Power Technology Parabolic Trough Central Receiver Parabolic Dish Applications Grid-connected plants; process Grid-connected plants; high Stand-alone applications heat; (Highest solar capacity to temperature process heat; or small off-grid power date: 80 MWe) (Highest solar capacity to (Highest solar system date:10 Mwe) capacity to date: 25 kWe) Advantages Commercially available (over Good mid-term prospective Very high conversion 9 billion kWh operational for high conversion efficiencies efficiencies (peak solar- experience, with solar collection solar collection efficiency to-electrical conversion of efficiency up to 60%, peak approx.46% at temps up to about 30%); modularity; solar-to-electrical conversion of 565°C, peak solar-to-electrical hybrid operation; 21%); hybrid concept proven; conversion of 23%); storage operational experience storage capability at high temperatures; hybrid operation possible Disadvantages Lower temperatures (up to Capital cost projections not Low efficiency combustion restrict output to moderate yet proven in hybrid systems and steam qualities due to reliability yet to be proven temperature limits of oil medium * SEGS is the generic term for a parabolic trough employing a Rankine cycle with approximately 75% solar and 25% fossil fuel input. 4 Table 2.2 Early Solar Thermal Power Plants Name Location Size Type, Heat Transfer Fluid, Start-up Funding (MWe) and Storage Medium Date Aurelios Adrano, Sicily 1 Tower, Water-Steam 1981 European Community SSPS/CRS Almeria, Spain 0.5 Tower, Sodium 1981 8 European Countries & USA SSPS/DCS Almeria, Spain 0.5 Trough, Oil 1981 8 European Countries & USA Sunshine Nio, Japan 1 Tower, Water-Steam 1981 Japan Solar One California, USA 10 Tower, Water-Steam 1982 US Dept. of Energy & Utilities Themis Targasonne, France 2.5 Tower, Molten Salt 1982 France CESA-1 Almeria, Spain 1 Tower, Water-Steam 1983 Spain MSEE Albuquerque, USA 0.75 Tower, Molten Salt 1984 US Dept. of Energy & Utilities SEGS-1 California, USA 14 Trough, Oil 1984 Private – Luz Vanguard 1 USA 0.025 Dish, Hydrogen 1984 Advanco Corp. MDA USA 0.025 Dish, Hydrogen 1984 McDonnell-Douglas C3C-5 Crimea, Russia 5 Tower, Water-Steam 1985 Russia with increased size, performance, and efficiency, average annual insolation of over 2700 kWh/m,2 have driving the levelized cost of electricity down from a generated more than 8 TWh of electricity since 1985, reported 24 US¢/kWh to 8¢/kWh2. The $1.2 billion and achieved a highest annual plant efficiency of 14 raised for these plants was from private risk capital percent and a peak solar-to-electrical efficiency of investors and, demonstrating increasing confidence about 21 percent. California state regulations allowed in the maturity of the technology, from institutional a maximum of 25 percent of turbine thermal input investors.3 These commercial ventures were signifi- from natural gas burners, thus avoiding expensive cantly aided by tax incentives and attractive power storage capacity and lowering generation costs to purchase contracts but by the late 1980s the fall in fuel 12¢/kWh (equivalent pure solar costs would have prices led to reductions in electricity sale revenues of been 16¢/kWh). The 150 MWe Kramer Junction solar at least 40 percent. Though Luz went bankrupt in 1991, power park, which contains five 30 MWe SEGS (III- after falling fossil fuel prices coincided with the with- VII), achieved a 37 percent reduction in operation drawal of state and federal investment tax credits,2 all and maintenance (O&M) costs between 1992 and nine SEGS plants are still in profitable commercial 1997, as shown in Figure 2.11. During this period, the operation with a history of increased efficiency and five plants averaged 105 percent of rated capacity output as operators improved their procedures. during the four-month summer on-peak period (12 noon-6pm, weekdays), while on an annual basis, 75 11. The first commercial plants—SEGS I (14 MW) percent or more of the energy to the plant came from and II (30 MW), located near Dagget, are currently solar energy.3 being operated by the Dagget Leasing Corporation (DLC). The 80 MW SEGS VIII and IX plants, located Present Market Situation near Harper Dry Lake, are run by Constellation Operating Services, while the 30 MW SEGS III-VII 12. Despite the success of the nine SEGS, no new projects at Kramer Junction are operated by the KJC commercial plants have been built since 1991. There Operating Company. These plants, which have an are a number of reasons for this—some of which led 5 Figure 2.1: SEGS III-VII at Kramer Junction— ects (IPPs), often without a long-term power purchase Normalized O&M Costs vs. Production agreement, and typically have been new, highly effi- cient, natural gas-fired combined cycle gas turbine plants (CCGTs). Capital costs of new gas-fired CCGT plants (which take approximately two years to build) are still declining below $500/kW with generation efficiencies of over 50 percent. In this climate, an STP plant requires a significantly large unit capacity to meet competitive conditions for the generation of bulk electricity (e.g., before it went bankrupt, Luz's plans for new STP plant, called for a 130 MW plant scaling up towards 300 MW plants in later years), and the large capital investment needed is deemed too high a risk by financiers. 14. In addition to restructuring, there has been little in the way of favorable financial and political environ- ments to encourage the development of STP, with only the GEF climate change programs fully supporting to the demise of Luz—including the steady fall in the technology. There is still some assistance in fossil fuel and energy prices and the uncertainties California, where production subsidies (AB1890) that caused by a delay in the renewal of solar tax credits apply to the SEGS plants are given when the market in California. Others stem from the fact that STP price is below 5¢/kWh,, but these subsidies are small plants still generate electricity at a cost at least double and set to end in 20014. Although there have been that of fossil-fueled plants. In a regulated monopoly some advances in "green markets" in Europe and environment, as was the case for Luz, the higher cost North America, with premiums paid by customers for of STP guaranteed in the power purchase agreement electricity generated from renewable sources such as could be recovered by the utility via customer rates. wind, STP generally has not been considered because However, the dramatic changes that took place during of its large scale, large capital cost, and hence, high the 1990s, when the worldwide energy sector was investment risk. Similarly, aggregators for supply and liberalized, significantly affected the viability of large, sale of green energy have not yet been dealing on the capital-intensive generation plants. The restructuring multi-megawatt scale. of the electricity industry in parts of the United States, for example, has seen competition in electricity gener- 15. Despite these factors, the outlook today sees new ation and supply lead to a great deal of uncertainty in opportunities arising for STP projects all over the the sector. Utilities that had formerly thrived in a regu- world. Some of the main sponsors of energy invest- lated monopoly environment have found it difficult to ments in the developing world, such as the World compete in this new competitive market. Many still Bank Group, the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau have to deal with the issue of "stranded assets" for (KfW), and the European Investment Bank (EIB), plants they were required to build under regulation but have recently been convinced of the environmental that now are not competitive with new low-cost power promise and economic perspectives of STP technolo- stations. In Europe, deregulation, to varying extents, giesv. Interest and funding has also been made avail- has lowered energy prices as competition has led to able for demonstration and commercialization projects considerable efficiency gains. from the European Union's (EU) Framework Program 5, with particular interest in developing STP in the 13. As a result of deregulation, uncertainty in the elec- Northern Mediterranean "sunbelt," where projects are tricity sector has lowered the depreciation times for already being planned in Greece, Spain, and Italy. capital investments in new plant capacity. New plants Other national initiatives have the potential to aid STP have generally been built as independent power proj- development. Spain, for example, as part of its CO2 6 emissions reductions, intends to install 200 MWe of helped create Solar Enterprise Zones in the South- STP by the 2010, with an annual power production of western states that form the American sunbelt. These 413 GWh. The recent Royal Decree, described in Box economic development zones are aimed at supporting 2.1, may help to meet those aims. large-scale solar electric projects and assisting private companies in developing 1000 MWe of projects over 16. Similarly, Italy has recently unveiled its strategic a seven-year period. Projects in Nevada (50 MW) and plan for mass development of solar energy. The Arizona (10-30 MWe) are in the planning stage and government Agency for New Technology, Energy, will benefit from Renewable Portfolio Standards, and the Environment (ENEA) recommends bringing which require a certain percentage of electricity thermal-electric solar technology to the market in the supplied to be from renewable sources, and green "brief term"—about three years. It has said that pricing. Because of its interest in renewable energy, commercial ventures should be encouraged through the Australian government has also provided financial incentives to show the advantages of large- "Renewable Energy Showcase Grants" for two STP scale solar energy and reduce costs to competitive projects integrated with existing coal-fired plants and levels6. Bulk electrical STP transmission from high expected to be in place by the end of 2001. insolation sites (up to 2750 kWh/m2) in Southern Mediterranean countries, such as Algeria, Libya, 18. Elsewhere—in the Middle East, Southern Africa, Egypt, Morocco, and Tunisia, may also open wider and South America—areas with some of the largest opportunities for European utilities to finance solar potential for STP, interest is being shown by govern- plants in that region for electricity consumed in ments and their utilities, based on the attraction of Europe7. Reform of electricity sectors across Europe, post-Kyoto funding and the development of energy the rising demand for "green power," and the possi- production from indigenous renewable resources in bility of gaining carbon credits are no doubt countries with oil-based electricity production. Apart increasing the viability of such projects. from the four countries that applied for GEF grants, a number of technology assessments and feasibility 17. In the U.S., the Solar Energy Industries studies have been carried out in Brazil, South Africa, Association and the Department of Energy have Namibia, Jordan, Malta, and Iran. Many of these 8 Box 2.1 The Spanish Royal Decree for Renewables On December 23, 1998, a Spanish Royal Decree established tariffs for the production of electricity from facilities powered by renewable energy sources. The decree established different tariffs for renewable power, depending on system size and the type of renewable resource. The decree established that facili- ties greater than 5 kW using only solar energy as the primary energy source were eligible for payment of 36 pesetas/kWh (approx. 24¢/kWh). In a subsequent development, the Council of Ministers decided in December 1999 to cut the subsidies for renewable-generated electricity. The cuts of 5.4-8 percent affected all renewables, but newer sectors such as solar thermal and biomass were hit the hardest. The measures were part of a package aimed at reducing electricity prices. The Spanish government, however, later indicated interest in STP technology as part of its goal to generate 12 percent of all energy from renewable sources by 2010, but has not defined tariffs that apply to the technology. In light of rising oil prices in the latter half of 2000, the 24¢/kWh proposed has been put on hold to protect electricity customers from already increased energy costs. Because of the decree, at least six 50 MW trough projects and two 10 MW tower projects are in various stages of development in Spain. 7 countries are currently undertaking electricity sector improved absorber tubes; and Flabeg Solar reforms for privatization and encouraging IPPs, which International (formerly Pilkington Solar International) are seen as the most appropriate vehicle for STP proj- has developed improved process know-how and ects. These factors have led recently to significant system integration10. In Australia, a new trough design interest from private sector turnkey companies, such involving many parallel linear receivers elevated on as Bechtel, Duke Energy, ABB, and ENEL, in tower structures, called the Compact Linear Fresnel constructing STP plants in the developing country Reflector, is being demonstrated in Queensland11. sunbelt regions. As one of these companies described, "For solar thermal power to play a meaningful role in 22. Ongoing development work continues in Europe global power markets, the industry must move toward and the United States to further reduce costs in a turnkey, guaranteed plants."9 In addition to this current number of areas, by improving such elements as the interest in STP, interest rates and capital costs have collector field, receiver tubes, mirrors, and thermal drastically fallen worldwide, significantly increasing storage. For example, an R&D project, "EuroTrough," the viability of capital-intensive renewable projects. is underway to reduce the costs of an advanced Moreover, rising oil prices in the latter part of 2000 European trough collector based on the LS-3. have once again turned attention towards alternative Similarly, a U.S. initiative called the "Parabolic energy sources. Trough Technology Roadmap,"12 developed jointly by industry and SunLab,* identified a number of areas Present Technology Status that need attention. Table 2.3 shows the key tech- nology metrics given by this initiative, which further 19. Although no new commercial plants have been suggests that cost reductions and performance built for nearly 10 years, the demonstration and devel- increases of up to 50 percent are feasible for para- opment of the three main STP technologies has bolic trough technology. continued, and a number of technologies are nearing commercialization. 23. Historically, parabolic trough plants have been designed to use solar energy as the primary energy Parabolic Troughs source to produce electricity, and can operate at full rated power using solar energy alone given sufficient 20. Although SEGS have proven to be a mature elec- solar input, especially with an added storage compo- tricity generating technology, they do not represent the nent as utilized by the first SEGS plant. Indeed, the end of the learning curve of parabolic trough tech- development of an economic thermal storage system nology. A number of improvements and developments would broaden the market potential of trough power have taken place since the last constructed plant that plants. A recent study, as part of the "USA Trough will, undoubtedly, enable even better performance and Initiative," evaluated several thermal storage lower costs for the next generation of plants. concepts.13 A preferred design was identified, shown in Figure 2.21, using a nitrate salt for the storage 21. The improvements gained with the SEGS III-VII medium. Thermal energy from the collector field plants have been the result of major improvement would be transferred from the system by using a programs for collector design and O&M procedures, nitrate salt steam generator, or reversing the flows in carried out in a collaboration between the Sandia the oil-to-salt heat exchanger and driving an oil steam National Laboratories (Albuquerque, U.S.) and the generator. A cost estimate for a 470 MWht thermal KJC Operating Company. In addition to this, key storage system using this design was estimated at a trough-component manufacturing companies have total cost of around $40/kWht. A number of cost- made advances. For example, Luz improved its reduction approaches were identified, showing that collector design with the third generation LS-3 the design was a real near-term storage option for collector, considered to be state of the art; SOLEL parabolic troughs. (which bought most of the former Luz assets) has also * SunLab is the U.S. Dept. of Energy's virtual laboratory that combines expertise from Sandia National Laboratories and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to assist industry in developing and commercializing STP. 8 24. To date, however, all plants built after SEGS I at high pressure and temperature (100 bar/375°C) have been hybrid in configuration, with a back-up, directly in the parabolic trough collectors by replacing fossil-fired capability that can be used to supplement the oil medium with water. This reduces costs by elim- the solar output during periods of low solar radiation. inating the need for a heat exchanger or transfer One new design involving this concept is the medium and lowering efficiency losses. A pilot Integrated Solar Combined Cycle System (ISCCS), demonstration plant was set up at the Plataforma Solar which integrates a parabolic trough plant with a gas de Almeria (PSA) in Spain in 1999 through an alliance turbine combined-cycle plant. Essentially, the ISCCS of German and Spanish research centers and industry, uses solar heat to supplement the waste heat from a with the aim to lower solar energy costs by 30 percent. gas turbine in order to augment power generation in A 30 MWe DISS plant is also being developed by the the steam Rankine bottoming cycle. Although this Spanish company Gamesa, featuring a EuroTrough concept has yet to be built, studies show that it is tech- solar collector field. nically feasible,14 representing potential cost savings for the next trough project using this design. Both the 26. All these developments will, undoubtedly, lower incremental cost and O&M costs of the ISCCS are the cost of parabolic trough plants in the short to mid- lower than a trough plant utilizing a Rankine cycle, term. Cost projections for parabolic trough plants are and the solar-to-electric efficiency is improved. based on the SEGS experience and the present Studies show that the ISCCS configuration could competitive marketplace. The installed capital costs of reduce the cost of solar power by as much as 22 the SEGS plants fell from $4500 kW to just under percent over the cost of power from a conventional $3000/kW between 1984 and 1991. A recent assess- SEGS (25 percent fossil) of similar size.12 ment for the EUREC-Agency15 reports that the soon- to-be-built 50 MW THESEUS (SEGS) plant is 25. Another concept being developed in Europe is expected to meet the near-to-term cost targets the EU Direct Solar Steam (DISS), where steam is generated Fifth Framework Program set out for solar systems Table 2.3: Key Technology Metrics Identified by the Parabolic Trough Technology Roadmap12 Component System 1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Collector Cost ($/m2) 300 325 160 130 120 110 Annual optical efficiency 40% 44% 45% 47% 49% 50% Receiver Tubes Cost $/unit 500-1000 500 400 300 275 250 Failure rate (%/yr) 2%-5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Absorptance 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Emittance 0.15 0.1 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Operating temperature (°C) 391 400 425 450 500 500 Mirror Cost ($/m2) 120 90 75 60 55 50 Failure rate (%/yr) 0.1%-1.0% 0.10% 0.05% 0.02% 0.01% 0.01% Reflectivity 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 Lifetime years 20 25 25 25 30 30 Thermal Storage Cost ($/kWht) ------ ------ 25 15 10 10 Round-trip efficiency ------ ------ 0.80 0.90 0.95 0.95 9 Figure 2.2: Parabolic Trough Power Plant with Hot and Cold Tank Thermal Storage System and Oil Steam Generator13 with 2,500 Euro/kWe installed (~US$2200/kWe). capital and levelized costs, with substantial reductions Projected electricity costs for a planned 50 MW para- apparent for the plant with the largest solar field. bolic trough plant at a Southern European site with Similarly, the analysis showed that plants might be annual insolation of 2400 kWh/m2a, such as on the built cheaper in other parts of the world than in the island of Crete, are 14 Euro cents/kWh (12 US¢/kWh) United States. In a pre-feasibility study for a STP in pure solar mode without any grant, or at 18 Euro plant in Brazil, it was estimated that the construction cents/kWh (16 US¢/kWh) at a site with 2000 cost of a 100 MW Rankine-cycle STP is $3,270/kWe kWh/m2a like Southern Spain. However, in hybrid in the U.S. and 19 percent lower at $2,660 in Brazil mode, with up to 49 percent fossil-based power (if import taxes are removed),18 with savings in labor, production, the electricity costs could drop to as low materials, and, to some extent, equipment costs. A as 8 Euro cents/kWh (7 US¢/kWh). number of the parties interested in building GEF project facilities have indicated that utilizing local 27. A study initiated by the World Bank16 to assess the labor and manufacturing capabilities in India, Egypt, cost reduction potential for STP shows similar cost Morocco, and Mexico will be key to bidding at a low estimates (Table 2.4), with the exception of estimates cost for the plants. for the ISCCS. In that study, the methodology used tends to penalize the ISCCS configuration by Central Receivers requiring the system to operate at a 50 percent annual capacity factor and then penalizing the solar for the 28. Despite the fact that central receiver projects inefficient use of natural gas. As Price and Carpenter17 represent a higher degree of technology risk than the note, a comparison at a 25 percent annual capacity more mature parabolic troughs, there have been a factor would show a much larger cost reduction for the number of demonstrations in various parts of the ISCCS system over the Rankine-cycle plant. Table world, and plans are underway for the first commer- 2.21b also shows the effect of size on the near-term cial plant. Among the demonstrations was the 10 successful pilot application of central receiver tech- efficiency and an annual plant availability of over 90 nology, with steam as the transfer medium, at the Solar percent12. This technology is close to being commer- One plant operated from 1982-1988 at Barstow, cially ready, and a joint venture between Ghersa California. A 10 MWe Solar Two plant, redesigned (Spain) and Bechtel (U.S.), with further subcon- from Solar One, was operated from 1997 to 1999, tracting work from Boeing (U.S.), is hoping to build successfully demonstrating advanced molten-salt the first commercial central receiver plant with the power technology. The energy storage system for help of EU and Spanish grants. This proposed 10 Solar Two consisted of two 875,000 liter storage tanks MWe Solar Tres plant to be built in Cordoba, Spain, with a system thermal capacity of 110 MWht. The will utilize the molten-salt storage technology to run low-cost, molten-salt storage system allowed solar on a 24-hours-per-day basis.20 energy to be collected during sunlight hours and dispatched as high-value electric power at night or 30. The European concept of central receivers, under when demanded by the utility.19 The "dispatchability" the project name PHOEBUS, is based on the volu- of electricity from a molten-salt central receiver is metric air receiver design. In this case, solar energy is illustrated in Figure 2.22a, where storage means that, absorbed on fine-mesh screens and immediately in the sunbelt regions of the U.S., the plant can meet transferred to air as the working fluid with a temper- demand for the whole of the summer peak periods ature range of 700 to 1,200°C reached. This concept (afternoon, due to air conditioners, and evening). The was successfully demonstrated in Spain in the mid- last two summers in California and elsewhere have 1990s, and companies such as Abengoa (Spain) and highlighted the need for capacity that can cover these Steinmüller (Germany) have expressed interest in high-peak and correspondingly high-priced periods. In commercializing this technology, with the Planta developing countries, this storage capability may be Solar (PS10) 10 MWe project utilizing energy storage even more important, with peak times occurring only near Seville, Spain.21 during the evening. 31. As with parabolic troughs, efforts are underway to 29. This concept is the basis for U.S. efforts in central develop early commercial central receiver solar plants receiver plant commercialization with a potential for using solar/fossil hybrid systems, especially in the more than 15 percent annual solar-to-electric plant ISCCS mode. Presently, however, the ISCCS config- Table 2.4: Parabolic Trough Solar Thermal Power Plant Characteristics16 Near-Term Mid-Term Long-Term (Next Plant Built) (~5 Years) (~10 Years) Power cycle Rankine Rankine ISCCS Rankine Rankine Rankine Solar field (000 m2) 193 1210 183 1151 1046 1939 Storage (hours) 0 0 0 0 0 10 Solar capacity (MW) 30 200 30 200 200 200 Total capacity (MW) 30 200 130 200 200 200 Solar capacity factor 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 50% Annual solar efficiency 12.5% 13.3% 13.7% 14.0% 16.2% 16.6% Capital cost ($/kW) U.S. plant 3500 2400 3100 2100 1800 2500 International 3000 2000 2600 1750 1600 2100 O&M cost ($/kWh) 0.023 0.011 0.011 0.009 0.007 0.005 Solar LEC ($/kWh) 0.166 0.101 0.148 0.080 0.060 0.061 11 Figure 2.3: Dispatched Electricity from dation of installed plant capital costs in the order of Molten-Salt Central Receivers 2700 Euro/kWe ($2,500/kWe) for power tower plant with Rankine-cycle and small energy storage system, with the range of predicted total plant electricity costs of about 20-14 Euro cents/kWh (17 to 12 US¢/kWh)15. Capital costs for the Solar Tres plant are estimated at 84 million Euros (US$70 million), with annual oper- ating costs of about 2 million Euros (US$1.7 million)22. The World Bank study16 indicates higher estimated costs for near-term central receiver plants expected in the range of US$3,700/kWe (next 130 MWe ISCCS plant with 30 MWe solar capacity with storage) to US$2,800/kWe (next 100 MWe Rankine- cycle plant with storage) with the range of predicted total plant electricity costs of about 14 to 12 US$/kWe. uration favors the lower temperature of the trough designs. One concept undergoing demonstration in Parabolic Dishes Israel features a secondary reflector on the tower top that directs solar energy to ground level, where it is 34. Since efforts in the 1970s and 1980s by companies collected in a high-temperature air receiver for use in such as Advanco Corporation and McDonnell a gas turbine. Coupling the output of the high-temper- Douglas Aerospace Corporation, there have been a ature solar system to a gas turbine could allow higher number of developments made in parabolic dish tech- efficiency than current steam turbine applications, nology. In the early 1990s, Cummins Engine faster start-up times, lower installation and operating Company attempted to commercialize a dish system expenses, and perhaps a smaller, more modular based on a free-piston Stirling engine. However, after system.10 running into technical difficulties and a change of corporate decision, the company cancelled its solar 32. Heliostats represent the largest single capital development activities in 1996. A number of demon- investment ($100-200/m2) in a central receiver plant, stration systems have been built in recent years and efforts continue to improve designs with better through collaboration between SAIC and Stirling optical properties, lighter structure, and better control. Thermal Motors (STM), including the 25 kWe APS II Activities include the 150-m2 heliostat developed by stretched-membrane dish installed in 1998 in the Advanced Thermal Systems (USA), the 170-m2 helio- United States for the Arizona Public Service stat developed by Science Applications International Company. Scaling up development work continues Corporation (SAIC) (USA), the 150-m2 stretched- with the aim of producing a 1 MW dish system for the membrane ASM-150 heliostat of Steinmüller U.S. utility environment. A number of states (e.g., (Germany), and the 100-m2 glass/metal GM-100 Arizona and Nevada) are planning to use the APS heliostat in Spain.10 Initiatives to develop low-cost systems in meeting the requirements of their manufacturing techniques for early commercial low- Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS). volume builds are also underway, and price levels for manufacture in a developing country are expected to 35. A number of demonstration projects are also in be roughly 15 percent below the U.S./European costs. place in Europe, with six 9-10 kWe Schlaich As with many STP components, the price should be Bergmann & Partner (SBP) dishes at the PSA in brought down significantly through economies of Spain, accumulating over 30,000 operating hours. A scale in manufacture, shown in Figure 2.22b. 25 kWe dish developed by Stirling Engine Systems (SES) using a McDonnell Douglas design also is to be 33. As far as estimating central receiver costs is installed in Spain. Solargen (U.K.) is developing 25 concerned, there is less information than for parabolic and 100 kWe generation systems with heat receivers trough systems. In Europe, near-term central receiver tracking the sun while the mirrors remain fixed. This project developments in Spain have indicated the vali- allows for a low-cost collector with temperatures 12 Figure 2.4: Heliostat Price as a Function $2000/kWe and $1200/kWe to gain any significant of Annual Production Volume16 market uptake.25 For initial market areas, such as distributed generation, reliability and O&M costs will be crucial factors that need further R&D. Conclusions 38. Overall, it is clear that parabolic trough plants are the most mature STP technology available today and the technology most likely to be used for near-term deployments. This conclusion is highlighted in Table 5 by the larger number of trough projects in develop- ment. Although this technology is the cheapest solar technology, there are still significant areas for improvement and cost-cutting. Central receivers, with low cost and efficient thermal storage, promise to offer dispatchable, high-capacity factor, solar-only plants in the near future, and are very close to commercializa- generated at 1000°C.23 In another development, the tion. If the European projects (Table 2.3) show Australian government is funding a 2.6 MWe plant, successful demonstration and are able to be run using 18 of its "Big Dish" technology, to be added to commercially, central receivers may well be a 2640 MW coal-fired plant near Sydney, and prom- competing with trough plants in the mid-term. While ising a peak efficiency of over 37 percent solar-to-net the modular nature of parabolic dish systems will allow them to be used in smaller high-value and off- electricity. The dishes will generate steam at high grid remote applications for deployment in the temperatures and pressures for direct injection to the medium to long term, further development and field- turbine's steam cycle.24 testing will be needed to exploit the significant poten- tial for cost-cutting through economies of 36. Once again, parabolic dish system commercial- manufacture. ization may well be aided by use in a hybrid mode. Hybrid operation, however, presents a greater chal- 39. Scaling-up of plants will, undoubtedly, reduce the lenge for systems using Stirling engines, with hybrid cost of solar electricity from STP plants, as was seen dish/Stirling systems currently running in an either/or with the larger 80 MW Luz plants. Studies have shown mode (either solar or gas), or using two engines, one that doubling the size reduces the capital cost by dedicated to the solar system and one to generate from approximately 12-14 percent, through economies of gas. Gas turbine based systems may present a more scale due to increased manufacturing volume, and efficient integrated hybrid system. O&M for larger plants will be typically less on a per- kilowatt basis.12 Current cost estimates, however, are 37. Dish system costs are currently extremely high at still highly speculative with no plants built for nearly around $12,000/kWe, with near-term units estimated a decade. As shown in Table 2.3, a number of projects at $6,500/kWe (at 100 units/year production rate) have been proposed and are in various stages of devel- based on the SBP 9-10 kWe.15 However, in the opment. If built as planned, these plants will yield medium to long term, these costs are expected to fall valuable learning experience and a clear indication of drastically, with a growing number of dish systems today's cost and the potential for cost reductions in the produced in series. A recent study estimated utility next generation of STP plants. market potential for dish systems in the U.S. for 2002, and concluded that cost will need to fall between 13 Table 2.5: Current Solar Thermal Projects in Development Name/Location Total Solar Cycle Companies/Funding Capacity Capacity (MWe) (MWe) Parabolic Troughs THESEUS – Crete, Greece 50 50 Steam cycle Solar Millennium Flabeg Solar Int. Fichtner, OADYK, EU grant under FP 5 ANDASOL – Almeria, Spain 32 32 Direct Steam GAMESA Energia + EU/Spanish grants EUROtrough Kuraymat, Egypt 137 36 ISCCS Open for IPP bids GEF grant Ain Beni Mathar, Morocco 180 26 ISCCS Open for IPP bids GEF grant Baja California 291 40 ISCCS Open for IPP bids Norte, Mexico GEF grant Mathania, India 140 35 ISCCS Open for IPP bids GEF grant, KfW loan Nevada, USA 50 50 SEGS Green pricing, consortium for renew energy park incl. 3 major energy companies Stanwell Power Stn 1440 5 Compact Austa Energy & Stanwell Corp Queensland, Australia Linear Fresnel + Australian government grant Reflector Central Receivers Planta Solar (PS10), 10 10 Volumetric air Abengoa (Spain) group with partners (PS10), Seville, Spain receiver/ incl. Steinmuller + EU/Spanish energy storage grants/subsidy Solar Tres, Cordoba, Spain 15 15 Molten-salt/ Ghersa (Spain) and Bechtel/Boeing direct-steam (U.S.) EU/Spanish grant/subsidy Parabolic Dishes SunCal 2000, Huntingdon 0.4 0.4 8-dish/Stirling Stirling Energy Systems (SES) Big Beach, California, USA system Big Dish, Eraring Power 2.6 2.6 18 Big Dishes ANUTECH (incl. Australian National Power Station, near in association University, Pacific Power and Transfield) Sydney, Australia with coal plant + Australian government grant 14 3. Solar Thermal Power Projects Supported by the GEF 40. Since the Pilot Phase of the GEF in 1991, STP India has been seen as a technology that the GEF could support, and a possible project in India was 41. This project, first considered in the late 1980s, has approved by the GEF Council in 1996. Since then, been "on and off" a number of times over the last three more projects have been approved. With the decade, but through the persistence of the KfW projects now at various stages of development, this (Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau), GEF, and other section will review the four projects and their expe- parties, it is finally back on track to be one of the few rience to date. STP plants to be built since 1990. Table 3.1: The Portfolio of Solar Thermal Projects Supported by the GEF Location Expected Size Project Type Cost Status through Anticipated Technology (millions US$) January 2001 Date of Operation Mathania, Naphtha-fired 140 MW Greenfield: Total: $245 Pre-qualification, 2004 ISCCS Solar BOO (5 yrs) $49-GEF, $150 December 2000. (Trough) component: loan from KfW, GEF Block-C 35 MW, $20-Indian grant approved Solar field: government, 219 000 m2 balance from private IPP Ain Beni Natural 180 MW Merchant IPP: Total: $200 Project award 2004 Mathar, gas-fired Solar BOO/BOOT $50-GEF, planned for Morocco ISCCS component: balance from mid-2002 (Trough) 26 MW private IPP Kuraymat, Natural 137 MW Merchant IPP: Total: $140-225 Pre-qualification, 2003-2004 Egypt gas-fired Solar BOO/BOOT $40-50-GEF, May 2000. CCGT based; component balance from GEF Block-C Technology 36MW private IPP, risk grant approved Open (Trough guarantee from or Tower) IRBD Baja Natural 291 MW Merchant IPP: Total: $185 GEF Block-B 2005 California gas-fired Solar BOO $50-GEF, grant approved Norte, ISCCS component: balance from Mexico (Trough) 40 MW private IPP 15 42. In 1990, a feasibility study for a 30 MW STP ciently met their objectives to continue forward with project to be built at Mathania village near Jodhpur in the project. Rajasthan was carried out by the German engineering consultants, Fichtner, with assistance from the KfW. 45. Consequently, the World Bank, as a GEF imple- The study established the technical feasibility of such menting agency, and the KfW entered into a cooper- a project at this location, and, in 1994, Bharat Heavy ative agreement designating KfW as an executing Electricals Ltd. prepared a detailed project report for agency for administration of GEF grants. In addition a 35 MW demonstration project at Mathania. In light to the GEF commitment of US$49 million towards the of the GEF's interest in projects of this nature, the project, KfW has committed the equivalent of a $150 detailed project report was submitted to the GEF with million loan (partly soft loan, partly commercial loan), a request for funding under its climate change and the Indian government will contribute a little over program. The German government was also $10 million. In June 2000, the Rajasthan State Power approached for extending loan assistance as they had Corporation Ltd (RSPCL) advertised for parties inter- expressed interest in the project.26 ested in bidding for the contract to build a 140 MW hybrid naphtha/solar ISCCS plant to be sited at 43. In 1995, Engineers India Ltd. (EIL) completed a Mathania, with a 219,000 m2 parabolic trough field28. comprehensive feasibility study for the project, after The tender is at the pre-qualification stage and appli- which EIL and Fichtner evaluated the option of inte- cations were due December 4, 2000. The project may grating the solar thermal unit (35-40 MW) with a begin in July 2001, and is expected to be complete by fossil fuel based, combined-cycle power plant for a 2004. total of 140 MW, at a cost of around US$200-240 million. Since the selected site had no access to natural 46. The on-and-off nature of this project can be attrib- gas, the choice of the auxiliary system and fuel choice uted to a common factor in many projects where was left open, with suggestions including naptha and government-owned monopolies are involved. That is, low sulphur heavy stock (LSHS). In Rajasthan's Thar projects involving government-owned utilities, such desert region, insolation per square meter was meas- as RSPCL, are vulnerable to changes in government, ured reaching 6.4 kW/h daily, a figure believed to be which have led to the delay or termination of a number the highest in the world.26 of large energy projects. On top of this, bureaucracy in India continues to delay the project, and the signing 44. The project approved for funding by the GEF in of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) has been early 1996 floundered due to a number of disagree- difficult because of the current high cost of liquid fuel ments between various parties over financial and and the poor financial state of the off-taker. Pre-qual- policy matters. When these disagreements were finally ification for this project has resulted in lower interest resolved, the project was up and running again until than expected from IPP/STP developers, with only 1999, when it hit another hurdle. The "ISCCS crisis" six pre-qualification bids, of which three should was triggered when a U.S. SunLab analysis indicated qualify (N.B. Final decision will be made by RSPCL, that an efficient combined-cycle plant with 9 percent March 2001). The reasons for hesitation from those solar contribution might only offset 0.5 percent of interested in building STP plants can be attributed to carbon emissions as a result of inefficient duct- the fact that, unlike the other three GEF projects, this burning during non-solar hours.27 In a meeting in is not an IPP project29. The potential profits from a September 1999, the Mathania issue was discussed by state-owned plant project, compared to an IPP project, representatives of the World Bank/GEF, KfW, are smaller due to state control of prices, but the Fichtner, Bechtel, and SunLab. Fichtner, as the project risks are still comparatively high. consultant to KfW, presented a detailed analysis showing much higher carbon reduction figures than Morocco SunLab's and suggested the discrepancy was due to simplifying assumptions used in the latter's analysis. 47. This project has been developed in a relatively Based on the Fichtner analysis, the World Bank and short time, with progression being relatively smooth GEF concluded that the Mathania ISCCS plant suffi- compared to the Mathania project, having already 16 been the subject of a four-year, pre-feasibility study 50. In 1996, Egypt was the venue for the first IEA carried out by Pilkington Solar International. The pre- SolarPACES START* Mission, which provided a feasibility study, funded by the EU, provided an valuable international perspective on the suitability of economic analysis of 11 designs at selected sites. The STP for Egypt. In 1998, a GEF grant was awarded to project involves constructing and operating a NREA, and a multinational consortium led by solar/fossil fuel hybrid station of around 120 MW, Lahmeyer International prepared a pre-feasibility with the site expected to be Ain Beni Mathar in the study for this project, named Hybrid Solar Fossil northeastern Jerada province. The project includes Thermal (HSFT). Pre-qualification was carried out in integrating a parabolic trough collector field to May 2000, with 11 consortia submitting proposals. produce a minimum energy output with a natural gas- Among the bidders were well-known companies such fired combined cycle, and it will be sited close to the as BP Amoco, ABB, Duke Energy, ENEL, new gas pipeline from Algeria to Spain.30 The Mahrubeni, Bechtel,5 as well as the established solar Independent Power Producer (IPP) will be secured thermal plant developers and component manufac- through either a Build Own Operate and Transfer turers, such as Solel and Flabeg Solar International. (BOOT) or Build Own Operate (BOO) scheme, with the final design and choice of technology for this 51. The Egyptian government has endorsed NREA's project to be relatively open, with power plant config- long-term solar thermal program, and planning is uration and sizing chosen by the project sponsors after underway for two subsequent 300 MW hybrid fossil competitive bidding. The open specification will STP plants expected to come online in 2007 and ensure that the resulting design is more likely to be 2009.32 The absolute engagement of NREA and the replicated by the private sector in the future. support of the Egyptian Electrical Authority (EEA) and Ministry of Energy have been recognized as keys 48. A pre-feasibility study was presented to the GEF to the project's success thus far. To gain the support Council in the form of a project brief in May 1999. of the EEA and Ministry of Energy, as well as inter- The Moroccan state utility, the Office National de national development agencies, NREA had conducted l'Electricité (ONE) has contracted consultants who a very effective series of activities investigating are preparing the project request for proposals (RFP), national solar thermal potential, national technology which is expected to go out for bidding some time in capacity and industrial resources, and the resulting mid-2001.31 ONE will conclude negotiations of the implications for the national energy plan.30 power purchase, fuel supply, and implementation agreements with the selected IPP. For this project, the Mexico power output from the solar-based power plant component will be monitored throughout the project's 52. A solar thermal dissemination mission co-spon- life by concerned parties under the corresponding sored by IEA SolarPACES and the Comisión Federal contractual covenants. de Electricidad (CFE), a government ministry, was conducted in October 1998 in Mexico City. Thirty-one Egypt experts attended the dissemination mission from Europe and the United States, and, within Mexico, 49. This project has also been developed relatively from the CFE, industrial firms, and the Mexican solar smoothly to date. In 1994, the Egyptian New and energy research community.29 Interest was shown on Renewable Energy Authority (NREA) prepared a all sides for a possible solar thermal project as part of Bulk Renewable Energy Electricity Production CFE's expansion plan, under which up to 500 MW each of combined-cycle gas turbine systems would Program (BREEPP), which focused mainly on solar come online in 2004 at Laguna or Hermosillio, and, thermal power. A project was proposed for a first plant in 2005, at Cerro Prieto. involving the construction of a solar/fossil fuel hybrid power station in the range of 80-150 MW to be imple- 53. In August 1999, the World Bank and the CFE mented through a BOOT or BOO contract with an IPP. selected Spencer Management Associates (SMA) to * START = Solar Thermal Anaylsis, Review, and Training 17 conduct a study on the economic viability and tech- CFE in February 2001 to clarify the project's future nical feasibility of integrating a solar parabolic trough with hopes that will come online in 2005.33 with a CCGT at the Cerro Prieto, Baja Norte, site owned by CFE. The study was presented to the GEF 55. Again, this project, like the one in India, highlights Council in November 1999 in the form of a project the vulnerability of government-owned utilities, such brief, and was approved for entry into the GEF Work as CFE, to changes in government that may affect Program in December 1999. projects already in the pipeline. However, prospects for the resumption and subsequent completion of this 54. Since then, the project has experienced some project are good. One excellent advantage of this delays due to restructuring in the power sector project is the fact that Mexico has a well-developed required by the World Bank and, more recently, the industrial base and skilled labor force with the poten- presidential elections, which put government support tial to manufacture domestically most of the solar for the project in doubt. The CFE was supposed to be plant's equipment and components. This would lower preparing the documents for bidding from December the total cost and possibly increase manufacturing of 2000, but this has now been delayed. Signs are that the solar thermal components for other plants around the new government in Mexico is supportive of the world. Mexican companies have already been manu- project, and there will be a high-level mission between facturing parabolic collectors for the Luz installations the World Bank, the Secretariat of Energy, and the and have demonstrated their ability to meet interna- tional quality standards. 18 4. Relevance and Linkages of GEF Projects to Trends "Perhaps the most significant event of this decade to 57. As identified earlier in this report, a small but not help spur the commercial deployment of STP tech- insignificant number of both demonstration and nology..." commercial projects are now being planned and developed in the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere for This was the response of an official from the U.S. which a number of financing methods (including National Renewable Laboratory reporting on a 1999 grants, subsidies, green pricing, etc,) have been found decision of the GEF secretariat to move forward with or are being pursued by consortia such as some US$200 million funding support for the first Bechtel/Ghersa, the Abengoa group, and the Solar phases of projects in India, Egypt, Morocco, and Millennium Group* to cover the present high cost of Mexico.34 this technology. Similarly, the strong response to pre- qualification requests for projects in Egypt and, to a 56. The main and clearest observation of this report is lesser extent, in India, have already shown that the that by showing support for STP with these four proj- GEF program is cultivating IPP developers with the ects, the GEF is lending credibility to the technology, potential to lead industry teams that will build, own, creating fresh interest, and positively affecting the and operate new plants—an approach fully consis- development of other projects in both the developed tent with the recent paradigm of liberalization in the and developing world. Industry, governments, and electricity industry. research organizations are now anticipating a possible revival in the STP industry through construction of the 58. In developing regions, the four GEF-supported GEF-supported plants. GEF support has helped put projects have created interest in a number of other STP technology on the agenda of other organizations countries, including South Africa, Namibia, Brazil, and given credence to or helped expand ongoing STP Iran, and Jordan, all of which may take further steps R&D and commercialization programs in Europe, the in developing similar projects if STP technology is United States, Israel, and Australia. Consequently, a successfully demonstrated in these projects. If the great deal of R&D and commercialization work has GEF projects are implemented successfully, then followed the Luz projects, and improvements in tech- some of these countries will endeavor to gain funding nology components, designs, and project implemen- from a number of sources, that, in addition to the GEF, tation approaches have continued in the last decade. include equity investors and organizations that have * The Solar Millennium Group functions as project manager to several companies and partnerships to finance STP technology R&D, identify and qualify possible locations for STP projects, and finally prepare the financing and construction of STP plants. The group has been involved in developing a number of projects in Spain, Greece, and elsewhere. Partners include Flabeg, Schlaich Bergermann, Fichtner, DLR, and Solel. 19 already shown initial interest. Similarly, there are (b) Cost reduction and innovation of STP tech- signs that successful implementation of STP projects nology that yields costs competitive with other in India, Egypt, Mexico, and Morocco may lead to power generation technologies further projects in these countries. Egypt, for example, is already at the planning stage for two further projects (c) Wider take up of STP throughout the world. as part of an ambitious program for STP. If costs fall dramatically in the next decade, through wider take It is important, now, to look more closely at how the up, STP may become a common choice for many GEF portfolio is progressing towards meeting these countries with high solar insolation, especially if goals, and suggest how these might be achieved in a "Kyoto mechanisms," such as the Clean Development more effective manner. Mechanism (CDM) come to fruition. Experience So Far 59. Overall, the GEF can take substantial credit for giving life to an industry that was in danger of stag- 60. There are no quantifiable effects on costs and no nating, and providing the impetus to what is hoped significant learning experience from any of the GEF will be a successful path towards commercializing projects so far. It is still too early in the evolution of one or more STP technologies. Despite these positive the STP portfolio, though all of the projects have had observations, however, the projects themselves and pre-feasibility studies completed. These studies, the aims of this GEF program still have a long way including the World Bank Cost Reduction Study, are to go. The three broad goals by which success can be based on similar information (as referenced in the measured are: earlier international trends section) and on experience gained from the Luz plants. Data from the Luz plants, (a) Successful implementation and demonstration for which the experience curve, shown in Figure 4.1a, of STP in a developing country environment is downwards and reported to have a progress ratio of 85 percent,2 could be misleading. Data charted was for Figure 4.1: SEGS Plant Levelized Electricity Cost (LEC) Experience Curve as a Function of Cumulative Megawatts Installed17 20 actual financed price, design plant performance, and proposed technologies, competition, and so forth, an estimate of the necessary O&M costs rather than some initial indications of which have been shown in the actual plant costs. Adjusted for this, the experience pre-qualification. curve would be lower.16 62. It is clear that the GEF projects will lower the 61. Other information for deciding on a starting point costs of STP to some extent in the near term, but it is cost for the next plant ultimately stems from the "best still uncertain how far down the experience curve guesses" of equipment suppliers involved in the Luz these four projects will take STP. Interestingly, when SEGS projects, which can be traced back to a handful the GEF approved the four STP projects for financing, of individuals based largely in Israel, Germany, and there was no major framework or clear path set out for the U.S. This information is all relatively dated since cost reduction intended by these projects. Also the no new plants have been tendered for almost a decade, GEF cannot guarantee that all four projects will be and no new information will be available until the successfully completed, and it is conceivable that only bidding process, forthcoming in 2001, is underway one, two, or three will be built. This lack of guarantee, for at least two of the projects. However, for solar however, is true of most large energy projects in devel- field investment, where at least 75 percent of the cost oping regions. is tied up in the heat collection elements (HCEs), mirrors, and structure, reasonable cost data is available 63. Table 4.1 below gives the market diffusion steps today mostly because of spare parts being purchased for STP plants, of which STP can be understood to be at the Kramer Junction plants.35 The bidding process at Step 4, although some of the technology types, e.g., will undoubtedly provide new market-based informa- dish/engines and thermal storage for troughs, are not tion on costs, risks, appetites to construct plants, yet at this stage. The programmatic aims of the GEF Table 4.1: General Market Diffusion Steps for Solar Thermal Power Plants16 Step 1: Research and Development – A new technology is explored at a small scale and evaluated for the potential to be significantly better than existing approaches. Step 2: Pilot-Scale Operations – System-level testing of components provides proof of concept and vali- dates predicted component interactions and system operating characteristics. The size of operations is sufficient to allow relative engineering scale-up to commercial-size applications. Step 3: Commercial Validation Plants – Construction and long-term operation of early projects in a commercial environment validates the business and economic validity of the design, and provides an element of economic risk reduction that goes beyond that accomplished at pilot scale. Step 4: Commercial Niche Plants – Sales of technology into high-valued market applications that support the technology costs enable costs to be reduced with learning, manufacturing economies of scale, and product improvements. Step 5: Market Expansion – As cost decreases and other attributes improve, sales become possible in a broader range of market applications. The expanded market further reduces cost. Step 6: Market Acceptance – The technology becomes competitive with conventional alternatives and becomes the desired choice in its market. The cost of the technology levels out and the market reaches maturity. 21 Figure 4.2: Market Introduction of STP Technologies with Initial Subsidies and Green Power Tariffs36 portfolio, however, are to move STP through Steps 4 performance of individual projects. It signals to devel- to 6. Four projects are unlikely to take STP that far in opers and industry serious support for the future of the terms of experience and cost (to Steps 5 and 6). technology. Most importantly, having a number of However, if, as is already being shown, these projects projects in development could lead to greater cost- influence a number of other projects financed from cutting and learning experience, through cross- various sources, the impact could and should be learning from one project to another during various greatly enhanced. As Figure 4.1b shows, a large stages of development, and also through the potential amount of grants and subsidies will be needed to bring of lowering manufacturing costs by aggregating the cost of STP down towards competitive levels. This components for more than one project. step should not be borne by the GEF alone, and efforts to coordinate projects through combined and other 66. The potential for cross-learning can be dimin- funding should definitely be pursued. ished, however, by the present bunching of projects. If, as is possible, projects are all built around the same 64. Without further information from the bidding time, lessons learned from one project may not be process, it is difficult to suggest any useful redesign of passed on to the next project. At worst, this leaves a the current programmatic approaches. However, there possibility that the STP costs for the last project built are a number of issues still worth considering that can could be more expensive than the first. However, be augmented and assessed as further information delays that have occurred in the India and Mexico becomes available with the progression of the STP projects have not been through GEF's actions, but portfolio. Some of these issues, discussed below, rather through problems associated with developing would also benefit from discussion among the wider and implementing large energy projects in developing "STP community," with a view to finding the best countries, especially in dealing with government- path towards commercialization, of which GEF proj- owned utilities, whose personnel and support for proj- ects are a key part. ects can disappear with changes within the government itself. Because of World Bank require- Project Sequencing ments for certain restructuring commitments by donor countries—such as in the case of Mexico—and 65. The portfolio approach of the GEF programs has changing politics within those countries, these delays a number of advantages. It reduces the risk of non- are often unavoidable and make proper sequencing 22 difficult. In these cases, it would also be unfair to plants, with cost-reduction incentives included in the make one country wait to implement its STP project, terms over the course of the work. This could be desir- while delays are occurring elsewhere. Bearing this in able in terms of reaping maximum learning experi- mind, it is important that GEF implementing agencies ence and lowering costs over the course of building are fully aware of the STP portfolio's programmatic the four plants. nature. Ideally, they should seek, in the very early stages of project planning and development, to build 69. This issue, however, is debatable because one of as much support as possible within relevant client the aims of the program is to help expand the STP country agencies, energy departments, and utilities to market by encouraging a number of competitive IPP- sustain the project from start to finish. led consortia capable of developing further projects. To support this aim, GEF projects would be better off Cross-learning from One Project to Another encouraging low electricity prices and a competitive industry for STP plant development through compet- 67. As noted above, the portfolio approach of the GEF itive bidding for each individual project. These proj- allows for cross-learning from one project to another. ects would then encourage at least two or even four However, at the present stages in the STP projects' consortia to gain learning experience in building STP development, there seems to have been very little plants, thereby creating a more competitive environ- input from project to project. Although all the parties ment, which again helps lower costs. This issue should involved certainly know of the other projects, minimal be explored further before planning or financing any cooperation or dialogue has been observed, except further projects. where World Bank staff have been advising on more than one project. To gain maximum learning experi- Leaving Technology Choice to Developers ence from the GEF portfolio, efforts must be made at various stages to assess and disseminate information 70. It is in the interest of GEF's goals for cost-cutting for all the projects and share this information between and learning experience that the design and tech- projects. It is important to note at this early stage, nology be left as much as possible to the competitive there is only a little that can be learned from the STP bids, keeping in mind the perceived technology risks. projects, and the real opportunities for cross-learning It is clear and well-documented that large public should occur once consortia have been selected for organizations do not tend to be good at picking tech- one or more of the projects. Furthermore, the GEF nology winners, and ultimately, the market is better at should take a lead role in facilitating this cross- deciding whether various parabolic trough or central learning process. receiver configurations will become market leaders. While for these projects, GEF incremental cost grants One Consortium Building All Four Projects will lower project risk, many investors still consider STP to be a new technology and are often unfamiliar 68. The potential for cost-cutting can be increased with recent advances in designs. Presently, all STP through the mass procurement of solar components for technologies require a risk premium on both equity multiple plants, with economies of manufacture and a and debt over rates charged to conventional power high incentive for lowering manufacturing costs. Cost technologies. To minimize technology risk, it is reductions in components through mass procurement important to utilize a technology design very similar have already been shown to some extent for the SEGS to the existing SEGS facilities and to show how plants, but much greater reductions are possible, espe- performance expectations can be justified from real cially if manufacturing capability can be achieved in plant operational experience. It is expected that the some developing countries. This scenario of mass substantial operating experience gained at these plants procurement, however, may happen unintentionally will help minimize the premium charged for debt and for the GEF projects, with relative monopolies present equity.37 If, as may happen, the solar thermal industry for parabolic trough components, such as HCEs, and is re-established with parabolic trough technology, mirrors. Similarly, there are a number of advantages much learning can be transferred from trough tech- that could be gained by allowing all interested nology to power towers because there are significant consortia to bid once to win the contract for all four similarities. 23 71. With this in mind, there is a perception from some solar component. For the India project, evaluation of parts of the private sector that some projects' requests bids will be based on the so-called "levelized elec- for proposals (RFPs) may constrain bids relative to the tricity cost (LEC) adjusted for solar share," i.e., a type and configuration of the STP plant. It was stated factor >1 will be given for solar-generated electricity. early on in the project briefs that the choice of tech- Consultants preparing the contract have devised a nology would be left open to the IPP developers. formula requiring that, during operation, the operator Efforts must be taken by the implementing agencies to generate as much solar power as it offered for the make sure that this is followed through to the RFP, or contract, corrected for the actual meteorological innovation in design and improved components could conditions, and reflected in the operating fee.29 For the be suppressed. Although risks may be deemed higher Mexico project, the consultants, Spencer Management for central receiver designs, IPP developers may be Associates, have advised that bids submitted should willing to take on that risk and bid a convincingly be evaluated not only on cost and meeting the tech- robust design at a competitive price. Bids of this nical requirements of the RFP, but also on: nature using alternative designs to the SEGS plants should certainly be assessed on their merits. (a) Maximizing the annual MWh produced from the solar thermal field (50 percent weight) Maximizing the Solar Component for Hybrid Projects (b) Maximizing the total MWe installed of solar thermal technology (30 percent weight) 72. As shown from the pre-qualification process in Egypt, where 10-11 consortia showed interest in (c) Maximizing the annual MWh produced from constructing the 120 MW plant, there is already a the solar thermal field as a function of the total great deal of interest. Some of this can be attributed to MWh produced from the CCGT (20 percent the involvement of the GEF and the existence of the weight).38 grant for incremental costs. But the substantial interest also is due to the fact that the likely technology, the 75. Other methods have been suggested for the other gas-fired, combined-cycle configuration, is a fully projects, including giving the GEF grant as a loan, mature technology that has attracted a number of whereby the successful consortia that builds and oper- turnkey companies, which have constructed and oper- ates the plant will pay back the loan in solar kWh. It ated these types of IPPs for a number of years, albeit has also been argued that the proper technical opti- without the solar component. mization of integration of the STP component with the CCGT should provide a natural incentive for the oper- 73. This raises an issue critical for the success and ator to maximize use of the STP. Suitable methods to maximum learning from these projects. It is essential ensure a sustainable solar component should be oblig- that measures be undertaken to ensure that the solar atory for the release of GEF grants for these and any component is maximized through the lifetime of the future STP projects. plant. Operating strategies for the present SEGS plants highlight the need for enough incentives to maximize Role of Private Sector and Other Organizations the solar component in the GEF projects. The SEGS in GEF Portfolio III-VII plants at Kramer Junction are operated with a good level of O&M (at significant cost), such as 76. One contradiction with OP 7 is that it is essentially replacing solar components regularly, which keeps country-driven (i.e., it responds only to requests from the plant operating at a high output level. For the recipient countries); however the programmatic aims SEGS III and IV plants at Harper Lake, the operating are globally encompassing. Working within this limi- strategy has lower O&M costs, resulting in lower plant tation, the GEF does not and should not take sole output; in this case around 15% of the mirrors are responsibility for the future "global" development of frequently out of service.4 STP. Therefore, to maximize learning benefits and minimize funding requirements, expanding private 74. Preliminary observations show that efforts are sector interest and maximizing co-funding from non- underway to ensure the sustainable operation of the GEF sources is paramount. For most of the four proj- 24 ects, consultants and STP developers have been essen- (b) STP programs such as the IEA, EU, and U.S. tial for advising host countries and performing the Department of Energy numerous pre-feasibility and project studies in those countries. However, the GEF has had little dialogue (c) Government and utility representatives from with the industry interested in building STP plants, countries and states where future STP power even though the numbers are fairly small. From the plants may be located start of these projects, it would have been more advan- tageous to open dialogue with the private sector on (d) The STP industry how STP could best be advanced towards commer- cialization. Whereas the World Bank's Prototype (e) Interested IPP developers. Carbon Fund is trying to demonstrate the possibilities of public-private partnerships, the GEF has not 78. The end result of such an initiative would be a pursued these possibilities for STP. The GEF has, strategic market intervention leveraging an unprece- however, through cooperation with the KfW, demon- dented volume of venture capital for STP investments strated the advantages of partnerships with other through an alliance of public and private technology funding organizations in the realization of STP projects. sponsors that would help to pull the market through aggregation and economies of scale.39 The GEF's role 77. A number of ways have been suggested for the in STP development could then move to providing GEF and STP commercialization to move forward. It smaller grants, with the remaining incremental costs is clear that more than four STP projects will have to supplied by other sources, or guarantees for future be subsidized in some way, and the STP industry, projects. Guarantees, themselves, can reduce risk potential investors, and other finance organizations surcharges by a rate of 20:1; a guarantee covering 100 would feel more confident about the short- to mid- percent of the investment will reduce the capital cost term future of STP if more projects were supported by by 5 percent.40 GEF. The World Bank study suggests that the GEF would need to provide financial support on the order 79. A global initiative, facilitated by the GEF, should of $350–700 million to fund approximately nine proj- be given serious consideration and developed as soon ects (750 MW).16 However, rather than the GEF as possible, to include these four GEF projects and bearing lone responsibility for the initial commercial- gain maximum learning experience and cost cutting. ization phase, a Global Market Initiative currently being developed could provide a sustained effort towards full STP commercialization, requiring lower financial support from the GEF. Such an initiative could explore some of the issues discussed in this report and other possible market issues, concerns, and approaches through discussion among a wide spec- trum of stakeholders, including: (a) Funding sources, such as the GEF, public banks, commercial lenders, and venture capital providers 25 References 1 Smith, C. (1995) "Revisiting Solar Power's Past." Technology Review, July: pp. 38-47. 2 Lotker, M. (1991) "Barriers to Commercialization of Large-Scale Solar Electricity: Lessons Learned from the Luz Experience." SAND91-7014, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, USA. 3 Cohen, G.E., D.W. Kearney, and H.W. Price (1999) "Performance history and future costs of parabolic trough solar electric systems." Journal de Physique IV, France, Vol. 9, Pt. 3, pp. 169-179. 4 Rib, David (2000) Personal communication, October 2000, Vice President, KJC Operating Company, Kramer Junction, CA, USA. 5 Geyer, M., and V. Quaschning (2000) "Solar Thermal Power – The seamless solar link to the conventional power world." Renewable Energy World, July/August, Vol. 3, No. 4: 184-196. 6 FT Energy (2001) "Italy sets out plan to exploit Mediterranean sun." Renewable Energy Report, Issue 24, 31 January: http://www.online.ftenergy.com/pro…letter/rer/2001/24/re010131_04.xml 7 Suraci, F., and T. Giovanni (1999) "Long distance electric transmission of solar thermal power generation for a sustainable development in the Mediterranean region." J. Phys. IV France, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 711-716. 8 TroughNet (2000) "Spain – Solar Thermal Development on Hold for Law Interpretation." January, Web letter – http://www.eren.doe.gov/troughnet/documents/jan_2000.html#updates. 9 SolarPACES (1999) "Bechtel Corporation: Bringing turnkey management to STP." Industry Focus, IEA SolarPACES Newsletter – http://www.solarpaces.org/newsletter/industry.html 10 International Energy Agency [IEA] (1999) SolarPACES (Solar Power and Chemical Energy Systems) Annual Report 1999. W. Grasse (ed.), DLR: Cologne, Germany. 11 Mills, D., and G. Morrison (2000) "Compact Linear Fresnel Reflector Solar Thermal Power Plants." Solar Energy, Vol. 68, No. 3, pp. 263-283. 12 Price, H., and D. Kearney (1999) "Parabolic-Trough Technology Roadmap – A Pathway for Sustained Commercial Development and Deployment of Parabolic Trough Technology." Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Trough Initiative. NICH Report No. TP-550-24748. 13 USA Trough Initiative (2000) Thermal Storage Oil-to-Salt Heat Exchanger Design and Safety Analysis. Task Order Au. No. KAF-9-29765-09, Nexant, Inc., a Bechtel Technology & Consulting Company: San Francisco, CA, USA. 14 Spencer Management Associates (1996) Integrated Solar Combined Cycle Systems (ISCCS) Using Parabolic Trough Technology. Phase 1B Technical and Financial Review, SMA, Diablo, CA, USA. Bechtel (1998) ISCCS Merchant Plant Design. Prepared for NREL, Golden, CO, USA. Pilkington Solar International (1996) Status Report on Solar Thermal Power Plants. Study sponsored by the German Federal Ministry for Education, Science, Research, and Technology. Flabeg Solar International, Cologne, Germany. 15 Becker, M., W. Meinecke, M. Geyer, F. Trieb, M. Blanco, and A. Ferrière (2000) Solar Thermal Power Plants. Prepared for the EUREC-Agency, drafted version with status of July 24. 16 World Bank (1999) Cost Reduction Study for Solar Thermal Power Plants. Final Report, Enermodal Engineering Ltd., in association with Marbek Resource Consultants: Ottawa, Canada. Report prepared for the World Bank, Washington DC, USA. 17 Price, H., and S. Carpenter (1999) "The Potential for Low-Cost Concentrating Solar Power Systems." Paper presented at the Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, August 1-5. British Columbia, Canada. 18 Cordeiro, P. (1997) "START Mission to Brazil – May 5-9, 1997." Prepared for the International Energy Agency (IEA) Solar Power and Chemical Energy Systems (SolarPACES), Final Report. 19 National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL] (1999) Renewable Energy Characterizations – Solar Power Tower. U.S. Dept. of Energy/NREL, Golden, CO, USA. 20 Gould, Bob (2000) Personal communication, October 17, 2000, Project Manager, Advanced Energy Technology Services, Nexant, San Francisco, CA, USA. 26 21 Geyer, Michael (2000) Personal communication, September 11, 2000, DLR, Cologne, Germany. Head of Division EN-PS, DLR at Plataforma Solar, Tabernas, Spain. 22 Ghersa/Nexant (2000) Solar Tres Fact Sheet – 15 Megawatt Solar Tres Power Tower Commercial Power Plant. June 7, Ghersa, Cadiz, Spain and Nexant, San Francisco, CA, USA. 23 Gaye, Adrian (2000) Personal communication, September 3, 2000, Solargen, Cambridge, England. 24 IEA SolarPACES (1999) "Update on solar power and chemical energy systems." Solar PACES News, Issue 7, September, p.1. http://www.solarpaces.org 25 Eyer, J., and J. Iannucci (1999) "Distributed Utility Perspectives." White Paper prepared for the International Energy Agency's Working Party on Renewable Energy. Distributed Utility Associates, Livermore, CA, USA. 26 World Bank/IFC (1997) Rajasthan Solar Thermal Project. Selective Review of the Bank-GEF. June 30, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA. 27 Williams, Tom (2000) Personal communication, Technology Manager, Concentrating Solar Power Program, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO, October 5, 2000. 28 Global Environment Facility (2000) Solar Thermal Energy Comes to Rajasthan – Technology transfer through an innovative public-private partnership. Global Environment Facility leaflet, June 2000, Washington, DC, USA. 29 Peter Hilliges (2001) Personal communication, February 2001, Project Manager, LIb – India Division, Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW), Frankfurt, Germany. 30 World Bank (1999) Morocco Solar Thermal Project. Project Brief, August 11, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA. 31 Richard Spencer (2000) Personal communication, October 25, 2000, Renewable Energy Specialist, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA. 32 IEA SolarPACES (2000) IEA SolarPACES START Missions: A Case Study for IEA – Draft. M. Geyer, G. Kolb, and P. Cordeiro. 33 Terrado, Ernesto (2000) Personal communication, October 27, 2000, Principal Energy Specialist, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA. 34 IEA SolarPACES (1999) "Global Environment Facility backs solar thermal power." SolarPACES News, Issue 7, September. 35 Morse, Fred, and David Kearney (2001) Personal communication, February 2001, Morse Associates, Washington, DC, USA. 36 SunLAB (2000) http://www.energylan.sandia.gov/sunlab/sunlab.htm. 37 Price, H., and R. Kistner (1999) "Parabolic Trough Solar Power for Competitive U.S. Power Markets." Prepared for the Proceedings of the ASME Renewable and Advanced Energy System for the 21st Century Conference, April 11-14, Maui, HI, USA. 38 World Bank (1999) Mexico Hybrid Solar Thermal Power Plant. Proposal for Review, October 5, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA. 39 Morse Associates (2001) Global Market Initiative for Concentrating Solar Power Technology. Draft document, January, Morse Associates, Washington, DC, USA. 40 Trieb, F. (2000) "Synthesis – A program for Competitive Solar Thermal Power Stations until 2010: The Challenge of Market Introduction." German Aerospace Centre (DLR) – Institute of Technical Thermodynamics, Stuttgart, Germany. Document downloaded from http://www.klimaschutz.com/synth/solmarket.htm, September 2000. 27
Pages to are hidden for
"Climate_Change-Thematic_Rev-Solar_Thermal_Projs"Please download to view full document


text:
It's the holidays, CelticLounge style! To celebrate an amazing year that redefined the Celtic experience online, CelticLounge.com will be throwing a number of holiday parties in and around Manhattan in the weeks ahead.
On Saturday, December 15, the Gobshites will be joining Black 47 at their Saturday night residency in Connolly's (121 West 45th Street between Sixth Avenue and Broadway).
CelticLounge.com's party patrol will be giving out a select number of prize packs that will include t-shirts and Black 47 at Connolly's - New Year's Eve in Times Square, a brand new DVD by the house band of Manhattan!
We'll let the New Year hangover decide before we launch into party mode again on January 5. This time, CelticLounge will be at Maxwell's in Hoboken, New Jersey for a killer bill that includes the Prodigals and Icewagon Flu. Doors open at 8 p.m.
Keep it tuned to CelticLounge.com for more announcements!
Log in with your social accounts:
Or, log in with your IrishCentral account:
Don't have an account yet? Register now !
Join IrishCentral with your social accounts:
Already have an account ? Log in
For Newsletter Subscribers – Draw for 1 Prize on December 31st.
Prize: Your Piece of Ireland – a Square of Land in the heart of the Glens of Antrim, Ireland
More details here (or you can buy a little piece of Ireland directly): http://bit.ly/1zew9ox
Or, sign up for an IrishCentral account below:
Make sure we gathered the correct information from you
You already have an account on IrishCentral! Please confirm you're the owner.
Our new policy requires our users to save a first and last name. Please update your account:

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Bona Traffic Anti-Slip - Need to Decide Fast
kitchenkrazed09February 6, 2011
We have unfinished Santos Mahogany floors that we will have finished with Bona Traffic. I would like a little more shine than the satin, but not as much as the semi-gloss. (My refinisher has recommended against mixing the two.) According to the Bona web site, the Bona Traffic Anti-Slip has a sheen level between the satin and semi-gloss, which would be perfect. Does anyone have experience with the Bona Traffic Anti-Slip? Are there any noticeable differences, problems or warnings with this product? Thanks in advance.