Original article: GUNTHER Portfolio twitter Weekly Updates #Solar #PV – 2013-05-17

©2013 GUNTHER Portfolio. All Rights Reserved.

Original article: GUNTHER Portfolio twitter Weekly Updates #Solar #PV – 2013-05-10

©2013 GUNTHER Portfolio. All Rights Reserved.

Researching eSolar Sierra SunTower: a History of Concentrating Solar Power Underperformance, I adopted a 360 approach dealing with eSolar, Inc. and their communications firm conduit, Antenna Group. In addition to the Sierra SunTower underperformance history, I worked to get updates from each of the key project partners: Penglai Electric, ACME Group, and GE Energy, a business group of the General Electric Company (NYSE:GE).

Penglai Electric deal goes cold
At the end of March 2013, I asked eSolar:

Is any update available on eSolar’s Chinese partner, Penglai Electric?
Perhaps they should be removed from the partner page?
The website link leads to a non-existent site.

A few days later, I was told:

eSolar is in the process of updating its website at the moment. In regard to the partnership with Penglai Electric, Penglai is currently pursuing project opportunities in China and is in the early stages of project development. Their efforts have been focused on securing the appropriate permits for the initial project in China.

This has been the story since the supposed 2 GW (GigaWatt) deal had been announced as “eSolar Partners With Penglai on Landmark Solar Thermal Agreement For China”. Bill Gross was the founder and chairman of eSolar at the time but is no longer listed among the eSolar Board of Directors in contrast to his LinkedIn profile.

Yesterday, when I looked at the eSolar Partners & Customers webpage, Penglai Electric had been removed! However, the press release on the deal remains.

Will the real Penglai Electric please stand up?

ACME Group
In 2009, “eSolar Signs Exclusive License with ACME to Construct 1 Gigawatt of Solar Power Plants in India” resulted in a $30 million investment by the ACME Group for exclusive rights to develop eSolar projects and technology in India. Per the press release, “Construction will start later this year on the first 100 MW of eSolar power plants”. Instead, ACME developed, built, and commissioned 2.5 MW (MegaWatt) of a planned 10 MW project near Bikaner, Rajasthan, India, as I covered before in eSolar Sierra SunTower offline – Again.

View ACME eSolar Thermal Power Plant in a larger map

Credible comments here, here, and here reported on the underperformance of the Bikaner eSolar Tower shown in the Google Map. To confirm these reports, I contacted ACME without result but obtained a copy of the “ACME’s CSP Initiatives” presentation from the 2012 CSP Today India Conference. Commissioned in April 2011, the Bikaner eSolar Tower only achieved 1.7 MW peak generation of the 2.5 MW capacity because of the lower than expected Direct Normal Irradiance (DNI) and reduced atmospheric visibility according to the inset ACME “Operating Indian Field Condition” slide.

The Bikaner location had an actual DNI of 1550 kWh/m²/y (kiloWatt-hours per square meter per year) or 29% lower annual solar resource than the expected DNI of 2190 kWh/m²/y. Likewise, the visibility factor was 0.86 or 14% lower than the expected 14 kilometer visibility. ACME also claims major climatic issues impacted generation including dust storms causing frequent operation disruption and rain resulting in the net import of electricity!

To my knowledge, the ACME Group has not disclosed the project cost of the Bikaner Solar Thermal Power Plant. I wonder if the Victory Energy dual cavity thermal receiver installed at Bikaner is the same one upgraded at the Sierra SunTower by the external thermal receiver from The Babcock & Wilcox Company (B&W), a wholly owned subsidiary of McDermott International (NYSE:MDR)?

Nonetheless, ACME is optimistic about upcoming innovations from eSolar. At the National Solar Energy Summit 2012 (NSES 2012), ACME Solar Thermal Power Head of Business Development Murugan Subramaniam presented “ACME – eSolar, Modular CSP – Technology Overview, Present and Future”. ACME is counting on modular and scalable solar thermal power and storage towers under development by eSolar.

The solar receiver is supposed to evolve from the B&W External DSG (Direct Steam Generation) 11.8 MWth (MegaWatt thermal) receiver to an External Molten Salt 50 MWth receiver by 2013.

The Next Gen Heliostats appear to almost double in size by 2013-2014 from the ST3 heliostats used at Bikaner, and a conceptual 100 MW sized Power Tower Plant image shows the corners of the heliostat fields cropped into hexagonal shapes reducing the modular field cost and footprint.

ACME’s Cost Comparison of PV & CSP must require lots of explanation. For example, how does DNI impact the Capital Cost in $/W (dollars per Watt)?

GE Energy
With start-up eSolar out looking to raise fresh capital, I asked GE Energy a few questions:

Is it possible to get an update on the GE partnership with eSolar?
Has GE made any additional investments in eSolar?
Has the hybrid project with eSolar CSP technology been started yet?

GE Energy acknowledged my questions and seemed to be working on a response albeit at a slothful pace. After almost three weeks, I called GE Energy for slow playing the effort and haven’t heard from them since.

I’ve had good luck with GE Energy in the past and thought their treatment of this blogger was always fair and respectful.

I’m not sure how to interpret GE Energy’s lack of action on at least two simple questions out of three. Has GE Energy already decided to reinvest in eSolar or is the company still pondering the decision?

“Waiting to be unleashed” by Upendra Singh for EnergyNext is worth a read and confirms the 2.5 MW Bikaner eSolar Tower is the only completed concentrating solar power (CSP) plant in India.

Original article: eSolar Concentrating Solar Power Partner Update

©2013 GUNTHER Portfolio. All Rights Reserved.

Original article: GUNTHER Portfolio twitter Weekly Updates #Solar #PV – 2013-05-03

©2013 GUNTHER Portfolio. All Rights Reserved.

Agree to trade war? RT @pv_tech: [News] EU and China ‘could reach trade war agreement by June’ http://t.co/L9O862SFRa #Solar ->

but only us youngsters know! RT @SolarFred: @edgunther Ed, we're dating ourselves knowing that pun. ->

so how do you tweet when @twitter is down? do I have to slum it over to @facebook ? ->

RT @Snoopy: Happy Earth Day! #EarthDay http://t.co/pmlIxEIYH8 ->

Test-driving Tesla's Model S sedan: Mom's got a new ride @mercurynews http://t.co/dgTLwsgVSE @danahull Did you try the 4s 0 to 60? 130mph ->

Original article: GUNTHER Portfolio twitter Weekly Updates #Solar #PV – 2013-04-26

©2013 GUNTHER Portfolio. All Rights Reserved.

Last year when I was researching the Arizona Western College Solar Array post, Main Street Power, the owner and operator of the AWC Solar Array, declined to comment or have any dialog whatsoever about the project. Taking up the challenge, I initiated FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests with the U.S. Department of Treasury for two Main Street Power project companies (special purpose entities) in Arizona receiving 1603 TGP (Treasury Grant Program) awards:

MFP CO III, LLC
AZ Solar I, LLC

As it turned out, MFP CO III, LLC was the only project company associated with the AWC Solar Array. However, as can be seen in the embedded six (6) part Application for Section 1603 documents, the Qualified cost basis and the Amount of request for payment were both redacted. As in the case of eSolar, I filed an appeal:

The FAS final response to my FOIA request for the Main Street Power Co. Inc. 1603 TGP Applications via two SPEs in Arizona, AZ Solar I, LLC and MFP CO III, LLC unjustifiably redacted minimal information in Section 5 regarding the qualified cost basis and request for payment.

In order to verify the Treasury Grants issued in total to MFP CO III, LLC for the Arizona Western College property, please release the following information from the six (6) 1603 TGP Applications:

Section 5
5A. Qualified cost basis
5B. Request for Payment
Amount of request for payment

Previously, the same information was released for my FOIA request 2011-06-019 regarding a GreenVolts 1603 TGP Application as a matter of routine.

However, the Office of the Fiscal Assistant Secretary (FAS) rejected my appeal and said:

Please note that Main Street Power Co. Inc. objected to the release of the information in question, and provided proper justification for the withholding of that information.

After benefiting from an $8,301,644 Treasury Grant award on March 8, 2012, Main Street Power was so intent on quashing the FOIA request they forgot about the routine redaction of contact phone numbers. I almost appealed a second time using a procedural argument but decided to let the action stand.

From the Treasury Grant award, the AWC Solar Array had a qualified cost basis of $26.67 million or almost $5.75 per Watt for the actual 4.82 MegaWatt (MW) nameplate capacity.

At the AWC Solar Array “Flip the Switch” ceremony, then Main Street Power Senior Vice President, Business Development Jonathan (J.W.) Postal said “we pay back the roughly, let’s call it 30 million dollars, to Morgan Stanley who fronted the money.” It’s unclear if the $30 million figure was the approximate total project cost, the amount financed, or a mere example. MS Solar Solutions (MSSS) Corp., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS), provided long term project financing for the AWC Solar Array.

Morgan Stanley will be repaid using revenues from the PPA (Power Purchase Agreement) with the AWC and the PBI (Performance Based Incentive) from Arizona Public Service Company (APS), a wholly owned subsidiary of Pinnacle West Capital Corporation (NYSE:PNW), over the next 20 years. The terms of the AWC PPA have never been disclosed.

Per “AWC’s solar project on track to be completed in the fall” by Sarah Womer for the YumaSun.com, AWC Director of Facilities Management and Planning Bill Smith said: “the project is estimated to cost $30-40 million.”

However, according to “A Lesson in Solar” by Steve Leone for Renewable Energy World:

The incentives available from APS totaling $23 million — about half the cost of the project — made it more attractive for MS Solar Solutions, a fully owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley, to sign off on the concept and the technologies involved.

The Renewable Energy World sound byte implied an AWC Solar Array project cost of almost $46 Million! The Lesson gets a big incomplete on telling the full story.

So how can these disparate sums be reconciled? After due consideration, I believe all are correct though the definition of costs vary. The $26.67 million qualified cost basis for Treasury reflects the direct project costs for the 4.82 MW project or the traditional solar PV (photovoltaic) installed cost metric.

The actual ($30-40 million?) AWC project cost may also have included unqualified costs or those well in excess of established Treasury cost basis benchmarks for commercial or large commercial market segments. These unqualified costs may have included the 240 some additional parking spots, a solar canopy structure covering 420 parking spots, technology demonstration and incubator sites, and aspects of the new solar and renewable energy curriculum.

For the implied project cost of $46 million, the APS definition of Real Project Costs for Production Based Incentives (PBI) is crucial. Per an APS “Renewable Energy Incentive Program” presentation from 2009:

The structure for incentive payments to the customer is up to 20 years or a cap of 60% of the Real Project Cost (including acceptable financing charges), whichever comes first.

So for the $46 million project cost implied by the Renewable Energy World Lesson, I believe the sum includes the Morgan Stanley long term financing costs over the 20-year term.

Reviewing the Arizona Public Service Residential and Non-Residential APS Installations data at Arizona Goes Solar, I recognize reservations that appear related to the AWC Solar Array from 2009 and 2010 tracking the evolution of the project. APS told me the 2010 maximum PBI for a 20-year contract was $0.162 per kiloWatt-hour (kWh). Since the AWC Solar Array is expected to generate 10,500,000 kWh per year, the annual incentives from APS total about $1.7 million using the above 2010 PBI rate without factoring in degradation effects. If it should apply to some of the capacity reservations, the 2009 maximum PBI for a 20-year contract was $0.180 per kWh.

I do not know if APS used the same 2011 PBI bidding competition approach (page 24, Figure D) for application ranking in 2009 or 2010.

Capacity and Performance
Here is the capacity breakdown of the five (5) solar PV technologies totaling 4.817 MegaWatt-peak deployed at the Arizona Western College Solar Array in kiloWatt-peak (kWp) based on the Treasury Grant Program applications:

The GreenVolts Concentrating PhotoVoltaic (CPV) installation submitted as two (2) 512 kWp TGP applications was sized about 5% to 9.5% larger than the other technology installations. Therefore, if the initial performance data previously discussed for GreenVolts was not adjusted for system size, GreenVolts underperformed SolFocus CPV by more than 25% from Monday, June 11, 2012, to Tuesday, July 10, 2012.

AWC Solar shakeout blues
Almost all of the technologies deployed at the AWC Solar Array are under threat or have already been impacted by the global solar industry shakeout. Here is a chronological review and status check.

GreenVolts shutdown in September 2012 and auctioned the headquarter assets. In a rare comment, Main Street Power said:

Are far as the GreenVolts products go, we have made contingencies in the form of ordering additional spare parts prior to the insolvency. We’ve also shifted O&M and support to a confidential third party.

SatCon Technology Corporation, the supplier of 4 MegaWatts of inverters for the AWC Solar Array, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in October 2012 and moved to Chapter 7 liquidation in February 2013. Per “Lessons From Satcon: Keeping Inverters Alive When Vendors Collapse” by Jessica Lillian for Solar Industry, of all publications, former Satcon employees are jumping into the operations and maintenance (O&M) service opportunity created by Satcon’s demise.

In November 2012, SolFocus laid off about half of its employees and began searching for a buyer. With audacious media relations spin, the CPV Intelligence Brief 7 – 19 March 2013 at PV Insider said:

SolFocus, is closing in on its selection for a buyer for the business with a decision likely to take place within the next 60 days, it was confirmed to PV Insider.

Wuxi Suntech, the main manufacturing subsidiary of Suntech Power Holdings Co., Ltd. (NYSE:STP), entered the apparent equivalent of Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization in March 2013.

SolarWorld AG (ETR:SWV) appears to be headed for bankruptcy reorganization or even liquidation if the company cannot restructure existing debt or find a so-called White Knight.

Sharp Corporation (TYO:6753) is restructuring at the corporate level and could conceivably shutter or sell less profitable units or factories such as those related to the amorphous silicon/microcrystalline silicon thin film solar modules used at the AWC Solar Array.

Only the single-axis trackers from SunEdison, an MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. (NYSE:WFR) company, appear safe. MEMC does plan to change the company name to SunEdison, Inc.

While these developments will contribute to an industry leading Arizona Western College PV O&M curriculum, the AWC Solar Array seems less than worthy in hindsight of the 2012 Photovoltaic Projects of Distinction Award presented at PV America West.

I just successfully completed my second Online Solar Training Course at Solar Energy International so I am now eligible to take the North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners (NABCEP) Entry Level Exam. I better get studying!

Original article: Arizona Western College Solar Array Checkup

©2013 GUNTHER Portfolio. All Rights Reserved.

Original article: GUNTHER Portfolio twitter Weekly Updates #Solar #PV – 2013-04-19

©2013 GUNTHER Portfolio. All Rights Reserved.

Original article: GUNTHER Portfolio twitter Weekly Updates #Solar #PV – 2013-04-12

©2013 GUNTHER Portfolio. All Rights Reserved.

dumbfounded -> SEC/IRS investigation RT @danahull: Aaron Chew, former #solar analyst with Maxim Group, joining @SolarCity as head of IR. ->

Original article: GUNTHER Portfolio twitter Weekly Updates #Solar #PV – 2013-04-05

©2013 GUNTHER Portfolio. All Rights Reserved.

From eSolar Sierra SunTower Project offline – Again

“Solar thermal startup eSolar still out there and raising $30M” by Katie Fehrenbacher at GigaOm attracted my attention. I’ve had a side project simmering trying to substantiate my observations and suspicions in eSolar Sierra SunTower offline – Again with actual electricity production data.

Encouraged by my FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) experience with GreenVolts, I initiated an FOIA request with the U.S. Department of Treasury for the eSolar Inc. Sierra SunTower CSP (Concentrating Solar Power) 1603 TGP (Treasury Grant Program) related Annual Performance Reports and Certifications in late August 2012. The FOIA process is slow for me, and I received a response in November 2012 with the performance data (Year 1, Year 2) redacted! Dissatisfied, I filed an appeal:

The entire performance portion of the reports in sections 4.1 and 4.2 was redacted. I contend the Sierra SunTower is misrepresented as an operating facility when in fact it operates infrequently and on an ad hoc basis. I further contend the Sierra SunTower does not meet the IRS requirement for “daily operation” to be considered in service. In order to prove these assertions and the ineligibility of eSolar for the 1603 TGP for the Sierra SunTower LLC project, please release the following information from the Year 1 and Year 2 Section 1603: Annual Performance Reports and Certifications:

Section 4.1
Annual Production (kWh)
If the actual production and estimated annual production (entered in section 4D of the applications) differ, explain the difference:

Section 4.2
Have there been any interruptions in production during the year, other than routine maintenance?
Provide dates and explanation:

On March 19, 2013, the Office of the Fiscal Assistant Secretary (FAS) said: “After carefully considering your appeal, I am releasing sections 4.1 and 4.2 in full.”

Sierra SunTower Annual Performance Reports and Certifications
The eSolar Sierra SunTower generated 552.000 MWh (MegaWatt-hour) of electricity from July 23, 2009, to July 23, 2010. This was about 12.9% or just over one-eighth of the initial annual estimate of 4270 MWh! Furthermore, the Sierra SunTower was said to deliver up to 8.5 GWh (GigaWatt-hour) of electricity in official California Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) documentation when the actual initial estimated nameplate capacity is almost half that at 4270 MWh (4.270 GWh).

Here is the Section 4.1 and 4.2 text from the July 23, 2009, to July 23, 2010, first year report followed by the embedded documents:

4.1. Annual Production

A total of 552 MWh of gross electrical energy has been generated at Sierra (Appendix 1) during the period July 23, 2009, and July 23, 2010. It was initially estimated that 4270 MWh of gross electrical energy would be generated at Sierra during the same period. The actual generated electrical energy was less than the estimated value due to the following reasons:

4.2 Have there been any interruptions in production during the year, other than routine maintenance?

There were scheduled and unscheduled forced outages experienced surrounding the required commercial boiler and turbine testing, turbine testing, turbine oil system failure and operational restrictions imposed by the LA County Fire Department. The boiler and mirror testing was to establish calibration set points for reflecting the sun flux accurately onto the boiler to for steam production. The turbine lube oil pump system failure required remanufacturing the entire lube oil pump system to precise

In both cases, the text was cutoff and limited to the visible area of the .pdf document provided by Treasury.

The eSolar Sierra SunTower generated 539.124 MWh (MegaWatt-hour) of electricity from August 1, 2010, to July 31, 2011 [Ed note: what ever happened to July 24, 2010 through July 31, 2010?]. This was about 12.6% or just over one-eighth of the initial estimate of 4270 MWh, now unmentioned, over the year period.

Here is the Section 4.1 and 4.2 text from the August 1, 2010, to July 31, 2011, second year report:

4.1. Annual Production

A total of 539 WWh [Ed note: MWh] of gross electrical energy has been generated at Sierra during the period Aug 1, 2010 and July 31, 2011. The difference between the actual and estimated production is due to outages for maintenance and service as well as economic factors affecting the operating profile of the facility. In late 2010 it was determined that the plant should be operated less during non-peak solar resource periods and the operation of the plant was adjusted accordingly.

4.2 Have there been any interruptions in production during the year, other than routine maintenance?

Normal interruptions to production during the year for routine maintenance and service. Additional outages were due to an operating profile change at the plant. Due to cost constraints, the operation of the plant was reduced during non-peak solar resource periods.

I have two quick observations. The Sierra SunTower operated about four (4) maybe five (5) days per month over the 2009 to 2011 period or more often just during peak sun hours. eSolar decided the Sierra SunTower was too expensive to operate except under the highest solar resource periods and perhaps aligned with the best time of delivery utility rates. No wonder I have never seen it in operation. Did eSolar inform partners and customers the ACME Group, Penglai Electric, and GE Energy, a business group of the General Electric Company (NYSE:GE), of the operating profile change?

Southern California Edison data
When I contacted Southern California Edison (SCE), an Edison International (NYSE:EIX) company, one year after the eSolar Sierra SunTower dedication ceremony, SCE said: “Sierra SunTower produced 24 MWh in 2009 and is forecasted to produce 1,563 MWh in 2010.” I was directed to eSolar for further information.

Last week, I asked if SCE files a report with the CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission) on the actual amount of power purchased under the Sierra SunTower PPA (Power Purchase Agreement) on an annual basis? I expected to hear it was confidential and was wondering if an FOIA request would fly at the CPUC? The SCE spokesperson said: “Annually, SCE files an RPS compliance reports that indicate actual and forecast generation data that is not confidential. SCE filed its 2011 Preliminary Annual Compliance Report in Dec. 2012, see attached.”

On page 37 (row 136) of the SCE 2011 RPS compliance report, the Sierra SunTower, LLC generated an actual 283 MWh in 2011 and forecasted 287 MWh under the Final Resolution E-4295 PPA. Though E-4295 approved a one year term, SCE said: “The original qualifying facility (QF) contract that is cited above was extended for approximately one year, per CPUC Decision 07-09-040, and later terminated. Thereafter, Sierra SunTower executed a new QF Standard Offer power purchase agreement, which is scheduled to end 6/1/2013.”

E-4295 promulgated the 8.5 GWh production figure although the advice letter states: “The PPA is a short-term, bilateral contract for as-available output from a test facility that eSolar built in Lancaster, California to evaluate and demonstrate its solar tower technology.”

While the date ranges differ, the SCE electricity production figures versus the performance reports submitted by eSolar to Treasury don’t seem to reconcile when eyeballing them. Perhaps the U.S. Department of Treasury should consider auditing the eSolar Sierra SunTower performance reports and reconcile them on an annual calendar basis with the data SCE has reported to the CPUC?

The $19.5 million eSolar 1603 Grant for the Sierra SunTower has been audited by Treasury once before:

OIG-11-077
RECOVERY ACT: Audit of Sierra SunTower LLC Payment Under 1603 Program
July 7, 2011

The Office of Inspector General, Department of the Treasury, concluded:

Sierra SunTower’s reported cost basis of $65,145,499 for the subject property included $117,497 for costs that we believe do not comply with Treasury Regulation (Treas. Reg.) §1.263A-1.

In the end, Treasury recommended and eSolar concurred to reimburse $35,249 for the excessive 1603 Program payment received because of the overstated Sierra SunTower cost basis.

As I’ve asked before, at what point does a specified energy property operated as a test facility on an ad hoc basis no longer qualify for a 1603 Treasury Grant at all?

Of course, I saw the eSolar Sierra SunTower offline as usual after the AVSR1 harassment experience during my southwest road trip.

Original article: eSolar Sierra SunTower: a History of Concentrating Solar Power Underperformance

©2013 GUNTHER Portfolio. All Rights Reserved.