Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Home › Business › Energy

Xcel seeks bids on world's biggest solar project

By Gargi Chakrabarty, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published January 10, 2009 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Energy

More stories »

Xcel Energy plans to transform Colorado into one of the biggest solar-power states in the world.

On Friday, the utility sought competitive bids for up to 600 megawatts of solar power projects with capacity for storage - power that would serve roughly 150,000 customers in the Front Range.

The price tag: about $3 billion.

If Xcel selects a single plant generating the entire power, it would be the world's biggest solar project.

"We can do it," said John Czingula, one of the biggest shareholders and founder of Solargenix Energy.

Headquartered in Sanford, N.C., Solargenix has acquired land in southeast Colorado near the San Luis Valley and hopes to win the bid. Spanish company Abengoa Solar, with U.S. headquarters in Lakewood, BrightSourceEnergy and Ausra are among the solar companies that have established a presence in Colorado to tap into its growing market.

Xcel also sought bids for 700 megawatts of wind power projects and 900 megawatts of other types of projects such as coal- or natural gas-fired plants. The deadline for submitting the bids is April 10.

Xcel spokesman Mark Stutz said the utility will employ an independent evaluator, and hopes to complete the evaluation process by fall. New projects could be online as early as 2010.

"If we can achieve the distinction of having the world's biggest solar plant at some point in the future, Xcel would certainly welcome it," Stutz said.

Mark Mehos, a scientist at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden who specializes in solar power with storage, doubts anyone can build a single, 600-megawatt solar project today.

The single biggest project in the world currently is Abengoa Solar's 280-megawatt plant under construction in Arizona.

Even if Xcel decides to select two adjacent plants, each generating 300 megawatts, that still would make them the biggest solar park in the world, Mehos said. One megawatt of solar serves about 250 customers.

"I doubt you will see a single 600- megawatt solar plant," Mehos said. "If the size of the plant gets too large, it will create issues."

Solar power with storage, also called concentrating solar power, is not a new technology, according to Chuck Kutscher, manager of thermal systems group at NREL. For example, California's Mojave Desert has nine such plants that have been producing 354 megawatts for nearly two decades.

Today, electricity generated by CSP plants could cost, on average, 14 cents per kilowatt/hour, compared with 10 to 12 cents per Kwh by natural gas plants. Electricity from solar photovoltaic panels would be slightly higher at 18 to 20 cents per Kwh.

chakrabartyg@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-2976

Seeking bids

Xcel sought competitive bids on Friday that could add up to 2,200 megawatts of projects that would go online by 2015. The bids, which must be submitted by April 10, include:

* Up to 600 megawatts of solar power projects with storage capability

* 700 megawatts of wind power

* 900 megawatts of other resource- based power, like coal or natural gas

Comments

  • January 10, 2009

    2:10 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    windbourne writes:

    Solar PV with electrical storage is going to cost SO much.
    The amazing thing is that solar thermal combined with thermal storage would be so cheaper. Problem is that our requirement is for solar PV or wind. The mistake is that it blocks not only solar thermal, but also geo-thermal, or even combinations.

  • January 10, 2009

    6:33 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    INC writes:

    windbourne,
    I agree Somehow it seems Xcel is going for the most expensive to build and operate. Geothermal front end cost is the property. Then the Hot springs can be rebuilt just downstream. Geothermal is far less expensive over the long term. solar thermal is more efficient then Photo Voltaic. (PV) combos would provide the answer.

  • January 10, 2009

    8:15 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mmannino writes:

    Welcome to high priced electricity. I hope that the left feels good about these projects because the rest of us will not feel good about the electricity rates. There should be truth in electricity generation claims. Considering the need for baseline backup power, the 600 MW seems to be false advertising. What is the typical power generation during various periods (summer afternoons, summer nights, winter nights, winter days, ...)? Does the $3 billion cost include grid improvements? Does the electricity cost per kh include backup power costs? We need complete information about these projects and future electricity rates not these half truths.

    Just remember who brought you these high electricity rates. The greens and their Democrat allies have brought you these rates. When you employer decides to relocate because of the cost of electricity, just remember who brought these rates to you. When there are better solar technologies that cannot be used because Xcel was forced to build these projects, just remember who brought these power generation constraints to Colorado.

  • January 10, 2009

    8:20 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Dub writes:

    Hummmm,3BILLION divided by 150 THOUSAND= $20,000.00 each for the affected consumers. What a deal! I'm so impressed, you can have my part. No need to thank me.

  • January 10, 2009

    8:37 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    SheikYurBooty writes:

    Dub - with interest rates at about 4%, that $20,000 = $800/year. That's break even or better, since that is about what a household pays in electric. What's wrong with that?

    Plus there's no expense for acid rain, mercury pollution or particulate damage, or dead miners or burst sludge retaining ponds. What am I missing here Dub???

  • January 10, 2009

    8:55 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    tjpatriot writes:

    Dub, I was doing the same calculation. I had to chop off some zeros because my calculator couldn't handle that many.

    I have an idea that I would bet 99% of people would approve of. Why don't they just give each of us $20,000 ? That's a lot simpler isn't it?

    As far as "feel good" goes, I think I could buy a pretty damn comfortable blanket for $20,000 . Hell, maybe a car? college fund for my children? High tech windows for my house? Hmm, pretty easy to think of things when it's other peoples money. Funny how that works.

  • January 10, 2009

    8:59 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    windbourne writes:

    INC, the amazing thing is that if Ritter would get the law changed to include solar thermal as well as geo-thermal, Xcell would likely see a number of small to medium size projects. The Solar Thermal combined with geo-thermals could provide these all over. In fact, that single change would probably bring Google over here to drill like mad. And I would be shocked if Sky Fuel did not hook up with a big time VC. In fact, I still say that SkyFuel would do well to set up shop at each Xcel power site. They can take the waste heat and run that up higher (greater efficiency).

  • January 10, 2009

    9:40 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jbowen43 writes:

    Good for Excel. We need more of this and we need to put an end to filthy coal and killer nuclear.

    The article does not say that this is a PV project. I think you all know better than what you're preaching but have your own personal issues that have nothing to do with a clean energy future.

  • January 10, 2009

    9:48 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mytwosense writes:

    windbourne and INC, why don't you two write Xcel and ask about this? And write to state governing bodies, too? It seems you're onto something, and obviously, it's better to ask these questions during the planning phases than after everything's built.

  • January 10, 2009

    10:01 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    tjpatriot writes:

    I'm no expert on electricity generation, but something really stinks about this article. Moreover, it's much more difficult than it should be to get truthful information about electrical generation costs from the internet. It depends on the agenda of the website you are getting your information from. It's really disgusting to see such basic truthfulness and honesty simply evaporate from our culture. I would blame some of this shift on people like AlGore, who apparently think it's "OK" to mislead, misinform, scam, and make tens (or hundreds?) of millions as long as the effort is to "Save the Planet".

    But I digress...

    The last paragraph says "Today, electricity generated by CSP plants could cost, on average, 14 cents per kilowatt/hour, compared with 10 to 12 cents per Kwh by natural gas plants. Electricity from solar photovoltaic panels would be slightly higher at 18 to 20 cents per Kwh."

    Well isn't most of our power generated by coal-fired plants who's cost is about half that of natural gas? And, instead of saying "slightly higher" in the last sentence, wouldn't it be more accurate to say "almost twice as high"?

    Finally, in the little information I could find which compared electrical generation costs, Solar was the most expensive. Higher than: wind, geothermal, wave and marine, biomass, large small or micro hydro, natural gas, landfill gas, coal, or nuclear.

    So why are we doing this again?

  • January 10, 2009

    10:08 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    INC writes:

    windbourne,
    mytwosense has got a point... I wonder if Gargi Chakrabarty could hook us up with people to chat with?
    Another thing we should have them think about is The Algae scrubbers coupled on the waste from that coal plant they just built. to produce methane/Oxygen.

  • January 10, 2009

    10:17 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    INC writes:

    tjpatriot,
    Oddly enough you, Windborne and I are actually in agreement.

    Xcel should look for the most electricity for the buck, other than trying to "build in" higher costs.

  • January 10, 2009

    10:31 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    bronco writes:

    With new subsidies expected to come form DC under Obama, the GEO (governors energy office), xcel rebates, and federal tax credits, making the widespread application of residential PV accesible to all homeowners in my view would create far more jobs throughout our state, as well as taking a major bite out of carbon emmisions and enrgy usage, than would these CSP plants. But why not do both? Europe is decades ahead of us in this and we need to catch up. Enough about the Al gore too, he's as irrelevent to most of us in this field as GWB so stop politicizing these important goals we have to reach as a country.

  • January 10, 2009

    10:35 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    tjpatriot writes:

    30 years ago I lived in Saudi Arabia for a couple years. They had a large number of flares, where they would burn-off natural gas just to get it out of the way (as it was explained to me). I'm talking 20-30 ft. diameter flares burning 24/7/365, hundreds of them. I never could figure that one out, why it wouldn't be more economical to hook-up some power generation to it and use it. Probably mainly due to no infrastructure, simplicity, etc. I could be wrong, but I bet they're still there.

    In this country we nip around the edges, making great strides in efficiency. But there's great areas to reap efficiencies around the world in places where massive amounts of energy are produced. It's really a matter of scale.

  • January 10, 2009

    10:35 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    the_ripper writes:

    '...Welcome to high priced electricity. I hope that the left feels good about these projects because the rest of us will not feel good about the electricity rates...'

    I'd rather pay more for electricity than be extinct after the earth is erreparably(sp?) damaged.

  • January 10, 2009

    10:40 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    prk166 writes:

    What is the actual expected kw/hr output for this proposed solar plant?

  • January 10, 2009

    11:18 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mmannino writes:

    the_ripper,

    These solar plants are not going to save the earth. If you are concerned about CO2, nuclear power must be a large part of the solution. The high priced solutions mandated by the left will increase, not decrease pollution. We need a strong economy to afford the cost of pollution control. High priced energy will substantially weaken the economy.

  • January 10, 2009

    11:47 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mytwosense writes:

    mmannino writes: "High priced energy will substantially weaken the economy."

    I agree, but while fossil fuel-based energy is the less expensive choice for now, it's not going to last forever. We can't continue to put most of our resources and focus into those irreplaceable sources, while ignoring the development of sources that will last into perpetuity. As I've said before, the longer we wait to develop renewable energy, the more expensive it will be to do so. Let's develop them now while fossil-based energy is still cheap enough to help power this development.

  • January 10, 2009

    11:58 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mytwosense writes:

    INC writes: "Xcel should look for the most electricity for the buck, other than trying to "build in" higher costs."

    Unfortunately, that's a rather altruistic goal that runs counter to their desire to increase profits and build "shareholder value." And since they monopolize the market in Colorado and several other states, the competition factor that might help drive those costs down on our utility bills is removed from the equation.

    That's why I think we need to consider publicly-owned utility generation and distribution. Otherwise, we'll be paying high prices even when renewable energy technologies are fully developed.

    I expect the free marketeers to clamor in objection to my post, but how is it a "free" market when we just have one provider?

  • January 10, 2009

    2:18 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mmannino writes:

    mytwosense,

    There is no shortage of coal and nuclear power so I disagree with your argument on these energy sources. The only argument against coal is CO2. If CO2 is the problem (I do not agree that it is a problem), the nuclear must be a large part of the solution.

    There are good arguments for developing alternatives to oil because of dependence on unstable countries. However, subsidies should be limited to research and development, not deployment. We will have poor energy solutions if we mandate and subsidize non economically viable alternatives. We will rush to use the wrong technology with operating subsidies and mandates.

  • January 11, 2009

    11:08 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    RichardParker writes:

    mmannino writes: "High priced energy will substantially weaken the economy."

    I believe that drastic fluctuations in energy prices have a greater negative effect on the economy.

    tjpatriot writes: ". . . coal-fired plants who's cost is about half that of natural gas?"

    Depends on the today.