

Thin-Film Solar Power To Be Sold For Less Than Coal Power - ph0rque
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/03/thin-film-solar-power-to-be-sold-for-less-than-coal/

======
teilo
I have a difficult time believing that suddenly, as if overnight, solar is
able to compete with coal, even if you take into account the subsidizing of
coal/oil/NG vs. solar.

The question is, how much of this deal is government subsidy? If Macho Springs
was not subsidized, how much would they have to sell the power for?

If they are heavily subsidized, the cost of that power is much higher than
advertised, and the tax payer is picking up the difference, either via higher
taxes, or through inflation (caused by government debt or QE), which is a tax
on those who can least afford to be taxed: the poor.

~~~
shpxnvz
> The question is, how much of this deal is government subsidy?

From the original article:

 _"When you add in the incentives, the PPA value becomes more comparable to
rates we’ve seen signed in California," said Kim._

Apparently nearly all of the difference between standard solar rates and this
rate is due to government subsidy.

------
ams6110
The post seems to compare the price of this wholesale deal to the retail price
of coal-generated electricity. The post also seems to assume that the price is
indicative of the cost of production.

------
Mvandenbergh
The price of wholesale electricity in the Southwest is typically around
$40/MWh, this is priced at $60/MWh. That's still less than prices in some
other parts of the country, wholesale prices in the NE can be $100+ /MWh in
winter months and it's an impressive technical achievement to get to even 150%
of coal price parity, but all the same it's not actually cheaper.

------
surrealize
There's a nice interview with the CEO of the solar company on this deal, First
Solar, here:

[http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/interview-first-solar-ceo-
ja...](http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/interview-first-solar-ceo-james-
hughes-72086)

one of the fun bits from the interview:

You will see people comment that the problem with solar is that you only have
a 25 per cent capacity factor. And as a former utility guy, my response to
that is when you have a demand curve that looks like a sine wave, something in
the system has to have a capacity factor of 25 per cent. You don’t have square
blocks of usage. So the question is not whether you have a 25 per cent
capacity factor, it’s who can deliver the most cost-effective energy at a 25
per cent capacity factor. And when you look at it on that basis, even at
relatively low natural gas prices we are competitive in peak portion of the
curve.

------
geuis
Actual link, not blog spam. [http://www.pv-
magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/us--thin-fil...](http://www.pv-
magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/us--thin-film-solar-energy-sells-cheaper-
than-coal-fired_100010043/#axzz2JkK9ZAC8)

~~~
GiraffeNecktie
Actual actual link [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-01/first-solar-may-
sel...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-01/first-solar-may-sell-
cheapest-solar-power-less-than-coal.html)

Also has more information about incentives etc.

------
huherto
In light of this. What new professional or business opportunities may open for
somebody living in the area?

------
rjtavares
Am I missing something, or is this huge news?

~~~
teilo
More like fancy accounting. The numbers just don't add up. Actual cost is over
$1.50/W, not counting the cost of the acquisition of the plant:

See here:

[http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/02...](http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/02/new-
mexico-solar-deal-details-suggest-parity)

