Pre-Feasibility Study for a Solar Power Precinct

1 Pre-Feasibility Study for a Solar Power Precinct Final report Enhancing and sustaining the world's built, natural and social environments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

2 ! 0 > + & & . ! & # . B $ . ) & . " . ! & # . B $ . ) & .. Pre-Feasibility Study for a Solar Power Precinct $(&20. Table of Contents At a Glance i executive summary iii Glossary xiv Introduction 1. Background 1. Objectives 1. Scope and Deliverables 2. Document Structure 2. Methodology 3. Overview 3. Phase 1: Technical and Environmental 3. feasibility 3. Phase 2: Economics 9. Phase 3: Risk Assessment and Role for Government 9. Phase 4: summary 9. Technical Assessment 11. Technology 11. summary of Area Selection Process 11. Detailed Technical Assessment 13. summary 18. Economic feasibility 19. Introduction 19. Methodology 19. Levelised Cost of Electricity 21.

3 feasibility assessment 27. Cost Sensitivity 30. Risk Assessment 35. Role of Government 40. Introduction 40. Economic Benefits 40. Types of Assistance 43. summary 49. References 51. Appendix A A. Area selection process A. Appendix B B. Detailed factor assessment B. Appendix C C. Solar technology characteristics C. Appendix D D. Transmission components D. Appendix E E. Direct Normal Radiation E. Appendix F F. Technology and area matrices F. 17 December 2010. At a Glance Pre-Feasibility Study for a Solar Power Precinct Final report Pre-Feasibility Study for a Solar Power Precinct $(&20. 2% & & 1 a' & % & . emissions to 60% below 2000 levels by 2050.)

4 To achieve this, the share of the NSW energy mix coming from renewable sources will need to grow substantially. The National Renewable Energy Target commits Australia to source 20% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020. This Study ? " ' " & % % development areas in NSW would help grow Solar investment. This Study aims to: Determine the feasibility of large scale Solar projects in NSW and to test the concept that the co-location of Solar plants into a Precinct to facilitate sharing of infrastructure may expedite financial viability;. Identify potential areas for Solar precincts in NSW;. Compare different Solar technologies; and Identify whether there is a role for Government to support large scale Solar projects.

5 This Study considered five types of technology: thin film photovoltaic, mono-crystalline photovoltaic, Solar trough, Solar tower and a Solar trough gas hybrid. Five areas were selected to assess the feasibility of a Solar Precinct in NSW: Broken Hill, Darlington Point, Dubbo, Moree and Tamworth. Key conclusions are set out below. ,V D VRODU SUHFLQFW IHDVLEOH" . A Solar Precinct is technically feasible at all five of the areas considered in detail as part of this Study . However, there is variation in levelised costs between each of the five areas and the technologies. The high capital costs of Solar technology remain the most significant factor affecting the feasibility of Solar electricity generation.

6 Other area specific factors such as land prices and transport costs are relatively insignificant as a proportion of total costs. Water costs are also relatively insignificant but the availability of water is an important issue. Delivered gas prices are an important factor for Solar -gas hybrid technology. The most significant technical issue is the connection and integration of large scale Solar capacity to the electricity network. Importantly, with the exception of Darlington point, it was technically feasible to connect a 1,000MW Precinct to the TransGrid network without significant network strengthening. However, there may be some regulatory challenges as Solar Power stations are presently regarded by the market rules as intermittent and currently there are no mechanisms for re-designating Solar generation as conventional dispatchable generation.

7 +RZ GRHV D 0: SODQW FRPSDUH ZLWK D 0: SUHFLQFW" . The benefit of developing a Precinct as opposed to a standalone plant is very area specific and highly dependent on the existing transmission infrastructure. Nonetheless, there are non-financial benefits of a Precinct over a standalone plant such as reduced risk and uncertainty, easier environment and planning approvals, increased viability of onsite manufacturing and additional jobs creation. Whilst not having a significant direct impact on project costs, these benefits may in turn lead to better financing terms for developers and facilitate quicker development of large scale Solar projects.

8 Sensitivity analysis showed that improved financing can reduce the levelised cost by 6-7%. :KDW LV WKH PRVW IHDVLEOH DUHD" . Of the five areas considered, Broken Hill appears the most favourable location for a 250 MW plant due to high levels of Solar resource and minimal additional transmission infrastructure required to connect a 250 MW plant. The high cost of the additional transmission infrastructure required for a 1,000MW Precinct make a Broken Hill Precinct less favourable. Moree is the most favourable area for a 1,000 MW Precinct as the additional transmission costs compared to other areas are outweighed by higher electricity production as a result of higher Solar resource.

9 :KDW LV WKH PRVW IHDVLEOH WHFKQRORJ\". Of the technologies modelled, Solar trough gas hybrids currently have the lowest levelised cost for all areas with the exception of Moree. Solar tower systems are forecast to provide the lowest levelised costs of the Solar -only technologies considered. The inclusion of thermal storage to a Solar tower plant or Precinct may allow electricity to be scheduled for dispatch at peak periods where it can be sold for a higher price. Both PV technologies considered were forecast to have levelised costs of electricity higher than the Solar thermal options. 17 December 2010 i Pre-Feasibility Study for a Solar Power Precinct $(&20.)

10 :KHQ PLJKW ODUJH VFDOH VRODU SURMHFWV EHFRPH ILQDQFLDOO\ YLDEOH". Compared to new entrant gas generators, Solar trough gas hybrid plants, and to a lesser extent, Solar tower plants do not appear to become cost competitive for around 15 to 20 years. However, this timing is dependent on REC prices and the introduction of CPRS. The inclusion of thermal storage to Solar tower plants may improve financial viability such that tower may become cost competitive under CPRS within 5 to 10 years. Thin film and mono-crystalline photovoltaic technology does not appear to be financially viable in the foreseeable future without significant cost reductions or efficiency improvements.