$1B solar plant was obsolete before it went online
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
For a billion dollars you could hire five hundred brilliant (or at least clever) scientists and pay then each $200K pa for ten years to work on promising technologies in photovoltaics, ranging from sexy stuff like multiple exciton generation to prosaic stuff like how to make silicon sheets cheaper.
When this plant was being engineered, many projected pricing trends for photovoltaics would have still kept it economical today. In that time China heavily increased their subsidizing of that sector which has been the overwhelming cause for pushing pricing down and is still the case today.
If things played out differently, which could have easily been the case, this would have been a good solution. I think it’s wise to diversify your bets across a number of solutions when you’re implementing a state level program and you should count on some of them being bad ideas. Media will jump on the half dozen failures from dozens of successes which overall is a good ROI.
Coupled with the increase in PV efficiency, and decrease in PV price, mean for utilities its cheaper to bring up a new modern plant than maintain the old plant that they apparently don't have liability for.
It sounds strange that a staff of "dozens" would make it unprofitable, though — most coal/oil/gas plants employ dozens of people and pay for their fuel.
Which will happen long, long before the capital cost of this plant could be paid off.
This seems interesting, though. Does the plant just become a stranded asset or is there still a way to get returns out of it?
> Its power cost NV about $135 per megawatt-hour, compared with less than $30 per MWh today at a new Nevada photovoltaic solar farm, according to BloombergNEF, which researches fossil fuel alternatives.
There's also a graph that adds to the sadness but you know don't get too excited.
(1)https://www.factcheck.org/2011/10/obamas-solyndra-problem/