Florida utility jumps into California solar market

Utility giant FPL has filed plans with California regulators to build a $1 billion, 250-megawatt solar power plant in the Mojave Desert. The move marks the first time that a major player — in this case a Fortune 500 company — has jumped into the nascent Big Solar market.

Juno Beach, Fla.-based FPL’s renewable energy arm, FPL (FPL) Energy, will operate the Beacon Solar Energy Project, which will connect to the transmission system operated by Los Angeles’ municipal utility, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. FPL Energy spokesman Steve Stengel declined to say whether the company had struck a deal with LADWP to buy the electricity produced by the Beacon project. “We are currently in discussions with a potential customer on a power purchase agreement for this project,” he wrote in an e-mail. “However, due to confidentiality considerations, I cannot elaborate at this time.”

California law requires the state’s investor-owned utilities — PG&E (PCG), Southern California Edison (EIX) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SRE) — to obtain 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2010 and 33 percent by 2020. But public utilities like LADWP only have to set green energy targets, 13 percent by 2010 and 20 percent by 2017 in Los Angeles’ case. Under California’s global warming law, the state’s greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.

Those renewable energy mandates have been driving the market for large-scale solar power plants, but so far California’s Big Three utilities have placed their bets on startups like Ausra, BrightSource Energy and Stirling Energy Systems.

FPL Energy, however, is no stranger to the California solar market. It currently operates seven of nine “solar trough” power plants that were built by Israeli solar pioneer Luz International in the 1980s and early ’90s in the Mojave at Kramer Junction and Harper Dry Lake.

The plants use long rows of parabolic mirrors to focus the sun’s rays on tubes of synthetic oil suspended above the arrays. The hot oil is used to create steam which drives electricity-generating turbines. The company’s new power plant (artist rendering above) will built on 2,012 acres of former farmland near California City and will also use solar trough technology.

FPL tends to be tight-lipped about its plans but in a recent interview with Green Wombat, FPL Energy senior vice president Michael O’Sullivan acknowledged the company is bidding on contracts with utilities throughout the Southwest. “We do not develop through the issuance of press releases,” he says, “and there’s a lot of thinly capitalized solar developers trying to get attention by running around the Southwest announcing projects.” Unlike competitors developing new solar technology, FPL is sticking with the tried and true. “One reason we’re focused on solar trough technology like we have out at Kramer is that it’s a proven, financeable technology,” O’Sullivan says.

In a letter accompanying the Beacon Solar application to the California Energy Commission, O’Sullivan estimated the project would create 1,000 jobs during the two-year construction phase and 66 permanent positions once it goes online in 2011.

Comments

[dr hill]

"hot oil is used to create steam which drives electricity-generating turbines"
Why to use oil instead of water?
oil steam have a potential of causing a polution. Moreover, it is more expansive and problematic than using water. this is very odd.

The other problem which such huge plants is the possibility that they will cause secondary global warming by increasing the total atmospheric heat.

On the other hand, reflecting the sun rays back to the atmosphere might be a good idea for cooling.
I guess we will just wait and see.

[steve]

Dr the oil is not turned into steam. It is heated to around 700f and run threw a heat exchanger to produce regular steam. About the only problem with the oil is if it leaks you have an onsite problem that must be cleaned up. It would be nice to not have to use the oil but would be hard to produce superheated (dry) steam. Ausra’s design calls for just using water but is far from being proven. Hopefully in a couple of years we will find out if it works or not.

As far as producing heat for global warming, the amount of heat produced would do almost nothing to affect it. The energy would have hit the earth anyway. Also for a system to be efficient you would not want to reflect the sun back into space.

[Jason Morris]

It will be interesting to see which of the "thinly capitalized" solar companies can get their projects to the point where they become a serious threats to some of the larger players. I have a feeling that even with the cooling of the public markets, we will see several pure-play solar companies IPO in 2009 and 2010.

[killing wilderness isn't green]

gah! there is more to caring for the planet than global warming! they should be using previously developed land for all these projects (including our rooftops) and stop destroying vital, fragile wilderness. Desert ecosystems serve important functions in the global balance, just like mangroves, rain forests and coral reefs, so why on earth can people support completely obliterating them when there are much better alternatives?

there is NO good reason to kill wilderness at this stage. they need to invest in much better conservation and local, point of use, distributed generation. we cannot accept this!

[steve]

Jason I don’t really see where any of the smaller companies are any threat to some of the bigger players, especially the bigger utilities who are going to build them. Yes if Ausra’s system turns out much better than Solel’s then if may cause Solel some problems. The problem for Ausra is getting financing. The big banks have a hard time loaning money on a technology that is far from proven. If they manage to get a project or two off the ground this could change dramatically.

Right now there are a lot of companies out there making claims that are probably just untrue. The big players, FPL would be an example, know how much it costs to produce solar thermal for while still making a profit. Their costs seem high, compared to some of the other claims, but they are much more bankable because they are realistic. Some of the other companies out there are making huge claims but very little to back up their claims. (I would include the stirling dishes in this group) The utilities are more than happy to sign contracts with them because it is a win-win for them. If they are somehow able to build a project, they get the power for a good price, if not then oh well they at least got all that good PR and can say they tried.

I think some of the small companies will survive but the majority will just simply fade away.

[Enrique]

A Florida Electric Company is willing to invest billions of dollars on a solar plant in California but it can not build one in Florida.
To all free markets thinkers, mandates work.

[steve]

Well Enrique that same Florida company already said it would build 300 MW’s worth of solar thermal in Florida. The problem is in the small print that they are only going to start with 10 MW’s worth and then they will decide if it is worth going ahead with the project. While Florida may be the “Sunshine State”, it is really is not a great place to put solar thermal when compared to the Desert Southwest. You can Google solar radiation maps and see how much less sun Florida gets than say the Mojave.

[Rhonda]

The reason FPL is building in California is simple. Profit. California has always been the front runner for "Green" building. However, Florida is trying to make an impact. If our Govenor would just stop pussyfooting around with the "for-profit" electric companies and get the consumers excited about solar independence and grid feeding, Florida and California would contribute tremendously to the ability to get off the addiction to fossil fuel. But unfortunately, Big Corporations put a stop to any consumer lended hand in getting off the addiction. If you have a brand new home built with solar option, you can save over 20K by going solar with a new home. Put a solar system on an existing home and you may pay 20K which in 10 yrs would give you a break even. (but the point isn't just cost savings, it's helping the environment, right??) I've researched this. And my Electric company (City of Ocala, Ocala Electric) doesn't even mention Solar conversion on their website. Inquiring found that they actually offer 1to1 credit/exchange. Unheard of in California and BTW with FPL (which also covers some areas of Marion county). Why isn't this marketed to consumers? I pay approximately $3000.00 per year for my electricity. If I go solar, I can gain that break even in less than 10 yrs. Build a new home and you can save immediately as the cost to install a solar system on a new house is approximately 2-5K. What makes you go hummmm??? The big players banking on solar to turn a profit, or REALLY getting everyone excited about a product that can help the environment AND save you money?

[Rhonda]

Florida is a great place for Solar. Forget about the thermal. Just plain solar. Ofcourse in certain areas, the exchange of removing trees to accomodate the solar is debatable. But then, you can use the wood to create new homes so it's not a waste. N Central Florida has hundreds of acres of National Forest sitting between Daytona Beach and the Gulf Coast that just sits there. Nothing is farmed, nothing is utilized. A few years ago, Bush actually announced the possibility of leasing or selling part of the forest to private individuals or investors to "cure" the budget deficit. This never happened. But why then isn't the land offered for Wind energy, or Solar energy? Jeb Bush is the one who promoted and approved the 2005-06 Energy Bill that promotes renewalable energy. But our Now Govenor has not approved the current bill. 2.5 million was set aside for rebates and as of today, all rebates for 2007-08 fiscal year are already depleted. I'd love to see the list of homeowners who went solar. I know most builders incouraged solar pool heating and some encouraged solar water heaters. But in my own opinion, solar pool heating is a luxury that shouldn't be included in the rebates as Florida has 70% 70+ tempatures state wide year round. Add in all the homeowners with pools and encourage pool heating, you take away from the real issue...solar electricity to get off the grid. Sorry I'm on a soap box because I'm tired of paying inflated prices for electricity for the benefit of Fuel Profits. When I see the future with this article.....More Big Corps will build Solar Electric systems for profit and the little guy...the consumer will still pay high prices. Educating the consumer is key. Get on your own solar system and feed their grid and EVERYONE benefits from the true purpose. Not just profits.