Thailand’s 73 MWdc Solar Energy Project

Project applied under EGAT PPA

Project applied under PEA PPA
       

NED’s (55 MW) has already been approved and signed the PPA on March 2010 1 project (30 MW) has already been approved 7 projects (451 MW) are still under approval process

51 projects (7,674 MW) with SCOD 340 projects (1,604.7 MW) obtained the approval with PPA signed 60 projects (187.7 MW)  were approved 114 projects (544.6 MW) is still under approval process

   


LAND - Securing 1,140 rai or 2 km2 land option for project site with ~ 5 kWh / SQM / day solar resource PPA - 55 MW Net AC (signed with EGAT), & 8 MW (signed with PEA) Adder – fully allocated for 55 MW and 8 MW Financing – Signed with ADB (USD70 million and three domestic lenders – KBank, Bangkok Bank and Siam Commercial Bank Flat Panel Technology Supply & Construction Contract with SHARP & ITD EIA Report Completed. 4 public hearing conducted with high acceptance level. BoI Certificate Obtained with full privilege includes foreign ownership and tax exemption. CDM - Asiatica engaged as CDM advisor







73 MW Solar Project Location Capacity Off-take Adder Total Tariff Financial Close CoD

8 MW Solar

Thailand Solar Project Central Thailand (2hr drive from BKK) 73 MW DC (55 MW Net AC) Non firm EGAT PPA with Adder THB 8 / kWh for 10 year USD 0.36 / kWh (on-p); USD 0.3 / kWh (off-p) July 2010 Phasing CoD from Nov 2011 to Apr 2012
     

Site solar conditions are critical to overall economics / viability of the project Resource Assessment involved the following:
•  •  •  •  Source for the available & reliable solar radiation data, 3 reliable resources NASA SEE (global), Meteonorm (Global) and TMD (local) Obtain the raw data from NASA and TMD Installed 2 onsite solar monitoring station, installed & collected by consultant which completed 6 month review in March 2010 Evaluate the reliability, long term record, etc to establish the optimal reference data for project

Overall view
•  •  The result from 3 sources above is well correlated with the onsite measurement When assessing irradiation data, it is recommended to have a long term (10-20 y) to assess the variability of the solar resource and to be able to have a reliable average with a clear assessment of its variation IE have recommend to use the combination of available resource as shown in table IE doesn’t mention onsite data due to a very short term period, onsite just only indicative to reference with other sources and collect for the future use.

•  • 

“The weighted average result combines data sets consisting of 57 years of measurement, taking into account the advantage of longer-term satellite data, which contribute to about 60% of the final value, and terrestrial data ” 4

Land Area: 1100 rai or 172 ha

Panel area Total panels Total panel area Panel rating Total DC rating Annual MWh AC

Csi 1.49m2 541,926 52ha 210W 73..54 108,283

TF 1.42m2 350,208 77ha 128/135W 73.16 111,339

Technology Resource Assumptions Panel Tilt2 Average Annual Solar Radiation3 Annual Average Temperature Technology Assumptions Number of Panels / Dishes Rated Capacity per Panel / Dish Temperature Coefficient Total Rated Capacity Area per panel Total Area Approximate Land Required Output Calculations Solar Radiation to Hit Solar Farm Conversion Efficiency (to DC) Loss Assumptions Efficiency Factor Adjusted for Temp Inverter Efficiency Incident Irridation Loss Loss Due to Dirt PV Loss Due to Irradiance Deviation DC Wiring Loss Module Array Mismatch Loss AC Wiring Loss Transformer Loss Total efficiency Net AC Annual Power Generation Capacity Factor MW kWh % kWh / day % Watts DC % MW DC m2 m2 Rai Degree kWh / m2 / day Deg C

Thin Film 10 5.18 25.6

Polycrystalline 15 5.20 25.6

541,926 135 -0.24% 73.16 1.42 770,446 861

270,400 270 -0.47% 73.01 1.94 524,671 676

3,988,695 9.50%

2,727,777 13.92%

87.78% 97.00% 98.00% 98.00% 98.00% 96.50% 96.6% 80.57% 58.94 111,339,475 17.37% 98.40% 99.00% 98.00% 99.00% 98.98% 98.00% 99.92% 97.71% 78.57% 57.36 108,814,993 17.01%

Weighted Rating Factor (%)

Weighted Factor

Si 1

Si 2




•  Solar •  •  •  •  • 

Manufacturing Industry

EPC contracting is a foreign concept When dealing with most manufacturers/ suppliers, it is difficult to explain the rationale of an EPC contract Concept of 100% liability for the full contract price is a new risk scenario Liquidated damages (LDs) for events of default is problematic at best Warranty periods for suppliers tend to be fairly short, getting them to accept 2 years minimum with another 4 or 5 years latent defect liability is met with great resistance.

•  Forming •  •  •  •  • 

a Consortium

Finding a partner that the manufacturer can trust Consortium leader? One with the highest value contract or the one with most experience? Joint and several liabilities – can the manufacturer’s senior management / shareholders commit to this? And what actually does it mean? (manufacturers very unclear and distrustful) Splitting contracts into off-shore and on-shore contracts. Do suppliers understand the tax implications of their contractual arrangements?

•  Negotiating
•  •  • 

a contract

400 page contract document not like a Purchase Order. Getting the concept across that clauses are Lender’s requirements as well as Owner stipulations is a challenge. Use of experienced law firms to enable better understanding of what is going on? In-house lawyers new to these clauses - tend to be difficult and can prolong discussions leading to loss of contract Constantly having to refer back to senior management for decisions



The End

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.