TrinaVertex Two-Portrait LCOE Calculation-3 Comparison

TECHNICAL REPORT
Trina Vertex Two-in-Portrait

BOS & LCOE Calculation
Trina Solar Co., Ltd
Document No.: 10272911-CN-SH-01-A

Issue: A, Status: Final
Date: 11 January 2021
DNV GL – Report No.10212465-ESBA-R-01-B – www.dnvgl.com Page 1

LCOE analysis for two PV plants in Spain and USA
IMPORTANT NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
1. This document is intended for the sole use of the Customer as detailed on the front page of this document to
whom the document is addressed and who has entered into a written agreement with the DNV GL entity
issuing this document (“DNV GL”). To the extent permitted by law, neither DNV GL nor any group
company (the "Group") assumes any responsibility whether in contract, tort including without limitation
negligence, or otherwise howsoever, to third parties (being persons other than the Customer), and no
company in the Group other than DNV GL shall be liable for any loss or damage whatsoever suffered by
virtue of any act, omission or default (whether arising by negligence or otherwise) by DNV GL, the Group
or any of its or their servants, subcontractors or agents. This document must be read in its entirety and is
subject to any assumptions and qualifications expressed therein as well as in any other relevant
communications in connection with it. This document may contain detailed technical data which is intended
for use only by persons possessing requisite expertise in its subject matter.
2. This document is protected by copyright and may only be reproduced and circulated in accordance with the
Document Classification and associated conditions stipulated or referred to in this document and/or in
DNV GL’s written agreement with the Customer. No part of this document may be disclosed in any public
offering memorandum, prospectus, or stock exchange listing, circular or announcement without the express
and prior written consent of DNV GL. A Document Classification permitting the Customer to redistribute this
document shall not thereby imply that DNV GL has any liability to any recipient other than the Customer.
3. This document has been produced from information relating to dates and periods referred to in this
document. This document does not imply that any information is not subject to change. Except and to the
extent that checking or verification of information or data is expressly agreed within the written scope of its
services, DNV GL shall not be responsible in any way in connection with erroneous information or data
provided to it by the Customer or any third party, or for the effects of any such erroneous information or
data whether or not contained or referred to in this document.
4. Any energy forecasts, estimates, or predictions are subject to factors, not all of which are within the scope of
the probability and uncertainties contained or referred to in this document, and nothing in this document
guarantees any particular irradiance or energy output.
KEY TO DOCUMENT CLASSIFICATION
For disclosure only to named individuals within the Customer’s

Strictly Confidential : organization.
For disclosure only to individuals directly concerned with the

Private and Confidential : subject matter of the document within the Customer’s
organization.
Commercial in Confidence : Not to be disclosed outside the Customer’s organization.
DNV GL only : Not to be disclosed to non-DNV GL staff
Distribution for information only at the discretion of the

Customer (subject to the above Important Notice and
Customer’s Discretion : Disclaimer and the terms of DNV GL’s written agreement with
the Customer).
Available for information only to the general public (subject to

Published : the above Important Notice and Disclaimer).

Project name: Trina Vertex BOS & LCOE Calculation Det Norske Veritas (China)
Report title: Technical Report Company Limited
Customer: Trina Solar Co., Ltd House No. 8, Hongqiao State
No.2 Tianhe Road,Trina PV Industrial Park ,Xinbei Guest Hotel, No. 1591 Hongqiao
district , Jiangsu ,China
Road, Changning District,
Contact person: Li, ZiXuan 200030, Shanghai
Date of first issue: 11 January 2021 Tel: (86) 2132799652
Project No.: 10272911
Task and objective: Trina Vertex BOS & LCOE calculation.
Prepared by: Verified by: Approved by:
Chen Zhang Jun Lu Jason Lee

Senior Engineer Solar Consultant Head of Solar, China
☐ Strictly Confidential Keywords:

☐ Private and Confidential Solar Technology Assessment
☐ Commercial in Confidence
☐ DNV GL only
☒ Customer’s Discretion
☐ Published
© 2019 Det Norske Veritas (China) Company Limited All rights reserved.
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
Version Date Reason for Issue Prepared by Verified by Approved by

A 11 January 2021 Draft C. Zhang J. Lu J. Lee

Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 5
2 ENERGY YIELD ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................... 6

2.1 Project description 6
2.2 Solar resource assessment 7
2.2.1 Irradiation and temperature data for the Project 7
2.3 Energy assessment methodology 8
2.3.1 Loss factors and assumptions 9
2.4 Performance ratio and energy yield 12
2.5 Production tables 15
3 COST ESTIMATION ....................................................................................................... 22

3.1 Assumptions 22
3.2 Design characterization 23
3.3 CAPEX 23
3.4 OPEX 26
3.5 LCOE 26
3.6 Summary 28
4 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 29
APPENDIX A: PV Module Data Sheets 30
APPENDIX B: Inverter Datasheet 34
APPENDIX C: tracker datasheet 35

1 INTRODUCTION
DNV GL has been contracted by Trina Solar (“the Customer”) to undertake a Levelized Cost of Electricity
Analysis (LCOE analysis) comparision for 3 different types of modules one PV plants with two portrait (2P)
configuration located in United States of America (USA) and in Spain. The aim of the study is comparing
the LCOE analysis for the PV plants with three different bifacial modules: 450W, 535W and 545W.
Therefore, a total of three energy production assessments have been performed to support the yield
inputs to the financial model.
The location of the projects have been proposed by DNV GL and accepted by the Customer. Hereinafter
are presented the coordinates of the Projects.
Table 1-1: Coordinates of the Projects

Coordinates Spain USA
Latitude 37.27° 34.36°

Longitude -5.74° -99.89°
Datasheets of modules, inverter and tracker have been provided for this study. No layouts have been
provided at this stage of project. The design is not intended to be optimized for the site locations.
Figure 1-1 shows the studied location of the Project in USA and Spain.
Figure 1-1: Indicative location of the Projects in USA & Spain
This Section presents the main findings of the work, with a focus on the results of the energy
assessment, in order to support the LCOE and BOS comparision.

2 ENERGY YIELD ASSESSMENT
DNV GL has performed an energy yield assessment for the configurations discussed and approved by the
Customer. DNV GL has used an independent methodology for the losses assumptions as described in
Section 0.
DNV GL highlights that the results of the simulation shall not be considered as final estimates of the
expected PV plant energy production. When the final layout is defined, the energy assessment results
shall be reviewed and updated accordingly. The following results are based on PAN file provided by
customer.
2.1 Project description

Table 2-1 includes the summary of the main characteristics of the project.
Table 2-1 Main Characteristics of the Project
Power rating 450W 535W 545W
Azimuth (0º=South) 0º
Mounting structure Tracker N-S axis 2 module portrait
Height of the tracker
Structure
(m)
3.37 3.60 3.81
Row spacing (m) 13.10 14.00 14.82
Tracking Range ± 60°
Number of trackers 2,263 1,902 1,920
Backtracking Yes
PV modules TSM-450DEG17MC 535 182-Module TSM-545DEG19C
Modules
PV module type Mono-crystalline, Bifacial

PV module capacity
(Wp)
450 535 545
Number of PV
modules
244,350 205,389 201,600
Inverters Sungrow SG250HX
Inverters
Inverter type String inverter

Inverter capacity
(kWAC) @40°C 225
Number of inverters 445
Transformer LV/MV
2.5 MW and 1.5 MW
Layout Transformers
capacity
Number of LV/MV
transformers 44 x 2.5MW / 1 x 1.5MW
Transformer MV/HV
capacity 60 MW
Number of MV/HV
transformers
2
Modules per string 27 27 35
Total number of
strings 9,050 7,607 5,760
Total rated power
PDC (kWp) 109,958 109,883 109,872
power
Total
Total inverter power

PAC (kW) 100,125
Rate PDC/PAC 1.10

2.2 Solar resource assessment
2.2.1 Irradiation and temperature data for the Project

At this stage of the project, DNV GL has used good quality satellite data /4/ for irradiation and
temperature for this site. In a further phase of the work, a comparison with other alternative sources
should be undertaken.
The representative dataset for the Project for the period of data available is shown in Table 2-2 and
Table 2-3 as monthly averages of irradiation and monthly averages of ambient temperature. This data
has not been calibrated with ground measurements. DNV GL recommends calibrating satellite data with
good quality ground measurements (according to IEC 61724-1).
Table 2-2 Monthly means of GHI, DHI and temperature datasets used for the plant in USA
GHI [kWh/m2] DHI [kWh/m2]
T [°C]
monthly monthly
Source Satellite derived /4/ Satellite derived /4/ Satellite derived /4/
Period 1999 – 2018 1999 – 2018 1999 – 2018
Jan 96 27 5.4
Feb 108 32 7.5
Mar 156 49 12.8
Apr 183 58 17.6
May 205 70 22.4
Jun 217 68 27.3
Jul 225 62 29.3
Aug 203 59 28.9
Sep 162 51 24.1
Oct 130 39 17.8
Nov 98 27 11.4
Dec 83 26 5.6
Total 1,865 567 17.5
Table 2-3 Monthly means of GHI, DHI and temperature datasets used for the plant in Spain
GHI [kWh/m2] DHI [kWh/m2]
T [°C]
monthly monthly
Source Satellite derived /4/ Satellite derived /4/ Satellite derived /4/
Period 1994 – 2019 1994 – 2019 1994 – 2019
Jan 80 29 10.7
Feb 99 36 12.1
Mar 148 52 14.9
Apr 176 62 17.1
May 213 72 20.8
Jun 234 69 25.2
Jul 245 64 27.5
Aug 218 62 27.7
Sep 164 54 24.3
Oct 122 45 20.2
Nov 85 31 14.5
Dec 71 26 11.6
Total 1,856 603 18.9
Figure 2-1 shows the sun path for the whole year at the site location. No horizon line has been observed
for the site in USA as per assessment provided by Meteonorm software which calculates it using a digital

terrain model (DTM) with a resolution of 90 m x 90 m based on the SRTM (Shuttle Radar Topographic
Mission) topographic model from NASA.
Spain USA
Figure 2-1 Solar path diagram for a central point for the PV Plant in USA & Spain
2.3 Energy assessment methodology
For the simulation, the monthly meteorological data are processed to generate a synthesized year of
hourly data. The global incident irradiation on the collecting plane is then calculated via transposition
using the Pérez model /1/.
A prediction of solar power generation is typically performed by DNV GL in several steps:
1) The solar climatic conditions - mainly the global and diffuse irradiation on the horizontal plane -
are determined.
2) Irradiation on a tilted plane can be calculated using the known global and diffuse irradiation on
the horizontal plane. Transposition is the calculation of incident irradiance on a tilted plane, using
horizontal irradiance data. Transposition is typically calculated using either the Hay model or the
Perez model. For this study, DNV GL has used the Perez model. The transposition is separately
calculated for each irradiance component: beam and diffuse. The reflected component is
evaluated as a given fraction (the “albedo coefficient”) of the global irradiance, weighted by the
angle between the horizontal and the PV plane. DNV GL has assumed a generic albedo coefficient
of 0.2 for the Project, on account of the open field installation typology. However, it is strongly
recommended a proper albedo measurement on site to get bankable results. DNV GL experience
on the albedo is that every 1% of albedo difference can have an impact of 0.25% in energy.
3) Both irradiation losses (due to optical effects and to usable irradiation) can be calculated by the
dimensions and geometrical arrangement of the modules, orientation and distance between rows,
etc.
4) The electrical simulation takes into account the properties of the PV modules (output power,
partial shading effects, temperature behavior, etc.) and inverters (conversion efficiency, partial
load etc.), along with losses in electrical cabling, in order to calculate the energy delivered at the
output of the inverter.
5) The AC cabling losses between the inverter and the revenue meter are estimated.
6) Finally, other production losses are considered - soiling, power quality, mismatch, availability,
etc.

The PV plant simulation has been performed on an hourly basis. It consists of an electricity production
calculation corresponding to the global horizontal irradiation – steps 2 to 4, as indicated in previous
section.
DNV GL has based the simulation on the “one-diode” model /2/ which has become industry practice. The
“one-diode” model is non-linear and implicit, and the required hourly calculations at the site are
performed with the support of computational software /5/.
2.3.1 Loss factors and assumptions

Irradiation and temperature data are introduced into the simulation in order to obtain the net energy
produced by the PV plant (kWh per year). Several loss factors are calculated, applied or estimated
during the hourly simulation. These are described below.
a) Shading losses:
There are two types of shading loss:
 Far shading: DNV GL has estimated the line of horizon with Meteonorm /3/.
 Near shading: The near shading loss essentially considers the inter-array shading as well as that
from other surrounding elements affecting the PV plant performance. A backtracking strategy
has been applied for the tracker-based system.
b) Soiling losses:
Soiling losses depend strongly on the location of the PV system and on the frequency of cleaning and
raining. These losses are associated either with dirt or pollution, which accumulates on the surface of
modules and may result in PV cells receiving less irradiance. In other cases, there may be non-uniformly
distributed dirt, such as bird droppings; this dirt tends to produce significant partial shading on cells.
DNV GL has performed an independent calculation for soiling based on the historical precipitation in this
site. DNV GL has assumed that the PV modules will be washed 2 times per year, in the months that has
more soiling impact for increasing production. For the U.S.A location it was defined as February and
December.
c) Reflection effects (IAM):
The reflection effects, or incidence effect (the other typical designated term is IAM, for "Incidence Angle
Modifier"), corresponds to the weakening of irradiation actually reaching the PV cell surface, with respect
to irradiation under normal incidence. In practice this is commonly calculated using the ASHRAE-model,
defined by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). If
third-party test data is not provided, DNV GL assumes a b0 = 0.05 for most crystalline modules without
anti-reflective coating (ARC) and b0 = 0.04 for most crystalline modules with ARC. The IAM parameter,
b0, is an input into an ASHRAE model equation. The modules for this project have ARC.
d) Irradiance level losses:
The performance characteristics detailed in a module datasheet represent the expected module
performance under standard test conditions. Because a project will not continuously experience STC
irradiation levels (1,000 W/m2), the actual module efficiency will diverge from nameplate-rated efficiency
as the solar irradiation deviates from this level. The irradiance level loss represents the difference in the
module efficiency at STC and the module efficiency at the modelled solar irradiance within each hour.
This loss is calculated in PVsyst and is dependent upon the technical description of the module.
e) Temperature Losses

The temperature coefficient of power for a given PV module defines how the module output power will
respond to changes in module temperature. Temperature loss is calculated in PVsyst using the technical
specifications of the module and the thermal loss factor inputs.
f) Module quality factor:
Module quality factor (“MQF”) is intended to capture the difference between the nameplate and as-flash-
tested power ratings of the PV modules. DNV GL also incorporates imperfect Maximum Peak Power
Tracking (“MPPT”) and PV module modelling adjustment losses into the MQF, as discussed below. DNV
GL recommends requesting flash test data, when available, to verify the overall average power rating of
the modules shipped and to adjust the MQF, if necessary. These are described next:
 Module nameplate adjustment. To account for the actual module power ratings relative to the
nameplate rating;
 Losses due to imperfect inverter MPPT; this is preliminary estimated to be 0.5%. DNV GL
recommends verifying this value with the final inverter manufacturer; and
 Model adjustment factor. Accounting for any minor differences between the module’s nameplate
power rating and the modelled power rating in the simulation software.
g) Light induced degradation - LID:
Light-induced degradation (LID) corresponds to an attenuation of the power of the module (with
crystalline silicon technology) once it is exposed to the actual operating conditions. This factor is typically
verified through an independent measurement performed for the proposed module model for the project.
When available, independently measured data provided by a manufacturer or testing agency is used to
determine the LID for a crystalline module. Trina provided their LID guidance of 1.5% with third party
test report as supporting documents. Therefore, DNV GL applies a 1.5% LID loss across these five
modules.
h) Module mismatching losses:
Mismatch losses occur when the actual modules in an array do not have exactly the same current-
voltage characteristics. The mismatch loss is dependent upon the standard deviations of the short-circuit
current (ISC) and open-circuit voltage (VOC), the distribution type (i.e. normal or square), and
precipitation levels.
Because the lowest current in a string will drive the current for the entire string in a series connection,
the array mismatch loss can be minimized by using only modules of the same type and with very similar
currents. DNV GL typically completes a series of mismatch tests using PVsyst’s “Detailed computation”
mismatch tool. DNV GL can update this loss if module Flash test results are provided.
i) Ohmic wiring losses (DC):
DC ohmic losses occur when connecting the modules to the input of the inverter(s). As current passes
through a wire, the wire resistance induces a voltage drop and dissipates some power as waste heat.
This loss is dependent upon the conductor material (i.e. aluminium or copper), gauge (i.e. diameter),
and resistive properties; the length of the wire; and the current at the input of the wire. If detailed
wiring schedules are not provided, DNV GL assumes a dc ohmic loss of 0.7% at STC for string inverters
for base case. Because the project will not continuously operate at STC, usually at levels well below STC,
the actual dc ohmic loss may tend to be notably less than the assumed loss at STC. DNV GL has
estimated the DC losses for the other scenarios based on base case result and estimated cable lengths.
j) Inverter losses:

The inverter losses include efficiency, and other losses due both to the power and voltage threshold and
to operation above nominal power and voltage. This factor has been calculated by hourly simulations
based on the technical information of the inverter manufacturer. Efficiency curves of the inverter at three
voltages have been considered.
k) Other electrical losses:
DNV GL has considered the following electrical losses:
 Wiring losses (MV AC network): DNV GL has assumed a figure of 0.7% at STC for base case
scenario. DNV GL has estimated the AC losses for the other two scenarios based on base case
result and estimated cable lengths. Lower losses could be expected with a proper wiring design.
This assumption has to be confirmed when the final electrical calculations are available.
 Transformers: There are two losses associated with medium voltage (MV) and high voltage (HV)
transformers: iron (i.e. fixed or core) losses and ohmic (i.e. winding, or variable) losses. Fixed-
load losses continue to draw a load irrespective of whether the array is producing power (e.g. at
night), while the severity of the variable, ohmic loss is dependent upon the resistive properties of
the primary and secondary transformer windings and the current entering the transformer. When
provided, DNV GL calculates the fixed and variable load losses from transformer datasheets. If
datasheets cannot be provided, DNV GL assumes the losses detailed below.
For LV/MV transformers, DNV GL assumes a fixed load loss of 0.2% and a variable load loss 0.9%
at STC. For MV/HV transformers, DNV GL assumes a fixed load loss of 0.1% and a variable load
loss of 0.4% at STC. The HV transformer loss is lower than the MV transformer loss because, in
accordance with Ohm’s Law, resistive power losses are proportional to the square of the current.
For example, a 50% reduction in current will result in 25% of the resistive losses.
DNV GL has assumed that the projects will have LV/MV and MV/HV transformers.
 Parasitic losses: a pragmatic value was assumed in the absence of support calculations. The
parasitic losses include tracker consumption, ventilation of inverters, lighting, monitoring system,
etc. DNV GL has been provided with information regarding inverter’s consumption.
l) Availability losses:
No contractual availability figure is yet available. A figure of 0.8% is considered for tracker system with
staffed operation. DNV GL availability estimation can be achieved if efficient O&M organization is
implemented, using a minimum stock of spare parts and locating a maintenance support center at a
reasonable distance to the site. DNV GL recommends that this value is reviewed in conjunction with the
warranted level of availability provided by the O&M contractor.
Grid availability losses: the grid unavailability was considered as zero, in the absence of any specific
information.
All of the loss factors above are calculated to compile the performance ratio.

2.4 Performance ratio and energy yield
The Performance Ratio (PR) is an international measure to describe the level of utilization for an entire
PV system. The PR is the fraction of useful energy in the nominally theoretical energy volume, which
results from the module surface area, the module efficiency (according to the datasheet) and the
irradiation incident on the module surface. The PR is non-dimensional and it is a parameter that enables
comparison between PV plants at different locations and orientations.
The PR is calculated during the simulation process, by multiplying the different factors described in
previous section. Given the overall PR factor, the total energy delivered is calculated as follows:
PR(%)G PSTC
E AC  INC
100I STC
The yield factor YF is defined as the total energy produced in kWh per kW peak of installed capacity, i.e.
E AC PR(%)GINC
YF  
PSTC 100ISTC
In the formulae:
 EAC (kWh / year) is the system yield;
 PSTC (kW) is the peak installed power (at STC);
 GINC (kWh/m2) is the irradiation on the collector plane; and
 ISTC (1 kW/m2) is the irradiance (at STC).
Error! Reference source not found. presents the predicted long-term annual energy production for
the Project, excluding the effects of PV module degradation. The various loss factors described above
are indicated for the whole system in the Project, on an annual basis.
The net energy prediction presented below, represents the long-term mean, 50% exceedance level, for
the annual energy production of the PV plant (P50). This value is the best estimate of the long-term
mean value to be expected from the proposed design. There is therefore a 50% chance that, even taken
over very long periods, the mean energy production will be less than the value given.

Table 2-4 Energy estimate for the PV plant in US (no degradation applied)
450W 535W 545W

Global Horizontal Irradiation kWh/m2/year 1,856 1,856 1,856
Global irradiation on the inclined kWh/m2/year
2,541 2,543 2,541
Input data
plane
Ambient Temperature ºC 19 19 19
Azimuth deg 0 0 0
Tilt angle deg -60 / 60 -60 / 60 -60 / 60
Peak power kWp 109,958 109,883 109,872
Gross Energy (P50 Year 1) MWh/year 279,347 279,398 279,185

Global incident below threshold [%] 0.0 0.0 0.0
Horizon [%] 0.0 0.0 0.0
Shadings [%] 2.3 2.3 2.3
IAM [%] 0.2 0.3 0.3
Soiling [%] 1.4 1.4 1.4
Ground reflection on front side [%] -0.4 -0.4 -0.4
Loss factors and Energy Results
Bifaciality energy gain [%] -5.0 -5.0 -5.0

Low-irradiance efficiency fall-off [%] 0.2 -0.3 -0.3
Temperature [%] 5.9 5.8 5.6
Module quality [%] 0.3 0.3 0.3
Light induced degradation (LID) [%] 1.5 1.5 1.5
Mismatch [%] 0.4 0.3 0.4
Mismatch for back Irradiance [%] 0.7 0.7 0.7
Ohmic (DC) [%] 0.6 0.8 0.9
Inverter [%] 1.3 1.3 1.3
Plant Controller [%] 0.0 0.0 0.0
Transformers LV-MV [%] 1.4 1.4 1.4
Transformers MV - HV [%] 0.7 0.7 0.7
Auxiliary loads [%] 0.3 0.3 0.3
Ohmic AC [%] 0.7 0.7 0.7
System unavailability [%] 0.8 0.8 0.8
Grid unavailability [%] 0.0 0.0 0.0
Net Energy (P50 Year 1) MWh/year 243,802 245,350 244,764

Yield Factor Net Energy kWh/kWp 2,217 2,233 2,228
Performance Ratio Net Energy [%] 87.3% 87.8% 87.7%

Table 2-5 Energy estimate for the PV plant in Spain (no degradation applied)
450W 535W 545W

Global Horizontal Irradiation kWh/m2/year 1,856 1,856 1,856
Global irradiation on the inclined plane kWh/m2/year 2,507 2,507 2,507
Input data
Ambient Temperature ºC 19 19 19
Azimuth deg 0 0 0
Tilt angle deg -60 / 60 -60 / 60 -60 / 60
Peak power kWp 109,958 109,883 109,872
Gross Energy (P50 Year 1) MWh/year 275,623 275,440 275,412

Global incident below threshold [%] 0.0 0.0 0.0
Horizon [%] 0.0 0.0 0.0
Shadings [%] 1.9 1.9 1.9
IAM [%] 0.2 0.3 0.3
Soiling [%] 1.4 1.4 1.4
Ground reflection on front side [%] -0.4 -0.4 -0.4
Loss factors and Energy Results
Bifaciality energy gain [%] -5.2 -5.2 -5.2

Low-irradiance efficiency fall-off [%] 0.2 -0.4 -0.3
Temperature [%] 6.0 5.9 5.8
Module quality [%] 0.3 0.3 0.3
Light induced degradation (LID) [%] 1.5 1.5 1.5
Mismatch [%] 0.4 0.3 0.4
Mismatch for back Irradiance [%] 0.7 0.7 0.7
Ohmic (DC) [%] 0.6 0.7 0.9
Inverter [%] 1.1 1.1 1.1
Plant Controller [%] 0.0 0.0 0.0
Transformers LV-MV [%] 1.4 1.4 1.4
Transformers MV - HV [%] 0.7 0.7 0.7
Auxiliary loads [%] 0.3 0.3 0.3
Ohmic AC [%] 0.7 0.7 0.7
System unavailability [%] 0.8 0.8 0.8
Grid unavailability [%] 0.0 0.0 0.0
Net Energy (P50 Year 1) MWh/year 241,645 242,918 242,547

Yield Factor Net Energy kWh/kWp 2,198 2,211 2,208
Performance Ratio Net Energy [%] 87.7% 88.2% 88.1%

2.5 Production tables
The energy figures in previous sections do not include the power degradation ratio. It is important to
note this is a system degradation recommendation, as opposed to a module-only degradation rate. The
cumulative effects of widely differing degradation rates among individual modules will affect the system-
level degradation more so than the average degradation of an individual module will – roughly 50%
more. The widely differing degradation rates at the module level introduce unavoidable additional
electrical mismatch losses at the source circuit, or string level, and also at the multi-string, or full array
level. In roughly a ‘weakest link’ manner, the most rapidly degrading modules exert a collective dragging
down of performance at the system level. This secondary, system-level impact is of greater commercial
importance than the simple average module-level degradation. It is the principal reason why DNV GL
emphasizes system-level degradation and recommends the more conservative treatment of the rate than
what some project developers typically use.
DNV GL has conducted an extensive review of PV degradation rates, including the review of hundreds of
papers on this topic (/6/, /7/ and /8/). These papers indicate crystalline PV system annual degradation
rates vary within the interquartile range of 0.4% - 1.1%. Given that the range of this reported rate is of
similar magnitude to the rate itself, it is apparent there is a high level of uncertainty associated with any
degradation assumption. DNV GL current recommendation is using a single-year P50 system-level
degradation rate from the middle of this range: 0.64% per year.
DNV GL recommends running financial model stress tests using several degradation assumptions within
the probability range noted above.
The resulting production figures for the one-year and ten-year periods with the degradation
recommended by DNV GL are presented in Table 2-6 to Table 2-11 together with the Performance Ratio
figures.

Table 2-6 Performance Ratios and net energy outputs for one-year and ten-year periods
(0.64%/year degradation) for the PV plant in US with 450Wp module
ONE YEAR PERIOD TEN YEAR PERIOD

YEAR PR
P50 P75 P90 P95 P50 P75 P90 P95
1 87.3% 243,802 230,882 219,253 199,239 243,802 231,291 220,031 200,651
2 86.7% 242,242 229,404 217,850 197,964 242,242 229,811 218,623 199,367
3 86.2% 240,681 227,927 216,447 196,689 240,681 228,330 217,215 198,083
4 85.6% 239,121 226,449 215,043 195,414 239,121 226,850 215,806 196,799
5 85.0% 237,561 224,971 213,640 194,138 237,561 225,370 214,398 195,514
6 84.5% 236,000 223,494 212,237 192,863 236,000 223,890 212,990 194,230
7 83.9% 234,440 222,016 210,834 191,588 234,440 222,409 211,582 192,946
8 83.4% 232,880 220,538 209,430 190,313 232,880 220,929 210,174 191,662
9 82.8% 231,319 219,061 208,027 189,038 231,319 219,449 208,765 190,378
10 82.2% 229,759 217,583 206,624 187,763 229,759 217,969 207,357 189,094
11 81.7% 228,199 216,106 205,221 186,488 228,199 216,488 205,949 187,809
12 81.1% 226,638 214,628 203,818 185,213 226,638 215,008 204,541 186,525
13 80.6% 225,078 213,150 202,414 183,937 225,078 213,528 203,133 185,241
14 80.0% 223,518 211,673 201,011 182,662 223,518 212,048 201,724 183,957
15 79.5% 221,957 210,195 199,608 181,387 221,957 210,567 200,316 182,673
16 78.9% 220,397 208,717 198,205 180,112 220,397 209,087 198,908 181,389
17 78.3% 218,837 207,240 196,801 178,837 218,837 207,607 197,500 180,104
18 77.8% 217,276 205,762 195,398 177,562 217,276 206,127 196,092 178,820
19 77.2% 215,716 204,284 193,995 176,287 215,716 204,646 194,683 177,536
20 76.7% 214,156 202,807 192,592 175,012 214,156 203,166 193,275 176,252
21 76.1% 212,595 201,329 191,189 173,736 212,595 201,686 191,867 174,968
22 75.5% 211,035 199,851 189,785 172,461 211,035 200,205 190,459 173,684
23 75.0% 209,475 198,374 188,382 171,186 209,475 198,725 189,051 172,399
24 74.4% 207,914 196,896 186,979 169,911 207,914 197,245 187,642 171,115
25 73.9% 206,354 195,419 185,576 168,636 206,354 195,765 186,234 169,831
26 73.3% 204,794 193,941 184,173 167,361 204,794 194,284 184,826 168,547
27 72.8% 203,233 192,463 182,769 166,086 203,233 192,804 183,418 167,263
28 72.2% 201,673 190,986 181,366 164,811 201,673 191,324 182,010 165,979
29 71.6% 200,113 189,508 179,963 163,535 200,113 189,844 180,601 164,694
30 71.1% 198,552 188,030 178,560 162,260 198,552 188,363 179,193 163,410


YEAR PR
P50 P75 P90 P95 P50 P75 P90 P95
1 87.8% 245,350 232,328 220,609 200,438 245,350 232,740 221,390 201,857
2 87.3% 243,780 230,841 219,197 199,155 243,780 231,250 219,973 200,565
3 86.7% 242,210 229,354 217,785 197,872 242,210 229,761 218,556 199,273
4 86.1% 240,639 227,867 216,373 196,590 240,639 228,271 217,139 197,981
5 85.6% 239,069 226,380 214,961 195,307 239,069 226,782 215,722 196,689
6 85.0% 237,499 224,894 213,550 194,024 237,499 225,292 214,306 195,398
7 84.4% 235,929 223,407 212,138 192,741 235,929 223,803 212,889 194,106
8 83.9% 234,358 221,920 210,726 191,458 234,358 222,313 211,472 192,814
9 83.3% 232,788 220,433 209,314 190,176 232,788 220,824 210,055 191,522
10 82.8% 231,218 218,946 207,902 188,893 231,218 219,334 208,638 190,230
11 82.2% 229,648 217,459 206,490 187,610 229,648 217,845 207,221 188,938
12 81.6% 228,077 215,972 205,078 186,327 228,077 216,355 205,804 187,646
13 81.1% 226,507 214,485 203,666 185,044 226,507 214,866 204,387 186,354
14 80.5% 224,937 212,998 202,254 183,762 224,937 213,376 202,970 185,062
15 79.9% 223,367 211,511 200,842 182,479 223,367 211,886 201,553 183,771
16 79.4% 221,796 210,025 199,431 181,196 221,796 210,397 200,137 182,479
17 78.8% 220,226 208,538 198,019 179,913 220,226 208,907 198,720 181,187
18 78.3% 218,656 207,051 196,607 178,630 218,656 207,418 197,303 179,895
19 77.7% 217,086 205,564 195,195 177,348 217,086 205,928 195,886 178,603
20 77.1% 215,515 204,077 193,783 176,065 215,515 204,439 194,469 177,311
21 76.6% 213,945 202,590 192,371 174,782 213,945 202,949 193,052 176,019
22 76.0% 212,375 201,103 190,959 173,499 212,375 201,460 191,635 174,727
23 75.4% 210,805 199,616 189,547 172,216 210,805 199,970 190,218 173,436
24 74.9% 209,234 198,129 188,135 170,934 209,234 198,481 188,801 172,144
25 74.3% 207,664 196,642 186,723 169,651 207,664 196,991 187,384 170,852
26 73.8% 206,094 195,156 185,312 168,368 206,094 195,502 185,968 169,560
27 73.2% 204,524 193,669 183,900 167,085 204,524 194,012 184,551 168,268
28 72.6% 202,954 192,182 182,488 165,802 202,954 192,523 183,134 166,976
29 72.1% 201,383 190,695 181,076 164,520 201,383 191,033 181,717 165,684
30 71.5% 199,813 189,208 179,664 163,237 199,813 189,543 180,300 164,392


YEAR PR
P50 P75 P90 P95 P50 P75 P90 P95
1 87.7% 244,764 231,731 220,002 199,814 244,764 232,140 220,779 201,225
2 87.1% 243,198 230,248 218,594 198,535 243,198 230,654 219,366 199,937
3 86.5% 241,631 228,765 217,186 197,256 241,631 229,169 217,953 198,649
4 86.0% 240,065 227,282 215,778 195,978 240,065 227,683 216,540 197,361
5 85.4% 238,498 225,799 214,370 194,699 238,498 226,197 215,127 196,074
6 84.9% 236,932 224,316 212,962 193,420 236,932 224,712 213,714 194,786
7 84.3% 235,365 222,833 211,554 192,141 235,365 223,226 212,301 193,498
8 83.7% 233,799 221,349 210,146 190,862 233,799 221,740 210,888 192,210
9 83.2% 232,232 219,866 208,738 189,584 232,232 220,254 209,475 190,922
10 82.6% 230,666 218,383 207,330 188,305 230,666 218,769 208,062 189,634
11 82.1% 229,099 216,900 205,922 187,026 229,099 217,283 206,649 188,347
12 81.5% 227,533 215,417 204,514 185,747 227,533 215,797 205,236 187,059
13 80.9% 225,966 213,934 203,106 184,468 225,966 214,312 203,823 185,771
14 80.4% 224,400 212,451 201,698 183,189 224,400 212,826 202,410 184,483
15 79.8% 222,833 210,968 200,290 181,911 222,833 211,340 200,997 183,195
16 79.3% 221,267 209,485 198,882 180,632 221,267 209,855 199,584 181,907
17 78.7% 219,700 208,002 197,474 179,353 219,700 208,369 198,171 180,620
18 78.1% 218,134 206,519 196,066 178,074 218,134 206,883 196,758 179,332
19 77.6% 216,567 205,036 194,658 176,795 216,567 205,397 195,345 178,044
20 77.0% 215,001 203,553 193,250 175,517 215,001 203,912 193,932 176,756
21 76.4% 213,434 202,069 191,842 174,238 213,434 202,426 192,519 175,468
22 75.9% 211,868 200,586 190,434 172,959 211,868 200,940 191,106 174,180
23 75.3% 210,301 199,103 189,026 171,680 210,301 199,455 189,693 172,893
24 74.8% 208,735 197,620 187,618 170,401 208,735 197,969 188,280 171,605
25 74.2% 207,168 196,137 186,210 169,123 207,168 196,483 186,867 170,317
26 73.6% 205,602 194,654 184,802 167,844 205,602 194,998 185,454 169,029
27 73.1% 204,035 193,171 183,394 166,565 204,035 193,512 184,041 167,741
28 72.5% 202,469 191,688 181,986 165,286 202,469 192,026 182,628 166,453
29 72.0% 200,902 190,205 180,578 164,007 200,902 190,541 181,215 165,165
30 71.4% 199,336 188,722 179,170 162,729 199,336 189,055 179,802 163,878

(0.64%/year degradation) for the PV plant in Spain with 450Wp module

YEAR PR
P50 P75 P90 P95 P50 P75 P90 P95
1 87.7% 241,645 228,903 217,435 197,697 241,645 229,311 218,210 199,104
2 87.1% 240,098 227,438 216,043 196,432 240,098 227,843 216,813 197,830
3 86.6% 238,552 225,973 214,652 195,166 238,552 226,376 215,417 196,555
4 86.0% 237,005 224,508 213,260 193,901 237,005 224,908 214,020 195,281
5 85.4% 235,459 223,043 211,869 192,636 235,459 223,441 212,624 194,007
6 84.9% 233,912 221,578 210,477 191,371 233,912 221,973 211,227 192,733
7 84.3% 232,366 220,113 209,085 190,105 232,366 220,505 209,831 191,458
8 83.7% 230,819 218,648 207,694 188,840 230,819 219,038 208,434 190,184
9 83.2% 229,273 217,183 206,302 187,575 229,273 217,570 207,038 188,910
10 82.6% 227,726 215,718 204,911 186,310 227,726 216,103 205,641 187,636
11 82.1% 226,180 214,253 203,519 185,044 226,180 214,635 204,245 186,361
12 81.5% 224,633 212,788 202,128 183,779 224,633 213,168 202,848 185,087
13 80.9% 223,087 211,323 200,736 182,514 223,087 211,700 201,451 183,813
14 80.4% 221,540 209,858 199,344 181,249 221,540 210,232 200,055 182,539
15 79.8% 219,994 208,393 197,953 179,983 219,994 208,765 198,658 181,264
16 79.3% 218,447 206,928 196,561 178,718 218,447 207,297 197,262 179,990
17 78.7% 216,901 205,463 195,170 177,453 216,901 205,830 195,865 178,716
18 78.1% 215,354 203,998 193,778 176,188 215,354 204,362 194,469 177,441
19 77.6% 213,807 202,533 192,386 174,922 213,807 202,894 193,072 176,167
20 77.0% 212,261 201,068 190,995 173,657 212,261 201,427 191,676 174,893
21 76.5% 210,714 199,603 189,603 172,392 210,714 199,959 190,279 173,619
22 75.9% 209,168 198,138 188,212 171,127 209,168 198,492 188,883 172,344
23 75.3% 207,621 196,673 186,820 169,861 207,621 197,024 187,486 171,070
24 74.8% 206,075 195,208 185,429 168,596 206,075 195,556 186,089 169,796
25 74.2% 204,528 193,743 184,037 167,331 204,528 194,089 184,693 168,522
26 73.6% 202,982 192,279 182,645 166,065 202,982 192,621 183,296 167,247
27 73.1% 201,435 190,814 181,254 164,800 201,435 191,154 181,900 165,973
28 72.5% 199,889 189,349 179,862 163,535 199,889 189,686 180,503 164,699
29 72.0% 198,342 187,884 178,471 162,270 198,342 188,218 179,107 163,425
30 71.4% 196,796 186,419 177,079 161,004 196,796 186,751 177,710 162,150


YEAR PR
P50 P75 P90 P99 P50 P75 P90 P99
1 88.2% 242,918 230,089 218,542 198,669 242,918 230,498 219,320 200,081
2 87.6% 241,363 228,616 217,143 197,398 241,363 229,023 217,916 198,800
3 87.1% 239,809 227,144 215,745 196,126 239,809 227,548 216,513 197,520
4 86.5% 238,254 225,671 214,346 194,855 238,254 226,072 215,109 196,239
5 85.9% 236,699 224,199 212,947 193,583 236,699 224,597 213,705 194,959
6 85.4% 235,145 222,726 211,549 192,312 235,145 223,122 212,302 193,678
7 84.8% 233,590 221,254 210,150 191,040 233,590 221,647 210,898 192,398
8 84.2% 232,035 219,781 208,751 189,769 232,035 220,172 209,494 191,117
9 83.7% 230,481 218,308 207,353 188,497 230,481 218,697 208,091 189,837
10 83.1% 228,926 216,836 205,954 187,226 228,926 217,221 206,687 188,556
11 82.5% 227,371 215,363 204,555 185,954 227,371 215,746 205,284 187,276
12 82.0% 225,817 213,891 203,157 184,683 225,817 214,271 203,880 185,995
13 81.4% 224,262 212,418 201,758 183,411 224,262 212,796 202,476 184,715
14 80.9% 222,707 210,946 200,359 182,140 222,707 211,321 201,073 183,434
15 80.3% 221,153 209,473 198,961 180,868 221,153 209,845 199,669 182,154
16 79.7% 219,598 208,000 197,562 179,597 219,598 208,370 198,265 180,873
17 79.2% 218,043 206,528 196,163 178,325 218,043 206,895 196,862 179,593
18 78.6% 216,489 205,055 194,765 177,054 216,489 205,420 195,458 178,312
19 78.0% 214,934 203,583 193,366 175,782 214,934 203,945 194,054 177,032
20 77.5% 213,379 202,110 191,967 174,511 213,379 202,469 192,651 175,751
21 76.9% 211,824 200,638 190,569 173,239 211,824 200,994 191,247 174,471
22 76.3% 210,270 199,165 189,170 171,968 210,270 199,519 189,843 173,190
23 75.8% 208,715 197,692 187,771 170,696 208,715 198,044 188,440 171,910
24 75.2% 207,160 196,220 186,373 169,425 207,160 196,569 187,036 170,629
25 74.6% 205,606 194,747 184,974 168,153 205,606 195,094 185,632 169,349
26 74.1% 204,051 193,275 183,575 166,882 204,051 193,618 184,229 168,068
27 73.5% 202,496 191,802 182,177 165,610 202,496 192,143 182,825 166,788
28 73.0% 200,942 190,330 180,778 164,339 200,942 190,668 181,422 165,507
29 72.4% 199,387 188,857 179,379 163,068 199,387 189,193 180,018 164,226
30 71.8% 197,832 187,384 177,981 161,796 197,832 187,718 178,614 162,946


YEAR PR
P50 P75 P90 P99 P50 P75 P90 P99
1 88.1% 242,547 229,699 218,136 198,234 242,547 230,107 218,910 199,640
2 87.5% 240,995 228,229 216,740 196,965 240,995 228,634 217,509 198,362
3 86.9% 239,442 226,759 215,344 195,697 239,442 227,162 216,108 197,085
4 86.4% 237,890 225,289 213,948 194,428 237,890 225,689 214,707 195,807
5 85.8% 236,338 223,819 212,552 193,159 236,338 224,216 213,306 194,529
6 85.2% 234,785 222,349 211,156 191,891 234,785 222,744 211,905 193,252
7 84.7% 233,233 220,879 209,760 190,622 233,233 221,271 210,504 191,974
8 84.1% 231,681 219,408 208,364 189,353 231,681 219,798 209,103 190,696
9 83.6% 230,129 217,938 206,967 188,084 230,129 218,326 207,702 189,418
10 83.0% 228,576 216,468 205,571 186,816 228,576 216,853 206,301 188,141
11 82.4% 227,024 214,998 204,175 185,547 227,024 215,380 204,900 186,863
12 81.9% 225,472 213,528 202,779 184,278 225,472 213,907 203,499 185,585
13 81.3% 223,919 212,058 201,383 183,010 223,919 212,435 202,098 184,308
14 80.7% 222,367 210,588 199,987 181,741 222,367 210,962 200,697 183,030
15 80.2% 220,815 209,118 198,591 180,472 220,815 209,489 199,296 181,752
16 79.6% 219,262 207,648 197,195 179,204 219,262 208,017 197,895 180,475
17 79.0% 217,710 206,178 195,799 177,935 217,710 206,544 196,494 179,197
18 78.5% 216,158 204,708 194,403 176,666 216,158 205,071 195,093 177,919
19 77.9% 214,606 203,238 193,007 175,397 214,606 203,599 193,692 176,641
20 77.4% 213,053 201,768 191,611 174,129 213,053 202,126 192,291 175,364
21 76.8% 211,501 200,298 190,215 172,860 211,501 200,653 190,890 174,086
22 76.2% 209,949 198,827 188,819 171,591 209,949 199,181 189,488 172,808
23 75.7% 208,396 197,357 187,422 170,323 208,396 197,708 188,087 171,531
24 75.1% 206,844 195,887 186,026 169,054 206,844 196,235 186,686 170,253
25 74.5% 205,292 194,417 184,630 167,785 205,292 194,763 185,285 168,975
26 74.0% 203,739 192,947 183,234 166,517 203,739 193,290 183,884 167,698
27 73.4% 202,187 191,477 181,838 165,248 202,187 191,817 182,483 166,420
28 72.8% 200,635 190,007 180,442 163,979 200,635 190,345 181,082 165,142
29 72.3% 199,083 188,537 179,046 162,710 199,083 188,872 179,681 163,865
30 71.7% 197,530 187,067 177,650 161,442 197,530 187,399 178,280 162,587

3 COST ESTIMATION
DNV GL has evaluated the costs of the two proposed PV plants for the Project, in USA and Spain. Cost
estimation can be performed in several ways and can be very detailed, but for comparison purposes as it
is the scope of this analysis, using simplified data and focusing in core metrics is a reasonable approach.
DNV GL has selected the following key indicators for the analysis:
 Capital Costs (CAPEX);
 Operational Costs (OPEX)
 Performance (reviewed in Section 2);
 Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE);
DNV GL has performed a preliminary analysis of the costs based on the preliminary design, benchmark
from other similar projects and best practice. CAPEX, OPEX and LCOE has been estimated for each
different PV mdoule configuration: 450W, 535W and 545W. Energy results from previous section has
been used for LCOE estimation.
DNV GL presents hereinafter the analysis which is based on the characterization of the plants and the
estimation of the costs. DNV GL has made some assumptions based on previous experience in similar
projects. DNV GL has identified each of the costs that are suitable to be impacted by the use of different
PV module ratings, but it is not the aim of this project to detail all the costs.
DNV GL highlights that the results of the analysis shall not be considered as final estimates of the
expected PV plant economic evaluation. This should be revisited once final design and project specific
economic inputs are available.
3.1 Assumptions
DNV GL has assumed a common Project Finance, EPC and O&M structure based on standard industry for
each of the countries analyzed. The following assumptions are considered:
 EPC contract is turnkey including all major equipment;
 Quantities are based on preliminary design described in Section 2;
 Costs are based on similar projects and equipment providers;
 PV module and inverter costs have been provided by the Customer;
 Tracker price is provided by Arctech Solar, adjust to different modules;
 O&M costs include all scheduled and unscheduled costs annualized;
 A constant annual escalation (CPI) has been considered;
 No incentives or subsidies are considered;
 The lifetime assumed is of 30 years;
 The €/$US exchange rate is assumed to be 0.9201;
 Discount rate has been estimated for each country but DNV GL recognizes that this is not our
area of expertise.
DNV GL highlights that cost data used in the analysis are part of our benchmark experience and we
consider that reflect reasonable values for both countries considered: USA and Spain. However, DNV GL

is aware that costs can highly vary depending on the contractor, region, material availability, project
restrictions and affections.
DNV GL recommends revisiting each of the assumptions when specific inputs are provided. It should also
be noted that commodity values are volatile and difficult to predict over the study horizon. However,
since the above assumptions have been considered in all the scenarios, the comparison conclusion will
remain valid.
3.2 Design characterization

DNV GL has made some assumptions regarding characterization of the plant in order to slightly simplify
the analysis. The assumptions are made based on experience in previous similar projects in Spain and
projects in USA. DNV GL highlights that both projects have strong synergies since the technology and
design is the same and therefore a unique design characterization has been considered. Since this is not
the objective of the project, DNV GL has assumed an average cable thickness for each cabling type (DC,
AC LV and AC MV). Similarly, DNV GL has assumed average drainage system through all the plant and
along all the roads and perimeter.
The following characteristics of the projects have been considered for the analysis. These have been
extracted from the design review in Section 2 of the projects.
Table 3-1 Project design results
Item Unit 450W 535W 545W
Vertical roads width m 9
Horizontal roads width m 5
Land occupied ha 186.71 179.82 182.03
Roads surface m2 69,601 66,313 68,177
Perimeter length m 5,560 5,382 5,457
Drainage system length m 23,215 21,984 22,606
DC cabling length m 399,557 341,320 262,841
AC LV cabling length m 224,721 201,252 214,577
AC MV cabling length m 43,258 40,067 41,792
3.3 CAPEX
DNV GL has assumed costs for each of the capital expenses based on the review of other similar
projects. Additionally, DNV GL has been provided with cost for PV module and inverter used in the
Project as follows:
Table 3-2 Customer cost inputs
Item US ($/W) Spain (€/W)
PV module price 0.3200 0.1932
Inverter price 0.0279 0.0257
450W 0.1011 0.0852
Tracker price 535W 0.0899 0.0758
545W 0.0874 0.0737
Based on the review performed in above sections, the following tables show the summary of the Capital
Costs for each scenario of the plants.

Table 3-3 CAPEX results (€) – Spain
Item 450Wp 535Wp 545Wp
Module 0.1932 0.1932 0.1932
Inverter 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257
Tracker with piles 0.0852 0.0758 0.0737
Cabling DC 0.0021 0.0018 0.0014
Cabling AC LV 0.0023 0.0021 0.0022
Cabling AC MV 0.0029 0.0027 0.0028
Cabling DC mounting 0.0016 0.0014 0.0011
Cabling AC LV mounting 0.0017 0.0015 0.0016
Cabling AC MV mounting 0.0013 0.0012 0.0013
Fencing 0.0005 0.0004 0.0004
Tracker mounting 0.0237 0.0199 0.0195
Trenches 0.0048 0.0042 0.0044
Drainage system 0.0015 0.0014 0.0015
Roads 0.0018 0.0017 0.0018
Land adequation 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025
Transport tracker 0.0011 0.0009 0.0009
Transport modules 0.0117 0.0098 0.0096
Total cost 0.3636 0.3463 0.3437
Other BOS 0.1460 0.1460 0.1460
Target EPC 0.5096 0.4923 0.4897
BOS 0.3164 0.2991 0.2964
Development and others 0.1070 0.1034 0.1028
CAPEX 0.6166 0.5957 0.5925
CAPEX as 450 baselines (%) 0.00 -3.40 -3.92

Table 3-4 CAPEX results ($) - US
Module 0.3200 0.3200 0.3200
Inverter 0.0279 0.0279 0.0279
Tracker with piles 0.1011 0.0899 0.0874
DC trenching, wiring, cable,

0.0336 0.0287 0.0221
and conduit materials
DC installation 0.0073 0.0062 0.0048
AC trenching wiring, cable, and

0.0244 0.0219 0.0233
conduit materials
AC installation 0.0022 0.0020 0.0021
Fencing 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020
Tracker mounting 0.0205 0.0172 0.0169
Roads 0.0021 0.0020 0.0021
Drainage system 0.0110 0.0092 0.0091
Land adequation 0.0147 0.0142 0.0143
Transport tracker 0.0012 0.0010 0.0010
Transport modules 0.0127 0.0107 0.0105
Total cost 0.5807 0.5530 0.5436
Other BOS 0.3511 0.3511 0.3511
Target EPC 0.9318 0.9041 0.8947
BOS 0.6118 0.5841 0.5747
Development and others 0.1584 0.1537 0.1521
CAPEX 1.0902 1.0577 1.0468
CAPEX as 450 baselines (%) 0.00 -2.97 -3.98

3.4 OPEX
DNV GL has assumed costs for each of the operational expenses based on the review of other similar
projects. Additionally, DNV GL has assumed a reduction in O&M fee between the different scenarios
proportional to the number of trackers and considering that the trackers maintenance weights
approximately one third of the total fees.
Based on the review performed in above sections, the following tables show the summary of the
Operational Costs for each scenario of the plants.
Table 3-5 OPEX results (€) – Spain

Land 0.0017 0.0016 0.0017
O&M fee 0.0150 0.0150 0.0150
Asset management 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020
OPEX 0.0187 0.0186 0.0187
Table 3-6 OPEX results ($) – USA

Land 0.0031 0.0030 0.0030
O&M fee 0.0082 0.0082 0.0082
Asset management 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015
Market agent 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
OPEX 0.0128 0.0127 0.0128
3.5 LCOE
Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) is a common measure that is used to compare different projects and
technologies based on the combination of CAPEX, OPEX, performance and fuel cost. In renewable
technologies usually fuel cost tends to zero compared to technologies. LCOE is usually used because
includes all the costs over lifetime of a project including cost of capital. It is also important to highlight
that using the discounted cash flow method the time value of money is considered. This is based on the
use of the Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) or also called the discount rate. DNV GL has used
the following formula which is widely accepted and used by organizations as NREL and IRENA.
Figure 3-1 LCOE formula used for the analysis. Source: Renewable Power Generation Costs in
2018, IRENA

The WACC is equivalent to the expected return on capital invested. It can be a complex parameter
depending on the assumptions considered. DNV GL has assumed expectations from equity and debtors
resulting in the following formula:
WACC = Cost of Equity x %Equity + Cost of Debt x %Debt
The main assumptions considered for WACC calculation are as follows:

Table 3-7 WACC assumptions
Item Spain US
Amount of equity (%) 30 15
Cost of equity (%) 13 10
Cost of debt (%) 5 5
WACC (estimated) (%) 7.40 5.75
Based on the cost results of previous sections and LCOE inputs definitions, the following results have
been estimated:
Table 3-8 LCOE estimation
LCOE Spain (€/kWh) 0.0364 0.0353 0.0352
LCOE 450 as baseline(%) 0.00 -3.01 -3.19
LCOE US ($/kWh) 0.0451 0.0437 0.0434
LCOE 450 as baseline(%) 0.00 -3.28 -3.72

3.6 Summary
From the cost analysis of the different scenarios of the Project, DNV GL has obtained the following
results:
Table 3-9 Cost results - Spain
CAPEX 0.6166 0.5957 0.5925
OPEX 0.0187 0.0186 0.0187
LCOE(€/kWh) 0.0364 0.0353 0.0352
Table 3-10 Cost results - USA

CAPEX 1.0902 1.0577 1.0468
OPEX 0.0128 0.0127 0.0128
LCOE($/kWh) 0.0451 0.0437 0.0434
As it can be observed, the use of a bigger PV module has a positive impact in reduction of CAPEX, OPEX
and LCOE due to reduction of equipment, manhours and surface needed, both in Spain and USA
locations.

4 REFERENCES
/1/ R. Perez, P. Ineichen, R. Seals, J. Michalsky, R. Stewart. “Modelling Daylight Availability and
Irradiance Component from Direct and Global Irradiance”, Solar Energy 44, Nº5, pp 271-289,
1990.
/2/ John A. Duffie et W.A. Beckman. “Solar Engineering of Thermal process”. John Wiley and Sons,
N-Y, 2nd Edition, 1991.
/3/ Meteotest, www.meteonorm.com
/4/ Satellite data characteristics, http://solargis.info/doc/_docs/SolarGIS_data_specification.pdf
/5/ PVSyst 6.8.7
/6/ D. C. Jordan, S. R. Kurtz, K. VanSant and J. Newmiller, “Compendium of photovoltaic

degradation rates”, 2016
/7/ D. C. Jordan and S. R. Kurtz. “Photovoltaic Degradation Rates—an Analytical Review”, Progress
in Photovoltaics: Research and applications 2011.
D. Kirk, C Jordan and Sarah R. Kurtz, “Photovoltaic Degradation rates – An analytical review”,
/8/
NREL, June 2012
/9/ NASA topographic data, https://gdex.cr.usgs.gov/gdex/
/10/ CE-Layout Production Assessement.docx

APPENDIX A: PV MODULE DATA SHEETS
Page 31 of 37
10272911-CN-SH-01-A Trina Vertex Two

portrait LCOE calculation 3 comparison
Page 32 of 37

Page 33 of 37

APPENDIX B: INVERTER DATASHEET
APPENDIX C: TRACKER DATASHEET
Page 36 of 37

Page 37 of 37
About DNV GL
Driven by our purpose of safeguarding life, property and the environment, DNV GL enables organizations
to advance the safety and sustainability of their business. We provide classification and technical
assurance along with software and independent expert advisory services to the maritime, oil and gas,
and energy industries. We also provide certification services to customers across a wide range of
industries. Operating in more than 100 countries, our 16,000 professionals are dedicated to helping our
customers make the world safer, smarter and greener.


TrinaVertex Two-Portrait LCOE Calculation-3 Comparison

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TrinaVertex Two-Portrait LCOE Calculation-3 Comparison

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TECHNICAL REPORT

Trina Vertex Two-in-Portrait

Document No.: 10272911-CN-SH-01-A

DNV GL – Report No.10212465-ESBA-R-01-B – www.dnvgl.com Page 1

KEY TO DOCUMENT CLASSIFICATION

For disclosure only to named individuals within the Customer’s

For disclosure only to individuals directly concerned with the

Commercial in Confidence : Not to be disclosed outside the Customer’s organization.

DNV GL only : Not to be disclosed to non-DNV GL staff

Distribution for information only at the discretion of the

Available for information only to the general public (subject to

DNV GL – Report No.10212465-ESBA-R-01-B – www.dnvgl.com Page 2

Task and objective: Trina Vertex BOS & LCOE calculation.

Prepared by: Verified by: Approved by:

Chen Zhang Jun Lu Jason Lee

☐ Strictly Confidential Keywords:

Version Date Reason for Issue Prepared by Verified by Approved by

DNV GL – Report No.10212465-ESBA-R-01-B – www.dnvgl.com Page 3

2 ENERGY YIELD ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................... 6

3 COST ESTIMATION ....................................................................................................... 22

DNV GL – Report No.10212465-ESBA-R-01-B – www.dnvgl.com Page 4

Table 1-1: Coordinates of the Projects

Latitude 37.27° 34.36°

Figure 1-1: Indicative location of the Projects in USA & Spain

DNV GL – Report No.10212465-ESBA-R-01-B – www.dnvgl.com Page 5

2.1 Project description

PV module type Mono-crystalline, Bifacial

Inverter type String inverter

Total inverter power

DNV GL – Report No.10212465-ESBA-R-01-B – www.dnvgl.com Page 6

2.2.1 Irradiation and temperature data for the Project

DNV GL – Report No.10212465-ESBA-R-01-B – www.dnvgl.com Page 7

2.3 Energy assessment methodology

A prediction of solar power generation is typically performed by DNV GL in several steps:

DNV GL – Report No.10212465-ESBA-R-01-B – www.dnvgl.com Page 8

2.3.1 Loss factors and assumptions

There are two types of shading loss:

c) Reflection effects (IAM):

d) Irradiance level losses:

DNV GL – Report No.10212465-ESBA-R-01-B – www.dnvgl.com Page 9

f) Module quality factor:

g) Light induced degradation - LID:

h) Module mismatching losses:

i) Ohmic wiring losses (DC):

DNV GL – Report No.10212465-ESBA-R-01-B – www.dnvgl.com Page 10

k) Other electrical losses:

DNV GL has considered the following electrical losses:

DNV GL – Report No.10212465-ESBA-R-01-B – www.dnvgl.com Page 11

 EAC (kWh / year) is the system yield;

 PSTC (kW) is the peak installed power (at STC);

 GINC (kWh/m2) is the irradiation on the collector plane; and

 ISTC (1 kW/m2) is the irradiance (at STC).

DNV GL – Report No.10212465-ESBA-R-01-B – www.dnvgl.com Page 12

450W 535W 545W

Gross Energy (P50 Year 1) MWh/year 279,347 279,398 279,185

Bifaciality energy gain [%] -5.0 -5.0 -5.0

Net Energy (P50 Year 1) MWh/year 243,802 245,350 244,764

DNV GL – Report No.10212465-ESBA-R-01-B – www.dnvgl.com Page 13

450W 535W 545W

Gross Energy (P50 Year 1) MWh/year 275,623 275,440 275,412

Bifaciality energy gain [%] -5.2 -5.2 -5.2

Net Energy (P50 Year 1) MWh/year 241,645 242,918 242,547