Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
2013
Page
Page
10
Page
22
Wind
REC
Solar
TABLE OF CONTENTS
WIND ENERGY........................................................................ 3
Outlook on Indian Wind Sector. .............................................................. 3
GUJARAT SOLAR PV PLANTS - ANALYSIS OF ONE YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA ............................ 15 SOLAR ENERGY. ................................................................. 22
Outlook on Indian Solar Sector ........................................................... 22
Evaluating the performance of Solar PV plants in India using Performance Ratio (PR) .......................................................................... 29
www.panchabuta.com
M a r k e t s h a re of wind t u rb i n e m a n ufacturers
The year 2013-14 saw some major changes in the market share of wind turbine manufacturers. Suzlon and Gamesa lost significant market share in the year 201213 over the previous year. Enercon and ReGen Powertech improved their market shares marginally in 2012-13 compared to previous year.
Manufacturer Installed Capacity in MW year-wise 200910 Enercon Suzlon ReGen Powertech Inox GE Wind 348.8 762.65 55.5 201011 504 954.6 55.5 201112 767 1149 416 201213 453.6 414. 75 273
* Including Vestas
Potential
The total potential for wind power in India was first estimated by the Centre for Wind Energy Technology (C-WET) at 45 GW, and was recently increased to 48.5 GW. This figure was also adopted by the Government as the official estimate. At heights of 55 - 65 metres, the Indian Wind Turbine Manufacturers Association (IWTMA) estimates that the potential for wind development in India is around 65 - 70 GW. According to the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), it is estimated that by 2030, installed capacity could reach 191 GW. In the future, a considerable portion of the capacity addition is also expected
to come from repowering of existing wind farms. This is due to the fact that most high wind energy density sites are already exploited and are occupied (in most cases) by older, low capacity wind turbines. Upgrading these wind farms with latest design as well as promoting the use of more efficient turbines would result in the wind farms seeing higher PLF, thereby aiding in the realization of higher revenue.
N.A N.A
N.A N.A
N.A N.A
264 121.5
www.panchabuta.com
wind farms upto 12 nautical miles from the coast. The policy offers several fiscal incentives in the form of a 10 year tax holiday, concessional import duties and certain duty waivers. In August 2013, it was announced that a National Offshore Wind Energy Authority (NOWA) under the aegis of the MNRE would be constituted, that will act as the nodal agency for Off-shore Wind Projects in the country. NOWA will carry out resource assessment and surveys in the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) of the country and simultaneously enter into contracts with project developers for development of off-shore wind energy projects in the territorial waters (12 nm). NOWA will be the single window agency and will coordinate with concerned Ministries/Departments for necessary clearances. However, NOWA will only act as a facilitator for getting clearance and application for clearance will be dealt in entirety by the concerned Ministry/Department.In
The year-wise capacity additions since 2006-07 (in MW) State Tamil Nadu Gujarat Maharashtra Rajasthan Karnataka Madhya Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Kerala Others Total (MW) 2006-07
(Cumulative)
2007-08 3,873.4 1,252.9 1,755.9 538.8 1,011.4 187.7 122.5 10.5 1.1 8,754.2
2008-09 4,304.5 1,566.5 1,938.9 738.4 1,327.4 212.8 122.5 27.0 1.1 10,239.1
2009-10 4,907.0 1,864.0 2,078.0 1,088.0 1,473.0 229.0 236.0 28.0 4.0 11,907
2010-11 5,904.4 2,175.5 2,310.8 1,524.8 1,730.0 275.5 200.2 32.8 14,154
2011-12 6,987.6 2,966.3 2,733.3 2,070. 7 1,933.5 376.4 245.5 35.1 3.2 17,351.6
2012-13 7,162.18 3,174.58 3,021.85 2,684.65 2,135.15 386.00 447.65 35.10 4.30 19,051.46
3,492.7 636.6 1,487.7 469.8 821.1 57.3 122.5 2.0 1.1 7,090.8
Policy Framework
Feed-in-Tariff
The wind energy capacity additions has been driven primarily through a feed-intariff (FiT) mechanism. The FiT for each state is determined by its respective State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC). The various SERCs thus far have adopted a cost-plus approach wherein, the costs associated with setting up a wind power plant such as capital expenses and operational expenses are considered based on discussions with various stakeholders. The FiT is then calculated based on the levelized cost and a fixed profit margin determined by the regulators. One other important aspect considered while setting the wind energy tariff is the capacity utilization factor (CUF). CUF is a function of the site at which the wind turbine is located and as such various regions across a state might have different wind profiles thereby affecting the electricity generated and hence revenues. This has led to some states such as Maharashtra opting for a tariff scheme which is tied to the prevailing wind regime across the various parts of the state leading to what is known as a zone based tariff. In this mechanism, the projects in regions with the lowest wind energy density are offered a higher tariff while the highest wind energy density region is given a lower tariff. This ensures that the returns from all projects remain the same and the variance due to wind energy regimes is minimized to a very large extent.
Installed Capacity
The geographic distribution of wind energy generation capacity is diverse. It can be argued that the geographic distribution of wind power in the country follows the available wind energy potential in the states. For instance, some of the regions with the highest wind energy density (Class 1/Class 2) sites can be found in Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Karnataka. Of these states, almost all available high wind energy sites have been utilized in Tamil Nadu. The state where there is a significant divide between the available potential and installed capacity is Karnataka. Tamil Nadu is the clear leader when it comes to the total wind capacity installed in India accounting for about 38% of the overall installed wind energy capacity as of 31st March 2013. Tamil Nadu is followed by Gujarat, Maharashtra and Rajasthan three states which have taken significant effort in bolstering their wind capacity. The top 5 states (Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Karnataka)
constitute 95% of the total capacity installed in the country. Maharashtra is slowly gaining ground on Tamil Nadu as most developers observe that the states wind zone-based tariff system is conducive for financially viable development of power plants. Furthermore, with payment security sighted as one of the major concerns in Tamil Nadu, developers are moving away from the once home of wind energy to new pastures. However, Tamil Nadu has cleared most of the pending payments, and is once again gaining the confidence of investors. Capacity additions were down by a significant percentage this financial year in some of the leading states such as Tamil Nadu, Gujarat and Maharashtra. But states such as Rajasthan and Karnataka have either seen an increase or stable capacity additions.
www.panchabuta.com
6 State Tariff rates per KWh Rs. 4.70 Annual tariff escalation Constant for 10 years for the PPAs to be signed during 01-05-09 to 31-03-14 No escalation for 25 years of project life No escalation for 10 years No escalation for 20 years of project life No escalation for 25 years of project life No escalation for 13 years Order on 26/03/13 Net tariff including AD benefit Notes Rajasthan Order on 15/11/12 Rs. 5.18 (without AD) Rs. 4.89 (with AD) No escalation for 25 years. Applicable to wind Power Plants located in Jaisalmer, Jodhpur & Barmer districts No escalation for 25 years. Applicable to wind Power Plants located in districts other than Jaisalmer, Jodhpur & Barmer districts. No escalation for 20 years of project life No escalation for 10 years 2013 State 2011-12 2012-13 Change Year -overYear -84% -74% -32% 12% -1% -90% 346% -100% -66% -47%
Andhra Pradesh
Tamil Nadu Gujarat Maharashtra Rajasthan Karnataka Madhya Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Kerala Others Total (MW)
1,083.20 790.80 422.50 545.90 203.50 100.90 45.30 2.30 3.20 3,197.60
Gujarat
Rs. 4.15
Order on 07/01/13
Karnataka Kerala
Rs. 3.70
Rs. 4.77
Madhya Pradesh
Rs. 5.92
(Source: MNRE)
Maharashtra
Wind Zone I Rs. 4.86 Wind Zone II RS. 4.23 Wind Zone III Rs. 3.60 Wind Zone IV Rs. 3.24
Tamil Nadu
Rs. 3.51
West Bengal
Rs. 4.87
Accelerated Depreciation
Wind capacity additions reached their zenith under the Accelerated Depreciation (AD) regime where wind farm developers were offered fiscal incentives (tax benefits). The incentive offered, allowed for wind farm developers to opt for 80% AD on their assets. This led to a tremendous growth in wind capacity additions. The AD benefit can be credited for single-handedly driving India to the top of the leader boards in the wind sector. Earlier it was suggested that the AD benefit for setting up wind farms would be withdrawn with the introduction of the new direct tax code. However, the AD benefits enjoyed by developers thus far were withdrawn from the financial year 2012-13 i.e. from 1st April 2012 onwards. The impact of the removal of AD is evident as seen from the drastic drop in installations in every major state, except Rajasthan.
Maharashtra
Wind Zone I Rs. 5.67 Wind Zone II Rs. 4.93 Wind Zone III Rs. 4.20 Wind Zone IV Rs. 3.78
Orissa
Rs. 5.31
Punjab
www.panchabuta.com
before 31st March 2012 were eligible for GBI provided the developer chose to go through this route. The expiry of the GBI in March 2012 and the consequent non-availability of the incentive also contributed to the huge slump in the sector in 2012-13. The Government of India, acknowledging the importance of the GBI in the growth of the sector, especially after the phasing out of AD benefits, reinstated the GBI from 1st April 2013 and allocated Rs. 800 Crore towards the same. On 1st August 2013, the Union Cabinet of Ministers formally approved the reinstatement of the scheme. The incentive of 50 paise per kWh of electricity generated by wind projects registered under the scheme will continue. The cap of Rs. 62 lakhs per MW has been increased to Rs. 1 Crore per MW, which can be drawn in not fewer than 4 years and not more than 10.
by the existence of the AD mechanism. With AD being phased out, wind power developers can no longer use installation of WTGs as a financial instrument. Furthermore, the most financially viable wind projects are those under the REC mechanism which favour a higher quantum of energy generation. Such projects typically have capacity additions of a larger scale (on a per project basis). In this scenario, capacity additions are likely to be driven by large scale IPPs as opposed to several small scale developers. The updates from some of the leading developers are given below.
Month Developer Capacity (MW) Estimated Project Cost (Rs. Crore 300 Project Status
May'13
CESC
40
May'13
Mytrah
100
May'13
21
April'13
54
December'12 November'12
50 .4
25.5
180
ITC
Not Available 45
300
July'13
100
July'13
Greenco Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) Nalco
250
July'13
July'13
6.3
Not Available
Announced
June'13
47.6
283
June'13
SJVNL
47.6
The shift towards an IPP driven market has also had an impact on the business models of the turbine manufacturers. Initially, all turbine manufacturers in the country offered to undertake EPC services for wind power plants, in addition to providing turbines, as customers expected the turbine manufacturers to install the turbines and connect it to the grid. This is in stark contrast with what is witnessed in the Western markets where the turbine manufacturers merely provide the turbine and support services. With the emergence of large scale wind IPPs in the country, the turbine manufacturers might no longer need to provide the EPC services. IPPs, as opposed to small scale developers, are building in-house expertise for developing as well as installing wind turbines. Further, IPPs would prefer to keep all sourcing/installation tasks under their control as this would help them cut costs significantly. In the future, we are likely to see a transition to the Western model wherein the turbine manufacturers merely provide the turbines and assist in the maintenance of the power plants. The initial phases of such a transition are already evident as the model is evolving.
May'13
NLC
50
Consolidation
The wind sector has already set in motion the inevitable consolidation, which has resulted in two categories of entities. On one side, there are several business entities that are exiting the wind busi-
Paradigm Shift
There is no doubt that the market until a couple of years ago has been driven
www.panchabuta.com
ness. Some of the major companies in this category include TVS Energy, Ashok Leyland, DLF, among others. On the other side, there are IPPs like Green Infra, BLP and Mytrah Energy that are growing or looking to grow through green field projects and through acquisitions of existing wind assets. In August 2013, IDFC backed Green Infra announced the acquisition of 59.75 MW wind assets of TVS Energy. With this sale, TVS Energy exited the sector citing the high capital intensity of the sector. Similarly, DLF sold off a total of 228.7 MW in 4 different states to different buyers. The details are as follows a. b. c. Karnataka 11.2 MW sold to Goyal MG Gases for Rs. 30 Crore Gujarat 150 MW sold to Bharat Light and Power for Rs. 325 Crore Tamil Nadu 34.5 MW sold to Tulip Renewable Power Tech for Rs. 188.7 Crore Rajasthan 33 MW sold to Violet Green Power for Rs. 52.2 Crore
The fact that the Southern Grid, of which Tamil Nadu is part of, is not synchronised with the rest of the grids compounds the problem. According to the Indian Wind Turbine Manufacturers Association (IWTMA), during the peak wind season from May to September 2013, about 500 MW capacities would be forced to shut down in the Tirunelveli region of Tamil Nadu.
Conclusion
The shift from a turbine manufacturer driven-market to an Independent Power Producer (IPP) driven-market accelerated over the past year. The reinstatement of the GBI mechanism not only provides relief to the industry, but also stands to benefit the IPP more than from AD. The RPO/REC mechanism seems to be holding the wind industry up at the moment. As to whether the industry can depend solely on this mechanism remains to be seen. It should be noted that in significant contrast with the solar industry, the wind industry is heavily indigenized. It is estimated that anywhere between 40% to 75% of all components used for the development of a wind turbine/farm are manufactured within the country. The success of the wind industry would then have a direct impact on the economy as the sector has created many jobs along with fostering the growth of various other associated businesses. The sector would continue to do so depending on the growth of the wind market in India. The wind industry is now grappling with some old challenges that are becoming bigger and some new challenges. The increasing power evacuation problem falls in the former category and the need for scheduling and forecasting falls in the latter. While forecasting is very important for the industry, a higher level of accurate forecasting might take some more time. Overall, the wind industry is at crossroads. The restoration of the GBI is a boon but it is likely to take a few years for the industry to touch the peak capacity installation in 2011-12. The lacklustre RPO enforcement is also hurting the growth of the sector. The consolidation caused by the downturn in the sector will continue, with many firms exiting the wind business and some entering due to attractive valuations.
Green Corridor
The Government of India, acknowledging the importance of evacua tion infrastructure for renewables, has announced the setting up of Green Energy Corridors for transmission of power. The aim is to supply 30 GW of renewable power (solar and wind) to the national grid by 2020. Germany has announced that it will provide financial assistance of Euro One Billion for this project and the Joint Declaration of Intent on Establishment of Green Energy Corridors was signed by the Prime Minister of India and Chancellor of Germany in April 2013.
d.
e. Wind assets of VRL Logistics totalling 42.5 MW were purchased by Amplus Infrastructure f. Madhya Pradesh - 180 MW sold to Continuum Wind Energy for an undisclosed value
Apart from these, Mytrah Energy and Ushdev International have announced intentions to procure operational wind assets.
Way Forward
Evacuation
The increased capacity addition of wind in the country is unfortunately not matched by an equivalent addition of power evacuation infrastructure. The lack of grid availability during the peak wind seasons is a major problem for the wind power producers, mostly in Tamil Nadu, where technical challenges result in grid congestion. According to the leading IPP Orient Green Power Ltd. (OGPL), the generation of wind power dropped by 15% or more for most companies in November 2012 due to the lack of grid availability.
www.panchabuta.com
10
Background
Renewable Purchase Obligation
As per the Electricity Act of 2003, it is mandatory for Obligated Entities (OEs) to buy a certain percentage of the total energy requirement from renewable energy sources. The RPO targets are set for each state and it is the responsibility of the State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC) to enforce the targets. The targets for 2013-14 for each state are given below.
States 2013-14 RPO Obligation (Non-Solar) 4.75 % 2013-14 RPO Obligation (Solar)
9,300 13,400
5.00 %**
1.00 %**
3.90%
0.10 %
The table below gives the details of the projects accredited and registered under the REC Mechanism for different renewable energy sources.
Source Accreditation Capacity (MW) Unit Registration Capacity (MW) Unit
2.60 %
0. 40 %
Andhra Pradesh Assam Arunachal Pradesh Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh J&K Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Meghalaya
0.25 %
2253.18
566
2038.29
534
** RPO targets are not determined for FY14 and are assumed to continue FY13 target levels. * 10% + 0.25% (BESCOM, MESCOM, CESC), 7% + 0.25% for others. (Source: REConnect as of July 2013)
Urban or Muncipal Waste Solar Thermal Solar PV Small Hydro Others Geothermal Biomass Bio-fuel cogeneration Total
16
3 171.68 218
1 83 25
0 162.68 197.5
0 78 23
1.67 0
1 0
1.67 0
1 0
639.9 777.87
65 79
582.85 669.3
60 70
4081.29
822
3652.28
rd
766
8.50 % 0.60 %
0.50 % 0. 40 %
The statewise projects accredited under the REC mechanism as of 23rd August 2013 are given below. The trading dynamics of solar and nonsolar RECs are quite different owing to
www.panchabuta.com
11
Tamil Nadu
Maharashtra
210
986.56 918.8 678.13 418.6 234. 79 224 130.55 110. 4 88.5 66. 78 47.5 33.9 26.6 24 24 23.2 17.5 16 11.5
4081.31
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
336 53 52 29 46 15 41 9 4 6 4 5 1 1 2 2 2 4
822
Uttar Pradesh Gujarat Karnataka Rajasthan Andhra Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Chhattisgarh Punjab Himachal Pradesh Odisha Bihar Nagaland Uttarakhand Kerala Jammu and Kashmir (JKSPDCL) Delhi Haryana
Total
The reason for the low demand can be directly attributed to the lack of RPO enforcement by most of the states.
However, this spike in March is an anomaly and the next month, April 2013, saw the number of RECs sold crashing.
www.panchabuta.com
12
touched the floor price and has remained there for the last 12 months. This situation is unlikely to change in the near future.
since there was not enough supply of RECs. But once that situation reversed, the price of solar RECs started to fall. After hitting a high (Rs. 13,200/REC) in March 2013, the price of solar RECs dramatically dropped to the floor price (Rs. 9,300/REC) within 3 trading sessions by June 2013. For the last three months (June to August 2013), the price has remained at the floor price and it is unlikely to increase any further unless demand for RECs is stimulated by the enforcement of RPO at the state-level.
Conclusion
The RECs (non-solar and solar) have been trading at the floor price over the last few trading sessions on increasing supply leading to a huge supply side fatigue. The key challenge remains the lack of regulatory will to enforce the obligations. With an ever increasing demandsupply spread, the market requires short term and long term interventions to boost the confidence of participants on the supply side. The spot market trading of the REC has not provided enough market liquidity and stakeholders have recommended that bilateral and multilateral trading be permitted. A critical reassessment and repricing of solar REC must be done at the earliest. As regulators enforce compliance and steps are taken to deepen the market mechanism, the REC market should witness renewed interest.
If the RPO is not enforced properly, solar REC trading will face a situation similar to that faced by non-solar RECs.
RECs. The number of RECs sold touched an all-time high in March 2013, but dropped again in the subsequent months.
www.panchabuta.com
*FY 2012 - 13
14
www.panchabuta.com
15
CUF
Module Type
Module Manufacturer
Inverter Manufacturer
Tilt
EPC
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Konark Gujarat PV Pvt. Ltd. Unity Power Mono Steel (india) Ltd WAA Solar Pvt.Ltd Palace Solar Energy Pvt. Ltd. TATA Power Renewable Energy Ltd. NKG infrastructure Ltd. Sun Clean Renewable Pvt. Ltd. ZF Steering Gear (India) Pvt. Ltd. Roha Dyechem Pvt. Ltd Gppc Pipavav Power Company Ltd. AZURE (Hariyana) Alex Astral Power Pvt. Ltd Green Infra Solar Energy Ltd. Solarfield Energy Pvt. Ltd. Welspun Urja Gujarat Pvt. Ltd. SEI Solar Power Gujarat Pvt. Ltd. BACKBONE Enterprises Ltd. Millenium Synergy (Gujarat) Pvt. Ltd. ACME Solar Technology ESP Urja Pvt. Ltd. PLG Photovoltic Ltd. ICML GMR Gujarat Solar Power Pvt. Ltd. GHI Energy Pvt. Ltd. Emami Cement Ltd
21.3% 21.2% 21.2% 20.6% 19.9% 19.8% 19.7% 19.6% 19.6% 19.5% 19.5% 19.4% 19.4% 19.4% 19.3% 19.3% 19.3% 19.2% 19.2% 19.1% 19.0% 18.9% 18.7% 18.7% 18.6% 18.6%
Crystalline Si Thin Film Crystalline Si Thin Film Crystalline Si Crystalline Si Crystalline Si Thin Film Thin Film Thin Film Crystalline Si Crystalline Si Thin Film Thin Film Thin Film Thin Film Crystalline Si Thin Film Crystalline Si Thin Film Thin Film Crystalline Si Crystalline Si C-Si Crystalline Si C-Si
Vikram Solar Solar Frontier Waaree First Solar Candian Solar Tata, Canadian Solar Solar World Sharp N/A Nex Power Suntech Suntech First Solar First Solar Sharp First Solar Chin/Trina Nexpower Trina First Solar Sharp PLG / Kyocera LDK Canadian Solar Suntech TATA BP
AEG Power One Power One SMA Power One ABB Delta (String) Power-one
Seasonal Tilt Fixed Tilt Seasonal Tilt Not Available Seasonal Tilt Not Available
Vikram Solar Enfinity Waaree Madhav Power Etain - immodo / Lourex Group Tata PPS Enviro Power
Fixed Tilt
L&T
Satoon Bonfiglioli
SMA SMA Sharp SMA Power One Siemens SMA ABB SMA Power One IDS SMA Fixed Tilt Fixed Tilt Fixed Tilt Fixed Tilt Fixed Tilt Fixed Tilt Not Available Single Axis Fixed Tilt
Cirus Solar Juwi L&T Conergy (Sun Technics) L&T Self L&T M+W
Zamil Group
ABB
Fixed Tilt
Tata BP
16
27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
Moser Baer Energy & Development Ltd. Precious Energy Services Pvt. Ltd. Azure Power (Gujarat) Pvt. Ltd. AEL(Solar) - Adani Solitaire Energies Pvt. Ltd. Sand Land Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. GPCL GMDC Surana Telecom & Power Ltd. LANCO (BHRD) EMCO Ltd Visual Percept Solar Projects Pvt. Ltd. GIPCL Louroux Bio Energies Ltd. Hiraco Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. Ganeshvani Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. CBC Solar Technologies Pvt. Ltd AES Solar Energy Gujarat Pvt. Ltd Jaihind Project Lanco infratech ltd. Solar Semiconductor Power Company Lanco (Chandiyana)
24456.697 24719.672 8078.944 64331.765 24100.389 40061.177 7947.638 7930.4 7914.732 7821.247 7787.114 38359.028 7626.817 37676.577 29567.821 7241.912 14225.313 20896.17 6878.733 20432.741 26205.372 19096.039
1630.446467 1626.294211 1615.7888 1608.294125 1606.6926 1602.44708 1589.5276 1586.08 1582.9464 1564.2494 1557.4228 1534.36112 1525.3634 1507.06308 1478.39105 1448.3824 1422.5313 1400.544035 1375.7466 1361.275217 1310.2686 1272.221119
18.6% 18.5% 18.4% 18.3% 18.3% 18.2% 18.1% 18.1% 18.0% 17.8% 17.7% 17.5% 17.4% 17.2% 16.8% 16.5% 16.2% 15.9% 15.7% 15.5% 14.9% 14.5%
Thin Film Thin Film Thin Film Thin Film Thin Film Thin Film c-Si Crystalline Si c-Si Crystalline Si Crystalline Si Crystalline Si Crystalline Si Thin Film Crystalline Si Crystalline Si Crystalline Si Thin Film Crystalline Si Crystalline Si Thin Film Crystalline Si and Thin Film Crystalline Si Thin Film
First Solar, Moserbaer, Oupont First Solar, Moserbaer, Oupont First Solar Sunwell / Sunner Well First Solar, Moserbaer First Solar C-Sun Tata BP Surana N/A Trina Hanwha Solarone Titan Tianwel and Sungen Hanwha Solarone Trina Trina First Solar Nantong C-Sun Sunwell Trina/Dupont/CSUN
Not Available Not Available Not Available Fixed Tilt Not Available Fixed Tilt
Power One AEG Hellos Systems Ingeteam Power One ABB Siemens SMA Bonfiglioli Bonfiglioli Power Oner Helofax Bonfiglioli Santerno Bonfiglioli, Elt ek, REFUSol Eltek SMA
Fixed Tilt
Fixed Tilt Fixed Tilt Fixed Tilt Not Available Fixed Tilt Fixed Tilt Fixed Tilt Fixed Tilt Fixed Tilt
Inspira Martifer Moser Baer Insolare Energy Pvt. Ltd. Moser Baer Enfinity Self Self Self Self
49 50
5 25.08 665.64
5529.347 26947.408
1105.8694 1074.458054
12.6% 12.2%
(Note : Plants operational in the Charanka Solar Park are highlighted in yellow) From the above list, it can be seen that Konark Gujarat PV Pvt Limited comes first overall, and it narrowly edges its nearest rival, possibly due to its seasonal tilt mechanism. Among plants with fixed tilt mounting structures, Unity Power (Welspun) is the number one, with a CUF of 21.2%. A word of caution here the ranking above is not an indicator of how good or bad a component or EPC is. The CUF will depend on some more factors like build quality, Balance of Systems used (cables, structures, etc) and design optimization.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Palace Solar Energy Pvt. Ltd NKG Infrastructure Ltd Sun Clean Renewable Pvt. Ltd. ZF Steering Gear (india) Pvt. Ltd. Roha Dyechem Pvt. Ltd. GPPC Pipavav Power Company Ltd. Alex Astral Power Pvt. Lt.d Solarfield Energy Pvt. Ltd. SEI Solar Power Gujarat Pvt. Ltd. GMR Gujarat Solar Power Pvt. Ltd. Emami Cement Ltd GPCL Surana Telecom & Power Ltd AES Solar Energy Gujarat Pvt. Ltd. Lanco Infratech Ltd. Total
26173.72 17310.26 10341.53 8598.95 42898.65 8570.004 42530.899 33948.276 42415.609 40983.817 16310.494 7947.638 7914.732 20896.117 20432.
19.9% 19.7% 19.6% 19.6% 19.5% 19.5% 19.4% 19.3% 19.3% 18.7% 18.6% 18.1% 18.0% 15.9% 16.5%
Crystalline Si Crystalline Si Thin Film Thin Film Thin Film Crystalline Si Thin Film Thin Film Crystalline Si c-Si c-Si c-Si c-Si Thin Slim Crystalline Si
Candian Solar Solarworld Sharp N/A Nex Power Suntech First Solar Sharp Chint/Trina Canadian Solar TATA BP C-Sun Surana First Solar C-Sun
Seasonal Tilt
17
In case of Charanka, Palace Solar has the highest CUF, very closely followed by NKG Infrastructure and Sun Clean Renewables.
Ranking of Plants operational for at least 1 Year (Outside Charanka Solar Park)
Rank Developer Capacity (MW) 5 5 10 10.22 25 10.2 10 15 5 10 15 5 20 9 10 15 15.2 5 40 15 25 5 5 5 25 5 25 20 5 10 5 20 15.01 Total Generation (MWh) 9361.009 9328.561 18644.292 18461.595 43393.098 17401.797 17012.341 25458.575 8452.757 16870.807 25180.906 8345.851 33140.469 14802.466 16336.161 24456.697 24719.672 8078.944 64331.765 24100.389 40061.177 7930.4 7821.247 7787.114 38359.028 7626.817 37676.577 29567.821 7241.912 14225.313 6878.733 26205.372 19096.039 Normalized (MWh per MW per Year) 1872.2018 1865.7122 1864.4292 1806.418297 1735.72392 1706.058529 1701.2341 1697.238333 1690.5514 1687.0807 1678.727067 1669.1702 1657.02345 1644.718444 1633.6161 1630.446467 1626.294211 1615.7888 1608.294125 1606.6926 1602.44708 1586.08 1564.2494 1557.4228 1534.36112 1525.3634 1507.06308 1478.39105 1448.3824 1422.5313 1375.7466 1310.2686 1272.22119 CUF Module Type Module Manufacturer Vikram Solar Solar Frontier Waaree First Solar Tata, Canadian Solar Suntech First Solar First Solar Nex Power Trina First Solar Sharp PLG / Kyocera LDK Suntech First Solar, Mosebaer, Dupont First Solar, Mosebaer, Dupont First Solar Sunwell/ Sunner Wel First Solar, Moserbaer First Solar Tata BP N/A Trina Hanwha Solarone Titan Tianwei and Sungen Hanwha Solarone Trina Trina Nantong Sunwell Trina/Dupont/CSUN SMA SMA SMA/PowerOn SMA N/A SMA Power One Hellios System Ingeteam Power One ABB Siemens SMA Bonfiglioli Bonfiglioli Helofax Santerno Bonfiglioli, Eltek, REFUSOL Eltek SMA Fixed Tilt Fixed Tilt Fixed Tilt Not Available Fixed Tilt Fixed Tilt Fixed Tilt Inspira Martifier Moser Baer Insolare Energy Pvt. Ltd. Moser Baer Self Not Available Self Fixed Tilt Sterling and Wilson Not Available Not Available Not Available Fixed Tilt Not Available Fixed Tilt Fixed Tilt Aries Waaree Moser Baer Moser Baer Tata BP Lanco Moser Bear Moser Bear SMA SMA Siemens SMA ABB SMA Power One IDS Fixed Tilt Zamil Group Fixed Tilt Fixed Tilt Not Available Single Axis Fixed Tilt Inverter Manufacturer AEG Power One Power One SMA ABB Tilt EPC
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Konark Gujarat PV Pvt. Ltd. Unity Power Mono Steel (india) Ltd. WAA Solar Pvt. Ltd. TATA Power Renewable Energy Ltd. Azure (Hariyana) Green Infra Solar Energy Ltd. Welspun Urja Gujarat Pvt. Ltd. BACKBONE Enterprises Ltd. Millenium Synergy (Gujarat) pvt.Ltd. ACME Solar Technology ESP Urja Pvt. Ltd. PLG Photovoltic Ltd. ICML GHI Energy Pvt. Ltd. Moser Baer Energy & Development Ltd Precious Energy Services Pvt. Ltd. Azure Power (Gujarat) Pvt. Ltd. AEL (Solar) - Adani Solitarire Energy Pvt. Ltd. Sand Land Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. GMDC LANCO(BHRD) EMCO Ltd. Visual Percept Solar Projects Pvt. Ltd. GIPCL Louroux Bio Energies Ltd. Hiraco Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. Ganeshvani Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. CBC Solar Technologies Pvt.Ltd. Jaihind Project Solar Semiconductor Power Company Lanco (Chandiyana)
21.3% 21.2% 21.2% 20.6% 19.8% 19.4% 19.4% 19.3% 19.2% 19.2% 19.1% 19.0% 18.9% 18.7% 18.6% 18.6% 18.5% 18.4% 18.3% 18.3% 18.2% 18.1% 17.8% 17.7% 17.5% 17.4% 17.2% 16.8% 16.5% 16.2% 15.7% 14.9% 14.5%
Crystalline Si Thin Film Crystalline Si Thin Film Crystalline Si Crystalline Si Thin Film Thin Film Thin Film Crystalline Si Thin Film Thin Film Crystalline Si Crystalline Si Crystalline Si Thin Film Thin Film Thin Film Thin Film Thin Film Thin Film Crystalline Si Crystalline Si Crystalline Si Crystalline Si Crystalline Si Thin Film Crystalline Si Crystalline Si Crystalline Si Crystalline Si Thin Film Crystalline Si and Thin Film Crystalline Si Thin Film
Seasonal Tilt Fixed Tilt Seasonal Tilt Not Available Not Avaliable
Vikram Solar Enfinity Waaree Madhav Power Tata Self Juwi Conergy (Sun Technics) Self L&T M+W
34 35
5 25.08 454.71
5529.347 26947.408
1105.8694 1074.458054
12.6% 12.2%
Incidentally, the first 4 top ranking plants in the entire state of Gujarat are outside Charanka Solar Park.
Seasonal Characteristics
The seasonal variation graph represented below has been rendered using data from power plants which have completed one year of operation. All numbers in the graph have been normalized to the total MWh generated per MW of installed capacity. The plant with the best performance characteristics, M/s Konark Gujarat Pvt Ltd, had a peak monthly production of 189.95 MWh/MWp in May 2012. Though this is not a characteristic of all the plants in the sample set, a vast majority had peak production that fell in one of three months March, April or May. The highest individual peak generation recorded was 216.39 MWh/MWp by M/s Backbone Enterprises Ltd in the month of May 2012 but the annual production of this plant was lower than the top ranking power plant.
18
The lowest generation is merely presented here to provide a representation of the lowest performance and should not be treated as the general performance of power plants in Gujarat. It can be clearly seen that the average performance closely follows the generation characteristic of the best performing power plant in the sample set. The average annual performance is estimated to be 1581.78 MWh/MWp.
Conclusion
Of the 50 plants for which performance data is available for at least one year, the annual Capacity Utilisation Factor (CUF) for 70% of the plants is above 18%. The top 3 plants had CUFs of more than 21%. In case of Charanka Solar Park, most of the plants have an annual CUF of more than 18%. One very interesting insight that can be drawn from the performance ranking is that the right component selection is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for the optimal performance of a plant. One inference that could be drawn is that a developer should pay equal attention to the selection of the balance of system components, ensure design optimisation and select the right EPC contractors who can ensure build quality and high plant uptimes. Another aspect that could have an impact on the plant CUFs is the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of the plants. A plant that has a very good performance monitoring system (remote monitoring or local SCADA) and is well maintained will obviously lead to higher generation. In terms of PV module technology selection, the difference in plant performance of crystalline Silicon and Thin Film technologies has been found to be very minor. In order to draw any conclusion, we will have to wait for longer term performance of the plants and also get additional plant information like plant design, BOS components used, O&M practices, among others. The Central vs String Inverter debate is also inconclusive since we could compare the performance of only 2 plants, each using one of the inverter topologies (Central or string). To conclude, the plant performance data made available by the State of Gujarat has been providing some very valuable insights into the PV plant performance which will help increase the confidence of the investor community on the technical aspects of the solar PV plant. It also helps other states in the formulation and execution of their policies and regulations.
RESolve Energy Consultants would once again like to acknowledge the work done by Mr. Jigneshbhai Shah and M/s Movya Consultancy Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad, India, which have been used in this report.
5050+ articles 2000000+ page views 1300+ newsletters delivered SPEArheading thought leadership through our expertise and market intelligence SErving renewable energy and cleantech news in INDIA daily since 2010 AND we have now reloaded !
NEWS, ANALYSIS AND INSIGHTS IN RENEWABLE ENERGY AND CLEANTECH INDUSTRY IN INDIA
www.panchabuta.com
Twitter : http://twitter.com/panchabuta Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/panchabuta Email : panchabutare@gmail.com
22
is expected to experience energy shortage of 6.7% and peak shortage of 2.3% for the year 2013-14 The Solar Resource map which depicts the GHI data is given below.
In addition to policies, regulations in the form of Renewable Purchase Obligation (RPO) also play a key role in the growth of the sector.
Phase I
In the first of its three phases, from 2010 to 2013, the government incentivized the construction of 1,000 MW of gridconnected power plants. Both PV and CSP based solar installations are given equal precedence with 500 MW of capacity being allocated for each technology. The projects under Phase I fall into three categories Projects under migration scheme Projects allotted under the Rooftop PV & Small Solar power Generation Programme (RPSSGP) Projects allotted through NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam (NVVN)
For the first batch of projects allotted through the NVVN which commenced in late 2010, as many as 333 project developers had put forward bids worth 1,815 MW for 150 MW of PV projects. As
www.panchabuta.com
24
the volume of developers interested in solar projects was much higher than anticipated, the government opted to go for a competitive reverse bidding process so that all developers were given an equal chance. Developers that offered the highest discount on the initial tariff of Rs. 17.91/kWh would be given preference and allotted projects until the 150 MW of capacity (for solar PV) was filled. The competitive bidding process resulted in developers placing highly competitive bids. The rates quoted by the winners were in the range Rs. 10.9 to 12.7/kWh for solar PV as a result of which tariffs fell by around 30% to an average of Rs. 11.8/kWh. Subsequently, the guidelines for Phase I Batch II of the solar PV allocations were announced in early August 2011 with the bidding process coming to a close on 3rd December 2011. The result of this round of bidding was even more startling than the first. The tariffs quoted in this round of bidding ranged between Rs. 7.49/kWh to Rs. 9.44/kWh. The bidding for Batch II clearly indicated a sharp decline in the solar tariffs across the countr y. The lowest bid of Rs. 7.49/ kWh by Solairedirect sent shockwaves across the industry. Though the industry expected a drop in tariff, a fall of this magnitude was not foreseen. The average tariff quoted fell by about 25% to Rs.8.88/kWh as developers and EPCs started coming to grips with the nuances of the solar PV sector. A total of 1,152 MW were allotted by the MNRE in the Phase I of JNNSM. The details are given below.
Phase I Projects Allotted (MW) 150
CSP Projects through Migration scheme RPSSGP (PV) Total Batch II PV Projects through NVVN Grand Total
30
98.05 802.05
Ratio
70% 30%
Of these allotted projects, a majority of the PV plants have been commissioned. But under CSP, only 52.5 MW capacity has been commissioned.
Proposed share of target capacity mix Technology Capacity (MW) Central Schemes (MW) 2520 1080 State Schemes (MW) 3780 1620
Phase II
The MNRE released the draft guidelines for the JNNSM Phase II. Some of the salient features are as follows a. Target for Phase II (2012-17) 10 GW cumulative capacity addition in utility scale and 1 GW in off-grid. Of this, 4 GW will be under the central scheme and 6 GW under the various state initiatives. The 6 GW under the state initiatives will be met by the enforcement of Renewable Purchase Obligations (RPO).
6300 2700
9000
3600
5400
(Source: MNRE)
b. Financing Implementation of Phase II will have to rely upon a combination of various schemes like Generation Based
Timeline for achieving the targets (in MW) under the central scheme 2012-13 Rooftop & Small Solar PV Bundling PV VGF PV Thermal 750 770 1080 1650 870 1080 1520 1080 2520 1080 3600 800 800 100 100 200 2013-14 2014-15 2015- 16 2016-17 Total
Batch I PV Projects through NVVN Batch I CSP Projects through NVVN PV projects under Migration scheme
470
54 Grand Total
www.panchabuta.com
25
Incentive (GBI), Viability Gap Funding (VGF) and Bundling schemes. i. Bundling The target under bundling will be finalised based on deliberations with Ministry of Power (MoP), but it is unlikely to be significant due to the limited availability of conventional power from unallocated central quota. ii. GBI Total target will be 60 MW. Only states that did not get allotment under the first phase of the GBI scheme will be eligible for this scheme. GBI assistance from the MNRE will be about Rs. 2-3/kWh. iii. VGF This will be the most prevalent mechanism under Phase II. Under this option, bidders would bid for viability gap funding requirement in Rs/MW and the bidder with minimum VGF requirement would be selected. c. Rooftop installations Target of 1 GW through both grid-connected and offgrid rooftop systems. d. Domestic content requirement Several options are explored, but a final decision has not been made yet. f. Off-grid systems - The upper limit for off-grid systems eligible for subsidy has been increased to 500 kWp.
the gap would be chosen first and so on. This is a new form of reverse bidding wherein the developer would no longer quote the electricity tariff but the quantum of money required to make the project viable. In view of this, MNRE has released the draft guidelines for the first phase of second batch under JNNSM for setting up of 750 MW of solar capacity. Some of the information presented in the draft document is highlighted below. Total capacity 750 MW - Min capacity 10 MW - Max capacity 50 MW - All projects to be allocated in multiples of 10 MW - Max allocation per bidder or company 100 MW Tariff The tariff would be fixed at R s .5. 45/ kW h for 25 year s or R s. 4.95/ kW h (with AD benefit) Upper limit of VGF 30% of project cost or Rs. 2.5 Crores/MW whichever is lower Equity contribution At least Rs. 1.5 Crores/MW Timeline for VGF disbursal - 25% at time of delivery of at least 50% of major equipment (modules, inverters, mounting structures, switchgear and transformer) on site - 50% after full commissioning - 25% after one year of successful operation Domestic content requirement it has only been stated that 75% percentage of the solar capacity would be reserved for projects with domestic content while the rest of the projects would be free to procure components from any country. DCR would mean that both the solar cells and modules would have to be manufactured in India. Financial closure within 180 days of signing PPA
Payment security SECI would set up a payment security corpus from the encashment of bank guarantees, interest earned on this fund, incentives for early payment, the extra money coming from 10% lower tariff to developers claiming AD and grants from Government/National Clean Energy Fund (NCEF). This fund would cover three months of payment to the project developer.
www.panchabuta.com
26
The Gujarat Solar Policy is the only policy in the country, which has awarded projects with a fixed FiT, on a first-come firstserve basis. In view of this and the fact that there werent too many restrictions imposed on developers, the amount of interested parties who were allotted projects was significant. This laid the foundation for the meteoric rise of Gujarat as a hub for solar projects in the country.
Madhya Pradesh
Since no new project allocations in Gujarat have been announced, a shift in the market towards other regions such as Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh could be expected.
Tamil Nadu
Announced - 3000 MW (by 2015), first round of bidding for 1000 MW was done in January 2013. LOIs issued for 690 MW Announced - 1000 MW, Bidding process complete. LOI issued. Announced 500 MW (by 2017) Announced 150 MW Announced - 1000 MW (by 2022) - Bids invited 300 MW in 2013 and 251 MW of projects allotted Announced - 500 MW target by 2017. 250 MW of projects allotted
Steps Forward
RPO Driven Market
All the states have come up with their own state policies specifically to meet the Renewable Purchase Obligations. The state of Tamil Nadu has also proposed a separate Solar Purchase Obligation (SPO) in addition to the RPO. The factors that would drive the success of this segment are The effective enforcement of the RPO regulations The financial health of the state utilities
The tariff structure has been designed so that higher rates are offered during the first 12 years of the project, with lower rates from the 13th year onwards. This has a positive influence on cash flows as debt repayment usually occurs within the first 12 years of operation of the power plant which helps alleviate some of the concerns that developers have with regards to debt repayment considering the fact that solar was much more capital intensive compared to competing technologies.
Uttar Pradesh Bihar Punjab
Geographical Distribution
The nations flagship solar policy, the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission (JNNSM), and the policy of the state of Gujarat which was implemented in two phases have been instrumental in kickstarting the sector. About 1 GW of projects were allotted under each of these two policies. Interestingly, a majority of solar projects under the JNNSM came up in the state of Rajasthan due to the high irradiation and availability of inexpensive arid land. Naturally, a vast majority of grid-connected solar projects have been commissioned in these two states. Of the total 1,839 MW commissioned as of July 2013, Gujarat has 857 MW (47% of the total) and Rajasthan has about 608.5 MW (33%). Together, the two states constitute 80% of the total capacity in the country. The capacity addition in the other states are mainly due to the projects that were commissioned under the National Solar Mission as well as the other (now expired) central policy the Rooftop PV & Small Solar Generation Program (RPSSGP) scheme in addition to the various projects which opted to migrate and take advantage of the NSM.
While the RPO mechanism is quite attractive on paper, the results on the ground have been disappointing because most of the states are reluctant to enforce the RPO for various reasons. The Solar REC trading over the past months have been quite subdued because there is not enough demand for the RECs generated. The price of the RECs traded has also gone down. (A detailed analysis of the REC trading is available in a separate section)
Rooftop PV
Another area where solar has been making some advancements has been the Rooftop PV segment. The Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI) allotted solar PV projects in two batches of 5.5 MW and 11.1 MW spread across 9 cities in the country. Apart from that, several states have announced rooftop PV programmes within their states. Gujarat, the pioneer in the deployment of solar PV rooftop programme, allotted 5 MW of grid-connected rooftop projects to Azure Power
Rajasthan
www.panchabuta.com
27
and SunEdison, and has announced its plans to expand the programme to 5 more cities in the state totalling 25 MW in capacity. Kerala announced a policy for the deployment of 10,000 off-grid systems (each system with a size of 1 kW) across the state. The project owners will get capital subsidies from both the MNRE and the state government. Tamil Nadu state solar policy targets 350 MW of rooftop installations by 2015, out of which 50 MW will be on residential rooftops. The support will be through a Generation Based Incentive, which is similar to the FiT. Net metering option is also under consideration. Karnatakas rooftop PV programme targets about 1.2 MW of grid-connected rooftop installations across 5 cities in Karnataka. The project sizes are 0.5 kW and 1 kW, with the government providing capital subsidy.
a competitive source of energy for such consumers, having achieved diesel parity already. In addition to the above mentioned factors, some state policies have clauses which strongly favour the decentralized/captive markets. For instance, the recently announced Andhra Pradesh state policy has a clause which enables offgrid projects coming up in the state to be eligible for RECs under the deemed injection clause. This addresses another concern which adopters of solar captive power plants might have which is What happens to the excess power that is generated? while also providing an additional source of revenue which might make the case of setting up a captive power plant more favourable. In the short term, we believe the above three to be the key drivers for solar in India. With utility scale solar additions on the wane as a result of capacity allocations being few and far in between, the next big thing with respect to the solar segment in India is most likely to be the rooftop and decentralized segment; especially considering the widening gulf between supply and demand. In addition to this, RPO and its compliance is likely to be the biggest contributor to solar capacity addition in the country.
is expected to be added. In Punjab, no major hurdles for execution of the project are expected. While Andhra Pradesh has also given LOIs to prospective developers, the political uncertainties and also the low tariffs proposed by the administration are major challenges for solar in the state. In Karnataka, projects are expected to be allocated very soon since the submission of bids is complete. The projects already allotted in Madhya Pradesh are expected to be commissioned by September 2013. In Maharashtra, the utility company Mahagenco is planning to add more solar capacity. States like Bihar and Orissa are also planning to make allocations soon. In addition to these, the number of REC based projects will also grow, provided there is a clear indication of RPO enforcement at the state level. Third party sale of power is also expected to pick up. Looking at the overall scenario, the number of projects that will come up in the short term (till end of December 2013) are quite limited. It is expected that the momentum will pick up towards the end of 2013 all through 2014.
Conclusion
The MNRE draft guidelines for the Phase II of the JNNSM makes it quite clear that 60% of the solar capacity additions have to come from states. There is clear evidence that all the major states have outlined their ambitious solar plans. Going forward, the 750 MW under the Batch I, Phase II is expected to increase capacity additions in the financial year 2014-15. In case of state policies, Tamil Nadu, which is reported to have given LOIs for 690 MW, will be the biggest state in terms of capacity allocation. However, the realisation of this capacity is contingent upon the removal of all legal and regulatory hurdles currently faced by the state. Punjab is another state where the capacity
www.panchabuta.com
29
EVALUATING THE PERFORMANCE OF SOLAR PV PLANTS IN INDIA USING PERFORMANCE RATIO (PR)
Sebastian Drr is the Founder and CEO of CHROSIS, a company based in Germany with focus on renewable energy and Co-Founder & Director of REACH Solar Consultants, an India-based solar consulting company located at Chennai. He has a decades experience in the Renewable Energy domain with focus on solar-PV systems (rooftop and open area systems). Sebastian is well-versed in international business, having worked with clients in Germany, India and Switzerland.
Performance ratio
gives insights into how efficiently the available solar energy is converted into electrical energy. It is possible to compare the performance of various plants at different locations.
Performance ratio (PR), stated as percentage, describes the relationship between the actual and the theoretical possible energy output of a solar PV plant. It shows the proportion of the energy that is actually available for export to the grid after deduction of energy losses (e.g. thermal losses, soiling etc.) and energy consumption for operation. The closer the PR value for a PV plant approaches 100%, the more efficient the operation of the plant. Since losses will always be present, a PR of 100% cannot be achieved.
different context, but CUF is now the defacto performance metric as far as solar plants are concerned. But the problem with CUF is that it depends a lot on the uncontrollable factor irradiation and is not a true metric of performance of a plant. For example, a poorly built plant with average quality components in Rajasthan can still have a better CUF compared to an excellent plant built using high quality components in West Bengal, purely because the irradiation levels in Rajasthan is much higher than irradiation in West Bengal. However, a better and globally accepted metric Performance Ratio (PR) accurately estimates the performance of the plant after removing the externality of solar irradiation. If PR is used to assess the plants in the earlier example, the plant in West Bengal will have a much higher PR compared to the one in Rajasthan.
Performance ratio gives insights into how efficiently the available solar energy is converted into electrical energy. It is possible to compare the performance of various plants at different locations on a normalized independent from climate conditions level over a long period of time. Deviations in the PR (e.g. values below the expected range) indicate a possible fault or problem in the solar PV plant. PR can therefore be understood as an early warning system. In India, project developers and lenders typically demand performance assurance from the EPCs in the form of yield guarantees or Capacity Utilization Factor (CUF). The term CUF is commonly used in the thermal power plants in a
PR =
www.panchabuta.com
30
= module efficiency
Irradiance (kWh/m2) is measured at the specific location Active Area (m2) is the active area of the PV Panels
nient measurement of all values needed and also offer the PR that is calculated automatically. Values that do not change will also play a role in the PR calculations; e.g. the active surface of the panels and the efficiency of the panels. Both these information can be found in the datasheets of the panel manufacturer.
CUF is defined as
CUF = Energy Measured (kWh) Installed Capacity (kW ) 8760 hours
The CUF neither takes into account any environmental factors like variation of irradiance from one year to another nor does it take into account the de-rating or degradation of the panels. Therefore, CUF is not a good secondary parameter to provide insights into a solar PV system. Some other factors that could be important when comparing PR & CUF: PR will take into account the availability of the grid; CUF will not PR will take into account the minimum level of irradiation needed to generate electrical energy; CUF will not PR will take into account irradiation levels at a given period of time; CUF will not
efficiency of the panel, are not taken into account in this example. A detailed description of all calculations can be found in the IEC 61724 Photovoltaic system performance monitoring Guidelines for measurement, data exchange and analysis. The IEC 61724 also mentions the measurement of wind speeds. These are not needed for calculation, but can be understood as optional values especially if the plant is located in an area with very rough climate conditions.
Analysis period
The typical analysis period for Performance Ratio calculations is one year. Other time periods are possible.
Manual calculation
It is possible to calculate the performance ratio manually. The following formula- energy generated or measured divided by the energy modeled is used
PR can be used as a tool to compare different solar PV systems even if they are located in different regions since all environmental factors will be taken into account. Therefore, only the design and the ability of the system to convert solar energy into electrical energy will be compared with each other.
PR =
= module efficiency
Irradiance (kWh/m2) is measured at the specific location Active Area (m2) is the active area of the PVPanels
The following specific conditions and values are considered in this example Analysis period: 1 year Measured average solar irradiation intensity in 1 year: 120 kWh/m 2 Generator area of the PV plant: 10 m2 Efficiency factor of the PV modules: 15 % Electrical energy actually exported from PV plant to grid: 110 kWh
Before this irradiation value can be determined, the mean of the irradiation values measured by the measuring gauge must be determined. This determined irradiation value per m 2 is then extrapolated to the entire modular surface of the PV plant (equal to the generating area). One can obtain the modular efficiency from the data sheet for the PV plant. It is important to note that the panel temperature and therefore, the loss of
The irradiation values measured on location yield an average solar irradiation of 120 kWh/m2 for the entire analysis period.
www.panchabuta.com
31
This irradiation value is extrapolated to the modular area of the PV plant as follows: Irradiation value in kWh/m 2 x Plant Area in m 2 = 120 kWh/m 2 x 10 m 2 = 1,200 kWh In order to subsequently calculate the nominal plant output, the irradiation value for the PV plant is multiplied by the modular efficiency: 1,200 kWh x 15 % = 1,200 kWh x 0.15 = 180 kWh The nominal plant output of 180kWh corresponds to a PR of 100%. Since the actual energy fed into the grid is only 110kWh, the performance ratio can be calculated using this formula:
PR =
The PR is therefore about 61% i.e. 39% of the solar energy is not converted into electrical energy that is fed into the grid. Typically, an EPC will always run a simulation for PR based on the design. So, if the PR simulated is 75% and the PR achieved is 61%, then this should be understood as a warning sign that something might be wrong with the PV plant. Especially in arid conditions (i.e. deserts), it is possible that soiling could cause a drop in PR. It is recommended cleaning the irradiance sensor on a daily basis in order to attain quality data. A soiled irradiance sensor might behave completely different from a well-cleaned one. It is to be noted here that soiling does not have the same effect on the irradiance sensor as it has on the panels.
Measurement period
If the measurement period is too short (i.e. less than 1 month), chances are that non-typical events like rainfall, cloudy weather etc. will influence the measurements. A longer time frame of DAQ will bring more reliable PR results.
Conduction losses
Conduction losses (DC and AC) will influence the PR; the higher the losses, the lower the PR.
Conclusion
The following factors can influence the PR value Environmental factors Temperature of the PV module Solar irradiation Shading or soiling of the Pyranometer Shading or soiling of the PV panels Other factors Recording period
www.panchabuta.com
32
You have participated and developed projects under the Gujarat State Policy, the first and second batch of the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission (JNNSM) and other schemes, for the last three years. What have been your learnings in India and how are these different from your global experiences? The biggest learning has been that it is tougher to get projects completed in India compared to other parts of the world driven by land related issues and labor issues in the construction industry. While this may be an issue in India compared to some other countries, this is similar to what other infrastructure project developers face whether it is building roads or conventional power plants. Given the execution challenges, securing nonrecourse project finance poses a challenge since lenders do not want to take the risk and expect the sponsor to cover for the various risks. Challenges always have a way of making us better and we are happy that the Indian experience has made us stronger and better prepared for the immense growth we see ahead of us. You have been the first solar power company in India to sign a private Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with a leading multinational bank, at their Chennai campus in India. Can you talk about it a little more? Do you see private PPAs playing an important role in the development of roof top solar in India?
Private PPAs will play an important role in the solar industry in India. Large corporations want to conserve their capital for their own core business. This makes the PPA model very attractive for such corporations. Since the finance for these PPA based projects are raised on a nonrecourse basis, the strength of the PPA comes from the credit worthiness of the off-taker of power (the PPA signing entity). Our experience so far has been good, and payments have been given to us on time barring minor hiccups. Its a 100kW plant that we decided to experiment on at Standard Chartered banks facility in Chennai. This has given us a lot of confidence going forward, and has become one of our prime offerings to large corporate houses. As the Phase II of National Solar Mission is about to start and the action has shifted to the states, what would be the key policy recommendations that you would make to both central and state governments? In light of the Phase II of NSM, the incentive structure VGF Viability Gap Funding where capital cost is linked to the incentive received. This should be changed to a Generation Based Incentive which is linked to performance of the plant in which power producers benefit based on the amount of renewable energy generated and perverse incentives are avoided to reduce the capital costs to the lowest possible extent
www.panchabuta.com
33
impacting the quality of the plant. There is a lot of interest from policy makers from around the country in Solar Water Pumps for agriculture and rural water supply. How does SunEdison view this sector and can you elaborate on your work in this area? In India, where agriculture provides livelihood to more than 60% population, irrigation pumps consume nearly 20-25% of the countrys electricity. India spends more than INR 30,000 crores annually on electricity subsidy to agriculture and this is the number one reason for the poor balance sheets of the Indian stateowned utilities. By a systematic program, switching to Solar Water Pump, the state electric utilities can improve their financial status and focus on capital expenditure to improve the infrastructure. Seven million farmers use diesel pump to irrigate their crops and are exposed to the vagaries in diesel supply and pricing. Irrigation through Solar Water Pump is cheaper than irrigation by diesel, and also provides year around assured supply of water to farmers. SunEdison is very excited about the opportunity and has developed a cost effective solar pumping solution that is be-
ing deployed in several states. We have already installed over 200 pumps in the state of Rajasthan. Can you elaborate on the roof top projects that you have carried out in India over the last couple of years. What do you see as major challenges for the rapid growth of roop top solar in India? We have built about 2MWs of rooftop projects all across India, and have another 3MWs under construction. Most of these projects have been in the diesel abatement category with MNRE subsidy for industrial and commercial customers. These will contribute significantly in reducing diesel consumption for the customers. The major challenges for the rapid growth of roof-top solar projects are two issues a) MNRE 30% subsidy: The subsidy mechanism is not fluid enough today for most solar players to build a sustainable business model. In-fact, the project economics for diesel abatement are so good, that the subsidy option can instead be redirected to residential rooftop solar systems. The rooftop and distributed solar will flourish in India just with the Acceler-
ated Depreciation policy. b) Net Metering policy: One of the questions that arise from customers who are interested in roof-top solar is what would happen to the power on nonworking days of industries, or if the load was lower on certain days in a week. The solar potential on the entire roof can be achieved only if suitable net-metering policies are introduced in every state. What do you see as the short term (1824 months) prospects for solar in India and how do you see the market evolving? What is the roadmap for SunEdison in this evolving land scape? We foresee solar tariffs stabilizing or slightly going up in India given the rupee depreciation, and module prices going up given the polysilicon related anti-dumping policy in China and other similar trade disputes playing out. India will be one of worlds largest markets for solar and thus we are participating in various segments to play a significant role. We have been awarded Indias Best Solar Power Producer by IPPAI in a process run by Deloitte and hope to continue to strengthen our presence in the market and maintain this leadership.
www.panchabuta.com
34
We are actively exploring key partnerships in this arena (DG users) and are offering solutions on CAPEX and OPEX basis.
Sterling and Wilson started its journey in electrical contracting almost 90 years ago and since became a leader in MEP (Mechanical Electrical & Plumbing) services in India. When did Sterling and Wilson foray into the solar sector in India and what was the thought process behind entering solar? Sterling & Wilson witnessed stupendous growth since the turn of the last century, when the India story started taking shape. We were constantly on the lookout for businesses that would keep us in stead two decades down the line, centered around sustainability and environment, apart from belonging to sectors of high potential growth- and thus, we identified three key business areas between 2005 and 2009: Solar, Co-generation and Diesel Gensets. Specifically in the case of Solar EPC, we felt it was a logical extension to our existing business and our historic lineage, given three key strengths that we had as an 87 year old infrastructure player our strong rooted project execution capabilities in the electrical and essentially power sector contracting business, our engineering skills in the electrical domain and our civil expertise (two key aspects of solar PV construction) backed by further credibility and experience that we share with our associates. Although the initial thought process towards our foray into solar started much earlier, we formally made an entry into
the sector as a turnkey solar EPC solution provider in the year 2009-2010. You have developed multiple projects under various schemes (RPSSGP, JNNSM, State Solar Programs, REC etc.) and have been executing solar projects in India for the last three and half years. What has been your experience and learning in this period? It has been an amazing journey of constant learning. As on date, we have executed 22 projects combining to form a solar portfolio of about 300 MW, out of which about 150 MW of projects have been installed, while another 150 MW of projects are under execution. Our 200 member strong design team across the country has developed rich expertise across all these 22 projects and has worked closely with internationally acclaimed design consultants from Europe. Our experience over the past few years in solar has taught us 3 key lessons: treat each solar project differently (challenges differ from state to state), be ready to scale-up (and scale down!) as the business cycle mandates and maintain focus on quality construction to endure the long run since that is what delivers the IRR for the client in the final analysis. Overall, our experience in Solar continues to be full of learning and incredibly fruitful. Given how cost conscious and competi
We are witnessing traction in Punjab, UP and Tamil Nadu and are seeing a 1GW+ solar market emerge just from the states alone through various models state tenders, third party power sale/BOOT model, captive and group captive, REC schemes and depreciation.
www.panchabuta.com
35
tive the Indian market is, how has Sterling and Wilson been able to distinguish itself? First, at the expense of sounding repetitive, I would like to make a point on competitiveness: We are in the contracting business now for the past 87 years and stand for certain values that we believe are an attractive proposition to our clients. There would have been no reason for us to exist so long, had we been not competitive or cost conscious, so we believe we have the wherewithal to figure out that part of the story in as far as our tryst with any type of infrastructure contracting business is concerned. Second, we believe in pro-actively working with the clients to arrive at mutually beneficial designs and project costs rather than merely reacting to market pressure Our first offering to clients in most cases goes with our high-end design, like some of our esteemed peers, and through a consultative process we are open to value engineering to suit their budget and needs. From time to time and from one state to the other, we also focus on where we can add extra value to our offering (E.g.: offering land and evacuation in Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu, financing references through our banking relations, attractive guarantee and warranty coverage based on the meritocracy of projects etc.), and we see that clients appreciate this very much. Third, our focus always has been on delivering plants on time, with quality. The fact that 3 out of the top 5 highest generating plants in the country under MNREs JNNSM Phase I Batch I belongs to us, needs to be noted. Fourth, we strongly believe players who believe solar is a short term game will cease to exist. Finally, our state specific approach, wide network of sales and execution offices across the country and our immense experience in power sector working with almost every state nodal agency and electrical body, coupled with our geographical spread of installations makes us one of the most sought after solar EPCs. In fact, all of the above factors have ensured that even in this current fis-
cal (2013-14), where business sentiments are quite low, we have already installed 41 MW of solar projects, making us one of Indias leading EPCs this year in terms of on-ground installations. What do you see as the potential for solar as a distributed generation source? Have you seen any synergy in this with your diesel genset business? Yes, we see immense potential in solar as a distributed source of energy generation. Of late, many models have emerged in the market to effectuate localized solar power plants (load closer to source of generation) on roofs and on ground, and with a multiplier effect. To realize this immense opportunity, we are offering complete turnkey EPC solutions in the rooftop and off-grid solar space given our SP1A (Highest financial capability, Highest technical execution capability) accreditation by CARE which makes us an esteemed channel partner of MNRE for the rooftop/off-grid space, equipping us with eligibility to claim subsidy for our clients. In fact, we were one of the first solar EPCs to execute a large 1 MW roof-port installation over a warehouse roof at Delhi about 2 years ago, and have followed that up with regular successes in the distributed solar space. Our recent small solar installation at one of Mumbais prime residential properties will be soon followed by two other niche rooftop projects at a prominent mall and a factory roof across the country, as we aim to achieve 5 MW of small solar (rooftop/off-grid) installations over the next one year. On your second question on the synergy with diesel gensets, let me tell you, we are poised for success through combined synergies of our DG business and our offering in the distributed solar space. To be more specific, we assist some of our DG users reduce diesel off-take through provision of DG+solar+grid based solutions, while for some others who are interested in going completely off grid, our DG+ solar (PV-Diesel Hybrid) solution comes handy. We are interestingly starting to see a high degree of interest from prospective DG clients and existing DG users to go solar and in that sense, we
think solar and diesel gensets are perfectly synergistic for our value proposition in the distributed solar space. We are actively exploring key partnerships in this arena and are offering solutions on CAPEX and OPEX basis. As the Phase II of the National Solar Mission is about to start and the action has shifted to the states, what are your plans? Do you have a state specific approach? It is a matter of great pride for us to state that we are the largest solar EPC in the country, in terms of geographic spread across the country, spanning over 12 states, whereas most of our competition has a footprint only across a few key states. Secondly, as a professional contracting organization we have about 20 regional execution setups across the country, and with regards to Solar, we are wide spread in North and South with our design and engineering centers at Noida and Bangalore and our execution centers at capital cities of most states witnessing solar action, namely Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka with at least 100 member strong teams at each location. Now, as action shifts towards the states, we feel better equipped with our pan India experience and our ideology of state-specific-approach. Taking a case in point, for example, in most of the southern states such as Tamil Nadu/Andhra Pradesh we realized early that land and evacuation would pose a major threat to the final number of installations that would mushroom in that state and hence we strongly focused on creating a value addition for our clients there by offering land, permits and evacuation bundled with our EPC solution. Similarly, in the state of Rajasthan we invested into solar parks from the perspective of engaging projects under REC scheme, plan for future JNNSM projects under Phase II and for our depreciation-based investors across the country who target higher yield apart from IT benefits. On off-grid and rooftop solar, our approach has been different in the sense, we focus on business models
www.panchabuta.com
36
rather than states, which decides geographies in which we implement more projects delivering better value for our clients BOOT model (power purchase by clients) and capital expenditure (foray into green building/solar power by clients) . Our state focused approach has helped us bag solar PV projects worth 50 MW this year, while another 55 MW of solar PV projects are at various stages of discussions, with a mix of projects under different mechanisms viz. state policy, REC schemes, accelerated depreciation schemes, and third party private power sale BOOT model/OPEX model. Given the interest in group captive/third party power sale models, are there any plans for Sterling and Wilson to invest in solar plants with developers and sell energy to such customers? Yes. In fact, we are on the verge of concluding our third project on BOOT basis whereby a partnership of sorts between us (as the EPC) and our partner (as the project investor and power seller to the end customer) is selling energy to customers typically those who wish to go solar/procure solar power but do not have the wherewithal to endure the new technology adoption cycle or capital expenditure. Although, our first two BOOT
projects are on roofs of prime properties in metropolitan cities, we are actively working on various models and creating synergies with potential partners to pursue the OPEX model in a much larger way i.e. on MW-scale. What do you see as the short term (18 24 months) prospects for solar in India and how do you see the market evolving? What is the roadmap for Sterling and Wilson in this evolving land scape? Overall, the economic scenario with a constantly falling rupee - which clearly hurts imports, on which the industry is heavily dependent - and negative sentiments on growth doesnt look encouraging until mid of next year. However, we expect a strong recovery India has no option but to grow from 2015, and when that happens the immediate power generation capacity thatd come up (at least a chunk of it) would be Renewable and more precisely solar. In the short term, we are eagerly awaiting the launch of JNNSM Phase II, as much as any other industry player since we see that as a large chunk of the private market for the next three years, but we also understand that developments on the political front, technical resolution on various topics in the bid document and general fiscal scenario may play a role in deciding when
the Phase II is formally launched. In contrast, clearly, looking at the trend that seems to be emerging this year, states we believe, will lead the solar revolution in India over the next year or more. We are witnessing traction in Punjab, UP and Tamil Nadu and are seeing a 1 GW+ solar market emerge just from the states alone through various models state tenders, third party power sale/ BOOT model, captive and group captive, REC schemes and depreciation. Tamil Nadu clearly seems to lead at the moment, just that it would help the state if it could fast track PPA signing and TNERC orders apart from resolving deadlock over SPO. There is also a quickly maturing third party power sale market which is taking shape in Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka in the near short term. Given the above developments, our roadmap in the near term is focused on a two pronged strategy domestic and international. Domestically, in India, over the next many months, we are focused on building solar park infrastructure (for third party power sale/trading and JNNSM projects) and help our clients initiate discussions with power purchasers for PPAs, construct some good projects through the Tamil Nadu, Punjab and UP state allocations and expand our activities in the distributed solar space. On the international front, we are strongly focused on Saudi Arabia, North and East Africa apart from South Africa and Central Asia and clearly see a pipeline of about 175 MW 200 MW emerging through our work in these markets over the next 12 - 14 months. Clearly, we are optimistic about the solar business in the near term.
www.panchabuta.com
38
It should be noted that the SPO and Renewable Purchase Obligation (RPO) are two different obligations. The RPO has been fixed under the RPO Regulations issued by the Commission whereas the SPO has been made mandatory under the Tamil Nadu Solar policy 2012. The obligated entities under RPO regulations include distribution licensees, captive consumers and open access consumers while the obligated entities under the SPO include HT consumers (HT Tariff I to V) - SEZ - Industrial connections with guaranteed power supply - Telecom towers and IT parks - All colleges and residential schools - Buildings with built up area of 20,000 m 2 or more LT commercial consumers (LT Tariff V)
SPO would be administered by TANGEDCO which would act as the nodal agency. Non-compliance with the SPO regula
www.panchabuta.com
39
tions would mean that the obligated entities would have to pay a fine which would be equal to the forbearance price of solar RECs (as determined by CERC) required to fulfil the obligation. The penalty would be paid to TANGEDCO who would then purchase the requisite RECs required for fulfilling the obligation from the market.
tioning unit to charge the battery from grid only in rainy or cloudy days when solar power is insufficient. There will be direct Electricity Board (EB) supply to lights in case of failure of battery/inverter. The solar system will have three day autonomy.
certified more than 200 engineers and entrepreneurs in a rather short span of about five months.
Rs. 2/ kWh
Rs. 2/ kWh
Rs. 1/ kWh
Rs. 1/ kWh
In addition, net-metering is also planned to be implemented in residential and commercial establishments at various voltage levels.
www.panchabuta.com
www.panchabuta.com
panchabuta panchabuta