200 billion PHP is 3.58 billion USD. The farm is 3500 MW and has 4000 MWh of battery storage. As of today 1 Wp (peak watt) of mainstream solar panels costs about 0.16 USD [1], and 1 kWh of li-ion battery costs about 140 USD [2]. Which means the panels alone cost 560M USD, and the batteries also cost 560M USD, so combined they represent 31% of the total 3.58B USD budget. It seems to be not very cost-efficient, as the overhead for everything else (2.46B USD) is quite large: inverters, mounting hardware, grid connection, installation, inspection, etc.
Edit: I was basing my "not very cost-efficient" remark on the fact that this solar plant is basically $1.00/W however the best utility-scale solar plants achieve about $0.80/W, or 20% less. However I forgot to account for the fact this plant has batteries, so a higher overhead is expected. So, after all, the capex is in line with what I'd expect.
It seems these are going onto existing pastureland, which should be able to continue present production.
The Philippines has a great deal of sheltered water that could host floatovoltaic installations that can opoerate more efficiently than on land.
One of the great advantages of solar is that many small installations, close to where power is needed, are better than one big one. We may hope they are taking advantage of this capability, too often ignored.
Most plants can use only a few hours of direct sunlight before they run out of stuff to photosynthesize out of. They endure the rest of the day trying not to get dehydrated, and spend the night stockpiling raw materials to process next day.
Cereal crops are bred to be able to use more sun than most plants; most chase other goals than the big seeds we select for.
> One of the great advantages of solar is that many small installations, close to where power is needed, are better than one big one.
I'm sure it's definitely true when using the same technology in both sides of the comparison (solar panels), but is it so cut and dry compared to current and/or future iterations of alternatives like this? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_tower
True. People doing solar concentrators have pivoted to supplying process heat, which can be collected most efficiently that way. It must be said, we use a lot of process heat. Heating people's houses would be another good use of the technology in places where the trenches and plumbing are cheap enough.
$1k USD and you get 1KW of solar and storage. I don't know how this compares to alternative grid-scale solutions over a ~15-25 year lifetime but that's ballpark how much you'd pay for retail solar without the storage.
On the other hand, still much cheaper both to build and operate than the equivalent in conventional power plants. But I do wonder where all that money is coming from. Foreign investors?
Seems it was funded by the IPO of "SP New energy Corp"
> Funded by proceeds from its P2.7-billion initial public offering, the first 50 megawatts are targeted to start delivering power to the grid by the end of 2022, driving profitability for the firm - https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/money/companies/815990/spnec...
> Mr Leandro Leviste, 28, will seek to raise as much as 2.7 billion pesos (S$74 million) by selling shares in Solar Philippines Nueva Ecija, a unit of his Solar Philippines Power Project Holdings. The funds will go towards constructing the first phase of a 500MW plant in a province about 130km north of Manila - https://www.straitstimes.com/business/economy/a-28-year-old-...
Interesting enough, seems the founder initially got the funds by selling their Tesla and SolarCity shares:
Yeah, I imagined. Also guessing Leandro Leviste had help to acquire their shares in the first place, as it's not super common for people to have funds available for stocks when they join university, unless someone help them afford it.
That, plus they don't have energy sovereignty. Similar to China, they want energy sovereignty and want to derisk from global political instability. So they're turning to renewables. It's smart. The cost curve pushed the decision over the edge.
Also being near the equator, the sun is stable. Countries like Denmark who are far from the equator will probably keep pursuing wind more aggressively than solar, unless the solar cost curve continues down.
Both are popular in Denmark. Denmark has about 3.5GW of solar, mostly on people's houses. So, about the same as this project is installing. Of course the grid is dominated by wind power. Especially offshore wind.
Being further north makes a little bit of difference but not as much as people think. Winters are darker, obviously. So, that means solar isn't great then. But summers have much more daylight. Those long summer days are awesome for solar energy. From early morning until late at night basically. And obviously, Danish consumers like cutting a bit off their electricity bills just like people elsewhere.
Another issue is the angle of the sun. The light loses some energy having to pass through more of our atmosphere compared to blasting straight down at the equator. But otherwise, the difference in distance to the sun is negligible.
And of course heat pumps are pretty popular in Denmark as well. As are EVs. People that have those, would benefit a lot from solar panels.
> I am from the Philippines, we have only two types of seasons, sunny and rainy.
There's a buried third in there: "typhoon season"[1].
I do wonder how they intend to both lean into and protect such a massive, fragile investment when all it'll take is the debris from a single tropical storm to wreck some serious infrastructure carnage, let alone a full-blown super typhoon.
Anyone have an idea of how existing solar farms in the Philippines have weathered typhoon season over the past decade?
The country is a proverbial magnet for typhoons, and it seems like a major disaster strikes every year; wiki[1] claims half of the top 10 deadliest were within the past 2 decades, and the top 10 most destructive were all in the past 15 years!
Solar arrays are low to the ground and comparatively sturdy relative to construction like housing. Are they particularly at risk? This seems like an argument you could apply to any industry in the coastal tropics. Yet there is industry in the coastal tropics nonetheless.
The Philippines are beautiful, though truly all the small motor vehicles going 15-20MPh everywhere are a bit ridiculous and especially in Manila choke out the air.
It's awesome they are building solar. Soon hopefully lots of small electrics or even more bicycles take the place of the jeepneys, trikes, and motorbikes. The motor traffic was about the worst part of being there. The countryside is beautiful.
I think not in large scale yet, but there are experiments.
> "Solar panels in a field will necessarily cast a shadow. This can be
beneficial for some crops, for others not. In Northern Europe, agrivoltaic production seems to be suitable for crops such as onions, grains, potatoes, and root vegetables, perhaps also strawberries or raspberries. In areas where the sunshine is more intense, solar panels can reduce evaporation and lay the foundation for higher production than otherwise. In southern Europe, solar panels can probably be combined with vines or olive bushes," says van der Pouw.
That is a big topic. There are plenty of farmers doing that. Especially further south, a bit of shade is actually helpful to protect plants. And farmers get more revenue out of their land this way too.
A new trend in agrivoltaics uses rows of double sided vertically-mounted solar panels, receiving light from the East and West. The rows are spaced far enough apart that combines or tractors or whatever can fit between. They take up a minimal amount of land and receive the earlier and later light of the day, helping avoid the grid spike in the afternoon.
Solar has really benefited from modularity. Panels and batteries are mass produced and conform to a standard interface regardless of manufacturer.
The small size of each unit means vastly more iteration on manufacturing than power sources that rely on larger units, so you also get more rapid advancement in manufacturing efficiency.
The end result is a 3.5 GW plant with 4 GWh storage can get built and made operational in two years time.
Natural gas plants — which are quick to build by the standards of power plants — will take four to six years to build for one with that output.
Edit: I was basing my "not very cost-efficient" remark on the fact that this solar plant is basically $1.00/W however the best utility-scale solar plants achieve about $0.80/W, or 20% less. However I forgot to account for the fact this plant has batteries, so a higher overhead is expected. So, after all, the capex is in line with what I'd expect.
[1] https://www.pvxchange.com/Price-Index [2] https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-...