Die approbierte Originalversion dieser Diplom-/Masterarbeit ist an der Hauptbibliothek der Technischen Universität Wien aufgestellt (http://www.ub.tuwien.ac.at).
The approved originalMSc version Program of this diploma or master thesis is available at the main library of the Vienna University of Technology (http://www.ub.tuwien.ac.at/englweb/Renewable Energy). in Central & Eastern Europe
Passive Use or Active Involvement?
The Possibilities of D. Swarovski & Co in Photovoltaics
A Master Thesis submitted for the degree of “Master of Science”
Supervised by DI Dr. Gerd Schauer
Dr. Arno Recheis 9118229
Wattens, March 2008
Affidavit
I, Dr. Arno Recheis, hereby declare 1. that I am the sole author of the present Master Thesis, “Passive Use or Active Involvement? The Possibilities of D. Swarovski & Co in Photovoltaics” 55 pages, bound, and that I have not used any source or tool other than those referenced or any other illicit aid or tool, and 2. that I have not prior to this date submitted this Master Thesis as an examination paper in any form in Austria or abroad.
Wattens, ___11.3.2008______Date Signature
MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
Table of contents
1. Abstract 3
2. List of figures and tables 4
3. Introduction 5
3.1. D. Swarovski & Co 5 3.2. Terms of this thesis 6 3.3. World energy situation 6 3.4. Energy situation in Austria 9
3.5. CO2-Trade and the Kyoto-Protocol 11 3.6. EU climate and energy targets for 2020 12
4. Energy situation of D. Swarovski & Co, Wattens 14 4.1. Energy consumption 14 4.2. Energy production 15 4.3. Possible contributions from renewable energies 17
5. Photovoltaic 20 5.1. Basic information of solar cells PV systems 21 5.2. Costs and needed space of PV systems 24 5.3. Energy balance for PV 25 5.4. PV-Electricity generating costs: past – present –future 25 5.5. The Feed-In systems for PV in Austria and selected EU-countries 26 5.6. Overview of the PV market and outlook for PV 27
6. PV-Concentrator Systems (CPV) 30 6.1. Advantages and disadvantages 30 6.2. Concentrating elements 32 6.3. CPV with C < 100x 33 6.4. CPV with C > 100x 34 6.5. Summery and outlook 36
Dr. Arno Recheis 1 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
7. Chances of D. Swarovski & Co in the PV market 37
7.1. Core Competences of D. Swarovski & Co 37 7.2. SWOT Analysis for D. Swarovski & Co 38
7.3. Possibilities in the PV market for D. Swarovski & Co 40 7.4. Summary and strategy 41
8. PV-power plant for D. Swarovski & Co, Wattens 42 8.1. Location and dimension 42 8.2. Costs 44 8.3. Financial calculations 44 8.4. Summary 48
9. Conclusion 50
10. References 51
Appendix 55
Dr. Arno Recheis 2 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
1. Abstract
Two facts are in the focal point of this thesis: First that the PV industry is one of the most prospering ones worldwide with a growing rate of around 40% every year, second that for reaching the Kyoto- as well as the EU 2020 targets also the industry will be strongly involved.
PV-power plants could be one possibility in lowering the CO2 output by producing the needed electricity; supplying optical parts could be the gate to the PV industry for Swarovski as the company is the world leader in producing cut crystal. These optical parts are needed for the concentrating Photovoltaic (CPV), which have a huge market potential as the development of these systems is just at the beginning. At the moment no kind of CPV can be favoured, new developments for whole CPV systems or of optical parts of them are possibilities for Swarovski. Because of the low feed-in tariffs in Austria, the non-supporting of PV in Tirol and the high long- term internal interests of the company itself, it is not possible to run a PV-power plant economically. There are huge differences between fixed or moving systems with advantages to optimal inclined fixed and 1-axis systems, but all of them would have negative financial results. Other reasons like a positive “green” image or being an outrider of new technologies have to be found if a PV-power plant should be erected at the company area.
Dr. Arno Recheis 3 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
2. List of Figures and Tables
Figure 1: Swarovski crystal swan and Swarovski crystal earrings and pendant
Figure 2: The share of the world energy supplies Figure 3: Worldwide primary energy supply until 2100 - WBGU Figure 4: Worldwide primary energy supply until 2050 – IEA Figure 5: Austrian Primary Energy Consumption in 2005 Figure 6: The share of the production of primary energy with Renewables in Austria in 2005 Figure 7: Energy consumption of D. Swarovski & Co, Wattens from 1996 – 2006 Figure 8: The 4 small hydropower plants of D. Swarovski & Co Figure 9: Energy Flow Chart of D. Swarovski & Co, Wattens for 2006 Figure 10: Map of the Photovoltaic Solar Electricity Potential in European Countries Figure 11: Map of the yearly sum of global irradiation received by optimally inclined PV modules in Austria Figure 12: Market share of new installed PV-Cells in 2006 Figure 13: Losses of PV systems relating to the received solar energy Figure 14: Cost Distribution of different PV systems. Figure 15: Development of utility prices and PV generation costs Figure 16: Principle arrangement of a CPV Figure 17: Development of the efficiencies of multilayer III-V solar cells Figure 18: Thermodynamical limits of solar photovoltaic energy conversion Figure 19: A 2-3x concentration system working with mirrors Figure 20: 6 Examples of high-concentration PV systems Figure 21: Model of a Fresnel HCVP system with secondary optic (SOE) Figure 22: SolFocus double mirror system (www. solfocus.com) Figure 23: Dome shape Fresnel lens with SOE (Daido Steel) Figure 24: SWOT analysis for D. Swarovski & Co regarding to the PV market Figure 25: View on the industrial area of D. Swarovski & Co Wattens Werk 1 Figure 26: Roof of the crystal production building Figure 27: Radiation for Innsbruck (Wagner 2006) & Temperature for Innsbruck Airport (ZAMAG) Figure 28: Development of the market price since 2003 Figure 29: PV-power plant of Fronius International GmbH in Sattledt (Upper Austria)
Table 1: Investment and generating costs of different Renewables Table 2: Greenhouse gas emission limits and share of Renewables of EU member states by 2020 Table 3: Efficiency of solar cells Table 4: Separation of the concentration factor of CPV (Goetzberger 2005 and Bett 2007). Table 5-8: Calculations of the PV-power plant
Dr. Arno Recheis 4 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
3. Introduction
3.1. D. Swarovski & Co D. Swarovski & Co is a worldwide operating company with more than 20,000 employees in over 120 countries. 2006 reaches the turnover €2.37 billion. Beside the main brand “Swarovski” the “Swarovski group” unites the brands Tyrolit (sawing-, drilling-, grinding tools), Swareflex (glass reflectors for roads), Signity (natural and synthetic gemstones) and Swarovski Optics (binoculars, scopes). Swarovski itself is the world leader in precision cut crystal. Crystal is the short form for lead crystal, a high brilliant faceted variety of glass. Swarovski has two major divisions: The first is producing precision-cut crystal components, catering to a wide range of design-driven industries in the fashion, lighting and interior business. The second is using these elements to create finished crystal products like jewellery (figure 1, right picture), fashion accessories, and home décor objects, which are sold through the worldwide network of more than 1150 Swarovski stores. The main production plant is situated in Wattens / Tirol with more than 6700 employees by the end of 2007. The main industrial work is done in three shifts, 24 hours and 7 days a week.
Figure 1: Swarovski crystal swan and Swarovski crystal earrings and pendant
Crystal melting and cutting is a very energy consuming work, using a huge amount of oil, gas and electricity. The melting process for example needs temperatures of ~1400°C and lasts about 24 hours. The energy consumption to produce glass is in average 1.50 kWh/kg or 12-20% of the total production costs (Fröhler 2005, page 1301).
Dr. Arno Recheis 5 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
3.2. Terms of this thesis Although Swarovski has own hydropower plants (chapter 4) producing about 36% of the needed electricity the company is mostly depending on fossil energy sources.
Together with the company the energy consumption is growing in average 10% each year increasing this dependence. Of course no company (region or nation) wants this dependence particularly when looking on the Russian gas crisis in 2006 or on the uncertain world oil market. Renewable Energies sound to be the golden key out of this dependence. Beside this important fact they can even be more. The PV industry for example is one of the fastest growing branches (+25-50% every year) worldwide. So there is also the question if a company like Swarovski is able to get into this prospering market. This thesis deals by focusing on Photovoltaic as a possible new business field with two different roles: an active or a passive one.
• The concentrating Photovoltaic (CPV) uses optical parts (lenses, mirrors) which are often made of glass. This can be a chance for the company in future. Looking on the core- competences and based on a SWOT analysis the possibilities of this active role for D. Swarovski & Co in this branch of industry is handled out in detail. • Doing calculations about a PV-power plant installed at the company area shows the passive role of being a user of Photovoltaic. Which size and which system would be useful? What are the costs, the profit or losses?
3.3. World energy situation The total world energy consumption of all forms of primary energy is at the moment more than 450 EJ (BP2007; Boyle 2004, page 6). This “PB Statistic Review of World Energy (BP 2007)” includes only the commercially traded fuels, as there are very often no documented numbers for energy forms like for example wood or animal waste. This “traditional biomass” has a contribution of estimated 10.6% of the world energy consumption (Boyle 2004, page 7).
Dr. Arno Recheis 6 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
Also all other forms of renewable energies except large hydropower plants1 are excluded by this statistic because they are also very often not statistically documented. The total energy consumption including biomass and all forms of renewable energies should be at the moment more than 500 EJ per year (Kaltschmitt 2007, page 7). The share of renewable energies of this primary energy consumption excluding the traditional biomass still plays only a secondary role. Only large hydropower plants (see footnote this page) with a share of 5.5-6.5% (depending if the traditional biomass is in- or excluded) have a certain value for the world energy situation. The share of all other forms of renewable energies could only be estimated. Boyle (2004) numbers this share with 2.3% in the year 2002 (figure 2) – and in spite of all activities and researches regarding renewable energies, this small share will remain the next years or even decades (figure 3 and 4).
World Energy Supplies
oil 5,7% 0,10% natural gas 22,2% 5,5% 0,42% coal 10,6% 0,04% nuclear large hydro 2,3% 1,74% traditional biomass 21,1% Wind Geothermal 32,6% Solar New biomass*
Figure 2: The share of the world energy supplies. Data Boyle 2004. *New biomass = biomass like bio fuels or pellets
1 The share of hydropower is difficult to evaluate. There are two reasons: 1. Different authors calculate in a different way. “Some authors simply enter the contribution as equal to the annual electricity output; others calculate the equivalent input of fuel that would be needed by a power station producing this output at some notional plant efficiency. In this book we adopt the second method” (Boyle 2004, page 7). The numbers of figure 2 are taken from this book. 2. The definition of “large hydropower” differs in some countries. For example in the EU the border is >10MW whereas in the USA it is >30MW. And also in some articles like the PB report only hydropower is mentioned (no limit) in others like Boyle (2004) definitely large hydropower.
Dr. Arno Recheis 7 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
Energy forecasts for longer periods of time (several decades) are very difficult to make in a scientific and/or serious way. New technologies for the energy production like nuclear fusion, new extraction forms like deep drilling technologies or new locations of the fossil raw materials
(e.g. Polar Regions) can hardly be forecasted. It is also nearly impossible to forecast the price of oil, natural gas and coal – nobody assumed 5 years ago that the price for 1 barrel of crude oil would reach $100. Forecasts also always depend on who is doing this forecast. Of course pro- renewable energy forecasts like the WBGU (figure 3) always value this forms stronger than e.g. forecasts of more or less independent organizations like the IEA (figure 4). In this example both forecasts are quite similar until 2030 but after there is the big difference.
Figure 3 and 4: Worldwide primary energy supply until 2100 (WBGU, German Advisory Council and Global Change http://www.wbgu.de) and 2050 (data: IEA – Energy to 2050, page 127)
Dr. Arno Recheis 8 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
The total energy supply in 2050 with ~1200 EJ per year is the same but where WBGU gives the solar energy a share of at least 25% and that nuclear power production is petered out, the IEA gives nuclear and also coal a much stronger part of the whole energy supply.
But in spite of these different scenarios the forecasts have one crucial fact in common:
Renewable energies will not play an important role for the world energy market until 2030 – but they will play an important role until the mid of this Century – only basically different is how high this share will be.
3.4. Energy situation in Austria The total primary energy consumption of Austria in 2005 was 1,440,384 TJ (Mayer 2006) with a share of renewable energies of 21.4% (figure 5). This consumption is separated in traffic (31.1%), industry (27.6%), private households (25.8%) and private/public services (13.2%). Hydropower produces about 60% of the used electricity in Austria. In comparison with all other renewable energy sources this is a share of more than 41% of the production of primary energy with Renewables (figure 6, Mayer 2006). With a share of 21.4% Austria is in a leading position in the EU-27 (see table 2, EurObserv’Er 2006, page 53).
Austrian Pirmary Energy Consumption 2005
0,60% 21,40% Oil 41,90% Natural Gas Coal 11,80% Renewable Energies Electricity*
24,30% *Imported Electricity as Primary Energy
Figure 5: Austrian Primary Energy Consumption in 2005. Data: Mayer 2006
Dr. Arno Recheis 9 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
Share of the Production of Primary Energy with Renewables in Austria
6,50%
Hydro Power Wind & PV 27,30% 41,40% Others Wood Biogene Fuels Combustible Waste 1,50% 20,10% 3,20%
Figure 6: The share of the production of primary energy with Renewables in Austria in 2005. Data: Mayer 2006
Although Austria has this position, for reaching the Kyoto- (see chapter 3.5) and the “EU climate 2020” (see chapter 3.6) targets, the Austrian government is planning to enlarge this share - and is also forced from the EU to do so. This is difficult to realize as for example more than 70% of for hydropower usable water resources are already used. Because of the strict environmental laws it is nearly impossible to construct new bigger hydropower plants. So the extension of particularly large-hydropower is limited. Better chances are in the small hydropower plants (<10 MWp), which also have the cheapest electricity generating costs (table 1) of all Renewables. The Austrian government also favours wind power plants, which have the cheapest investment costs, and all kind of bio energy. PV with the highest investment and generating costs has at the moment no chance for a development because of the low government supporting.
Small Hydropower Wind Power Biomass Biogas PV Investment costs €/kW 2500-5000 800-1200 2000-4800 2900-6200 3500-5000 Electricity generating costs €/MWh 32-63 79 66-160 77-165 470-600*
Table 1: Investment and generating costs of different Renewables. Source: http://reports.verbund.at/2006/nhb/wasserkraft. Electricity generating costs: E-Control (*Differs from international sources: 300-360 €/MWh, chapter 5.3)
Dr. Arno Recheis 10 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
3.5. The Kyoto-Protocol and the CO2-Trade Due to the Kyoto-Protocol Austria is obligated to reduce the greenhouse gases 13% of the status quo from the total emission of 1990 until 2012. By the end of 2007 the APA reported that this goal is impossible to reach and that Austria will have to pay a penalty of €1.5 billion (in CO2 certificates) in 2012 – a scenario that really could happen. 2003 was the total greenhouse gas emission (in CO2 equivalent) 91.6 Mio t – that’s about 17% higher than in the year 1990. There are some reasons why it’s nearly impossible for Austria to reach the target: • Large-Hydropower is on its limit (see chapter 3.4) • Other forms of Renewable Energy can hardly cover the yearly growing demand of energy • The traffic has increased 81.8% (!) from 1990 to 2003 – this increasing is mainly based on transit traffic • The GDP has increased of 32% from 1990 to 2003 and with it the whole industry
As mentioned above it is nearly impossible to reach the Kyoto targets but the government should at least try to reach them. Instead of the €1.5 billion penalty a higher support for Renewables would be much more useful for the economy as well as the ecology. Investments in new technologies like the PV should be done now and not when it is too late.
CO2-Production and CO2-Trade for D. Swarovski & Co To reach the Kyoto targets the bigger energy-, steel-, cement- or glass-industries such as
Swarovski are linked to the European CO2-Trade (Period 1 of the Kyoto Protocol 2005-2007). Swarovski is emitting during the glass- as well as its own heat and energy production a certain amount of CO2. Other greenhouse gases are negligible.
Connected with the annual grows of energy consumption also the CO2 emission has increased every year reaching 33,032 t in 2006. From the Austria Ministry free CO2-certificates with a value of 39,127 t per year were given to the company, which are valid from 2008 until 2012
(Second Period of the Kyoto Protocol). Swarovski internal prognoses forecast that the CO2 emission will be under this limit until 2009 or 2010 and over in the years (2010) 2011 and 2012. So in the last two years of this period it could and probably will happen that the company has to buy certificates. The price of these certificates is uncertain but the European Energy Exchange estimates ~25 €/tCO2 (www.eex.com). All CO2 saving activities and of course also a PV-power plant would help to be under the limit and safe money.
Dr. Arno Recheis 11 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
3.6. EU climate and energy targets for 2020 (Summary of: Commission of the European Communities 2008/1, 2008/2, 2008/3, 2008/4, 2008/5)
The free certificates mentioned in the previews chapter will disappear after 2012 and each industry producing more than 10.000 t CO2 per year except the steel branch has to buy certificates from the beginning on. The European Commission will guide the whole emission trade with a new Emission Trading System (ETS, Commission of the European Communities 2008/4). This is a part to reach the ambitious EU climate targets for 2020 (the so called “20 20 by 2020”, Commission of the European Communities 2008/2):
At least 20% less greenhouse gas emission compared to 1990 (the EU objective is if possible to achieve a reduction of 30%) together with a share of 20% of Renewables from the total energy consumption and a minimum market share of bio fuels of 10%.
For 2050 the EU plans to reach a reduction of the greenhouse gas emission of 50% compared to 1990 and a share of Renewables of 40-50%.
To reach these targets each member state has its own “National Energy Efficiency Action Plans” (NEEAPs, Commission of the European Communities 2008/1). As the EU wants to support the new member states as well as the economically weaker countries, the targets in reducing the greenhouse gases as well as the share of Renewables differ from each member state (see table 2). The EU does not favour one special kind of renewable energy – the member states are free to “develop the renewable energy sector that corresponds best to their national situation and potential” (Commission 2008/3 page 11). To reach these targets Austria has to make huge efforts in all kinds of renewable energies as well as energy saving projects and the reduction of traffic. And also the industries, as mentioned in the beginning of this chapter, would be much stronger included. Swarovski for example has to buy from 2013 on the full amount of CO2 certificates what will be at least 40.000 t (or €1.0 million assuming a price of 25 €/t CO2) every year and of course Swarovski will be obliged not only to buy certificates but also to reduce the CO2 production.
Dr. Arno Recheis 12 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
Member State greenhouse gas Share of Renewables Share of Renewables in Country emission limits by 2020 in the final energy the final energy demand compared to 2005 demand in 2005 targets for 2020
Austria - 16% 23.3% 34% Belgium - 15% 2.2% 13% Bulgaria + 20% 9.4% 16% Cyprus - 5% 2.9% 13% Czech Republic + 9% 6.1% 13% Denmark - 20% 17.0% 30% Estonia + 11% 18.0% 25% Finland - 16% 28.5% 38% France - 14% 10.3% 23% Germany - 14% 5.8% 18% Greece - 4% 6.9% 18% Hungary + 10% 4.3% 13% Ireland - 20% 3.1% 16% Italy - 13% 5.2% 17% Latvia + 17% 34.9% 42% Lithuania + 15% 15.0% 23% Luxembourg - 20% 0.9% 11% Malta + 5% 0.0% 10% Netherlands - 16% 2.4% 14% Poland + 14% 7.2% 15% Portugal + 1% 20.5% 31% Romania + 19% 17.8% 24% Slovakia + 13% 6.7% 14% Slovenia + 4% 16.0% 25% Spain - 10% 8.7% 20% Sweden - 17% 39.8% 49% United Kingdom - 16% 1.3% 15%
Table 2: Greenhouse gas emission limits and share of Renewables of EU member states by 2020. Source: Commission of the European Communities 2008/3 and 2008/4.
Dr. Arno Recheis 13 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
4. Energy situation of D. Swarovski & Co, Wattens
4.1. Energy consumption D. Swarovski & Co Wattens uses nearly a quarter of electricity and gas in comparison to Innsbruck, capital of Tyrol with 118,467 inhabitants (November 2007). The numbers are shown in detail below. As the company is growing rapidly, the energy consumption has almost tripled in the last decade (see figure 7). To compare the different primary energy forms in figure 7 the values are converted to MWh with following specifications: The average heating value of the used Natural Gas is 9.98 kWh/Nm3 (TIGAS) and for the used oil (“Heizöl Leicht Schwechat 2000”) 11.4 kWh/l.
Swarovski Wattens Natural Gas (2006): 12,185,460 Nm3 (121.6110 GWh) Electricity (2006): 179.9160 GWh (excl. losses and delivery*) Oil (2006): 3,305,070 litres (38.008 GWh) *see chapter 4.2
Innsbruck Natural Gas (Oct. 2006 – Sept. 2007): 52,785,000 Nm3 Electricity (Oct. 2006 – Sept. 2007): 781.8090 GWh (excl. losses)
To give these numbers a better background and to focus on the Photovoltaic on the further chapters following comparison is useful:
This electricity consumption of 179.90 GWh is ~10% of the total production of all installed PV systems (off and on-grid) in Europe (EU-27) in 2005 (1.791 TWh, Eurobserver 2006), or roughly about 5% of all installed PV systems by the end of 2006 (3.40 TWh, Jäger-Waldau 2007).
Dr. Arno Recheis 14 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
Energy Consumpition D. Swarovski & Co, Wattens
250 Electricity 200 Gas 150
GWh 100 Oil
50 Hydro-Electricity Production 0
7 0 3 6 9 98 0 01 0 0 9 0 0 0 1996 19 1 1999 2 2 2002 20 2004 2005 2 year
Figure 7: Energy consumption of D. Swarovski & Co, Wattens from 1996 – 2006. For 2006 is the comparison with the own hydropower generation given.
4.2. Energy production Since the beginning of Swarovski’s history in Wattens (1895) hydropower was used. Today 4 small hydropower plants (figure 8) with a nominal power of 14,675 kW are producing about 73.0 GWh (in 2006) per year. These power plants were/are permanently optimised and maintained. The last optimization was done in 2002/3 when the control system was renewed. The hydropower plants as well as the whole water systems in the surrounding have reached the limit; a further upgrading or a further use is not possible. As the electricity consumption of the company is increasing in average 10 % each year (figure 7) and the energy production has reached its limit, the share of hydropower is decreasing every year. In 2006 it was 36.0 %. D. Swarovski is also running a combined heat and power unit (CHP) with two “Mercury” gas turbines delivering 10.15 GWh of heat and 9.855 GWh of electricity (2006).
For details see also the energy flow chart (figure 9 on page 17).
Dr. Arno Recheis 15 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
KW Haneburger 3400 kW 1320 lt/sec 18.0 GWh/a
KW Wattenbach KW Innerachen* 8250 kW 2200 kW + 750 kW 2000 lt/sec 3000 lt/sec + 500 lt/sec 53.0 GWh/a 5.15 GWh/a *Two turbines
KW Werkbach 75 kW 1200 lt/sec 0.5 GWh/a
Figure 8: The four small hydropower plants of D. Swarovski & Co (total 14,675 kW, ~73.0 GWh/a) situated in the “Wattental”, a valley South of Wattens/Tirol Austria. Blue (“Wehranlagen”): the barrages Red (KW = “Kraftwerk”): the power plants Red areas: factory area of D. Swarovski & Co, Wattens
Dr. Arno Recheis 16 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
Figure 9: Energy Flow Chart of D. Swarovski & Co, Wattens for 2006. Only the main energy flows are shown. CHP = combined heat and power unit Conversion = different units to convert energy in the company
4.3. Possible contributions from renewable energies To change the whole energy system of D. Swarovski & Co, Wattens to renewable energies in the next decades is more or less impossible. But there are some chances to change parts of the consumption from fossil to renewable energy. On the next two pages is a short overlook to other Renewables than PV with a short personal rating of the chances (low – medium – high) for a realization without economical calculations:
Dr. Arno Recheis 17 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
Hydro-power (low) As mentioned above the hydropower plants have reached their limits. There is also no possibility to erect new plants in the Wattental or other valleys nearby, as they are all - from the hydro- technical point of view - complete exploited.
Wind – Windmills (low) The “Reschenpass” on the border to Italy is at the moment the only place in Tyrol with a windmill running producing electricity. The main problem in Tyrol is that there are no continuous wind situations, which can be used for windmills. From “no wind” to extreme situations (the so called “Fön”) with rates above 19 m/s (Neubarth 2000) everything is possible.
Biomass (medium) Biomass is not used at the moment but could of course be applied for example for a CHP. To run a CHP of the same dimension as the existing one (2 gas turbines, ~20 GWh/a) between 5,830 and 10,204 t of wood chips would be necessary - depending on the heating value of the used wood (Neubarth 2000). On one hand this would be a good possibility to include the resident farmers and timber industries. On the other hand it has to be checked very carefully if there is enough biomass available, as there are beside a lot of small also huge biomass CHP plants running in Tyrol (e.g. Hall in Tirol: 90 GWh/a heat and 7.5 GWh/a electricity, 6 km from Wattens or Kufstein: 70 GWh/a heat and 45 GWh/a electricity, 60km from Wattens).
Bio Fuels (medium) As the company uses more than 3.3 Mio litre of heating oil every year a substitution with bio fuels sounds interesting. There are some problems to think about: • It is economically uninteresting to run the burners with bio diesel (+ 30-35% of the costs) • It is not guaranteed that the burners will run without problems if the heating fuel (or parts of it) is substituted with bio diesel • Bio heating fuels are not available in this amount at the moment and there is also no guarantee if the burners will run without (long-term) problems
One possibility would be to substitute whole burners to bio oil using systems. Another possibility would be to substitute a part of the heating oil and to make long-time test runs with the insisting burners. The problem here is that the capacity of the burners has reached the limit so it is at the moment impossible to make test runs.
Dr. Arno Recheis 18 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
Geothermal Energy (high) Längenfeld in the Ötztal is the only area where there are geothermal anomalies – places where at a certain depth higher temperatures available than normal (Neubarth 2000, p. 226). This would be necessary for the production of electricity with an ORC process or for the use of very hot water (>70°C). For low temperature use like the production of industrial water1 the given geothermal situation is satisfying.
Solar Thermal Heat Utilisation (high) Solar thermal energy is not used at the moment, but there would be a good chance in reducing the gas consumption by the production of hot water. As the company needs the industrial water 24 hours a day, large storages would be necessary.
As the insisting buildings are connected to a central high temperature heating system geothermal and solar thermal energy are not suitable for building heating at the moment.
1 As shown in figure 9 about 3.59 GWh of energy was used for the production of hot water in 2006. A share of it is low temperature water (~30°C) for the cutting processes. For this industrial water low temperature geothermal processes would optimal fit.
Dr. Arno Recheis 19 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
5. Photovoltaic
The visible light hitting the Earth orbit has a possible rate of 1366 W/m2 (“solar constant”). From this solar radiation ~30% (mainly the short wave radiation) is reflected and absorbed by the atmosphere of the earth. 70% or 1.0 kW/m2 is in principle available for using on the surface (Boyle, p.21). The calculated annual possible supply on earth of solar energy is somewhere about 3.9 million EJ (Quaschning 2006, p.34; Boyle, 2004, p.12) which is more or less 8000 times higher than the actual world energy use (ca. 500 EJ see chapter 3.3). There is a big difference at which point of the Earth the available solar energy is measured depending mostly on the angle to the sun. Figure 10 shows the big differences of the total solar irradiation per year in Europe from <600 kWh/m2 in Iceland, Northern England or Northern Norway up to 2200 kWh/m2 in Southern Spain (for optimal inclined PV-modules).
Figure 10: Map of the Photovoltaic Solar Electricity Potential in European Countries (JRC, European Commission 2006)
Dr. Arno Recheis 20 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
Irradiation in Wattens/Tyrol In Austria this global irradiation range from 1100 kWh/m2 in Northeastern parts of the country to 1800 kWh/m2 in Alpine regions (figure 11). As Wattens is situated in the valley Inntal the values are not that high but will reach about 1400 kWh/m2 (e.g. 1406 kWh/m2 data from: http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu, chapter 8 and appendix).
Figure 11: Map of the yearly sum of global irradiation received by optimally inclined PV modules in Austria (JRC, European Commission 2006). Black spot: D. Swarovski & Co / Wattens
5.1. Basic information of solar cells and PV systems
Cell Types At the moment more than 90% of the installed PV-cells are made of pure Silicon (EPIA 2007) with mono crystalline and multi crystalline Silicon cells having nearly the same market share. Because of this fact also in chapter 8 for the PV-power plant project for D. Swarovski & Co Silicon cells are taken for the calculations. The lifetime of the Silicon PV-cells is more than 30 years (of the other cell types no long tests are available).
Dr. Arno Recheis 21 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
Mainly because of the lack of pure Silicon in 2004 and 2005 thin film cells become more popular but they still have a market share below 8% (see figure 12). Three types of thin film cells are relevant for the PV-market: amorphous Silicon, CdTe and CuInSe2 (CIS).
Multilayer cells are too expensive for flat plate PV systems and only used for concentrator systems. Concentrator systems have at the moment more or less a project status for the PV industry but they have a huge potential in the future (see chapter 6). Other cell types like thin film on glass technologies or dye and organic cells are still under development and have currently no chances for the PV market.
Figure 12: Market share of new installed PV-Cells in 2006 (Photon International, March 2007)
Efficiencies The efficiencies of the used cell types are shown in table 3. The efficiency of new standard crystalline Silicon PV-modules are - because of the module losses - some percentage lower and reach at present time from 12% to 15% (e.g. Solon 195 Wp with 14.15% efficiency – chapter 8).
Cell efficiencies Crystalline Silicon Thin film Mono-Si Multi-Si CdTe CIS aSi Efficiency Laboratory ~25% 20.3% ~16.5% 20.2% <13% Efficiency real <18% <16% <11% 13.1% ~6% (<8%)
Table 3: Efficiency of solar cells. Data from: EPIA 2007, thick data from the Proceedings of the 22nd PV- conference. Red data Cells used for the calculations in chapter 8.
Dr. Arno Recheis 22 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
PV systems All grid-connected PV systems have three main parts in common: • PV-Cells packed in PV-Modules (to convert light into electricity, delivering DC)
• Construction (fix or with mover-systems) • Inverter (to convert DC to AC)
Losses of PV systems Energy losses play an important role by calculating the efficiency of PV systems. They can be separated in two parts: losses in the Solar Cell and losses after the production of electricity in other parts of the PV system (figure 13). The efficiencies of the cells and modules are, as shown above, normally fix given, so one has to focus on the “further components”. The efficiency of the solar cell in table 1 is for example 16%, the losses of the further components reach from 1.4% - 4.8% from the whole 100% of solar radiation. Calculating these losses from the cell-efficiency (16% = 100%) the range is 8.75-30.0% of the produced electricity. This shows how important these parts are, most of them the inverter, to reach a good efficiency of the whole PV system. The used percentage of losses differs also between the calculations programs used in this thesis (chapter 8 and appendix).
Figure 13: Losses of PV systems relating to the received solar energy (Kaltschmitt 2007)
Dr. Arno Recheis 23 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
5.2. Costs and needed space of PV systems In general the bigger the PV system the cheaper are the parts of it calculated in kWp. The kWp- price of small house systems (< 3 kWp) is about 30-40% higher than that of a 1 MWp PV-power plant (Kaltschmitt 2007, p. 289-290) as it is projected in this work for D. Swarovski & Co in Wattens (chapter 8). In principle can be said that between 55% and 65% of a PV system is the module price, 7-12% the inverter, ~10% the installation material and about 10% the installation costs (Kaltschmitt 2007, p. 289; “RETScreen”). The remaining percentages are for example costs for architects, transportation or other additional expenses (see figure 14). The module price is declining about 5% a year (EPIA 2007), depending mostly on the pure-silicon price. The average price of a 1 MWp plant is at the moment something around €3.7-4.5 million (Kaltschmitt 2007, p. 289, personal conversation with companies like “Solar Tec” or “Solon Hilber” and “RETScreen” in chapter 8) including installation. When using tracking systems 5- 30% has to be added depending on the supplier and the kind of the system. 2-axis systems are of course more expensive than 1-axis systems.
Cost Distribution of PV-Systems
70%
60%
50%
40% Fixed System 1-axis System 30% 2-axis System
20%
10%
0%
e r l n s ul te ia o r m d r er ti e te o ve at lla ys M In Oth M sta g S n In n tio la cki l ra sta T In
Figure 14: Cost Distribution of different PV systems. Data from Kaltschmitt 2007, “RETScreen”, and personal conversations with the PV-industry (see chapter 10)
Dr. Arno Recheis 24 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
Single axis systems promise an increase of the energy yield by 20-30% (Kaltschmitt 2007, p. 270-271), 2-axis mover systems can increase the yield by best conditions up to 40% (Solon Hilber 2007). These values or even higher ones can only be reached in comparison with a slope of the fixed systems of 0°. Calculations done in this work show an increase for a 2-axis system of maximal 30% to optimal oriented fixed systems. The needed area for a fixed 1 MWp PV system has to be at least 4.000 m2, when there are no shadowing effects. To avoid shadow-effects by erecting the PV-modules on horizontal surfaces with the optimum angle (Wattens = 37°) about 2 times of the space is needed. Tracking systems need because of higher shadowing effects much more space. For example needs one 2-axis mover from Solon-Hilber (~50m2 PV-cells) in Middle Europe in average 500 m2 free space (1 MWp ≥ 7 ha).
5.3. Energy balance for PV At the beginning of the PV-industry the energy needed to produce PV-module was nearly as high as the energy output. The main factor for this was the high-energy consumption of the Czochralski processes to make highly pure silicon, the low output and low lifetime. Studies of the year 2000 show that the energy payback time for PV systems including frames and support structure is, depending on the place of were it is situated, between 2 and 5 years (Boyle 2004). At the present between 1.5-2 years are realistic values for the payback time (Boyle 2004).
5.4. PV-Electricity generating costs: Past – Present - Future As figure 15 shows the generating costs in Austria (1000-1200 sunshine hours per year – 1100- 1400 kWh/a – for >20 kWp plants) have decreased from about 0.50 € in 2000 to ~0.30-0.36 € in 2007 (same values as Kaltschmitt 2007). In very sunny regions like Crete or the Southern parts of Spain (up to 1800 a/h or ≥2000 kWh/a) a price of 0.21 - 0.22 € can be reached. Although the generating cost will fall rapidly in the next years, it will take until 2020 that PV-electricity will be competitive to peak power and until 2030 with bulk power without any kind of supporting system (see also chapter 5.5).
Dr. Arno Recheis 25 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
Figure 15: Development of utility prices and PV generation costs. The blue and indicates that market support programmes will be necessary until bout 2020. The grey area symbolizes the development in Austria. Figure modified after Hoffmann, 2007.
5.5. The feed-in systems for PV in Austria and selected EU-countries PV has in comparison to all other forms of Renewables the highest investment and generating costs (chapter 3.4). It is for this reason that the Austrian Government and also the Austrian federal states support the other renewable energies much stronger than Photovoltaics. Since 2007 (Bundesgestzblatt BGBL, Nr 401, 2006) the feed-in tariff for PV systems <5 kWp is 0.46 € for systems from 5 to 10 kWp it is 0.40 € and for systems >10 kWp it is 0.30 € /kWh for ten years plus 75% in the 11th and 50% in the 12th year. Because of this tariff system it is hard to finance PV-power plants >10 kWp but an even bigger problem is that the federal states in Austria have to co-finance each project, that means in this particular case (chapter 8) 50% of the feed-in tariff has to be paid from Tirol. For this reason all Austrian federal states have limited the new installed PV systems capacity. In Tirol for example this amount is 100 kWp in Upper Austria it is 1 MWp per year in total, which makes it impossible to erect bigger PV-power plants. The result is that the installed PV-kWp decreased in Austria since 2003. 2006 was a negative record of only 1,564 kWp new installed PV systems (1,290 kWp of them grid-connected, BMVIT 2007).
Dr. Arno Recheis 26 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
European PV situation and feed-in Tariffs The general opinion is that at the moment PV systems can only be economically driven with a feed-in system that lasts at least 20 years (Fell 2007). A couple of EU15 member states
(Portugal, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece) have now a more or less uniform PV feed-in law with special sub laws in the different countries. In general the feed-in tariff is something between 0.22 and 0.50 €/kWh, it lasts 20 years or longer, smaller projects and facade- or building integrated systems (BIPV) get a higher tariff.
The Northern European countries as well as the new EU countries have at the moment no sufficient feed-in systems. For example was the production of all grid-connected PV-power plants in the 10 new EU members in 2006 only 1,829 kWh (Pietruszko, 2006).
Example: Germany & Spain Germany is by far the world leader of installed PV-capacity. In 2006 Germany has an estimated total installed capacity of 2.53 GWp with 750 MWp new installed PV systems (EPIA 2007). Spain has the second position in Europe with 120 MWp installed PV-capacity 63 MWp of it new installed in 2006 (EPIA 2007). This rate will change rapidly because the feed-In tariff in Germany is going down from 0.457 € (2004) to 0.3549 € in 2008. This is the so-called “learning curve” which means a decrease of 5% in 2005 and 6.5% in the following years. The feed-in system in Spain is quite complicated because the tariffs differ from the locations and projects and are set new every year. Additional there are special benefits. In 2007 this tariffs range between 0.22 and 0.41 € (Hoffmann 2007). They will be paid also at least 20 years with additional supported years after. It is forecasted that Spain is will overtake the leadership of new installed PV system in 2008 or latest 2009 (Schmela 2007).
5.6. Overview of the PV market and outlook for PV The yearly growth of the industry was during the last 10 years 25-50% with an average annual cost reduction for PV systems of 5% (PhotoVoltaic 2007). The total market value of the PV market reached €9 billion per year in 2006 and is forecasted to achieve €25 billion until 2010 (EPIA 2007). About 2-3% of this amount is invested directly into research (2006 ca. €200-300 million, Klebensberger 2007). At the end of 2007 PV systems with 8-9 GWp will be installed worldwide with a forecast to achieve between 18.4 and 28.9 GWp in 2010 (EPIA 2007).
Dr. Arno Recheis 27 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
To reach these targets the demand for pure silicon will raise from 20,000 t to 150,000 t (~20 GWp Silicon PV cells). In the beginning of 2008 71 PV-companies were quoted on international stock exchanges, 24 of them in Germany, 17 in the USA and 9 in China (Neue Energie 1.2008).
This sounds very pleasant for this branch but there has also be mentioned that this fast growing is dependent on two facts: 1. Political: High support systems like feed-in tariffs for a long period of time 2. Economical: price of pure silicon
If one of these facts is changing the growing is lowered down, like 2004 when there was a lack of silicon, or like in Austria when the feed-in system was changed as mentioned above. But as long as economically important Nations like Germany, France, Japan or parts of the USA like California are supporting the PV the growing is guaranteed for the next decades – maybe as long as PV-electricity becomes competitive without supporting.
A forecast of the possible growing rates and a worldwide overview is given in a very short form (Data summarized from: Luque 2006, Altevogt 2007, EPIA 2007 and Jäger-Waldau 2007):
Europe Over 60% of the new installed PV systems are installed in the EU15 (2006). The target of the “White Paper” of the European Union (2003) was to install 3 GWp until 2010, which will be tripled. Even the EU has such ambitious energy plans until 2020, which are mentioned in chapter 3.5 and 3.6, it is forecasted that the worldwide share of new installed PV systems will be reduced to about 30% because of the other fast growing markets above all in China and USA. 2006 28% of the worldwide produced PV-cells were manufactured in the EU (2/3 of them in Germany).
Japan Japan is the second biggest market with 286.6 MW new installed PV systems in 2006. The Japanese government has ambitious plans for a total installation of 4.820 GWp of PV by 2010. Japan is by far the number one in the PV-cell production (36.4% of the worldwide produced cells) and will keep this role in the next decade. 4 of the 6 biggest PV producers are situated in Japan (Sharp, Kyocera, Sanyo, Mitsubishi Electric).
Dr. Arno Recheis 28 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
USA and Canada The USA with 140 MWp new installed PV systems are the third largest PV-market (after Germany and Japan). 8.3% of the worldwide PV systems are installed in North America at present. This share will change to about 15% until 2020. The USA focused in the past more on Solar Thermal Energy but “sunny” US-States like California or Nevada are also looking forward to takeover leadership role in PV. California for example has a “Million Solar Roofs Plan”, which should lead to at least 3 GWp installed PV systems until 2018.
Africa Although to the big geographical advantages Africa has no and will also not have in the near future a role in the PV market. The biggest problem for all new energy forms is, that nearly all African States have very low electricity prices and do not support any kinds of Renewables. The only projects at the moment are from the World Bank supported. Because of the high potential and also because of the growing energy need a rethink of African Government could be expected.
Peoples Republic of China As a producer of PV cells China is number three in the world (most important company: Suntech) but at present only 0.5% of the worldwide installed PV systems are erected there. The forecast of China’s huge energy demand in the future forces the government to invest in all forms of renewable energies. For 2010 500 MWp should be installed and the plan for 2020 are 30 GWp, which would be a worldwide market share of about 10%.
Dr. Arno Recheis 29 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
6. PV-Concentrator Systems (CPV) The idea of using concentrators is as old as the first activities in terrestrial PV. The basic idea of
CPV is to save cell material by focusing the direct sunlight in a smaller area (FC) through an optical system of area F0 (figure 16). The concentration ration (C) is approximately C = F0 / FC.
So the higher C the lower is the needed cell material and in principle are the costs. Although concentrator systems are not relevant for the PV market at the moment a closer look to this only renewable energy sector where optical parts – and so the most interesting renewable energy form for Swarovski - are needed is necessary. There are more than 20 concerns (e.g. Fraunhofer “Concentrix Solar”, BP, Boeing, Sharp, Solar Tec, Isofotón) doing researches in CPV – right now non of the system shown below can be favoured.2
Figure 16: Principle arrangement of a CPV. Here a Fresnel lens concentrates the sunlight (Bett 2006).
6.1. Advantages and disadvantages of CPV There are two big advantages of CPV: cost reduction by saving cell material and higher efficiency. In chapter 5.3 is the energy payback time for new flat plate PV systems numbered with 1.5 to 2 years. Calculating that the cell material of (High-) CPV amounts only 20% of the total costs compared to 40% of flat plate systems the CPV could have the potential to reach a payback time 0.7 years (Maeda 2007). The optimistic forecasts for 2010 are possible costs of HCPV of 1.5 €/Wp compared to 1.8 €/Wp for flat plate systems (Luther 2006).
2 In addition to this “normal” CPV there are at the moment also researches looking on the combination of PV and thermal use - the so-called Thermo Photovoltaic (TPV). These systems use often insisting thermo solar systems like trough collectors and combine them with PV (e.g. Klotz 2007 or Vivar 2007, page 717).
Dr. Arno Recheis 30 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
CPV can raise the efficiency of silicon cells to 27% (figure 17), which is nearly the limit of single junction cells (figure 18 red dash). Multilayer cells reach efficiencies above 25%. As these cells are at present extraordinary expansive concentration technologies have to be used. Only the combination of multilayer cells with CPV is able to reach efficiencies of 40% or even higher (figure 17). Figure 18 shows this highest theoretical efficiencies increasing with the concentration factor.
Figure 17: Development of the efficiencies of multilayer III-V solar cells. In comparison also shown the development of concentrated and non-concentrated Silicon (Bett 2006).
Figure 18: Thermodynamical limits of solar photovoltaic energy conversion. The upper line gives the theoretical conversion limit for photovoltaic energy conversion as a function of the optical concentration (1 = solar constant, 1 kW/m2). The two dots correspond to the highest industrial efficiency values for Si-Wafer and HCPV. The horizontal dash above the Si-value gives the maximum theoretical efficiency for single junction PV (Luther 2006, page 2056).
Dr. Arno Recheis 31 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
Disadvantages The big disadvantage of all CPV’s with a higher concentrating factor to “normal” flat plate systems is that they have to use a tracking system to avoid that the focus of the sunlight moves outside the cell area. In principle can be said: the higher the concentration factor the more accurate has to be the tracking system. For high concentrating systems typically 0.3°-0.5° accuracy is needed (Maeda 2007). This is also an important cost factor, for example are the costs of the “FLATCON” CPV from Concentrix Solar shared in 41%(!) for the tracking system and 15% for the cells (compare with figure 14, page 24: costs distribution of “non concentration” PV systems). Tracking systems are in general heavy which makes it impossible to install them on buildings. And as a third disadvantage: CPV work much more efficient with direct, non-diffused, sunlight, which make them more suitable for the sunny region in e.g. Southern Spain.
6.2. Concentrating elements In basic CPV can be classified according to the degree of concentration in three sections3 but the subdivisions differ from author to author. Table 4 shows two examples from Goetzberger (2005, page 134-135) and Bett (2006, page 11).
Goetzberger Bett Low-Concentration 2 – 10x 2 - 100x Photovoltaics (LCPV) Medium-Concentration 10 - 60x 100 - 300x Photovoltaic (MCPV) High-Concentration 100 - 1000x 200 - >1000x Photovoltaics (HCPV)
Table 4: Separation of the concentration factor of CPV (Goetzberger 2005 and Bett 2007).
3 There is no clear definition of concentration systems at the moment. In some literature there is no differentiation between High, Medium and Low at all (Boyle 2004), in other only between Low (2-40x) and High (200-1340x) like in Sun, Wind & Energy 3/2007 page 152
Dr. Arno Recheis 32 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
As there is no clear definition in the literature a classification in C < 100x and C > 100x is used in this thesis (chapter 6.3 and 6.4).
To reach these concentrations three different systems made of different materials are in research at the moment:
1. Reflective elements like mirrors (figure 19, figure 20 up right and down left, figure 22) Material: Glass, metal foils
2. Refractive elements like lenses or Fresnel lenses (figure 20 middle right) Material: Glass, polymer material
3. Refractive elements like lenses or Fresnel lenses in combination with a secondary optic (SOE, figure 20 up left, middle left and down right, figure 21) Material: Glass, polymer material or combination
For all kind of systems glass can be used – the chance for Swarovski!
6.3. CPV with C < 100x These systems are in general simpler constructed than C > 100x systems and use basically silicon solar cells. The lowest CPV systems start with a concentration factor of 2 and work with simple mirrors as shown in figure 19. These systems can be stationary but achieve, like the flat plat systems, higher yields with tracking systems. Higher concentration systems up to 100 times use often Fresnel lenses and have to apply a one-axis tracking. As these systems do not use any kind of secondary optic they are of lower interests for Swarovski than the > 100x systems.
Dr. Arno Recheis 33 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
Figure 19: A 2-3x concentration system working with mirrors (JX crystals, www.jxcrystals.com).
6.4. CPV with C > 100x The “world record” at present is an efficiency of 40.7% reached with a III-V multijunction GaInP / GaInAs / Ge cell by a concentration of 240 suns (King 2007). In figure 20 are some examples of C > 100x given. Also with this high concentration the three different systems are under development. Most companies favour Fresnel lenses with or without a secondary optical system (SOE). In common are plate lenses but also dome-shaped ones are in use (figure 20 middle left and 23). The secondary optic is used as a “homogenizer”, which helps to minimize tracking accuracy requirements at higher concentration ratios. The disadvantage is that there are light losses in this SOE. The diameter of one single element is between 3 – 20 cm packed to panels of >1.0 m2.
Of great importance is a heat sink (figure 16) for keeping the cells on a low working temperature to prevent losses by reaching to high temperatures. Nearly all companies favour a passive heat sink made of copper or other heat channelling material.
Dr. Arno Recheis 34 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
Figure 20: 6 Examples of high-concentration PV systems. From upper left to lower right: Amonix (Fresnel Lenses + SOE, 500x), Solar Systems (Dish concentrator, 500x), Daido Steel (Fresnel + SOE, 550-1340x), Isofoton (2 special lenses, 1000x), SolFocus (reflection optics and mirrors for details see figure 21, 500x), Concentrix Solar (Fresnel Lenses without SOE, 385x), Pictures from: Luther, J. (2006) page 2054, data from sun & wind energy 3/2007 and company homepages
Figure 21: Model of a Fresnel HCVP system with secondary optic (SOE). Fucci (2006) page 2220
Dr. Arno Recheis 35 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
Figure 22: SolFocus double mirror system (www. solfocus.com)
Figure 23: Dome shape Fresnel lens with SOE (Daido Steel), Araki (2005).
6.5. Summery and outlook The CPV is maybe the most interesting part for newcomers in the PV-industry at the moment. There is no system favoured and maybe also new systems can enter the market. From the EU PV Platform (PhotoVoltaic 2007) there are some targets for the next years:
• Reduction of the tracker cost as well as increasing their accuracy • Reduction of the cell costs as well as increasing their efficiency • Find the best optical systems to the lowest possible price
This last point could be very interesting for Swarovski because mass production of glass parts with the highest precision is one of the core competences of the company (see chapter 7).
Dr. Arno Recheis 36 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
7. Chances of D. Swarovski & Co in the PV market The PV industry is as shown in chapter 5 one of the fastest growing branches in the market. For a world wide operating company like D. Swarovski & Co there is of course the question if there are possibilities to get in this market.
7.1. Core competences of D. Swarovski & Co In the introduction of this work is written: “Swarovski itself is the world leader in precision cut crystal”. To get the world leader of a branch core competences are necessary. D. Swarovski & Co defines them as follows (source: Swarovski internal communication):
Market Competence We manage our business as a consumer business. We understand the way our markets function: fashion and décor. We know how to get the right products and services to customers and to consumers at the right time.
Branding Competence Swarovski is a global new luxury brand. We keep consumers and reference groups emotionally engaged in Swarovski. We develop meaning and ambition, which we convey in creation, design and communication, balancing continuity and surprise.
Competence in Basic Production We are highly proficient at producing and refining superior quality cut crystal components in high volumes. We are capable of making crystal in a wide variety of colours in an industrial manner.
Competence in Application Technology We know how to add value to our basis products by developing applications which our customers and consumers value. We combine cut crystal components to create (semi-) finished products. We integrate cut crystal components into other materials adding value in developing this knowledge with our customers.
Innovation Competence We are pioneers and trendsetters in crystal. We are constantly looking for new businesses and new markets related to our current activities leveraging our capabilities.
Dr. Arno Recheis 37 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
7.2. SWOT Analysis of D. Swarovski & Co regarding to PV The problem with these core competences is that apparently there is no context to PV at all. And of course luxury products for fashion and energy production have nothing in common. But when looking closer and the strengths and weaknesses of the company there could be possibilities to get in the market. Figure 24 shows the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats for the company in an overview; details are listed in the next pages.
Figure 24: SWOT analysis for D. Swarovski & Co regarding to the PV market.
Dr. Arno Recheis 38 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
The SWOT analysis in detail:
Strengths
Producing and cutting high quality crystal glass in a very accurate way and in mass production is the technical strength of the company. There are also employees working for the company, who are responsible for optical systems and calculations. As there are many different cutting facilities the production of for example SOE would be possible. The image and the global structure is part of the branding competence and would be helpful for finding a partner and/or for the logistical worldwide selling of the product. Swarovski is a high profitable company with financial safeties so new investments can be done without problems.
Weaknesses At the moment there is neither a responsible person nor a department working with PV. There are also no PV-specialists employed, which means a lack of knowledge and PV trained workers. Two ways can lead out of these problems: investing in an own PV-department or looking for a partner who is involved in the PV-industry.
Opportunities The opportunities by entering a new rising world market are enormous. “Green energy” has a very positive image and handling with it could even increase the image of Swarovski. Energy will always be needed and from day to day worldwide more. During this Century there seems to be no limit for an increasing of the PV market.
Threats As this field would be completely new for the company there are a lot of possibilities for failure. The company is not able to cover the whole range of PV but for example a special kind of CPV. If this technology is not able to enter the market the whole project could fail. The same result would happen by choosing a wrong partner. A third problem would be if the own developments, which were done, take too long until entering the market.
Dr. Arno Recheis 39 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
7.3. Possibilities in the PV market for D. Swarovski & Co For my point of view there are four possibilities for the company on the PV market: as investor4, as a supplier of optical parts for CPV, as a partner of an insisting PV-company or to start an own production line of PV systems with concentrator technology. The part of an investor is beside the point of the R&D department (see footnote) so here are the other three possibilities in detail:
Supplier of optical parts As there is no favoured CPV system on the market it cannot be forecasted which optical parts are and will be needed for the branch. So at the moment it is not possible to produce glass parts in a huge amount because there is no safety if the market will need them. On the other hand could this market unstableness be a big advantage for the company. If Swarovski would produce the best (Fresnel) lenses and/or SOE-systems this could influence the CPV industry in a certain direction. Preliminary tests would be necessary and useful which possibilities the company has.
Partner There is an inquiry from Solar Tec AG if Swarovski is able to produce a SOE for their CPV. The Solar Tec AG is a leading PV-company and also one of the first suppliers of CPV systems. Their CPV systems work with Fresnel lenses together with SOE. The plan of Solar Tec is to enter 2008 the market with the first bigger CPV-power plants. Solar Tec see in the CPV market a huge potential with a total market potential of several Billion Euro in the next years. Being a partner from the beginning on could lead to a successful future in the PV for Swarovski.
There are of course also several other companies, which are looking for a supplier or maybe of a partner who is able to deliver the needed optical parts.
What Swarovski has to do is to show that the company is able to produce these parts in a first step and to produce them for an interesting price in a second one.
4 Being an investor is an act of pure financial calculations. The investments can be done in PV systems in foreign “high feed-in” countries or in the PV-stock market. If this is interesting for the company or not, is out of the matter of this thesis.
Dr. Arno Recheis 40 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
Own Production The principle idea of CPV is easy - the conversion to market capability quite difficult. The above- mentioned Solar Tec AG for example needed more than 10 years and several partners to reach the readiness for marketing. The effort (financial and personal) for a company, which is not involved to PV at all would be enormous, the profits of course could also be.
7.4. Summary and strategy D. Swarovski & Co has possibilities of entering the PV market especially in the concentrating technologies. There are no specialists for CPV working for the company at the moment but there are specialists for optic as well as for glass manufacture. Starting a CPV production of their own is very expensive and risky, being a partner or a supplier sounds much more convenient. For this – at a first beginning – a responsible person has to be found in or outside the company who organizes a team. This team could consist of following persons:
• Team leader • Technician / Electrical technician • Optical technician • Glass technician
For the next step the developed optical system should be tested be the company itself. Solar cells in all kinds are available on the market as well as tracking systems. For an independent R&D on the produced parts facilities as follows would be necessary:
• Laboratory with sun-simulation • Outdoor facilities, if possible in sunny regions like Southern Spain
It would save time and money if from the first beginning a specialist in concentrator technology from a PV-company would be involved. This could be difficult as there is in present a lack of PV specialists in whole Europe (Neue Energie, 1.2008).
Dr. Arno Recheis 41 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
8. PV-power plant for D. Swarovski & Co, Wattens
To cover the current electricity demand of D. Swarovski & Co in Wattens (~136 GWh/a) with photovoltaic, PV-power plants of about 135 MWp (~105 MWp for 2-axis mover systems) would have to be installed. The costs would be something around 500 Mio€ and the covered area nearly 1.0 km2 with fixed installed panels and could reach a size of 10.0 km2 with a 2-axis tracking system. The realisation of such a scenario is of course unrealistic. So the following project deals with the costs, profits and losses of a 1 MWp power plant installed on the company area.
8.1. Location and the kind of the PV system When looking on an aerial photograph of the company area (figure 25) there seems one building perfect suiting for a PV-power plant: the roof of the big crystal production hall. The size of this building is ~170x105 m = 17,850 m2 which would be enough space for a >2 MWp PV plant. The problem is that the roof has a special structure so that about half of it cannot be used because of shadowing effects and, in addition, on one sector the air-condition systems are situated (figure 26). The remaining area has about 7850 m2 usable space – enough for a 1 MWp plant. The whole building is nearly West-East orientated (82° East to 262° West) and furthermore has the roof an angle of about 7°.
Figure 25: View on the industrial area of D. Swarovski & Co Wattens Werk I. In the big building in the middle is the crystal production situated – the roof of it is chosen for the PV-power plant project.
Dr. Arno Recheis 42 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
Cell Type and losses For the calculations a polycrystalline 195 Wp-module with 14.15% efficiency from Solon was chosen. The total system losses can only be estimated. For both calculations (RETScreen and
JRC program) nearly the same losses - 14.8% and 14.7% - are assumed (see Appendix).
The four different systems:
For following systems calculations were done: 1.) Fixed system direct on the roof on the given angle (+7° and -7° = 0° in sum) 2.) Fixed system with optimal angle of 37° – a special construction is needed The optimal angle was calculated with the program from the JRC (Performance of Grid- connected PV) – see the appendix for the complete data 3.) 1-axis system* 4.) 2-axis system*
*1 and 2 axis systems can, because of the heavy construction, in general not be fixed on roofs. These systems have to be situated on ground in the surrounding of the company. The calculations were done to see the possible plus of generating electricity.
Figure 26: Roof of the crystal production building. The view is from East to West.
Dr. Arno Recheis 43 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
8.2. Costs The costs of a 1 MWp PV-plant are mentioned in chapter 5.2 in detail. Depending on the supplier and on the used cells/modules it would be something between €3.7 and 4.5 million. A
(simple constructed) one-axis system would have additional costs of at least €0.2 million (Renergy Solutions) and a high-end 2-axis system from Solon Hilber costs around €5.8 million. This are the total costs including construction, certifications and so on. The operating costs (maintenance, service, repairs, cleaning, insurances) of a 1 MWp plant are around €50,000 per year (Kaltschmitt 2007 and personal conversation with Renergy Solutions).
8.3 Financial calculations The Tyrolean government supports per year PV systems with a total capacity of 100 kWp (chapter 5.4). So at the moment it is not possible to get the Austrian feed-in tariffs (0.30 €/kWh) for a PV-plant in Wattens. As the Austrian Government changes or novels the “Ökostromgesetz” every 1-2 years (next novel should be mid of 2008) it cannot be forecasted if this situation remains or not. Due to this fact following calculations for case scenarios were done:
Scenario 1: No feed-in tariff – a PV-plant just for own use Scenario 2: Austrian feed-in tariff system of 2008 – Tyrol has changed the opinion, or a special deal between D. Swarovski and the Tyrolean Government Scenario 3: The same power plant is erected in 2008 in Germany near the border (German feed-in systems 0.3549 €/kWh for 20 years) Scenario 4: No annual interests of the company5 and no feed-in tariff
Operating Costs The operating costs are as shown above around €50,000 for 2008. For the calculation a raise of these costs of 2.0% is assumed. This value is in the range of the European/Austrian inflation in the last years (2001-2006: EU15 = 2.1%; Austria = 1.7%, OECD).
5 As the scenarios 1-3 will show it is impossible to run a PV-plant with the Swarovski internal interest calculations
Dr. Arno Recheis 44 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
Swarovski electricity price Swarovski has a very special agreement with the local supplier (Kraftwerk Haim KG). The medium price is at the moment ~8.0 €/MWh (!).
Swarovski internal calculations The Swarovski internal interest rate in 2008 is 10.5%. For a new purchase of machines or in this case of a PV-power plant following calculation has to be done: Purchase costs / 2 x 10.5% = annual interests These annual interests are calculated as long as the depreciation is going on. For energy producing units like hydropower or CHP a depreciation of 33.3 years is given – this duration would also be given for a PV-power plant.
Annual radiation and annual temperature used for the calculations Figure 27 shows the average temperature and the sum of daily radiation of each month for Innsbruck. For the whole year this results to a total radiation of 1.22 MWh/m2 and an average Temperature of 8.5°C. For optimal inclined modules (37°) this value increases to 1.406 MWh/m2 (see Appendix).
Radiation and Temperature for Innsbruck
6 20
5 15
4 10 Radiation 3 °C Temperature 5 kWh/m2/d 2
0 1
0 -5
n b r y n g v c e p Jul ct o Ja F Mar A Ma Ju Au Sep O N De
Figure 27: Radiation for Innsbruck (Wagner 2006) & Temperature for Innsbruck Airport (ZAMAG)
Dr. Arno Recheis 45 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
Savings of CO2 and the CO2 Trade The savings of a 1 MWp PV power plant differ from two things. First which form of electricity producing unit is substituted? Nuclear- or Hydro power plants produce for example no CO2 so this balance would be zero, on the other side are the coal power plants, which produce for 1,000
MWh/a electricity about ~1,000 t of CO2. About the half of this sum is emitted from a Gas power plant what is also taken for the calculation (~500 t per year, RETScreen, see Appendix).
The future value of CO2 certificates beyond 2012 is impossible to forecast. For the whole 33.3 years 25 €/t are assumed – when looking on the EU targets maybe a too low price.
Development of the electricity market price Even with the longest feed-in period of 20 years the market price is necessary for the calculations. Since the beginning of 2003, where the market price was 24.50 €/MWh the price rises up in average 5.5 €/MWh per year (figure 28) and has reached 60.76 €/MWh beginning of 2008. This rate of increase (5% every year) is assumed for the calculation.
Figure 28: Development of the market price since 2003 (Source: E-Control)
Programs for the calculations The calculations for the energy output were done with the “RETScreen” program and checked with the “Performance of Grid-connected PV” from the JRC. The financial calculations were done by using excel files, which can be found in the Appendix.
Dr. Arno Recheis 46 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
1.) No feed-in tariff Fixed system Fixed system 1-axis6 2-axis6 (direct on roof) (Maximum yield)
Investment costs €3.95 million €4.10 million €4.30 million €5.80 million Output (kWh/a) 1,035,507 1,222,710 1,496,551 1,578,676 st After 1 year - €280,653.1 - €278,056.3 - €272,655.0 - €389,880.1 After 10 years - €2,640,462.6 - €2,575,888.1 - €2,465,400.7 - €3,620,714.4 After 20 years - €4,745,538.7 - €4,497,925.1 - €4,103,660.1 - €6,362,317.7 After 33.3 years - €6,016,881.9 - €5,207,586.4 - €3,970,375.1 - €7,556,869.9
2.) Austrian feed-in tariff (0.30 € for 10years, 75% 11th year, 50% 12th year) Fixed system Fixed system 1- axis6 2-axis6 (direct on roof) (Maximum yield) Investment costs €3.95 million €4.10 million €4.30 million €5.80 million Output (kWh/a) 1,035,507 1,222,710 1,496, 551 1,578,676 st After 1 year - €52,841.5 - €9,060.1 €56,586.2 - €42,571.4 After 10 years - €575,901.2 - €138,087.3 €518,375.7 - €473,199.8 After 20 years - €2,569,286.3 - €1,928,241.3 - €958,463.8 - €3,044,525.1 After 33.3 years - €3,840,629.3 - €2,637,902.5 - €825,178.7 - €4,239,077.1
3.) German feed-in system 2008 (0.3549 € for 20 years) Fixed system Fixed system 1- axis6 2- axis6 (direct on roof) (Maximum yield) Investment costs €3.95 million €4.10 million €4.30 million €5.80 million
Output (kWh/a) 1,035,507 1,222,710 1,496, 551 1,578,676 st After 1 year €4,007.8 €58,066.7 €138,746.8 €44,097.9 After 10 years - €7,407.9 €533,180.5 €1,339,982.2 €393,493.3 After 20 years - €134,712.2 €946,464.6 €2,560,067.9 €667,090.3 After 33.3 years - €1,406,055.3 €236,803.4 €2,693,353.0 - €527,461.8
6 Not calculated are the higher service costs due to the mechanical parts and that normally a rent for the land where the PV-plant is situated has to be paid. The price of this simple kind of a 1-axis system is in comparison very low (Renergy Solutions) whereas the 2-axis is a high-end system (Solon Hilber).
Dr. Arno Recheis 47 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
4.) No internal interests, no feed-in tariff Fixed system Fixed system 1- axis6 2- axis6 (direct on roof) (Maximum yield)
Investment costs €3.95 million €4.10 million €4.30 million €5.80 million
Output (kWh/a) 1,035,507 1,222,710 1,496,551 1,578,676 st After 1 year - €73,278.1 - €62,806.3 - €46,905.0 - €85,380.1 After 10 years - €566,712.6 - €423,388.1 - €207,900.7 - €575,714.4 After 20 years - €598,038.7 - €192,925.1 €411,339.9 - €272,317.7 After 33.3 years €888,705.7 €1,960,238.6 €3,547,100.0 €2,582,980.2
Table 5-8: Calculations of the PV-power plant. The detailed calculations can be found in the Appendix
8.4. Summary These calculations have of course an enormous potential of being inaccurate. Mainly the electricity price and the CO2 trade cannot be forecasted for such a long period of time. Nevertheless show the calculations some very interesting facts:
a) Due to the high internal interests it is impossible to run a PV-plant economically. Even without this interests it will last more than 20 years by three of the systems (16 years for the 1axis) until the balance will be positive calculated with no feed-in tariff b) Only with high tariffs for 20 years as for example in Germany, or by calculating without internal interests, the calculations can be positive c) Looking on financial calculations the differences between the systems are higher than the suppliers of the systems indicate (of course each supplier will favour his own system) d) These differences together with the variable radiation make it so difficult to set the right feed-in tariff for a country. If for example one systems balances more or less equal the same system could make in a different region of the country (with a higher or lower radiation) high profits or high losses - the Spanish Feed-in systems mentioned in chapter 5.5 takes care about this problem
Dr. Arno Recheis 48 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
e) 1-axis systems have the best price-performance ratio but what is not calculated here is that these systems have higher service costs due to the mechanical parts and that normally a rent for the land where the PV-plant is situated has to be paid
f) For tracking systems are also no long time results regarding the mechanical parts available g) Finally has to be summarized: Other reasons than economical ones have to be found if Swarovski wants to install a PV-plant in Wattens
Other reasons could be: • Positive Image • Being an outrider of new technology • Environmental awareness
If one or all of these reasons were the cause of installing a PV-power plant the financial calculations would be of secondary interest. The investment could for example be calculated as promotion for the company or as a one-time investment without internal interests (case 4). One example in Austria for these reasons is the new erected Fronius plant in Sattledt / Upper Austria, which has a 603 kWp PV-power plant on 3600 m2 delivering 75% of the own needed electricity (figure 29).
Figure 29: PV-power plant of Fronius International GmbH in Sattledt (Upper Austria)
Dr. Arno Recheis 49 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
9. Conclusion
This thesis shows the two sides of Photovoltaic at present in Austria: enormous possibilities for the world wide PV-market on one side, no chances for running a PV-power plant economically on the other side. In future this scenario could change: the chances for entering the PV-market will go down if acting too late, whereas running a PV-power plant will get more and more economically. So when is the right point of time for a "Passive use or an active involvement?” To evaluate a possible active or passive role the PV-market and also the available PV systems were examined in detail.
The whole PV-industry is one of the most prospering branches worldwide with an annual growing rate in the last years, as well as forecasted for the following years, of around 40% (Jäger-Waldau 2007). This is a fact that makes this branch interesting for a company like Swarovski. The optical parts of the concentrating Photovoltaic (CPV) could be Swarovski’s chance for entering the PV-market, as Swarovski is the world leader in producing cut crystal. The big advantage of CPV is that the development of these systems is just at the beginning with a huge market potential. At the moment no kind of CPV can be favoured, new developments for whole CPV systems or just of optical parts of them are possibilities for Swarovski. To avoid long time researches and high costs a cooperation partner from the PV branch should be found.
Because of the low feed-in tariffs in Austria, the non-supporting of PV in Tirol and the high long- term internal interests of the company itself, it is not possible to run a PV-power plant economically. There are huge differences between fixed or tracking systems with advantages to optimal inclined fixed and 1-axis systems, but all of them would have negative financial results. Other reasons like a positive “green” image or being an outrider of new technologies have to be found if a PV-power plant should be erected at the company area.
Dr. Arno Recheis 50 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
10. References
Computer Programs: For the calculations the „RETSreen” PV-program which can be free downloaded at: www.retscreen.com and from the European Commission (JRC) the Photovoltaic Geographical Information System: Performance of Grid-connected PV, which can be found at the homepage: http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps/pvreg.php was used.
Personal Conversations with PV-companies: Isofotón: Riccardo Sorichetti (September 2007) Solar Tec AG: Matthias Sturm (September 2007) Solon Hilber: Manfred Heidegger (August 2007) Renergy Solutions: Peter Krupanszky (June 2007)
Literature:
Altevogt J. et al (2007): Improving Photovoltaic Policies in Europe – results of the “PV Policy Group” project, Proceedings to the 22nd European PV Solar Energy Conference, Milan, page 3389-3392. Araki, K. et al (2005): Development of a new 550x concentrator module with 3J cells. IEEE 31st PV Specialist Conference, Jan. 2005, page 631-634. Bett A. et al (2006): Concentration Photovoltaics (CPV). EU Photovoltaic Technology Platform. Working Group 3, Freiburg 2006, 43 pages. BMVIT (2007): Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie: Der Solar- Photovoltaik- und Wärmepumpen-Markt in Österreich im Jahr 2006. Boyle G. (2004): Renewable Energy. Edited by Godfrey Boyle. Oxford University Press, 452 pages. BP (2006): Statistical Review of World Energy 2006. Bundesgesetzblatt BGBL II, Nr 401, 2006: Ökostromnovelle 2006
Dr. Arno Recheis 51 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
Commission of the European Communities (2008/1): Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a first assessment of National energy efficiency action plans as required by directive 2006/32/EC on energy end-use efficiency and energy services. Moving forward together on energy efficiency. Brussels 23.1.2008, 16 pages. Commission of the European Communities (2008/2): Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, the council, the European economic and social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, 20 20 by 2020, Europe’s climate change opportunity, Brussels, 23.1.2008, 12 pages. Commission of the European Communities (2008/3): Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, Brussels 23.1.2008, 61 pages. Commission of the European Communities (2008/4): Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the effort of Member States to reduce their greenhouse gas emission to meet the Community’s greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments up to 2020. Brussels 23.1.2008, 28 pages. Commission of the European Communities (2008/5): Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading system of the Community. Brussels, 23.1.2008, 51 pages. EPIA & Greenpeace (2007): Solar Generation IV, 30 pages. European Photovoltaic Industry Association, Brussels & Greenpeace International, Amsterdam. EurObserv’ER (2006): State of renewable Energies in Europe, 6th Report, 57 pages. Fell, H-J. (2007): Feed-in tariffs throughout Europe: the ideal support scheme to develop PV. Proceedings to 4th European PV Industry Forum (EPIA), 5th September 2007, Milan, DVD. Fröhler A. (2005): Lexikon für Glas und Glasproduktion. Hofmann, Schorndorf ,1350 Seiten. Fucci et al (2006): Optimization procedures of concentrator photovoltaic modules based on energy costs and realistic reporting conditions, Proceedings of the 21st European Solar Energy Conference, Dresden 2006, page 2220-2224. Goetzberger A., Hoffmann V.U. (2005): Photovoltaic Solar Energy Generation, Springer Berlin, 232 pages. Hoffmann W. (2007): PV solar electricity market overview. Proceedings to 4th European PV Industry Forum (EPIA), 5th September 2007, Milan, DVD.
Dr. Arno Recheis 52 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
Jäger-Waldau A. (2007): PV Status Report 2007. Research, Solar Cell Production and Market Implementation of Photovoltaics. European Commission, DG Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Renewable Energies Unit, Ispra, Italia, 116 pages.
Kaltschmitt M., Steicher W., Wiese A. (Hrsg., 2007): Renewable Energy. Springer-Verlag Berlin, 564 pages. King R. et al (2007): Multijunction solar cells with over 40% efficiency and future directions in concentrator PV. Proceedings to 22nd European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, 3-7 September, Milan, page 11-15. Klebensberger B. (2007): c-Si wafer based technology. Proceedings to 4th European PV Industry Forum (EPIA), 5th September 2007, Milan, DVD. Klotz F., Mohring H.–D. (2007): Integrated parabolic trough (IPT) for low concentration systems – operation experiences in South- and Central-Europe, Proceedings to the 22nd European PV Solar Energy Conference 2007, Milan, page 140-143. Luque A. & Marti A. (2006): European Initiatives on Future Photovoltaic Technologies, Proceedings of the 21st European Solar Energy Conference, Dresden 2006, page 1-9. Luther J. et al (2006): High concentration Photovoltaics based on III-V multi junction solar cells, Proceedings of the 21st European Solar Energy Conference, Dresden 2006, page 2054-2057. Maeda P. (2007): Recent developments in optics for concentrator photovoltaic (CPV) Systems, Proceedings Frontiers in Optics 2007, 16-20.9.2007, San Jose. Mayer B. (Verfasser, 2006): Die Energiesituation Österreichs im Jahr 2005 mit statistischen Übersichten und Kennzahlen, Statistik Austria Dezember 2006, 47 Seiten. Mohring H.-D. et al (2006): Energy yield of PV tracking systems – claims and reality, Proceedings of the 21st European Solar Energy Conference, Dresden 2006, page 2691-2694. Neubarth J. & Kaltschmitt M. (Hrsg., 2000): Erneuerbare Energien in Österreich. Springer Verlag Wien, 499 pages. Pietruszko, St. M. (2006): Status of Photovoltaics 2006 in the EU new member states. Warsaw University of Technology and the Polish Society for PV. PhotoVoltaic – Technology Platform (2007): A strategic research agenda for photovoltaic solar energy technology, European Communities 2007, 70 pages. Proidl H. (2006): Daten über Erneuerbare Energieträger in Österreich (Austrian Energy Agency) Quaschning V. (2006): Regenerative Energiesysteme. Carl Hanser Verlag München Wien. 352 pages. Schmela M. (2007): PV solar electricity market overview. Proceedings to 4th European PV Industry Forum (EPIA), 5th September 2007, Milan, DVD.
Dr. Arno Recheis 53 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
Vivar, M. (2007): Field performance of 3rd Euclides Generation: Energy production and modeling assessment of PV concentrators, Proceedings to the 22nd European PV Solar Energy Conference, Milan, page 716-719.
Wagner W. (2006): Photovoltaik Engineering, Springer Berlin, 337 pages.
Journals:
Neue Energie, Bundesverband WindEnergie e. V., Andesee, Berlin Photon International, Solar Verlag GmbH, Aachen, Germany Sun & Wind Energy, BVA Bielefelder Verlag GmbH & Co KG, Bielefeld, Germany
Internet Links: http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/solarec/index.htm http://www.eex.com/en/ http://www.energies-renouvelables.org/ http://www.iea.org/ http://www.ise.fhg.de http://www.jxcrystals.com/ http://www.solonhilber.at/ http://www.solfocus.com/ http://www.verbund.at/ http://www.wbgu.de/ http://www.zamg.ac.at/
Dr. Arno Recheis 54 MSc Program Renewable Energy in Central & Eastern Europe
Appendix
Part I: Calculations with the RETScreen program
Part II: Calculations with the “Performance of Grid-connected PV” program (JRC)
Part III: Financial calculations
Dr. Arno Recheis 55 RETScreen ® Solar Resource and System Load Calculation - Photovoltaic Project
Site Latitude and PV Array Orientation Estimate Notes/Range Nearest location for weather data Innsbruck See Weather Database Latitude of project location °N 47,2 -90.0 to 90.0 PV array tracking mode - Fixed Slope of PV array ° 0,0 0.0 to 90.0 Azimuth of PV array ° 0,0 0.0 to 180.0
Monthly Inputs
Fraction of Monthly average Monthly Monthly average Monthly month daily radiation average daily radiation solar used on horizontal temperature in plane of fraction surface PV array Month (0 - 1) (kWh/m²/d) (°C) (kWh/m²/d) (%) January 1,00 1,53 -1,4 1,53 - February 1,00 2,16 0,4 2,16 - March 1,00 3,12 4,8 3,12 - April 1,00 4,16 8,4 4,16 - May 1,00 5,25 13,4 5,25 - June 1,00 5,25 16,1 5,25 - July 1,00 5,00 18,1 5,00 - August 1,00 4,63 17,7 4,63 - September 1,00 3,72 14,0 3,72 - October 1,00 2,39 9,1 2,39 - November 1,00 1,50 2,9 1,50 - December 1,00 1,26 -1,0 1,26 -
Annual Season of use Solar radiation (horizontal) MWh/m² 1,22 1,22 Solar radiation (tilted surface) MWh/m² 1,22 1,22 Average temperature °C 8,5 8,5
Load Characteristics Estimate Notes/Range Application type - On-grid Return to Energy Model sheet
Version 3.2 © Minister of Natural Resources Canada 1997 - 2005. NRCan/CETC - Varennes
19.01.2008; Swarovski-0° RETScreen ® Energy Model - Photovoltaic Project Training & Support
Site Conditions Estimate Notes/Range Project name Swarovski PV See Online Manual Project location Wattens, Austria Nearest location for weather data - Innsbruck Complete SR&SL sheet Latitude of project location °N 47,2 -90.0 to 90.0 Annual solar radiation (tilted surface) MWh/m² 1,22 Annual average temperature °C 8,5 -20.0 to 30.0
System Characteristics Estimate Notes/Range Application type - On-grid Grid type - Central-grid PV energy absorption rate % 100,0% Minimum battery temperature °C 10,0 0.0 to 15.0 PV Array PV module type - poly-Si PV module manufacturer / model # Solon, 195Wp See Product Database Nominal PV module efficiency % 14,2% 4.0% to 15.0% NOCT °C 45 40 to 55 PV temperature coefficient % / °C 0,40% 0.10% to 0.50% Miscellaneous PV array losses % 5,0% 0.0% to 20.0% Nominal PV array power kWp 1.000,00 PV array area m² 7.042,3 Genset Charger (AC to DC) efficiency % 95% 80% to 95% Suggested genset capacity kW 6,6 Genset capacity kW 7,5 Fuel type - Diesel (#2 oil) - L Specific fuel consumption L/kWh 0,46 Power Conditioning Miscellaneous power conditioning losses % 0% 0% to 10%
Annual Energy Production (12,00 months analysed) Estimate Notes/Range Energy from genset (Diesel (#2 oil) - L) MWh 0,000 Specific yield kWh/m² 147,0 Overall PV system efficiency % 12,1% PV system capacity factor % 11,8% Renewable energy collected MWh 1.150,563 Renewable energy delivered MWh 1.035,507 kWh 1.035.507 Excess RE available MWh 0,000 Complete Cost Analysis sheet
Version 3.2 © Minister of Natural Resources Canada 1997 - 2005. NRCan/CETC - Varennes
19.01.2008; Swarovski-0° RETScreen ® Solar Resource and System Load Calculation - Photovoltaic Project
Site Latitude and PV Array Orientation Estimate Notes/Range Nearest location for weather data Innsbruck See Weather Database Latitude of project location °N 47,2 -90.0 to 90.0 PV array tracking mode - Fixed Slope of PV array ° 37,0 0.0 to 90.0 Azimuth of PV array ° 0,0 0.0 to 180.0
Monthly Inputs
Fraction of Monthly average Monthly Monthly average Monthly month daily radiation average daily radiation solar used on horizontal temperature in plane of fraction surface PV array Month (0 - 1) (kWh/m²/d) (°C) (kWh/m²/d) (%) January 1,00 1,53 -1,4 3,02 - February 1,00 2,16 0,4 3,38 - March 1,00 3,12 4,8 3,93 - April 1,00 4,16 8,4 4,49 - May 1,00 5,25 13,4 5,14 - June 1,00 5,25 16,1 4,91 - July 1,00 5,00 18,1 4,77 - August 1,00 4,63 17,7 4,79 - September 1,00 3,72 14,0 4,44 - October 1,00 2,39 9,1 3,45 - November 1,00 1,50 2,9 2,69 - December 1,00 1,26 -1,0 2,63 -
Annual Season of use Solar radiation (horizontal) MWh/m² 1,22 1,22 Solar radiation (tilted surface) MWh/m² 1,45 1,45 Average temperature °C 8,5 8,5
Load Characteristics Estimate Notes/Range Application type - On-grid Return to Energy Model sheet
Version 3.2 © Minister of Natural Resources Canada 1997 - 2005. NRCan/CETC - Varennes
19.01.2008; Swarovski-37° RETScreen ® Energy Model - Photovoltaic Project Training & Support
Site Conditions Estimate Notes/Range Project name Swarovski PV See Online Manual Project location Wattens, Austria Nearest location for weather data - Innsbruck Complete SR&SL sheet Latitude of project location °N 47,2 -90.0 to 90.0 Annual solar radiation (tilted surface) MWh/m² 1,45 Annual average temperature °C 8,5 -20.0 to 30.0
System Characteristics Estimate Notes/Range Application type - On-grid Grid type - Central-grid PV energy absorption rate % 100,0% Minimum battery temperature °C 10,0 0.0 to 15.0 PV Array PV module type - poly-Si PV module manufacturer / model # Solon, 195Wp See Product Database Nominal PV module efficiency % 14,2% 4.0% to 15.0% NOCT °C 45 40 to 55 PV temperature coefficient % / °C 0,40% 0.10% to 0.50% Miscellaneous PV array losses % 5,0% 0.0% to 20.0% Nominal PV array power kWp 1.000,00 PV array area m² 7.042,3 Genset Charger (AC to DC) efficiency % 95% 80% to 95% Suggested genset capacity kW 6,6 Genset capacity kW 7,5 Fuel type - Diesel (#2 oil) - L Specific fuel consumption L/kWh 0,46 Power Conditioning Miscellaneous power conditioning losses % 0% 0% to 10%
Annual Energy Production (12,00 months analysed) Estimate Notes/Range Energy from genset (Diesel (#2 oil) - L) MWh 0,000 Specific yield kWh/m² 173,6 Overall PV system efficiency % 12,0% PV system capacity factor % 14,0% Renewable energy collected MWh 1.358,567 Renewable energy delivered MWh 1.222,710 kWh 1.222.710 Excess RE available MWh 0,000 Complete Cost Analysis sheet
Version 3.2 © Minister of Natural Resources Canada 1997 - 2005. NRCan/CETC - Varennes
19.01.2008; Swarovski-37° RETScreen ® Solar Resource and System Load Calculation - Photovoltaic Project
Site Latitude and PV Array Orientation Estimate Notes/Range Nearest location for weather data Innsbruck See Weather Database Latitude of project location °N 47,2 -90.0 to 90.0 PV array tracking mode - One-axis Slope of tracking axis ° 37,0 0.0 to 90.0 Azimuth of tracking axis ° 0,0 0.0 to 180.0
Monthly Inputs
Fraction of Monthly average Monthly Monthly average Monthly month daily radiation average daily radiation solar used on horizontal temperature in plane of fraction surface PV array Month (0 - 1) (kWh/m²/d) (°C) (kWh/m²/d) (%) January 1,00 1,53 -1,4 3,52 - February 1,00 2,16 0,4 4,10 - March 1,00 3,12 4,8 4,87 - April 1,00 4,16 8,4 5,57 - May 1,00 5,25 13,4 6,36 - June 1,00 5,25 16,1 6,05 - July 1,00 5,00 18,1 5,86 - August 1,00 4,63 17,7 5,96 - September 1,00 3,72 14,0 5,54 - October 1,00 2,39 9,1 4,14 - November 1,00 1,50 2,9 3,28 - December 1,00 1,26 -1,0 3,07 -
Annual Season of use Solar radiation (horizontal) MWh/m² 1,22 1,22 Solar radiation (tilted surface) MWh/m² 1,78 1,78 Average temperature °C 8,5 8,5
Load Characteristics Estimate Notes/Range Application type - On-grid Return to Energy Model sheet
Version 3.2 © Minister of Natural Resources Canada 1997 - 2005. NRCan/CETC - Varennes
19.01.2008; Swarovski-1axis RETScreen ® Energy Model - Photovoltaic Project Training & Support
Site Conditions Estimate Notes/Range Project name Swarovski PV See Online Manual Project location Wattens, Austria Nearest location for weather data - Innsbruck Complete SR&SL sheet Latitude of project location °N 47,2 -90.0 to 90.0 Annual solar radiation (tilted surface) MWh/m² 1,78 Annual average temperature °C 8,5 -20.0 to 30.0
System Characteristics Estimate Notes/Range Application type - On-grid Grid type - Central-grid PV energy absorption rate % 100,0% Minimum battery temperature °C 10,0 0.0 to 15.0 PV Array PV module type - poly-Si PV module manufacturer / model # Solon, 195Wp See Product Database Nominal PV module efficiency % 14,2% 4.0% to 15.0% NOCT °C 45 40 to 55 PV temperature coefficient % / °C 0,40% 0.10% to 0.50% Miscellaneous PV array losses % 5,0% 0.0% to 20.0% Nominal PV array power kWp 1.000,00 PV array area m² 7.042,3 Genset Charger (AC to DC) efficiency % 95% 80% to 95% Suggested genset capacity kW 6,6 Genset capacity kW 7,5 Fuel type - Diesel (#2 oil) - L Specific fuel consumption L/kWh 0,46 Power Conditioning Miscellaneous power conditioning losses % 0% 0% to 10%
Annual Energy Production (12,00 months analysed) Estimate Notes/Range Energy from genset (Diesel (#2 oil) - L) MWh 0,000 Specific yield kWh/m² 212,5 Overall PV system efficiency % 12,0% PV system capacity factor % 17,1% Renewable energy collected MWh 1.662,834 Renewable energy delivered MWh 1.496,551 kWh 1.496.551 Excess RE available MWh 0,000 Complete Cost Analysis sheet
Version 3.2 © Minister of Natural Resources Canada 1997 - 2005. NRCan/CETC - Varennes
19.01.2008; Swarovski-1axis RETScreen ® Solar Resource and System Load Calculation - Photovoltaic Project
Site Latitude and PV Array Orientation Estimate Notes/Range Nearest location for weather data Innsbruck See Weather Database Latitude of project location °N 47,2 -90.0 to 90.0 PV array tracking mode - Two-axis
Monthly Inputs
Fraction of Monthly average Monthly Monthly average Monthly month daily radiation average daily radiation solar used on horizontal temperature in plane of fraction surface PV array Month (0 - 1) (kWh/m²/d) (°C) (kWh/m²/d) (%) January 1,00 1,53 -1,4 3,95 - February 1,00 2,16 0,4 4,28 - March 1,00 3,12 4,8 4,88 - April 1,00 4,16 8,4 5,73 - May 1,00 5,25 13,4 6,75 - June 1,00 5,25 16,1 6,68 - July 1,00 5,00 18,1 6,40 - August 1,00 4,63 17,7 6,20 - September 1,00 3,72 14,0 5,53 - October 1,00 2,39 9,1 4,24 - November 1,00 1,50 2,9 3,54 - December 1,00 1,26 -1,0 3,49 -
Annual Season of use Solar radiation (horizontal) MWh/m² 1,22 1,22 Solar radiation (tilted surface) MWh/m² 1,88 1,88 Average temperature °C 8,5 8,5
Load Characteristics Estimate Notes/Range Application type - On-grid Return to Energy Model sheet
Version 3.2 © Minister of Natural Resources Canada 1997 - 2005. NRCan/CETC - Varennes
19.01.2008; Swarovski-2axis RETScreen ® Energy Model - Photovoltaic Project Training & Support
Site Conditions Estimate Notes/Range Project name Swarovski PV See Online Manual Project location Wattens, Austria Nearest location for weather data - Innsbruck Complete SR&SL sheet Latitude of project location °N 47,2 -90.0 to 90.0 Annual solar radiation (tilted surface) MWh/m² 1,88 Annual average temperature °C 8,5 -20.0 to 30.0
System Characteristics Estimate Notes/Range Application type - On-grid Grid type - Central-grid PV energy absorption rate % 100,0% Minimum battery temperature °C 10,0 0.0 to 15.0 PV Array PV module type - poly-Si PV module manufacturer / model # Solon, 195Wp See Product Database Nominal PV module efficiency % 14,2% 4.0% to 15.0% NOCT °C 45 40 to 55 PV temperature coefficient % / °C 0,40% 0.10% to 0.50% Miscellaneous PV array losses % 5,0% 0.0% to 20.0% Nominal PV array power kWp 1.000,00 PV array area m² 7.042,3 Genset Charger (AC to DC) efficiency % 95% 80% to 95% Suggested genset capacity kW 6,6 Genset capacity kW 7,5 Fuel type - Diesel (#2 oil) - L Specific fuel consumption L/kWh 0,46 Power Conditioning Miscellaneous power conditioning losses % 0% 0% to 10%
Annual Energy Production (12,00 months analysed) Estimate Notes/Range Energy from genset (Diesel (#2 oil) - L) MWh 0,000 Specific yield kWh/m² 224,2 Overall PV system efficiency % 11,9% PV system capacity factor % 18,0% Renewable energy collected MWh 1.754,084 Renewable energy delivered MWh 1.578,676 kWh 1.578.676 Excess RE available MWh 0,000 Complete Cost Analysis sheet
Version 3.2 © Minister of Natural Resources Canada 1997 - 2005. NRCan/CETC - Varennes
19.01.2008; Swarovski-2axis RETScreen ® Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Reduction Analysis - Photovoltaic Project
Use GHG analysis sheet? Yes Type of analysis: Standard Complete Financial Summary sheet
Background Information
Project Information Global Warming Potential of GHG Project name Swarovski PV 1 tonne CH 4 = 21 tonnes CO 2 (IPCC 1996) Project location Wattens, Austria 1 tonne N 2O = 310 tonnes CO 2 (IPCC 1996)
Base Case Electricity System (Baseline)
CO emission CH emission N O emission Fuel conversion T & D GHG emission Fuel type Fuel mix 2 4 2 factor factor factor efficiency losses factor (%) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ)(%) (%) (t CO2 /MWh) Natural gas 100,0% 56,1 0,0030 0,0010 45,0% 8,0% 0,491 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 Electricity mix 100,0% 135,5 0,0072 0,0024 8,0% 0,491
Proposed Case Electricity System (Photovoltaic Project)
CO emission CH emission N O emission Fuel conversion T & D GHG emission Fuel type Fuel mix 2 4 2 factor factor factor efficiency losses factor
(%) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ)(%) (%) (t CO2 /MWh) Electricity system Solar 100,0% 0,0 0,0000 0,0000 100,0% 4,0% 0,000
GHG Emission Reduction Summary
Base case GHG Proposed case GHG End-use annual Annual GHG emission factor emission factor energy delivered emission reduction (t CO2 /MWh) (t CO2 /MWh) (MWh) (t CO2 ) Electricity system 0,491 0,000 1.173,801 576,42 Net GHG emission reduction t CO2 /yr 576,42
Complete Financial Summary sheet
Version 3.2 © United Nations Environment Programme & Minister of Natural Resources Canada 2000 - 2005. UNEP/DTIE and NRCan/CETC - Varennes
19.01.2008; Swarovski-37°
Data PV GIS: JRC
Irradiation & Optimal Inclination for Tirol
Country: Austria Region name: Tirol Total area (km2) 12624.0 Urban area (km2) 119.2
Yearly global irradiation (kWh/m2) horizontal vertical optimal minimum 1132 909 1309 average 1200 991 1408 maximum 1272 1115 1533
Yearly PV power (kWh/1kWp) horizontal vertical optimal Optimal Month inclination minimum 850 642 951 (deg.) average 907 748 1054 Jan 65 maximum 976 851 1161 Feb 59
Mar 47 Optimum inclination angle of PV modules (deg.) Apr 31 Angle May 18 minimum 34 Jun 11 average 37 Jul 15 maximum 40 Aug 26 Sep 41
Oct 54
Nov 62 Dec 65
Year 37
Calculations in detail for Wattens
Location: 47°17'51" North, 11°35'56" East, Elevation: 552 m a.s.l, Nearest city: Hall/Tirol-Absam-Mils, Austria (7 km away)
Nominal power of the PV system: 1000.0 kW (crystalline silicon) Inclination of modules: 37.0° (optimum) Orientation (azimuth) of modules: 6.0° (optimum) Estimated losses due to temperature: 6.9% (using local ambient temperature data) Estimated loss due to angular reflectance effects: 2.8% Other losses (cables, inverter etc.): 5.0% Combined PV system losses: 14.7%
PV electricity generation for: Nominal power=1000.0 kW, System losses=5.0% Inclin.=37 deg., Orient.=6 2-axis tracking system deg.
Production Production Production Production Month per month per day per month per day (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) Jan 58820 1897 69063 2228 Feb 79265 2831 94890 3389
Mar 113981 3677 141909 4578 Apr 124537 4151 159936 5331 May 133561 4308 177157 5715
Jun 126039 4201 167049 5568 Jul 136777 4412 183357 5915 Aug 127648 4118 162931 5256
Sep 110135 3671 138295 4610 Oct 92097 2971 111374 3593 Nov 56533 1884 65633 2188
Dec 46251 1492 52892 1706
Yearly 100470 3303 127040 4177 average Total yearly production 1205642 1524485 (kWh)
Inclin.=37 deg., In-plane irradiation for: Orient.=6 deg. Irradiation Irradiation Month per month per day (kWh/m2) (kWh/m2) Jan 65 2.1 Feb 88 3.2 Mar 130 4.2 Apr 145 4.8 May 159 5.1 Jun 151 5.0 Jul 165 5.3 Aug 153 4.9 Sep 129 4.3 Oct 106 3.4 Nov 63 2.1 Dec 52 1.7
Yearly 117 3.9 average Total yearly irradiation 1406 (kWh/m2) Fixed System (0°) - No Feed-In
Investment costs 3.950.000,0 €/kWh 0,080 inflation 2,00% Internal interests 10,5% MWh/a 1.035.507,0 annual interests 207.375,0 t/CO2 25,0 depreciation 118.618,6 t CO2 500,0
year €/kWh interests/a income/a CO2 costs/a depreciation Diff. 2008 1 0,080 207.375,0 82.840,6 12.500,0 50.000,0 118.618,6 -280.653,1 2009 2 0,084 207.375,0 86.982,6 12.500,0 51.000,0 118.618,6 -277.511,0 2010 3 0,088 207.375,0 91.331,7 12.500,0 52.020,0 118.618,6 -274.181,9 2011 4 0,093 207.375,0 95.898,3 12.500,0 53.060,4 118.618,6 -270.655,7 2012 5 0,097 207.375,0 100.693,2 12.500,0 54.121,6 118.618,6 -266.922,0 2013 6 0,102 207.375,0 105.727,9 12.500,0 55.204,0 118.618,6 -262.969,8 2014 7 0,107 207.375,0 111.014,3 12.500,0 56.308,1 118.618,6 -258.787,5 2015 8 0,113 207.375,0 116.565,0 12.500,0 57.434,3 118.618,6 -254.362,9 2016 9 0,118 207.375,0 122.393,2 12.500,0 58.583,0 118.618,6 -249.683,4 2017 10 0,124 207.375,0 128.512,9 12.500,0 59.754,6 118.618,6 -244.735,3 -2.640.462,6 2018 11 0,130 207.375,0 134.938,5 12.500,0 60.949,7 118.618,6 -239.504,8 2019 12 0,137 207.375,0 141.685,5 12.500,0 62.168,7 118.618,6 -233.976,9 2020 13 0,144 207.375,0 148.769,7 12.500,0 63.412,1 118.618,6 -228.136,0 2021 14 0,151 207.375,0 156.208,2 12.500,0 64.680,3 118.618,6 -221.965,7 2022 15 0,158 207.375,0 164.018,6 12.500,0 65.973,9 118.618,6 -215.448,9 2023 16 0,166 207.375,0 172.219,6 12.500,0 67.293,4 118.618,6 -208.567,5 2024 17 0,175 207.375,0 180.830,6 12.500,0 68.639,3 118.618,6 -201.302,4 2025 18 0,183 207.375,0 189.872,1 12.500,0 70.012,1 118.618,6 -193.633,6 2026 19 0,193 207.375,0 199.365,7 12.500,0 71.412,3 118.618,6 -185.540,2 2027 20 0,202 207.375,0 209.334,0 12.500,0 72.840,6 118.618,6 -177.000,2 -4.745.538,7 2028 21 0,212 207.375,0 219.800,7 12.500,0 74.297,4 118.618,6 -167.990,3 2029 22 0,223 207.375,0 230.790,7 12.500,0 75.783,3 118.618,6 -158.486,2 2030 23 0,234 207.375,0 242.330,2 12.500,0 77.299,0 118.618,6 -148.462,4 2031 24 0,246 207.375,0 254.446,7 12.500,0 78.845,0 118.618,6 -137.891,8 2032 25 0,258 207.375,0 267.169,1 12.500,0 80.421,9 118.618,6 -126.746,4 2033 26 0,271 207.375,0 280.527,5 12.500,0 82.030,3 118.618,6 -114.996,4 2034 27 0,284 207.375,0 294.553,9 12.500,0 83.670,9 118.618,6 -102.610,6 2035 28 0,299 207.375,0 309.281,6 12.500,0 85.344,3 118.618,6 -89.556,3 2036 29 0,314 207.375,0 324.745,7 12.500,0 87.051,2 118.618,6 -75.799,1 2037 30 0,329 207.375,0 340.983,0 12.500,0 88.792,2 118.618,6 -61.302,9 2038 31 0,346 207.375,0 358.032,1 12.500,0 90.568,1 118.618,6 -46.029,6 2039 32 0,363 207.375,0 375.933,7 12.500,0 92.379,4 118.618,6 -29.939,3 2040 33 0,381 207.375,0 394.730,4 12.500,0 94.227,0 118.618,6 -12.990,2 2041 33,3 0,400 62.212,6 124.340,1 3.750,0 28.833,5 35.585,6 1.458,5 Sum 6.905.587,6 6.756.867,7 2.334.412,0 3.950.000,0 -6.016.881,9 Fixed System (37°) - No Feed-In
Investment costs 4.100.000,0 €/kWh 0,080 inflation 2,00% Internal interests 10,5% MWh/a 1.222.710,0 annual interests 215.250,0 t/CO2 25,0 depreciation 123.123,1 t CO2 500,0
year €/kWh interests/a income/a CO2 costs/a depreciation Diff. 2008 1 0,080 215.250,0 97.816,8 12.500,0 50.000,0 123.123,1 -278.056,3 2009 2 0,084 215.250,0 102.707,6 12.500,0 51.000,0 123.123,1 -274.165,5 2010 3 0,088 215.250,0 107.843,0 12.500,0 52.020,0 123.123,1 -270.050,1 2011 4 0,093 215.250,0 113.235,2 12.500,0 53.060,4 123.123,1 -265.698,4 2012 5 0,097 215.250,0 118.896,9 12.500,0 54.121,6 123.123,1 -261.097,8 2013 6 0,102 215.250,0 124.841,8 12.500,0 55.204,0 123.123,1 -256.235,4 2014 7 0,107 215.250,0 131.083,9 12.500,0 56.308,1 123.123,1 -251.097,4 2015 8 0,113 215.250,0 137.638,1 12.500,0 57.434,3 123.123,1 -245.669,3 2016 9 0,118 215.250,0 144.520,0 12.500,0 58.583,0 123.123,1 -239.936,1 2017 10 0,124 215.250,0 151.746,0 12.500,0 59.754,6 123.123,1 -233.881,8 -2.575.888,1 2018 11 0,130 215.250,0 159.333,3 12.500,0 60.949,7 123.123,1 -227.489,6 2019 12 0,137 215.250,0 167.299,9 12.500,0 62.168,7 123.123,1 -220.741,9 2020 13 0,144 215.250,0 175.664,9 12.500,0 63.412,1 123.123,1 -213.620,3 2021 14 0,151 215.250,0 184.448,2 12.500,0 64.680,3 123.123,1 -206.105,3 2022 15 0,158 215.250,0 193.670,6 12.500,0 65.973,9 123.123,1 -198.176,5 2023 16 0,166 215.250,0 203.354,1 12.500,0 67.293,4 123.123,1 -189.812,4 2024 17 0,175 215.250,0 213.521,8 12.500,0 68.639,3 123.123,1 -180.990,6 2025 18 0,183 215.250,0 224.197,9 12.500,0 70.012,1 123.123,1 -171.687,3 2026 19 0,193 215.250,0 235.407,8 12.500,0 71.412,3 123.123,1 -161.877,6 2027 20 0,202 215.250,0 247.178,2 12.500,0 72.840,6 123.123,1 -151.535,5 -4.497.925,1 2028 21 0,212 215.250,0 259.537,1 12.500,0 74.297,4 123.123,1 -140.633,4 2029 22 0,223 215.250,0 272.513,9 12.500,0 75.783,3 123.123,1 -129.142,5 2030 23 0,234 215.250,0 286.139,6 12.500,0 77.299,0 123.123,1 -117.032,5 2031 24 0,246 215.250,0 300.446,6 12.500,0 78.845,0 123.123,1 -104.271,5 2032 25 0,258 215.250,0 315.469,0 12.500,0 80.421,9 123.123,1 -90.826,0 2033 26 0,271 215.250,0 331.242,4 12.500,0 82.030,3 123.123,1 -76.661,0 2034 27 0,284 215.250,0 347.804,5 12.500,0 83.670,9 123.123,1 -61.739,5 2035 28 0,299 215.250,0 365.194,8 12.500,0 85.344,3 123.123,1 -46.022,7 2036 29 0,314 215.250,0 383.454,5 12.500,0 87.051,2 123.123,1 -29.469,8 2037 30 0,329 215.250,0 402.627,2 12.500,0 88.792,2 123.123,1 -12.038,1 2038 31 0,346 215.250,0 422.758,6 12.500,0 90.568,1 123.123,1 6.317,4 2039 32 0,363 215.250,0 443.896,5 12.500,0 92.379,4 123.123,1 25.643,9 2040 33 0,381 215.250,0 466.091,3 12.500,0 94.227,0 123.123,1 45.991,2 2041 33,3 0,400 64.575,1 146.818,8 3.750,0 28.833,5 36.936,9 20.223,3 Sum 7.167.825,1 7.978.400,6 2.334.412,0 4.100.000,0 -5.207.586,4 1-Axis System - No Feed-In
Investment costs 4.300.000,0 €/kWh 0,080 inflation 2,00% Internal interests 10,5% MWh/a 1.496.551,0 annual interests 225.750,0 t/CO2 25,0 depreciation 129.129,1 t CO2 500,0
year €/kWh interests/a income/a CO2 costs/a depreciation Diff. 2008 1 0,080 225.750,0 119.724,1 12.500,0 50.000,0 129.129,1 -272.655,0 2009 2 0,084 225.750,0 125.710,3 12.500,0 51.000,0 129.129,1 -267.668,8 2010 3 0,088 225.750,0 131.995,8 12.500,0 52.020,0 129.129,1 -262.403,3 2011 4 0,093 225.750,0 138.595,6 12.500,0 53.060,4 129.129,1 -256.843,9 2012 5 0,097 225.750,0 145.525,4 12.500,0 54.121,6 129.129,1 -250.975,4 2013 6 0,102 225.750,0 152.801,6 12.500,0 55.204,0 129.129,1 -244.781,5 2014 7 0,107 225.750,0 160.441,7 12.500,0 56.308,1 129.129,1 -238.245,5 2015 8 0,113 225.750,0 168.463,8 12.500,0 57.434,3 129.129,1 -231.349,6 2016 9 0,118 225.750,0 176.887,0 12.500,0 58.583,0 129.129,1 -224.075,1 2017 10 0,124 225.750,0 185.731,3 12.500,0 59.754,6 129.129,1 -216.402,4 -2.465.400,7 2018 11 0,130 225.750,0 195.017,9 12.500,0 60.949,7 129.129,1 -208.310,9 2019 12 0,137 225.750,0 204.768,8 12.500,0 62.168,7 129.129,1 -199.779,0 2020 13 0,144 225.750,0 215.007,2 12.500,0 63.412,1 129.129,1 -190.784,0 2021 14 0,151 225.750,0 225.757,6 12.500,0 64.680,3 129.129,1 -181.301,9 2022 15 0,158 225.750,0 237.045,5 12.500,0 65.973,9 129.129,1 -171.307,6 2023 16 0,166 225.750,0 248.897,8 12.500,0 67.293,4 129.129,1 -160.774,8 2024 17 0,175 225.750,0 261.342,7 12.500,0 68.639,3 129.129,1 -149.675,8 2025 18 0,183 225.750,0 274.409,8 12.500,0 70.012,1 129.129,1 -137.981,4 2026 19 0,193 225.750,0 288.130,3 12.500,0 71.412,3 129.129,1 -125.661,2 2027 20 0,202 225.750,0 302.536,8 12.500,0 72.840,6 129.129,1 -112.682,9 -4.103.660,1 2028 21 0,212 225.750,0 317.663,6 12.500,0 74.297,4 129.129,1 -99.012,9 2029 22 0,223 225.750,0 333.546,8 12.500,0 75.783,3 129.129,1 -84.615,6 2030 23 0,234 225.750,0 350.224,1 12.500,0 77.299,0 129.129,1 -69.454,0 2031 24 0,246 225.750,0 367.735,4 12.500,0 78.845,0 129.129,1 -53.488,7 2032 25 0,258 225.750,0 386.122,1 12.500,0 80.421,9 129.129,1 -36.678,9 2033 26 0,271 225.750,0 405.428,2 12.500,0 82.030,3 129.129,1 -18.981,2 2034 27 0,284 225.750,0 425.699,6 12.500,0 83.670,9 129.129,1 -350,4 2035 28 0,299 225.750,0 446.984,6 12.500,0 85.344,3 129.129,1 19.261,2 2036 29 0,314 225.750,0 469.333,9 12.500,0 87.051,2 129.129,1 39.903,5 2037 30 0,329 225.750,0 492.800,5 12.500,0 88.792,2 129.129,1 61.629,2 2038 31 0,346 225.750,0 517.440,6 12.500,0 90.568,1 129.129,1 84.493,4 2039 32 0,363 225.750,0 543.312,6 12.500,0 92.379,4 129.129,1 108.554,0 2040 33 0,381 225.750,0 570.478,2 12.500,0 94.227,0 129.129,1 133.872,1 2041 33,3 0,400 67.725,1 179.700,6 3.750,0 28.833,5 38.738,7 48.153,4 Sum 7.517.475,1 9.765.262,0 2.334.412,0 4.300.000,0 -3.970.375,1 2-Axis System - No Feed-In
Investment costs 5.800.000,0 €/kWh 0,080 inflation 2,00% Internal interests 10,5% MWh/a 1.578.676,0 annual interests 304.500,0 t/CO2 25,0 depreciation 174.174,2 t CO2 500,0
year €/kWh interests/a income/a CO2 costs/a depreciation Diff. 2008 1 0,080 304.500,0 126.294,1 12.500,0 50.000,0 174.174,2 -389.880,1 2009 2 0,084 304.500,0 132.608,8 12.500,0 51.000,0 174.174,2 -384.565,4 2010 3 0,088 304.500,0 139.239,2 12.500,0 52.020,0 174.174,2 -378.955,0 2011 4 0,093 304.500,0 146.201,2 12.500,0 53.060,4 174.174,2 -373.033,4 2012 5 0,097 304.500,0 153.511,2 12.500,0 54.121,6 174.174,2 -366.784,5 2013 6 0,102 304.500,0 161.186,8 12.500,0 55.204,0 174.174,2 -360.191,4 2014 7 0,107 304.500,0 169.246,1 12.500,0 56.308,1 174.174,2 -353.236,1 2015 8 0,113 304.500,0 177.708,5 12.500,0 57.434,3 174.174,2 -345.900,0 2016 9 0,118 304.500,0 186.593,9 12.500,0 58.583,0 174.174,2 -338.163,3 2017 10 0,124 304.500,0 195.923,6 12.500,0 59.754,6 174.174,2 -330.005,2 -3.620.714,4 2018 11 0,130 304.500,0 205.719,7 12.500,0 60.949,7 174.174,2 -321.404,1 2019 12 0,137 304.500,0 216.005,7 12.500,0 62.168,7 174.174,2 -312.337,2 2020 13 0,144 304.500,0 226.806,0 12.500,0 63.412,1 174.174,2 -302.780,2 2021 14 0,151 304.500,0 238.146,3 12.500,0 64.680,3 174.174,2 -292.708,2 2022 15 0,158 304.500,0 250.053,6 12.500,0 65.973,9 174.174,2 -282.094,5 2023 16 0,166 304.500,0 262.556,3 12.500,0 67.293,4 174.174,2 -270.911,3 2024 17 0,175 304.500,0 275.684,1 12.500,0 68.639,3 174.174,2 -259.129,3 2025 18 0,183 304.500,0 289.468,3 12.500,0 70.012,1 174.174,2 -246.717,9 2026 19 0,193 304.500,0 303.941,8 12.500,0 71.412,3 174.174,2 -233.644,7 2027 20 0,202 304.500,0 319.138,9 12.500,0 72.840,6 174.174,2 -219.875,9 -6.362.317,7 2028 21 0,212 304.500,0 335.095,8 12.500,0 74.297,4 174.174,2 -205.375,8 2029 22 0,223 304.500,0 351.850,6 12.500,0 75.783,3 174.174,2 -190.106,9 2030 23 0,234 304.500,0 369.443,1 12.500,0 77.299,0 174.174,2 -174.030,0 2031 24 0,246 304.500,0 387.915,3 12.500,0 78.845,0 174.174,2 -157.103,9 2032 25 0,258 304.500,0 407.311,0 12.500,0 80.421,9 174.174,2 -139.285,0 2033 26 0,271 304.500,0 427.676,6 12.500,0 82.030,3 174.174,2 -120.527,9 2034 27 0,284 304.500,0 449.060,4 12.500,0 83.670,9 174.174,2 -100.784,7 2035 28 0,299 304.500,0 471.513,4 12.500,0 85.344,3 174.174,2 -80.005,1 2036 29 0,314 304.500,0 495.089,1 12.500,0 87.051,2 174.174,2 -58.136,3 2037 30 0,329 304.500,0 519.843,6 12.500,0 88.792,2 174.174,2 -35.122,9 2038 31 0,346 304.500,0 545.835,7 12.500,0 90.568,1 174.174,2 -10.906,5 2039 32 0,363 304.500,0 573.127,5 12.500,0 92.379,4 174.174,2 14.573,9 2040 33 0,381 304.500,0 601.783,9 12.500,0 94.227,0 174.174,2 41.382,7 2041 33,3 0,400 91.350,1 189.561,9 3.750,0 28.833,5 52.252,3 20.876,1 Sum 10.139.850,1 10.301.142,2 2.334.412,0 5.800.000,0 -7.556.869,9 Fixed System (0°) - Austrian Feed-In
Investment costs 3.950.000,0 €/kWh 0,30 inflation 2,00% Internal interests 10,50% MWh/a 1.035.507,0 duration 10 annual interests 207.375,0 t/CO2 25 depreciation 118.618,6 t CO2 500
year €/kWh interests/a income/a CO2 costs/a depreciation Diff. 2008 1 0,080 207.375,0 310.652,1 12.500,0 50.000,0 118.618,6 -52.841,5 2009 2 0,084 207.375,0 310.652,1 12.500,0 51.000,0 118.618,6 -53.841,5 2010 3 0,088 207.375,0 310.652,1 12.500,0 52.020,0 118.618,6 -54.861,5 2011 4 0,093 207.375,0 310.652,1 12.500,0 53.060,4 118.618,6 -55.901,9 2012 5 0,097 207.375,0 310.652,1 12.500,0 54.121,6 118.618,6 -56.963,1 2013 6 0,102 207.375,0 310.652,1 12.500,0 55.204,0 118.618,6 -58.045,6 2014 7 0,107 207.375,0 310.652,1 12.500,0 56.308,1 118.618,6 -59.149,6 2015 8 0,113 207.375,0 310.652,1 12.500,0 57.434,3 118.618,6 -60.275,8 2016 9 0,118 207.375,0 310.652,1 12.500,0 58.583,0 118.618,6 -61.424,5 2017 10 0,124 207.375,0 310.652,1 12.500,0 59.754,6 118.618,6 -62.596,1 -575.901,2 2018 11 0,130 207.375,0 232.989,1 12.500,0 60.949,7 118.618,6 -141.454,3 2019 12 0,137 207.375,0 155.326,1 12.500,0 62.168,7 118.618,6 -220.336,3 2020 13 0,144 207.375,0 148.769,7 12.500,0 63.412,1 118.618,6 -228.136,0 2021 14 0,151 207.375,0 156.208,2 12.500,0 64.680,3 118.618,6 -221.965,7 2022 15 0,158 207.375,0 164.018,6 12.500,0 65.973,9 118.618,6 -215.448,9 2023 16 0,166 207.375,0 172.219,6 12.500,0 67.293,4 118.618,6 -208.567,5 2024 17 0,175 207.375,0 180.830,6 12.500,0 68.639,3 118.618,6 -201.302,4 2025 18 0,183 207.375,0 189.872,1 12.500,0 70.012,1 118.618,6 -193.633,6 2026 19 0,193 207.375,0 199.365,7 12.500,0 71.412,3 118.618,6 -185.540,2 2027 20 0,202 207.375,0 209.334,0 12.500,0 72.840,6 118.618,6 -177.000,2 -2.569.286,3 2028 21 0,212 207.375,0 219.800,7 12.500,0 74.297,4 118.618,6 -167.990,3 2029 22 0,223 207.375,0 230.790,7 12.500,0 75.783,3 118.618,6 -158.486,2 2030 23 0,234 207.375,0 242.330,2 12.500,0 77.299,0 118.618,6 -148.462,4 2031 24 0,246 207.375,0 254.446,7 12.500,0 78.845,0 118.618,6 -137.891,8 2032 25 0,258 207.375,0 267.169,1 12.500,0 80.421,9 118.618,6 -126.746,4 2033 26 0,271 207.375,0 280.527,5 12.500,0 82.030,3 118.618,6 -114.996,4 2034 27 0,284 207.375,0 294.553,9 12.500,0 83.670,9 118.618,6 -102.610,6 2035 28 0,299 207.375,0 309.281,6 12.500,0 85.344,3 118.618,6 -89.556,3 2036 29 0,314 207.375,0 324.745,7 12.500,0 87.051,2 118.618,6 -75.799,1 2037 30 0,329 207.375,0 340.983,0 12.500,0 88.792,2 118.618,6 -61.302,9 2038 31 0,346 207.375,0 358.032,1 12.500,0 90.568,1 118.618,6 -46.029,6 2039 32 0,363 207.375,0 375.933,7 12.500,0 92.379,4 118.618,6 -29.939,3 2040 33 0,381 207.375,0 394.730,4 12.500,0 94.227,0 118.618,6 -12.990,2 2041 33,33 0,400 62.212,5 124.340,1 3.750,0 28.833,5 35.585,6 1.458,5 Sum 6.905.587,5 8.933.120,1 2.334.412,0 3.950.000,0 -3.840.629,3 Fixed System (37°) - Austrian Feed-In
Investment costs 4.100.000,0 €/kWh 0,30 inflation 2,00% Internal interests 10,50% MWh/a 1.222.710,0 duration 10 annual interests 215.250,0 t/CO2 25 depreciation 123.123,1 t CO2 500
year €/kWh interests/a income/a CO2 costs/a depreciation Diff. 2008 1 0,080 215.250,0 366.813,0 12.500,0 50.000,0 123.123,1 -9.060,1 2009 2 0,084 215.250,0 366.813,0 12.500,0 51.000,0 123.123,1 -10.060,1 2010 3 0,088 215.250,0 366.813,0 12.500,0 52.020,0 123.123,1 -11.080,1 2011 4 0,093 215.250,0 366.813,0 12.500,0 53.060,4 123.123,1 -12.120,5 2012 5 0,097 215.250,0 366.813,0 12.500,0 54.121,6 123.123,1 -13.181,7 2013 6 0,102 215.250,0 366.813,0 12.500,0 55.204,0 123.123,1 -14.264,2 2014 7 0,107 215.250,0 366.813,0 12.500,0 56.308,1 123.123,1 -15.368,2 2015 8 0,113 215.250,0 366.813,0 12.500,0 57.434,3 123.123,1 -16.494,4 2016 9 0,118 215.250,0 366.813,0 12.500,0 58.583,0 123.123,1 -17.643,1 2017 10 0,124 215.250,0 366.813,0 12.500,0 59.754,6 123.123,1 -18.814,8 -138.087,3 2018 11 0,130 215.250,0 275.109,8 12.500,0 60.949,7 123.123,1 -111.713,1 2019 12 0,137 215.250,0 183.406,5 12.500,0 62.168,7 123.123,1 -204.635,3 2020 13 0,144 215.250,0 175.664,9 12.500,0 63.412,1 123.123,1 -213.620,3 2021 14 0,151 215.250,0 184.448,2 12.500,0 64.680,3 123.123,1 -206.105,3 2022 15 0,158 215.250,0 193.670,6 12.500,0 65.973,9 123.123,1 -198.176,5 2023 16 0,166 215.250,0 203.354,1 12.500,0 67.293,4 123.123,1 -189.812,4 2024 17 0,175 215.250,0 213.521,8 12.500,0 68.639,3 123.123,1 -180.990,6 2025 18 0,183 215.250,0 224.197,9 12.500,0 70.012,1 123.123,1 -171.687,3 2026 19 0,193 215.250,0 235.407,8 12.500,0 71.412,3 123.123,1 -161.877,6 2027 20 0,202 215.250,0 247.178,2 12.500,0 72.840,6 123.123,1 -151.535,5 -1.928.241,3 2028 21 0,212 215.250,0 259.537,1 12.500,0 74.297,4 123.123,1 -140.633,4 2029 22 0,223 215.250,0 272.513,9 12.500,0 75.783,3 123.123,1 -129.142,5 2030 23 0,234 215.250,0 286.139,6 12.500,0 77.299,0 123.123,1 -117.032,5 2031 24 0,246 215.250,0 300.446,6 12.500,0 78.845,0 123.123,1 -104.271,5 2032 25 0,258 215.250,0 315.469,0 12.500,0 80.421,9 123.123,1 -90.826,0 2033 26 0,271 215.250,0 331.242,4 12.500,0 82.030,3 123.123,1 -76.661,0 2034 27 0,284 215.250,0 347.804,5 12.500,0 83.670,9 123.123,1 -61.739,5 2035 28 0,299 215.250,0 365.194,8 12.500,0 85.344,3 123.123,1 -46.022,7 2036 29 0,314 215.250,0 383.454,5 12.500,0 87.051,2 123.123,1 -29.469,8 2037 30 0,329 215.250,0 402.627,2 12.500,0 88.792,2 123.123,1 -12.038,1 2038 31 0,346 215.250,0 422.758,6 12.500,0 90.568,1 123.123,1 6.317,4 2039 32 0,363 215.250,0 443.896,5 12.500,0 92.379,4 123.123,1 25.643,9 2040 33 0,381 215.250,0 466.091,3 12.500,0 94.227,0 123.123,1 45.991,2 2041 33,33 0,400 64.575,0 146.818,8 3.750,0 28.833,5 36.936,9 20.223,4 Sum 7.167.825,0 10.548.084,5 2.334.412,0 4.100.000,0 -2.637.902,5 1-Axis System - Austrian Feed-In
Investment costs 4.300.000,0 €/kWh 0,30 inflation 2,00% Internal interests 10,50% MWh/a 1.496.551,0 duration 10 annual interests 225.750,0 t/CO2 25 depreciation 129.129,1 t CO2 500
year €/kWh interests/a income/a CO2 costs/a depreciation Diff. 2008 1 0,080 225.750,0 448.965,3 12.500,0 50.000,0 129.129,1 56.586,2 2009 2 0,084 225.750,0 448.965,3 12.500,0 51.000,0 129.129,1 55.586,2 2010 3 0,088 225.750,0 448.965,3 12.500,0 52.020,0 129.129,1 54.566,2 2011 4 0,093 225.750,0 448.965,3 12.500,0 53.060,4 129.129,1 53.525,8 2012 5 0,097 225.750,0 448.965,3 12.500,0 54.121,6 129.129,1 52.464,6 2013 6 0,102 225.750,0 448.965,3 12.500,0 55.204,0 129.129,1 51.382,1 2014 7 0,107 225.750,0 448.965,3 12.500,0 56.308,1 129.129,1 50.278,0 2015 8 0,113 225.750,0 448.965,3 12.500,0 57.434,3 129.129,1 49.151,9 2016 9 0,118 225.750,0 448.965,3 12.500,0 58.583,0 129.129,1 48.003,2 2017 10 0,124 225.750,0 448.965,3 12.500,0 59.754,6 129.129,1 46.831,5 518.375,7 2018 11 0,130 225.750,0 336.724,0 12.500,0 60.949,7 129.129,1 -66.604,9 2019 12 0,137 225.750,0 224.482,7 12.500,0 62.168,7 129.129,1 -180.065,2 2020 13 0,144 225.750,0 215.007,2 12.500,0 63.412,1 129.129,1 -190.784,0 2021 14 0,151 225.750,0 225.757,6 12.500,0 64.680,3 129.129,1 -181.301,9 2022 15 0,158 225.750,0 237.045,5 12.500,0 65.973,9 129.129,1 -171.307,6 2023 16 0,166 225.750,0 248.897,8 12.500,0 67.293,4 129.129,1 -160.774,8 2024 17 0,175 225.750,0 261.342,7 12.500,0 68.639,3 129.129,1 -149.675,8 2025 18 0,183 225.750,0 274.409,8 12.500,0 70.012,1 129.129,1 -137.981,4 2026 19 0,193 225.750,0 288.130,3 12.500,0 71.412,3 129.129,1 -125.661,2 2027 20 0,202 225.750,0 302.536,8 12.500,0 72.840,6 129.129,1 -112.682,9 -958.463,8 2028 21 0,212 225.750,0 317.663,6 12.500,0 74.297,4 129.129,1 -99.012,9 2029 22 0,223 225.750,0 333.546,8 12.500,0 75.783,3 129.129,1 -84.615,6 2030 23 0,234 225.750,0 350.224,1 12.500,0 77.299,0 129.129,1 -69.454,0 2031 24 0,246 225.750,0 367.735,4 12.500,0 78.845,0 129.129,1 -53.488,7 2032 25 0,258 225.750,0 386.122,1 12.500,0 80.421,9 129.129,1 -36.678,9 2033 26 0,271 225.750,0 405.428,2 12.500,0 82.030,3 129.129,1 -18.981,2 2034 27 0,284 225.750,0 425.699,6 12.500,0 83.670,9 129.129,1 -350,4 2035 28 0,299 225.750,0 446.984,6 12.500,0 85.344,3 129.129,1 19.261,2 2036 29 0,314 225.750,0 469.333,9 12.500,0 87.051,2 129.129,1 39.903,5 2037 30 0,329 225.750,0 492.800,5 12.500,0 88.792,2 129.129,1 61.629,2 2038 31 0,346 225.750,0 517.440,6 12.500,0 90.568,1 129.129,1 84.493,4 2039 32 0,363 225.750,0 543.312,6 12.500,0 92.379,4 129.129,1 108.554,0 2040 33 0,381 225.750,0 570.478,2 12.500,0 94.227,0 129.129,1 133.872,1 2041 33,33 0,400 67.725,0 179.700,6 3.750,0 28.833,5 38.738,7 48.153,4 Sum 7.517.475,0 12.910.458,2 2.334.412,0 4.300.000,0 -825.178,7 2-Axis System - Austrian Feed-In
Investment costs 5.800.000,0 €/kWh 0,30 inflation 2,00% Internal interests 10,50% MWh/a 1.578.676,0 duration 10 annual interests 304.500,0 t/CO2 25 depreciation 174.174,2 t CO2 500
year €/kWh interests/a income/a CO2 costs/a depreciation Diff. 2008 1 0,080 304.500,0 473.602,8 12.500,0 50.000,0 174.174,2 -42.571,4 2009 2 0,084 304.500,0 473.602,8 12.500,0 51.000,0 174.174,2 -43.571,4 2010 3 0,088 304.500,0 473.602,8 12.500,0 52.020,0 174.174,2 -44.591,4 2011 4 0,093 304.500,0 473.602,8 12.500,0 53.060,4 174.174,2 -45.631,8 2012 5 0,097 304.500,0 473.602,8 12.500,0 54.121,6 174.174,2 -46.693,0 2013 6 0,102 304.500,0 473.602,8 12.500,0 55.204,0 174.174,2 -47.775,4 2014 7 0,107 304.500,0 473.602,8 12.500,0 56.308,1 174.174,2 -48.879,5 2015 8 0,113 304.500,0 473.602,8 12.500,0 57.434,3 174.174,2 -50.005,7 2016 9 0,118 304.500,0 473.602,8 12.500,0 58.583,0 174.174,2 -51.154,3 2017 10 0,124 304.500,0 473.602,8 12.500,0 59.754,6 174.174,2 -52.326,0 -473.199,8 2018 11 0,130 304.500,0 355.202,1 12.500,0 60.949,7 174.174,2 -171.921,8 2019 12 0,137 304.500,0 236.801,4 12.500,0 62.168,7 174.174,2 -291.541,5 2020 13 0,144 304.500,0 226.806,0 12.500,0 63.412,1 174.174,2 -302.780,2 2021 14 0,151 304.500,0 238.146,3 12.500,0 64.680,3 174.174,2 -292.708,2 2022 15 0,158 304.500,0 250.053,6 12.500,0 65.973,9 174.174,2 -282.094,5 2023 16 0,166 304.500,0 262.556,3 12.500,0 67.293,4 174.174,2 -270.911,3 2024 17 0,175 304.500,0 275.684,1 12.500,0 68.639,3 174.174,2 -259.129,3 2025 18 0,183 304.500,0 289.468,3 12.500,0 70.012,1 174.174,2 -246.717,9 2026 19 0,193 304.500,0 303.941,8 12.500,0 71.412,3 174.174,2 -233.644,7 2027 20 0,202 304.500,0 319.138,9 12.500,0 72.840,6 174.174,2 -219.875,9 -3.044.525,1 2028 21 0,212 304.500,0 335.095,8 12.500,0 74.297,4 174.174,2 -205.375,8 2029 22 0,223 304.500,0 351.850,6 12.500,0 75.783,3 174.174,2 -190.106,9 , 2030 23 0,234 304.500,0 369.443,1 12.500,0 77.299,0 174.174,2 -174.030,0 2031 24 0,246 304.500,0 387.915,3 12.500,0 78.845,0 174.174,2 -157.103,9 2032 25 0,258 304.500,0 407.311,0 12.500,0 80.421,9 174.174,2 -139.285,0 2033 26 0,271 304.500,0 427.676,6 12.500,0 82.030,3 174.174,2 -120.527,9 2034 27 0,284 304.500,0 449.060,4 12.500,0 83.670,9 174.174,2 -100.784,7 2035 28 0,299 304.500,0 471.513,4 12.500,0 85.344,3 174.174,2 -80.005,1 2036 29 0,314 304.500,0 495.089,1 12.500,0 87.051,2 174.174,2 -58.136,3 2037 30 0,329 304.500,0 519.843,6 12.500,0 88.792,2 174.174,2 -35.122,9 2038 31 0,346 304.500,0 545.835,7 12.500,0 90.568,1 174.174,2 -10.906,5 2039 32 0,363 304.500,0 573.127,5 12.500,0 92.379,4 174.174,2 14.573,9 2040 33 0,381 304.500,0 601.783,9 12.500,0 94.227,0 174.174,2 41.382,7 2041 33,33 0,400 91.350,0 189.561,9 3.750,0 28.833,5 52.252,3 20.876,2 Sum 10.139.850,0 13.618.934,9 2.334.412,0 5.800.000,0 -4.239.077,1 Fixed System (0°) - German Tariff
Investment costs 3.950.000,0 €/kWh 0,3549 inflation 2,00% Internal interests 10,50% MWh/a 1.035.507,0 duration 20 annual interests 207.375,0 t/CO2 25 depreciation 118.618,6 t CO2 500
year €/kWh interests/a income/a CO2 costs/a depreciation Diff. 2008 1 0,080 207.375,0 367.501,4 12.500,0 50.000,0 118.618,6 4.007,8 2009 2 0,084 207.375,0 367.501,4 12.500,0 51.000,0 118.618,6 3.007,8 2010 3 0,088 207.375,0 367.501,4 12.500,0 52.020,0 118.618,6 1.987,8 2011 4 0,093 207.375,0 367.501,4 12.500,0 53.060,4 118.618,6 947,4 2012 5 0,097 207.375,0 367.501,4 12.500,0 54.121,6 118.618,6 -113,8 2013 6 0,102 207.375,0 367.501,4 12.500,0 55.204,0 118.618,6 -1.196,2 2014 7 0,107 207.375,0 367.501,4 12.500,0 56.308,1 118.618,6 -2.300,3 2015 8 0,113 207.375,0 367.501,4 12.500,0 57.434,3 118.618,6 -3.426,5 2016 9 0,118 207.375,0 367.501,4 12.500,0 58.583,0 118.618,6 -4.575,2 2017 10 0,124 207.375,0 367.501,4 12.500,0 59.754,6 118.618,6 -5.746,8 -7.407,9 2018 11 0,130 207.375,0 367.501,4 12.500,0 60.949,7 118.618,6 -6.941,9 2019 12 0,137 207.375,0 367.501,4 12.500,0 62.168,7 118.618,6 -8.160,9 2020 13 0,144 207.375,0 367.501,4 12.500,0 63.412,1 118.618,6 -9.404,3 2021 14 0,151 207.375,0 367.501,4 12.500,0 64.680,3 118.618,6 -10.672,5 2022 15 0,158 207.375,0 367.501,4 12.500,0 65.973,9 118.618,6 -11.966,1 2023 16 0,166 207.375,0 367.501,4 12.500,0 67.293,4 118.618,6 -13.285,6 2024 17 0,175 207.375,0 367.501,4 12.500,0 68.639,3 118.618,6 -14.631,5 2025 18 0,183 207.375,0 367.501,4 12.500,0 70.012,1 118.618,6 -16.004,3 2026 19 0,193 207.375,0 367.501,4 12.500,0 71.412,3 118.618,6 -17.404,5 2027 20 0,202 207.375,0 367.501,4 12.500,0 72.840,6 118.618,6 -18.832,7 -134.712,2 2028 21 0,212 207.375,0 219.800,7 12.500,0 74.297,4 118.618,6 -167.990,3 2029 22 0,223 207.375,0 230.790,7 12.500,0 75.783,3 118.618,6 -158.486,2 2030 23 0,234 207.375,0 242.330,2 12.500,0 77.299,0 118.618,6 -148.462,4 2031 24 0,246 207.375,0 254.446,7 12.500,0 78.845,0 118.618,6 -137.891,8 2032 25 0,258 207.375,0 267.169,1 12.500,0 80.421,9 118.618,6 -126.746,4 2033 26 0,271 207.375,0 280.527,5 12.500,0 82.030,3 118.618,6 -114.996,4 2034 27 0,284 207.375,0 294.553,9 12.500,0 83.670,9 118.618,6 -102.610,6 2035 28 0,299 207.375,0 309.281,6 12.500,0 85.344,3 118.618,6 -89.556,3 2036 29 0,314 207.375,0 324.745,7 12.500,0 87.051,2 118.618,6 -75.799,1 2037 30 0,329 207.375,0 340.983,0 12.500,0 88.792,2 118.618,6 -61.302,9 2038 31 0,346 207.375,0 358.032,1 12.500,0 90.568,1 118.618,6 -46.029,6 2039 32 0,363 207.375,0 375.933,7 12.500,0 92.379,4 118.618,6 -29.939,3 2040 33 0,381 207.375,0 394.730,4 12.500,0 94.227,0 118.618,6 -12.990,2 2041 33,33 0,400 62.212,5 124.340,1 3.750,0 28.833,5 35.585,6 1.458,5 Sum 6.905.587,5 11.367.694,2 2.334.412,0 3.950.000,0 -1.406.055,3 Fixed System (37°) - German Tariff
Investment costs 4.100.000,0 €/kWh 0,3549 inflation 2,00% Internal interests 10,50% MWh/a 1.222.710,0 duration 20 annual interests 215.250,0 t/CO2 25 depreciation 123.123,1 t CO2 500
year €/kWh interests/a income/a CO2 costs/a depreciation Diff. 2008 1 0,080 215.250,0 433.939,8 12.500,0 50.000,0 123.123,1 58.066,7 2009 2 0,084 215.250,0 433.939,8 12.500,0 51.000,0 123.123,1 57.066,7 2010 3 0,088 215.250,0 433.939,8 12.500,0 52.020,0 123.123,1 56.046,7 2011 4 0,093 215.250,0 433.939,8 12.500,0 53.060,4 123.123,1 55.006,3 2012 5 0,097 215.250,0 433.939,8 12.500,0 54.121,6 123.123,1 53.945,0 2013 6 0,102 215.250,0 433.939,8 12.500,0 55.204,0 123.123,1 52.862,6 2014 7 0,107 215.250,0 433.939,8 12.500,0 56.308,1 123.123,1 51.758,5 2015 8 0,113 215.250,0 433.939,8 12.500,0 57.434,3 123.123,1 50.632,4 2016 9 0,118 215.250,0 433.939,8 12.500,0 58.583,0 123.123,1 49.483,7 2017 10 0,124 215.250,0 433.939,8 12.500,0 59.754,6 123.123,1 48.312,0 533.180,5 2018 11 0,130 215.250,0 433.939,8 12.500,0 60.949,7 123.123,1 47.116,9 2019 12 0,137 215.250,0 433.939,8 12.500,0 62.168,7 123.123,1 45.897,9 2020 13 0,144 215.250,0 433.939,8 12.500,0 63.412,1 123.123,1 44.654,6 2021 14 0,151 215.250,0 433.939,8 12.500,0 64.680,3 123.123,1 43.386,3 2022 15 0,158 215.250,0 433.939,8 12.500,0 65.973,9 123.123,1 42.092,7 2023 16 0,166 215.250,0 433.939,8 12.500,0 67.293,4 123.123,1 40.773,2 2024 17 0,175 215.250,0 433.939,8 12.500,0 68.639,3 123.123,1 39.427,4 2025 18 0,183 215.250,0 433.939,8 12.500,0 70.012,1 123.123,1 38.054,6 2026 19 0,193 215.250,0 433.939,8 12.500,0 71.412,3 123.123,1 36.654,3 2027 20 0,202 215.250,0 433.939,8 12.500,0 72.840,6 123.123,1 35.226,1 946.464,6 2028 21 0,212 215.250,0 259.537,1 12.500,0 74.297,4 123.123,1 -140.633,4 2029 22 0,223 215.250,0 272.513,9 12.500,0 75.783,3 123.123,1 -129.142,5 2030 23 0,234 215.250,0 286.139,6 12.500,0 77.299,0 123.123,1 -117.032,5 2031 24 0,246 215.250,0 300.446,6 12.500,0 78.845,0 123.123,1 -104.271,5 2032 25 0,258 215.250,0 315.469,0 12.500,0 80.421,9 123.123,1 -90.826,0 2033 26 0,271 215.250,0 331.242,4 12.500,0 82.030,3 123.123,1 -76.661,0 2034 27 0,284 215.250,0 347.804,5 12.500,0 83.670,9 123.123,1 -61.739,5 2035 28 0,299 215.250,0 365.194,8 12.500,0 85.344,3 123.123,1 -46.022,7 2036 29 0,314 215.250,0 383.454,5 12.500,0 87.051,2 123.123,1 -29.469,8 2037 30 0,329 215.250,0 402.627,2 12.500,0 88.792,2 123.123,1 -12.038,1 2038 31 0,346 215.250,0 422.758,6 12.500,0 90.568,1 123.123,1 6.317,4 2039 32 0,363 215.250,0 443.896,5 12.500,0 92.379,4 123.123,1 25.643,9 2040 33 0,381 215.250,0 466.091,3 12.500,0 94.227,0 123.123,1 45.991,2 2041 33,33 0,400 64.575,0 146.818,8 3.750,0 28.833,5 36.936,9 20.223,4 Sum 7.167.825,0 13.422.790,4 2.334.412,0 4.100.000,0 236.803,4 1-Axis System - German Tariff
Investment costs 4.300.000,0 €/kWh 0,3549 inflation 2,00% Internal interests 10,50% MWh/a 1.496.551,0 duration 20 annual interests 225.750,0 t/CO2 25 depreciation 129.129,1 t CO2 500
year €/kWh interests/a income/a CO2 costs/a depreciation Diff. 2008 1 0,080 225.750,0 531.125,9 12.500,0 50.000,0 129.129,1 138.746,8 2009 2 0,084 225.750,0 531.125,9 12.500,0 51.000,0 129.129,1 137.746,8 2010 3 0,088 225.750,0 531.125,9 12.500,0 52.020,0 129.129,1 136.726,8 2011 4 0,093 225.750,0 531.125,9 12.500,0 53.060,4 129.129,1 135.686,4 2012 5 0,097 225.750,0 531.125,9 12.500,0 54.121,6 129.129,1 134.625,2 2013 6 0,102 225.750,0 531.125,9 12.500,0 55.204,0 129.129,1 133.542,8 2014 7 0,107 225.750,0 531.125,9 12.500,0 56.308,1 129.129,1 132.438,7 2015 8 0,113 225.750,0 531.125,9 12.500,0 57.434,3 129.129,1 131.312,5 2016 9 0,118 225.750,0 531.125,9 12.500,0 58.583,0 129.129,1 130.163,9 2017 10 0,124 225.750,0 531.125,9 12.500,0 59.754,6 129.129,1 128.992,2 1.339.982,2 2018 11 0,130 225.750,0 531.125,9 12.500,0 60.949,7 129.129,1 127.797,1 2019 12 0,137 225.750,0 531.125,9 12.500,0 62.168,7 129.129,1 126.578,1 2020 13 0,144 225.750,0 531.125,9 12.500,0 63.412,1 129.129,1 125.334,7 2021 14 0,151 225.750,0 531.125,9 12.500,0 64.680,3 129.129,1 124.066,5 2022 15 0,158 225.750,0 531.125,9 12.500,0 65.973,9 129.129,1 122.772,9 2023 16 0,166 225.750,0 531.125,9 12.500,0 67.293,4 129.129,1 121.453,4 2024 17 0,175 225.750,0 531.125,9 12.500,0 68.639,3 129.129,1 120.107,5 2025 18 0,183 225.750,0 531.125,9 12.500,0 70.012,1 129.129,1 118.734,7 2026 19 0,193 225.750,0 531.125,9 12.500,0 71.412,3 129.129,1 117.334,5 2027 20 0,202 225.750,0 531.125,9 12.500,0 72.840,6 129.129,1 115.906,3 2.560.067,9 2028 21 0,212 225.750,0 317.663,6 12.500,0 74.297,4 129.129,1 -99.012,9 2029 22 0,223 225.750,0 333.546,8 12.500,0 75.783,3 129.129,1 -84.615,6 2030 23 0,234 225.750,0 350.224,1 12.500,0 77.299,0 129.129,1 -69.454,0 2031 24 0,246 225.750,0 367.735,4 12.500,0 78.845,0 129.129,1 -53.488,7 2032 25 0,258 225.750,0 386.122,1 12.500,0 80.421,9 129.129,1 -36.678,9 2033 26 0,271 225.750,0 405.428,2 12.500,0 82.030,3 129.129,1 -18.981,2 2034 27 0,284 225.750,0 425.699,6 12.500,0 83.670,9 129.129,1 -350,4 2035 28 0,299 225.750,0 446.984,6 12.500,0 85.344,3 129.129,1 19.261,2 2036 29 0,314 225.750,0 469.333,9 12.500,0 87.051,2 129.129,1 39.903,5 2037 30 0,329 225.750,0 492.800,5 12.500,0 88.792,2 129.129,1 61.629,2 2038 31 0,346 225.750,0 517.440,6 12.500,0 90.568,1 129.129,1 84.493,4 2039 32 0,363 225.750,0 543.312,6 12.500,0 92.379,4 129.129,1 108.554,0 2040 33 0,381 225.750,0 570.478,2 12.500,0 94.227,0 129.129,1 133.872,1 2041 33,33 0,400 67.725,0 179.700,6 3.750,0 28.833,5 38.738,7 48.153,4 Sum 7.517.475,0 16.428.990,0 2.334.412,0 4.300.000,0 2.693.353,0 2-Axis System - German Tariff
Investment costs 5.800.000,0 €/kWh 0,3549 inflation 2,00% Internal interests 10,50% MWh/a 1.578.676,0 duration 20 annual interests 304.500,0 t/CO2 25 depreciation 174.174,2 t CO2 500
year €/kWh interests/a income/a CO2 costs/a depreciation Diff. 2008 1 0,080 304.500,0 560.272,1 12.500,0 50.000,0 174.174,2 44.097,9 2009 2 0,084 304.500,0 560.272,1 12.500,0 51.000,0 174.174,2 43.097,9 2010 3 0,088 304.500,0 560.272,1 12.500,0 52.020,0 174.174,2 42.077,9 2011 4 0,093 304.500,0 560.272,1 12.500,0 53.060,4 174.174,2 41.037,5 2012 5 0,097 304.500,0 560.272,1 12.500,0 54.121,6 174.174,2 39.976,3 2013 6 0,102 304.500,0 560.272,1 12.500,0 55.204,0 174.174,2 38.893,9 2014 7 0,107 304.500,0 560.272,1 12.500,0 56.308,1 174.174,2 37.789,8 2015 8 0,113 304.500,0 560.272,1 12.500,0 57.434,3 174.174,2 36.663,7 2016 9 0,118 304.500,0 560.272,1 12.500,0 58.583,0 174.174,2 35.515,0 2017 10 0,124 304.500,0 560.272,1 12.500,0 59.754,6 174.174,2 34.343,3 393.493,3 2018 11 0,130 304.500,0 560.272,1 12.500,0 60.949,7 174.174,2 33.148,2 2019 12 0,137 304.500,0 560.272,1 12.500,0 62.168,7 174.174,2 31.929,2 2020 13 0,144 304.500,0 560.272,1 12.500,0 63.412,1 174.174,2 30.685,8 2021 14 0,151 304.500,0 560.272,1 12.500,0 64.680,3 174.174,2 29.417,6 2022 15 0,158 304.500,0 560.272,1 12.500,0 65.973,9 174.174,2 28.124,0 2023 16 0,166 304.500,0 560.272,1 12.500,0 67.293,4 174.174,2 26.804,5 2024 17 0,175 304.500,0 560.272,1 12.500,0 68.639,3 174.174,2 25.458,7 2025 18 0,183 304.500,0 560.272,1 12.500,0 70.012,1 174.174,2 24.085,9 2026 19 0,193 304.500,0 560.272,1 12.500,0 71.412,3 174.174,2 22.685,6 2027 20 0,202 304.500,0 560.272,1 12.500,0 72.840,6 174.174,2 21.257,4 667.090,3 2028 21 0,212 304.500,0 335.095,8 12.500,0 74.297,4 174.174,2 -205.375,8 2029 22 0,223 304.500,0 351.850,6 12.500,0 75.783,3 174.174,2 -190.106,9 2030 23 0,234 304.500,0 369.443,1 12.500,0 77.299,0 174.174,2 -174.030,0 2031 24 0,246 304.500,0 387.915,3 12.500,0 78.845,0 174.174,2 -157.103,9 2032 25 0,258 304.500,0 407.311,0 12.500,0 80.421,9 174.174,2 -139.285,0 2033 26 0,271 304.500,0 427.676,6 12.500,0 82.030,3 174.174,2 -120.527,9 2034 27 0,284 304.500,0 449.060,4 12.500,0 83.670,9 174.174,2 -100.784,7 2035 28 0,299 304.500,0 471.513,4 12.500,0 85.344,3 174.174,2 -80.005,1 2036 29 0,314 304.500,0 495.089,1 12.500,0 87.051,2 174.174,2 -58.136,3 2037 30 0,329 304.500,0 519.843,6 12.500,0 88.792,2 174.174,2 -35.122,9 2038 31 0,346 304.500,0 545.835,7 12.500,0 90.568,1 174.174,2 -10.906,5 2039 32 0,363 304.500,0 573.127,5 12.500,0 92.379,4 174.174,2 14.573,9 2040 33 0,381 304.500,0 601.783,9 12.500,0 94.227,0 174.174,2 41.382,7 2041 33,33 0,400 91.350,0 189.561,9 3.750,0 28.833,5 52.252,3 20.876,2 Sum 10.139.850,0 17.330.550,2 2.334.412,0 5.800.000,0 -527.461,8 Fixed System (0°) - No Interests & No Feed-In
Investment costs 3.950.000,0 €/kWh 0,080 inflation 2,00% Internal interests 10,50% MWh/a 1.035.507,0 annual interests 207.375,0 t/CO2 25 depreciation 118.618,6 t CO2 500
year €/kWh interests/a income/a CO2 costs/a depreciation Diff. 2008 1 0,080 0,0 82.840,6 12.500,0 50.000,0 118.618,6 -73.278,1 2009 2 0,084 0,0 86.982,6 12.500,0 51.000,0 118.618,6 -70.136,0 2010 3 0,088 0,0 91.331,7 12.500,0 52.020,0 118.618,6 -66.806,9 2011 4 0,093 0,0 95.898,3 12.500,0 53.060,4 118.618,6 -63.280,7 2012 5 0,097 0,0 100.693,2 12.500,0 54.121,6 118.618,6 -59.547,0 2013 6 0,102 0,0 105.727,9 12.500,0 55.204,0 118.618,6 -55.594,8 2014 7 0,107 0,0 111.014,3 12.500,0 56.308,1 118.618,6 -51.412,5 2015 8 0,113 0,0 116.565,0 12.500,0 57.434,3 118.618,6 -46.987,9 2016 9 0,118 0,0 122.393,2 12.500,0 58.583,0 118.618,6 -42.308,4 2017 10 0,124 0,0 128.512,9 12.500,0 59.754,6 118.618,6 -37.360,3 -566.712,6 2018 11 0,130 0,0 134.938,5 12.500,0 60.949,7 118.618,6 -32.129,8 2019 12 0,137 0,0 141.685,5 12.500,0 62.168,7 118.618,6 -26.601,9 2020 13 0,144 0,0 148.769,7 12.500,0 63.412,1 118.618,6 -20.761,0 2021 14 0,151 0,0 156.208,2 12.500,0 64.680,3 118.618,6 -14.590,7 2022 15 0,158 0,0 164.018,6 12.500,0 65.973,9 118.618,6 -8.073,9 2023 16 0,166 0,0 172.219,6 12.500,0 67.293,4 118.618,6 -1.192,5 2024 17 0,175 0,0 180.830,6 12.500,0 68.639,3 118.618,6 6.072,6 2025 18 0,183 0,0 189.872,1 12.500,0 70.012,1 118.618,6 13.741,4 2026 19 0,193 0,0 199.365,7 12.500,0 71.412,3 118.618,6 21.834,8 2027 20 0,202 0,0 209.334,0 12.500,0 72.840,6 118.618,6 30.374,8 -598.038,7 2028 21 0,212 0,0 219.800,7 12.500,0 74.297,4 118.618,6 39.384,7 2029 22 0,223 0,0 230.790,7 12.500,0 75.783,3 118.618,6 48.888,8 2030 23 0,234 0,0 242.330,2 12.500,0 77.299,0 118.618,6 58.912,6 2031 24 0,246 0,0 254.446,7 12.500,0 78.845,0 118.618,6 69.483,2 2032 25 0,258 0,0 267.169,1 12.500,0 80.421,9 118.618,6 80.628,6 2033 26 0,271 0,0 280.527,5 12.500,0 82.030,3 118.618,6 92.378,6 2034 27 0,284 0,0 294.553,9 12.500,0 83.670,9 118.618,6 104.764,4 2035 28 0,299 0,0 309.281,6 12.500,0 85.344,3 118.618,6 117.818,7 2036 29 0,314 0,0 324.745,7 12.500,0 87.051,2 118.618,6 131.575,9 2037 30 0,329 0,0 340.983,0 12.500,0 88.792,2 118.618,6 146.072,1 2038 31 0,346 0,0 358.032,1 12.500,0 90.568,1 118.618,6 161.345,4 2039 32 0,363 0,0 375.933,7 12.500,0 92.379,4 118.618,6 177.435,7 2040 33 0,381 0,0 394.730,4 12.500,0 94.227,0 118.618,6 194.384,8 2041 33,33 0,400 0,0 124.340,1 3.750,0 28.833,5 35.585,6 63.671,0 Sum 0,0 6.756.867,7 2.334.412,0 3.950.000,0 888.705,7 Fixed System (37°) - No Interests & No Feed-In
Investment costs 4.100.000,0 €/kWh 0,080 inflation 2,00% Internal interests 10,50% MWh/a 1.222.710,0 annual interests 215.250,0 t/CO2 25 depreciation 123.123,1 t CO2 500
year €/kWh interests/a income/a CO2 costs/a depreciation Diff. 2008 1 0,080 0,0 97.816,8 12.500,0 50.000,0 123.123,1 -62.806,3 2009 2 0,084 0,0 102.707,6 12.500,0 51.000,0 123.123,1 -58.915,5 2010 3 0,088 0,0 107.843,0 12.500,0 52.020,0 123.123,1 -54.800,1 2011 4 0,093 0,0 113.235,2 12.500,0 53.060,4 123.123,1 -50.448,4 2012 5 0,097 0,0 118.896,9 12.500,0 54.121,6 123.123,1 -45.847,8 2013 6 0,102 0,0 124.841,8 12.500,0 55.204,0 123.123,1 -40.985,4 2014 7 0,107 0,0 131.083,9 12.500,0 56.308,1 123.123,1 -35.847,4 2015 8 0,113 0,0 137.638,1 12.500,0 57.434,3 123.123,1 -30.419,3 2016 9 0,118 0,0 144.520,0 12.500,0 58.583,0 123.123,1 -24.686,1 2017 10 0,124 0,0 151.746,0 12.500,0 59.754,6 123.123,1 -18.631,8 -423.388,1 2018 11 0,130 0,0 159.333,3 12.500,0 60.949,7 123.123,1 -12.239,6 2019 12 0,137 0,0 167.299,9 12.500,0 62.168,7 123.123,1 -5.491,9 2020 13 0,144 0,0 175.664,9 12.500,0 63.412,1 123.123,1 1.629,7 2021 14 0,151 0,0 184.448,2 12.500,0 64.680,3 123.123,1 9.144,7 2022 15 0,158 0,0 193.670,6 12.500,0 65.973,9 123.123,1 17.073,5 2023 16 0,166 0,0 203.354,1 12.500,0 67.293,4 123.123,1 25.437,6 2024 17 0,175 0,0 213.521,8 12.500,0 68.639,3 123.123,1 34.259,4 2025 18 0,183 0,0 224.197,9 12.500,0 70.012,1 123.123,1 43.562,7 2026 19 0,193 0,0 235.407,8 12.500,0 71.412,3 123.123,1 53.372,4 2027 20 0,202 0,0 247.178,2 12.500,0 72.840,6 123.123,1 63.714,5 -192.925,1 2028 21 0,212 0,0 259.537,1 12.500,0 74.297,4 123.123,1 74.616,6 2029 22 0,223 0,0 272.513,9 12.500,0 75.783,3 123.123,1 86.107,5 2030 23 0,234 0,0 286.139,6 12.500,0 77.299,0 123.123,1 98.217,5 2031 24 0,246 0,0 300.446,6 12.500,0 78.845,0 123.123,1 110.978,5 2032 25 0,258 0,0 315.469,0 12.500,0 80.421,9 123.123,1 124.424,0 2033 26 0,271 0,0 331.242,4 12.500,0 82.030,3 123.123,1 138.589,0 2034 27 0,284 0,0 347.804,5 12.500,0 83.670,9 123.123,1 153.510,5 2035 28 0,299 0,0 365.194,8 12.500,0 85.344,3 123.123,1 169.227,3 2036 29 0,314 0,0 383.454,5 12.500,0 87.051,2 123.123,1 185.780,2 2037 30 0,329 0,0 402.627,2 12.500,0 88.792,2 123.123,1 203.211,9 2038 31 0,346 0,0 422.758,6 12.500,0 90.568,1 123.123,1 221.567,4 2039 32 0,363 0,0 443.896,5 12.500,0 92.379,4 123.123,1 240.893,9 2040 33 0,381 0,0 466.091,3 12.500,0 94.227,0 123.123,1 261.241,2 2041 33,33 0,400 0,0 146.818,8 3.750,0 28.833,5 36.936,9 84.798,4 Sum 0,0 7.978.400,6 2.334.412,0 4.100.000,0 1.960.238,6 1-Axis Systems - No Interests & No Feed-In
Investment costs 4.300.000,0 €/kWh 0,080 inflation 2,00% Internal interests 10,50% MWh/a 1.496.551,0 annual interests 225.750,0 t/CO2 25 depreciation 129.129,1 t CO2 500
year €/kWh interests/a income/a CO2 costs/a depreciation Diff. 2008 1 0,080 0,0 119.724,1 12.500,0 50.000,0 129.129,1 -46.905,0 2009 2 0,084 0,0 125.710,3 12.500,0 51.000,0 129.129,1 -41.918,8 2010 3 0,088 0,0 131.995,8 12.500,0 52.020,0 129.129,1 -36.653,3 2011 4 0,093 0,0 138.595,6 12.500,0 53.060,4 129.129,1 -31.093,9 2012 5 0,097 0,0 145.525,4 12.500,0 54.121,6 129.129,1 -25.225,4 2013 6 0,102 0,0 152.801,6 12.500,0 55.204,0 129.129,1 -19.031,5 2014 7 0,107 0,0 160.441,7 12.500,0 56.308,1 129.129,1 -12.495,5 2015 8 0,113 0,0 168.463,8 12.500,0 57.434,3 129.129,1 -5.599,6 2016 9 0,118 0,0 176.887,0 12.500,0 58.583,0 129.129,1 1.674,9 2017 10 0,124 0,0 185.731,3 12.500,0 59.754,6 129.129,1 9.347,6 -207.900,7 2018 11 0,130 0,0 195.017,9 12.500,0 60.949,7 129.129,1 17.439,1 2019 12 0,137 0,0 204.768,8 12.500,0 62.168,7 129.129,1 25.971,0 2020 13 0,144 0,0 215.007,2 12.500,0 63.412,1 129.129,1 34.966,0 2021 14 0,151 0,0 225.757,6 12.500,0 64.680,3 129.129,1 44.448,1 2022 15 0,158 0,0 237.045,5 12.500,0 65.973,9 129.129,1 54.442,4 2023 16 0,166 0,0 248.897,8 12.500,0 67.293,4 129.129,1 64.975,2 2024 17 0,175 0,0 261.342,7 12.500,0 68.639,3 129.129,1 76.074,2 2025 18 0,183 0,0 274.409,8 12.500,0 70.012,1 129.129,1 87.768,6 2026 19 0,193 0,0 288.130,3 12.500,0 71.412,3 129.129,1 100.088,8 2027 20 0,202 0,0 302.536,8 12.500,0 72.840,6 129.129,1 113.067,1 411.339,9 2028 21 0,212 0,0 317.663,6 12.500,0 74.297,4 129.129,1 126.737,1 2029 22 0,223 0,0 333.546,8 12.500,0 75.783,3 129.129,1 141.134,4 2030 23 0,234 0,0 350.224,1 12.500,0 77.299,0 129.129,1 156.296,0 2031 24 0,246 0,0 367.735,4 12.500,0 78.845,0 129.129,1 172.261,3 2032 25 0,258 0,0 386.122,1 12.500,0 80.421,9 129.129,1 189.071,1 2033 26 0,271 0,0 405.428,2 12.500,0 82.030,3 129.129,1 206.768,8 2034 27 0,284 0,0 425.699,6 12.500,0 83.670,9 129.129,1 225.399,6 2035 28 0,299 0,0 446.984,6 12.500,0 85.344,3 129.129,1 245.011,2 2036 29 0,314 0,0 469.333,9 12.500,0 87.051,2 129.129,1 265.653,5 2037 30 0,329 0,0 492.800,5 12.500,0 88.792,2 129.129,1 287.379,2 2038 31 0,346 0,0 517.440,6 12.500,0 90.568,1 129.129,1 310.243,4 2039 32 0,363 0,0 543.312,6 12.500,0 92.379,4 129.129,1 334.304,0 2040 33 0,381 0,0 570.478,2 12.500,0 94.227,0 129.129,1 359.622,1 2041 33,33 0,400 0,0 179.700,6 3.750,0 28.833,5 38.738,7 115.878,4 Sum 0,0 9.765.262,0 2.334.412,0 4.300.000,0 3.547.100,0 2-Axis System - No Interests & No Feed-In
Investment costs 5.800.000,0 €/kWh 0,080 inflation 2,00% Internal interests 10,50% MWh/a 1.578.676,0 annual interests 304.500,0 t/CO2 25 depreciation 174.174,2 t CO2 500
year €/kWh interests/a income/a CO2 costs/a depreciation Diff. 2008 1 0,080 0,0 126.294,1 12.500,0 50.000,0 174.174,2 -85.380,1 2009 2 0,084 0,0 132.608,8 12.500,0 51.000,0 174.174,2 -80.065,4 2010 3 0,088 0,0 139.239,2 12.500,0 52.020,0 174.174,2 -74.455,0 2011 4 0,093 0,0 146.201,2 12.500,0 53.060,4 174.174,2 -68.533,4 2012 5 0,097 0,0 153.511,2 12.500,0 54.121,6 174.174,2 -62.284,5 2013 6 0,102 0,0 161.186,8 12.500,0 55.204,0 174.174,2 -55.691,4 2014 7 0,107 0,0 169.246,1 12.500,0 56.308,1 174.174,2 -48.736,1 2015 8 0,113 0,0 177.708,5 12.500,0 57.434,3 174.174,2 -41.400,0 2016 9 0,118 0,0 186.593,9 12.500,0 58.583,0 174.174,2 -33.663,3 2017 10 0,124 0,0 195.923,6 12.500,0 59.754,6 174.174,2 -25.505,2 -575.714,4 2018 11 0,130 0,0 205.719,7 12.500,0 60.949,7 174.174,2 -16.904,1 2019 12 0,137 0,0 216.005,7 12.500,0 62.168,7 174.174,2 -7.837,2 2020 13 0,144 0,0 226.806,0 12.500,0 63.412,1 174.174,2 1.719,8 2021 14 0,151 0,0 238.146,3 12.500,0 64.680,3 174.174,2 11.791,8 2022 15 0,158 0,0 250.053,6 12.500,0 65.973,9 174.174,2 22.405,5 2023 16 0,166 0,0 262.556,3 12.500,0 67.293,4 174.174,2 33.588,7 2024 17 0,175 0,0 275.684,1 12.500,0 68.639,3 174.174,2 45.370,7 2025 18 0,183 0,0 289.468,3 12.500,0 70.012,1 174.174,2 57.782,1 2026 19 0,193 0,0 303.941,8 12.500,0 71.412,3 174.174,2 70.855,3 2027 20 0,202 0,0 319.138,9 12.500,0 72.840,6 174.174,2 84.624,1 -272.317,7 2028 21 0,212 0,0 335.095,8 12.500,0 74.297,4 174.174,2 99.124,2 2029 22 0,223 0,0 351.850,6 12.500,0 75.783,3 174.174,2 114.393,1 2030 23 0,234 0,0 369.443,1 12.500,0 77.299,0 174.174,2 130.470,0 2031 24 0,246 0,0 387.915,3 12.500,0 78.845,0 174.174,2 147.396,1 2032 25 0,258 0,0 407.311,0 12.500,0 80.421,9 174.174,2 165.215,0 2033 26 0,271 0,0 427.676,6 12.500,0 82.030,3 174.174,2 183.972,1 2034 27 0,284 0,0 449.060,4 12.500,0 83.670,9 174.174,2 203.715,3 2035 28 0,299 0,0 471.513,4 12.500,0 85.344,3 174.174,2 224.494,9 2036 29 0,314 0,0 495.089,1 12.500,0 87.051,2 174.174,2 246.363,7 2037 30 0,329 0,0 519.843,6 12.500,0 88.792,2 174.174,2 269.377,1 2038 31 0,346 0,0 545.835,7 12.500,0 90.568,1 174.174,2 293.593,5 2039 32 0,363 0,0 573.127,5 12.500,0 92.379,4 174.174,2 319.073,9 2040 33 0,381 0,0 601.783,9 12.500,0 94.227,0 174.174,2 345.882,7 2041 33,33 0,400 0,0 189.561,9 3.750,0 28.833,5 52.252,3 112.226,2 Sum 0,0 10.301.142,2 2.334.412,0 5.800.000,0 2.582.980,2 Curriculum vitae Dr. Arno Recheis
Date/Place of Birth: 24.11.1971 in Schwarzach/Salzburg Address: Rinner Strasse 519, 6073 Sistrans E-Mail: [email protected] Mobile: +43/664 8247355 Nationality: Austria
Education 1982-1990: School: Akademisches Gymnasium Salzburg 1991-1999: Study of Earth Science at the University of Innsbruck/Austria, Special subject: Petrology and Mineralogy Feb. 1999: Graduation: Master of Science (Mag. rer. nat.) 1999-2004: Doctorate Theses, University of Innsbruck, Institute of Mineralogy and Petrography: „Schloss Tirol und seine Marmorportale – mineralogische und materialkundliche Untersuchungen“ Nov. 2004: Graduation: Ph.D. (Dr. rer. nat.) 2006-2008: MSc Program, “Renewable Energies in Central and Eastern Europe”, TU Wien April 2008: Graduation: MSc
Employment History 1990-1997: Practical training at the “Salzburger Stadtwerke”, Abt. Gaswerke 1998-2001: Project assistant at the Institute of Mineralogy and Petrography Innsbruck. Lectureships. Specialization on the weathering of stones and on crystalline marbles. since 2001: Employee at D. Swarovski & Co, Wattens, Department of Research and Development. Treatment of natural gemstones (rubies, sapphires, emeralds). Supervision of the staffs in Thailand and Myanmar. In total about 8 month in these two countries. Development of new effects on glass