Saturday, May 26, 2012

Cost of solar power (25)

Today I’m going to analyse the GERO Solarpark in Saxony-Anhalt, near the city of Halle, approximately 200 km south-west of Berlin.

This installation is famous for the speed at which it was constructed.  From the Press Release:

“GERO-Solarpark lieferte schon nach sieben Wochen Bauzeit ersten Strom

Im Beisein von Sachsen-Anhalts Ministerpräsident Dr. Reiner Haseloff wurde heute in Amsdorf bei Halle das 28-Megawatt-Solarkraftwerk der GERO Solarpark GmbH feierlich eingeweiht.  Das Unternehmen ist ein Joint-Venture der GETEC green energy AG und des ROMONTA Unternehmensverbundes.  Obwohl diese 50-Millionen-Euro-Investition von den Plänen der Bundesregierung für vorgezogene Kürzungen der Solarförderung überschattet wurde, haben die beteiligten Firmen das Projekt ohne Verzögerung umgesetzt.  Deshalb konnte das moderne Kraftwerk bereits sieben Wochen nach Spatenstrich den ersten Sonnenstrom liefern.”

In English:

“GERO Solarpark delivers electricity after only seven weeks of construction

In the presence of the State President Dr Reiner Haseloff, the 28 MW solar power station GERO Solarpark GmbH was ceremonially inaugurated [on 10 May 2012].  The undertaking is a joint venture between GETEC green energy AG and the ROMONTA group.  Although this 50 million Euro investment was overshadowed by announcements of the Federal government’s early curtailment of solar subsidies, the participating firms carried out the project without any delays.  As a result, the modern power station was able to deliver the first solar electricity only seven weeks after start of construction.”

The press report goes on to point out that the plant will lead to the abatement of around 15,000 t CO2 per year. 

So I know the cost of the project (EUR 50 million), the peak power output (28 MW), and I could make an estimate of the annual output in MWhr in two ways – by the Capacity Factor or by the CO2 abated.

In response to my e-mail query, the manufacturer of the PV panels (Q-Cells) kindly provided the following additional precise information.

Peak DC output: 28.311 MW
Peak AC output: 25.120 MW
Ground area: 54.7 Ha
PV panel area: 203,807 m^2
Forecast annual output: 27,462 MWhr (averaged over 20 years, taking performance degradation into account)
Latitude: 51.453°N
Elevation: between 83 and 103 m above sea level

The multi-crystalline PV panels have nominal efficiency 13.8-15% and are fixed in this installation.

So, here is a case where the peak power output quoted in the press release is the DC output from the panels.  The actual AC output to the grid is around 11% less.  According to a post I made last year, the practice of giving DC output is common in Europe, although in the USA it is usual for the headline output figure to be the AC power to the grid.

The Capacity Factor for the GERO Solarpark is given by 27462/(25.120×365×24) = 0.125.  This is slightly better than the figure I calculated for the Lieberose installation, around 100 km south-east of Berlin.

The CO2 emissions intensity for the electricity grid in Saxony-Anhalt is given by 15000/27462 = 0.546 t CO2 per MWhr.

I now evaluate the LCOE using my customary assumptions

          there is no inflation,
          taxation implications are neglected,
          projects are funded entirely by debt,
          all projects have the same interest rate (8%) and payback period (25 years), which means that the required rate of capital return is 9.4%,
          all projects have the same annual maintenance and operating costs (2% of the total project cost), and
          government subsidies are neglected.

For further commentary on my LCOE methodology, see posts on Real cost of coal-fired power, LEC – the accountant’s view, Cost of solar power (10) and (especially) Yet more on LEC.  Note that I am now using annual maintenance costs of 2% rather than 3% as in posts during 2011.

The results are:

Cost per peak Watt              EUR 1.99/Wp
LCOE                                     EUR 207/MWhr

The components of the LCOE are:

Capital           {0.094 × EUR 50 × 10^6}/{27462 MWhr} = EUR 171/MWhr
O&M              {0.020 × EUR 50 × 10^6}/{27462 MWhr} = EUR 36/MWhr

By way of comparison, LCOE figures (in appropriate currency per MWhr) for all projects I’ve investigated are given below.  The number in brackets is the reference to the blog post, all of which appear in my index of posts with the title “Cost of solar power ([number])”:

(2)        AUD 183 (Nyngan, Australia, PV)
(3)        EUR 503 (Olmedilla, Spain, PV, 2008)
(3)        EUR 188 (Andasol I, Spain, trough, 2009)
(4)        AUD 236 (Greenough, Australia, PV)
(5)        AUD 397 (Solar Oasis, Australia, dish, 2014?)
(6)        USD 163 (Lazio, Italy, PV)
(7)        AUD 271 (Kogan Creek, Australia, CLFR pre-heat, 2012?)
(8)        USD 228 (New Mexico, CdTe thin film PV, 2011)
(9)        EUR 200 (Ibersol, Spain, trough, 2011)
(10)      USD 231 (Ivanpah, California, tower, 2013?)
(11)      CAD 409 (Stardale, Canada, PV, 2012)
(12)      USD 290 (Blythe, California, trough, 2012?)
(13)      AUD 285 (Solar Dawn, Australia, CLFR, 2013?)
(14)      AUD 263 (Moree Solar Farm, Australia, single-axis PV, 2013?)
(15)      EUR 350 (Lieberose, Germany, thin-film PV, 2009)
(16)      EUR 300 (Gemasolar, Spain, tower, 2011)
(17)      EUR 228 (Meuro, Germany, crystalline PV, 2012)
(18)      USD 204 (Crescent Dunes, USA, tower, 2013)
(19)      AUD 316 (University of Queensland, fixed PV, 2011)
(20)      EUR 241 (Ait Baha, Morocco, 1-axis solar thermal, 2012)
(21)      EUR 227 (Shivajinagar Sakri, India, PV, 2012)
(22)      JPY 36,076 (Kagoshima, Kyushu, Japan, PV, start July 2012)
(23)      AUD 249 (NEXTDC, Port Melbourne, PV, Q2 2012)
(24)      USD 319 (Maryland Solar Farm, thin-film PV, Q4 2012)
(25)      EUR 207 (GERO Solarpark, multi-crystalline PV, May 2012)

[Note: all estimates made using 2% annual maintenance cost.]

The GERO Solarpark LCOE (EUR 207/MWhr) can be compared with Lieberose (EUR 350/MWhr in 2009) and Meuro (EUR 228/MWhr, also in 2012).  The cost of PV power is falling quickly.

Fossil fuel power generators might feel a bit of a shiver if they contemplate what the cost structures will be 10-15 years hence, particularly if worldwide legislation to control CO2 emissions gets some teeth.

Thursday, May 24, 2012

New Matilda snapshot

A month ago, I was interviewed by Troy Henderson, a reporter for the New Matilda internet magazine.  He is working on a series of articles under the theme “A day in the life of …”, now entitled “Matilda snapshots”. In each article, he writes about the working day he has spent with his subject. 

The first article was about a coal miner and the second article about me as a solar energy inventor.  That’s quite a nice juxtaposition, although he does point out that the coal miner definitely accepted the science of climate change.

I think he gives a good snapshot of my working life.

Monday, May 21, 2012

Thermal storage simulations (more)

Two months ago, I made a blog post about computer simulation of air-blown thermal storage in a pebble bed.  I’ve made further progress with this work, as I’ll now describe.  I think there is one particularly interesting result.

To summarise the state of play two months ago …

For some years now, I have been working on a concept for passive solar thermal power generation.  This involves a thermodynamic cycle based on evaporative cooling of hot air at reduced pressure.  The energy to power the engine is provided by sunshine and collected passively under a transparent insulated canopy.

Details can be found at www.sunoba.com.au.  According to my estimates, the Levelised Cost of Electricity would be highly competitive with other forms of solar power.

The possibility of cheap thermal storage would greatly enhance the concept.  To accomplish this, simply blow hot air from the canopy through a pebble bed during the day.  At night, cool air is drawn through the bed by the engine, heating up in the process, with the reclaimed thermal energy converted into electrical power.

Pebble beds offer a cheap thermal storage medium with unlimited cycles.  Moreover, air is the heat transfer fluid and the working gas of the evaporation engine, so heat exchangers and condensers are not needed.  That helps to make the canopy-storage-engine concept competitive, even if the operating temperatures are not particularly high.

Two months ago, I’d developed suitable model equations and successfully developed computer code to simulate the charge/discharge process.  In these simulations, the airflow was always in an upwards direction (i.e. for both charging and discharging).

In the original model, air was an ideal gas with variable density but constant pressure and constant specific heat capacities.  I allowed heat to diffuse radially in the rock particles.  I included diffusion in the air but no inter-particle diffusivity.  I solved my equations by a finite volume procedure.

What has happened in the past two months?

Firstly, I explored the importance of radial heat diffusion in the individual rock particles, assumed to be spheres.  I introduced an option in which the temperature in the individual rock particles was uniform and governed by heat transfer between air and rock.  Whilst there is a difference between the results for instant radial heat transport and molecular radial diffusion, the difference is small even for large particles (50-100 mm diameter).  For rock particles around 20 mm diameter, the instantaneous diffusion model gives perfectly acceptable results and saves considerably on computer time.

Secondly, I introduced an alternative charge/discharge strategy.  To be precise, the new “2-way” strategy involves charging by downwards flow of hot air through the bed and discharging by upwards flow of cold air.  That is to be distinguished from the original “1-way” strategy in which the direction of air flow through the bed was upwards for both charging and discharging.

Thirdly, I explored the sensitivity of the baseline case to variations in depth of bed, mass flow-rate of air and particle diameter.

I’m currently writing up these results for publication, prior to embarking on another round of knocking on doors looking for investors.

Let me give a taste of the results.

The 2-way strategy is always superior to the 1-way strategy, sometimes dramatically so.  For best reclaim of stored heat, use the 2-way charge/discharge strategy with a deep bed comprised of small (10-20 mm diameter) particles.  The mass flow-rate of air should be modest.  Under these circumstances for my canopy-storage-energy system, nearly 95% of the heat provided at the inlet to the pebble bed can be reclaimed.

The figures below show results for a 3.5 m bed of 20 mm steatite particles, with air mass flow-rate of 0.225 kg/(m^2.s).  The bed is charged for 6 hours at charging temperature 140°C and then discharged for 6 hours with inlet temperature 20°C.  The bed is assumed to have sufficiently large diameter that thermal losses on the side walls can be neglected.  Results are shown for day 5 of the simulations for both 1-way and 2-way strategies.

For these results, the amount of energy reclaimed during discharge on day 5 is 75% for the 1-way strategy and 93% for the 2-way strategy.  I think the effectiveness of the 2-way strategy is particularly interesting.

Please get in touch if you’d like a conversation about air-blown thermal storage, for whatever purpose.


Fig 1:  Simulation of air-blown thermal storage in a bed of steatite rocks; 1-way charge/discharge strategy, results for day 5.  Inlet temperatures 140°C (charge, 0 to 6 hrs) and 20°C (discharge, 6-12 hrs), initial bed temperature 20°C, air mass flow-rate 0.225 kg/(m^2.s), particle diameter 0.020 m, bed height 3.5 m.  The air temperature is shown as a function of depth at each hour.


Fig 2:  Simulation of air-blown thermal storage in a bed of steatite rocks; 2-way charge/discharge strategy, results for day 5.  Inlet temperatures 140°C (charge, 0 to 6 hrs) and 20°C (discharge, 6-12 hrs), initial bed temperature 20°C, air mass flow-rate 0.225 kg/(m^2.s), particle diameter 0.020 m, bed height 3.5 m.  The air temperature is shown as a function of depth at each hour.

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Graduation speech (La Trobe University)

Although I have been a solar energy inventor since 2004, I occasionally receive invitations that result from my prior working life as an applied mathematician.  One such invitation was to give the occasional address for science and engineering graduates at La Trobe University in Melbourne. 

I was pleased to receive the invitation, since it gave me the chance to prepare some careful thoughts about why I do the things I do.  The text of the speech, as given yesterday (16 May 2012), follows.


Vice-Chancellor, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Distinguished Guests, Graduates and their supporters

I offer my congratulations to all graduates, as well as to their parents, friends and family members.  I expect you all have a sense of accomplishment and pride at the moment, and rightfully so.  Personally, I’m in awe of the collective achievements celebrated here today.

To introduce my remarks, I ask you to take part in an imagination exercise.  Close your eyes for a few moments if that will help.

Imagine planet Earth in orbit around the sun.  The Earth is a ball of rock, 12,700 km in diameter, with extensive oceans and a molten iron core.  The sun, 1.4 million km across and 150 million km from Earth, is a massive nuclear fusion reactor half-way through its 10 billion year lifetime.  In each second, the sun radiates some 10,000 times the total energy content of Earth’s fossil fuel resources as estimated in 2010. 

More than 70% of the Earth’s surface is water, and there’s a shimmer of atmosphere, which for most purposes stretches only a few dozen km above the surface.  So in your imagination you can see a brilliant yellow star, and a mainly blue planet with weather patterns and some land mass.

That’s it – our spaceship home!  It has all we need to sustain us.  Provided we are good custodians, it will sustain us for a very long time.

Within the context of caring for our planet, I want to make some comments today in defence of science and engineering.

For 30 years, I was a mathematician employed in academia and then CSIRO, where I managed CSIRO’s applied mathematicians for a dozen years.  My lifetime’s professional experience involves application of mathematical models to physical and industrial processes.  I can cite numerous case studies across all industry sectors showing the benefits of these models developed in collaboration with experts from other disciplines.  Typical benefits include greater efficiency, increased profits, or better management of the physical world around us. 

Eight years ago, I resigned from CSIRO and set up my own business, Sunoba Pty Ltd.  I’d become concerned about the prospects for our planet, and I’d decided to spend my remaining productive years working on renewable energy devices for power generation and desalination.  In particular, I was looking for ways to exploit Australia’s unique advantages – bountiful sunshine, abundant land.  I was looking for breakthroughs, not incremental improvements.

I’m about to describe a big trap.  It’s easy to ignore because it’s not having an immediate impact on us.  But the logic of it all is clear, and that’s the message I want to communicate today.

Although our planet is large, it is of course finite.  If humankind adopts a Business-As-Usual pathway for another 100 years, our treasure of resources will be extensively depleted, exhausted in some instances, and we’ll have to feed a population of perhaps 10-12 billion.  Two issues are obvious.

Firstly, Climate Change.  This “debate”, in inverted commas, is a strange beast.  Several weeks ago, ABC TV ran a program entitled “I can change your mind … about climate change”.  The impression was that both sides of the debate have equal plausibility, so warmists and deniers were given equal billing.  But equal plausibility is only the public perception, and it’s fanned by groups with narrow sectional interests and by mainstream media that is sensationalist and uncritical.  In contrast, many prestigious scientific societies around the world state that climate change is happening and that humans are responsible.  Amongst professional climate scientists, that view is effectively unanimous.

And here’s where the science and engineering come in.  Experts develop mathematical and computational models for combustion of fossil fuels, then models for the spread and persistence of CO2 in the atmosphere, models for the absorption of infra-red radiation by CO2, models for heat dispersal in the atmosphere and oceans, models for feedbacks, models for water vapour, and so on.  I know about these models; I can assure you that climate science is a triumph of the human intellect.  I admit the models are a work in progress, but there’s a consistent message from them.

The models predict outcomes that are slow on human timescales but lightning fast in a geological sense.  They show that Business-As-Usual will see our planet warm by between 2 and 4.5 degrees Celcius by mid-late 21st century.  And what will be the consequences?  The climate will change, the sea levels will rise and there will be major effects on health, infrastructure, agriculture and biodiversity.  Maybe, and it’s a big maybe, the rich countries might survive without too much disruption, but I expect the poor citizens of the planet will suffer dreadfully.

Secondly, take our fossil fuel reserves.  Just at the moment, there’s a pervasive bullishness in the media about recent discoveries of unconventional oil and gas.  According to this view, shale oil and gas, coal-seam gas, and uncooked oil in shale rocks are present in stupendously large amounts, just waiting for exploitation.  And there will be other coal supplies we haven’t yet found.  In short, if you accept the narrative, the good times powered by fossil fuels can roll on for hundreds more years.

By the way, let me point out that science and engineering have long been heavily involved in the fossil fuel industries.  Think of the science of seismic exploration, think of the operations of drilling and excavating, think of computer models to control the operation of refineries.  These issues require specialised mathematical input, of course in collaboration with people with expert domain knowledge.   The technical people in the fossil fuel industry, the scientists and engineers, are by no means as optimistic as the mainstream media about the bullish narrative.

And so we come to the trap!  The mainstream view in Australia is that we need not make expensive changes today for something that won’t have an impact for decades.   A good analogy is to think of a comfortable car accelerating towards a cliff.  So far, so good!

If we continue to burn the fossil fuels, there will come a day when not enough remains for our lifestyle.  Moreover, if we burn the planet’s supply, then climate science says the consequences will be extremely uncomfortable at best, likely much worse, and perhaps catastrophic.  I remind you that we are dealing with physical and economic systems that have incredibly large inertia; like the proverbial ocean liner it takes a long time to build up speed and then to change direction.

And we will have used up the one-off treasure of fossilised solar energy that has been the springboard for economic growth on the planet since the industrial revolution.

The clean energy infrastructure of the future, that we have to build sooner or later, will require major investments over a few decades.  While we have the opportunity, we should use some of our fossil fuel treasure to accomplish the task.  The remainder of the fossil fuels should be left in the ground until eventually put to good use as a feedstock for emissions-free chemical industry.

We readily accept some everyday examples of long-term action based on mathematical models.  To cite two examples, many Australians are paying off the mortgage on the family home and saving today for retirement in 40 years’ time.  We accept mathematical concepts relating to compound interest and paying down a loan, even though incremental changes from year to year seem extremely slow.  Why are we so resistive when the future of the whole planet is at stake?  I commend that question to the psychologists in the audience.

With our analytical skills and models we can look into the future, and what we see is profoundly disturbing.
 
I call on you all to take action as best you can.  Put aside the clamour of mainstream media and narrow sectional interests.  Think coolly, logically.  Make a careful assessment of long-term risks caused by our likely actions over the next few decades.  Don’t think that your individual viewpoint is unimportant.  Don’t accept that you won’t make a difference.

For me, I was ready and happy in 2004 to see if my skills might make a difference, even if they were threatened by advancing decrepitude.  So my mission was to work on new ideas for electricity generation from passive solar heat collection.  I invented a thermodynamic cycle that might be useful, and my task is to take that from concept to prototype to market. 

I’ve enjoyed my journey as an inventor – particularly since I’m able to combine my passions for applied mathematics and solar energy.  And that’s a piece of advice I give freely to all here today – the journey has its own rewards.

My take-home message is to the graduates.  In forming your expectations for the future, please think deeply about the Business-As-Usual trap for our planet that I have sketched out today.

I congratulate the graduates again and thank you for your attention.



Brief biographical details of the author, as announced by the Vice-Chancellor prior to the speech.

Noel Barton BSc PhD DUniv (h.c.) FAustMS AM
Managing Director
Sunoba Pty Ltd

Noel Barton was educated at the University of Western Australia, finishing in 1973 with a PhD in applied mathematics.  Prior to becoming a full-time inventor, he worked at the University of New South Wales (1975-81) and CSIRO Australia (1981-2003), where he led the Organisation’s applied mathematicians from 1987-99.

Since 2004, Dr Barton’s passion has been shared between applied mathematics and solar energy, culminating in a new heat engine based on passive solar heat collection under a transparent insulated canopy.  Current work involves simulation of the engine’s performance, including thermal storage in rock beds.

His work for professional associations included:
·         seven-time Director from 1985-92 of the Australian Mathematics-in-Industry Study Group,
·         Editor in 1994-95 of a review of the mathematical sciences in Australia, and
·         Director of the 5th International Congress on Industrial and Applied Mathematics, a major congress attracting nearly 1,800 delegates from 60 countries to Sydney in 2003.

He is currently President of the NSW Branch of the Australian Solar Energy Society.

Dr Barton is a Fellow and Honorary Life Member of the Australian Mathematical Society, and in 2004 was awarded an Honorary Doctorate by Queensland University of Technology.  In 2002 he was made a Member of the Order of Australia for his services to mathematics.

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Cost of solar power (24)

Earlier this week, I attended a PV seminar organised by the German-Australian Chamber of Trade and Commerce in Sydney.  As often the case in the past, I was impressed by the volume of activity associated with the business of renewable energy in Germany. 

One of the memorable talks on the day was by Kobad Bhavnagri of Bloomberg New Energy Finance, with whom I was also able to have a chat over lunch.  His presentation was on prediction of the Levelised Cost of Electricity (LCOE) from PV and wind up until 2020.  I should stress that he was concerned with utility-scale projects, not rooftop.

Bloomberg NEF employs a lot of smart guys like Bhavnagri, and their methodology to estimate the LCOE is more thorough than mine.  To obtain hard data on cost and output, which is usually a struggle for me, they go directly to the financiers.  The financiers, banks or the like, necessarily have access to the required data and  presumably provide it to Bloomberg NEF under confidentiality arrangements so details for individual projects aren’t made public.  Bloomberg NEF then gets their accountants (I was going to say bean-counters, but I don’t want to be pejorative) to calculate the LCOE.

Bhavnagri’s view is that electricity from wind is cheaper than electricity from PV today, and is likely to remain so all the way to 2020.  His LCOE estimates I jotted down during the talk were as follows (all figures $ per MWhr):

Wind: 94-140 (2011), 94-140 (2015), 85-120 (2020)
Solar PV: 210-310 (2011), 180-260 (2015), 150-220 (2020)
Solar thermal: 280-360 (2011)

My LCOE estimates for recent projects, as summarised at the end of this post, are in the same range as those provided by Bloomberg NEF, and I was rather encouraged by this presentation from an expert.  I’ll continue to use my methodology to estimate the LCOE for solar projects.

Today’s project is the Maryland Solar Farm.  On 14 March 2012, First Solar Inc. announced

“that it has purchased a 100% stake in a 20 MW solar photovoltaic (PV) plant under development in the U.S. state of Maryland, which will employ its cadmium telluride thin film PV modules.  The company plans to begin construction of the Maryland Solar Farm in Hagerstown, Maryland, in the second quarter of 2012 and complete the plant by the fourth quarter of the year. 

The USD 70 million PV plant will be built on one square kilometer of land owned by the State of Maryland, which is currently part of a state prison. 

There are only two currently operational PV plants on the East Coast of the United States larger than the Maryland Solar Farm.”

I found it difficult to obtain a figure for the annual output of the project, but Solarbuzz reports

“First Solar today announced its 100 per cent stake in Maryland Solar, a 20-megawatt (AC) photovoltaic solar power project in Hagerstown, Maryland. ...The project … is expected to start construction in Q2 2012 and be completed in Q4 2012. It will use First Solar’s advanced thin film PV modules to generate enough clean, renewable energy to power approximately 2,700 average Maryland homes, displacing approximately 23,000 metric tons of CO2 annually—the equivalent of taking 4,400 cars off the road each year.”

Well, that’s all I have to go on with, so I’ll estimate the annual output in two ways.  But before I do, let me comment on just how quickly these large PV projects are completed.  I doubt that construction of a 20 MW Rankine-cycle power station (solar, gas or coal) could be completed between Q2 and Q4 of one year. 

Now to estimate the output:

(1)  I expect that most of Maryland’s electricity comes from coal-fired generation, and let me assume an emissions intensity of 0.9 t CO2 per MWhr.  So the annual output would be 23,000 t / 0.9 (t/MWhr) = 25,556 MWhr.

(2) Or, let’s assume a Capacity Factor of 0.14 for the Maryland Solar Farm, which would give an annual output of 20 × 24 × 365 × 0.14 = 24,528 MWhr

Well, those estimates don’t agree exactly, but they indicate an annual output of 25,000 MWhr might be about right.

I now evaluate the LCOE using my customary assumptions
          there is no inflation,
          taxation implications are neglected,
          projects are funded entirely by debt,
          all projects have the same interest rate (8%) and payback period (25 years), which means that the required rate of capital return is 9.4%,
          all projects have the same annual maintenance and operating costs (2% of the total project cost), and
          government subsidies are neglected.

For further commentary on my LCOE methodology, see posts on Real cost of coal-fired power, LEC – the accountant’s view, Cost of solar power (10) and (especially) Yet more on LEC.  Note that I am now using annual maintenance costs of 2% rather than 3% as in posts during 2011.

The results are:

Cost per peak Watt              USD 3.50/Wp
LCOE                                     USD 319/MWhr

The components of the LCOE are:
Capital           {0.094 × USD 70 × 10^6}/{25000 MWhr} = USD 263/MWhr
O&M              {0.020 × USD 70 × 10^6}/{25000 MWhr} = USD 56/MWhr

By way of comparison, LCOE figures (in appropriate currency per MWhr) for all projects I’ve investigated are given below.  The number in brackets is the reference to the blog post, all of which appear in my index of posts with the title “Cost of solar power ([number])”:

(2)        AUD 183 (Nyngan, Australia, PV)
(3)        EUR 503 (Olmedilla, Spain, PV, 2008)
(3)        EUR 188 (Andasol I, Spain, trough, 2009)
(4)        AUD 236 (Greenough, Australia, PV)
(5)        AUD 397 (Solar Oasis, Australia, dish, 2014?)
(6)        USD 163 (Lazio, Italy, PV)
(7)        AUD 271 (Kogan Creek, Australia, CLFR pre-heat, 2012?)
(8)        USD 228 (New Mexico, CdTe thin film PV, 2011)
(9)        EUR 200 (Ibersol, Spain, trough, 2011)
(10)      USD 231 (Ivanpah, California, tower, 2013?)
(11)      CAD 409 (Stardale, Canada, PV, 2012)
(12)      USD 290 (Blythe, California, trough, 2012?)
(13)      AUD 285 (Solar Dawn, Australia, CLFR, 2013?)
(14)      AUD 263 (Moree Solar Farm, Australia, single-axis PV, 2013?)
(15)      EUR 350 (Lieberose, Germany, thin-film PV, 2009)
(16)      EUR 300 (Gemasolar, Spain, tower, 2011)
(17)      EUR 228 (Meuro, Germany, crystalline PV, 2012)
(18)      USD 204 (Crescent Dunes, USA, tower, 2013)
(19)      AUD 316 (University of Queensland, fixed PV, 2011)
(20)      EUR 241 (Ait Baha, Morocco, 1-axis solar thermal, 2012)
(21)      EUR 227 (Shivajinagar Sakri, India, PV, 2012)
(22)      JPY 36,076 (Kagoshima, Kyushu, Japan, PV, start July 2012)
(23)      AUD 249 (NEXTDC, Port Melbourne, PV, Q2 2012)
(24)      USD 319 (Maryland Solar Farm, thin-film PV, Q4 2012)

[Note: all estimates made using 2% annual maintenance cost.]

On these estimates, the LCOE for the Maryland Solar Farm is at the upper end of the range described by Bhavnagri of Bloomberg NEF.  Maybe my estimate for the annual output is a bit low?