Photovoltaic Training Course - Module 5.2 - Project cashflow and IRR
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
1 gefällt mir•204 views
Photovoltaic Training Course - Module 5.2 - Project cashflow and IRR
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Ähnlich wie Photovoltaic Training Course - Module 5.2 - Project cashflow and IRR
Ähnlich wie Photovoltaic Training Course - Module 5.2 - Project cashflow and IRR (20)
Mehr von Leonardo ENERGY
Mehr von Leonardo ENERGY (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Photovoltaic Training Course - Module 5.2 - Project cashflow and IRR
- 1. Photovoltaic Systems Training Economic Analysis 5.3 CASHFLOWS & IRR www.leonardo-energy.org
- 2. Profitability analysis Inputs (I) For the profitability analysis in this presentation, we will consider the following inputs: 1.Peak power 10% over the nominal power 2.Module degradation: 1% per year 3.Electricity price increase: 2,5% per year 4.Loan For 12 years Grace period: 1 year Interest rate of 5% Though the most of the financings of the facilities have a variable type indexed to the EURIBOR, we consider an interest of 5 % for this study Equity: 20 % www.leonardo-energy.org
- 3. Investment Operation and other costs (The insurance and the Type of installation (€/Wp)physical surveillance are NOT considered) Fix to ground crystalline module 2.9 Fix cost: 200 € + 2 % of the incomes for the energy produced Fix to ground thin film module 2.7 Crystalline module with suntracker 4.1 Rooftop crystalline module 3 Rooftop thin film module 2.8 Profitability analysis Inputs (II) We are considering the following investment, operation & maintenance costs… Note: The price of a solar plant in Germany will be 0.1 € lower per Wp than in Spain, due to administrative simplifications in that country www.leonardo-energy.org
- 4. Profitability analysis Inputs (III). Production & Energy price Germany Estimated production: 950 kWh/kWp Subvention (ground): 0,284 €/kWh Subvention (roof): 30 – 100kW: 0,3723 €/kWh > 1000 kW: 0,2937 €/kWh Spain Estimated production: 1350 kWh/kWp Subvention (ground): 0,265 €/kWh Subvention (roof): >20 kW: 0,295 €/kWh <20 kW: 0,33 €/kWh Note: The production in Germany has a lower radiation, but it is favored by the low temperature losses www.leonardo-energy.org
- 5. Estimated TechnologyPowerTypeCountrySubvention production Case 1 Crystalline 1.000 kW Ground Plant Spain 1350 0.265 €/kWh Case 2 Thin film 1.000 kW Ground Plant Spain 1350 0.265 €/kWh Case 3 Crystalline 100 kW Roof Germany 950 0.3723 €/kWh Case 4 Crystalline 100 kW Roof Spain 1350 0.295 €/kWh Case 5 Crystalline 1.000 kW Suntracker Plant Spain 1890 0.265 €/kWh Profitability analysis Study cases www.leonardo-energy.org
- 6. RESULT CASHFLOW ACCRUED INCOME -638.000 -638.000 102.216 -535.784 107.902 -427.882 113.671 -314.212 119.525 -194.686 125.466 -69.220 131.494 62.274 137.612 199.886 143.819 343.705 150.118 493.823 156.510 650.334 162.997 813.330 452.817 1.266.147 459.496 1.725.644 466.274 2.191.917 323.151 2.515.068 480.130 2.995.199 487.212 3.482.411 494.398 3.976.809 501.691 4.478.500 509.091 4.987.591 516.600 5.504.191 Technology Power Type Country kWh/kWp Tariff Case1 Crystalline 1.000kW Ground Spain 1350 0.265€/kWh LOAN FEE 283.238 283.238 283.238 283.238 283.238 283.238 283.238 283.238 283.238 283.238 283.238 283.238 1º YEAR 2º YEAR 3º YEAR 4º YEAR 5º YEAR 6º YEAR 7º YEAR 8º YEAR 9º YEAR 10º YEAR 11º YEAR 12º YEAR 13º YEAR 14º YEAR OUTPUTS MAINTENANCE COST WITHOUT INSURANCE 8.071 8.190 8.310 8.433 8.557 8.684 8.812 8.942 9.073 9.207 9.343 9.481 9.621 9.763 INPUTS INCOMES 393.525 399.329 405.220 411.197 417.262 423.416 429.662 435.999 442.430 448.956 455.578 462.298 469.117 476.036 .(1) 15º YEAR 16º YEAR 17º YEAR 18º YEAR 19º YEAR 20º YEAR 21º YEAR 22º YEAR 23º YEAR 24º YEAR 159.907 10.053 10.201 10.352 10.504 10.659 10.816 10.976 11.138 11.302 483.058 490.183 497.413 504.750 512.195 519.750 527.416 535.196 543.090 551.100 25º YEAR 11.469 559.229 (1) Hypothetical fee for an extraordinary reparation on the year 15th : 150.000 € Case Study 1
- 7. Technology Power Type Country kWh/kWp Tariff Case1 Crystalline 1.000kW Ground Spain 1350 0.265€/kWh Case Study 1 INVESTMENT 3.190.000 € LOAN 2.552.000 € REVENUE PER YEAR 385.455 € ACCRUED REVENUE 7.364.683 € I.I.R 23,07% www.leonardo-energy.org
- 8. Technology Power Type Country kWh/kWpTariff Case2 Thinfilm 1.000kW Ground Spain 13500.265€/kWh OUTPUTS INPUTS RESULT LOAN FEE MAINTENANCE COST WITHOUT INSURANCE INCOMES CASH FLOW ACCRUED INCOME -594.000 -594.000 263.705 263.705 263.705 263.705 263.705 263.705 263.705 263.705 263.705 263.705 263.705 263.705 1º YEAR 2º YEAR 3º YEAR 4º YEAR 5º YEAR 6º YEAR 7º YEAR 8º YEAR 9º YEAR 10º YEAR 11º YEAR 12º YEAR 13º YEAR 14º YEAR 8.071 8.190 8.310 8.433 8.557 8.684 8.812 8.942 9.073 9.207 9.343 9.481 9.621 9.763 393.525 399.329 405.220 411.197 417.262 423.416 429.662 435.999 442.430 448.956 455.578 462.298 469.117 476.036 121.750 127.435 133.205 139.059 141.000 151.028 157.145 163.353 169.652 176.044 182.530 189.112 459.496 466.274 -472.250 -344.815 -211.611 -72.552 72.448 223.476 380.622 543.974 713.627 889.671 1.072.201 1.261.313 1.720.809 2.187.083 .( 1)15º YEAR 16º YEAR 17º YEAR 18º YEAR 19º YEAR 20º YEAR 21º YEAR 22º YEAR 23º YEAR 24º YEAR 159.907 10.053 10.201 10.352 10.504 10.659 10.816 10.976 11.138 11.302 483.058 490.183 497.413 504.750 512.195 519.750 527.416 535.196 543.090 551.100 323.151 480.130 487.212 494.398 501.691 509.091 516.600 524.220 531.952 539.798 2.510.234 2.990.364 3.477.577 3.971.975 4.473.666 4.982.757 5.499.357 6.023.576 6.555.528 7.095.327 547.760 7.643.08725º YEAR 11.469 (1) Hypothetical fee for an extraordinary reparation the 15th year: 559.229 750.000 € Case Study 2
- 9. Technology Power Type Country kWh/kWp Tariff Case2 Thinfilm 1.000kW Ground Spain 1350 0.265€/kWh Case Study 2 INVESTMENT 2.970.000 € LOAN 2.376.000 € REVENUE PER YEAR 385.455 € ACCRUED REVENUE 7.643.087 € I.I.R 26,49% www.leonardo-energy.org
- 10. RESULT CASHFLOW ACCRUED INCOME -63.800 -63.800 9.603 -54.197 10.163 -44.034 10.731 -33.303 11.307 -21.997 11.891 -10.106 12.484 2.379 13.086 15.465 13.697 29.162 14.317 43.479 14.946 58.424 15.584 74.008 16.232 90.240 45.213 135.453 45.880 181.332 31.556 212.888 47.243 260.131 47.940 308.071 48.647 356.718 49.364 406.083 50.093 456.175 50.831 507.007 Technology Power Type Country kWh/kWp Tariff Case3 Crystalline 100kW Roof Germany 950 0.3723€/kWh LOAN FEE 28.324 28.324 28.324 28.324 28.324 28.324 28.324 28.324 28.324 28.324 28.324 28.324 1º YEAR 2º YEAR 3º YEAR 4º YEAR 5º YEAR 6º YEAR 7º YEAR 8º YEAR 9º YEAR 10º YEAR 11º YEAR 12º YEAR 13º YEAR 14º YEAR OUTPUTS MAINTENANCE COST WITHOUT INSURANCE 978 993 1.007 1.022 1.037 1.052 1.068 1.084 1.100 1.116 1.132 1.149 1.166 1.183 INPUTS INCOMES 38.905 39.479 40.062 40.652 41.252 41.861 42.478 43.105 43.740 44.385 45.040 45.705 46.379 47.063 .(1) 15º YEAR 16º YEAR 17º YEAR 18º YEAR 19º YEAR 20º YEAR 21º YEAR 22º YEAR 23º YEAR 24º YEAR 16.201 1.218 1.236 1.255 1.273 1.292 1.311 1.330 1.350 1.370 47.757 48.461 49.176 49.901 50.638 51.384 52.142 52.911 53.692 54.484 25º YEAR 1.390 (1) Hypothetical fee for an extraordinary reparation on the year 15th: 55.287 15.000 € Case Study 3
- 11. Technology Power Type Country kWh/kWp Tariff Case3 Crystalline 100kW Roof Germany 950 0.3723€/kWh Case Study 3 INVESTMENT 319.000 € LOAN 255.200 € REVENUE PER YEAR 37.927 € ACCRUED REVENUE 717.941 € I.I.R 22,35% www.leonardo-energy.org
- 12. RESULT CASHFLOW ACCRUED INCOME -66.000 -66.000 13.431 -52.569 14.061 -38.508 14.701 -23.807 15.350 -8.458 16.008 7.551 16.677 24.227 17.355 41.582 18.043 59.625 18.741 78.366 19.450 97.816 20.169 117.985 20.899 138.884 50.940 189.823 51.691 241.514 37.453 278.968 53.227 332.195 54.012 386.207 54.809 441.016 55.617 496.633 56.438 553.070 57.270 610.341 Technology Power Type Country kWh/kWp Tariff Case4 Crystalline 100kW Roof Spain 1350 0.295€/kWh LOAN FEE 29.301 29.301 29.301 29.301 29.301 29.301 29.301 29.301 29.301 29.301 29.301 29.301 1º YEAR 2º YEAR 3º YEAR 4º YEAR 5º YEAR 6º YEAR 7º YEAR 8º YEAR 9º YEAR 10º YEAR 11º YEAR 12º YEAR 13º YEAR 14º YEAR OUTPUTS MAINTENANCE COST WITHOUT INSURANCE 1.076 1.092 1.108 1.124 1.141 1.158 1.175 1.192 1.210 1.228 1.246 1.264 1.283 1.302 INPUTS INCOMES 43.808 44.454 45.109 45.775 46.450 47.135 47.830 48.536 49.252 49.978 50.715 51.463 52.222 52.993 .(1) 15º YEAR 16º YEAR 17º YEAR 18º YEAR 19º YEAR 20º YEAR 21º YEAR 22º YEAR 23º YEAR 24º YEAR 16.321 1.340 1.360 1.380 1.401 1.421 1.442 1.464 1.485 1.507 53.774 54.568 55.372 56.189 57.018 57.859 58.712 59.578 60.457 61.349 62.25425º YEAR 1.529 (1) Hypothetical fee for an extraordinary reparation on the year 15th: 15.000 € Case Study 4
- 13. Technology Power Type Country kWh/kWp Tariff Case4 Crystalline 100kW Roof Spain 1350 0.295€/kWh Case Study 4 INVESTMENT 330.000 € LOAN 264.000 € INCOMES PER YEAR 42.731 € ACCRUED INCOMES 847.994 € I.I.R 26,39% www.leonardo-energy.org
- 14. RESULT CASHFLOW ACCRUED INCOME -902.000 -902.000 139.276 -762.724 147.237 -615.488 155.315 -460.173 163.512 -296.661 171.830 -124.830 180.271 55.441 188.837 244.278 197.529 441.807 206.349 648.156 215.299 863.455 224.381 1.087.836 233.597 1.321.434 643.390 1.964.823 652.880 2.617.703 512.510 3.130.213 672.282 3.802.495 682.198 4.484.693 692.261 5.176.954 702.471 5.879.425 712.833 6.592.258 723.347 7.315.605 Technology Power Type Country kWh/kWp Tariff Case5 Crystalline 1.000kW Suntracker Spain 1890 0.265€/kWh LOAN FEE 400.441 400.441 400.441 400.441 400.441 400.441 400.441 400.441 400.441 400.441 400.441 400.441 1º YEAR 2º YEAR 3º YEAR 4º YEAR 5º YEAR 6º YEAR 7º YEAR 8º YEAR 9º YEAR 10º YEAR 11º YEAR 12º YEAR 13º YEAR 14º YEAR 15º YEAR 16º YEAR 17º YEAR 18º YEAR 19º YEAR 20º YEAR 21º YEAR 22º YEAR 23º YEAR 24º YEAR OUTPUTS MAINTENANCE COST WITHOUT INSURANCE 11.219 11.384 11.552 11.722 11.895 12.071 12.249 12.430 12.613 12.799 12.988 13.179 13.374 13.571 163.771.(1) 13.974 14.180 14.390 14.602 14.817 15.036 15.257 15.483 15.711 INPUTS INCOMES 550.935 559.061 567.307 575.675 584.166 592.783 601.526 610.399 619.402 628.539 637.809 647.217 656.764 666.451 676.281 686.256 696.378 706.650 717.073 727.650 738.383 749.274 760.326 771.541 782.92125º YEAR 15.943 (1) Hypothetical fee for an extraordinary reparation on the year 15th: 150.000 € Case Study 5
- 15. Technology Power Type Country kWh/kWp Tariff Case5 Crystalline 1.000kW Suntracker Spain 1890 0.265€/kWh Case Study 5 INVESTMENT 4.510.000 € LOAN 3.608.000 € REVENUE PER YEAR 539.716 € ACCRUED REVENUE 10.317.272 € I.I.R 22,69% www.leonardo-energy.org
- 16. Case Study 1 Case Study 2 Case Study 3 Case Study 4 Case Study 5 Technology Crystalline Thinfilm Crystalline Crystalline Crystalline Power 1.000 kW 1.000 kW 100 kW 100 kW 1.000 kW Type Ground Ground Roof Roof Suntracker Country Spain Spain Germany Spain Spain Estimated production 1350 kWh/kWp 1350 kWh/kWp 950 kWh/kWp 1350 kWh/kWp 1890 kWh/kWp Tariff 0.265 €/kWh 0.265 €/kWh 0.3723 €/kWh 0.295 €/kWh 0.265 €/kWh INVESTMENT 3.190.000€ 2.970.000€ 319.000€ 330.000€ 4.510.000€ ACCRUED INCOMES 7.364.683€ 7.643.087€ 717.941€ 847.994€ 10.317.272€ IRR 23,07% 26,49% 22,35% 26,39% 22,69% Profitability Analysis Study conclusions www.leonardo-energy.org
Hinweis der Redaktion
- This module focuses on the economic analysis of a proposed PV solar plant.
- For this profitability analysis we have made certain assumptions. We have assumed that the plant’s peak power output will be 10% more than its nominal power. We assume a module degradation of 1% per year, based on a typical panel manufacturersexpectation of 10% degradation after the first ten years and then a further 10% degradation over the next 15 years. We also assume an increase in the price of electricity of 2.5% per year. We also assume an equity investment financing 20% of the project, while the remaining 80% is financed by a 12-year loan with a grace period of one year at an interest rate of 5%. In reality most loan financing is offered at a variable interest rate indexed to the RPI.
- The middle column sets out the investment in millions of Euros needed for each type of installation (based on 2010 prices). The level of investment needed will depend on solar panel prices from manufacturers and the size of the plant. For the exampl a ground-mounted crystalline module plant we estimate an investment need of €2.9 million. Using thin film modules, the investment would be a little less – and it would be much more if sun trackers are used, normally from 30% to 35% more expensive. Rooftop facilities are around 1 Euro cents per watt peak more expensive than ground mounted. We assume a similar fixed maintenance cost for all installations of €200. An assumption of an aditional 2% of revenues generated from energy production also going to maintenance, takes the different sizes of projects into account. These assumptions do not include costs for insurance or physical surveillance and maintenance costs, as those can be very variable. For instance, using sun trackers generates more energy but the maintenance costs will be higher. In different countries, government regulations are more or less stringent and the subsidies and taxes will vary. T
- This map is based on a profitability analysis carried out in 2010. There has been considerable development in technology, prices and regulation since then. It is worth looking at Leonardo Energy’s Grid Parity Monitor to gain a more up to date picture when you come to your own calculations. For the purpose of this exercise, two different types of facility in two countries were chosen, Germany and Spain. In Germany, production of about 950 kWh per kWp per year is estimated. In 2010, via a Feed-in Tariff, ground-mounted facilities could earn €0.28 per kwh, while rooftop facilities could earn from €0.29 – €0.37 per kWh, depending on the size of the facility. In Spain, estimated production is higher at about 1350 kWh per kWp per year. A similar Feed-in Tariff to Germany’s offered €0.26 per kWh for a ground facility, while the Feed-in Tariff for rooftops varied from €0.29 to €0.33. While the Spanish tariff was lower, the greater production meant that potential earning were higher. Of course, tariff calculation and payment methods vary across the world.
- Here are five case studies generating 5 different scenarios. We will look at 100kW or 1MW capacity plants, depending on the type of technology, and looked at them in the 5 scenarios You will see that the estimated production of a sun tracker plant in Spain is around 35% higher than for a fixed module ground-mounted plant.
- Here is an analysis of the profitability of the first case stud – the 1 MW capacity ground-mounted crystalline module plant in Spain. There are excel versions of each of these case studies available for download. The analysis should be made over 25 years, the typical lifetime of a PV plant. Installations can last more than 25 years, so any revenues after the 25th year will be unfettered income. As we said before, this assumes a 12-year loan for 80% of the investment of €2.9 million. The needed investment is calculated by multiplying the total power capacity by the estimated price per Wp. To cover the loan, we have included a flat loan fee. In the second column are maintenance costs which is a percentage of the revenues plus a small fixed cost. As the revenues increase each year because of the RPI, the cost of maintenance will also increase. We also included a cashflow based on the revenues less the loan fee and maintenance costs. Cashflow is lower while the loan is being repaid in the first 12 years. Payback on the investment occurs in the 6th year. Were amortisation of the loan to be higher we could even have a negative cashflow in the earliest years with greater benefit at the end of the project. The level of amortisation is dependent also on the balance between loans and investments in the project.
- Here is a summary of the case study. The total investment is €3,190,000 and the average income is €385,000 in the first years, rising with the RPI and the rising price of electricity. Based on a Feed-in Tariff of €0.26 per kWh, a 20% equity investment and a loan of €2,552,000, we can expect an Internal Rate of Return of 23.07%. If you know the economics of financing you will know that is a very high IRR. This would be a very attractive project for any financial company.
- Here is a case study for a thin film model where the investment is lower and we have lower loan fees.
- As the investment and loan is lower while estimated production is nearly the same, we get a higher IRR than for the crystalline module case study. Please take into account that this is just a rough analysis. A better analysis would need to be done before you enter a project. Normally, the IRR for the crystalline and thin film profitability will vary with factors such as temperatures, land rents and so on.
- Here is the case study for the 100kW crystalline rooftop facility in Germany.
- Internal Rate of Return is the tool used all over the world to estimate the financial profitability of solar investments. Normally, financial companies will ask you about the IRR. This rooftop installation promises an Internal Rate of Return of 22.35%. The same rooftop installation in Spain would deliver an even higher IRR of about 26.4%. There is more energy generated by PV in Spain while in 2010 the Feed-in Tariff was pretty much the same in Spain as in Germany. Of course, the renewable energy support situation has been affected in both countries by the financial crisis and technological developments since these calculations were made. It is important to verify the subvention situation before going ahead with any PV project.
- The final case study is a sun tracking system in Spain
- The investment needed for this ground mounted system is more than for a fixed system, and despite the increased energy production, the Internal Rate of Return is lower. IRR for the sun tracking system would be about 22.7% while in a ground installation without suntrackers, it would be about 23.07%.
- In the next slide we have a regimen that gives an overview on the different types of installations and IRR. The IRR might be nearly the same but The risks of a sun tracking facility have to be considered when the profitability of sun tracking and non suntracking are considered. That is why sun tracking has not been preferred to fixed in many cases.