Slide1 l.jpg
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 26

Characteristics & Information Update of Solar Thermal Generation PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Characteristics & Information Update of Solar Thermal Generation Mark Skowronski for Solargenix Energy (formerly Duke Solar Energy) Presentation to the Arizona Corporation Commission (April 5, 2004) Simplified Schematic of Parabolic Trough Solar Collector Parabolic Trough Collector

Related searches for Characteristics & Information Update of Solar Thermal Generation

Download Presentation

Characteristics & Information Update of Solar Thermal Generation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Slide1 l.jpg

Characteristics & Information Update of Solar Thermal Generation

Mark Skowronski

for

Solargenix Energy

(formerly Duke Solar Energy)

Presentation to the Arizona Corporation Commission (April 5, 2004)


Simplified schematic of parabolic trough solar collector l.jpg

Simplified Schematic ofParabolic Trough Solar Collector


Parabolic trough collector l.jpg

Parabolic Trough Collector

  • Typically tracks sun E-W on N-S axis

  • High temperature oil flows through receiver

  • Receiver highly efficient due to vacuum annulus and selective surface

  • Major cost elements: structure, receivers, reflectors

  • Mirror washing proven to be very effective


Slide5 l.jpg

Example Configuration

Gas Turbine:162 MW

Steam Turbine: 90 MW w/o solar system

131 MW with solar system

Total CC net power:246 MW w/o solar; 285 MW with solar

Solar contribution: 16.1% peak; 7% annual MWh

Solar Combined Cycle Systems-Offers Additional Cost Savings


Slide6 l.jpg

Kramer Junction, Calif.

Five 30-MWe Trough Plants

US 395

KJ SEGS

Plants

CA 58

Edwards

AF Base

  • 354 MWe installed

  • 7000 GWH operations

  • 110% peak availability

  • $1.25 Billion invested

  • Matured O&M procedures

  • Technical advances lowered costs


Trough learning curve l.jpg

SEGS

Next Plant

New Experience Curve

Pr = 0.855

Trough Learning Curve


Capital cost learning curves l.jpg

Capital Cost Learning Curves


Multiple ownership scenarios offer opportunity to az utilities to cost effectively meet rps goals l.jpg

Solar Thermal Trough Provides Competitive Firm Capacity and

Energy when Fairly Evaluated against Greenfield CT Costs

5. Hybrid

CT's LEC corrected to Muni financing and

adjusted Capacity Factor (~8.5 cents)

4. Pre-Pay

No Subsidy Case

Base w/ 1 Cent PTC

3. Muni Own

Base w/ 1.5 Cent PTC

2. Debt Re-pay

1. Base Case

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Levelized Electricity Costs (LEC in cents/kWh)

Multiple Ownership Scenarios Offer Opportunity to AZ Utilities to Cost Effectively Meet RPS Goals


Slide10 l.jpg

Solar Thermal is the only renewable in the wholesale market

that can supply firm capacity and energy to AZ for peaking

Solar Thermal has established outstanding reliability

in So Cal with over 20 years of operation (SEGS)

Solar Thermal can supply AZ without the

added cost and risk of long distance transmission lines

Solar Thermal can economically compete with

its fossil equivalent (Combustion Turbines)

Solar Thermal Provides Value to the AZ Grid


An overview of concentrating solar power l.jpg

An Overview ofConcentrating Solar Power

SOLAR POWER TOWER

Dr. Thomas R. Mancini

CSP Program Manager

Sandia National Laboratories

Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA

Presentation for the Arizona Corporation Commission

April 5, 2004


Molten salt power tower l.jpg

565C

288C

Hot Salt

Cold Salt

Steam Generator

Conventional EPGS

Molten-Salt Power Tower

“Power Tower”

or “Central Receiver”

Energy collection

decoupled from

power production


Slide13 l.jpg

Arizona Solar Resources are Immense!

  • Start with direct normal solar resource estimates derived from 10 km satellite data with modifications by NREL.

  • Exclude:

    • locations with less than 6.75 kwh/m2/day

    • environmentally sensitive lands, major urban areas, and water features.

    • land areas with greater than 1% average land slope

    • areas with a minimum contiguous area of less than 10 square kilometers.


Slide14 l.jpg

Siting AnalysisPotential Locations

Preliminary sites identified based on transmission access and located near load centers

Location 1

Location 2


Cost effective storage is the key l.jpg

Storage provides

decouplingof energy collection and generation

lower costs because storage is cheaper than incremental turbine costs

higher value because power production can match utility needs

zero emissions

Cost-Effective Storage is the Key!

From Storage


The solar two demonstration l.jpg

The Solar Two Demonstration

After 10-15 years of salt development R&D

Consortium of 8 utilities, EPRI, CEC, DOE, SunLab formed in early 1990’s to cost-share a demonstration project

Solar Two Objectives

  • Validate technical characteristics

  • Improve accuracy of economic projections

  • Simulate design of 100 MWe plant

  • Collect, evaluate and distribute knowledge gained

  • Stimulate consortium capable of building commercial plants

All Objectives Were Met


Projected costs l.jpg

Projected Costs

No commercial power tower plants have been built anywhere in the world.

A 40 MW (equivalent) power tower has been proposed in Spain.

Cost projections are based on Sargent & Lundy study performed for the National Academy of Sciences.

¢/kWh

S&L

SunLab

| | | |

1000 2000 3000 4000

Megawatts

* ASSESSMENT OF PARABOLIC TROUGH AND POWER TOWER SOLAR TECHNOLOGY COST AND PERFORMANCE FORECASTS, SL-5641 MAY 2003.


Emissions and leveraging l.jpg

Emissions and Leveraging

There are no emissions from a power tower plant.

Leveraging opportunities for CSP technologies include participation in the 1000 MW CSP southwestern initiative currently being considered by the Western Governors’ Association.


Economic benefits to the state l.jpg

Economic Benefits to the State

  • At its peak, installation of 1000 MW of CSP power plants would create nearly 7,000 new jobs.

  • New jobs will be created to build, assemble and operate the CSP plants.

  • 1000 MW would result in $300 - $500M increase to Arizona’s annual GSP.

  • 1000 MW will result in local CSP design, construction, and operating experience, allowing Arizona to export these services to neighboring states.


Overall evaluation of csp must include value of product delivered as well as cost l.jpg

Overall Evaluation of CSP Must Include Value of Product Delivered as Well as Cost

  • Firm on peak energy considerably more valuable than “as-available” energy during non peak times

  • Only Solar thermal can provide renewable on-peak generation or (with storage) whenever energy is needed

  • Following graphs correspond to the Calif PUC rules governing how energy is evaluated on an “all-in” energy cost basis

  • Value isn’t necessarily defined as lowest LEC


Slide21 l.jpg

*Generation Cost Comparison Report (Oct 2003)

Levelized Costs of Electricity of CT

and CC as Function of Capacity Factor

(Based on Calif PUC Rule No. 6 Issued June 19 2003)

35

30

25

CT Cost 15.7 cents/kWh at 9.8%

20

Capacity Factor per CEC Report*

LEC (cents/kWh)

CC Cost 5.2 cents/kWh at 90%

15

Capacity Factor per CEC Report*

10

Combustion Turbine

5

Combined Cycle

0

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

Capacity Factor (%)


Slide22 l.jpg

*Generation Cost Comparison Report (Oct 2003)

Solar/Boiler Levelized Costs of Electricity

vs CT and CC as Function of Capacity Factor

(Based on Calif PUC Rule No. 6 Issued June 19 2003)

35

PUC Value ~ $29 Million

Cost at ~12 cents/kWh ~ $28 Million

30

40 % Capacity Factor

25

CT Cost 15.7 cents/kWh at 9.8%

Capacity Factor per CEC Report*

20

LEC (cents/kWh)

CC Cost 5.2 cents/kWh at 90%

15

Capacity Factor per CEC Report*

12 cent/kWh

10

Combustion Turbine

5

Combined Cycle

0

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

Capacity Factor (%)


Slide23 l.jpg

*Generation Cost Comparison Report (Oct 2003)

Peaking Solar Levelized Costs of Electricity

vs CT and CC as Function of Capacity Factor

(Based on PUC Rule No. 6 Issued June 19 2003)

35

PUC Value ~ $40 Million

Cost at ~13 cents/kWh ~ $31 Million

30

25

CT Cost 15.7 cents/kWh at 9.8%

16 % Capacity Factor

Capacity Factor per CEC Report*

20

LEC (cents/kWh)

CC Cost 5.2 cents/kWh at 90%

15

Capacity Factor per CEC Report*

13 cent/kWh

10

Combustion Turbine

5

Combined Cycle

0

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

Capacity Factor (%)


Cost to arizona ratepayer for 100 mw solar thermal plant as function of overcharge l.jpg

$0.50

100 MW CSP Plant in Arizona

$0.40

$0.30

Monthly Cost per Residential Ratepayer

$0.20

$0.10

$0.00

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Incremental Cost Over 2006 Natural Gas Plant

--

¢

/kWh

Cost to Arizona Ratepayer for 100 MW Solar Thermal Plant as Function of Overcharge


Csp trough or central receiver provides multiple benefits to az ratepayers l.jpg

CSP (Trough or Central Receiver) Provides Multiple Benefits to AZ Ratepayers

  • Firm Energy at Competitive Pricing when evaluated against comparable products (See PUC Rule No. 6)

  • Creation of Jobs

    • 3 to 4 times more construction jobs

    • Potential to locate manufacturing facility in state

    • 2 to 3 times more operating personnel

  • Creation of Tax Base

    • Tax base of 3 to 4 times more than a conventional combine cycle plant

  • Hedge against fossil fuel pricing

  • Use of a natural indigenous resource

  • Promise of even lower pricing due to expected technology advancement of new technology not available with existing fossil technology


  • Slide26 l.jpg

    Groundbreaking of first CSP plant in the US since 1991- Red Rocks Arizona – March 24, 2004

    Breaking news


  • Login