1 / 15

Technical & Economic Assessment Grid, Mini-grid & Off-grid Electrification Technologies

Technical & Economic Assessment Grid, Mini-grid & Off-grid Electrification Technologies. Chubu Electric Power Co.,Inc. (CEPCO) Toyo Engineering Co. (TOYO) The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) Princeton Energy Resources Institute (PERI). Study Objective.

kawena
Download Presentation

Technical & Economic Assessment Grid, Mini-grid & Off-grid Electrification Technologies

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Technical & Economic Assessment Grid, Mini-grid & Off-grid Electrification Technologies Chubu Electric Power Co.,Inc. (CEPCO) Toyo Engineering Co. (TOYO) The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) Princeton Energy Resources Institute (PERI)

  2. Study Objective To characterize the current and future comparative economic costs of generation from renewable and fossil fuel-fired electricity generation technologies configured to suit off-grid, mini-grid and grid applications (50 W to 500 MWs)

  3. Power Generation Options

  4. Fuel Prices • Estimated by Study team, based on World Energy Outlook 2005(IEA), International Energy Outlook (DOE) and World Bank. • Fuel cost include transportation cost and refinery cost.(Gasoline:50%, LO: 40%) • Base crude oil : 38$/bbl

  5. Sensitivity Range Average Power Generation Options for Off-grid, Mini-grid and Grid-connected Applications (cent/kWh) Off-Grid Pico Hydro 1kW Biogas 60kW Micro Hydro 100kW Mini-Grid Biomass Gasifier 100kW Fuel Cells 5MW Diesel Generator 5MW Mini Hydro 5MW MSW/ Landfill Gas 5MW Wind 10MW Bio Steam 50MW Grid connected Geothermal 50MW Gas Combined Cycle 300MW Coal Steam subcritical 300MW Coal AFBC 300MW Coal IGCC 300MW Oil Steam 300MW

  6. Sensitivity Range Average Many renewables are generally more economical than comparable conventional generation options in off-grid (1 kW or less) configurations Solar PV 50W (CF=20%) Solar PV 300W (CF=20%) Wind 300W (CF=30%) PV-Wind Hybrid 300W (CF=30%) Pico Hydro 300W (CF=30%) Pico Hydro 1kW (CF=30%) Diesel/Gasolene Generator 300W (CF=30%) Diesel/Gasolene Generator 1kW (CF=30%)

  7. Solar PV 25kW (CF=20%) Wind 100kW (CF=30%) PV-Wind Hybrid 100kW (CF=30%) Geothermal 200kW (CF=70%) Biomass Gasifier 100kW (CF=80%) Biogas 60kW (CF=80%) Micro Hydro 100kW (CF=30%) Diesel Generator 100kW (CF=80%) Micro Turbines 100kW (CF=80%) Fuel Cells 200kW (CF=80%) Renewables also compare favorably with comparable conventional generation options in mini-grid (5kW-500kW) configurations

  8. Wind 10MW (CF=30%) Solar Thermal without storage 30MW (CF=20%) Solar Thermal with storage 30MW (CF=54%) Geothermal 20MW (CF=85%) Geothermal 50MW (CF=90%) Biomass Gasifier 20MW (CF=80%) Bio Steam 50MW (CF=80%) MSW/Landfill Gas 5MW (CF=80%) Mini Hydro 5MW (CF=45%) Diesel Generator (Base) 5MW (CF=80%) Diesel Generator (Peak) 5MW (CF=10%) Fuel Cell 5MW (CF=80%) Some renewables are more economical than conventional generation in small (5MW – 50MW) grid-connected applications

  9. Wind 100MW (CF=30%) Geothermal 50MW (CF=90%) Large Hydro 100MW (CF=50%) Gas Comb. Turbines (Peak) 150MW (CF=10%) Gas Combined Cycle 300MW (CF=80%) Coal Steam 300MW (CF=80%) Coal AFBC 300MW (CF=80%) Coal IGCC 300MW (CF=80%) Oil Steam 300MW (CF=80%) Conventional generation options remain more economical for grid-connected applications

  10. Many Coal generation options; best choice depends on fuel costs and environmental requirements Coal Steam subcritical 300MW (CF=80%) Coal AFBC 300MW (CF=80%) Coal IGCC 300MW (CF=80%) Coal Steam subcritical 500MW (CF=80%) Coal Steam SC 500MW (CF=80%) Coal Steam USC 500MW (CF=80%) Coal AFBC 500MW (CF=80%) Coal IGCC 500MW (CF=80%)

  11. Advanced generation options have considerable potential • Supercritical PC offers higher efficiency and lower risk with potential for further improvements • AFBC is competitive especially with low quality fuels • IGCC economics are expected to improve 500 MW Plant

  12. Factors being taken into account • Fuel price forecasts • Technology development trends • Grid connection costs and issues • Risks • Climate change considerations

  13. Oil GasCoal Fuel Price Forecasts 33$/bbl → 38$/bbl High-case 4.1$/MMBtu → 5.1$/MMBtu 35$/ton → 40$/ton ($/GJ, in 2004) High-case 2005, Reference-case 2004, Reference-case 2005, Reference-case 2004, Reference-case High-case 2005, Reference-case 2004, Reference-case Source: Estimated by Study team, based on World Energy Outlook 2005(IEA), International Energy Outlook (DOE) and World Bank

  14. 500 MW Thermal Power PlantCO2 Reduction Potential Capacity Factor: 80%

  15. Conclusions • Renewables are competitive especially for off-grid and mini-grid applications • Thermal power still preferable for large grid connected applications • Technological developments and climate change may alter the cost-effectiveness of technologies • Site-specific factors affect significantly the technology selection • Remaining activities under the project: • Complete risk assessment • Develop spreadsheet to assess costs considering site-specific considerations

More Related