Concentrating Solar Power Systems Analysis and … · 3 Overview CSP Systems Approach Solar Resource Power Markets Parabolic Trough Case Study 12/12/2002 CSP Analysis & Implications

Concentrating Solar Power Systems Analysis & Implications

Henry Price, PE SunLab/NREL

2

Parabolic Trough & Power Tower Technology Assessment

CSP Program Status SunLab Technology Assessments �

Sargent & Lundy Review � due-diligence technology review National Academy of Science Review of S&L Report

12/12/2002 CSP Analysis & Implications

Power Towers & Parabolic Troughs

3

Overview CSP Systems Approach

Solar Resource Power Markets Parabolic Trough Case Study


4

U.S. DNI Solar Resource


5

NREL Siting Studies

( 2) ≥ /m 2 ≥ /m 2

Arilil 157

--

ico --

732

-l

1% of Land >7kWh/m2-day

~30 GWe

Land with Slope <1%


State Resource Area km

6 kWh -day 7 kWh -day

zona 53,460 21,407 Ca fornia 26,793 11,073 Co orado 13,327 Idaho 1,284 Kansas 9,947 Nevada 26,137 6,122 New Mex 74,350 15,603 Oklahoma 6,408 Oregon 2,405 Texas 70,869 Utah 18,919 4,612 Wyoming 2,428

Tota 306,325 59,706

6

Power Markets

Market Characteristics � Southwest �

� Wholesale power market Competition � Fossil Fuel Costs �

Value of Solar Power � Ability to dispatch to meet peak load


for CSP

Focus on USLarge-scale centralized generation

Electricity Cost Projections

7

SW Natural Gas Forecast

Strong demand growth for

Near-term

Mid-term Higher exploration and production costs

Long-term LNG Caps NG prices

3

4

5

2002 2007 2012 2017 2022

$/m

mB

tu


Platts Research and Consulting

NG in electric power sector

Low 2002 prices resulted in drilling cut backs

2.5

3.5

4.5

Base High Demand High Deliverability High Hydro Low Hydro No LNG

8

Gas Price Forecast Comparison Platts vs. EIA AEO 2002

$/

2016 2031


Gas

Co

st R

eal

MM

Btu

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

2001 2006 2011 2021 2026

Platts EIA AEO 02

Base Case Natural Gas Price Forecast Desert Southwest, $2002

12/12/2002 CSP Analysis & Implications 9

10

SW Coal Costs

of new coal power plants

,


Platts Research and Consulting

Air Quality constraints limit development

No Growth in Coal Demand Coal prices are reduced through mining productivity enhancements

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030

$200

2/m

mB

tu

Forecast Coal Prices

11

Conventional Technology Cost of Electricity (New Plants)

PeakingCombustion

IntermediateCombined Cycle

Pulverized Coal

Cost $/MWh Lowest Cost When UsedService


Source: Platts Research & Consulting

*At a 20% capacity factor.

$75* 0-20% Turbine

$75 to $41 20-60%

$41 to $28 60-100% Baseload

Corresponding

12

Conventional Technology Cost of Electricity (New Plants)

10%

60%

85%

Capacity Factor

Combustion

Combined Cycle

Pulverized Coal

High Fuel Price

$/MWh

Base Fuel Price

$/MWh

Low Fuel Price

$/MWh


135.2 109.9 99.7 Turbine

56.3 40.9 34.6

32.0 31.2 30.7

Source: Platts Research & Consulting

13

15

20

25

30

35

0 4 8

Aug

Apr

California System Load Profile


12 16 20 24

Hour of Day

Cal

PX

Sys

tem

Loa

d (G

We)

Dec

14

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 4 8

l

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

/

California System Load Profile Data from 1999 CalPX


12 16 20 24

Hour of Day

Ca

PX

Sys

tem

Loa

d (G

We)

Wh

ole

sale

Pri

ce $

MW

e

Aug Load Dec Load Aug Rate Dec Rate

15

1250 MW Solar Plant No Thermal Storage

New System Load

250 MW Reduction In Peak Load

Solar Plant

Source: Pl


After Solar Added

atts Research and Consulting

16

1250 MW Solar Plant

Reduction

Solar Plant

Source: Pl


DISPATCHING FROM STORAGE

With Thermal Energy Storage

1250 MW

In Peak Load

with Thermal Storage


17

Solar/Hybrid Plant 30 MW SEGS Plant Output

-5 0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40

6 9 12 15 18 21

172 262 260


Time of Day

Net

Out

put

(MW

e)

On-Peak

Day of Year

< 41

18

Wholesale Value Analysis

(%) ($/

Source: Pl

??


Case Capacity Factor

Average Price Received

MWh) Average Price 100 41.17 Trough Plant No TES, SM 1.0 25.2 47.34 Trough Plant With 4 hrs TES, SM 1.5 34.1 53.40 Hybrid Trough 50.3 56.17 Wind Plant

Natural Gas Price $3.87/MMBtu


19

Market Conclusions

Baseload Power – 3

Green Adder – *

Value of CSP 4-6¢/kWh


to 4¢/kWh Intermediate Load – 3.5 to 5.5¢/kWh

0.5 to 1.0¢/kWh

20

Trough LEC Learning Curve How low can it go?

SEGS

1

imited, 1990


Experience

LEC = 0.4959 MWe -0.226

Pr = 0.855

0.01

0.10

1.00

10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000

Cumulative Power Plant Capacity Installed (MWe)

$0.06/kWh Goal

Source: Luz International L

SEGS I-IX, 354 MWe of Trough Power Plants

21

Parabolic Trough Case Study cost of energy?

Can Troughs Compete? � Market value of power 4-6¢/kWh � ~12¢/kWh Ways to reduce cost � Technology R&D � Policy � Market Deployment/Competition


What is the potential for reducing the

Last SEGS plant cost

22

Trough Technology Assessment

Integrated performance model

Define current state-of-the-art Define avenues for cost reduction Development scenarios


Define baseline assumptions

23

Systems Analysis Approach

l

Module Module

Solar Performance

Turbine/Parasitics

Design Module Module

Simulation Optimization

Module

Site

Data

Data Module

Financial Analysis Module

Excel Spreadsheet With VBA


Integrated Trough Performance Model

CapitaCost

O&M Cost

Hourly Performance Simulation Module

Thermal Storage/Dispatch Fossil Hybridization/Backup

Plant Operating Strategy

Meteo

Output

24

Trough Baseline Assumptions

Technology Performance Data Capital Cost O&M Cost Economic Assumptions


25

Technology Baseline

30 MWe (~100 bar, 700F, 37.5% gross) LS-2 Collectors (391 C)

Hybrid (NG boiler) No thermal energy storage


SEGS VI Trough Plant

Receiver – Luz cermet

26

Trough Performance Baseline

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 100 200 300 350 400 450

Model

l.

SEGS VI 1999 Data


SunLab Trough Performance Model

50 150 250

Actual Gross Solar Output MWh

Exc

Model = Actual

Daily Modeled Vs. Actual Gross Solar MWh

27

Trough Capital Cost Baseline

Cost Assumptions �

�

�

�

�

�

� Thermal Storage Costs � Nexant Model�


Started with Luz/Flabeg Cost Data Roadmap (1998) Solar Field Costs Updated from Flabeg Rpt. (1999)

Solar Field Costs Modified for LS-2 collector Structure & mirrors same as LS-3 Increased HCEs, drives, interconnections (ball joints)

(2000) TES Development (2000-2002)

28

Trough O&M Cost Baseline

2

Pl ing

i

l

2 Sol i

i

i i

ici

l

2 i

l

l iel

Pl


KJC Operating Company

* Scale for solar field size based on 500,000m

anner/Purchas Secretary

Plant Engineer Accountant

Computer Technic an Human Resources

4 Contro Room Operators

4 Plant Equipment Operators

ar F eld Operators

2 M rror Wash Crew *

Operat ons Superv sor

1 Electr an

2 Mechanics

2 Mechanic He pers

I& C Technic ans

Power Block Foreman

2 We ders *

2 Mechanics *

2 Laborers *

So ar F d Foreman

ant Manager

29

Baseline Economic Assumptions

DOE LCOE Methodology � 2002 real dollars IPP Project Financing �

� Current financial incentives �


30 year cash flow model

Sargent & Lundy financial assumptions

30

SEGS VI Baseline

30 30 2]

0 0 10.6% 10.7% 22.2% 30.4% 3008

/


Site: Kramer Junction Solar Only

Hybrid (25%)

Plant size, net electric [MWe] Collector Aperture Area [km 0.188 0.188 Thermal Storage [hours] Solar-to-electric Efficiency. [%] Plant Capacity Factor [%] Capital Cost [$/kWe] 3204 O&M Cost [$/kWh] 0.046 0.034 Fuel Cost [$ kWh] 0.000 0.013 Levelized Cost of Energy [2002$/kWh]

0.170 0.141

31

Near-Term Technology Parabolic Trough Plant

� 50 MWe (~100 bar, 700F, 37.5% gross) � LS-2+ Collectors (391 C) �

� Solar only or hybrid �

� No thermal storage


Current State-of-the-Art (Plant built today)

Receiver – Solel UVAC2

Solar multiple 1.5

32

Current State-of-the-Art 50 MWe Trough Plant

2] 0.312 0.312 0 0

13.9% 14.1% 29.2% 39.6%

0.024 0.018 0.000 0.010

0.096


Site: Kramer Junction Solar Only

Hybrid (25%)

Plant size, net electric [MWe] 50 50 Collector Aperture Area [kmThermal Storage [hours] Solar-to-electric Efficiency. [%] Plant Capacity Factor [%] Capital Cost [$/kWe] 2745 2939 O&M Cost [$/kWh] Fuel Cost [$/kWh] Levelized Cost of Energy [2002$/kWh]

0.110

33

Opportunities for Reducing the Cost of Energy

Concentrator Design Advanced Receiver Technology Thermal Energy Storage Plant Size O&M

Power Park Competition Financial


Design Optimization/Standardization

35

Trough Concentrator Cost Reduction Opportunities

LS-2 Baseline Reduce Costs � Increase Size � Optimized Structure � Competition Improved Performance � Increase mirror reflectivity � Increase cleanliness


36

Trough Concentrator Current Development


IST Concentrator

Trough Wind Tunnel Testing EuroTrough Concentrator

Duke Solar Concentrator

37

Concentrator Size

50 5

50 2)

/m2)

/


Impact on Cost of Energy

Site: Kramer Junction LS-2 LS-3 100

LS-3 150

Aperture (m) 5.75 5.75

Length (m) 100 150

Aperture Area (m 235 545 818

Number of collectors relative to LS-2 size collector

100% 43% 29%

Number of receivers relative to LS-2 size collector

100% 87% 87%

Est. Collector Cost ($ 233 208 202

Levelized Cost of Energy 2002$ kWh

0.110 0.103 0.102

38

Trough Receiver Cost Reduction Opportunities

�

�

� Thermo/Optic Properties � Higher Temperatures

Reduced Cost � Selective Coating Process �

�


Improved Reliability Reduced Breakage (G/M Seal) Durability in Air at Temperature

Improved Performance

Design Changes Competition

39

Solel UVAC Receiver Test Results

lel

li

NA

i l

i l

Property


Receiver Luz Cermet

Solel UVAC

Data source SNL test SNL test SPF test for So

Enve ope solar transm ttance

0.930 0.965

Coat ng so ar absorptance

0.915 0.95-0.96 >0.944

Coat ng thermaemittance

0.14 @ 350°C

0.135 @ 400°C

0.091 @ 400°C

UVAC Field Test Results UVAC Selective Coating Test Results

40

Trough Receiver Technology /

VI

Adv l


Impact on the Cost of Energy

0.100

0.105

0.110

0.115

0.120

0.125

0.130

0.135

0.140

0.91 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99

Absorptance

LC

OE

($

kWh

)

SEGSCermet UVAC UVAC2

Adv Re

E = 0.15

E = 0.10

E = 0.05

Near-Term Receiver Technology Assumption

Field Tested

Near-Term 50 MWe Trough Plant

CCN

CN

R 1 R 2

X

H H

H

imidazoliumsalt


Thermal Storage Developments

Near-term Option Two Tank Molten Salt Storage � Leveraged experience from Solar Two’s TES. � Heat transferred via an oil-to-salt HX.

Advanced Technologies Thermocline Molten Salt System � Single tank. Hot and cold separated with thermal

gradient. � Low-cost filler material � Design and operation more compex than 2-tank

Molten Salt HTF/Storage � Increased operating temperature (450-500C), reduced

piping cost, reduced parasitics � Freeze protection of fluid (120C), SCA interconnection,

increased O&M complexity Advanced HTF � Imidazolium salts have potential to be thermally stable

to above 400 C with very low freezing point � Compatible with alloys used in solar plants, non-

flamable, low vapor pressure � Cost and temperature stability issues

Solar Two Molten Salt Thermal Storage

Prototype Thermocline Storage

Propane Salt Heater

Salt to Air Cooler

Drain sump

Cold pump

Hot pump

TCTC

TCTC

TCTC

TCTC

TC

TC

Thermocline Tank

CC N

C N

R 1 R 2

X

H H

H

imida z olium sa lt

CCN

CN

R 1R 1 R 2R 2

X

H H

H

imidazoliumsalt

imidazoliumsalt

42

Thermal Storage Design Optimization

Plant

0 4 8 12 16

Optimum



Near-Term 50 MWe Trough

6 Hours of TES

0.100

0.105

0.110

0.115

0.120

0.125

0.130

0.135

LMTD

LEC

$/k

Wh

323,360

368,480

413,600

458,720

503,840

552,720

597,840

Solar Field Area (m2)

43

Thermal Storage Technology Impact on Cost of Energy

No TC i

i450C

i0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

/

Plant

l


0 .110

0 .10 1

0 .0 9 6

0 .0 9 1 0 .0 9 0

0 .10 5

0.085

0.090

0.095

0.100

0.105

0.110

0.115

0.120

Storage 2-Tank Indirect Ind rect

2-Tank Direct 450C

TC D rect TC D rect 500C

LCO

E 2

002$

/kW

h

Sto

rag

e C

ost

$kW

ht

LCOE

Storage Cost


Enabling Technologies - Sa t HTF - Thermocline Storage

44

Plant Size

10 50 100 200

Plant

l



0.204

0.137 0.110

0.094 0.084 0.076

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

25 400

Plant Size MWe

LC

OE

200

2$/k

Wh


Enabling Technologies - Ball Joints - Sa t HTF

45

Solar Resource

/m 2

8.0 a 7.6 b

NV 7.1 0.125 b 6.9 0.124 b 6.8 0.127 b 6.4 0.147 b 6.4 0.147 b

/



Site DNI

Resource kWh day

LCOE

$/kWh

Source

Kramer Junction, CA 0.110 Daggett, CA 0.115 Las Vegas, Phoenix, AZ El Paso, TX Cedar City, UT Reno, NV Source: a – KJC Operating Company, 1999 DNI data

b – NREL TMY 2 Data, http://rredc.nrel.gov

46

Cost of Capital Impact on Cost of Energy

6% 2% 18% 14% 12% 8%

LCO

E 2

002$

/kW

h

Plant


0.110

0.098

0.081

0.116

0.110 0.107

0.097

0.080

0.085

0.090

0.095

0.100

0.105

0.110

0.115

0.120

8.5%

Debt rate, IRR=14% IRR, debt 8.5%


47

Tax Incentives Impact on Cost of Energy

Plant


0.110

0.119

0.109

0.093

0.115

0.078

0.070

0.080

0.090

0.100

0.110

0.120

0.130

Ba s e 10% IT C

No IT C 1.7c P T C 30% IT C No P rop e rty

Ta x

All

LCO

E 2

002$

/kW

h



Trough Development Scenario

0.00570.01030.02330.0462O&M Cost $/kWh

20%5%Cost Reduction

56%56%30%22%Capacity Factor

2225341628652954Capital Cost $/kWe

17.2%16.2%13.4%10.6%Solar to Electric ηηηη

12 hrs TC Dir

12 hrs TC Dir

NANATES

Salt 500 C

Salt 450 C

VP-1 390 C

VP-1 390 C

HTF

Adv Adv

LS-3+ Adv

LS-2 UVAC2

LS-2 Luz

Collector Receiver

400 2.5

100 2.5

50 1.5

30 1.2

Plant Size: MWe Solar Multiple

Long-Term

Mid-Term

Near-Term

SEGS VI 1989

49


Mi


Cost of Energy

0.170

0.110

0.066

0.042

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

SEGS VI Near-Term d-Term Long-Term

LCO

E 2

002$

/kW

h

50



Breakdown of Cost Reduction

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

SEGS VI Near-Term Mid-Term Long-Term

LCO

E 2

002$

/kW

h

Scale-up 37%

R&D 42%

Competition & Volume Production 21%

51

Trough Power Plant Scenarios

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

Mi

//


with Different Financing Assumptions

Near-Term d-Term Long-Term

LCO

E 2

002$

/kW

h

IP P w 10% IT C IP P w 1.8c P T C

30% IT C + 1.8c P T C Mu n i Fin a n c in g

Region of Interest

52

Conclusions

� Identification of market and keyrequirements

� Identification of appropriate metrics Integrated analysis tools are essential � Helps in defining metrics � Technology assessment � Decision Making


CSP Systems Analysis & Implications

Market assessment important

Concentrating Solar Power Systems Analysis and … · 3 Overview CSP Systems Approach Solar Resource Power Markets Parabolic Trough Case Study 12/12/2002 CSP Analysis & Implications

Documents