A Simulation of Renewable Electricity in California in 2020

Transcription

1 Renewables International. A Simulation of Renewable Electricity in California in 2020 Bernard CHABOT Renewable Energy Expert and Trainer Bernard_Chabot@yahoo.fr 1

2 Content Scope, main findings and conclusions: 3-4 References: 5 Hypothesis and results for the installed capacities and productions: 6-11 Simulation of the 2020 monthly demand, residual demand and variable RE: Simulation of the 2020 hourly wind and solar production: Simulation of the 2020 penetration rates of Wind, Solar and [Wind + Solar]: Simulation of the 2020 demand and residual demand :

3 Scope, main findings and conclusions This document proposes a simulation and an and analysis of the 2020 hourly electricity production from variable renewables such as wind and solar power in California. The hourly demand is supposed to be the same than in 2015, from a combination of increased demand side management and energy efficiency and some new uses of electricity. Solar and wind hourly productions per kw are supposed to be the same than in 2015, as the ones resulting from the 2015 CAISO hourly data. For the simulation, solar capacity would be multiplied by a factor of 2.3 between 2015 and 2020 and wind power by a factor of 2. Related increases in capacities for solar and wind power are compatible with historical market developments in other contexts. The 2020 penetration rate of renewables (excluding large hydro) would be one third of demand (as the 2020 Californian RPS) of which 27 % from wind and solar and the same 6.3 % from other RE in 2020 as in Those 33.4 % in 2020 are 15 percentage points more than the 2015 estimated RE penetration rate of 18.4 %. Maximum hourly penetration rates would be 40 % for wind, 61 % for solar and 93 % for [Wind + Solar]. With 35.5 TWh in 2020, PV would cover 15.3 % of demand compared to 6.4 % in With 25.4 TWh, wind would cover 10.9 % of the 2020 demand compared to 5.5 % in Residual demand after [Wind + Solar] production would decrease by 34 TWh or 17 % from 203 TWh in 2015 to 169 TWh in The 2020 hourly simulation gives historical production profiles and duration curves of wind and Solar] production, demand and residual demand after the [Wind + Solar] production. They show no too small residual demand or too high penetration rates from variable but predictable wind and solar that would put the electrical system at risks. 3

4 Main findings and conclusions (2) Mean residual hourly power would decrease by near 4 GW compared to the demand, with a maximum hourly decrease of near 12 GW. Residual demand after [Wind + Solar] production in 2020 would be more volatile than the 2015 and 2020 demand, but with a lower mean increase in the hot months, due to larger solar and wind production during those months (California enjoys many places with strong thermal winds in hot months and very high solar irradiation). Differences between hourly demand and residual demand would be very variable, but they can be forecasted well in advance (24 h, 6 hours and 1 hour forecasts by electric systems managers), so that hourly production from conventional power plants, exchanges between utilities and imports from neighboring States can be adapted. During the higher demand period (in hot months) the minimum residual demand would be always higher than 10 GW. During the low demand period (in winter) the minimum residual demand would be always positive, but with some hours between 1 to 5 GW. Residual load < 10 GW would occur on only 5 % of the year (less than 440 h/year). The 2020 [Wind + Solar] production would avoid around 4 to 8 GW of extreme peak loads, which are the most costly to deal with. All the potential problems to solve within a context of a penetration rate from variable renewables of around one third of annual electricity demand are already solved by electric systems managers such as TSO and utilities in Denmark or in Northern Germany. California enjoying many skilled and wise workers and decision makers can easily prepare itself to solve the same problems within the local context. 4

5 References and source of data Refer to preceding articles on electricity production in CA: «Preliminary Analysis of Renewable Electricity in California in 2015», online December 2015, and downloadable as PDF at : «Renewable Electricity in California up to November 2015», online December 5, and downloadable as PDF at : Renewable Electricity in California up to October 2015, online November 4, 2015 and downloadable as PDF at: «Renewable Electricity in California in September 2015», online October 19, 2015 and downloadable as PDF at: «Will California decide to be a leader for a power breakthrough: replacing fossils and conventional nuclear by advanced nuclear: Hydrogen/Helium fusion and Uranium/Thorium fission?», online September 2, 2015 and downloadable as PDF at: «Renewable Electricity In California in August 2015», online September 4, 2015 and downloadable as PDF at: Analysis of Electricity Production in USA up to 2014 with a Focus on Renewables And on Wind Power, on line March 19, 2015, and downloadable as PDF at : Renewable Electricity in California in 2013 with a focus on December, online January 3, 2014 and downloadable as PDF at: Renewable Energy for Electricity in California in 2012 and its Future Role, online on August 19, 2013 and downloadable as pdf at: All hourly production data are from CAISO web-site: PV CAISO data is only utility scale PV > 1 MW. Geothermal data don t cover all geothermal 5

6 Hypothesis and results for the installed capacities and productions 6

7 Hypothesis for increases in capacities for solar and wind power on are compatible with historical market development in other contexts Estimated MWac MW 2015 MW 2020 dmw dmw/y 2020/2015 PV behind the meter ,00 Utility scale PV ,50 Total PV ,38 Solar Thermal ,50 Total Solar ,30 Wind power ,00 Total [Wind + Solar] ,20 7

8 For the simulation, solar capacity would be multiplied by a factor of 2.3 between 2015 and 2020 and wind power by a factor of 2 8

9 In the simulation, the 2020 penetration rate of renewables (excluding large hydro) is one third of demand (as the 2020 Californian RPS) of which 27.1 % from wind and solar and the same 6.3 % from other RE, and versus the 2015 estimated RE penetration rate of 18.4 % 2020 California MWac % MW GWh % GWh Solar PV ,4% ,4% Solar Thermal ,9% ,2% Total Solar ,4% ,6% Wind Power ,6% ,4% TOTAL [Wind+Solar] % % % of 2020 electricity demand % geoth./bio./shp: 6,3% % 2020 [Wind+Solar: 27,1% % 2020 RE: 33,4% 2015 California MWac % MW GWh % GWh Solar PV ,4% ,5% Solar Thermal ,8% ,6% Total Solar ,2% ,1% Wind Power ,8% ,9% TOTAL [Wind+Solar] % % In the simulation, wind and solar would deliver near 63 TWh in 2020, near 60 % from solar (56 % PV, 3 % solar thermal) and 40 % from wind, or 34 more TWh than the 29 TWh estimated for 2015, a relative total increase of 117 %, compared to 138 % for PV, 48 % for solar thermal and 100 % for wind power Diff. ( ) MWac % MW GWh % GWh Solar PV ,6% ,7% Solar Thermal 500 2,4% 647 1,9% Total Solar ,0% ,6% Wind Power ,0% ,4% TOTAL [Wind+Solar] % % Increase 138% 48% 131% 100% 117% 9

10 In the simulation, PV with 35.5 TWh in 2020 would cover 15.3 % of demand compared to 6.4 % in With 25.4 TWh, wind would cover 10.9 % of the 2020 demand compared to 5.5 % in Residual demand after [Wind + Solar] production would decrease by 34 TWh from 203 TWh in 2015 to 169 TWh in 2020 Year 2020 Wind+Solar Wind Solar total Sol PV Sol Thermal Demand Resid. Dem. Maxi(MW) Average (MW) Mini (MW) GWh/year % of Solar: 100% 94,7% 5,3% % of [Wind+Solar] 100% 40,4% 59,6% 56,4% 3,2% % of demand 27,1% 10,9% 16,2% 15,3% 0,9% 100% 72,9% Average/Maxi 34% 32% 29% 30% 21% 56% 45% Year 2015 Wind+Solar Wind Solar[PV + Th] Solar PV Solar Thermal Demand Resid. Dem. Maxi(MW) Average (MW) Mini (MW) GWh/year % of Solar: 100% 91,7% 8,3% % of [Wind+Solar] 100% 43,9% 56,1% 51,5% 4,6% % of demand 12,5% 5,5% 7,0% 6,4% 0,6% 100% 87,5% Average/Maxi 34% 32% 29% 30% 21% 56% 53% 10

11 In the simulation, the 34 TWh/year increase of the [wind + Solar] production between 2015 and 2020 would result by 63 % from solar (of which 97 % PV and 3 % solar thermal) and 37 % from wind. The residual demand would decrease by 34 TWh or 17 %. Mean residual power would decrease by near 4 GW, with a maximum hourly decrease of near 12 GW Diff. ( ) Wind+Solar Wind Solar[PV + Th] Solar PV Solar Thermal Demand Resid. Dem. Maxi(dMW) Average (dmw) Mini (dmw) dgwh/year % of dsolar: 100% 97,0% 3,0% % of d[wind+solar] 100% 37,4% 62,6% 60,7% 1,9% 11

12 Simulation of the 2020 monthly demand, residual demand and variable RE production 12

13 X (Preliminary estimate for December) 13

14 X (Preliminary estimate for December) 14

15 Simulation of the 2020 hourly wind and solar production 15

16 X 16

17 X 17

18 X 18

19 X (Preliminary estimate for December) 19

20 X (Preliminary estimate for December) 20

21 X 21

22 Simulation of the hourly penetration rates of Wind, Solar and [Wind + Solar] in

23 2020 penetration rates (% of the hourly demand) 2020 Wind Solar [Wind + Solar] Maxi 39,6 60,9 93,0 Mean 11,2 15,4 26,6 Mini 0,0 0,0 0,1 23

24 x 24

25 x 25

26 x 26

27 x 27

28 x 28

29 x 29

30 x 30

31 Simulation of the demand and the residual demand after [Wind + Solar] production 31

32 Demand in California is higher and very variable during hot months. By hypothesis, in the simulation the 2020 demand is the same than in

33 Residual demand after [Wind + Solar] production is more volatile but with a lower mean increase in the hot moths, due to larger solar and wind production during those months 33

34 Differences between hourly demand and residual demand is very variable, but can be forecasted in advance (24 h, 6 hours and one hour forecasts by electric systems managers) 34

35 In the simulation, during the higher demand period (in hot months) the minimum residual demand is always higher than 10 GW 35

36 In the simulation, during the low demand period (in winter) the minimum residual demand is always positive, but with some hours between 1 to 5 GW 36

37 There is a large difference between load and residual load all along the year. Residual load lower than 10 GW would occur on only 5 % of the year (440 h/year), with a production of 3.2 TWh representing 1.4 % of the demand and 5.1 % of the [Wind + Solar] production 37

38 In the simulation, the [Wind + Solar] production would avoid around 4 to 8 GW of extreme peak loads in 2020, which are the most costly to deal with 38