Sensitivity of Solar Fossil Hybrid Electricity Technology Penetration to Price and Efficiency Projections

Transcription

1 Sensitivity of Solar Fossil Hybrid Electricity Technology Penetration to Price and Efficiency Projections Kristen E Brown Postdoctoral Environmental Engineer US Environmental Protection Agency USAEE Meeting November 13, 2017 Houston, TX

2 Motivation New electricity generation capacity needed. Decision-makers consider: Fuel cost Capital cost Emissions Intermittency Previous studies analyze technological possibility of Hybrid solar gas combined-cycle* Cost savings compared to independent fossil and renewable facilities Now evaluate market potential *Barigozzi et al. 2012, Spelling & Laumert

3 Integrated Solar Combined Cycle Adapted from Barigozzi et al

4 EPAUS9r MARKAL Bottom-up and technology-rich Captures the full system from energy resource supply/extraction technologies to end-use technologies in all sectors Energy technologies (existing and future techs) are characterized by cost, efficiency, fuel inputs, emissions Technologies are connected by energy flows Covers 9 US Census divisions Optimization The model picks the best way (lowest system-wide cost) to meet energy demands choosing from the full menu of energy resources and technologies The model makes these choices from 2005 to 2055, giving us a snapshot of possible future energy mixes Emissions and impacts All technologies and fuels have air and GHG emissions characterized Standards and regulations are included in the baseline, and additional policies can be modeled 4

5 Methods Used the EPA US 9-region MARKAL model (EPAUS9r) Added representation* of technology to regions 7, 8, and 9 Tested various cost and fuel savings attributes for hybrid technology Altered how the technology fits into Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) *Barigozzi et al. 2012, Spelling & Laumert

6 Nested Sensitivity Possible Fuel Savings 15% 20% 25% 30% Possible Cost Increases $700 $800 $900 $1,000 RPS fulfillment Full Partial None Cost increases: $/kw compared to CC investment 100% of electricity counts toward RPS Renewable Fuel Savings/ 30% 25% 20% 15% Solar Fraction Increased Cost $700 $800 $900 $1,000 $700 $800 $900 $1,000 $700 $800 $900 $1,000 $700 $800 $900 $1,000 Does not count for RPS Not renewable Fuel Savings/ 30% 25% Solar Fraction Increased Cost $700 $800 $700 Without RPS incentive, not used when too expensive, inefficient Only Solar Fraction Counts toward RPS Partially Renewable Fuel Savings/ Solar Fraction 30% 25% 20% Increased Cost $700 $800 $900 $1,000 $700 $800 $900 $1,000 $700 $800 $900 6

7 PJ of Electricity Generated by Utilization Utilization of Technology % 25% 20% 15% 30% 25% 20% 30% 25% 20% 15% Renewable Not Renewable Partially Renewable Fuel Savings Compared to CC $900 $800 $700 $1,000 $1,000 $900 $800 $700 7

8 Region 9 Electricity Mix Base 30% $700 Renewable Solar Solar Hydro MSW Hydro Natural Gas Natural Gas 30% $700 Not Renewable Hydro Solar MSW 20% $800 Renewable Hydro Solar Natural Gas Natural Gas 8

9 Region 8 Electricity Mix Base Nuclear Wind 30% $700 Full Renew Wind Coal 30% $700 No Renew Wind Only displaces Coal 30% $700 Part Renew Wind Displaces wind and Coal Coal 9

10 Region 7 Electricity Mix Base Nuclear Wind 30% $700 Full Renew Wind Coal 30% $700 No Renew Only displaces Coal 30% $700 Part Renew Wind Displaces wind and Coal Coal 10

11 Emissions Region 9 Emission changes CH4 SO2 satisfies RPS, replaces MSW CH4 increases w/ more NOx CO2-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% Partial RPS-20% fuel savings Partial RPS-25% or 30% fuel savings No RPS Full RPS-30% fuel savings & $700 or $800 Full RPS-all other 11

12 Emissions Region 8 Emissions Changes CH4 SO2 NOx CO2 If satisfies RPS, it displaces other clean technologies -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% Partial RPS No RPS Full RPS 12

13 Emissions Region 7 Emissions Changes CH4 SO2 NOx CO2 If used but not for RPS, reduces emissions If satisfies RPS, it displaces other clean technologies -8% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% Partial RPS 20% fuel savings Partial RPS 25% and 30% fuel savings No RPS only 30% fuel savings $700 Full RPS 30%fuel savings $700 only Full RPS all other 13

14 PJ of Electricity Output Sensitivity to Price % $700 R 30% $700 P 30% $700 N 20% $800 R 20% $800P cheap base expensive 14

15 Discussion can be economically viable Siting of facilities will be important Tested parameters assume good solar resource Large land area required RPS definitions are important to technology deployment and emissions Emissions reductions are not proportional to adoption 15

16 References Barigozzi, G., G. Bonetti, G. Franchini, A. Perdichizzi, and S. Ravelli 'Solar Hybrid Combined Cycle Performance Prediction Influence of Gas Turbine Model and Spool Arrangements', Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power-Transactions of the Asme, 134: 11. Lenox, C., R. Dodder, C. Gage, D. Loughlin, O. Kaplan, and W. Yelverton "EPA US Nine-region MARKAL Database: Database Documentation." In. Cincinnati, OH: US EPA. Spelling, J., and B. Laumert 'Thermo-economic Evaluation of Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic Hybridization Options for Combined-Cycle Power Plants', Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power-Transactions of the Asme, 137: 11. Disclaimer: The views expressed in this presentation are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 16