ABENGOA SOLAR Solar Power for a Sustainable World

Transcription

1 Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) as Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) as an option to replace coal an option to replace coal Dr. Fred Morse Dr. Fred Morse Senior Advisor, US Operations, Abengoa Senior Advisor, US Operations, Abengoa Solar Solar and Chairman, CSP Division, SEIA and Chairman, CSP Division, SEIA Presented at the Energy & Climate Mini-Workshop Washington, DC Presented at the Energy & Climate Mini- 3 November 2008 Workshop Washington, DC 3 November 2008

2 Outline The resource where and how large The technology CSP Why CSP and why now? CSP industry, capabilities and projects Cost parameters and outlook DOE CSP base-load initiative What s in the way and conclusions 2

3 150 MW SEGS Plant 3

4 4

5 The Resource Solar energy comes in two flavors diffuse and direct (beam) PV can use both components CSP can use only the direct because diffuse can not be effectively focused or concentrated So where is the direct solar energy found? 5

6 Global Solar Radiation 6

7 China DNI Map 7

8 Southwest Solar Resources Unfiltered Data 8

9 Filters to Identify Prime Locations for CSP Development All Solar Resources Locations Suitable for Development Start with direct normal solar resource estimates derived from 10 km satellite data. Eliminate locations with less than 6.75 kwh/m 2 /day as these will have a higher cost of electricity. Most of Spain is lower. Exclude environmentally sensitive lands, major urban areas, and water features. Remove land areas with greater than 1% (and 3%) average land slope. Eliminate areas with a minimum contiguous area of less than 1 square kilometers. 9

10 Southwest Solar Resources Transmission Overlay 10

11 Southwest Solar Resources > 6.0 kwh/m 2 /day 11

12 Southwest Solar Resources with Environmental and Land Use Exclusions 12

13 Southwest Solar Resources Previous Plus Slope < 3% 13

14 Southwest Solar Resources Previous Plus Slope < 1% 14

15 Southwest Solar Resources Previous Plus Slope < 1% and Topography 15

16 Potential and Benefits Direct-Normal Solar Resource for the Southwest U.S. Untapped Electricity Generation Potential Solar energy in seven southwestern states AZ, CA, CO, NV, NM, TX and UT could generate more than 6X current U.S. electricity needs Solar resource for 6,800 GW of versus current nation-wide capacity of approx. 1,000 GW Significant Population Growth Centers 15 of the 20 fastest-growing metro areas in the country are in close proximity to solar resource By 2030, an estimated 41 million additional people will move to the Western United States (from 90 million in 2000 to 131 million people) Environmental Benefits GW by 2030 (up to 37% of West s power) offsets coal plants Compared with coal plants, CSP will save million tons CO 2 /yr by 2030 Map and table courtesy of NREL Potential Solar Generation Capacity by State State Land Capacity Generation Area (mi²) (GW) (GWh) AZ 19,279 2,468 5,836,517 CA 6, ,074,763 CO 2, ,105 NV 5, ,692,154 NM 15,156 1,940 4,588,417 TX 1, ,774 UT 3, ,078,879 Total 53,727 6,877 16,265,611 16

17 Optimal CSP Sites (from Supply Curves) 17

18 How Do We Develop This Resource? Concentrating Solar Technologies can be used to mine this resource. Some of these technologies use curved mirrors to focus the sun s rays and to make steam, others directly produce electricity. This steam is used to produce electricity via conventional power equipment. In multi-megawatt plants, CSP provides the lowest cost solar electricity. Can provide bulk and/or distributed generation. 18

19 Concentrating Solar Power Parabolic Trough Linear Fresnel Power Tower Dish Engine Concentrating PV 19

20 Trough Technology Trough collectors (single axis tracking) Heat-collection elements Heat-transfer Oil (Therminol VP1) Oil-to-water steam generator Oil-to-salt thermal storage Conventional steam- Rankine cycle power block 20

21 21

22 Power Tower Technology Heliostats (two-axis tracking) Air or molten-salt receiver Air or molten-salt working fluid Thermal storage Conventional steam- Rankine cycle power block, or combustion turbine Several developers in the US and several in Spain Focus on molten-salt plant 22

23 Dish Stirling Technology Dish (two-axis tracking) 10 and 25 kw Stirling engines Thermal receivers Distributed generation or bulk power 8 Different system configurations built and tested over the last 20 years Significant utility interest 23

24 Concentrating PV Technology kw CPV systems Two axis tracking structure 350 m 2 concentrator 3M acrylic lens concentrator at 250X or parabolic dish with PV at focal point Silicon solar cells Many companies are developing new designs and sound business plans 24

25 Why CSP and Why Now? Necessity the utilities other options (coal, nuclear or NG) have significant long term risks with cost implications Uniqueness of thermal energy storage Favorable but still unreliable policies, such as the RPS and the ITC (both of which are essential) in the US and Feed-in tariffs elsewhere Public opinion favors solar 25

26 Awareness of CSP Utilities Growing fast where good DNI and policies exist Policy makers Generally lagging as evidenced by inadequate or unreliable policies at all levels of government Investors Growing fast as evidenced by news articles and conferences but lagging wind and PV investments, held back by policy uncertainty and today s financial market situation 26

27 Attributes of CSP in the Eyes of Utilities Utilities are familiar with steam generation Suitability for utility scale installations of 100MW or more Stable, known and decreasing costs and zero carbon emissions provide hedge against NG price volatility and carbon caps Other generation options have significant risks Ability to provide firm dispatchable output which is of great value to utilities 27

28 TES Thermal energy storage allows the electric energy to be shifted for use then it is needed more. TES allows solar electricity to be generated to met utility peak demands or to allow solar to become a base-load power source TES is the cheapest and most efficient form of storage for electric generation However the current indirect two-tank is too expensive to meet long-term cost goals A promising approach is to use molten salt in both the solar field and for storage, but it has risks that appears to be manageable 28

29 Flow Diagram HTF-Salt Heat Exchanger 29

30 CSP has Worked in California On-Peak Capacity (%) 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% Mount Pinatubo Volcano CA Energy Crisis Insolation (kwh/m^2/day) Averaged 80% onpeak capacity factor from solar Over 100% with fossil backup Could approach 100% from solar with the addition of thermal energy storage. 0% Solar Contribution Boiler Contribution Direct Normal Radiation 0 SCE Summer On-Peak Weekdays: Jun - Sep 12 noon - 6 pm 30

31 Summer Generation Profile Renewable Resource Fit (from Barbara Lockwood, APS) Solar w/storage Solar M W Wind? Biomass, Geothermal Hour of the Day 31

32 Dispatching Solar Power Generation from solar plant with storage can be shifted to match the utility system load profile Summer Winter 1.8 Solar Plant With Storage vs. Utility System Load July Solar Plant With Storage vs. Utility System Load January Utility Load, Trough Plant Output Solar Resource (W/m2) Utility Load, Trough Plant Output Solar Resource (W/m2) Hour Ending Hour Ending 0 Relative Value of Generation Trough Plant w/6hrs TES Solar Radiation Relative Value of Generation Trough Plant w/6hrs TES Solar Radiation Key: -Solar - Demand - Generation 32

33 Thermal Energy Storage Based on Solar Two molten-salt power tower experience Indirect 2-tank molten-salt design for parabolic trough plants Uses oil to salt heat exchangers to transfer energy to and from storage 33

34 Thermal Energy Storage AC Cobra Andasol 1 plant in Spain will be the first to use the indirect 2-tank molten-salt thermal energy storage. Plant should be operational before the end of the year. 34

35 Wet Vs. Dry Cooling Technology Wet Cooling Dry Cooling 35

36 Wet Vs. Dry Cooling Technology Wet Cooling Uses 3.5 m 3 water per MW ~90% for cooling The rest for the steam cycle and washing Dry Cooling Reduces plant water consumption by ~90% Increases plant capital cost ~5% Reduces annual net output >5% Significant reduction during hot periods Increases cost of electricity ~10% 36

37 Hybrid Cooling Technology A hybrid mix of wet and dry cooling A number of approaches are possible Commercially available option Includes both dry and wet cooling towers Relative size of wet and dry cooling towers determines water use 37

38 Additional Utility Attributes Large, multi-national corporations are now involved in every part of chain Project and Technology Developers Utilities and Independent Power Producers Engineering and Construction Companies Quality counterparties reduce overall CSP project risk Large balance sheets Power and construction expertise Strategic technology deployment 38

39 Attributes of CSP in the Eyes of Policy Makers Very large domestic resource potential Carbon free electricity Potential for cost reduction Economic benefits will result from its development Increased public awareness and support of the benefits of clean energy 39

40 Attributes of CSP in the Eyes of Investors Scalable With a good Power Purchase Agreement, the return on investment can be adequate to encourage main-stream equity and favorable debt financing terms. Once debt is paid, operates with no fuel has potential of becoming a clean cash cow. 40

41 The CSP Industry Technologies trough, tower, dish engine, linear Fresnel, and CPV, each of which have variations making the industry very robust Over 400 MW in commercial operation, about 4,800 MW under contract in the US and about 3,500 MW under development in the rest of the world Continued market growth is predicted. 41

42 CSP Business Estimated Activity in the US (July 2008) 42

43 CSP Activity Outside the US (July 2008) * Natural gas/hybrid project; capacity shown is CSP portion only 43

44 Nevada 64 MW Nevada Solar One Acciona Solar Power 64 MW Boulder City,NV 44

45

46 PS-10 46

47 Power Plant Illustration Solana Generating Station Solar Field will cover 3 square miles and contain 2,700 trough collectors Collectors are 25 feet wide, 492 feet long, and over 10 feet in height Plant footprint is large, but profile is low (3 story building) 47

48 Solana 280 MW Gross output via 2x140 MW steam turbines Six hours full load thermal energy storage Near Gila Bend, Arizona 30 year PPA with APS 48

49 49

50 50

51 ISCC First integrated solar combined cycle to be built in Algeria 150 MW plus 20 MW CSP Second to be built in Morocco 450 MW plus 20 MW CSP 51

52 The Cost of CSP There are many costs and they are must be carefully defined capital cost, energy cost as nominal, real, constant dollars, first year, levelized and average Cost is not a wish or a hope - it depends on many variables, all of which must be known (the EPC contractor and the investors must know what it is) Costs change and that risk must be managed The market will find the cost and the value of CSP Will illustrate the impact of financial parameters, plant size, market size and incentives on the cost of energy from CSP plants 52

53 Financial Analysis Results 50 MW SW Trough Current Policies Private-Taxable Bond Private-Commercial Debt PPA Price (cents/kwh) Minimum Rate of Return Constraint DSCR Constraint Utility Purchase Debt Share Debt Term 53

54 Financial Analysis Results Modified Internal Rate of Return (MIRR) Private-Dev Bank Debt Private-Tax Exempt Bond 75:25 Debt-to-Equity Private-Taxable Bond Utility Purchase 70:30 Debt-to-Equity Private-Commercial Debt Public-Private Partnership 65:35 Debt-to-Equity PPA Price (cents/kwh) 54

55 CSP Cost Reduction Prediction Easy to use but could be misleading WGA Report Nominal LCOE ($/kwh) Assumes: - Trough Technology w ith 6 hours of TES - IPP Financing; 30-year PPA - California Property Tax exemption - Includes scale-up, R&D, learning effects - Barstow, California site Real LCOE (2005$/kwh) Cumulative New Capacity by 2015 (MW) 55

56 Plant Size 160% 140% 139% Effect of Plant Size 120% 100% 115% 100% 90% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 25 MWe 50 MWe 100 MWe 250 Mwe 2006 Nexant Study: Optimum Size ~250MWe For Current Technology Parabolic Trough Plant, 6-hours Thermal Energy Storage, IPP Financing, 10% ITC 56

57 Market Size Effect of Deployment 120% 100% 80% 100% 93% 87% 81% 60% 40% 20% 0% Current 1000MW 2000MW 4000MW Based on Experience from Existing Plants (354MWs in California) 57

58 Incentives Effect of Incentives (IPP Financing) 120% 100% 80% 100% 85% 92% 96% 75% 60% 40% 20% 0% Base: 10% ITC, 5-yr MACRS 30% ITC, 5-yr MACRS Base + Prop Tax Exclusion Base + Sales Tax Exclusion All 58

59 CSP Costs Today and Tomorrow In the SW US, with best conditions, LCOE is in the midhigh teens in /kwh for firm dispatchable power and could drop to the low-mid teens with existing incentives, assuming commodity prices do not rise further and financial markets do not get weaker. Current cost gap is 2-5 /kwh Several independent and credible studies project 8 /kwh (nominal) after 4GW installed, removing the cost gap and becoming competitive with natural gas 59

60 Cost Gap will Close RPS, incentives and policies can close the cost gap between fossil and CSP-derived energy (from Kate Maracas, Abengoa Solar) Policies and Incentives Energy Cost Current Cost Gap Commodity Prices, Financial Markets, Equipment, etc. Carbon, Fuel Risk CSP energy cost Fossil energy cost t 60

61 A Narrowing Cost Gap (From Barbara Lockwood, APS) CSP Large Scale Projects Global Uptake Strong Developers Incentives Carbon Policy Fuel Risk Equipment and Labor Costs Increasing Fuel Prices Environmental Traditional Resources 61

62 CSP Initiative - Making CSP a Baseload Power Solution for the U.S. DOE Initiative Goals: * Intermediate power at competitive prices by 2015 * Baseload power at competitive prices by 2020 w/60-75% capacity factors 62

63 Cost and Capacity vs. year Installed CPS (GW) 9 6 Levelized Cost CSP Inititaitve Case Levelized Cost (Cents/kWh) 3 Base Case 0 Year

64 CSP Attributes, Design & Needed Improvements CSP System Attributes: Dispatchable power with thermal storage Basic materials: concrete, steel, glass Standard utility power block/turbine Quickly constructed (1.5 to 2 years) Optimal size: MW Improvements Needed to Achieve the 2015 goal: Thermal storage R&D supporting an operating temperature of 500C (up from today s 390C) Trough collector and receiver increase optical accuracy necessary for producing heat transfer fluid at 500C and improve receiver coating to enable operation at 500C Improvements Needed to Achieve the 2020 goal: Advanced technology - higher operating temperature (e.g. power tower or dish) or simpler design (e.g. Fresnel concentrator) Thermal storage for operating temperatures of 650C or higher 64

65 CSP R&D Activities Trough Systems Advanced Systems Technology FY2009-FY2012 FY2013-FY2016 FY2017-FY2020 Expand U.S. supplier base through manufacturing initiative, optical testing to optimize receiver & concentrator designs Evaluate new concepts (e.g. CLFR, distributed power tower), test components, dish technology designed for mass production Develop nextgeneration system capable of 450 C operation integrated with molten-salt storage. Select best options, support prototype designs, identify key technology improvement opportunities. Develop advanced collectors, receivers, selective coatings, and working fluids designed to operate at 550 C. Integrate high temperature CSP systems with advanced gas turbine/cc technology, reduce system cost through R&D and manufacturing initiative. Thermal Storage Develop thermocline thermal storage, evaluate two-tank molten salt system, develop new storage medium and heat transfer fluids Adapt storage system to advanced technology design, address cost, performance, operation and O&M issues Develop advanced thermal storage up to 550 C for troughs and up to 1200 C for advanced CSP/CC technologies. 65 * Recommendations from industry meeting March 2007

66 0.14 Real Levelized Cost of Energy (2006 $/kwh) % 35% 45% 55% 65% 75% Annual Capacity Factor Baseline 2:Tank Indirect Molten-salt 500C Power Park 4x200 Baseline Plus Advanced Solar Tech Scale-up to 200 MWe Power Park w/ 3X Learning 66

67 Real Levelized Cost of Energy (2006 $/kwh) % 35% 45% 55% 65% 75% 85% Annual Capacity Factor Baseline 2:Tank Indirect Power Park 4x200 Conventional Gas Combined Cycle Sequestered Gas Combined Cycle New Nuclear Power Molten-salt 500C Power Park w/ 3X Learning Pulverized Coal Sequestered Coal IGCC 67

68 CSP Competitive with Base Load Previous slide shows that the switch to molten salt would allow trough power to compete directly with low carbon power. Scale up to larger power parks and learning could allow troughs to compete directly with conventional base load in the future 68

69 Future for CSP Cost and efficiency losses require further R&D An R&D path has been identified such that future CSP with low-cost storage could be as competitive for base load power (high CF) as conventional pulverized coal fired plants. Given the escalation in fuel costs, this 2007 scenario could be even more likely today Assuming carbon constraints (cap and trade, sequestration, etc.) CSP would be even more competitive 69

70 Ability to Scale Up Key components are generally available - steel, glass, concrete, copper, molten salt and turbines Major companies 6 trough + 4 tower Assume each builds 2 GW by 2015 for 20 GW total Assume 5-10GW per year thereafter to reach GW by 2030 (DOE projects GW) This will need capital at about $5B/GW, 10 square miles/gw hence several national CSP zones with new transmission 70

71 What s in the Way? Policies Congress finally extended the ITC but there is no I there now Cost Relatively high cost of electricity but gap is closing fast Transmission Inadequate or not available, slow and costly to build and the queue system is broken in many locations Land Need access to good sites and each ownership type has its own challenges Permitting - Slow and costly Environmental Growing concern in some places over access to the desert regions needed for CSP 71

72 Other Needed Policies Good carbon policies Feed-in Tariffs at state level deserve consideration Land access policies Transmission policies Exclusion of property and sales taxes 72

73 Forecast Carbon limits are coming will partially or totally close the cost gap CSP can scale up fast without critical bottleneck materials (we hope) making it a good response option Price for CSP power is in commercial range and costs will come down with increased capacity and will fall below natural gas in the next few years Many technologies options add certainty to cost reduction projections US and EU R&D programs will continue to grow in size and value Economic development and environmental benefits will drive political support The CSP market in the SW US can grow to 20 GW by 2015 and between 95 and 170 GW by 2030 and a comparable rate in the rest of the world. 73

74 Conclusions CSP is a Unique Renewable Technology Large resource in many countries Ability to store energy to fit utility need Near-term potential for cost competitiveness Mid-term potential for base-load via TES The Market is Rapidly Developing Utilities interest in CSP is growing in many countries Large credible, financially stable developers Real (financeable, buildable and reliable) projects are being offered Policy Decisions will Maintain Momentum Long term ITC extension Supporting policies 74

75 Contact Information Fred Morse Senior Advisor, US Operations, Abengoa Solar and Chairman, CSP Division, SEIA 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 605 Washington, DC Tel: