International Executive Conference on Expanding the Market for Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) - Moving Opportunities into Projects 19-20 June 2002 Berlin, Germany The Status and Prospects of CSP Technologies Georg Brakmann Managing Director of Fichtner Solar GmbH and President of ESTIA David Kearney President of Kearney and Associates
Parabolic Troughs, Towers, Dish / Stirling 354 MWe of the Parabolic Trough Technology have successfully been operated in California for about fifteen years. This technology is proven and suitable for grid connected power plants of 30 to 200 MWe unit size. The Tower Technology uses higher concentrations. Thereby higher temperatures and higher conversion efficiencies can be obtained. In the medium term this technology can be applied for grid connected power plants of 30 to 200 MWe unit size. The Dish / Stirling Technology is suitable for smaller grid independent applications of 10 kw to 1 MW. The generation cost is much less than the one of photovoltaic installations.
Development of Parabolic Trough Collector 2002: Eurotrough 1990: Luz LS3 1912: Shuman Improved performance and reduced cost due to: Lighter weight and higher stiffness of structure Better values of reflectivity, absorbtivity and emissivity
Tower Technology (Receivers and Heliostats) Volumetric Air Receiver Tube Receiver 100 m 2 Heliostat (DLR - PSA) 150 m 2 Heliostat (Steinmüller) 150 m 2 Heliostat (Advanced Thermal Systems)
Solar Tower Facilities Facility, location and state of development 1) First Year of Operation Net Output [MW e ] Heat Transfer Fluid (HTF) Thermal Energy Storage HTF Eurelios, Adrano, Italy (d) 1981 1.0 water/ steam eutectic salt storage Themis, Targasonne, France (d) 1982 2.3 salt salt storage Sunshine, Nio, Japan (d) 1981 1.0 water/ saturated steam steam storage IEA-SSPS, Almeria, Spain (d) 1981 0.5 sodium from 1987: air CESA 1, Almería, Spain (d) 1983 1.0 water/ steam from 1989: air sodium storage salt storage Solar I, Barstow, USA (p) 1982 10.0 water/ steam oil storage Crimea, USSR (d) 1988 5.0 water/ steam Solar II, Barstow, USA (p) 1995 10.0 salt salt storage TSA, Almeria, Spain (d) 1995 2,5 MW t air, water/ steam salt storage GAST-20 study, Germany plus Spain (c) air PHOEBUS, Jordan (c) air, water/steam salt storage COLON SOLAR, Spain (c) 10 water/steam no storage PS10, Spain (c) 10 air, water/steam ceramic storage SOLAR TRES, Spain (c) 15 molten salt, water/steam (e) = experimental; (d) = demonstration; (p) = pilot; (c) = concept salt storage
Solar Rankine Cycle Power Plants (SEGS type) 395 C Stack Exhaust 100 C Steam 371 C / 510 C 100bar The annual solar share is typically more than 70% and can be 100 %. Solar HX HRSG Storage Steam G ~ turbine 295 C Condenser Solar Field Fossil Firing In a SEGS type power plant the fossil firing can be used whenever there is not sufficient solar irradiation. Electricity to the grid
Integrated Solar Combined Cycle (ISCC) 395 C Stack Exhaust 100 C Steam 515 C, 100bar The annual solar share is typically less than 10%. Solar HX HRSG Storage Steam G ~ turbine Solar Field 295 C Exhaust 545 C Condenser G ~ Gas turbine In an ISCC type power plant the gas turbine must run in order to use the solar heat. Electricity to the grid
Typical specific investment cost of parabolic trough solar only plants (2001) 3000 Specific Investment Cost ($/kw) 2800 2600 2400 2200 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Size of Solar Only Plant (MWe) The specific investment cost of solar thermal power plants decrease with size and vary depending on local conditions and requirements, sourcing of components and careful design.
Specific investment cost of solar thermal power plants (2001) 4000 Specific Investment Cost ($/kw) 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 ISCC with 4 MW solar capacity 10 MWe Solar Tower 90-398 MWe ISCC with solar capacity of 22-67 MWe 150 MWe Rankine cycle with 89 MWe Solar capacity 10-50 MWe solar only Rankine cycle 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Solar capacity as percentage of total capacity (%) The specific investment cost of solar thermal power plants decrease with size and increase with solar share. It varies depending on local conditions and requirements, sourcing of components and careful design.
Typical specific investment cost of fossil power plants (2001) 800 700 Combined cycle power plants 1600 1400 Rankine cycle power plants Specific Price ($/kw) 600 500 400 300 200 Specific Price ($/kw) 1200 1000 800 600 400 100 200 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Net Capacity (MWe) 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Net Capacity (MWe) The specific investment cost of fossil power plants decrease with size and vary depending on local conditions and requirements, sourcing of components and careful design.
Typical Breakup of Investment Cost of Solar Rankine Cycle Plants Site Work and Infrastructure 3% 3% 45% Solar Field 45% 18% 7% 7% 13% 7% Other 18% Services 7% BoP 7% Power Block 13% HTF System 7%
Volume will decrease generation cost 16 Solar electricity generation cost c / kwh 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Installed Solar Capacity (MWe) The CSP industry anticipates reducing solar power generation costs in the midterm (2010) by about 20 %, assuming an order volume of more than 100 MWe of solar capacity per year. In the longer term the CSP industry has set a goal of solar generation cost of 6 c/kwh after reaching approximately 5000 MWe of installed solar capacity.
Commercial Applications and Features Dispatchable Power utility peak and intermediate high-value, green markets Distributed Power distributed, on-grid (e.g., line support) stand-alone, off-grid (e.g., water pumping, village electrification) 10's to 100 s of MW's kw's to MW s Manufacturing: Relatively conventional technology (glass, steel, gears, heat engines, etc.) allows rapid manufacturing scale-up, low risk, conventional maintenance
Dispatchable Power 6 hours of storage utility peak and intermediate high-value, green markets Distributed Power Fossil Hybridization distributed, on-grid (e.g., line support) stand-alone, off-grid (e.g., water pumping, village electrification) 12a 4a 8a noon 4p 8p 12a 12a 4a 8a noon 4p 8p 12a Dispatchability: thermal storage for peaking, load following, or extended operation Manufacturing: 10's to 100 s of MW's hybrid gas combined cycle coal, fuel oil, or gas steam cycle kw's to MW s Relatively conventional technology (glass, steel, gears, heat engines, etc.) allows rapid manufacturing scale-up, low risk, conventional maintenance hybridization with gas or liquid fuels for extended Stirling or Brayton engine operation
Operating SEGS Plants 354 MWe in Mojave Desert, California, USA SEGS Plant 1st Year of Operation Net Output (MW e ) Solar Field Outlet Temp. (ºC/ F) Solar Field Area (m 2 ) Solar Turbine Eff. (%) Fossil Turbine Eff. (%) Annual Output (MWh) I 1985 13.8 307/585 82,960 31.5-30,100 II 1986 30 316/601 190,338 29.4 37.3 80,500 III & IV 1987 30 349/660 230,300 30.6 37.4 92,780 V 1988 30 349/660 250,500 30.6 37.4 91,820 VI 1989 30 390/734 188,000 37.5 39.5 90,850 VII 1989 30 390/734 194,280 37.5 39.5 92,646 VIII 1990 80 390/734 464,340 37.6 37.6 252,750 IX 1991 80 390/734 483,960 37.6 37.6 256,125
Kramer Junction SEGS Collector Availability & Peak Capacity 100.0 99.5 Availability - % 99.0 98.5 98.0 97.5 97.0 96.5 96.0 95.5 On-P e a k Ca pa city - % 112 110 108 106 104 102 95.0 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 100 98 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Site Average
Trough Solar System O&M Collector maintenance for large modular solar field Periodic mirror washing Control system integrated into plant DCS -- requires limited operator action and monitoring Fluid system routine except for freeze protection Additional cost of solar field O&M about <0.5-1cent/kWh O&M methods continuously improving
Solar Power Tower Plant 10 MWe + Retrofit Solar Energy Collection and Storage System * Uses molten salt system for capturing and storing thermal energy Steam Turbine Power Generation System * Conventional off-the-shelf system Molten Salt Pump Steam Turbine Storage Tanks Power Tower Heliostat
10 MW Solar Power Tower Background and Experience Solar One* 1982-1988 Barstow, CA 10MWe Experimental 1st U.S. power tower Water / Steam No Storage 25% capacity factor Gov t incentives * DOE program Proved towers are effective, reliable and practical for utility scale power Limitation: no thermal storage caused power interruptions Solar Two* 1994-1999 Barstow, CA 10MWe Experimental Retrofit of Solar One Molten Salt / Steam Thermal Storage 35% capacity factor Gov t incentives * DOE / Consortium Mitigated technical risks Proved thermal storage operation and value to economics of solar plant Stimulated commercial interest - Spain Solar Tres (planned) 2001 - Present Southern Spain 15MWe turbine Commercial - Ready Improved design Molten Salt / Steam Thermal Storage 65% capacity factor Gov t incentives * Grants, loans and electricity premium Precursor to 50MWe and larger plants Operational in 2004 * Source: Sandia National Laboratories, An Evaluation of Molten-Salt Power Towers Including Results of the Solar Two Project, Nov 2001
Modular Technology 1 MWe, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA 1 MWe installation underway and planned for completion in 2004 Highest efficiency solar technology demonstrated (30% solar-electric) Modular 25 kwe units Can burn fossil fuel for night time operation Applications: grid-connected; remote village electrification, water pumping, remote grid Developmental stage - proven reliability a key goal
Trough Plant Experience Curve Projection (Based on next plant = 100 MWe with Thermal Storage) 1.00 SEGS Courtesy of H. Price NREL, USA LEC (2001$/kWh) 0.10 $0.06/kWh Goal Next Plant 0.01 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 Cumulative Power Plant Capacity Installed (MWe)