NREL Power point slide template - cover and main

advertisement

Tradeoffs and Synergies between CSP and PV at

High Grid Penetration

*

*

NREL

July 5, 2011

National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

Bottom Line

• As penetration of variable generation (solar, wind) increase, it is increasingly important to consider the interaction between these resources and the entire grid system

• Dispatchable energy (e.g. CSP w/storage) has a higher value than non-dispatchable energy

.

– At low penetration of solar and wind this difference is small

– At higher penetration (15% on an energy basis) this difference may increase by as much as 4 cents/kWh

• Overall penetration of solar energy can be increased by the use of CSP with storage which provides grid flexibility

– Allows for higher levels of PV penetration by providing the ramping rate and range needed to accommodate the variable output of PV systems

Innovation for Our Energy Future

Increase in Energy Value Due to Dispatchability of

Systems with Thermal Energy Storage

Dispatchable solar energy sources:

1.

Maintain high energy value

– Always displaces the highest cost energy sources

2.

Maintain high capacity value even at high solar penetration.

3.

Lower curtailment than solar systems w/o storage

4.

Lower integration/reserve costs

The actual difference in value is largely a function of penetration and overall grid system flexibility

Innovation for Our Energy Future

Analytic Methods

• Detailed grid simulations of the Western Interconnect

– Simulates the hourly dispatch of the power plant fleet

– Ensures reliability by ensuring availability of operating reserves

– Validates basic transmission operability using DC power flow

– Enforces power plant constraints including ramp limits, operating limits

– Calculates fuel burn and associated cost and emission

– Assumed frictionless markets (best case scenario for PV)

• Two scenarios

– 15% PV and 15% wind

– 10% PV, 5% CSP and 15% wind

• Did not capture full range of integration costs due to uncertainty about reserve requirements of PV, short term variability and forecast errors – assumed perfect knowledge of solar resource

Innovation for Our Energy Future

1) Difference in Energy Value

90000

80000

70000

60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0

1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21

PV

CSP

Wind

Hydro

PHS/CAES

Other

Biomass

Coal

Nuclear

Geothermal

Gas

Difference in gas burn

Storage enables a relative fuel savings benefit over PV of about 0.5 cents/kWh at

$4.50/mmBTU gas

Example WECC-wide dispatch during a 4-day period in spring

Dispatch of CSP results in less high cost gas and more low cost fuels

90000

80000

70000

60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0

1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21

Hour

Innovation for Our Energy Future

PV

Wind

Hydro

PHS/CAES

Other

Biomass

Coal

Nuclear

Geothermal

CSP

Gas

2) Difference in Capacity Value of PV

Normal peak at ~4-5 pm

92000

90000

88000

86000

84000

82000

80000

78000

76000

74000

12 14 16

Hour (Ending)

18

Normal Load

2%

5%

10%

15%

20 22

At 10% PV, peak is shifted to

8-9 pm. PV provides no further peak capacity benefits

At this point PV cannot reduce the need for generation capacity

CSP capacity value remains close to ~100% by shifting energy production to evening

(and morning during spring/winter months)

•Capacity value adder depends on market conditions - typical values of $40-$70/kW/year

•Depending on CSP system design and market conditions, adds a CSP value of 0.7-2.0 cents/kWh

Innovation for Our Energy Future

3) PV Curtailment Due to Ramping Requirements

60000

50000

40000

Normal Load

1% PV

5%

10%

15%

20%

30000

20000

10000

Ramp rate of conventional generator requirements increases

0

0

Ramp range of conventional generator requirements increases

36

Hour

48 60 72

Curtailment results from two main constraints – ramping requirements and minimum generation constraints. Curtailment results when existing plants to not have the flexibility to ramp

Innovation for Our Energy Future

Curtailment Due to Minimum Generation Constraints

• Marginal curtailment rate of PV moving from

10% to 15% of generation was 5%

• At SunShot goals (~6 cents/kWh) this increases effective PV cost by about 0.3 cents/kWh due to underused capacity

90000

80000

70000

60000

50000

40000

30000

90000

80000

70000

60000

50000

40000

30000

PV

CSP

Wind

Hydro

PHS/CAES

Gas

Other

Biomass

Coal

Nuclear

Geothermal

20000

10000

0

1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21

Extensive coal and nuclear cycling unlikely to occur in current system

• PV curtailment would be reduced if grid flexibility were increased

PV

CSP

Wind

Hydro

PHS/CAES

Gas

Other

Biomass

Coal

Nuclear

Geothermal

20000

10000

0

1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21

• CSP/TES provides an option to replace

“baseload” capacity with more flexible generation

Innovation for Our Energy Future

60%

50%

PV Curtailment at Higher Penetration

40%

30%

20%

Estimates marginal curtailment as a function of

PV penetration (without additional grid flexibility)

10%

0%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Fraction of System Energy from PV

30% 35%

Without storage or load shifting, marginal LCOE of

PV increases rapidly

“Multiplier” to base LCOE

2.4

2.2

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0% 5%

9

35%

6

8

7

15

14

13

12

11

10

10% 15% 20% 25%

Fraction of System Energy from PV

30%

Innovation for Our Energy Future

4) Integration and Reserve Requirements

• Variability and uncertainty of solar resource requires changes in operation, typically some re-dispatch of system resources to maintain reliability

12000

8000

Normal Load

10% PV

15%

20%

Very large ramping of conventional generators is required. This potentially means more use of fast responding but lower efficiency generators

4000

0

0

-4000

-8000

-12000

12 24

Hour

Innovation for Our Energy Future

Reserve Requirements

• We have not yet analyzed the increased need for frequency regulation or forecast uncertainty for either PV or CSP

– One previous PV study estimated costs of re-dispatch at 0.4-0.7 cents/kWh, but used limited data sets and is not reproducible

– Estimates from wind integration studies are in the range of 0.2-0.4 cents/kWh

• Storage enables operation at part load and ability to hold back energy during periods of high uncertainty or large reserve requirements

Innovation for Our Energy Future

Summary: Impacts of Storage at 10-15% Solar

With gas prices in the range of $4.50-$9.00 mmBTU, the estimated value of CSP with storage is an additional 1.6-4.0 cents/kWh relative to PV due to:

• Energy shifting value: ~0.5-1.0 cents/kWh

• Capacity Value ~0.7-2.0 cents/kWh

• Reduced curtailment: Depends on PV cost. At 6 cents/kWh, corresponds to ~0.3 cents/kWh

• Reserve/integration costs 0.1-0.7 cents/kWh

Innovation for Our Energy Future

CSP as a PV Enabling Technology

• The ability of a the grid to accommodate PV is inherently limited by the increased variability and uncertainty of net load

• As PV penetration increases other generators will need:

• Short start-up times

• Large ramp rates

• Large turn-down ratios

• Good part load efficiency

CSP with storage can provide these requirements

Historical performance of U.S. small gas steam plants which are a good proxy for

CSP – typical operating range of 78% with only a 7% heat rate penalty at 50% load.

Innovation for Our Energy Future

CSP as a PV (and Wind) Enabling Technology

45

Dispatch in a “conventional” system

Relying on thermal generators and ignoring flexibility benefits of CSP limits amount of demand that can be met with variable generation

40

35

30

25

20

15

Curtailed PV

Dispatched CSP

Usable PV

Wind

Conventionals

Load

Non-Dispatched CSP

Dispatched CSP

Additional PV will largely be curtailed due to minimum generation constraints

10

5

0

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96

Hour

CSP energy is shifted to morning and evening, increasing the contribution of solar technologies, but not providing a direct benefit to PV or wind.

Total RE contribution is 35% on an energy basis (solar provides 23%). About 5% is curtailed.

Innovation for Our Energy Future

CSP as a PV (and Wind) Enabling Technology

Dispatch in a “CSP-flexible” system

45

40

Adding the flexibility of CSP enables a greater fraction of the load to be served by variable generation

35

30

25

20

15

Curtailed PV

Dispatched CSP

Usable PV

Wind

Conventionals

Load

Non-Dispatched CSP

Dispatched CSP

10

5

Minimum generation constraint reduced

0

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96

Hour

CSP energy is still shifted, but also used to provide quick-start reserve capacity during periods of high PV output.

CSP provides additional ramping capacity in the evening and morning.

Total RE contribution is increased to 46% (solar contribution at 29%) with no increase in curtailment.

Innovation for Our Energy Future

Summary

• As penetration of variable generation (solar, wind) increase, it is increasingly important to consider the interaction between these resources and the entire grid system

• Dispatchable energy (e.g. CSP w/storage) has a higher value than non-dispatchable energy

.

– At low penetration of solar and wind this difference is small

– At higher penetration (15% on an energy basis) this difference may increase by as much as 4 cents/kWh

• Overall penetration of solar energy can be increased by the use of CSP with storage which provides grid flexibility

– Allows for higher levels of PV penetration by providing the ramping rate and range needed to accommodate the variable output of PV systems

Innovation for Our Energy Future

Questions?

References (Note that several of the results in this presentation have not yet been published).

Madaeni, S., R. Sioshansi, and P. Denholm, "How Thermal Energy Storage Enhances the Economic Viability of Concentrating Solar Power" accepted in Proceedings of the IEEE.

Madaeni, S. H., Sioshansi, R., Denholm, P. (2011) “Capacity Value of Concentrating Solar Power Plants”

NREL Report No. TP-6A20-51253.

Brinkman, G.L., P. Denholm, E. Drury, R. Margolis, and M. Mowers. (2011) “Toward a Solar-Powered Grid -

Operational Impacts of Solar Electricity Generation” IEEE Power and Energy 9, 24-32 .

Denholm, P., and M. Hand. (2011) “Grid Flexibility and Storage Required to Achieve Very High Penetration of

Variable Renewable Electricity” Energy Policy 39 1817-1830 .

Sioshansi, R. and P. Denholm. (2010) “The Value of Concentrating Solar Power and Thermal Energy

Storage.” IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy . 1 (3) 173-183.

Denholm, P., E. Ela, B. Kirby, and M. Milligan. (2010) “The Role of Energy Storage with Renewable Electricity

Generation” NREL/TP-6A2-47187.

Denholm, P., R. M. Margolis and J. Milford. (2009) “Quantifying Avoided Fuel Use and Emissions from

Photovoltaic Generation in the Western United States” Environmental Science and Technology . 43, 226-232.

Denholm, P., and R. M. Margolis. (2007) “Evaluating the Limits of Solar Photovoltaics (PV) in Electric Power

Systems Utilizing Energy Storage and Other Enabling Technologies” Energy Policy . 35, 4424-4433.

Denholm, P., and R. M. Margolis. (2007) “Evaluating the Limits of Solar Photovoltaics (PV) in Traditional

Electric Power Systems” Energy Policy . 35, 2852-2861.

Innovation for Our Energy Future

Download