Transcript No Slide Title

Assessment of Potential
Improvements in Large-Scale Low
Wind Speed Technology
Joseph Cohen
Princeton Energy Resources International, LLC
1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 550
Rockville, Maryland 20852 USA
[email protected]
(301) 468-8416
Global WINDPOWER 2004, Chicago, Illinois
March 29, 2004
Global WINDPOWER 2004 - Chicago, Illinois
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Project
Supported By:
U.S. Department of Energy
Under Subcontract To:
National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, NWTC
Global WINDPOWER 2004 - Chicago, Illinois
Technical Inputs:
NWTC Staff
 Paul Migliore
 Alan Laxson
 Mike Robinson
 Bob Thresher
 Scott Schreck
 Paul Veers (Sandia National
Laboratories)
TECHOLOGY PATHWAYS ANALYSIS
Analysis Process
Characterize
Reference
Step 1: Characterize a set of cost and performance
parameters for a composite, reference turbine
Identify TIOs
Step 2: Identify a “menu” of Technology Improvement
Opportunities (TIOs) that could lead to this improvement
Estimate TIO
Effects
Step 3: Estimate the range of potential change in cost,
performance, reliability, and O&M for each TIO category
Perform Analysis Step 4: Run these through a turbine systems model (the
“Pathways Model”) to assess impact on cost of energy
Review Results
Step 5: Produce a curve of COE versus likelihood of
achieving it.
Global WINDPOWER 2004 - Chicago, Illinois
CHARACTERIZE REFERENCE TURBINE
• Nominal Description of Reference
Turbine:
1.5 MW
70 m rotor diameter
65 m Hub Height
Upwind, 3-blade; Variable pitch
Variable speed
• Composite of available
technologies – based primarily
on (2002) WindPACT studies and
commercial/market data
Global WINDPOWER 2004 - Chicago, Illinois
ANALYSIS METRICS
Overall evaluation metric - Levelized Cost of
Energy (COE), which requires the following input
variables:
Turbine Capital Cost (TCC)
Balance of Station Cost (BOS)
Levelized Replacement Cost (LRC)
Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost (O&M)
Net Annual Energy Production (AEP)
ISSUE: How to choose for “leading edge”
technology, 100 MW plant, “favorable installation &
maintenance conditions” consistent with large
areas of class 4 winds, i.e., relatively flat land, easy
access, no soil issues
Global WINDPOWER 2004 - Chicago, Illinois
REFERENCE WIND PLANT
CHARACTERISTICS
Expected
Reference Inputs
Minimum (most likely) Maximum
TCC Turbine Capital Cost (2002 $)
920,000
1,000,000 1,100,000
Low/High Range
-8%
10%
BOS BOS Cost (2002 $)
368,600
388,000
465,600
Low/High Range
-5%
20%
LRC Levelized Replacement Costs ($)
9,750
15,000
22,500
Low/High Range
-35%
50%
O&M O&M Cost ($)
12,000
30,000
37,950
Low/High Range
-60%
27%
Land Land Lease Cost ($/kWh)
0.000648
0.00108
0.00140
-40%
30%
AEP Net Annual Energy Production(kWh/yr) 3,973,500
4,415,000 4,547,450
Low/High Range
-10%
3%
A&L Availability and Losses
15%
FCR Fixed Charge Rate
11.85%
Total Cost per kW
$859
$925
$1,044
Total cost per square meter
335
361
407
Net Annual Energy per square meter
1,032
1,147
1,182
Capacity Factor
0.302
0.336
0.346
Global WINDPOWER 2004 - Chicago, Illinois
INPUT DATA ARE DISTRIBUTIONS
O&M Cost
Turbine Capital Cost
Data Sources For All Inputs
NREL/Sandia staff, WindPACT studies, Next Generation Turbine project,
LWST proposals, in-house knowledge, etc.
Global WINDPOWER 2004 - Chicago, Illinois
REFERENCE COE
Levelized Cost of Energy of
Reference (2002) Turbine: 4.8 cents/kWh
 In constant end-of-2002 dollars
 Class 4 winds (13 mph average at 10 m)
 Assumes financing structures typical of GenCos (i.e., balance
sheet financing)
 Detailed cash flow model used to calculate COE using
assumptions for taxes, insurance, depreciation, cost of capital,
financing fees, and construction financing
 Caveat – uses a relatively high required rate of return compared
to current market rates
Global WINDPOWER 2004 - Chicago, Illinois
BE CAREFUL – COE IS NOT MARKET
PRICE
Constant dollars (Market uses Current)
Varies, but typically 0.5 to 1+ cent/kWh
PTC (Not included in analysis)
Varies, but typically above 1 cent/kWh
Year Dollars (analysis uses 2002)
Range of resource in each wind power class
Overnight (no costs during construction)
Typically $50/kW or more
Global WINDPOWER 2004 - Chicago, Illinois
TECNOLOGY IMPROVEMENT
OPPORTUNITIES
Advanced (Enlarged) Rotor TIOs
Advanced materials
Site-Specific Design/Reduced Design
Margin TIOs
Changed/improved structural/aero design
Improved definition of site characteristics
Active controls
Design load tailoring
Passive controls
Micrositing
Higher tip speed ratios/lower acoustics
Favorable wind speed distributions and shear
Manufacturing TIOs
New Drive Train Concept TIOs
Manufacturing methods
Permanent magnet generator
Lower margins
Innovative mechanical drives
Manufacturing markups
Learning Curve Effects
Market–driven cost reductions
Advanced Tower TIOs
New Materials
Advanced Power Electronics TIOs
Incorporation of improved PE components
Advanced circuit topology
Reduced Energy Losses and
Increased Availability TIOs
Innovative structures
Health monitoring (SCADA, etc.)
Advanced foundations
Blade soiling mitigation
Self-erecting designs
Extended scheduled maintenance
Global WINDPOWER 2004 - Chicago, Illinois
TIO’s POTENTIAL FOR IMPROVEMENT
(Improvement from reference, in %)
(Initial Analysis for 2003; Subject To Extensive Update in 2004)
Capital Costs
Annual Energy Production
Probability
of Success*
Advanced (Enlarged) Rotor TIOs
70
70
*
Manufacturing TIOs
70
*
Reduced Energy Losses and Increased
Availability TIOs
65
*
Advanced Tower TIOs
80
80
-
Site-Specific Design/Reduced Design
Margin TIOs
New Drive Train Concept TIOs
Advanced Power Electronics TIOs
Learning Curve Effects
*High Probability of Success Case
Global WINDPOWER 2004 - Chicago, Illinois
80
70
*
80
80
80
80
100
100
100
*TBD
O&M Costs
-30 -20 -10
Reliability
+10 +20 +30 +40
WIND TECHNOLOGIES PATHWAYS MODEL
(A Monte-Carlo Analysis Tool)
Capital
Costs
Annual Energy
Production
O&M Costs
Probability
of Success -30 -20 -10
Advanced (Enlarged) Rotor TIOs
Manufacturing TIOs
Reduced Energy Losses and
Increased Availability TIOs
Advanced Tower TIOs
Site-Specific Design/Reduced
Design Margin TIOs
New Drive Train Concept TIOs
Advanced Power Electronics
TIOs
Learning Curve Effects
Reliability
+10 +20 +30 +40
Total System
Aggregated
Potential for Improvement (%)
Total
System
-40 -30 -20 -10
+10+20+30 +40
70
70
*
7
0
*65
*
80
80
80
70
*
80
80
80
80
100
100
100
Total System Cost of Energy
Potential for COE Reduction (%)
-50
*TBD
3 cents/kWh at 60% Confidence Level ( subject to revision)
Global WINDPOWER 2004 - Chicago, Illinois
-40
-30
-20
-10
MEAN IMPACTS ON COE INPUTS
Baseline
Mean
(An Input)
AEP (MWH)
4,312
TCC ($/turb)
1,006,667
BOS ($/turb)
400,933
TCC + BOS ($/turb) 1,407,600
O&M ($/turb)
26,650
LRC ($/turb)
15,750
Global WINDPOWER 2004 - Chicago, Illinois
Mean
Pathway
(Output)
5,804
872,698
377,467
1,250,164
26,331
13,871
Percent
Improvement
of Mean
From Baseline
(Absolute)
35%
13%
6%
11%
1%
12%
Advanced materials
Changed/improved structural/aero design
Advanced (Enlarged) Rotor Active controls
Passive controls
Higher tip speed ratios/lower acoustics
Manufacturing methods
Manufacturing
Lower margins
Manufacturing markups
Reduced Energy Losses and Health monitoring (SCADA, etc.)
Blade soiling mitigation
Increased Availability
Extended scheduled maintenance
New Materials
Innovative structures
Advanced Tower
Advanced foundations
Self-erecting designs
Improved definition of site characteristics
Site-Specific
Design load tailoring
Design/Reduced Design
Micrositing
Margin
Favorable wind speed distributions and shear
Permanent magnet generator
New Drive Train Concepts
Innovative mechanical drives
Incorporation of improved PE components
Advanced Power Electronics
Advanced circuit topology
Learning Curve Effects
Market-driven cost reductions
Global WINDPOWER 2004 - Chicago, Illinois
Reliability
O&M Cost
Small
Production
TIO Categories
Moderate
Energy
Large
Cost
IMPACT OF TIOs ON ELEMENTS OF COE