Transcript Wind Energy Update

20% Wind Vision:
A Great Lakes Opportunity
Larry Flowers
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
March 2008
People Want Renewable Energy!
Total Installed Wind Capacity
85000
80000
75000
70000
65000
60000
55000
50000
45000
40000
35000
30000
1. Germany: 21800 MW
2. United States: 16740 MW
3. Spain: 13915 MW
4. India: 7720 MW
5. China: 5000 MW
United States
Source: WindPower Monthly and AWEA
Europe
Rest of World
08
20
07
06
20
20
05
04
20
20
03
02
20
20
01
00
20
20
99
98
19
19
97
96
19
19
95
94
19
93
19
92
19
91
19
90
19
89
19
88
19
87
19
86
19
85
19
19
83
19
82
19
84
World total Jan 2008: 90,419 MW
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
19
Capacity (MW)
95000
90000
Installed Wind Capacities – Dec ’07*
*Preliminary data
Drivers for Wind Power
• Declining Wind Costs
• Fuel Price Uncertainty
• Federal and State
Policies
• Economic Development
• Public Support
• Green Power
• Regional Water Scarcity
• Energy Security
• Carbon Risk
Comparative Generation Costs
160160
140140
Average
Price
of Wind
Average
Price
of Wind
Power
Without
PTC
Power
Without
PTC
120120
Operating
Cost
of Natural
Operating
Cost
of Natural
Gas
Combustion
Turbine
Gas
Combustion
Turbine
2005$/MWh
2005$/MWh
100100
80 80
Average Price of Wind
60 60 Average Price of Wind
Power
With
PTC
Power
With
PTC
40 40
0 0
Operating
Cost
of Natural Wholesale
Wholesale
Price
Range
Operating
Cost
of Natural
Price
Range
Gas
Combined
Cycle
Block
of Power
Gas
Combined
Cycle
for for
FlatFlat
Block
of Power
1990
1990
1991
1991
1992
1992
1993
1993
1994
1994
1995
1995
1996
1996
1997
1997
1998
1998
1999
1999
2000
2000
2001
2001
2002
2002
2003
2003
2004
2004
2005
2005
2006
2006
20 20
CO2 prices significantly
increase the cost of coal
Levelized Cost of Electricity (2010) vs. CO2 Price
140
130
2006$/MWh
120
Coal PC
Coal IGCC
Coal IGCC w/CCS
Gas CC
Nuclear
Wind Class 6
Wind Class 4
Wind Offshore Class 6
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
Carbon Price ($/ton CO2)
Source: UCS/Black & Veatch
Renewables Portfolio Standards
MN: 25% by 2025
(Xcel: 30% by 2020)
*WA: 15% by 2020
ME: 30% by 2000
VT: RE meets load
growth by 2012
ND: 10% by 2015
WI: requirement varies by
utility; 10% by 2015 goal
MT: 15% by 2015
OR: 25% by 2025 (large utilities)
☼ NH: 23.8% in 2025
MA: 4% by 2009 +
1% annual increase
RI: 16% by 2020
5% - 10% by 2025 (smaller utilities)
CT: 23% by 2020
☼ *NV: 20% by 2015
IA: 105 MW
☼ CO: 20% by 2020 (IOUs)
*10% by 2020 (co-ops & large munis)
CA: 20% by 2010
10% by 2017 - new RE
☼ NY: 24% by 2013
IL: 25% by 2025
MO: 11% by 2020
☼ NC: 12.5% by 2021 (IOUs)
☼ AZ: 15% by 2025
10% by 2018 (co-ops & munis)
☼ NJ: 22.5% by 2021
☼ PA: 18%¹ by 2020
☼ MD: 9.5% in 2022
☼ *DE: 20% by 2019
☼ DC: 11% by 2022
☼ NM: 20% by 2020 (IOUs)
*VA: 12% by 2022
10% by 2020 (co-ops)
TX: 5,880 MW by 2015
HI: 20% by 2020
State RPS
State Goal
☼ Minimum solar or customer-sited RE requirement
* Increased credit for solar or customer-sited RE
¹PA: 8% Tier I / 10% Tier II (includes non-renewables)
DSIRE: www.dsireusa.org
Solar water
heating eligible
March 2008
Peetz Table Wind Energy Center, CO
• 400.5 MW (1.5-MW turbines)
• Landowner payments: $2
million/year, $65 million over
30-year period
• 300 – 350 workers during
peak construction (80% local)
• 16 – 18 O&M positions
• Total annual tax payments:
$2.3 million/year (10% of total
county budget); $70 million
over 30 years
• Located near Peetz, CO
• Owned by FPL Energy
• Constructed in 2007
Weatherford Wind Energy Center, OK
• 147 MW (1.5-MW
turbines)
• Landowner payments:
$300,000 in annual
lease payments
• 150 workers during peak
construction
• 6 fulltime O&M positions
• Property taxes: $17
million over 20 years
• Sawartzky Construction
received $300,000 in
revenue from the project
• Owned by FPL Energy
• Constructed in 2005
Wyoming Wind Energy Center
• 144 MW (1800-kW turbines)
• Landowner payments: $18
million over the life of the
project
• 175 workers during peak
construction (25% local)
• 8 fulltime O&M positions
• Property taxes: $1 million
(2006/7)
• 50 Wyoming companies
subcontracted during the
construction period
• Located in Uinta County,
WY (population 20,213)
• Owned by FPL Energy
• Constructed in 2003
Energy-equivalent
new wind vs. new coal in Ohio
Total Econom ic Im pacts to Ohio from energy equivalent
new w ind and new coal
Dollars in millions
$2,500
$2,000
Landowner revenue
$1,500
Propert y t axes
Coal
$1,000
Operat ions
Const ruct ion
$500
$0
Wind (1478 MW)
Coal (500 MW, 26%in-st at e)
Ohio – Economic Impacts
from 1000 MW of new wind development
Wind energy’s economic “ripple effect”
Direct Impacts
Payments to Landowners:
• $2.7 Million/yr
Local Property Tax Revenue:
• $22 Million/yr
Construction Phase:
• 1,550 new jobs
• $189 M to local economies
Operational Phase:
• 250 new long-term jobs
• $21 M/yr to local economies
Indirect &
Induced Impacts
Construction Phase:
• 1,400 new jobs
• $125 M to local
economies
Operational Phase:
• 300 local jobs
• $30 M/yr to local
economies
All jobs rounded to the nearest 50 jobs; All values greater than $10
million are rounded to the nearest million
Totals
(construction + 20yrs)
Total economic benefit =
$1.3 billion
New local jobs during
construction = 2,950
New local long-term jobs
= 550
Construction Phase = 1-2 years
Operational Phase = 20+ years
Environmental Benefits
•
•
•
•
•
No SOx or NOx
No particulates
No mercury
No CO2
No water
Key Issues for Wind Power
• Policy Uncertainty
• Siting and Permitting: avian,
noise, visual, federal land
• Transmission: FERC rules,
access, new lines
• Operational impacts:
intermittency, ancillary
services, allocation of costs
• Accounting for non-monetary
value: green power, no fuel
price risk, reduced emissions
Increasing Attention in North America
• IEEE Power Engineering
Society Magazine,
November/December 2005
• Updated in 2007
• Wind Power Coordinating
Committee Wind SuperSession, Summer 2008
• Utility Wind Integration
Group (UWIG): Operating
Impacts and Integration
Studies User Group
• www.uwig.org
Integrating Wind into Power Systems
A New Vision
For Wind Energy in the U.S.
State of the Union Address
“…We will invest more in …
revolutionary and…wind
technologies”
Advanced Energy Initiative
“Areas with good wind resources have the
potential to supply up to 20% of the
electricity consumption of the United States.”
“The future ain’t what it used to be.”
- Yogi Berra
Levelized Cost of Energy, $/MWh
140
Onshore
120
100
Offshore
Class 7
Class 7
Class 6
Class 6
Class 5
Class 5
Class 4
Class 4
Class 3
Class 3
10% Available
Transmission
80
60
40
20
0
-
200
400
600
Quantity Available, GW
2010 Costs w/ PTC, $1,600/MW-mile, w/o Integration costs
800
1,000
What does 20% Wind look like?
18
Cumulative Capacity (left scale)
450
16
Annual Capacity (right scale)
400
14
350
12
300
10
250
8
200
6
150
100
4
50
2
0
0
2000
2006
2012
2018
2024
Annual Installed Capacity (GW)
Cumulative Installed Capacity (GW)
500
2030
Source: AWEA 20% Vision
Market Challenges
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
National and state policy uncertainty
Mixed stakeholder perspectives and knowledge
Electricity supply planning based on capacity
Variable wind output viewed as unreliable
Incomplete comparative generation assessments
Mismatch of wind and transmission development
timeframes
Federal lending all source requirements for G&T’s
Lack of interstate approach to transmission development
Lack of utility financial incentives to own wind facilities
High cost and low turbine availability for community projects
High cost and permitting challenges of <1 MW turbines
Uncertainty in emerging emissions REC markets
Great Lakes Region – Economic Impacts
From the 20% Vision
(61.5 GW new development from Onshore and Offshore)
Wind energy’s economic “ripple effect”
Direct Impacts
Payments to Landowners:
• $156 Million/year
Local Property Tax Revenue:
• $640 Million/year
Construction Phase:
• 91.3 thousand new jobs
• $12.0 Billion to local economies
Operational Phase:
• 14.9 thousand new long-term jobs
• $1.4 Billion/yr to local economies
Indirect &
Induced Impacts
Construction Phase:
• 91.3 thousand new jobs
• $9.3 Billion to local
economies
Operational Phase:
• 14.2 thousand local jobs
• $1.5 Billion/yr to local
economies
Totals
(construction + 20yrs)
Total economic benefit =
$79 Billion
New local jobs during
construction = 182,600
New local long-term jobs
= 29,100
Construction Phase = 1-2 years
Operational Phase = 20+ years
20% Wind Vision Employment
200,000
180,000
160,000
140,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
-
20
07
20
09
20
11
20
13
20
15
20
17
20
19
20
21
20
23
20
25
20
27
20
29
Jobs
120,000
Operations
Construction
Manufacturing
49
Fuel Savings From Wind
4.5E+10
3.5E+10
Electricity Sector
Fuel Usage
3.0E+10
Gas Fuel Savings
Coal Fuel Savings
2.5E+10
Gas Fuel Usage
(20%wind)
Coal Fuel Usage
(20%wind)
2.0E+10
1.5E+10
1.0E+10
5.0E+09
08
20
10
20
12
20
14
20
16
20
18
20
20
20
22
20
24
20
26
20
28
20
30
20
04
06
20
20
20
00
02
0.0E+00
20
MMBtu
4.0E+10
Reduction in National Gas
Consumption in 2030 (%)
Natural Gas Price Reduction
in 2030 (2006$/MMBtu)
Present Value Benefits
(billion 2006$)
Levelized Benefit of
Wind ($/MWh)
11%
0.6 -1.1- 1.5
86 - 150 - 214
16.6 - 29 - 41.6
Electric Sector CO2 Emissions
Results: Costs & Benefits
Incremental direct cost to society
$43 billion
Reductions in emissions of greenhouse 825 M tons (2030)
gasses and other atmospheric pollutants $98 billion
Reductions in water consumption
8% total electric
17% in 2030
Jobs created and other economic
140,000 direct
benefits
$450 billion total
Reductions in natural gas use and price 11%
pressure
$150 billion
Net Benefits: $205B + Water savings
12 Key Messages
1. Wind energy provides multiple benefits at the national,
regional, state, and local levels
2. Targeted messages and education are needed for the
diverse set of stakeholder interests and perspectives,
including regional variations in same.
3. Convergence of energy security, carbon liability and fuel
uncertainty concerns is likely to transform the market for US
electricity supply.
4. Federal and state policies are needed for a diversified and
robust wind energy portfolio
5. Community and distributed wind are important building
blocks for public acceptance of a 20% wind future.
6. Resource planning and procurement should maximize use
of low marginal cost, zero-emissions energy resources,
which displace more expensive fossil fuel
12 Key Messages con’t.
7. All environmental (including water savings) and economic
impacts and risks should be included in comparative
resource economics.
8. Wind is the crop of the 21st Century for rural America, and
the resulting economic benefits need to be included in
comparative assessments of generation options.
9. Wind deployment can ramp up rapidly and incrementally to
meet local and regional load growth.
10. The federal sector (both facilities and transmission)
represents significant opportunities for leadership in use
and transmission of wind.
11. Meeting most load growth with wind power buys time for
the development and commercialization of advanced coal
technologies able to sequester carbon.
12. In air quality markets, policies need to be crafted carefully
to account for non-emitting technologies.
Conclusions
• 20% wind energy penetration is possible
• 20% penetration is not going to happen under business
as usual scenario
• Policy choices will have a large impact on assessing the
timing and rate of achieving a 20% goal
• Key Issues: market transformation, transmission, project
diversity, technology development, policy, public
acceptance
• 20% Vision action plan: Spring 2008
Source: AWEA 20% Vision
MISO-PJM Wind Integration Study
Note: Nebraska and most of South Dakota are not in MISO, but are
within the study footprint.
Regional Wind Energy Institutes (RWEI)
Wind Powering America Priority States
High
Medium
Low
Why is there no wind development in AZ, NV,
UT, MI, IN, OH, MD, VA, NC?
Wind for Schools
XYZ Company
Sponsor
RE Grant Funds
WTG Manufacturer
G
.T
.
State Energy Office
WTG
$
$
$
Green Tags Marketer
DOE
$
T/A
T/A
WAC
$
Co-op/Local Utility
T/A
T/
A
T/
$
A
$
NREL/WPA
D
T/A
D – Data
& Students
$ – Funds Flow
– Knowledge
C
$
C
WTG – Wind Turbine
T/A – Technical Assistance
C
C
C – Coordination
G.T. – Green Tags
School Administration
Science Teacher
State Facilitator
Community
WPA State Summit
“I think your annual states summit has evolved into one of the best –
maybe even the best – wind-information-transfer events of the year. My
guess is that it raises the productive energy level of all who participate.”
Ed DeMeo – June 12, 2007
“With
public sentiment nothing can fail;
without it, nothing can succeed.”
- A. Lincoln
Carpe Ventem
www.windpoweringamerica.gov