Sharon J. Wagner
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, United States of America
Edward S. Rubin
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, United States of America
Ladda ner artikelhttp://dx.doi.org/10.3384/ecp110573821Ingår i: World Renewable Energy Congress - Sweden; 8-13 May; 2011; Linköping; Sweden
Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 57:20, s. 3821-3829
Publicerad: 2011-11-03
ISBN: 978-91-7393-070-3
ISSN: 1650-3686 (tryckt), 1650-3740 (online)
A 110-MW parabolic trough power plant operating in California was modeled to observe the effect of molten salt thermal energy storage capacity on plant performance; cost; and profitability. A plant with no storage (PT-NG) was modeled to match the hourly and annual electricity output of a comparable plant with storage (PT-TES). The solar field area for the PT-TES plant was selected to minimize the unsubsidized levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). For each storage capacity modeled here (1-12 hours); PT-NG resulted in a larger solar field area and higher O&M costs than the respective PT-TES option. PT-TES generally had higher capital costs than PT-NG; and the PT-NG levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) varied from 6% higher compared with smaller TES capacities to 6% less compared with larger TES capacities. The profitability of PT-NG compared to PT-TES followed a similar trend to the LCOE with larger margins of difference in select scenarios. These results were achieved with 3-22% of the net electric output from natural gas in the PT-NG plant. The 30% investment tax credit (ITC); currently in place for solar energy in the United States; lowered the capital costs and LCOE for each configuration. Electricity pricing through a power purchase agreement (PPA) of $200/MWh was more profitable than hourly real-time electricity pricing; which resulted in a net annual loss for all configurations. Both the PPA and ITC were required to achieve a positive annual profit; and the maximum annual profit achieved was $US 11 million per year with 0 hours of storage.
[1] Wilcox; S. and W. Marion. 2008. User’s Manual for TMY3 Data Sets; NREL/TP-581-43156. April 2008. Golden; Colorado: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
[2] Price; H.; ed. Assessment of Parabolic Trough and Power Tower Solar Technology Cost and Performance Forecasts. Rep.No. SL 5641. Sargent & Lundy LLC Consulting Group. Chicago; IL: NREL; 2003.
[3] Kreith; Frank; and D. Yogi Goswami; eds. Handbook of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. New York: C R C LLC; 2007
[4] Estimated value from: Kelly; B. and Kearney; D. Thermal Storage Commercial Plant Design Study for a 2-tank Indirect Molten Salt System. Final Report; May 13; 2002 - December 31; 2004. Golden; CO.: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2006).
[5] National Renewable Energy Laboratory; Solar Advisor Model User Manual; 2009
[6] National Renewable Energy Laboratory; Solar Advisor Model Reference Manual for CSP Trough Systems; 2009
[7] Turchi; C. Parabolic Trough Reference Plant for Cost Modeling with the Solar Advisor Model (SAM); National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Report No. NREL/TP-550-47605; July 2010.
[8] California ISO; version 5.7.7; http://oasis.caiso.com; accessed October 15; 2010.
[9] Integrated Environmental Control Model 6.2.4 (with advanced features selected); http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/ewr/pubs/cmu-iecm.html.
[10] Jaramillo; P.; W.M. Griffin; and H.S. Matthews. 2007. Comparative life cycle air emissions of coal; domestic natural gas; and SNG for electricity generation. Environmental Science & Technology. 41(17):6290-6296.
doi: 10.1021/es063031o.
[11] Lechón; Y.; C. de la Rúa; and R. Sáez. 2008. Life cycle environmental impacts of electricity production by solarthermal power plants in Spain. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering. 130. 021012-1-7. 3829