tim mason renewable resource integration iep association annual meeting fallen leaf lake 5 october...
TRANSCRIPT
TIM MASON
RENEWABLE RESOURCE INTEGRATIONIEP ASSOCIATION ANNUAL MEETINGFALLEN LEAF LAKE
5 O
ctob
er 2
011
“Integration” means different thing in different timeframes, and often require different types of resources • Seconds - Voltage and Frequency support • Minutes - Regulation Services • Hours and Days - Load Following and Unit commitment• Months - Resource Adequacy• Years – Developing appropriate resources
Concern today is whether we will be able to integrate renewable resources currently under development
INTEGRATION REQUIREMENTS
5 October 2011
2
3
• Renewable resources keep growing, with most energy coming from variable output resources
• In US, most renewable capacity is wind
• In California we anticipate split between solar and wind
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008
An
nu
al A
dd
itio
ns
-- N
amep
late
Cap
acit
y, M
W
Wind
Solar
Geothermal
Municipal Waste
Biomass
Wind
U.S. ANNUAL RENEWABLE CAPACITY ADDITIONS, MW
5 October 2011
Source: Black & Veatch Analysis
WHERE ARE WE AT TODAY?
4
Coal45.0%
Natural Gas24.2%
Nuclear19.6%
Oil0.9%
Hydro6.2%
Biomass1.4%
Wind2.30% Geothermal
0.38%
Solar0.03%
Other4.1%
Source: Data from EIA, B&V Analysis
2010 U.S. Electricity Generation, by source
5 October 2011
5Source: Black & Veatch Analysis
AND RENEWABLES KEEP COMING…
• Most renewable growth driven by RPS mandates
• Black & Veatch Base Case has a 300% growth in renewables in the next 15 years
• About 11% market share (plus another 6% from hydro)
U.S. Cumulative Renewable Resource Additions (MW)
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035
Ren
ewab
le N
amep
late
Cap
acity
(MW
)
Eastern Interconnect
ERCOT
WECC
5 October 2011
6
Conventional wisdom is that we will need massive quantities of new resources designed to manage variable renewable generation … but is that correct?
IMPACT OF RENEWABLE RESOURCES ON SYSTEM
5 October 2011
Black & Veatch - 7
WIND RESOURCE VARIABILITY
Expected output of 250 MW California wind generator for week in August
(MW/hr)
0
50
100
150
200
250
5 October 2011
Black & Veatch - 8
SOLAR RESOURCE VARIABILITY
Expected generation of 250 MW California solar resource for typical August week (5-50 MW facilities in different locations)
(MW/hr)
0
50
100
150
200
250
5 October 2011
Black & Veatch – 9
COMBINED RESOURCE VARIABILITY
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Expected combined generation profile for co-located 250 MW solar and 250 MW wind resource in California for a typical August week
(MW/hr)
5 October 2011
• Co-locating wind and solar increased dependable energy and reduced output variability
• System operators have always had to manage unit outages and load variability
• Needs for integration will vary with system size and available resources - small systems that have high percentage of variable generation will require more “renewable integration” resources
• Geographic diversity will reduce integration requirement • CAISO indicates <1000 MW of new regulation needed to
integrate 20% renewables in 2020• Changing how we operate resources, such as hydro dispatch,
could reduce integration needs • Consider integration requirements along with other changes to
the generation mix
DO WE REALLY NEED A LOT OF INTEGRATION RESOURCES?
5 October 2011
10Black & Veatch – 10
• Estimated 6,000 MW of coal retirements in WECC do to emission, water and carbon policy requirements
• Replacing ~12,000 MW of once through cooling capacity in California
• Load growth, including EVs
• Demand response and “smart grid” technologies
WHAT ELSE DO WE NEED TO CONSIDER?
5 October 2011
11
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
22,000
24,000
26,000
28,000
30,000
2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033
Cu
mu
lati
ve
Re
tire
d C
ap
ac
ity
(M
W)
Other
Coal
Natural Gas
Source: Black & Veatch
WECC Retirements by Technology
Black & Veatch – 11
• Ideal new resources need to meet integration needs and system requirements• Dependable to provide capacity /resource adequacy • Flexible to meet most operating requirements • Commercially proven technology • Meets environmental goals • Inexpensive
SO WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?5 October 2011
12Black & Veatch – 12
POTENTIAL INTEGRATION PRODUCTS
5 October 2011
13
• Different integration products will serve different purposes
• Most potential integration resource are still under development, and expensive
• Gas is most commercial, least cost technology to integrate renewables in next 10 years
• Beyond 10 years other technologies may become competitive
Technology Maturity Levelized Cost ($/MWh)
Gas – CC Mature 67
Gas – GT Mature 127
Pumped Hydro Mature 310-380
Compressed Air Demo/Commercial 81-102
Lead Acid Battery Commercial 505-760
Flow Battery Demo 470-1,125
Li-ion Battery (ISO Services Grid Support)
Demo 6,000-7,200
Li-ion Battery (C&I Energy Mgt PV Integration)
Demo 10,50-1,550
Fly Wheels Demo 7,800-7,900
Source - Gas technologies cost from EIA and storage technologies from EPRI
The Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE), also called the “busbar cost,” is calculated by determining the annualized fixed costs of a power plant, dividing that value by its expected annual generation, and then adding all of its variable costs including fuel.Black & Veatch – 13
INTEGRATION PRODUCTS BY TIMEFRAME AND FUNCTION
5 October 2011
14
• Variety of storage options under development but largely pre-commercial
• Substantial demand response options are years away from reality
• Conventional technologies are best able to meet integration requirements today
Black & Veatch – 14
• Gas generation will be primary resource to integrate renewables for the next 10 years
• After 10 years, new storage products will likely compete with gas for integration
CONCLUSION 5 October 2011
15Black & Veatch – 15
16
THE CHANGING ENERGY MIX-US
ENERGY MIX—2011 ENERGY MIX—2035
Source: Black & Veatch Analysis
Data Label Legend:Technology, Energy (GWh), Share of Total (%)
Coal, 1,744,129 , 44%
Hydro, 291,765 , 7%
Natural Gas, 950,624 , 24%
Nuclear, 808,043 , 20%
Renewable, 194,940 , 5%
Coal, 1,213,522 , 23%
Hydro, 292,790 , 6%
Natural Gas, 2,221,634 , 42%
Nuclear, 796,409 , 15%
Renewable, 674,352 , 13%
IGCC Coal, 55,025 , 1%
Natural gas’s “market share” increases from 21% of electricity consumption to 42%, while coal decreases from 44% to 24%, and renewables increase from 5% to 13%
5 October 2011
Black & Veatch – 16
17
• Infrastructure response to tremendous shifts in market dynamics is likely over the next 25 years
US Power Sector Infrastructure Transition 2011-2035
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
CombinedCycle
CombustionTurbine
Steam Gas&Oil
Hydro Nuclear Coal-Conventional
Coal-IGCC Renewables
Cap
acit
y b
y T
ech
no
log
y (M
W)
2011
2035
5 October 2011
Black & Veatch – 17
RE
NE
WA
BLE
EN
ER
GY
• Gas is cheap today
• Volatility over gas price would change chart
WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG WITH USING GAS FOR INTEGRATION?
5 October 2011
18
$0.00
$2.00
$4.00
$6.00
$8.00
$10.00
$12.00
$14.00
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
$/M
MB
tu (
2010
$)
Black & Veatch – 18