Post on 06-Jun-2020
Evaluating the value of concentrated solar power in electricity systems with fluctuating energy sources
Robert Pitz-Paal DLR
Benedikt Lunz, Philipp Stöcker, Dirk Uwe Sauer RWTH Aachen University
> Value of CSP > Robert Pitz-Paal • SolarPACES 2015 > 14.09.2015 DLR.de • Chart 1
• What is residual load and how big will it be in Germany 2050?
• What technology can cover the residual load?
• How to find the lowest cost technology mix?
• Can import of CSP electricity contribute to this mix?
Outline
> Value of CSP > Robert Pitz-Paal • SolarPACES 2015 > 14.09.2015 DLR.de • Chart 2
Principle of electric power supply: Supply and Demand need to match
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
2424 2448 2472 2496 2520 2544 2568Pow
er i
n GW
Hour of Year
Laufwasser Wind onshore Wind offshore PV Last ResiduallastResidual Load PV: 151 GW, Wind onshore: 82 GW, Wind offshore: 20 GW, Load deman: 602 TWh, FRES share: 83 %
Figu
re: W
uppe
rtal
Inst
itut
Scenario for Germany 2050: 83% variable power in total supply capacity
> Value of CSP > Robert Pitz-Paal • SolarPACES 2015 > 14.09.2015 DLR.de • Chart 3
Load
Energy Scenarios for Germany 2050: The future may look very different….
> Value of CSP > Robert Pitz-Paal • SolarPACES 2015 > 14.09.2015 DLR.de • Chart 4
0
200
400
600
800
S1 S2 S3 S7
528 TWh /57%FEE
635 TWh /45%FEE
458 TWh /67%FEE
749 TWh /68%FEE
TWh
Residual loaddemandPV
Wind offshore
Wind onshore
Load following Biogas power plants
Concentrated Solar Power with storage (+.hybridisation)
© T
hecr
ygro
up /
Wik
imed
ia C
omm
ons
Flexible fossil fuel power plant
© Im
agin
is / F
otol
ia
Flexible generation capacity (net - producers)
Load-following Combined heat and power
© V
isual
Con
cept
s / F
otol
ia
Geothermal power plants with stoarge
© v
isdia
/ Fo
tolia
How to cover the residual load (1/2):
> Value of CSP > Robert Pitz-Paal • SolarPACES 2015 > 14.09.2015 DLR.de • Chart 5
Grid extension
© M
arku
s G
össin
g /
Foto
lia
Demand Side Management (industry)
© A
ndre
i Mer
kulo
v / F
otol
ia
Power-to-Gas (Chemicals)
Hann
o Bö
ck /
http
s://
hboe
ck.d
e/
„smart grid“
© G
ert S
kriv
er /
Wik
imed
ia C
omm
ons
Curtailment of variable supply
© v
ege
/ Fo
tolia
Dual-use storage
© P
etai
r / F
otol
ia
© V
ladi
slav
Koch
elae
vs /
Fot
olia
Electric storage
Flexibility technologies to shift the supply in time or space
Power-to-Heat
© c
oppi
right
/ F
otol
ia
Demand Side Management (domestic)
© e
xclu
sive
desig
n /
Foto
lia
> Value of CSP > Robert Pitz-Paal • SolarPACES 2015 > 14.09.2015 DLR.de • Chart 6
How to cover the residual load (2/2):
• Characterization of available technologies • Technical: efficiency, ramp up time, etc. • Economical: investment, O&M costs, fuel costs etc. • Basic dataset for important technologies is already available
• Determination of residual load to be covered
• Fluctuating renewable infeed minus load • Hourly resolution for one year
• Cost-minimal selection of technologies (software tool)
• Result: power system which is able to cover the residual load at all times • Selection based on full costs • Installed power, generated electricity and other data of used technologies
Basic Idea
> Value of CSP > Robert Pitz-Paal • SolarPACES 2015 > 14.09.2015 DLR.de • Chart 7
Simplified methodology: how optimizing the technology mix covering the residual load?
Cut residual load in individual load bands
Characterize the different load bands
Identify for each load band the technology
that covers the load at lowest cost
> Value of CSP > Robert Pitz-Paal • SolarPACES 2015 > 14.09.2015 DLR.de • Chart 8
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
-100
-50
0
50
Stunden
Leis
tung
in G
W
Residual load – for one year in hourly resolution
FRES-share 76%
> Value of CSP > Robert Pitz-Paal • SolarPACES 2015 > 14.09.2015 DLR.de • Chart 9
Time in hours
Pow
er in
GW
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
-100
-50
0
50
Zeit (h)
Res
idua
llast
(GW
)Positive residual load is cut into load bands
> Value of CSP > Robert Pitz-Paal • SolarPACES 2015 > 14.09.2015 DLR.de • Chart 10
Time in hours
Pow
er in
GW
FRES-share 76%
1770 1780 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830
Residuallast FhISE 2013 Referenzszenario in Bändern
Zeit (h)0-5 GW
5-10 GW 10-15 GW
15-20 GW
20-25 GW 25-30 GW 30-35 GW 35-40 GW
40-45 GW 45-50 GW
50-55 GW 55-60 GW
60-65 GW 65-70 GW 70-75 GW
A positive load in the top band indicates a positive load in all lower bands: i.e. no system designed to cover the load in a lower band can provide additional energy to the upper band
> Value of CSP > Robert Pitz-Paal • SolarPACES 2015 > 14.09.2015 DLR.de • Chart 11
Time in hours
Example of the annual load curve of the lowest band
Band 1, 6596 full load hours
> Value of CSP > Robert Pitz-Paal • SolarPACES 2015 > 14.09.2015 DLR.de • Chart 12
Example of the annual load curve of the highest band
> Value of CSP > Robert Pitz-Paal • SolarPACES 2015 > 14.09.2015 DLR.de • Chart 13
Band 50, 346 full load hours
Technology (Cost in Mio. €/GW)
Lignite CCS Gas Turbine
Combined Cycle
Full load hours in load band
5970 5970 5970
Annuity 221,0 32,7 61,0 Operation & Maintenance 89,1 13,1 21,0 Fuel cost 21,3 430,0 311,0 Start-up cost 6,0 5,3 18,6 CO2-Cost 35,5 199,0 144,0 Total annual cost 373,0 680,0 556,0 Specific generation cost in €ct/kWh
6,2 11,4 9,3
WKA & PV 76%, Band 1 (1 GW)
> Value of CSP > Robert Pitz-Paal • SolarPACES 2015 > 14.09.2015 DLR.de • Chart 14
Example: Technologies compete in a load band
Technology (Cost in Mio. €/GW)
Lignite CCS Gas Turbine
Combined Cycle
Full load hours in Load band
2520 2520 2520
Annuity 221,0 32,7 61,0 Operation & Maintenance 89,1 13,1 21,0 Fuel cost 9,0 181,0 131,0 Start-up cost 6,3 5,4 20,9 CO2-Cost 15,0 83,9 60,7 Total annual cost 340,0 316,0 295,0 Specific generation cost in €ct/kWh
13,5 12,5 11,7
WKA & PV 76%, Band 36 (1 GW)
> Value of CSP > Robert Pitz-Paal • SolarPACES 2015 > 14.09.2015 DLR.de • Chart 15
Example: Technology competition in a different load band
Technology (Cost in Mio. €/GW)
Hydrogen Storage
Methan-Storage
Gas- Turbine
Lignite CCS
Full load hours (Discharge)
3110 3110 3110 3110
Charging Power 4,5 GW 8,8 GW - - Capacity 796 GWhth 964 GWhth - -
Total annual cost 323 Mio. € 1061 Mio. € 338 Mio. € 345 Mio. € Specific storage/ generation cost
10,4 €ct/kWh
34,1 €ct/kWh
10,9 €ct/kWh
11,1 €ct/kWh
FRES-share 76%, Band 36 (1 GW)
> Value of CSP > Robert Pitz-Paal • SolarPACES 2015 > 14.09.2015 DLR.de • Chart 16
Example: Storage technology use negative residual to be charged
• Certain E2P necessary for delivering power to a load band • In comparison to gas turbines battery storage is not economic for supplying
power to a load band, if E2P > 2,5h is necessary (1GW and > 2,5 GWh) • Battery storage rather used for optimizing operation of conventional power
plants or for supplying peak loads.
Batteries vs. power plants
> Value of CSP > Robert Pitz-Paal • SolarPACES 2015 > 14.09.2015 DLR.de • Chart 17
- €
20 €
40 €
60 €
80 €
100 €
1 2 3 4 5 6
Annu
al fi
xed
cost
s pe
r kW
Energy to power ratio (E2P)
Gas turbine
Batterystorage
Gas turbine - 375 €/kW - Lifetime >30a
Battery storage - 45 €/kW plus 150 €/kWh - Lifetime <30a
0,000
0,100
0,200
0,300
0,400
0,500
0,600
0,700
0,800
0,900
1,000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
€/kWh
Full load hours
Merit-Order cost for best option
Datenquelle: Prof. Pitz-Paal
The electricity cost of the „winning technologies“ as a function of the full load hours
> Value of CSP > Robert Pitz-Paal • SolarPACES 2015 > 14.09.2015 DLR.de • Chart 18
Is CSP import an economic option for Germany to cover a part of the residual load?
> Value of CSP > Robert Pitz-Paal • SolarPACES 2015 > 14.09.2015 DLR.de • Chart 19
CSP + HVDC cost assumptions for 2050
> Value of CSP > Robert Pitz-Paal • SolarPACES 2015 > 14.09.2015 DLR.de • Chart 20
CSP hybrid HVDC
© M
arku
s G
össin
g /
Foto
lia
2050 (min) 2050 (max)System parameters Annual System efficiency sol- > electr 19% 22%Annual system effciency fossil -> electr. 45% 50%CO2 Emission factor (natural gas) [t/MWhth 0,247 0,247 ( ) ( )specific CSP costSolar field [€/m²] 55 80Themal storage 11 16Power block 590 750Engineering, Development, EPC, Contingen 25% 29%Annual O&M % of invest 2% 2%specific fuel cost[€/MWhth] 33,1 33,1CO2 penalty [€/t CO2] 76,0 76,0 Financial parameterslife time 30 30interest rate 8% 8%
2050 (min) 2050 (max)Cost HVDCEarth cable €/kM-MW 700 720Sea cable €/kM-MW 825 850Overhead line €/kM-MW 120 125Cost per DC/AC Station €/MW 90.000 95.000Losses earth cable %/1000kM 3,50% 3,50%Losses sea cable %/1000kM 2,70% 2,70%Losses overhead cable %/1000kM 4,5% 4,5%Losses AC/DC conversion 0,7% 0,7%Annual O&M % of Invest 2% 2%Lifetime HVDC 40 40interest rate 8% 8%
CSP plant optimization for each load-band
> Value of CSP > Robert Pitz-Paal • SolarPACES 2015 > 14.09.2015 DLR.de • Chart 21
converter (thermal electricity)
electricity
ηstorage SOCmin
thermal storage
time series solar
irradiation
primary renewable energy source
co-firing Fuel cost
CO2 emission coefficient
fuel CO2
thermal energy
€
maxshare
ηthel
• Reference case is average between 2050 min and max • Progress case is equal to 2050 max
Generation cost to cover different load bands: CSP Generation + HVDC + Fuel + CO2 Penalty
> Value of CSP > Robert Pitz-Paal • SolarPACES 2015 > 14.09.2015 DLR.de • Chart 22
0,000
0,100
0,200
0,300
0,400
0,500
0,600
0,700
0,800
0,900
1,000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
€/kWh
Full load hours
Cost Curve for CSP Import (average)
CSP Import is cheapest option
Datenquelle: Prof. Pitz-Paal
> Value of CSP > Robert Pitz-Paal • SolarPACES 2015 > 14.09.2015 DLR.de • Chart 23
The electricity cost of the „winning technologies“ compared to the CSP cost curve
1. Example Results for 90% CO2 Reduction Target Fraction of Wind an PV 45%; 100% = 234 GW
> Value of CSP > Robert Pitz-Paal • SolarPACES 2015 > 14.09.2015 DLR.de • Chart 24
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
without CSP with CSPreference
with CSPprogress
S2 - 45 % FRES
Shar
e of
inst
alle
d po
wer
DSM industry
DSM household
Hydrogen storage
Industrial CHP
Wood power station
Gas turbines - biogas
Gas-steam - biogas
Gas turbines - natural gas
Gas-steam - natural gas
Geothermal
CSP
Wind offshore
Wind onshore
PV
9,1 €ct/kWh 7,6 €ct/kWh 7,0 €ct/kWh
26 GW 31 GW
1. Example Results for 90% CO2 Reduction Target Fraction of Wind an PV 45% 100% = 635 TWh
> Value of CSP > Robert Pitz-Paal • SolarPACES 2015 > 14.09.2015 DLR.de • Chart 25
0%
31% 36%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
without CSP with CSPreference
with CSP progress
S2 - 45 % FRES
Shar
e of
ene
rgy
DSM industry
DSM household
Hydrogen storage
Industrial CHP
Wood power station
Gas turbines - biogas
Gas-steam - biogas
Gas turbines - natural gas
Gas-steam - natural gas
Geothermal
CSP
Wind offshore
Wind onshore
PV
Mix of energy cost in CSP reference scenario
> Value of CSP > Robert Pitz-Paal • SolarPACES 2015 > 14.09.2015 DLR.de • Chart 26
2. Example: Results for 90% CO2 Target Fraction of Wind an PV 67%; 100% = 213 GW
> Value of CSP > Robert Pitz-Paal • SolarPACES 2015 > 14.09.2015 DLR.de • Chart 27
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
without CSP with CSPreference
with CSPprogress
S3 - 67 % FRES
Shar
e of
inst
alle
d po
wer
DSM industryDSM householdHydrogen storageIndustrial CHPWood power stationGas turbines - biogasGas-steam - biogasGas turbines - natural gasGas-steam - natural gasGeothermalCSPWind offshoreWind onshorePV
7,9 €ct/kWh 7,8 €ct/kWh 7,6 €ct/kWh
4 GW 9 GW
1. Example: Results for 90% CO2 Target Fraction of Wind an PV 67%: 100% = 458 TWh
> Value of CSP > Robert Pitz-Paal • SolarPACES 2015 > 14.09.2015 DLR.de • Chart 28
0% 5% 12%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
without CSP with CSPreference
with CSPprogress
S3 - 67 % FRES
Shar
e of
ene
rgy
DSM industryDSM householdHydrogen storageIndustrial CHPWood power stationGas turbines - biogasGas-steam - biogasGas turbines - natural gasGas-steam - natural gasGeothermalCSPWind offshoreWind onshorePV
CSP import lowers electricity cost to cover residual load
> Value of CSP > Robert Pitz-Paal • SolarPACES 2015 > 14.09.2015 DLR.de • Chart 29
6
7
8
9
10
40% 60% 80% 100%
over
all e
lect
rici
ty c
osts
in €
ct/k
Wh
Share wind and PV
without CSP
with CSP reference
with CSP progress
CSP import lowers cost
Up to 12%
• In energy systems with high shares of fluctuating renewables a mix of technology options is required to balance the residual load
• A simplified methodology is presented, that can cost-optimize the technology mix to cover the residual load for different energy scenarios
• Import of hybrid CSP by HVDC is considered as one reasonable option in Germany in this context to achieve a 90% CO2 reduction goal until 2050
• Import of CSP allows for up to 12,5% lower overall electricity cost compared to reference case and would require less PV and wind power in Germany
• CSP is required for mid-load power and replaces mainly biomass power plants
• This analysis can be considered as a first step. Issues that are not considered are grid limitations, role of existing depreciated facilities, integration of European capacity and other aspects.
Summary
> Value of CSP > Robert Pitz-Paal • SolarPACES 2015 > 14.09.2015 DLR.de • Chart 30
• Which role can CSP play in national power systems?
• What are the key factors which influence the use of CSP?
• How are CSP systems dimensioned in a power system context? • Size of storage, collector field, co-firing unit, turbine
• What is the mix of generation, storage and other flexibility technologies?
• What are the electricity generation costs?
If you are an expert and have access to country specific data, you are invited to join.
New SolarPACES Grid Integration Working Group under preparation using this Methodology
> Value of CSP > Robert Pitz-Paal • SolarPACES 2015 > 14.09.2015 DLR.de • Chart 31