Climate Action Plan and Alternative Energy Overview UNC Energy Task Force March 17, 2010.

Climate Action Plan and Alternative Energy Overview

UNC Energy Task ForceMarch 17, 2010

Agenda• Introduction

• Overview of Climate Action Plan (CAP) and Alternative Energy Study

• Modeling Results

• Question and Answer

Climate Action Plan• UNC became an early signatory to the American Colleges and

Universities Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) in 2007 and began development of its Climate Action Plan

• Overall goal = zero net greenhouse gas emissions by 2050

• The plan addressed all sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in UNC’s inventory:– On-site fossil fuel combustion (Scope 1 emissions)

– Purchased electricity (Scope 2 emissions)

– Transportation and other indirect sources (Scope 3 emissions)

• The plan includes measures affecting both energy demand and energy supply

Alternative Energy Study• In 2008, in support of the Climate Action Plan, UNC initiated a

study of several alternative energy technologies for potential implementation at UNC

• Involved a diverse team of experts, including UNC Energy Services staff, contractors, and technology suppliers

• Publicly-available and proprietary studies were reviewed, suppliers were interviewed, and plant trips were made to examine operational examples of the alternative energy technologies under consideration

Alternative Energy Study• The alternative energy technologies included:

– Biomass Gasification– Co-firing Biomass– Landfill Gas– Poultry Litter– Solar PV– Solar Thermal– Anaerobic Digestion of Animal Waste– Wind Power– Geothermal– Ocean/Tidal Energy– Algae– Carbon Sequestration– Modular Nuclear– Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Plasma Gasification– Fuel Cells

Alternative Energy Study• Alternatives that impact the central utility plant:

– Switch to Natural Gas– Large-scale Biomass Plant– Co-firing Biomass– MSW Plasma Gasification– Modular Nuclear

• Through significant research and discussion, the team evaluated the merits of each technology, the potential for implementation at UNC, and made recommendations for further, more detailed evaluation

Near-term Alternatives – Carbon Reduction

50% Natural Gas50% Coal Substitute

100% Coal Substitute

Large Scale BiomassPlasma Gasification

Near-Term Portfolio Long-Term Common

Long-Term Alternative

LFG Banked Offsets

Additional Projects

This is How We Looked at Alternatives

Process & Key Assumptions • Process overview

– Decision quality– “Sustainable” decision criteria

• Well defined baseline– Building blocks– Highlights

• Energy price forecasting – Natural gas– Coal– Biomass

• Financial risk exposure to climate change– Legislative policy scenarios– Cost of carbon– Results by scenario

Analysis & Insights • Sample alternative (use model)

• Abatement Curve

• Portfolio Development

• Impact on Energy Consumption

• Conclusions

1. Process overview - Decision quality

Process Elements• Decision quality• Investment analysis• Stakeholder questions• Insights versus answers• Fit the objective• “Sustainable” decision

criteria

Commitment to Action

0

1

2

3

4

5

6Commitment to Action

Correct Frame & Constraints

Well Articulated Objectives

Well Articulated Decision Criteria

Well Defined Baseline

Process Inclusive of Stakeholders

Creative & Doable OptionsReliable & Meaningful

Information

Logical Reasoning

Tradeoffs Clear

Risks Understood & Mitigated

On-going Basis for Performance Measurement

Decision Support Accessible to Key Audiences

Decision Quality AttributesProceed Recycle

Sustainable decision criteria

1) Traditional economic financial metrics 2) Monetize non-traditional risks

• Reliability• Climate change

3) Explicit consideration of non-monetized values:• Environmental• Social• Economic

Worksheet Campus Description

MainCarolina North

MainCarolina North

MainCarolina North

Energy Use Intensity Factors developed with input from the Utilities staff.Main

Carolina NorthMain

Carolina NorthMain

Carolina NorthCommodity prices used in the calculation of the primary energy expenses.Graphics illustrating forecasted utility demand and primary energy consumption by campus.

MainCarolina North

Emission factors used to calculate the GHG emissions.This sheet illustrates the potential direct and indirect financial exposure to possible GHG regulation.

Action Valuation SummaryThis sheet provides a summary overview of the valuation metrics for all the actions considered for inclusion in the CAP.

Action Valuation Sheets This sheet describes the assumptions for each action.

Abatement CurveThis sheet shows the abatement curve that illustrates the value and potential impact of each alternative relative to the other alternatives.

Portfolio Wedges and Valuation This graphic illustrates each portfolio action as a wedge and the impact on GHG emissions.

Other Factors Describes other factors used in the calculations in the CAP model.

Describes the business-as-usual GHG emissions.

GHG Regulatory Financial Exposure

Energy Use Intensity Factors

GHG Emissions

Commodity Price Assumptions

GHG Emission Factors

Describes the primary energy used to meet demand and associated costs.

Base Case/Business-as-Usual Components

Valuation of GHG Mitigation Actions

Portfolio Development

Miscellaneous

Population Forecast

Campus Area (GSF) Forecast

Energy Use Intensity Forecast

Demand Forecast

Utility Supply

Primary Energy

Demand and Primary Energy Graphs

This information was developed with information provided by the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment and guidance from Facilities Planning staff. See comments in assumption fields.The forecast was compiled with information from the Capital Plan, Carolina North buildout assessment, and guidance from the Facilities Planning staff.This information characterizes the historical energy use intensity of the campus and describes the assumptions for future energy use intensity.

Campus-wide utility demand calculated based on the assumptions above.

Describes the components of supply used to meet the demand.

Well defined baseline – the “Base Case”Building blocks

Well defined baseline – the “Base Case”Highlights

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 2042 2047

MM

Btu

Main Campus Primary Energy Consumption

Natural Gas

Coal

Purchased Electricity

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 2042 2047

MM

Btu

Main Campus Demand

Chilled Water

Steam

Electricity

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 2042 2047

MM

Btu

Carolina North Demand

Chilled Water

Steam

Electricity

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 2042 2047

MM

Btu

Carolina North Primary Energy Consumption

Natural Gas


20102012

20142016

20182020

20222024

20262028

20302032

20342036

20382040

20422044

20462048

2050 $-

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

$-

$20.00

$40.00

$60.00

$80.00

$100.00

$120.00

$140.00

$160.00

$/M

MBt

u

$/M

Wh

NG


Coal

Coal Sub

Raw Biomass

Energy Price Forecasting – Full Cost

Financial risk assessmentClimate change

Most risk exposures of colleges and universities fall within the following six categories:– Strategic risk– Operating risk– Compliance & regulatory risk– Financial risk– Reputational risk– Technology risk

Financial exposure

Proposed legislation informed the development of Energy Strategies’ Policy Scenarios

Federal Cap and Trade Policy Scenarios

Policy Scenario Scope of Coverage Cap

(% below 2000 Levels)Sectors Covered

UNC Chapel Hill Emissions Covered

Allocation(% Purchased)

Use of Offsets andOther Cost Controls

Energy Strategies

"Stringent"

5% by 2015

15% by 2020

40% by 2030

80% by 2050

Economy-wide

Scope 1: direct at source

Scopes 2,3: indirect through suppliers

Overall: 20% auction increasing to 60%

Covered entity: 60% increasing to 100%

No safety valve

U.S. offsets limited to 5% of compliance

No Banking

Energy Strategies

"Moderate"

1% by 2015

10% by 2020

30% by 2030

70% by 2050

Economy-wide

Scope 1: direct at source

Scopes 2,3: indirect through suppliers

Overall: 15% auction increasing to 40%


No safety valve

U.S. and international offsets limited to 10%

of compliance

Banking for 5 years

Energy Strategies

"Soft"

1% by 2015

8% by 2020

20% by 2030

50% by 2050

Electric Power (Excluding Cogen), Transportation, &

Manufacturing

Scope 1: excludedScopes 2,3: indirect through suppliers

Overall: 10% auction


Safety valve in place

U.S. and international offsets limited to 25%

of compliance

Unlimited banking

6 GHGs—CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and

SF6

Upstream for transport fuels & LDC

natural gas; downstream for large coal users and large

point sources

20052007

20092011

20132015

20172019

20212023

20252027

20292031

20332035

20372039

20412043

20452047

20490

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000Cap Levels of Various Legislative Scenarios

Business as UsualBingaman-Specter, S.1766McCain-Lieberman, S.280Olver-Gilchrest, HR.620Boxer-Lieberman-Warner, S.3036Doggett, HR.6316Sanders-Boxer, S.309Waxman-Markey, HR.2454Kerry-Boxer, S.1733Energy Strategies Stringent CaseEnergy Strategies Moderate CaseEnergy Strategies Weak Case

Tota

l Allo

wan

ces

Ava

ilabl

e (M

illio

ns o

f Met

ric

Tons

CO

2e)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

2009

$/m

etri

c ton

CO

2

GHG Emission Allowance Price Projections (2009$)

3rd Party Forecasts (2008 Legislation)

Energy Strategies - High Trend (P90)

Energy Strategies - Mid Trend (unweighted or P50)

Energy Strategies - Low Trend (P10)

Energy Strategies - Mid Trend (weighted or EV)

Energy Strategies developed a set of carbon allowance price forecasts…

Financial risk exposure to climate change

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Annu

al Fi

nanc

ial E

xpos

ure

2009

$ M

M

GH

G Em

issi

ons (

MTC

O2e

)

Main Campus

Subject to Compliance Cost GHG Emissions Not Subject to Compliance Cost

Total GHG Emissions Annual Financial Exposure (2009$MM) - Right Axis

PV of Financial Exposure in 2009$ - $551MM

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

$14

$16

$18

$20

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Annu

al Fi

nanc

ial E

xpos

ure

2009

$ M

M

GH

G Em

issi

ons (

MTC

O2e

)

Carolina North

Subject to Compliance Cost GHG Emissions Not Subject to Compliance Cost

Total GHG Emissions Annual Financial Exposure (2009$MM) - Right Axis


$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

$200

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Annu

al Fi

nanc

ial E

xpos

ure

2009

$ M

M

GH

G Em

issi

ons (

MTC

O2e

)

Combined

Subject to Compliance Cost GHG Emissions Not Subject to Compliance CostTotal GHG Emissions Annual Financial Exposure (2009$MM) - Right Axis


Weak Moderate Stringent

Brea

kthr

ough

Ad

vanc

es

Low Trend (P10) P30Mid Trend

(unweighted or P50)

Mod

erat

e Ad

vanc

es

P30Mid Trend

(weighted or EV)P70

Min

imal

Ad

vanc

es Mid Trend (unweighted or P50)

P70 High Trend (P90)

Tech

nolo

gy S

cena

rio

Legislative Scenario

Sample Alternative

Actionable Alternative: Co-fire 20 Percent Coal Substitute

NPV through 2050

Cumulative Carbon

Abatement (2010 - 2050)

Contribution toward

Neutralilty in

Link to Input Assumptions/Notes Incremental Utility Savings (Costs) ($13,439,739) 1,987,193 2050 Terminal Value?Incremental GHG Compliance Savings (Costs) $28,239,818 Average -8.21% Yes

Reference Case: Avoided Capital Cost $0 55,200 Project LifeYear Implemented: 2015 New Capital Cost ($1,557,343) 30

Implementation Time Frame: Short-term Avoided Operating Costs $0New Operating Costs ($506,850)

Net Cash Flow $12,735,885DPI: 9.2 $53,722,586 Value if 100% credit for avoided MTCDEIRR: 40%

Total Incremental Savings (Cost) w/o Compliance Savings ($15,503,933)Levelized Cost (Savings) per MTCDE Avoided: $22 DACI

Levelized Avoided Compliance Cost per MTCDE Avoided: $40 1.45B C D

A+B+C+D

Electricity SteamChilled Water


NG - Central Coal Coke BiomassCoal

SubstituteSyngas

Transportation Fuels

Primary EnergyOther Short-

Term VariableLong-Term

Variable Total Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3

Incremental GHG Compliance Savings

(Costs)

Avoided Capital Cost

Incremental Capital Cost

Avoided Operating Costs

Incremental Operating Costs

Total OPEX/CAPEX

Net Cash Flow

FYE MWh klb thr MWh MMBtu MMBtu tons MMBtu MMBtu MMBtu Gallons 2009$ 2009$ 2009$ 2009$ MTCDE MTCDE MTCDE 2009$ 2009$ 2009$ 2009$ 2009$ 2009$ 2009$ 2009$2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02014 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 0 $0 $0 ($2,000,000) $0 $0 ($2,000,000) $0 ($2,000,000)2015 0 0 0 0 0 -489,162 0 0 489,162 0 $286,998 $286,998 -58,485 0 0 $587,316 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $834,3132016 0 0 0 0 0 -439,516 0 0 439,516 0 $114,760 $114,760 -52,549 0 0 $609,135 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $683,8962017 0 0 0 0 0 -463,259 0 0 463,259 0 $83,977 $83,977 -55,388 0 0 $731,870 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $775,8472018 0 0 0 0 0 -463,656 0 0 463,656 0 $9,997 $9,997 -55,436 0 0 $826,286 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $796,2822019 0 0 0 0 0 -463,010 0 0 463,010 0 ($72,093) ($72,093) -55,358 0 0 $922,545 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $810,4522020 0 0 0 0 0 -485,828 0 0 485,828 0 ($164,470) ($164,470) -58,086 0 0 $1,074,033 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $869,5642021 0 0 0 0 0 -486,677 0 0 486,677 0 ($255,243) ($255,243) -58,188 0 0 $1,198,445 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $903,2022022 0 0 0 0 0 -480,643 0 0 480,643 0 ($351,753) ($351,753) -57,467 0 0 $1,309,275 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $917,5222023 0 0 0 0 0 -478,359 0 0 478,359 0 ($457,715) ($457,715) -57,193 0 0 $1,432,604 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $934,8882024 0 0 0 0 0 -476,075 0 0 476,075 0 ($567,502) ($567,502) -56,920 0 0 $1,558,949 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $951,4472025 0 0 0 0 0 -473,791 0 0 473,791 0 ($681,513) ($681,513) -56,647 0 0 $1,688,068 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $966,5542026 0 0 0 0 0 -471,507 0 0 471,507 0 ($794,989) ($794,989) -56,374 0 0 $1,833,598 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $998,6102027 0 0 0 0 0 -469,223 0 0 469,223 0 ($905,546) ($905,546) -56,101 0 0 $1,982,388 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $1,036,8422028 0 0 0 0 0 -466,939 0 0 466,939 0 ($1,017,786) ($1,017,786) -55,828 0 0 $2,134,138 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $1,076,3522029 0 0 0 0 0 -464,655 0 0 464,655 0 ($1,135,545) ($1,135,545) -55,555 0 0 $2,288,555 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $1,113,0102030 0 0 0 0 0 -462,371 0 0 462,371 0 ($1,254,868) ($1,254,868) -55,282 0 0 $2,445,352 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $1,150,4842031 0 0 0 0 0 -460,086 0 0 460,086 0 ($1,380,736) ($1,380,736) -55,009 0 0 $2,624,751 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $1,204,0152032 0 0 0 0 0 -457,802 0 0 457,802 0 ($1,517,420) ($1,517,420) -54,736 0 0 $2,806,913 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $1,249,4932033 0 0 0 0 0 -455,518 0 0 455,518 0 ($1,646,826) ($1,646,826) -54,463 0 0 $2,967,014 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $1,280,1882034 0 0 0 0 0 -453,234 0 0 453,234 0 ($1,759,389) ($1,759,389) -54,189 0 0 $3,104,374 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $1,304,9852035 0 0 0 0 0 -450,950 0 0 450,950 0 ($1,864,020) ($1,864,020) -53,916 0 0 $3,243,310 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $1,339,2902036 0 0 0 0 0 -448,666 0 0 448,666 0 ($1,978,509) ($1,978,509) -53,643 0 0 $3,406,821 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $1,388,3122037 0 0 0 0 0 -449,413 0 0 449,413 0 ($2,115,499) ($2,115,499) -53,733 0 0 $3,591,943 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $1,436,4442038 0 0 0 0 0 -450,159 0 0 450,159 0 ($2,252,150) ($2,252,150) -53,822 0 0 $3,776,401 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $1,484,2512039 0 0 0 0 0 -450,906 0 0 450,906 0 ($2,388,130) ($2,388,130) -53,911 0 0 $3,959,798 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $1,531,6682040 0 0 0 0 0 -451,652 0 0 451,652 0 ($2,527,173) ($2,527,173) -54,000 0 0 $4,152,434 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $1,585,2612041 0 0 0 0 0 -452,399 0 0 452,399 0 ($2,667,720) ($2,667,720) -54,090 0 0 $4,339,861 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $1,632,1412042 0 0 0 0 0 -453,145 0 0 453,145 0 ($2,803,849) ($2,803,849) -54,179 0 0 $4,520,836 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $1,676,9872043 0 0 0 0 0 -453,892 0 0 453,892 0 ($2,945,926) ($2,945,926) -54,268 0 0 $4,724,104 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $1,738,1792044 0 0 0 0 0 -454,638 0 0 454,638 0 ($3,106,513) ($3,106,513) -54,357 0 0 $4,954,206 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $1,807,6932045 0 0 0 0 0 -455,384 0 0 455,384 0 ($3,289,773) ($3,289,773) -54,447 0 0 $5,217,632 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $1,887,8592046 0 0 0 0 0 -456,131 0 0 456,131 0 ($3,492,381) ($3,492,381) -54,536 0 0 $5,499,065 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $1,966,6842047 0 0 0 0 0 -456,877 0 0 456,877 0 ($3,709,398) ($3,709,398) -54,625 0 0 $5,800,741 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $2,051,3432048 0 0 0 0 0 -457,624 0 0 457,624 0 ($3,942,584) ($3,942,584) -54,714 0 0 $6,125,093 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $2,142,5092049 0 0 0 0 0 -458,370 0 0 458,370 0 ($4,193,841) ($4,193,841) -54,804 0 0 $6,474,730 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $2,240,8892050 0 0 0 0 0 -459,117 0 0 459,117 0 ($4,465,198) ($4,465,198) -54,893 0 0 $6,852,422 $0 $0 $0 ($40,000) ($40,000) $0 $2,347,223

Terminal Value: $0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0A 36 0 0 B C D A+B+C+D

Rock Wool Sales

Incremental Non-Utility OPEX/Capital Savings (Cost)

HR_Chiller_IRB_2

AIncremental Utility Demand (MMBtu) Incremental Primary Energy Input Incremental Utility Savings (Costs) Incremental GHG Savings (Cost)

HOME

Co-fire 20 Percent Coal Substitute

Actionable Alternative: Co-fire 20 Percent Coal Substitute

NPV through 2050

Cumulative Carbon

Abatement (2010 - 2050)

Contribution toward

Neutralilty in

Link to Input Assumptions/Notes Incremental Utility Savings (Costs) ($13,439,739) 1,987,193 2050Incremental GHG Compliance Savings (Costs) $28,239,818 Average -8.21%

Reference Case: Avoided Capital Cost $0 55,200Year Implemented: 2015 New Capital Cost ($1,557,343)

Implementation Time Frame: Short-term Avoided Operating Costs $0New Operating Costs ($506,850)

Net Cash Flow $12,735,885DPI: 9.2IRR: 40%

Total Incremental Savings (Cost) w/o Compliance Savings ($15,503,933)Levelized Cost (Savings) per MTCDE Avoided: $22 DACI

Levelized Avoided Compliance Cost per MTCDE Avoided: $40 1.45

HR_Chiller_IRB_2

HOME


ECM

(Min

imal

Fin

anci

al In

vest

men

t)

SB 6

68 M

ain

Co-fi

re 2

0 Pe

rcen

t Coa

l Sub

stitu

te

100%

Coa

l Sub

stitu

te

50%

Coa

l Sub

stitu

te

Plas

ma

Arc

Gas

ifica

tion

of M

SW -

Syng

as

50%

NG

, 50%

Coa

l Sub

stitu

te

Plas

ma

Arc

Gas

ifica

tion

of M

SW -

Syng

as p

lus

NG

(Re

plac

e A

ll Co

al) 50

Per

cent

Nat

ural

Gas

Larg

e Sc

ale

Biom

ass

Plan

t

Busi

ness

-as-

Usu

al E

mis

sion

s (2

050)

: 669

,000

MTC

DE*

*

($200)

($150)

($100)

($50)

$0

$50

$100

$150

Leve

lized

Cos

t (S

avin

gs)

per M

TCO

2e

Average Contribution Toward Neutrality in 2050 (1,000's MTCDE)

Thin clients where appropriate

Business Travel

Behavioral_Initiative

Computer Standby Mode (Purchasing/Recycling)Chiller Plant Efficiency (incl. phase I, phase II, and Tomkins)ECM (Minimal Financial Investment)

Commuter Emissions

Commercial Mail Management

SB 668 Main

ECM (Aggressive Financial Investment)

Campus Fleet

Heat Recovery Chillers and Solar Thermal (CN)

Compost

SB 668 CN

Heat Recovery Chiller at IRB (Phase II)

Consolidated Delivery

Heat Recovery Chiller at IRB (600 ton)

Landfill Gas (CN)


Biomass Gasification at Carolina North (Phase I)

100% Coal Substitute

50% Coal Substitute

Plasma Arc Gasification of MSW - Syngas

Shops and Informal Contract Recycling

ECM (Moderate Financial Investment)

50% NG, 50% Coal Substitute

Plasma Arc Gasification of MSW - Syngas plus NG (Replace All Coal)50 Percent Natural Gas

Biomass Gasification w/ Biochar Production at CNLarge Scale Biomass Plant

Biomass Gasification at Carolina North (Phase II)Solar Thermal (CN)

Solar Thermal to Electricity (Troughs) (CN)

Solar Thermal to Electric (Dish Sterling) (CN)

Demo Scale Concentrating Solar PV (CN)

Adjusted Levelized Cost (Savings)

>

<**Net of Utility Footprint change

CAP Portfolio – Near-term Alternatives

– Thin Clients– Business Travel– Duplex Printing– Behavioral Initiatives– Computer Standby– Chiller Plant Efficiency

Projects– Low-cost ECMs– Commuter Travel

– Commercial Mail Management

– Green Building (SB 668)– Campus Fleet– Composting– Heat Recovery Chillers at

IRB (Phase 1 and 2)– Consolidated Delivery

The following are near-term alternatives (implemented 2010 through 2015) that are cost effective regardless of the value of greenhouse gas emissions abated:

CAP Portfolio – Near-term Alternatives

Additionally, the following near-term alternatives are included because they are either already in progress or they would be cost effective in a carbon-constrained world:

– Landfill Gas– Co-Fire 20% Coal Substitute

ECM

(Min

imal

Fin

anci

al In

vest

men

t)

SB 6

68 M

ain

Co-fi

re 2

0 Pe

rcen

t Coa

l Sub

stitu

te

Busi

ness

-as-

Usu

al E

mis

sion

s (2

050)

: 669

,000

MTC

DE*

*

($200)

($150)

($100)

($50)

$0

$50

$100

$150

Leve

lized

Cos

t (S

avin

gs)

per M

TCO

2e

Average Contribution Toward Neutrality (1,000's MTCDE)

Thin clients where appropriate

Business Travel

Behavioral_Initiative

Computer Standby Mode (Purchasing/Recycling)Chiller Plant Efficiency (incl. phase I, phase II, and Tomkins)ECM (Minimal Financial Investment)Commuter Emissions

Commercial Mail Management

SB 668 Main

Campus Fleet

Compost

SB 668 CN

Heat Recovery Chiller at IRB (Phase II)Consolidated Delivery

Heat Recovery Chiller at IRB (600 ton)Landfill Gas (CN)

Co-fire 20 Percent Coal SubstituteAdjusted Levelized Cost (Savings)

>

<

Near-term Alternatives Abatement

($40.0)

($20.0)

$0.0

$20.0

$40.0

$60.0

$80.0

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

2009

$ M

M

Incremental Operating Savings (Cost) GHG Compliance SavingsIncremental P & I Combined Incremental Savings (Cost) w/o GHG SavingsCombined Incremental Savings (Cost) w/ GHG Savings

NPV w/o GHG Compliance Savings ($MM): $152.7

PV of Incremental Capital ($MM): $60.0NPV w/ GHG Compliance Savings ($MM): $289.4

Path: Near-term Alternatives – Cash Flow

Near-term Alternatives - Impact on Energy Demand and Coal Use

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

MW

h

Electricity Demand

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2,000,000

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

klb

Steam Demand

0

50,000,000

100,000,000

150,000,000

200,000,000

250,000,000

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

ton-

hour

CW Demand

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Tons

Coal

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

MW

h

Electricity Demand

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

klb

Steam Demand

0

50,000,000

100,000,000

150,000,000

200,000,000

250,000,000

300,000,000

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

ton-

hour

CW Demand

Long-term Portfolio PathsCommon Alternatives

The following alternatives will be implemented in the mid- or long-term and will be common to all long-term Portfolio Paths:

– Solar Thermal/Heat Recovery Chillers (Carolina North)– Biomass Gasification Plant Phases 1 and 2 (Carolina North)– Moderate ECM Implementation (Main Campus)

Long-term Portfolio Paths

After the near-term alternatives are implemented, there are 4 mutually exclusive paths UNC may follow to carbon neutrality. These paths are characterized by a major change to the central heating plant:– 50% Coal Substitute, 50% Natural Gas– 100% Coal Substitute– MSW Plasma Gasification – Syngas w/ NG (Replace all

Coal)– Large Scale Biomass Plant

($40.0)

($20.0)

$0.0

$20.0

$40.0

$60.0

$80.0

$100.0

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

2009

$ M

M




Path: 50% NG, 50% Coal Substitute

Portfolio Comparison – Cash Flow

($40.0)

($20.0)

$0.0

$20.0

$40.0

$60.0

$80.0

$100.0

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

2009

$ M

M




Path: Plasma Arc Gasification of MSW - Syngas plus NG (Replace All Coal)

($40.0)

($20.0)

$0.0

$20.0

$40.0

$60.0

$80.0

$100.0

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

2009

$ M

M




Path: 100% Coal Substitute

($40.0)

($20.0)

$0.0

$20.0

$40.0

$60.0

$80.0

$100.0

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

2009

$ M

M




Path: Large Scale Biomass Plant

Conclusions1. Almost 50% reduction from business-as-usual

GHG emissions and coal use achieved by 2020.2. Several viable long-term paths to GHG mitigation

and the elimination of coal are being pursued.3. CFB boilers offer valuable “optionality” for use of

alternative solid fuels.4. GHG mitigation greatly accelerated in a cost

effective manner if a price is legislated for GHG emissions.

Climate Action Plan and Alternative Energy Overview UNC Energy Task Force March 17, 2010.

Documents

Transcript of Climate Action Plan and Alternative Energy Overview UNC Energy Task Force March 17, 2010.