Dominica Geothermal Project and Interconnection with Neighbouring Islands
description
Transcript of Dominica Geothermal Project and Interconnection with Neighbouring Islands
AETS/March 2006AETS/March 2006
Dominica Geothermal Dominica Geothermal Project and Interconnection Project and Interconnection with Neighbouring Islandswith Neighbouring Islands
Assessment and Cost-Benefit Assessment and Cost-Benefit AnalysisAnalysis
March 2006March 2006
A E T SApplication Européenne de Technologies et de Services
AETS/March 2006AETS/March 2006
Contents Contents
1 Project Background1 Project Background
2 Electricity Demand and Supply in the 3 Islands2 Electricity Demand and Supply in the 3 Islands
3 Project Development Alternatives 3 Project Development Alternatives
4 Cost – Benefit Analysis4 Cost – Benefit Analysis
5 Conclusions and replicability to other islands5 Conclusions and replicability to other islands
AETS/March 2006AETS/March 2006
1.1. Project Background Project Background
Geothermal Potential in Dominica Geothermal Potential in Dominica Electricity Consumption growing steadilyElectricity Consumption growing steadily Generation mostly based on costly Generation mostly based on costly
imported fuels: electricity price to final imported fuels: electricity price to final consumer 2 to 3 times higher than consumer 2 to 3 times higher than Europe / U.S. Europe / U.S.
Emission of CO2 and pollutants to be Emission of CO2 and pollutants to be reduced in Guadeloupe and Martiniquereduced in Guadeloupe and Martinique
AETS/March 2006AETS/March 2006
2.1.2.1. Power Consumption Power Consumption GuadeloupeGuadeloupe Peak Peak
Load Load (MW)(MW)
MartiniqueMartinique Peak Peak LoadLoad (MW)(MW)
DominicaDominica PeakPeak
Load Load (MW)(MW)
20042004 1430 1430 GWhGWh 221221 1380 1380 GWhGWh 218218 70 70 GWhGWh 1313
2000-10 2000-10 GrowthGrowth
3,5 to 4%3,5 to 4% 3 to 4%3 to 4% 1%1%
2010-20 2010-20 GrowthGrowth
2,5 %2,5 % 2,5 %2,5 % 3%3%
2010 2010 1781 1781 GWhGWh 280280 1560 1560 GWhGWh 253253 80 80 GWhGWh 1515
2020 2020 2300 2300 GWhGWh 360360 2000 2000 GWhGWh 330330 100 100 GWhGWh 2020
AETS/March 2006AETS/March 2006
2.2.2.2. Power Generation Power Generation (end (end
2005)2005) GuadeloupeGuadeloupe MartiniqueMartiniqueDominicaDominica
Installed Installed CapacityCapacity 440 MW440 MW 420 MW420 MW 20 MW20 MW
GenerationGeneration
74% 74% HFO/Gas-oil HFO/Gas-oil 15% Bagasse/Coal15% Bagasse/Coal
3% Hydro3% Hydro
3,5% Geothermal (GB1, 3,5% Geothermal (GB1, GB2)GB2)
4,5% Wind4,5% Wind
100% Imported 100% Imported FuelsFuels
40 % H40 % Hydroydro
60 % D60 % Diesel iesel (Gas-oil)(Gas-oil)
PollutionPollution 180 MW not 180 MW not compliant with EU compliant with EU
NOx DirectiveNOx Directive
200 MW not 200 MW not compliant with EU compliant with EU
NOx DirectiveNOx Directive
UtilityUtility EDFEDF EDFEDF DOMLECDOMLEC
AETS/March 2006AETS/March 2006
2.3.2.3. Medium term needs - BaseMedium term needs - Base
1 2 3
Dates /Dates /
OptionsOptionsGuadeloupeGuadeloupe MartiniqueMartinique DominicaDominica
20102010
20122012
20142014
40 MW40 MW
--
40 MW40 MW
--
40 MW40 MW
--
5 MW5 MW
--
--DieselDiesel
Bagasse / CoalBagasse / Coal
Renewable (other Renewable (other than project)than project)
Upgrading existing Upgrading existing HFO Units /HFO Units /
New UnitsNew Units
One site onlyOne site only
GB3 mostly GB3 mostly
Upgrading existing Upgrading existing HFO Units /HFO Units /
New UnitsNew Units
One site onlyOne site only
LimitedLimited
New PlantNew Plant
Under evaluationUnder evaluation
AETS/March 2006AETS/March 2006
3.13.1 Development scenariosDevelopment scenarios
Scenario 1: Minimum DevelopmentScenario 1: Minimum Development Dominica 5 MWDominica 5 MW
Scenario 2: Medium Development Scenario 2: Medium Development Guadeloupe+Dominica 20 to 30 MW, Martinique+Dominica 30 Guadeloupe+Dominica 20 to 30 MW, Martinique+Dominica 30
MWMW Guadeloupe + Martinique + Dominica 45 MW Guadeloupe + Martinique + Dominica 45 MW
Scenario 3: Maximum DevelopmentScenario 3: Maximum Development Guadeloupe + Dominica 45 MW, Martinique + Dominica 45 MWGuadeloupe + Dominica 45 MW, Martinique + Dominica 45 MW Guadeloupe + Martinique + Dominica 90 MWGuadeloupe + Martinique + Dominica 90 MW
AETS/March 2006AETS/March 2006
3.2.3.2. Geothermal Investment Geothermal Investment
Development Cost( Production Drilling+Steam Field+Power Station )
22 400 000
56 500 00077 863 000
165 200 000196 736 000
202 336 000
117 395 000
116 795 000
5 000 20 000 30 000 45 000 45 000 67 500 90 000 90 0000
50 000 000
100 000 000
150 000 000
200 000 000
250 000 000
Net Power (kW)
Co
st
(€)
AETS/March 2006AETS/March 2006
3.3.3.3. InterconnectionsInterconnections
Line routes: see following figureLine routes: see following figure
Submarine cables: depths of less than 1000 Submarine cables: depths of less than 1000 metersmeters
Overhead lines avoiding protected areas Overhead lines avoiding protected areas
Selected voltages: 63 kV and 90 kVSelected voltages: 63 kV and 90 kV Main CharacteristicsMain Characteristics See 63 kV example below See 63 kV example below
AETS/March 2006AETS/March 2006
AETS/March 2006AETS/March 2006
Generation Inst. Costs Con. O&M Volt. Cost Supplied
(MW) (MW) (MUS$) (yrs) (%/yr) kV (MUS$) MW
Scenario 1: Minimum
Losses 2.0%
Dominica 5 5 26.9 2 5% 11 0,0 4.9
Scenario 2: Medium
Losses 8.6%
Guadeloupe 2*10 20 67.8 2 4.0% 63 24.0 18.3
Guadeloupe 2*15 30 93.5 2 3.7% 63 29.6 27.4
Martinique 2*15 30 93.6 2 3.7% 63 30.0 27.4
G+M 3*15 45 140.2 3 3.7% 63 59.6 41.1
G+M 2*22.5 45 140.9 3 3.7% 63 59.6 41.1
Scenario 3: Maximum
Losses 9.0%
Guadeloupe 2*22.5 45 140.9 3 3.7% 63 33.6 41.0
Martinique 2*22.5 45 140.9 3 3.7% 63 34.6 41.0
G+M 3*30 90 242.8 4 3.7% 63 68.2 81.9
G+M 2*45 90 236.0 4 3.7% 63 68.2 81.9
AETS/March 2006AETS/March 2006
4.4. Cost-benefit AnalysisCost-benefit Analysis 4.1.4.1. Basic AssumptionsBasic Assumptions
• 2*45 MW, 63 kV AC link to Guadeloupe and Martinique2*45 MW, 63 kV AC link to Guadeloupe and Martinique• Investment includes all drilling costsInvestment includes all drilling costs• 61 km overhead lines (in Dominica); 128 km submarine cable 61 km overhead lines (in Dominica); 128 km submarine cable • Total investment 308.6 MUS$Total investment 308.6 MUS$
• Baseline Generation Costs (roughly based on crude oil price of 60 US$/bbl):Baseline Generation Costs (roughly based on crude oil price of 60 US$/bbl): 120 US$/ MWh (Guadeloupe, Martinique) ; 170 US$/ MWh (Dominica)120 US$/ MWh (Guadeloupe, Martinique) ; 170 US$/ MWh (Dominica)
• Sensitivity Analysis: 40 US$/bblSensitivity Analysis: 40 US$/bbl
• Discount rate : 11% (sensitivity 8% and 14%)Discount rate : 11% (sensitivity 8% and 14%)
Tons of avoided CO2 and pollutants not included in monetary benefitsTons of avoided CO2 and pollutants not included in monetary benefits
AETS/March 2006AETS/March 2006
4. Cost-Benefit Analysis4. Cost-Benefit Analysis
4.2.4.2. ResultsResults According to fuel costs (40 to 60 US$/bbl)According to fuel costs (40 to 60 US$/bbl)
Internal Rate of Return between 13% and 23%Internal Rate of Return between 13% and 23% Payback on investment between 13 and 6 yearsPayback on investment between 13 and 6 years
According to discount rates (8 to 14%)According to discount rates (8 to 14%) Cost of delivered geothermal kWh from 0.08 US$ Cost of delivered geothermal kWh from 0.08 US$
(8%) to 0.091 (11%) to 0.103 (14%)(8%) to 0.091 (11%) to 0.103 (14%) Cost of diesel option at 0.135 US$/kWhCost of diesel option at 0.135 US$/kWh
AETS/March 2006AETS/March 2006
4. Cost-Benefit Analysis4. Cost-Benefit Analysis
Avoided tons of CO2 Emissions Avoided tons of CO2 Emissions 420 kton/y, or420 kton/y, or 8.4 MUS$/y for a value of 20 US$/ton8.4 MUS$/y for a value of 20 US$/ton
Avoided other pollutants (NOx in Avoided other pollutants (NOx in particular)particular) Not quantified, but overall benefits are Not quantified, but overall benefits are
expected in French islandsexpected in French islands
AETS/March 2006AETS/March 2006
5.15.1 Next stepsNext steps More precise evaluation of power links’ costs, More precise evaluation of power links’ costs,
including bathymetric studies and analysis of cable including bathymetric studies and analysis of cable laying conditions, and study of overhead line routes laying conditions, and study of overhead line routes
Economic optimisation of project phasing and Economic optimisation of project phasing and development, based on preliminary drilling results, development, based on preliminary drilling results, corresponding geothermal generation costs and corresponding geothermal generation costs and power links’ costspower links’ costs
Network operation studies (in particular stability Network operation studies (in particular stability studies) to determine the technical feasibility of studies) to determine the technical feasibility of combined operation of geothermal units and combined operation of geothermal units and islands’ interconnected networks islands’ interconnected networks
AETS/March 2006AETS/March 2006
5.2. Replicability5.2. Replicability
Preliminary Assessment of Possibilities for Preliminary Assessment of Possibilities for St. Kitts & Nevis and St. Lucia:St. Kitts & Nevis and St. Lucia:
St. Kitts and Nevis: 2*5 MW with interconnection St. Kitts and Nevis: 2*5 MW with interconnection link, total 50 MUS$, delivery cost 0.12 US$/kWhlink, total 50 MUS$, delivery cost 0.12 US$/kWh
St. Lucia: 2*5 MW, total 45 MUS$, delivery cost St. Lucia: 2*5 MW, total 45 MUS$, delivery cost 0.11 US$/kWh0.11 US$/kWh
Equivalent Diesel generation cost: 0.14 Equivalent Diesel generation cost: 0.14 US$/kWh under current fuel cost conditionsUS$/kWh under current fuel cost conditions
Pre-feasibility studies are recommended, Pre-feasibility studies are recommended, including analysis further interconnections to including analysis further interconnections to neighbouring islandsneighbouring islands
AETS/March 2006AETS/March 2006
5.35.3 Conclusions Conclusions
If geothermal resource is confirmed, the Project If geothermal resource is confirmed, the Project is economically attractive under a wide range of is economically attractive under a wide range of assumptionsassumptions
Expected Rates of Return make Project suitable Expected Rates of Return make Project suitable for PPP schemefor PPP scheme
Differences in kWh delivery costs show that Differences in kWh delivery costs show that other similar projects can be attractive with other similar projects can be attractive with interconnections:interconnections: Cost of delivered geothermal kWh from 0.08 US$ to Cost of delivered geothermal kWh from 0.08 US$ to
0.11 0.11 Cost of diesel options from 0.135 to 0.15 US$Cost of diesel options from 0.135 to 0.15 US$