Dominica Geothermal Project and Interconnection with Neighbouring Islands

17
AETS/March 2006 AETS/March 2006 Dominica Geothermal Dominica Geothermal Project and Project and Interconnection with Interconnection with Neighbouring Islands Neighbouring Islands Assessment and Cost- Assessment and Cost- Benefit Analysis Benefit Analysis March 2006 March 2006 A E T S Application Européenne de Technologies et de Services

description

A E T S Application Européenne de Technologies et de Services. Dominica Geothermal Project and Interconnection with Neighbouring Islands. Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis March 2006. Contents. 1 Project Background 2 Electricity Demand and Supply in the 3 Islands - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Dominica Geothermal Project and Interconnection with Neighbouring Islands

Page 1: 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

Page 2: Dominica Geothermal Project and Interconnection with Neighbouring Islands

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

Page 3: Dominica Geothermal Project and Interconnection with Neighbouring 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

Page 4: Dominica Geothermal Project and Interconnection with Neighbouring Islands

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

Page 5: Dominica Geothermal Project and Interconnection with Neighbouring Islands

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

Page 6: Dominica Geothermal Project and Interconnection with Neighbouring Islands

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

Page 7: Dominica Geothermal Project and Interconnection with Neighbouring Islands

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

Page 8: Dominica Geothermal Project and Interconnection with Neighbouring Islands

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

(€)

Page 9: Dominica Geothermal Project and Interconnection with Neighbouring Islands

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

Page 10: Dominica Geothermal Project and Interconnection with Neighbouring Islands

AETS/March 2006AETS/March 2006

Page 11: Dominica Geothermal Project and Interconnection with Neighbouring Islands

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

Page 12: Dominica Geothermal Project and Interconnection with Neighbouring Islands

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

Page 13: Dominica Geothermal Project and Interconnection with Neighbouring Islands

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

Page 14: Dominica Geothermal Project and Interconnection with Neighbouring Islands

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

Page 15: Dominica Geothermal Project and Interconnection with Neighbouring 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

Page 16: Dominica Geothermal Project and Interconnection with Neighbouring Islands

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

Page 17: Dominica Geothermal Project and Interconnection with Neighbouring 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$Cost of diesel options from 0.135 to 0.15 US$