IS PARABOLIC TROUGH SOLAR POWER PLANT TECHNOLOGY

READY FOR ITS NEXT GROWTH SURGE?

David Kearney, K&A

Henry Price, NREL

WRECDenver, Colorado

31 August 2004

YES

but why?

Excellent operating experience Technology advances Stronger supplier base

Large plants in developmentOpportunities for significant new deployments

Parabolic Trough Collector

• Typically tracks sun E-W on N-S axis• High temperature oil flows through receiver• Receiver highly efficient due to vacuum annulus and selective surface• Major cost elements: structure, receivers, reflectors• Mirror washing proven to be very effective

Illustration courtesy of Solar Millennium

● Parabolic trough collectors concentratedirect beam radiation onto receiver, heating circulating high temperature fluid at 400C

● Via shell-and-tube heat exchangers, solar field heat used to generate high temperature, high pressure steam

● Larger power systems can be either steam Rankine cycles or combined cycles, from 30MWe to over 300 MWe

● Systems can use fossil fuel or thermal storage to raise capacity factor or shift time of electrical production

Key Technical Characteristics

Key Technical Characteristics (continued)

● Dispatchability achieved with thermal storage or hybrid operation (with fossil) => approaches firm power

● Proven long-term operation in California● Technology development path to competitive electricity

cost levels identified ● Ready for rapid manufacturing scale-up to GW level

deployment

Solar Electric Generating SystemRankine Cycle

ConventionalSteam Plant

Solar Field

EdwardsAF Base

CA 58

US 395

KJ SEGSPlants

• 354 MWe installed• 7000 GWH operations• 110% peak availability• $1.25 Billion invested• Matured O&M procedures• Technical advances lowered costs

Kramer Junction, Calif.Five 30-MWe Trough Plants

Kramer Junction Operational ExperienceElectrical Output

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Year of Operation

Ann

ual G

ross

Sol

ar G

ener

atio

n (G

Wh)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Cum

ulat

ive

Gro

ss S

olar

G

ener

atio

n (T

Wh)

Cumulative Generation

Annual Generation

Cost Reduction OpportunitiesParabolic Trough Technology

● Plant Size● Concentrator Design● Advanced Receiver Technology● Thermal Energy Storage● O&M● Design Optimization/Standardization● Power Park● Competition● Financial

Trough Development ScenarioBreakdown of Cost Reduction (Sargent & Lundy)

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Cumulative Installed Capacity (MWe)

LC

OE

200

2 $/

kWh

Factors Contributing to Cost Reduction- Scale-up 37%- Volume Production 27%- Technology Dev. 42%

1988 30-MW SEGS

Current Potential 2004 Technology, 50-MWe Size, Optimum Location

1984 14-MW SEGS

Future Cost Potential2004-2012

1989 80-MW SEGS

Current State-of-the-Art50 MWe Trough Plant

● Current State-of-the-Art (Plant built today)◗ 50 MWe (~100 bar, 700F, 37.5% gross)◗ LS-2 Collectors (391 C)◗ Receiver – Solel UVAC◗ Solar only or hybrid ◗ Solar multiple 1.5◗ No thermal storage◗ DNI 8.0 kWh/m2-day

Site: Kramer Junction Solar Only

Hybrid (25%)

Plant size, net electric [MWe] 50 50 Collector Aperture Area [km2] 0.312 0.312 Thermal Storage [hours] 0 0 Solar-to-electric Efficiency. [%] 13.9% 14.1% Plant Capacity Factor [%] 29.2% 39.6% Capital Cost [$/kWe] 2745 2939 O&M Cost [$/kWh] 0.024 0.018 Fuel Cost [$/kWh] 0.000 0.010 Levelized Cost of Energy [2002$/kWh]

0.110 0.096

Current Cost11¢/kWh

Plant SizeImpact on Cost of Energy

0.204

0.1370.110

0.094 0.084 0.076

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

10 25 50 100 200 400

Plant Size MWe

LCO

E 20

02$/

kWh

Near-Term Trough Plant

Reference Case

0.100

0.105

0.110

0.115

0.120

0.125

0.130

0.135

0.140

0.91 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99

Absorptance

LCO

E ($

/kW

h)

SEGS VICermetUVACUVAC2Adv Adv Rel

E = 0.15

E = 0.10

E = 0.05

Near-Term ReceiverTechnology Assumption

Field Tested

Near-Term 50 MWe Trough Plant

Trough Receiver TechnologyImpact on the Cost of Energy

Thermal Storage TechnologyImpact on Cost of Energy

0 .110

0 .10 1

0 .0 9 6

0 .0 9 1 0 .0 9 0

0 .10 5

0.085

0.090

0.095

0.100

0.105

0.110

0.115

0.120

NoStorage

2-TankIndirect

TCIndirect

2-TankDirect450C

TC Direct450C

TC Direct500C

LCO

E 2

002$

/kW

h

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Sto

rage

Cos

t $/k

Wht

LCOEStorage Cost

Near-Term 50 MWe Trough Plant

Cost of CapitalImpact on Cost of Energy

0.110

0.098

0.081

0.116

0.1100.107

0.097

0.080

0.085

0.090

0.095

0.100

0.105

0.110

0.115

0.120

8.5% 6% 2% 18% 14% 12% 8%

LCO

E 2

002$

/kW

h

Debt rate, IRR=14% IRR, debt 8.5%

Near-Term 50 MWe Trough Plant

Tax IncentivesImpact on Cost of Energy

0.110

0.119

0.109

0.093

0.115

0.078

0.070

0.080

0.090

0.100

0.110

0.120

0.130

Bas e 10%ITC

No ITC 1.7c P TC 30% ITC NoP rop erty

Tax

All

LCO

E 2

002$

/kW

h

Near-Term 50 MWe Trough Plant

Future Development ScenarioParabolic Trough Technology

0.00570.01030.02330.0462O&M Cost $/kWh

20%5%Cost Reduction

56%56%30%22%Capacity Factor

2225341628652954Capital Cost $/kWe

17.2%16.2%13.4%10.6%Solar to Electric η

12 hrsTC Dir

12 hrsTC Dir

NANATES

Salt500 C

Salt450 C

VP-1390 C

VP-1390 C

HTF

Adv Adv

LS-3+Adv

LS-2UVAC2

LS-2 Luz

CollectorReceiver

4002.5

1002.5

501.5

301.2

Plant Size: MWeSolar Multiple

Long-Term

Mid-Term

Near-Term

SEGS VI 1989

Trough Power Plant Scenarios with Different Financing Assumptions

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

Near-Term Mid-Term Long-Term

LCO

E 20

02$/

kWh

IP P w/10% ITCIP P w/1.8c P TC30% ITC + 1.8c P TCMuni F inanc ing

Region ofInterest

CountryMW Capacity

2010Algeria 130

Australia 100Brazil 100Egypt 130

Greece 50India 130Iran 130

Israel 200Italy 100

Jordan 130Mexico 300

Morocco 150Namibia 100

South Africa 100Spain 200

United States 200

TOTAL 2250

CSP Market Areasand

Lead Near-Term Opportunities

Market Pull Required for Success

● Market aggregation● Incentives● Favorable financing● Policy changes● Electricity production must be high to

seriously impact reduction of green house gases

● Ultimate price goals tied to GW-scale deployment in 10-100 GW range

Summary

● Huge domestic resource potential● Trough technology has significant opportunities

for cost reduction● Trough technology could directly compete with

fossil power technologies in the long-term● Market or financial incentives needed for early

plants