Levelized Cost of Energy for a 200 MW Floating Wind Farm ...
Reducing Cost of Wind Energy: Opportunities to … Cost of Wind Energy Opportunities to reduce the...
Transcript of Reducing Cost of Wind Energy: Opportunities to … Cost of Wind Energy Opportunities to reduce the...
Reducing Cost of Wind Energy Opportunities to reduce the cost of wind energy 2nd NREL Wind Energy Systems Engineering Workshop Denver, Colorado, 29-30 January 2013
Henk-Jan Kooijman GE Power & Water, Wind Farm Engineering
Reducing cost of wind energy
2
• Levelized cost of energy to study the feasibility of subsidy-free wind energy
• LCOE reduction scenarios for onshore and offshore wind energy
• Topical aspects for turbine load design, site assessment, and farm design
• Summary and conclusions
Henk-Jan Kooijman NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013
Fantanele-Cogealac, Romania 240 GE 2.5 MW wind turbines; 600 MW farm power
Installation was completed in November 2012
Progress ratio vs. economies of scale
3
Progress ratio: cost reduction with doubling in cumulative volume
Learning rate = 1 – PR
Ex. 1: Unit #100 = 1500 $/kW, turbine PR = 90%
=> Unit #200 = 1350 $/kW
Progress ratio refers to cost reduction over time
Henk-Jan Kooijman NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013
Economies of scale: lower unit cost for a larger wind farm or turbine
Ex.: 10MW farm = 2000 $/kW, EOS = 90% for doubling in size
=> 20MW farm = 1900 $/kW
Economies of scale refers to cost reduction with size
Progress ratio - turbine availability
4
• Upward trending improvement in turbine availability for consecutive
model year introductions.
• Improved design. Improved services. Continuously resolving top issues.
Henk-Jan Kooijman NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
GE 1.5/1.6 MW availability trends
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
model year introduction
LCOE = levelized cost of energy
5
Henk-Jan Kooijman NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013
+
• LCOE reduction is importantly driven by economies of scale for BOP and O&M
• Turbine economies of scale doesn’t work well because of square-cube law.
New technologies and relative share of electrical cost can compensate this.
70%
80%
90%
100%
110%
120%
100% 150% 200% 250% 300%
[relative LCOE ]
relative turbine name plate rating (P / Pref ) [-]
Relative LCOE vs. nominal power (constant cap. factor)
130%
120%
110%
100% (baseline)
90%
turbine economies of scale, i.e. relative price per MW with doubling in turbine
New technologies to drive down LCOE
6
Individual new technologies can importantly bring down LCOE, like more use
of condition monitoring to reduce OPEX, distributed turbine control to
improve farm AEP and design loads, or advanced aero to grow rotor size.
Henk-Jan Kooijman NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013
-3.0
-2.5
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
LCOE benefit [$ct/kWh]
Cumulative effort (risk, time, and investment)
1+ years 2+ years 3+ years
Onshore LCOE reduction scenario
30% reduction in onshore LCOE can be realized through a combination of:
• a 20% reduction in CAPEX, e.g. due to new technologies and economies of scale;
• a 10% higher capacity factor for the same CAPEX per kW;
• and 1pt lower real interest rate.
7
Henk-Jan Kooijman NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0
relative change
LCOE change [$ct/kWh]
LCOE reduction entitlement onshore wind
O&M
interest rate
turbine DM
CAPEX
The offshore case • Diverse site characteristics (water depth, facilities, distance to harbour and grid)
• Realization cost ($/kW) roughly twice as high as onshore.
• No visual impact.
• Important levers to reduce LCOE are:
– Economies of scale (go bigger)
– Progress ratio (do better)
– Reduce DM cost (smarter design)
8
Henk-Jan Kooijman NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013
• Still, additional success criteria are:
– Long-term government committment
– Continuing research funds
– Adequate service hubs and grid infrastructure
• Possible game changing concepts: VAWT or Kites.
Wind turbines,
30%
O&M, 25%
Foundations,
14%Cables
including installation,
8%
Install.
foundations and
substation, 8%
Substation, 7%
Installation turbines, 5%
Other, 5%
Courtesy www.skysails.de
Offshore LCOE reduction entitlements
Maximum of ~50% reduction in offshore LCOE when grouping all entitlements.
9
Henk-Jan Kooijman NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013
-30%
20%
-28% -80%
-25%
5%
-24% -17%
-10% -8% -5% -5%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
LCOE impact for assumed entitlement
relative entitlement
impact on LCOE
GE 4.1MW in Gothenburg, Sweden
Offshore LCOE reduction scenario
More realistically, 35% reduction in offshore LCOE is realized through a combination of:
• 20% reduction in CAPEX, e.g. through new technologies and economies of scale;
• No change in logistics cost per kW, improved turbine reliability: Availability up 3 pts;
• Net cap factor up by 7 pts, e.g. bigger rotor and less wake losses;
• 50% reduction in contingency and 15% reduction in O&M.
10
Henk-Jan Kooijman NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013
Arklow: 7 x GE 3.6 MW World’s first 3+ MW
offshore turbines Since 2002
50%
100%
150%
200%
0% 100% 200% 300% 400%
[turbine / BOP cost]
Relative turbine rating [-]
Change in offshore wind cost breakdown with growth in turbine size
high
indicative
Economies of scale:
Topical aspects: turbine design loads
11
• There are many projects in Europe in area-constrained, complex terrains
with a high design turbulence and challenging design load assessment.
Henk-Jan Kooijman NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013
Example:
Power density [MW/km2] for a
TC-A design relative to TC-B is
equal to: (7D / 5D) 2 factor 2
10%12%14%16%18%20%22%24%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
TI @ 15 m/s
Turbine spacing (rectangular array) [Diameters]
Wind turbine class and TI effective
m = 12 (blade)
m = 4 (tower)
TC-A
TC-B
TC-C
• The global installed wind power, e.g. GE’s 20,000+ unit fleet, offers
valuable potential for experience-based loads analysis.
Topical aspects: site assessment
12
Accurate site design wind conditions are key for accurate load assessment.
For example, GE newly determines Vref based on meso-scale data combined
with site measurements combined with using Bayesian analysis.
Henk-Jan Kooijman NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013
Source: EWEA 2013 poster #490, author Joerg Winterfeldt et al., GE Power & Water. Data by courtesy of Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Vref [m/s]
year
Benchmark
Method of Independent Storms Gumbel, least squares
Method of Independent Storms Bayesian LL 29 m/s, UL 34 m/s
Topical aspects: farms
NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013 13
Henk-Jan Kooijman
Operated as single units in a wind farm
Designed as stand alone unit Accurate
wind farm
flow models Co-operative, ‘distributed’ farm control for max AEP
Better site lay out with diverse turbine options in a farm
Turbine-centered view Holistic farm-level view
• Curtailment losses on a regional scale can be significant,
e.g. strong growth of installed wind base or delayed expansion of the grid.
• Industry is taken on a more wind power plant-centred perspective.
Because only the OEM knows the turbine design limits and aero-elastic
model, it has an essential role in minimizing the project-specific LCOE.
Summary
14
• Offshore wind energy LCOE will remain ~twice the value of onshore wind.
• Economic growth, investors, and green policy agenda like Europe’s
‘Horizon 2020’ are essential for the expansion of wind energy.
• LCOE reduction is importantly driven by:
– Up-scaling turbine and farm size to drive down BOP and O&M over AEP
– Better design modelling to understand and deploy margins for more AEP
– New technologies and operating methods for turbines and farms to:
o Increase AEP and limit turbine cost per MW
o Reach the goal of a purely fatigue-driven turbine:
mitigate extreme loads and reduce blade static moment.
Henk-Jan Kooijman NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013
Thank You
GE 2.5-100