Nrel Cost Report

COSTREPORT
COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFOR POWERGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES

Preparedforthe NationalRenewableEnergyLaboratory
FEBRUARY2012
Black&VeatchHoldingCompany2011.Allrightsreserved.
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWERGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES
TableofContents
1Introduction...............................................................................................................................................................................3 1.1Assumptions...........................................................................................................................................................3 1.2EstimationofDataandMethodology...........................................................................................................5 2CostEstimatesandPerformanceDataforConventionalElectricityTechnologies......................................9 2.1NuclearPowerTechnology..............................................................................................................................9 2.2CombustionTurbineTechnology...............................................................................................................11 2.3CombinedCycleTechnology........................................................................................................................13 2.4CombinedCycleWithCarbonCaptureandSequestration..............................................................15 2.5PulverizedCoalFiredPowerGeneration................................................................................................17 2.6PulverizedCoalFiredPowerGenerationWithCarbon CaptureandSequestration............................................................................................................................19 2.7GasificationCombinedCycleTechnology...............................................................................................21 2.8GasificationCombinedCycleTechnologyWithCarbon CaptureandSequestration............................................................................................................................23 2.9FlueGasDesulfurizationRetrofitTechnology.......................................................................................25 3CostEstimatesandPerformanceDataforRenewableElectricityTechnologies.......................................27 3.1BiopowerTechnologies..................................................................................................................................27 3.2GeothermalEnergyTechnologies..............................................................................................................31 3.3HydropowerTechnologies............................................................................................................................34 3.4OceanEnergyTechnologies..........................................................................................................................35 3.5SolarEnergyTechnologies............................................................................................................................38 3.6WindEnergyTechnologies............................................................................................................................45 4CostandPerformanceDataforEnergyStorageTechnologies..........................................................................51 4.1CompressedAirEnergyStorage(CAES)Technology.........................................................................52 4.2PumpedStorageHydropowerTechnology............................................................................................54 4.3BatteryEnergyStorageTechnology..........................................................................................................56 5References...............................................................................................................................................................................59 AppendixA.EnergyEstimateforWaveEnergyTechnologies..............................................................................61 ResourceEstimate.....................................................................................................................................................61 CostofEnergyEstimate..........................................................................................................................................69 AppendixB.EnergyEstimateforTidalStreamTechnologies................................................................................80 ResourceEstimate.....................................................................................................................................................80 CostofEnergyEstimate..........................................................................................................................................82 AppendixC.BreakdownofCostforSolarEnergyTechnologies...........................................................................92 . SolarPhotovoltaics...................................................................................................................................................92
BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|TableofContents
ConcentratingSolarPower....................................................................................................................................99 AppendixD.TechnicalDescriptionofPumpedStorageHydroelectricPower.............................................102 DesignBasis..............................................................................................................................................................102 StudyBasisDescriptionandCost.....................................................................................................................103 OtherCostsandContingency.............................................................................................................................104 OperatingandMaintenanceCost.....................................................................................................................104 ConstructionSchedule..........................................................................................................................................105 OperatingFactors...................................................................................................................................................105
BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|TableofContents
ii
1Introduction
Black&VeatchcontractedwiththeNationalRenewableEnergyLaboratory(NREL)in2009to providethepowergeneratingtechnologycostandperformanceestimatesthataredescribedinthis report.Thesedataweresynthesizedfromvarioussourcesinlate2009andearly2010andtherefore reflecttheenvironmentandthinkingatthattimeorsomewhatearlier,andnotofthepresentday. Manyfactorsdrivethecostandpriceofagiventechnology.Maturetechnologiesgenerallyhavea smallerbandofuncertaintyaroundtheircostsbecausedemand/supplyismorestableand technologyvariationsarefewer.Formatureplants,theprimaryuncertaintyisassociatedwiththe ownerdefinedscopethatisrequiredtoimplementthetechnologyandwiththesitespecificvariable costs.Thesearesitespecificitems(suchaslaborrates,indoorversusoutdoorplant,watersupply, accessroads,laborcamps,permittingandlicensing,orlaydownareas)andownerspecificitems (suchassalestaxes,financingcosts,orlegalcosts).Maturepowerplantcostsaregenerallyexpected tofollowtheoverallgeneralinflationrateoverthelongterm. Overthelasttenyears,therehasbeendoublinginthenominalcostofallpowergeneration technologiesandanevensteeperincreaseincoalandnuclearbecausethepriceofcommoditiessuch asiron,steel,concrete,copper,nickel,zinc,andaluminumhaverisenataratemuchgreaterthan generalinflation;constructioncostspeakin2009foralltypesofnewpowerplants.Eventhecostof engineersandconstructorshasincreasedfasterthangeneralinflationhas.Withtherecenteconomic recession,therehasbeenadecreaseincommoditycosts;somedegreeoflevelingoffisexpectedas theUnitedStatescompleteseconomicrecovery. Itisnotpossibletoreasonablyforecastwhetherfuturecommoditypriceswillincrease,decrease,or remainthesame.Althoughthecostsin2009aremuchhigherthanearlierinthedecade,formodeling purposes,thecostspresentedheredonotanticipatedramaticincreasesordecreasesinbasic commoditypricesthrough2050.Costtrajectorieswereassumedtobebasedontechnologymaturity levelsandexpectedperformanceimprovementsduetolearning,normalevolutionarydevelopment, deploymentincentives,etc. Black&Veatchdoesnotencourageuniversalusesolelyoflearningcurveeffects,whichgiveacost reductionwitheachdoublinginimplementationdependentonanassumeddeploymentpolicy.Many factorsinfluenceratesofdeploymentandtheresultingcostreduction,andincontrasttolearning curves,alinearimprovementwasmodeledtotheextentpossible.
1.1ASSUMPTIONS
Thecostestimatespresentedinthisreportarebasedonthefollowingsetofcommonofassumptions:
1. Unlessotherwisenotedinthetext,costsarepresentedin2009dollars. 2. Unlessotherwisenotedinthetext,theestimateswerebasedononsiteconstructioninthe
MidwesternUnitedStates. 3. Plantswereassumedtobeconstructedongreenfieldsites.Thesiteswereassumedtobe reasonablylevelandclear,withnohazardousmaterials,nostandingtimber,nowetlands,andno endangeredspecies. 4. Budgetaryquotationswerenotrequestedforthisactivity.ValuesfromtheBlack&Veatch proprietarydatabaseofestimatetemplateswereused. 5. Theconceptscreeninglevelcostestimatesweredevelopedbasedonexperienceandestimating factors.Theestimatesreflectanovernight,turnkeyEngineeringProcurementConstruction, directhire,open/meritshop,contractingphilosophy.

BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|1Introduction 3
6. Demolitionofanyexistingstructureswasnotincludedinthecostestimates. 7. Siteselectionwasassumedtobesuchthatfoundationswouldrequirecastinplaceconcretepiers
atelevationstobedeterminedduringdetaileddesign.Allexcavationswereassumedtobe rippablerockorsoils(i.e.,noblastingwasassumedtoberequired).Pilingwasassumedunder majorequipment. 8. Theestimateswerebasedonusinggranularbackfillmaterialsfromnearbyborrowareas. 9. ThedesignoftheHVACandcoolingwatersystemsandfreezeprotectionsystemsreflectedasite locationinarelativelycoldclimate.Withtheexceptionofgeothermalandsolar,theplantswere designedasindoorplants. 10. Thesiteswereassumedtohavesufficientareaavailabletoaccommodateconstructionactivities includingbutnotlimitedtoconstructionoffices,warehouses,laydownandstagingareas,field fabricationareas,andconcretebatchplantfacilities,ifrequired. 11. Procurementswereassumedtonotbeconstrainedbyanyownersourcingrestrictions,i.e.,global sourcing.Manufacturersstandardproductswereassumedtobeusedtothegreatestextent possible. 12. Gasplantswereassumedtobesinglefuelonly.Naturalgaswasassumedtobeavailableatthe plantfenceattherequiredpressureandvolumeasapipelineconnection.Coalplantswerefueled withaMidwesternbituminouscoal. 13. Waterwasassumedtobeavailableattheplantfencewithapipelineconnection. 14. Theestimatesincludedanadministration/controlbuilding. 15. Theestimateswerebasedon2009costs;therefore,escalationwasnotincluded. 16. Directestimatedcostsincludedthepurchaseofmajorequipment,balanceofplant(BOP) equipmentandmaterials,erectionlabor,andallcontractorservicesforfurnishanderect subcontractitems. 17. Sparepartsforstartupandcommissioningwereincludedintheownerscosts. 18. Constructionpersonhourswerebasedona50hourworkweekusingmerit/openshop craftspersons. 19. ThecompositecrewlaborratewasfortheMidwesternstates.Ratesincludedpayrollandpayroll taxesandbenefits. 20. Projectmanagement,engineering,procurement,qualitycontrol,andrelatedserviceswere includedintheengineeringservices. 21. Fieldconstructionmanagementservicesincludedfieldmanagementstaffwithsupportingstaff personnel,fieldcontractadministration,fieldinspectionandqualityassurance,andproject control.Alsoincludedwastechnicaldirectionandmanagementofstartupandtesting,cleanup expensefortheportionnotincludedinthedirectcostconstructioncontracts,safetyandmedical services,guardsandothersecurityservices. 22. Engineering,procurement,andconstruction(EPC)contractorcontingencyandprofitallowances wereincludedwiththeinstallationcosts. 23. Constructionmanagementcostestimateswerebasedonapercentageofcraftlaborpersonhours. Constructionutilitiesandstartuputilitiessuchaswater,power,andfuelweretobeprovidedby theowner.Onsiteconstructiondistributioninfrastructuresfortheseutilitieswereincludedin theestimate. 24. Ownerscostswereincludedasaseparatelineitem. 25. Operationalsparepartswereincludedasanownerscost. 26. Projectinsurances,includingBuildersAllRiskinsurance,wereincludedintheestimatesasan ownerscost. 27. Constructionpermitswereassumedtobeownerscosts.
BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|1Introduction
28. Theestimatesincludedanyproperty,salesorusetaxes,grossreceipttax,importorexportduties,
exciseorlocaltaxes,licensefees,valueaddedtax,orothersimilartaxesintheownerscosts.
29. Coststoupgraderoads,bridges,railroads,andotherinfrastructureoutsidethesiteboundary,for
equipmenttransportationtothefacilitysite,wereincludedintheownerscosts. 30. Costsofland,andallrightofwayaccess,wereprovidedintheownersCosts. 31. Allpermittingandlicensingwereincludedintheownerscosts. 32. Allcostswerebasedonscopeendingatthestepuptransformer.Theelectricswitchyard, transmissiontapline,andinterconnectionwereexcluded. 33. Similarly,theinterestduringconstruction(IDC)wasexcluded. 34. Otherownerscostswereincluded.
Insomecases,ablendedaveragetechnologyconfigurationwasusedastheproxyforarangeof possibletechnologiesinagivencategory.Forexample,anumberofconcentratingsolarpower technologiesmaybecommercializedoverthenext40years.Black&Veatchusedtroughtechnology fortheearlytrajectoryandtowertechnologyforthelaterpartofthetrajectory.Thecostswere meanttorepresenttheexpectedcostofarangeofpossibletechnologysolutions.Similarly,many marinehydrokineticoptionsmaybecommercializedoverthenext40years.Nosingletechnology offeringismodeled. Fortechnologiessuchasenhancedgeothermal,deepoffshorewind,ormarinehydrokineticwhere thetechnologyhasnotbeenfullydemonstratedandcommercialized,estimateswerebasedonNth plantcosts.Thedateoffirstimplementationwasassumedtobeafteratleastthreefullscaleplants havesuccessfullyoperatedfor35years.ThefirstNthplantswerethereforemodeledatafuturetime beyond2010.Forthesenewandcurrentlynoncommercialtechnologies,demonstrationplantcost premiumsandearlyfinancialpremiumswereexcluded.Inparticular,althoughcostsarein2009 dollars,severaltechnologiesarenotcurrentlyinconstructionandcouldnotbeonlinein2010. Thecostdatapresentedinthisreportprovideafuturetrajectorypredictedprimarilyfromhistorical pricingdataasinfluencedbyexistinglevelsofgovernmentandprivateresearch,development, demonstration,anddeploymentincentives. Black&Veatchestimatedcostsforfullydemonstratedtechnologieswerebasedonexperience obtainedinEPCprojects,engineeringstudies,ownersengineerandduediligencework,and evaluationofpowerpurchaseagreement(PPA)pricing.Costsforothertechnologiesoradvanced versionsofdemonstratedtechnologieswerebasedonengineeringstudiesandotherpublished sources.Amorecompletediscussionofthecostestimatingdataandmethodologiesfollows.
1.2ESTIMATIONOFDATAANDMETHODOLOGY
ThebestestimatesavailabletoBlack&VeatchwereEPCestimatesfromprojectsforwhichBlack& Veatchperformedconstructionorconstructionmanagementservices.Secondbestwereprojectsfor whichBlack&Veatchwastheownersengineerfortheprojectowner.Theseestimatesprovidedan understandingofthedetaileddirectandindirectcostsforequipment,materialsandlabor,andthe relationshipbetweeneachofthesecostsatalevelofdetailrequiringlittlecontingency.These detailedconstructionestimatesalsoallowedanunderstandingoftheownerscostsandtheirimpact ontheoverallestimate.Black&Veatchtracksthedetailedestimatesandoftenusesthesetoperform studiesanddevelopestimatesforprojectsdefinedatlowerlevelsofdetail.Black&Veatchisableto staycurrentwithmarketconditionsthroughduediligenceworkitdoesforfinancialinstitutionsand othersandwhenitreviewsenergypricesfornewPPAs.Finally,Black&Veatchalsoprepares proposalsforprojectsofasimilarnature.Currentmarketinsightisusedtoadjustdetailedestimates
asrequiredtokeepthemuptodate.Thus,itisanimportantpartofthecompanysbusinessmodelto staycurrentwithcostsforalltypesofprojects.Projectcostsforsitespecificengineeringstudiesand formoregenericengineeringstudiesarefrequentlyadjustedbyadding,orsubtracting,specificscope itemsassociatedwithaparticularsitelocation.Thus,Black&Veatchhasanunderstandingofthe rangeofcoststhatmightbeexpectedforparticulartechnologyapplications.(SeeTextBox1fora discussionofcostuncertaintybands.) Black&Veatchisabletoaugmentitsdataandtointerpretitusingpublishedthirdpartysources; Black&Veatchisalsoabletounderstandpublishedsourcesandapplyjudgmentininterpreting thirdpartycostreportsandestimatesinordertounderstandthemarketplace.Reportedcostsoften differfromBlack&Veatchsexperience,butBlack&Veatchisabletoinferpossiblereasons dependinguponthesourceanddetailofthecostdata.Black&Veatchalsousesitscostdataand understandingofthatdatatopreparemodelsandtools. Thoughfuturetechnologycostsarehighlyuncertain,theexperiencesandexpertisedescribedabove enableBlack&Veatchtomakereasonablecostandperformanceprojectionsforawidearrayof generationtechnologies.Thoughtechnologycostscanvaryregionally,costdatapresentedinthis reportareinstrongagreementwithothertechnologycostestimates(FERC2008,Keltonetal.2009, Lazard2009).Thisreportdescribestheprojectedcostdataandperformancedataforelectric generationtechnologies.
TextBox1.WhyEstimatesAreNotSinglePoints
Inarecentutilitysolicitationfor(engineering,procurementandconstruction)EPCandpowerpurchaseagreement (PPA)bidsforthesamewindprojectataspecificsite,thebidsvariedby60%.Moretypically,whenbidderspropose ontheexactscopeatthesamelocationforthesameclient,theirbidsvarybyontheorderof10%ormore.Why doesthisvariabilityoccurandwhatdoesitmean?Differentbiddersmakedifferentassumptions,theyoftenobtain bidsfrommultipleequipmentsuppliers,differentconstructioncontractors,theyhavedifferentoverheads,different profitrequirementsandtheyhavebetterorworsecapabilitiestoestimateandperformthework.Thesefactorscan allshowupasarangeofbidstoaccomplishthesamescopeforthesameclientinthesamelocation. Proposingfordifferentclientsgenerallyresultsinincreasedvariability.Utilities,PrivatePowerProducers,Stateor Federalentities,allcanhavedifferentrequirementsthatimpactcosts.Sparingrequirements,assumptionsusedfor economictradeoffs,aclientssalestaxstatus,orfinancialandeconomicassumptions,equipmentwarranty requirements,orplantperformanceguaranteesinformbidcosts.Bidderscontractingphilosophycanalsointroduce variability.Somewillcontractlumpsumfixedpriceandsomewillcontractusingcostplus.Somewillusemany contractorsandconsultants;somewillwantasinglesource.Somemanagewithinhouseresourcesandaccountfor thoseresources;someuseallexternalresources.Thisvariationalonecanimpactcostsstillanother10%ormore becauseitimpactsthevisibilityofcosts,theallocationofrisksandprofitmargins,andtheextenttowhichprofits mightoccuratseveraldifferentplacesintheprojectstructure. Changethesiteandvariabilityincreasesstillfurther.Differentlocationscanhavedifferingrequirementsforuseof unionornonunionlabor.Overallproductivityandlaborcostvaryindifferentregions.Salestaxratesvary,local marketconditionsvary,andevenprofitmarginsandperceivedriskcanvary. Sitespecificscopeisalsoanissue.Accessroads,laydownareas,1transportationdistancestothesiteandavailability ofutilities,indoorvs.outdoorbuildings,ambienttemperaturesandmanyothersitespecificissuescanaffectscope andspecificequipmentneedsandchoices. OwnerswillalsohavespecificneedsandtheircostswillvaryforacostcategoryreferredtoasOwnerscosts.The ElectricPowerResearchInstitute(EPRI)standardownerscostsinclude1)paiduproyaltyallowance,2) preproductioncosts,3)inventorycapitaland4)landcosts.However,thistotalconstructioncostortotalcapital requirementbyEPRIdoesnotincludemanyoftheotherownerscoststhatacontractorlikeBlack&Veatchwould includeinprojectcostcomparisons.Theseadditionalelementsincludethefollowing: Sparepartsandplantequipmentincludesmaterials,suppliesandparts,machineshopequipment,rolling stock,plantfurnishingsandsupplies. Utilityinterconnectionsincludenaturalgasservice,gassystemupgrades,electricaltransmission, substation/switchyard,wastewaterandsupplywaterorwellsandrailroad. Projectdevelopmentincludesfuelrelatedprojectmanagementandengineering,siteselection,preliminary engineering,landandrezoning,rightsofwayforpipelines,laydownyard,accessroads,demolition, environmentalpermittingandoffsets,publicrelations,communitydevelopment,sitedevelopmentlegal assistance,mancamp,heliport,bargeunloadingfacility,airstripanddieselfuelstorage. Ownersprojectmanagementincludesbiddocumentpreparation,ownersprojectmanagement, engineeringduediligenceandownerssiteconstructionmanagement.
1Alaydownyardorareaisanareawhereequipmenttobeinstalledistemporarilystored.
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWERGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES Taxes/ins/advisoryfees/legalincludessales/useandpropertytax,marketandenvironmentalconsultants andratingagencies,ownerslegalexpenses,PPA,interconnectagreements,contractprocurementand construction,propertytransfer/title/escrowandconstructionallriskinsurance. Financingincludesfinancialadvisor,marketanalystandengineer,loanadministrationandcommitmentfees anddebtservicereservefund. Plantstartup/constructionsupportincludesownerssitemobilization,operationandmaintenance(O&M) stafftrainingandprecommercialoperation,startup,initialtestfluids,initialinventoryofchemicaland reagents,majorconsumablesandcostoffuelnotcoveredrecoveredinpowersales.
Someoverlapcanbeseeninthecategoriesabove,whichisanothercontributortovariabilitydifferentestimators prepareestimatesusingdifferentformatsandmethodologies. Anotherformofvariabilitythatexistsinestimatesconcernstheuseofdifferentclassesofestimateandassociated typesofcontingency.Thereareindustryguidelinesfordifferentclassesofestimatethatprovidelevelsof contingencytobeappliedfortheparticularclass.Afinalestimatesuitableforbiddingwouldhavelotsofdetail identifiedandwouldincludea5to10%projectcontingency.Acompleteprocessdesignmighthavelessdetail definedandincludea10to15%contingency.Thelowestlevelofconceptualestimatemightbebasedonatotal plantperformanceestimatewithsomesitespecificconditionsanditmightincludea20to30%contingency. Contingencyismeanttocoverbothitemsnotestimatedanderrorsintheestimateaswellasvariabilitydealingwith sitespecificdifferences. Givenallthesesourcesofvariability,contractorsnormallyspeakintermsofcostrangesandnotspecificvalues. Modelers,ontheotherhand,oftenfinditeasiertodealwithsinglepointestimates.Whilemodelersoften convenientlythinkofoneprice,competitioncanresultinmanyprice/costoptions.Itisnotpossibletoestimatecosts withasmuchprecisionasmanythinkitispossibletodo;further,theideaofanationalaveragecostthatcanbe applieduniversallyisactuallyproblematic.Onecancalculateahistoricalnationalaveragecostforanything,but predictingafuturenationalaveragecostwithsomecertaintyforadevelopingtechnologyandgeographicallydiverse marketsthatareevolvingisfarfromstraightforward. Implications Becausecostestimatesreflectthesesourcesofvariability,theyarebestthoughtofasrangesthatreflectthe variabilityaswellasotheruncertainties.Whenthecostestimaterangesfortwotechnologiesoverlap,either technologycouldbethemostcosteffectivesolutionforanygivenspecificownerandsite.Ofcourse,capitalcosts maynotreflecttheentirevaluepropositionofatechnology,andothercostcomponents,likeO&Morfuelcostswith theirownsourcesofvariabilityanduncertainty,mightbenecessarytoincludeinacostanalysis. Formodels,weoftensimplifycalculationsbyusingpointsinsteadofrangesthatreflectvariabilityanduncertainty,so thatwecanmoreeasilyaddressotherimportantcomplexitiessuchasthecostoftransmissionorsystemintegration. However,wemustrememberthatwhenactualdecisionsaremade,decisionmakerswillincludeimplicitorexplicit considerationofcapitalcostuncertaintywhenassessingtechnologytradeoffs.Thisiswhytwoadjacentutilitieswith seeminglysimilarneedsmayprocuretwocompletelydifferenttechnologysolutions.Economicoptimizationmodels generallycannotbereliedonasthefinalbasisforsitespecificdecisions.Oneofthereasonsisestimateuncertainty. Arelativelyminorchangeincostcanresultinachangeintechnologyselection.Becauseofunknownsatparticular siteandcustomerspecificsituations,itisunlikelythatallcustomerswouldswitchtoaspecifictechnologysolutionat thesametime.Therefore,modelersshouldensurethatmodelalgorithmsorinputcriteriadonotallowmajorshifts intechnologychoiceforsmalldifferencesintechnologycost.Inaddition,genericestimatesshouldnotbeusedin sitespecificuserspecificanalyses.
2CostEstimatesandPerformanceDataforConventional ElectricityTechnologies
Thissectionincludesdescriptionandtabulardataonthecostandperformanceprojectionsfor conventionalnonrenewabletechnologies,whichincludefossiltechnologies(naturalgas combustionturbine,naturalgascombinedcycle,andpulverizedcoal)withandwithoutcarbon captureandstorage,andnucleartechnologies.Inaddition,costsforfluegasdesulfurization2(FGD) retrofitsarealsodescribed.
2.1NUCLEARPOWERTECHNOLOGY
Black&Veatchsnuclearexperiencespansthefullrangeofnuclearengineeringservices,including EPC,modificationservices,designandconsultingservicesandresearchsupport.Black&Veatchis currentlyworkingunderserviceagreementarrangementswithMHIforbothgenericandplant specificdesignsoftheUnitedStatesAdvancedPressurizedWaterReactor(USAPWR).Black&Veatch historicaldataandrecentmarketdatawereusedtomakeadjustmentstostudyestimatestoinclude ownerscosts.ThenuclearplantproxywasbasedonacommercialWestinghouseAP1000reactor designproducing1,125netMW.Thecapitalcostin2010wasestimatedat6,100$/kW+30%.We anticipatethatadvanceddesignscouldbecommercializedintheUnitedStatesundergovernment sponsoredprograms.Whilewedonotanticipatecostsavingsassociatedwiththeseadvanced designs,weassumedacostreductionof10%forpotentialimprovedmetallurgyforpipingand vessels.Table1presentscostandperformancedatafornuclearpower.Figure1showsthe2010cost breakdownforanuclearpowerplant.
2Fluegasdesulfurization(FGD)technologyisalsoreferredtoasSO scrubbertechnology. 2
BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|2CostEstimatesandPerformanceDataforConventional
ElectricityTechnologies
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWERGENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES
Table1.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaNuclearPowerPlant(1125MW)
a
CapitalCost FixedO&M Year ($/kW) ($/kWyr) 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
a
HeatRate (Btu/kWh) 9,720 9,720 9,720 9,720 9,720 9,720 9,720 9,720 9,720
Construction Schedule (Months) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
POR (%)
FOR Min.Load (%) (%) 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
SpinRamp Rate (%/min) 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
QuickStart RampRate (%/min) 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
6,230 6,100 6,100 6,100 6,100 6,100 6,100 6,100 6,100 6,100
127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127
6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00
O&M=operationandmaintenance b POR=plannedoutagerate c FOR=forcedoutagerate Allcostsin2009$
BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|2CostEstimatesandPerformanceDataforConventionalElectricityTechnologies
10
1165$/KW, 19%
765 $/KW, 12.6% 300 $/KW, 4.9% NuclearIslandEquipment TurbineIslandEquipment Yard/Cooling/Installation Engineering,Procurement, ConstructionManagement Owner'sCosts
970$/KW,15.9%
Total: $6100/kW+ 30%
2900 $/KW, 47.6%
Figure1.Capitalcostbreakdownforanuclearpowerplant
ThetotalplantlaborandinstallationisincludedintheYard/Cooling/Installationcostelement.The powerplantisassumedtobeasingleunitwithnoprovisionforfutureadditions.Switchyard, interconnectionandinterestduringconstructionarenotincluded.OwnerscostsaredefinedinText Box1above.
2.2COMBUSTIONTURBINETECHNOLOGY
Naturalgascombustionturbinecostswerebasedonatypicalindustrialheavydutygasturbine,GE Frame7FAorequivalentofthe211netMWsize.Theestimatedidnotincludethecostofselective catalyticreduction(SCR)/carbonmonoxide(CO)reactorforNOxandCOreduction.Thecombustion turbinegeneratorwasassumedtoincludeadry,lowNOxcombustionsystemcapableofrealizing9 partspermillionbyvolume,dry(ppmvd)@15%O2atfullload.A2010capitalcostwasestimatedat 651$/kW+25%.Costuncertaintyforthistechnologyislow.Althoughitispossiblethatadvanced configurationswillbedevelopedoverthenext40years,theeconomicincentivefornewdevelopment hasnotbeenapparentinthelastfewdecades(Shelley2008).Costestimatesdidnotincludeanycost orperformanceimprovementsthrough2050.Table2presentscostandperformancedataforgas turbinetechnology.Table3presentsemissionratesforthetechnology.Figure2showsthe2010 capitalcostbreakdownbycomponentforanaturalgascombustionturbineplant.
11
Table2.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaGasTurbinePowerPlant(211MW) HeatRate (Btu/kWh) 10,390 10,390 10,390 10,390 10,390 10,390 10,390 10,390 10,390 Construction Schedule (Months) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 SpinRamp Rate (%/min) 8.33 8.33 8.33 8.33 8.33 8.33 8.33 8.33 8.33 QuickStart RampRate (%/min) 22.20 22.20 22.20 22.20 22.20 22.20 22.20 22.20 22.20
CapitalCost VariableO&M Year ($/kW) ($/MWh) 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 671 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 651 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.9
FixedO&M ($/kWyr) 5.26 5.26 5.26 5.26 5.26 5.26 5.26 5.26 5.26
POR FOR (%) (%)
Min.Load (%) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
5.00 3.00 5.00 3.00 5.00 3.00 5.00 3.00 5.00 3.00 5.00 3.00 5.00 3.00 5.00 3.00 5.00 3.00
Table3.EmissionRatesforaGasTurbinePowerPlant SO2 (Lb/mmbtu) 0.0002 NOx (Lb/mmbtu) 0.033 PM10 (Lb/mmbtu) 0.006 CO2 (Lb/mmbtu) 117
12
$110/kW , 17%
$258/kW , 40% Gas turbine Balance of plant Engineering, procurement, construction management services Owner's cost
$20/kW , 3%
$263/kW , 40%
Total: $651/kW+ 25%

Figure2.Capitalcostbreakdownforagasturbinepowerplant
2.3COMBINEDCYCLETECHNOLOGY
Naturalgascombinedcycle(CC)technologywasrepresentedbya615MWplant.Costswerebased ontwoGE7FAcombustionturbinesorequivalent,twoheatrecoverysteamgenerators(HRSGs),a singlereheatsteamturbineandawetmechanicaldraftcoolingtower.ThecostincludedaSCR/CO reactorhousedwithintheHRSGsforNOxandCOreduction.Thecombustionturbinegeneratorwas assumedtoincludedrylowNOxcombustionsystemcapableofrealizing9ppmvd@15%O2atfull load. 2010capitalcostwasestimatedtobe1,230$/kW+25%.CostuncertaintyforCCtechnologyislow. AlthoughitispossiblethatadvancedconfigurationsforCCcomponentswillbedevelopedoverthe next40years,theeconomicincentivefornewdevelopmenthasnotbeenapparentinthelastfew decades.Thecostestimatesdidnotincludeanycostreductionthrough2050.Table4presentscost andperformancedataforcombinedcycletechnology.Table5presentsemissiondataforthe technology.The2010capitalcostbreakdownforthecombinedcyclepowerplantisshowninFigure 3.
13
Table4.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaCombinedCyclePowerPlant(580MW) HeatRate (Btu/kWh) 6,705 6,705 6,705 6,705 6,705 6,705 6,705 6,705 6,705 Construction Schedule (Months) 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 SpinRamp Rate (%/min) 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 QuickStart RampRate (%/min) 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
Year 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
CapitalCost VariableO&M ($/kW) ($/MWh) 1250 1230 1230 1230 1230 1230 1230 1230 1230 1230 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67
FixedO&M ($/kWYr) 6.31 6.31 6.31 6.31 6.31 6.31 6.31 6.31 6.31
POR FOR (%) (%)
Min.Load (%) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00
Table5.EmissionRatesforaCombinedCyclePowerPlant SO2 (Lb/mmbtu) 0.0002 NOX (LB/mmbtu) 0.0073 PM10 (Lb/mmbtu) 0.0058 CO2 (Lb/mmbtu) 117
14
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWERGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES $209/kW , 17% $177/kW , 14% $57/kW , 5% $68/kW , 6% Gas turbines Steam Turbines Balance of plant Engineering, procurement, construction management services Owner's cost
Total: $1,230/kW + 25%
$719 /kW, 58%
Figure3.Capitalcostbreakdownforacombinedcyclepowerplant
2.4COMBINEDCYCLEWITHCARBONCAPTUREANDSEQUESTRATION
Carboncaptureandsequestration(CCS)wasaddedtotheaboveCC.Black&VeatchhasnoEPC estimatesforCCSsinceitisnotcommercialatthistime.However,Black&Veatchhasparticipatedin engineeringandcoststudiesofCCSandhassomeunderstandingoftherangeofexpectedcostsfor CO2storageindifferentgeologicconditions.TheCCcostswerebasedontwocombustionturbines,a singlesteamturbineandwetcoolingtowerproducing580netMWaftertakingintoconsideration CCS.ThisisthesamecombinedcycledescribedabovebutwithCCSaddedtoachieve85%capture. CCSisassumedtobecommerciallyavailableafter2020.2020capitalcostwasestimatedat 3,750$/kW+35%.CostuncertaintyishigherthanfortheCCwithoutCCSduetotheuncertainty associatedwiththeCCSsystem.AlthoughitispossiblethatadvancedCCconfigurationswillbe developedoverthenext40years,theeconomicincentivefornewgasturbineCCdevelopmenthas notbeenapparentinthelastdecade.Further,whilecostimprovementsinCCSmaybedeveloped overtime,itisexpectedthatgeologicconditionswillbecomemoredifficultasinitialeasiersitesare used.Thecostofperpetualstorageinsurancewasnotestimatedorincluded.Table4presentscost andperformancedataforcombinedcyclewithcarboncaptureandsequestrationtechnology.Table5 presentsemissiondataforthetechnology.
15
Table6.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaCombinedCyclePowerPlant(580MW)withCarbonCaptureandSequestration Const. HeatRate Schedule (Btu/kWh) (Months) 10,080 10,080 10,080 10,080 10,080 10,080 10,080 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 SpinRamp Rate (%/min) 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 QuickStart RampRate (%/min) 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
Year 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
CapitalCost VariableO&M ($/kW) ($/MWh) 3860 3750 3750 3750 3750 3750 3750 3750 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
FixedO&M ($/kWyr) 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4
POR FOR (%) (%)
MinLoad (% 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00
Table7.EmissionRatesforaCombinedCyclePowerPlantwithCarbonCaptureandSequestration SO2 (Lb/mmbtu) 0.0002 NOx (LB/mmbtu) 0.0073 PM10 (Lb/mmbtu) 0.0058 CO2 (Lb/mmbtu) 18
16
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES
2.5PULVERIZEDCOALFIREDPOWERGENERATION
Pulverizedcoalfiredpowerplantcostswerebasedonasinglereheat,condensing,tandem compound,fourflowsteamturbinegeneratorset,asinglereheatsupercriticalsteam generatorandwetmechanicaldraftcoolingtower,aSCR,andairqualitycontrolequipment forparticulateandSO2control,alldesignedastypicalofrecentU.S.installations.The estimateincludedthecostofaSCRreactor.Thesteamgeneratorwasassumedtoinclude lowNOxburnersandotherfeaturestocontrolNOx.Netoutputwasapproximately606MW. 2010capitalcostwasestimatedat2,890$/kW+35%.Costcertaintyforthistechnologyis relativelyhigh.Overthe40yearanalysisperiod,a4%improvementinheatratewas assumed.Table8presentscostandperformancedataforpulverizedcoalfiredtechnology. Table9presentsemissionsratesforthetechnology.The2010capitalcostbreakdownfor thepulverizedcoalfiredpowerplantisshowninFigure4.
17
Table8.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaPulverizedCoalFiredPowerPlant(606MW) HeatRate (Btu/kWh) 9,370 9,370 9,370 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 Construction Schedule POR (Months) (%) 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 SpinRamp Rate (%/min) 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Year 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
CapitalCost VariableO&M ($/kW) ($/MWh) 3040 2890 2890 2890 2890 2890 2890 2890 2890 2890 3.71 3.71 3.71 3.71 3.71 3.71 3.71 3.71 3.71
FixedO&M ($/kWYr) 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0
FOR (%) 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
MinLoad (%) 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
2045 2050
Table9.EmissionRatesforaPulverizedCoalFiredPowerPlant SO2 (Lb/mmbtu) 0.055 NOx (Lb/mmbtu) 0.05 PM10 (Lb/mmbtu) 0.011 Hg CO2 (%removal) (Lb/mmbtu) 90 215
18
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES $150/kW , 5% $265/kW , 9% Turbine equipment Boiler equipment Balance of plant/Installation Engineering, procurement, construction management services Owner's cost
$490/kW , 17%
$215/kW , 8%
Total: $2,890/kW +35%
$1,770/kW , 61%
Figure4.Capitalcostbreakdownforapulverizedcoalfiredpowerplant
2.6PULVERIZEDCOALFIREDPOWERGENERATIONWITHCARBON CAPTUREANDSEQUESTRATION
Black&Veatchisaleadingdesignerofelectricgeneratingstationsandtheforemost designerandconstructorofcoalfueledpowergenerationplantsworldwide.Black& Veatchscoalfueledgeneratingstationexperienceincludes10,000MWofsupercritical pulverizedcoalfiredpowerplantprojects. Thepulverizedcoalfiredpowerplantcostswerebasedonasupercriticalsteamcycleand wetcoolingtowerdesigntypicalofrecentU.S.installations,thesameplantdescribedabove butwithCCS.Netoutputwasapproximately455MW.CCSwouldbebasedon85%CO2 removal.CCSwasassumedtobecommerciallyavailableafter2020.2020capitalcostwas estimatedat6,560$/kW45%and+35%.Costuncertaintyishigherthanforthepulverized coalfiredplantonlyduetotheuncertaintyassociatedwiththeCCS. Weassumeda4%improvementinheatratetoaccountfortechnologypotentialalready existingbutnotfrequentlyusedintheUnitedStates.Thecostofperpetualstorage insurancewasnotestimatedorincluded.Table8presentscostandperformancedatafor pulverizedcoalfiredwithcarboncaptureandsequestrationtechnology. Table911presentsemissionsratesforthetechnology.
19
Table10.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaPulverizedCoalFiredPowerPlant(455MW)withCarbonCaptureandSequestration HeatRate (Btu/kWh) 12,600 12,100 12,100 12,100 12,100 12,100 12,100 Construction Schedule POR (Months) (%) 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 SpinRamp Rate (%/min) 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Year 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
CapitalCost VariableO&M ($/kW) ($/MWh) 6890 6560 5640 5640 5640 5640 5640 5640 6.02 6.02 6.02 6.02 6.02 6.02 6.02
FixedO&M ($/kWyr) 35.2 35.2 35.2 35.2 35.2 35.2 35.2
FOR (%) 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
MinLoad (%) 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
Table11.EmissionRatesforaPulverizedCoalFiredPowerPlantwithCarbonCaptureandSequestration SO2 (Lb/mmbtu) 0.055 NOx (Lb/mmbtu) 0.05 PM10 (Lb/mmbtu) 0.011 Hg CO2 (%removal) (Lb/mmbtu) 90 32
20
2.7GASIFICATIONCOMBINEDCYCLETECHNOLOGY
Black&Veatchisaleadingdesignerofelectricgeneratingstationsandtheforemost designerandconstructorofcoalfueledpowergenerationplantsworldwide.Black& Veatchscoalfueledgeneratingstationexperienceincludesintegratedgasification combinedcycletechnologies.Black&Veatchhasdesigned,performedfeasibilitystudies, andperformedindependentprojectassessmentsfornumerousgasificationandgasification combinedcycle(GCC)projectsusingvariousgasificationtechnologies.Black&Veatch historicaldatawereusedtomakeadjustmentstostudyestimatestoincludeownerscosts. Specialcarewastakentoadjustto2009dollarsbasedonmarketexperience.TheGCC estimatewasbasedonacommercialgasificationprocessintegratedwithaconventional combinedcycleandwetcoolingtowerproducing590netMW.2010capitalcostwas estimatedat4,010$/kW+35%..Costcertaintyforthistechnologyisrelativelyhigh.We assumeda12%improvementinheatrateby2025.Table812presentscostand performancedataforgasificationcombinedcycletechnology. Table913presentsemissionsratesforthetechnology.TheBlack&VeatchGCCestimateis consistentwiththeFERCestimaterange.
21
Table12.CostandPerformanceProjectionforanIntegratedGasificationCombinedCyclePowerPlant(590MW) Construction Schedule (Months) 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 SpinRamp Rate (%/min) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 QuickStart RampRate (%/min) 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
CapitalCost VariableO&M Year ($/kW) ($/MWh) 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 4210 4010 4010 4010 4010 4010 4010 4010 4010 4010 6.54 6.54 6.54 6.54 6.54 6.54 6.54 6.54 6.54
FixedO&M ($/kWyr) 31.1 31.1 31.1 31.1 31.1 31.1 31.1 31.1 31.1
HeatRate (Btu/kWh) 9,030 9,030 9,030 7,950 7,950 7,950 7,950 7,950 7,950
POR FOR (%) (%) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
MinLoad (%) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Table13.EmissionRatesforanIntegratedGasificationCombinedCyclePowerPlant SO2 (Lb/mmbtu) 0.065 NOx (Lb/mmbtu) 0.085 PM10 (Lb/mmbtu) 0.009 Mercury CO2 (%Removal) (Lb/mmbtu) 90 215
22
2.8GASIFICATIONCOMBINEDCYCLETECHNOLOGYWITHCARBON CAPTUREANDSEQUESTRATION
Black&Veatchisaleadingdesignerofelectricgeneratingstationsandtheforemost designerandconstructorofcoalfueledpowergenerationplantsworldwide.Black& Veatchscoalfueledgeneratingstationexperienceincludesintegratedgasification combinedcycletechnologies.Black&Veatchhasdesigned,performedfeasibilitystudies, andperformedindependentprojectassessmentsfornumerousgasificationandIGCC projectsusingvariousgasificationtechnologies.Black&Veatchhistoricaldatawereusedto makeadjustmentstostudyestimatestoincludeownerscosts.TheGCCwasbasedona commercialgasificationprocessintegratedwithaconventionalCCandwetcoolingtower, thesameplantasdescribedabovebutwithCCS.Netcapacitywas520MW.Carboncapture, sequestration,andstoragewerebasedon85%carbonremoval.Carboncaptureandstorage isassumedtobecommerciallyavailableafter2020.2020capitalcostwasestimatedat 6,600$/kW+35%.Thecostofperpetualstorageinsurancewasnotestimatedorincluded. Table814presentscostandperformancedataforgasificationcombinedcycletechnology integratedwithcarboncaptureandsequestration. Table915presentsemissionsratesforthetechnology.
23
Table14.CostandPerformanceProjectionforanIntegratedGasificationCombinedCyclePowerPlant(520MW)withCarbonCaptureandSequestration HeatRate (Btu/KWh) 11,800 10,380 10,380 10,380 10,380 10,380 10,380 Construction Schedule (Months) 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 SpinRamp Rate (%/min) 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 QuickStart Ramp Rate(%/min) 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
CapitalCost VariableO&M Year ($/kW) ($/MWh) 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 6,930 6,600 6,600 6,600 6,600 6,600 6,600 6,600 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6
FixedO&M ($/kWyr) 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4
FOR POR (%) (%)
MinLoad (%) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
12.0 8.00 12.0 8.00 12.0 8.00 12.0 8.00 12.0 8.00 12.0 8.00 12.0 8.00
Table15.EmissionRatesforanIntegratedGasificationCombinedCyclePowerPlantwithCarbonCaptureandSequestration
SO2 (Lb/mmbtu) 0.065
NOx (Lb/mmbtu) 0.085
PM10 (Lb/mmbtu) 0.009
Hg CO2 (%Removal) (Lb/mmbtu) 90% 32
24
2.9FLUEGASDESULFURIZATIONRETROFITTECHNOLOGY
Fluegasdesulfurization(FGD)retrofitwasassumedtobeacommercialdesigntoachieve 95%removalofsulfurdioxideandequipmentwasaddedtomeetcurrentmercuryand particulatestandards.AwetlimestoneFGDsystem,afabricfilter,andapowderedactivated carbon(PAC)injectionsystemwereincluded.Itisalsoassumedthattheexistingstackwas notdesignedforawetFGDsystem;therefore,anewstackwasincluded.Black&Veatch estimatedretrofitcapitalcostin2010tobe360$/kW+25%withnocostreduction assumedthrough2050.Table16presentscostsandaconstructionscheduleforfluegas desulfurizationretrofittechnology.
Table16.CostandScheduleforaPowerPlant(606MW)withFlueGas DesulfurizationRetrofitTechnology RetrofitCost VariableO&M ($/kW) ($/MWh) 371 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 3.71 3.71 3.71 3.71 3.71 3.71 3.71 3.71 3.71 FixedO&M ($/kWyr) 23.2 23.2 23.2 23.2 23.2 23.2 23.2 23.2 23.2 ConstructionSchedule (Months) 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Year 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
25
TextBox2.CyclingConsiderations
Cyclingincreasesfailuresandmaintenancecost. Powerplantsofthefuturewillneedincreasedflexibilityandincreased efficiency;thesequalitiesruncountertoeachother. Highertemperaturesrequiredforincreasedefficiencymeanslowerramprates andlessabilitytooperateoffdesign.Similarly,environmentalfeaturessuchas baghouses,SCR,gasturbineNOxcontrol,FGD,andcarboncapturemakeit moredifficulttooperateatoffdesignconditions. Earlylessefficientpowerplantswithoutmodernenvironmentalemissions controlsprobablyhavemoreabilitytocyclethannewermorehighlytuned designs. Peaktemperatureandrateofchangeoftemperaturearekeylimitationsfor cycling.Waterchemistryisanissue. Thenumberofdiscretepulverizersisalimitationforpulverizedcoalpower plantsandthenumberofmodulesinaddonsystemsthatmustbeintegrated toachieveenvironmentalcontrolisalimitation.
Theramprateforcoalplantsisnotlinearasitisafunctionofbringingpulverizerson lineasloadincreases.A600MWpulverizedcoalfiredunit(e.g.,PowderRiverBasin) canhavesixpulverizers.AssuminganN+1sparingphilosophy,fivepulverizersare requiredforfullloadsoeachpulverizercanprovidefuelforabout20%offullload. Fromminimumstableloadatabout40%tofullload,itisthejudgmentofBlack& Veatch,basedonactualexperienceincoalplantoperations,thattherampratewillbe5 MW/minuteathighloads.Thisisabout1%/minuteforaunitwhenat500MW. Theramprateforacombinedcycleplantisacombinationofcombustionturbineramp rateandsteamturbineramprate.Theconventionalwarmstartwilltakeabout76 minutesfromstartinitiationtofullloadonthecombinedcycle.Thecombinedramp ratefromminute62tominute76isshownbyGEtobeabout5%/minuteforawarm conventionalstartup. GEshowsthatthetotaldurationofa"rapidresponse"combinedcyclestartup assumingacombustionturbinefaststartis54minutesascomparedtoaconventional startdurationof76minutesforawarmstart.TheramprateisshownbyGEtobe slowerduringarapidstartup.Theoveralldurationisshorterbutthehighload combinedramprateis2.5%. Aftertheunithasbeenonlineanduptotemperature,wewouldexpecttheramprate tobe5%.
26
3CostEstimatesandPerformanceDataforRenewable ElectricityTechnologies
Thissectionincludescostandperformancedataforrenewableenergytechnologies, includingbiopower(biomasscofiringandstandalone),geothermal(hydrothermaland enhancedgeothermalsystems),hydropower,oceanenergytechnologies(waveandtidal), solarenergytechnologies(photovoltaicsandconcentratingsolarpower),andwindenergy technologies(onshoreandoffshore).
3.1BIOPOWERTECHNOLOGIES
3.1.1BiomassCofiring
Frominitialtechnologyresearchandprojectdevelopment,throughturnkeydesignand construction,Black&Veatchhasworkedwithprojectdevelopers,utilities,lenders,and governmentagenciesonbiomassprojectsusingmorethan40differentbiomassfuels throughouttheworld.Black&Veatchhasexceptionaltoolstoevaluatetheimpactsof biomasscofiringontheexistingfacility,suchastheVISTAmodel,whichevaluatesimpacts tothecoalfueledboilerandbalanceofplantsystemsduetochangesinfuels. Althoughthemaximuminjectionofbiomassdependsonboilertypeandthenumberand typesofnecessarymodificationstotheboiler,biomasscofiringwasassumedtobelimited toamaximumof15%forallcoalplants.Forthebiomasscofiringretrofit,Black&Veatch estimated2010capitalcostsof990$/kW50%and+25%.Costuncertaintyissignificantly impactedbythedegreeofmodificationsneededforaparticularfuelandboiler combination.Significantlylessboilermodificationmaybenecessaryinsomecases.Black& Veatchdidnotestimateanycostimprovementovertime.Table17presentscofiringcost andperformancedata.Inthepresentconvention,thecapitalcosttoretrofitacoalplantto cofirebiomassisappliedtothebiomassportiononly3.Similarly,O&Mcostsareappliedto thenewretrofittedcapacityonly.Table17showsrepresentativeheatrates;the performancecharacteristicsofaretrofittedplantwereassumedtobethesameasthatof thepreviouslyexistingcoalplant.Manyvariationsarepossiblebutwerenotmodeled.Table 18showstherangeofcostsusingvariouscofiringapproachesoverarangeofcofiringfuel levelsvaryingfrom5%to30%.Emissionscontrolequipmentperformancelimitationsmay limittheoverallrangeofcofiringpossible.
3Forexample,retrofittinga100MWcoalplanttocofireupto15%biomasshasacostof100MWx
15%x$990,000/MW=$14,850,000.
BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|3CostEstimatesandPerformanceDataforRenewableElectricity
Technologies
27
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES Table17.CostandPerformanceProjectionforBiomassCofiringTechnology Variable FixedO&M CapitalCost O&MCost Cost ($/kW) ($/MWh) ($/kWYr) 1,020 990 990 990 990 990 990 990 990 990 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Construction Schedule (Months) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Year 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
HeatRate (Btu/KWh) 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
POR (%) 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
FOR (%) 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Table18.CostsforCoFiringMethodsversusFuelAmount CofiringLevel FuelBlending (%) ($/kW) 5 10 20 30 10001500 8001200 600 SeparateInjection ($/kW) 13001800 10001500 7001100 7001100 Gasification ($/kW) 25003500 20002500 18002300 17002200
Technologies
28
3.1.2BiomassStandalone
Black&Veatchisrecognizedasoneofthemostdiverseprovidersofbiomass(solid biomass,biogas,andwastetoenergy)systemsandservices.Frominitialtechnology researchandprojectdevelopment,throughturnkeydesignandconstruction,Black& Veatchhasworkedwithprojectdevelopers,utilities,lenders,andgovernmentagencieson biomassprojectsusingmorethan40differentbiomassfuelsthroughouttheworld.This backgroundwasusedtodevelopthecostestimatesvettedintheWesternRenewable EnergyZone(WREZ)stakeholderprocessandtosubsequentlyupdatethatpricingand adjustownerscosts. AstandardRankinecyclewithwetmechanicaldraftcoolingtowerproducing50MWnetis initiallyassumedforthestandalonebiomassgenerator.4Black&Veatchassumedthe2010 capitalcosttobe3,830$/kW25%and+50%.Costcertaintyishighforthismature technology,buttherearemorehighcostthanlowcostoutliersduetouniquefuelsand technologysolutions.Formodelingpurposes,itwasassumedthatgasificationcombined cyclesystemsdisplacethedirectcombustionsystemsgraduallyresultinginanaverage systemheatratethatimprovesby14%through2050.However,additionalcostislikely requiredinitiallytoachievethisheatrateimprovementandthereforenoimprovementin costwasassumedforthecosts.Table19presentscostandperformancedatafora standalonebiomasspowerplant.Thecapitalcostbreakdownforthebiomassstandalone powerplantisshowninFigure5.
4Standalonebiomassgeneratorsarealsoreferredtoasdedicatedplantstodistinguishthemfrom
cofiredplants.
Technologies
29
Table19.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaStandAloneBiomassPowerPlant(50MWNet) Variable O&MCost ($/MWh) 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 FixedO&M Cost ($/kWYr) 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Construction Schedule (Months) 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 Minimum Load (%) 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
Year 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
CapitalCost $/kW 4,020 3,830 3,830 3,830 3,830 3,830 3,830 3,830 3,830 3,830
HeatRate (Btu/KWh) 14,500 14,200 14,000 13,800 13,500 13,200 13,000 12,800 12,500
POR (%) 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6
FOR (%) 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|3CostEstimatesandPerformanceDataforRenewableElectricityTechnologies
30
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES $730 /kW, 19% $650/kW , 17% Turbine Boiler Balance of plant Engineering, procurement, construction management services Owner's cost $575/kW , 15% $880/kW , 23% $995/kW , 26%
Total: $3,830/kW -25% + 50%
Figure5.Capitalcostbreakdownforastandalonebiomasspowerplant
3.2GEOTHERMALENERGYTECHNOLOGIES
Hydrothermaltechnologyisarelativelymaturecommercialtechnologyforwhichcost improvementwasnotassumed.Forenhancedgeothermalsystems(EGS)technology,Black &Veatchestimatedfuturecostimprovementsbasedonimprovementsofgeothermalfluid pumpsanddevelopmentofmultiple,contiguousEGSunitstobenefitfromeconomyofscale forEGSfielddevelopment.Thequalityofgeothermalresourcesaresiteandresource specific,thereforecostsofgeothermalresourcescanvarysignificantlyfromregionto region.Thecostestimatesshowninthisreportaresinglevaluegenericestimatesandmay notberepresentativeofanyindividualsite.Table20andTable21presentcostand performancedataforhydrothermalandenhancedgeothermalsystems,respectively,based onthesesinglevalueestimates.
Technologies
31
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES Table20.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaHydrothermalPowerPlant CapitalCost VariableO&M ($/kW) ($/MWh) 6,240 5,940 5,940 5,940 5,940 5,940 5,940 5,940 5,940 5,940 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 Construction Schedule POR FOR (Months) (%) (%) 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Year 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
FixedO&M ($/kWYr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.41 0.75 2.41 0.75 2.41 0.75 2.41 0.75 2.41 0.75 2.41 0.75 2.41 0.75 2.41 0.75 2.41 0.75
Table21.CostandPerformanceProjectionforanEnhancedGeothermalSystemsPowerPlant CapitalCost VariableO&M ($/kW) ($/MWh) 10,400 9,900 9,720 9,625 9,438 9,250 8,970 8,786 8,600 8,420 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 Construction Schedule (Months) 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Year 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
FixedO&M ($/kWYr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
POR (%) 2.41 2.41 2.41 2.41 2.41 2.41 2.41 2.41 2.41 2.41
FOR (%) 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Thecapitalcostbreakdownforthehydrothermalgeothermalpowerplantisshownin Figure6.
Technologies
32
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES $1,010/kW , 17% $1,520/kW , 26% $505/kW , 8%
Wells Gathering system Heat exchanger Turbine Balance of plant $505/kW , 8% Engineering, procurement, construction management services Owner's cost
$1,520/kW , 26%
$130/kW , 2% $750/kW , 13%
Total: $5,940/kW
Figure6.Capitalcostbreakdownforahydrothermalgeothermalpowerplant
Thecapitalcostbreakdownfortheenhancedgeothermalsystempowerplantisshownin Figure7.
$1,690/kW , 17% $3,890/kW , 39% Wells $700/kW , 7% Gathering system Heat exchanger Turbine Balance of plant $1,520/kW , 15% $750/kW , 8% $1,230/kW , 13% Engineering, procurement, construction management services Owner's cost
Total: $9,910/kW
$130/kW , 1%
Figure7.Capitalcostbreakdownforanenhancedgeothermalsystempowerplant
Enhancedgeothermalsystemcostreductionswilloccurprimarilyinthewells,turbine,and BOPcategoriesovertime.
Technologies
33
3.3HYDROPOWERTECHNOLOGIES
Nearly500hydropowerprojectstotalingmorethan50,000MWhavebeenservedbyBlack &Veatchworldwide.TheBlack&Veatchhistoricaldatabaseincorporatesagood understandingofhydroelectriccosts.Black&Veatchusedthishistoricalbackgroundto developthecostestimatesvettedintheWREZ(PletkaandFinn2009)stakeholderprocess andtosubsequentlyupdatethatpricingandadjustownerscostsasnecessary. Similartogeothermaltechnologies,thecostofhydropowertechnologiescanbesite specific.Numerousoptionsareavailableforhydroelectricgeneration;repoweringan existingdamorgenerator,orinstallinganewdamorgenerator,areoptions.Assuch,the costestimatesshowninthisreportaresinglevalueestimatesandmaynotbe representativeofanyindividualsite.2010capitalcostfora500MWhydropowerfacility wasestimatedat3,500$/kW+35%.Table22presentscostandperformancedatafor hydroelectricpowertechnology.
Table22.CostandPerformanceDataforaHydroelectricPowerPlant(500MW) Construction Schedule POR FOR (Months) (%) (%) 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Year 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
CapitalCost VariableO&M ($/kW) ($/MWh) 3,600 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
FixedO&M ($/kWYr) 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Technologies
34
ThecapitalcostbreakdownforthehydroelectricpowerplantisshowninFigure8.
$810/kW , 23% $911/kW , 26% Tunnel Powerhouse and shafts Powerhouse equipment $238/kW , 7% $556/kW , 16% Engineering, procurement, construction management services Owner's cost $499/kW , 14%
Reservoir
$486/kW , 14%
Total: $3,500/kW +35%
Figure8.Capitalcostbreakdownforahydroelectricpowerplant
Hydroelectricpowerplantcostreductionswillbeprimarilyinthepowerblockcost categoryovertime.
3.4OCEANENERGYTECHNOLOGIES
Waveandtidalcurrentresourceassessmentandtechnologycostsweredevelopedbasedon Europeandemonstrationandhistoricaldataobtainedfromstudies.Aseparateassessment ofthehydrokineticresourceuncertaintyisincludedinAppendicesAandB,informedbya Black&Veatchanalysisthatincludesanupdatedresourceassessmentforwaveandtidal currenttechnologiesandassumptionsusedtodeveloptechnologycostestimates.Wave capitalcostin2015wasestimatedat9,240$/kW30%and+45%.Thisisanemerging technologywithmuchuncertaintyandmanyoptionsavailable.Acostimprovementof63% wasassumedthrough2040andthenacostincreasethrough2050reflectingtheneedto developlowerqualityresources.Tidalcurrenttechnologyissimilarlyimmaturewithmany technicaloptions.Capitalcostin2015wasestimatedat5,880$/kW10%and+20%.A costimprovementof45%wasassumedastheresourceestimatedtobeavailableisfully utilizedby2030.EstimatedO&Mcostsincludeinsurance,seabedrentals,andother recurringcoststhatwerenotincludedintheonetimecapitalcostestimate.WaveO&M costsarehigherthantidalcurrentcostsduetomoresevereconditions.Table23and Table24presentcostandperformanceforwaveandtidalcurrenttechnologies, respectively.Thecapitalcostbreakdownforwaveandcurrentpowerplantsareshownin Figure9andFigure10,respectively.
Technologies
35
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES Table23.CostandPerformanceProjectionforOceanWaveTechnology Construction Schedule (Months) 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
Year 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
CapitalCost ($/kW) 9,240 6,960 5,700 4,730 3,950 3,420 4,000 5,330
FixedO&M ($/kWyr) 474 357 292 243 203 175 208 273
POR (%) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
FOR (%) 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Table24.CostandPerformanceProjectionforOceanTidalCurrentTechnology Construction Schedule (Months) 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
Year 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
CapitalCost ($/kW) 5,880 4,360 3,460 3,230
FixedO&M ($/kWyr) 198 147 117 112 112 112 112 112
POR (%) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
FOR (%) 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5
Technologies
36
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES $1,660/kW , 18% Hydrodynamic absorber $925/kW , 10% $3,140/kW , 34% Power takeoff Control Reaction/Fixation $740/kW , 8% $185/kW , 2% Engineering, procurement, construction management services Owner's cost $2,590/kW , 28%
Total: $9,240/kW -30% + 45%
Figure9.Capitalcostbreakdownforanoceanwavepowerplant
$940/kW , 16%
$880/kW , 15% Hydrodynamic absorber Power takeoff Control Reaction/Fixation $1,060/kW , 18% Engineering, procurement, construction management services Owner's cost
$1,060/kW , 18%
$350/kW , 6% $1,590/kW , 27%
Total: $5,880/kW -10% + 20%
Figure10.Capitalcostbreakdownforanoceantidalpowerplant
Technologies
37
AppendicesAandBhighlighttheuncertaintyassociatedwithestimatesofwaveandtidal energyresources.Theyformthebasisfortheestimatesabove.
3.5SOLARENERGYTECHNOLOGIES
3.5.1SolarPhotovoltaicTechnologies
Black&Veatchhasbeeninvolvedinthedevelopmentofutilityscalesolarphotovoltaic(PV) systems,includingsitingsupport,interconnectionsupport,technologyduediligence,and conceptuallayout.SpecificallyBlack&Veatchhasperformedduediligenceonmorethan 200MWofutilityscalePVprojectsforlendersandownersaswellasassistedinthe developmentofmorethan1,500MWofprojectsforutilitiesanddevelopers.Black&Veatch hasbeentheindependentengineerfor35distributedPVprojectstotaling16MWin CaliforniaandanindependentengineerfortwoofthelargestPVsystemsinNorthAmerica. IthasalsoreviewedsolarPVnewPPApricinganddoneprojectandmanufacturerdue diligenceinvestigations.Thisbackgroundwasusedtodevelopthecostestimatesvettedin theWREZstakeholderprocessandtosubsequentlyupdatethatpricingandadjustowners costs. Estimatesforanumberofdifferentresidential,commercialandutilityoptionsrangingfrom 40KW(directcurrent(DC))to100MW(DC)areprovided.Thecapitalcostswereassumed tohaveuncertaintiesof+25%.Costuncertaintyisnothighforcurrentofferingsbutover time,anumberofprojected,potentialtechnologyimprovementsmayaffectcostsforthis technology.ChoosingthenontrackingutilityPVwitha100MW(DC)sizeasa representativecase,a35%reductionincostwasexpectedthrough2050.Table25presents costandperformancedataforawiderangeofPVsystems.Table25includes2008coststo illustratetheimpact(inconstant2009dollars)ofthecommoditypricedropthatoccurred between2008and2010.Formostgenerationtechnologies,thedeclineincommodityprices overthetwoyearsresultsina3%5%reductionincapitalcost.AsseeninTable25,the dropinPVtechnologycostsissignificantlygreater.ForPV,the2008costswerebasedon actualmarketdataadjustedto2009dollars.Overthesetwoyears,PVexperiencedadrastic fallincosts,duetotechnologyimprovements,economiesofscale,increasedsupplyinraw materials,andotherfactors.ThecapitalcostbreakdownforthePVpowerplant(non trackingUtilityPVwitha10MW(DC)installsize)isshowninFigure11.Notethat100MW utilityPVsystemsrepresentingnthplantconfigurationsarenotavailablein2010.
Table25.CostandPerformanceProjectionforSolarPhotovoltaicTechnology Construction Schedule (Months)
Year
CapitalCost ($/kW)
VariableO&M ($/MWh)
FixedO&M ($/kWyr)
POR (%)
FOR (%)
ResidentialPVwitha4kW(DC)installsize 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 7690 5950 4340 3750 3460 0 0 0 0 50 48 45 43 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Technologies
38
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES Construction Schedule (Months) 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3
Year 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
CapitalCost ($/kW) 3290 3190 3090 3010 2930
VariableO&M ($/MWh) 0 0 0 0 0
FixedO&M ($/kWyr) 41 39 37 35 33
POR (%) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
FOR (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
CommercialPVwitha100kW(DC)installsize 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 5610 4790 3840 3340 3090 2960 2860 2770 2690 2620 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 48 45 43 41 39 37 35 33 6.0 5.7 5.4 5.1 4.9 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
NonTrackingUtilityPVwitha1MW(DC)InstallSize 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 4610 3480 3180 3010 2880 2760 2660 2570 2490 2420 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 48 45 43 41 39 37 35 33 8.0 7.6 7.2 6.9 6.5 6.2 5.9 5.6 5.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
NonTrackingUtilityPVwitha10MW(DC)InstallSize 2008 2010 3790 2830 0 50 12.0 2.0 0.0
Technologies
39
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES Construction Schedule (Months) 11.4 10.8 10.3 9.8 9.3 8.8 8.4 8.0
Year 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
CapitalCost ($/kW) 2550 2410 2280 2180 2090 2010 1940 1870
VariableO&M ($/MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FixedO&M ($/kWyr) 48 45 43 41 39 37 35 33
POR (%) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
FOR (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
NonTrackingUtilityPVwitha100MW(DC)InstallSize 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 3210 2357 2220 2100 1990 1905 1830 1760 1700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 45 43 41 39 37 35 33 17.1 16.2 15.4 14.7 13.9 13.2 12.6 11.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1AxisTrackingUtilityPVwitha1MW(DC)InstallSize 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 5280 3820 3420 3100 2940 2840 2750 2670 2590 2520 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 48 45 43 41 39 37 35 33 10.0 9.5 9.0 8.6 8.1 7.7 7.4 7.0 6.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Technologies
40
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES Construction Schedule (Months)
Year
CapitalCost ($/kW)
VariableO&M ($/MWh)
FixedO&M ($/kWyr)
POR (%)
FOR (%)
1AxisTrackingUtilityPVwitha10MW(DC)InstallSize 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 4010 3090 2780 2670 2560 2380 2380 2300 2230 2170 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 48 45 43 41 39 37 35 33 14.0 13.3 12.6 12.0 11.4 10.8 10.3 9.8 9.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1AxisTrackingUtilityPVwitha100MW(DC)InstallSize 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 3920 2620 2510 2410 2310 2230 2160 2090 2030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 45 43 41 39 37 35 33 13.3 12.6 12.0 11.4 10.8 10.3 9.8 9.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Technologies
41
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES $55 /kW, 2% $185/kW , 7% $240/kW , 8% $140/kW , 5% $1,400/kW , 49% Modules Structures Inverters Balance of S Engineering, procurement, construction management services Owner's cost
$810/kW , 29%
Total: $2,830/kW +25%

Figure11.Capitalcostbreakdownforasolarphotovoltaicpowerplant
AppendixCpresentsfurtherbreakdownsforphotovoltaiccosts.
3.5.2ConcentratingSolarPowerTechnologies
Black&Veatchhasparticipatedinnumerousconcentratingsolarpower(CSP)pilotplant andstudyactivitiessincethe1970s.Thecompanyhasbeentheindependentengineerfor CSPprojectsandhasperformedduediligenceonCSPmanufacturers.Black&Veatchhas alsoreviewedcostsinnewCSPpurchaseagreements.Thishistoricalknowledgeandrecent marketdatawasusedtodevelopthecostestimatesvettedintheWREZstakeholderprocess andtosubsequentlyupdatethatpricingandmakeadjustmentstoownerscosts. MultipleCSPoptionswererepresented,includingCSPwithoutstorageandCSPwith storage.TheCSPwithoutstorageoptionwasassumedtoberepresentedbytroughsystems forallyears.FortheCSPoptionwithstorage,thecostdatarepresentedtroughsystemsuntil 2025,afterwhich,towersystemswererepresented.Thesemodelassumptionsdonot representCSPtechnologychoicepredictionsbyBlack&Veatch.Thelocationassumedfor costingofCSPsystemsistheSouthwestUnitedStates,nottheMidwestasusedforother technologies.AllCSPsystemswerebasedondrycooledtechnologies.Thecostand performancedatapresentedherewerebasedon200MWnetpowerplants.Multiple towerswereusedinthetowerconfiguration. Black&Veatchestimatedcapitalcoststobe4,910$/kW35%and+15%withoutstorage and7,060$/kW35%and+15%withstoragefor2010.Thereisgreaterdownsidepotential thanupsidecostgrowthduetotheexpectedemergenceofnewtechnologyoptions.New CSPtechnologiesareexpectedtobecommercializedbefore2050,and30%33%capital costimprovementswereassumedforallsystemsthrough2050.Table26andTable 27presentcostandperformancedataforCSPpowerplantswithoutandwithstorage, respectively.Forthewithstorageoption,troughcostswererepresentedinyearsuptoand including2025;towercostswereprovidedafter2025.Capitalcostbreakdownforthe2010 CSPplantswithstorageareshowninFigure12andFigure13fortroughandtowersystems, respectively. BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|3CostEstimatesandPerformanceDataforRenewableElectricity
Technologies
42
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES Table26.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaConcentratingSolarPowerPlantwithoutStoragea Variable O&MCost ($/MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fixed O&MCost ($/kWYr) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Construction Schedule (Months) 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
Year 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
a
CapitalCost ($/kW) 5,050 4,910 4,720 4,540 4,350 4,170 3,987 3,800 3,620 3,430
POR (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FOR (%) 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Concentratingsolarpowerdrycooling,nostorage,andasolarmultipleof1.4.
Table27.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaConcentratingSolarPowerPlantwithStoragea Variable O&MCost ($/MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fixed O&MCost ($/kWYr) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Construction Schedule (months) 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
Year 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
a
CapitalCost ($/kW) 7280 7060 6800 6530 5920 5310 4700 4700 4700 4700
POR (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FOR (%) 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Concentratingsolarpowerdrycooling,6hourstorage,andasolarmultipleof2.
Technologies
43
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES $1,090/kW , 16% $2,820/kW , 40% Solar Field $544/kW , 8% Heat Transfer Fluid (HTF) System Power Block Storage Engineering, procurement, construction management services Owner's cost
$642/kW , 9%
Total: $7,060/kW -35% +15%
$1,300/kW , 18%
$664/kW , 9%
Figure12.Capitalcostbreakdownforatroughconcentratingsolarpowerplantwithstorage

$1,090/kW , 15% $2,700/kW , 38% $540/kW , 8% Heliostat Field Receiver Tower Power block $490/kW , 7% Thermal Storage Contingency Engineering, procurement, construction management services Owner's cost
$420/kW , 6% $950/kW , 14% $680/kW , 10% $170/kW , 2%
Total: $7,040/kW -35% +15%
Figure13.Capitalcostbreakdownforatowerconcentratingsolarpowerplantwithstorage
Technologies
44
3.6WINDENERGYTECHNOLOGIES
Black&Veatchhasexperienceachievedin10,000MWofwindengineering,development, andduediligenceprojectsfrom2005to2010.Inaddition,significantunderstandingofthe detailsofwindcostestimateswasobtainedbyperforming300MWofdetaileddesignand 300MWofconstructionservicesin2008.Black&Veatchalsohasreviewedwindproject PPApricing.ThisbackgroundwasusedtodevelopthecostestimatesvettedintheWREZ stakeholderprocessandtosubsequentlyupdatethatpricingandadjustownerscosts.Costs areprovidedforonshore,fixedbottomoffshoreandfloatingplatformoffshorewind turbineinstallations.Thesecostandperformanceestimatesareslightlymoreconservative thanestimatesidentifiedinOConnellandPletka2007forthe20%WindEnergyby2030 study.Improvementsseensince2004to2006havebeensomewhatlessthanpreviously estimatedasthetechnologymorefullymatures.Additionalimprovementisexpectedbutat aslightlyslowerpace.Thereisbothincreasedcostandincreasedperformanceuncertainty forfloatingplatformoffshoresystems.
3.6.1OnshoreTechnology
Black&Veatchestimatedacapitalcostat1,980$/kW+25%.Costcertaintyisrelatively highforthismaturingtechnologyandnocostimprovementswereassumedthrough2050. Capacityfactorimprovementswereassumeduntil2030;furtherimprovementswerenot assumedtobeachievableafter2030.
3.6.2FixedBottomOffshoreTechnology
Fixedbottomoffshorewindprojectswereassumedtobeatadepththatallowserectionofa talltowerwithafoundationthattouchestheseafloor.Historicaldataforfixedbottom offshorewindEPCprojectsarenotgenerallyavailableintheUnitedStates,butNREL reviewedengineeringstudiesandpublisheddataforEuropeanprojects.Black&Veatch estimatedacapitalcostat3,310$/kW+35%.Costandcapacityfactorimprovementswere assumedtobeachievablebefore2030;costimprovementsofapproximately10%were assumedthrough2030andcapacityfactorimprovementswereassumedforlowerwind classesthrough2030.
3.6.3FloatingPlatformOffshoreTechnology
Floatingplatformoffshorewindtechnologywasassumedtobeneededinwaterdepths whereatalltowerandfoundationisnotcosteffective/feasible.Black&Veatchviewedthe floatingplatformwindturbinecostestimatesasmuchmorespeculative.Thistechnology wasassumedtobeunavailableintheUnitedStatesuntil2020.Fewerstudiesandpublished sourcesexistcomparedwithonshoreandfixedbottomoffshoresystems.Black&Veatch estimateda2020capitalcostat4,200$/kW+35%.Costimprovementsof10%were assumedthrough2030andcapacityfactorimprovementswereassumedforlowerwind classesuntil2030. Table28throughTable33presentwindcostandperformancedata,includingcapacity factors,foronshore,fixedbottomoffshore,andfloatingplatformoffshoretechnologies. CapitalcostbreakdownsforthesetechnologiesareshowninFigure14throughFigure16.
Technologies
45
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES Table28.CostandPerformanceProjectionforOnshoreWindTechnology Construction Schedule (Months) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Year 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
CapitalCost VariableO&M ($/kW) ($/MWh) 2,060 1,980 1,980 1,980 1,980 1,980 1,980 1,980 1,980 1,980 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FixedO&M ($/kWyr) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
POR FOR (%) (%) 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Table29.CapacityFactorProjectionforOnshoreWindTechnology Year Class3 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 32 33 33 34 35 35 35 35 35 CapacityFactor(%) Class4 36 37 37 38 38 38 38 38 38 Class5 41 41 42 42 43 43 43 43 43 Class6 44 44 44 45 45 45 45 45 45 Class7 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46
Technologies
46
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES Table30.CostandPerformanceProjectionforFixedbottomOffshoreWindTechnology Construction Schedule (Months) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Year 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
CapitaCost ($/kW) 3,410 3,310 3,230 3,150 3,070 2,990 2,990 2,990 2,990 2,990
VariableO&M ($/MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FixedO&M ($/kWyr) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
POR FOR (%) (%) 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Table31.CapacityFactorProjectionforFixedbottomOffshoreWindTechnology Year Class3 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 36 36 37 37 38 38 38 38 38 CapacityFactor(%) Class4 39 39 39 40 40 40 40 40 40 Class5 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Class6 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 Class7 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Technologies
47
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES Table32.CostandPerformanceProjectionforFloatingPlatformOffshoreWindTechnology Construction Schedule (Months) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Year 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
CapitalCost VariableO&M ($/kW) ($/MWh) 4,200 4,090 3,990 3,990 3,990 3,990 3,990 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FixedO&M ($/kWYr) 130 130 130 130 130 130 130
POR FOR (%) (%) 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Table33.CapacityFactorProjectionforFloatingPlatformOffshoreWindTechnology Year 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Class3 37 37 38 38 38 38 38 Class4 39 40 40 40 40 40 40 CapacityFactor(%) Class5 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Class6 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 Class7 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Technologies
48
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES $100/kW , 5% $79/kW , 4% $257/kW , 13% Wind turbine Distribution Balance of plant/Erection Engineering, procurement, construction management services $198/kW , 10% Owner's cost
Total: $1,980/kW +25%
$1,346/kW , 68%
Figure14.Capitalcostbreakdownforanonshorewindpowerplant $189/kW , 6% $165/kW , 5% $894/kW , 27% Wind turbine Distribution Balance of plant/Erection Engineering, procurement, construction management services Owner's cost $1,665/kW , 50%
Total: $3,310/kW +35%
$397/kW , 12%
Figure15.Capitalcostbreakdownforafixedbottomoffshorewindpowerplant
Technologies
49
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES $252/kW , 6% $252/kW , 6% $1,890/kW , 45% Wind turbine Distribution Balance of plant/Erection Engineering, procurement, construction management services Owner's cost $1,260/kW , 30%
Total: $4,200/kW +35%
$546/kW , 13%
Figure16.Capitalcostbreakdownforafloatingplatformoffshorewindpowerplant
Technologies
50
4CostandPerformanceDataforEnergyStorage Technologies
Selectingarepresentativeprojectdefinitionforcompressedairenergystorage(CAES)and pumpedstoragehydropower(PSH)technologiesthatcanthenbeusedtoidentifya representativecostisextremelydifficult;oneproblemisthataverylowcostcanbe estimatedforthesetechnologiesifthebestcircumstancesareassumed(e.g.,useofexisting infrastructure).Forexample,anassumptioncanbemadeforCAESthatalmostnobelow groundcostiscontributedwhenbuildingasmallprojectthatcanbeaccommodatedbyan abandonedgaswellofadequatesize.ForPSH,onecanassumeonlytwoexistingreservoirs needtobeconnectedwithapumpandturbineatthelowerreservoir.Theselowcost solutionscanbecomparedtohighcostsolutions;forCAES,excavationofanentirecavern outofhardrockcouldbeassumed,andforPSHconstructionofnewreservoirsandsupply ofpump/turbineandinterconnectionsbetweenreservoirscouldbeassumed.These scenariosareentirelydifferentfrompossiblelowcostormidcostoptions.Whilethis situationmakesidentifyingarepresentative,oraverage,projectdifficult,thisselectionmust bemadebeforethediscussionofcostscanbeopened.Thedesignoptionsandassociated costsforCAESandPSHareunlimited.Historyisnohelpbecausecircumstancesarenow differentfromthosethatexistedwhenthepreviousgenerationofpumpedhydropowerwas builtandbecausetherearenotalargenumberofexistingCAESunitstoreview.Another issuewithPSHisthattransmissionhasbeenequallychallengingwithcostand environmentalissueslimitingpumpedoptions. NoCAESorPSHplantshavebeenbuiltrecently.Further,inthecaseofPCH,theElectric PowerResearchInstitutehasindicated,scarcityofsuitablesurfacetopographythatis environmentallyacceptableislikelytoinhibitfurthersignificantdomesticdevelopmentof utilitypumpedhydrostorage.5 Black&VeatchinitiallyselectedpointestimatesforCAESandPSHwithrangesaround pointsthatcancaptureabroadrangeofprojectconfigurationassumptions.The disadvantageofthestorageestimatesinitiallyselectedisthattheymightnotadequately reflecttheverylowestcostoptionsthatmayeventuallybeavailable.However,the advantageisthattheyareexamplesofwhatrealdevelopershaverecentlyconsideredfor development;developershaveconsideredprojectswiththesecostsanddescriptionstobe worthyofstudy.Theyarenottheleastcostexamplesthatcouldsomedaybeavailablefor considerationbydevelopers,buttheyarerecentexamplesofsiteandtechnology combinationsthatdevelopersactuallyhavehadavailableforconsideration.Inaddition,the PSHexampleisofrelativelysmallcapacitythatmaybesuitableinalargernumberof locations;itisnotalessexpensive,largercapacitysystemthatmaynotbeasavailablein manypartsofthecountry.Lastly,becauseBlack&Veatchviewsthecostsasmidrange,they maybeconsideredreasonablyconservative.Black&Veatchrecognizesthatitcouldhave chosenlowercostcases,butthecasesinitiallyshownherearerepresentativeofprojects thatdevelopershaveactuallyrecentlyconsidered.
5PumpedHydroelectricStorage,http://www.rkmaonline.com/utilityenergystorageSAMPLE.pdf
BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|4CostandPerformanceDataforEnergyStorageTechnologies
51
4.1COMPRESSEDAIRENERGYSTORAGE(CAES)TECHNOLOGY
AconfidentialCAESinhousereferencestudyforanindependentpowerproducerhasbeen usedforthepointestimate,andtherangewasbasedonhistoricaldata.Atwounit recuperatedexpanderwithstorageinasolutionminedsaltdomewasassumedforthis estimate.Approximately262MWnetwith15hoursofstoragewasassumedtobeprovided. Fivecompressorswereassumedtobeincluded.A2010capitalcostwasestimatedat900 $/kW30%+75%.Nocostimprovementwasassumedovertime.Table34presentscosts andperformancedataforCAES.Table535presentsemissiondataforthetechnology.
52
Table34.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaCompressedAirEnergyStoragePlant(262MW) Capit al Cost ($/kW) 927 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 Spin Ramp Rate (%/min.) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Quick Start Ramp Rate (%/min.) 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Year 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh) 4910 4910 4910 4910 4910 4910 4910 4910 4910
Variable O&M ($/MWh) 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55
Fixed O&M ($/kW-year) 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6
RoundTrip Efficiency 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25
FOR (%) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
POR (%) 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Construction Schedule (Months) 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
Min. Load (%) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Table35.EmissionRatesforCompressedAirEnergyStorage SO2 (lb/ hr) 3.4 NOX (lb/hr) 47 Hg Micro (lb/hr) 0 PM10 (lb/hr) 11.6 CO2 (kpph) 135
53
ThecapitalcostbreakdownfortheCAESplantisshowninFigure17.
$60/kW , 7% $30kW , 3% $270/kW , 30% Compressor Balance of plant Cavern Engineering, procurement, construction management services $360/kW , 40% $130/kW , 14% $50/kW , 6% Owner's cost Turbine
Total: $900/kW -30% + 75%
Figure17.Capitalcostbreakdownforacompressedairenergystoragepowerplant
CAESplantcostsavingswilloccurinallcostcategoriesovertime.
4.2PUMPEDSTORAGEHYDROPOWERTECHNOLOGY
Aconfidentialinhousereferencestudyforanindependentpowerproducerwasusedfor thepointestimate,andtherangewasestablishedbasedonhistoricaldata.ThePSHcost estimateassumedanetcapacityof500MWwith10hoursofstorage.A2010capitalcost wasestimatedat2,004$/kW+50%.AppendixDprovidesadditionaldetailoncost considerationsforPSHtechnologies.Thisisamaturetechnologywithnocostimprovement assumedovertime..AlistofcurrentFERCpreliminarylicensesindicatesanaveragesize between500and800MW.CostandperformancedataforPSHarepresentedinTable36.
54
Table36.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaPumpedStorageHydropowerPlant(500MW) Quick Start Ramp Rate (%/min.) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Year 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Capital Cost ($/kW) 2297 2230 2230 2230 2230 2230 2230 2230 2230 2230
Variable O&M ($/MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fixed O&M ($/kWyr) 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8
RoundTrip Efficiency (%) 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
FOR (%) 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
POR (%) 3.80 3.80 3.80 3.80 3.80 3.80 3.80 3.80 3.80
Min. Load (%) 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33
Spin Ramp Rate (%/min.) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
55
Thecapitalcostbreakdownforthepumpedstoragehydropowerplantisshownin Figure18.
$370/kW , 17% $420/kW , 19%
Upper reservoir Tunels
$135 , 6% $80 , 4% $390/kW , 17%
Powerhouse excavation Powerhouse Engineering, procurement, construction management services Owner's cost
Total: $2,230/kW +50%
$835/kW , 37%
Figure18.CapitalCostbreakdownforapumpedstoragehydropowerplant
Pumpedhydroelectricpowerplantcostsavingswilloccurprimarilyinthepowerhouse categoryovertime.
4.3BATTERYENERGYSTORAGETECHNOLOGY
Aconfidentialinhousereferencestudyforanindependentpowerproducerhasbeenused forthepointestimate,andtherangehasbeenestablishedbasedonhistoricaldata.The batteryproxywasassumedtobeasodiumsulfidetypewithanetcapacityof7.2MW.The storagewasassumedtobe8.1hours.Acapitalcostisestimatedat3,990$/kW(or1,000 $/kWand350$/kWh)+75%.Costimprovementovertimewasassumedfordevelopment ofasignificantnumberofnewbatteryoptions.Table37presentscostandperformance dataforbatteryenergystorage.TheO&Mcostincludesthecostofbatteryreplacement every5,000hours.
56
Table37.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaBatteryEnergyStoragePlant(7.2MW) Quick Start Ramp Rate (%/sec) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
(Year) 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Capital Cost ($/kW) 4110 3990 3890 3790 3690 3590 3490 3390 3290 3190
Variable O&M ($/MWh) 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59
Fixed O&M ($/kWyr) 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2
RoundTrip Efficiency (%) 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
FOR (%) 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
POR (%) 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55
Min. Load (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spin Ramp Rate (%/sec) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
57
ThecapitalcostbreakdownforthebatteryenergystorageplantisshowninFigure19.
$600/kW,15% $1920/kW,48% $140/kW,4% Owner'sCost Engineering,Procurement, ConstructionManagement Services PowerConversion Battery $1330/kW,33%
Total: $3,990/kW +75%

Figure19.CapitalCostBreakdownforaBatteryEnergyStoragePlant
Batteryenergystorageplantcostreductionswilloccurprimarilyinthebatterycost categoryovertime.
58
5References
Kane,M.(2005,April).CaliforniaSmallHydropowerandOceanWaveEnergy:Resourcesin Supportofthe2005IntegratedEnergyPolicyReport.StaffpaperpresentedattheCalifornia EnergyCommission,May9,2005.CEC5002005074.Sacramento,CA:CaliforniaEnergy Commission. Coulomb,L.;Neuhoff,K.(2006,February).LearningCurvesandChangingProduct Attributes:theCaseofWindTurbines.CWPE0618andEPRG0601.Cambridge:Electricity PolicyResearchGroup,UniversityofCambridge. Delaquil,P.;Goldstein,G.;Wright,E.(n.d.).USTechnologyChoices,CostsandOpportunities undertheLiebermanWarnerClimateSecurityAct:AssessingCompliancePathways. http://docs.nrdc.org/globalWarming/files/glo_08051401a.pdf. InternationalEnergyAgency(EIA).(2000).ExperienceCurvesforEnergyTechnologyPolicy. ISBN92641765002000.Paris:InternationalEnergyAgency.http://www.iea .org/textbase/nppdf/free/2000/curve2000.pdf. ElectricPowerResearchInstitute(EPRI).(n.d.).Tidalenergyreports. http://oceanenergy.epri.com/streamenergy.html #reports. EPRI.(n.d.).Waveenergyreports.http://oceanenergy.epri.com/waveenergy.html#reports FERC(FederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission).(2008,June).IncreasingCostsinElectric Markets.http://www.ferc.gov/legal/staffreports/061908costelectric.pdf. FolleyM.;ElsaesserB.;WhittakerT.(2009,September)AnalysisoftheWaveEnergy ResourceattheEuropeanMarineEnergyCentre.Belfast:Belfast:QueensUniversityBelfast; RPSGroupPlc. GTP(GeothermalTechnologiesProgram),U.S.DepartmentofEnergy(DOE).(2008a).Multi YearResearch,DevelopmentandDemonstrationPlan:20092015withProgramActivitiesto 2025(DRAFT).Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofEnergy,EnergyEfficiencyand RenewableEnergy.https://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/pdfs/gtp_myrdd_2009 complete.pdf. GTP.(2008b).AnEvaluationofEnhancedGeothermalSystemsTechnology.Washington, DC:U.S.DepartmentofEnergy,EnergyEfficiencyandRenewableEnergy.http://www1.eere. energy.gov/geothermal/pdfs/evaluation_egs_tech_2008.pdf. Hagerman,G.;Bedard,R.;Previsic,M.(2004a,June)."E2IEPRISurveyandCharacterization ofPotentialOffshoreWaveEnergySitesinMaine.PaloAlto,CA:ElectricPowerResearch Institute.E2IEPRIWP003ME.http://oceanenergy.epri.com/ attachments/wave/reports/003_Maine_Site_Report_Rev_1.pdf EPRI.(2004b,May)."E2IEPRISurveyandCharacterizationofPotentialOffshoreWave EnergySitesinWashington.PaloAlto,CA:ElectricPowerResearchInstitute.E2IEPRIWP WA003.http://oceanenergy.epri.com/attachments/wave/reports/003_Washington_ Site_Report.pdf EPRI.(2004c,May)."E2IEPRISurveyandCharacterizationofPotentialOffshoreWave EnergySitesinOregon.PaloAlto,CA:ElectricPowerResearchInstitute.E2IEPRIWPOR 003.http://oceanenergy.epri.com/attachments/wave/reports/003_Oregon_Site_ Report.pdf
BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|5References 59
IHSCambridgeEnergyResearchAssociates(CERA).(2009).PowerCapitalCostsIndexShows ConstructionCostsPeakingin2009forAllTypesOfNewPowerPlants.June23,2009. http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/news/pressReleases/pressReleaseDetails.aspx ?CID=10429.AccessedSeptember24,2010. Kelton,S.;Sturgeon,J.I.;Richman,B.(2009,October).WhichWayForward?Alternative PathsforGeneratingElectricityinAmericasHeartland:HowwillMissouri,Oklahoma, NebraskaandKansasCopewiththeChallengesandOpportunitiesthatLieAhead?Economic ConsultingSolutions,Inc. Lazard(2009,February).LevelizedCostofEnergyAnalysisVersion3.0. Lovekin,J.;Pletka,R.(2010).GeothermalAssessmentasPartofCalifornia'sRenewable EnergyTransmissionInitiative(RETI).InproceedingsoftheWorldGeothermalCongress 2010,Bali,Indonesia,April2529,2010. OConnell,R.;Pletka,R.(2007).20PercentWindEnergyPenetrationintheUnitedStates:A TechnicalAnalysisoftheEnergyResource.144864.PreparedbyBlack&Veatch,Overland Park,KS.Washington,DC:AmericanWindEnergyAssociation. Pletka,R.;Finn,J.(2009,October).WesternRenewableEnergyZones,Phase1:QRA IdentificationTechnicalReport.NREL/SR6A246877.WorkperformedbyBlack&Veatch Corporation,OverlandPark,KS.Golden,CO:NationalRenewableEnergyLaboratory. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/46877.pdf. Shelley,S.(2008).BuyingaGasTurbine,NoQuickPick.TurbomachineryInternational (January/February2008).
BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|5References
60
AppendixA.EnergyEstimateforWaveEnergy Technologies
RESOURCEESTIMATE
ThisappendixdocumentsananalysisofthewaveenergyresourceintheUnitedStatesand providesthebasisforinformationpresentedinSection0above.
CoastlineoftheUnitedStates
UsingGoogleEarth,Black&VeatchsketchedaroughoutlineoftheEastandWestCoastsof theUnitedStates,anddividedeachintocoastalsegmentstomatchtheavailablewavedata, asdescribedinFigureA1andTableA1.ThestatesofAlaskaandHawaiiwerenotincluded.
FigureA1.DesignatedCoastalSegments E1:Portland,ME(4.9kW/m@19m) W1:NeahBay,WA(26.5kW/m@?m) E2:Middle(13.8kW/m@74m) W2:Coquille,OR(21.2kW/m@64m) W3:SanFrancisco,CA(20kW/m@52m) E3:SouthEast(kW/m@m) TableA1.LengthofCoastlinesinUnitedStates CoastalSegment CoastlineLength(km) W1 W2 W3 WestTotal E1 E2 E3 EastTotal 238 492 1322 2052 465 942 1390 2797 Description Washington Oregon California MaineMassachusetts MassachusettsNorthCarolina NorthCarolinaFlorida
BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|AppendixA.EnergyEstimateforWaveEnergyTechnologies
61
WaveEnergyResource
WaveenergyresourcedataforWestCoastsites(Washington,Oregon,andCalifornia)and northernEastCoastsites(MaineandMassachusetts)wereextractedfromseveralrelevant reports(EPRIn.d.). Inadditiontodatafromasmallnumberofspecificbuoys,EPRI(n.d.)containedannual averagepowerforsitesalongthecoastsofselectedstates,asshownonFigureA2.These datawereusedtoestimatethewaveenergyresourceforthecontiguousUnitedStates.
Maine(E1) (Hagermanetal.2004a)
Washington(W1) (Hagermanetal.2004b)
Oregon(W2) (Hagermanetal.2004c)
FigureA2.WaveFluxforMaine,Washington,andOregon
InadditiontotheEPRIdata,wavefluxresults(inkW/m),fromKane(2005,Table8)were alsousedtoestimateCaliforniaswaveenergyresourceasshowninFigureA3.Mostsites assessedinKanearedeeperthan100m,butapproximately3ofthe10sitesarefrom shallowerbuoys,includingDelNorte(60m),Mendocino(82m),andSantaCruz(13m,60 80m).
62
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES Del Norte Humboldt Mendocino Sonoma SanFrancisco Monterey Santa Barbara Los Angeles San Diego 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 26.4 32.2 35 40 28 29.7 28.5 32.2 30.3
27.8 33.7
Wave Flux (kW/m) FigureA3.WaveFluxforCalifornia (CoastalsegmentW3,FigureA1)(Kane2005,Table8)
Theavailabledatawereusedtoestimateanaveragewaveenergyresourceforeachcoastal segment.Asaspotcheck,theEPRI(n.d.)cites20kW/mwavefluxat52mdepthattheSan Franciscosite,whichapproximatelymatchesthe30kW/mcitedbyKane(2005,Table8)for SanFranciscoatadeepsite.Consequently,bothstudieswereusedwithrelativeconfidence. Nowaveresourcedatawerefoundforthecentral(E2,FigureA1)andsouthern(E3)East Coast.
Normalizingto50mDepth
Allwaveresourceswerenormalizedtoa50mdepthcontour.Thisdepthisbelievedto representforthenext10yearstheaveragedepthtargetedbymostwaveenergydevelopers, andisthebasisforthecostestimatespresentedbelow.Withinthenext50years,exploiting thewaveenergyresourceatgreaterdepthswilllikelybepossible.Whilemoreenergymay beavailableatdeepersites,itmightnotbeascommerciallyexploitable,asthewave directionwouldbemorevariableandgridconnectioncostswouldincreasesignificantly. Thewaveenergydatapresentedabovearesourcedfromdeepwateroffthecontinental shelf.ResultsfromastudybyQueensUniversityBelfast&RPSGroup(Folleyetal.2009) wereusedtoestimatetheresourceat50mdepth.Usingwavedataandmodelingforthe EuropeanMarineEnergyCentre(EMEC)siteinScotland,Folleyetal.calculatedthegross (omnidirectional),net(directionallyresolved),andexploitable(netpowerlessthanfour timesthemeanpowerdensity)foranumberofsitedepths.Figure A4showstheresultsfromthisstudy. Giventhelackofotheravailabledata,Black&VeatchassumedtheEMECresultsapplytothe UnitedStatesandusedthemtoestimategrosspowerat50mdepthfromU.S.offshorewave datafromthepreviouslymentionedsources(takentobeoffshorealldirections).By multiplyingtheU.S.offshoredataby23.5/41(asreadfromFigureA4),thewavefluxwas normalizedto50mdepth.
63
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Offshore (all directions) Offshore 50m deep wave site 30m deep wave site 10m deep wave site
Average incident wave power density (kW/m)
Gross power
Net power
Exploitable power
FigureA4.Grossv.ExploitablePoweratVaryingSeaDepths (Folleyetal.2009,p.7)
However,theparticularsiteconditionsattheEMECsitemightmeantheseconclusionsare notapplicabletoallsites.Localbathymetrycancreatehighandlowresourceareas,andthe seabedslopeisrelativelysteepattheEMECsite,whichreducesthedistancebetweendeep andshallowsitesandtheenergydissipatedbetweenthem.Itis,forexample,clearfrom FigureA2thatthewaveenergyresourcedissipationfromoffshoretonearshoreismuch higherinOregonthanitisinWashington. AdditionalstudiesareneededtoestablishthevalidityofthisrelationshipfortheU.S. coastline,butitisbelievedtobeareasonablefirstestimate.
Directionality
Black&VeatchwasnotabletolocatedirectionalwavedataforU.S.sites;adirectionalityof 0.9,whichhashistoricallybeenusedforUKwaveenergysites,wasthereforeassumedfor theBaseCase. APessimisticScenario(lowdeployment)andanOptimisticScenario(highdeployment)were developedtoreflecttheuncertaintyintheU.S.waveresource.InthePessimisticScenarioand theOptimisticScenario,factorsof0.8and1.0respectivelywereappliedtoreflectthefactthat atsomesitesthewaveresourceismorefocusedthanatothers(particularlyinshallower waters)andthatsomewavedevicesareabletocopewithdirectionalitymoreefficientlythan others(e.g.,pointabsorbers).
Spacing
Thespacingbetweenthedeviceswasnotconsideredintheestimateofthewaveenergy resource,astheresourcestudyisbasedonavailablewaveenergyperwavefront.Hence,no farmconfigurationwasconsideredforthewavedevices,andenergyavailableisbasedonly onapercentageofextractionfromtheavailableresource.
64
ConversionfromAbsorbedPowertoElectricalPower
Awaveenergyconverterefficiencyof70%fromtheabsorbedpowertotheelectricalpower generatedatshorewasgenerallyassumed,as70%isthetypicalvalueusedforwavedevices. InthePessimisticScenario,efficiencyof60%isassumedand80%isassumedinthe OptimisticScenario.
ExploitableCoastline
IntheBaseCase,50%ofthecoastlinelengthwasestimatedtobeexploitable.Inthe OptimisticScenario,thefulllengthofcoastlinewasconsideredexploitable,reflectingthefact thatifasitewouldnotbesuitablefordevelopmentat50minthenextfewyears,itmightbe exploitableatdeeperorshallowerwatersinthenext50years.UnderthePessimistic Scenario,25%ofthecoastlinewasconsideredexploitable.
ExtractableEnergyfromtheWaveResource
Clearly,thewholeenergyresourcecannotbeextractedfromthewavefrontwithout impactingtheenvironmentandtheprojecteconomics.Black&Veatchdidnotconsider environmentalissuesandsetthecriteriaforextractablewaveenergyontheeconomicalcut offpoint.Asawaveenergyprojectisbelievedtobeuneconomicalforwaveresourcelower thana15kW/mthreshold,thepercentageofextractablepowercomparedtotheavailable resourcewassettoensuretheavailablewaveresourcedoesnotdropbelowthiseconomic threshold.
WaveEnergyRegime
ThewaveresourcewasclassifiedintowaveenergyregimesasshowninTableA2.
TableA2.WaveEnergyRegimeClassification WaveEnergyRegime VeryLow Low Medium High WaveFluxat50mDepth(kW/m) <15 1520 2025 >25
Thewaveenergyresource(inkW/m)datawerereviewedforeachsite,andasplitinthe resourcewasestimated(TableA3).Forexample,becauseapproximately10ofthe13data pointsfortheW2(Oregon)coastlinehaveawaveenergyresourceabove25kW/m,75%of theresourcewasestimatedashigh,withtheremainderbeingestimatedasmedium.

TableA3.WaveEnergyRegimeSplit W1 W2 W3 E1 E2 E3 VeryLow 100% 100% 100% Low 100% Medium 100% 25% High 0% 75%

BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|AppendixA.EnergyEstimateforWaveEnergyTechnologies 65
CoastalsegmentE1(FigureA1),withapeakaverageoffshorewaveenergyresourceofless than20kW/m,correspondingtoanequivalentwaveenergyresourceoflessthan11kW/m at50m,wasclassifiedasverylowandwasnotcountedinthewaveresourceestimate. CoastalsegmentsE2andE3werebothassumedtohaveamilderwaveregimethanE1,and thereforetoalsofallintotheverylowcategoryandwerenotincludedintheresource estimate.
WaveEnergyMeanAnnualResource
Bymultiplyingtheaveragewaveenergyresource(at50mdepth)foreachsegmentbythe coastallength,andthewaveenergyregimesplit(TableATable3),theU.S.waveenergy resourcewasestimatedfortheBaseCaseasshowninTableA4.Thisestimatedoesnot construeanydevicecapacityfactorsbutdoestakeintoaccountthedirectionality, efficiencies,andexploitablepercentageexplainedabove.ThevaluesaregiveninMW,and hencetheyrepresentmeanannualelectricalpower.
TableA4.MeanAnnualU.S.WaveEnergyResource(MW)BaseCase CoastalSegment W1 W2 W3 WestTotal EastTotal TOTAL Low 1,539 1,500 1,500 Medium 707 476 1,200 1,200 High 1,429 1,400 1,400 Total 707 1,905 1,539 4,100 4,100
Asexplainedabove,themeanannualU.S.waveenergyresourceforthePessimisticand OptimisticScenariosareshowninTableA5andTableA6respectively,consistentwiththe directionality,thespacing,andthepercentageofcoastlineexploitableassumptionsforthese Scenariosdescribedabove.

TableA5.MeanAnnualU.S.WaveEnergyResource(MW)PessimisticScenario CoastalSegment W1 W2 W3 WestTotal EastTotal TOTAL Low 586 600 600 Medium 269 181 500 500 High 544 500 500 Total 269 726 586 1,600 1,600
66
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES TableA6.MeanAnnualU.S.WaveEnergyResource(MW)OptimisticScenario Coastal Segment W1 W2 W3 West Total East Total TOTAL Low 3,908 3,900 3,900 Medium 1,795 1,210 3,000 3,000 High 3,629 3,600 3,600 Total 1,795 4,838 3,908 10,500 10,500
CapacityFactor
TheU.S.waveresourceissmallerthantheUKresource.Black&Veatchbaseditscost estimatesonUKbasedtechnologiesdesignedmostlyforUKsites.Theratedpowerand powermatrixthatisbeingusedinthiscostestimatewasdevelopedforanaverageUKsiteof approximately30kW/m,whichishigherthanforanyU.S.site.Typically,technology developerswouldchangetheratedpowerconditionsandtuningoftheirdevicetomatcha lowerpowerresourcesite,however,inthisanalysisthetechnologieshavenotbeen optimizedforthedifferentsiteconditions. TableA7showsthecapacityfactorsthatwereappliedinthecostestimatesforthedifferent resourcebands.Asexplainedabove,thesearelowerthantheywouldbeifthedevicewere optimizedspecificallyforaU.S.siteratherthanforaUKsite,butthisisnotexpectedtomake asignificantdifferencetotheresults,bearinginmindtheotherpotentialuncertaintiesinthe analysis.
TableA7.CapacityFactorsfortheDifferentResourceBandsintheUnitedStates ResourceBand Low(15kW/m20kW/m) Medium(20kW/m25kW/m) High(25kW/m30kW/m) RepresentativeSite Massachusetts Oregon UK CapacityFactor 15% 20% 25%
InstalledCapacityLimitsintheUnitedStates
ThevaluesinTablesA4toA6areannualaveragepowergenerationastheywerecalculated fromtheannualwaveenergyresourceavailablefromthewavefront.Toestimatethe correspondinginstalledcapacity,thevaluesstatedaboveweredividedbythecapacity factorsgiveninTableA7.Clearly,majoruncertaintiesareinherenttothewaveresourcein theUnitedStates,andhencethetotalwaveenergyresourcerangesfrom9,000MWto55,000 MWelectricalinstalledcapacity(includingefficiencies),asshowninTableA8and FigureA5.
67
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES Low (15-20 kW/m) 60000 Installed Capacity (MW) 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 Pessimistic Base Optimistic Medium (20-25 kW/m) High (>25 kW/m)
FigureA5
TableA8.U.S.WaveEnergyResource(MW)InstalledCapacitySummaryforallScenarios Scenario LowBand (1520kW/m) Pessimistic BaseCase Optimistic 4,000 10,000 26,000 MediumBand (2025kW/m) 3,000 6,000 15,000 HighBand (>25kW/m) 2,000 6,000 14,000 9,000 22,000 55,000 Total
Low (15-20 kW/m) 60000 Installed Capacity (MW) 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 Pessimistic Base Optimistic Medium (20-25 kW/m) High (>25 kW/m)
FigureA5.Waveresourceestimatefordifferentscenarios
68
COSTOFENERGYESTIMATE
ToforecastthefuturecostofenergyofwavepowerintheUnitedStates,anumberofkey assumptionsmustbemade.Initially,adeploymentscenariomustbegeneratedtoforecast thepotentialgrowthoftheindustry;astartingcostofenergymustbedeterminedbasedon thecurrentmarketcosts;and,alearningrateorcurveisrequiredtoreflectpotential reductionsinthecostofenergywithtime.ThissectiondetailsBlack&Veatchsmethodsto determineafutureforecastofthepotentialeconomicsofthewavepowerindustryinthe UnitedStates. Giventherelativeuncertaintiesduetotheearlystageofthewavepowermarket,an OptimisticScenario,aBaseCase,andaPessimisticScenariowereconsideredforthe deploymentrates,costofelectricity,andlearningrates.TheBaseCaserepresentsBlack& Veatchsmostlikelyestimate,whiletheOptimisticandPessimisticScenariosrepresentthe potentialrangeoftheprimaryuncertaintiesintheanalysis.
WaveDeploymentEstimate GlobalDeployment
Globaldeploymentisrequiredtodrivethelearningrateofatechnology;therefore,Black& Veatchdevelopedanassumptionforthedeploymentofwaveenergyconvertersgloballyto 2050.Thisestimatewasmadeidentifyingtheplannedshortterm(to2030)future deploymentsoftheleadingwaveenergyconvertertechnologies.Thegrowthratefrom2020 to2030wasthenusedasabasistoestimatethegrowthto2050.Thisgrowthratewas decreasedannuallyby1%from2030andeachsubsequentyearinordertorepresenta naturalslowingofgrowththatislikelytooccur.Theyear2030waschosenasthestartdate fortheslowdownasthiswouldrepresentapproximately20yearsofhighgrowth,whichis reasonablebasedonslowdownsexperiencedinotherindustries(e.g.,wind)thathave reflectedresourceandsupplychainconstraints. Notalldevelopersarelikelytoprovesuccessful,andnaturally,notallplannedinstallations willproceed.Assuch,weightingfactorswereappliedtoreflecttheuncertaintyrelatedto boththedeveloperspotentialsuccessandtheirprojectssuccess.
DeploymentintheUnitedStates
DeploymentintheUnitedStateshasbeenbasedonthegrowthrateofglobaldeployment. Thecurrentinstalledcapacityandtheplannedinstalledcapacityfor2010intheUnited Stateswerecalculated.Thesestartingvalueswerethenusedincombinationwiththeglobal growthratetodeterminethescenariosforU.S.deploymentto2050.Thegrowthratesforthe OptimisticScenario,theBaseCase,andthePessimisticScenariowerebasedon25%ofhigh, 16%ofbase,and8%oflowglobaldeploymentscenariosrespectivelyandthereforeeach wasassignedauniquegrowthrate.Thetotalresourceinstalledcapacitiesestimatesforthe scenarioscalculatedabovewereapplied.FigureA6showstheresultsoftheanalysis.
69
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES 60000 50000 40000 MW Installed 30000 20000 10000 0 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 Year FigureA6.DeploymentScenariosforWavePowerintheUnitedStatesto2050 2038 2043 2048
U.S. deployment high U.S. deployment medium U.S. deployment low High resource limit Base resource limit Low resource limit
TheanalysisshowsthattheUnitedStatescouldinstalltoapproximately13gigawatt(GW)by 2050intheBaseCasewithanOptimisticdeploymentscenarioofapproximately28.5GW;the Pessimisticdeploymentscenarioinstalled2.5GWby2050;noneofthescenariosreachesits respectivedeploymentlimit.Thegrowthratesvaryamongthedeploymentscenarios;these differentratesarethemajorcontributingfactortothelargevarianceamongthescenarios andreflectthecurrentlackofunderstandingoftheU.S.resourceandtheearlystageof developmentofthewaveenergyconverterindustry.
DeploymentAssumption
GiventherelativelylowenergydensityofU.S.waveresourcesites,itwasassumedthat1) developerswouldaimtomaximiseprojecteconomicsforearlyprojectsandwouldthus deployonlyatsitesinthehighbandwaveresource,2)thatwhenthisisexhausted,the mediumbandresourcesiteswouldbeexploited,and3)thatthelowresourcesiteswouldbe usedonlyafterthemediumbandresourcewasexhausted.Itisalsoassumedthattheeffects ofthelearningcurvewillmakethemediumandlowresourcesitesmorefeasibleinthe future.Thisorderofexploitationisakeyassumptionusedthroughoutthecostmodelling andwillnaturallyresult,asseenbelow,indistinctoffsetsincostofelectricityprojectionsat thepointsoftransitionbetweentheresourcebands.
DeploymentConstraints
Thedeploymentgrowthislimitedonlybytheresourceconstraints.Itwasassumedthatall otherfactorsimpactingdeploymentwouldbeaddressed,includingbutnotlimitedto: financialrequirements,supplychaininfrastructure,sitespecificrequirements,planning,and supportinggridinfrastructure.
70
Learning
Toformajudgmentastothelikelylearningratesthatcanreasonablybeassumedforthe comingyears,itisappropriatetofirstconsiderempiricallearningratesfromotheremerging renewableenergyindustries.Thissectionprovidesanoverviewoflearningexperiencefrom similardevelopingindustries,suggestsapplicablelearningratesforwavetechnology,and considersscenariosforfuturegenerationcosts.FigureA7showslearningratedatafora rangeofemergingrenewableenergytechnologies.
FigureA7.LearninginRenewableEnergyTechnologies (IEA2000)
Costandcumulativecapacityareobservedtoexhibitastraightlinewhenplottedonaloglog diagram;mathematically,thisstraightlineindicatesthatanincreasebyafixedpercentageof cumulativeinstalledcapacitygivesaconsistentpercentagereductionincost.Forexample, theprogressratioforphotovoltaicsduring19851995wasapproximately65%(learning rateapproximately35%),andtheprogressratioforwindpowerbetween1980and1995 was82%(learningrate18%). Anydiscussionastothelikelylearningratesthatmaybeexperiencedinthewaveenergy industrywillbesubjective.Theclosestanalogyforthewaveindustryhasbeenassumedto bethewindindustry.Aprogressratioaslowaswindenergy(82%)isnotexpectedforthe waveindustryforthefollowingreasons: Inwind,muchofthelearningwasaresultofdoingthesamethingbiggerorupsizing ratherthandoingthesameorsomethingnew.Thisupsizinghasprobablybeenthe singlemostimportantcontributortocostreductionforwind,contributingapproximately 7%tothe18%learningrate.6Mostwaveenergydevices(particularlyresonantdevices) donotworkinthisway.Acertainsizeofdeviceisrequiredforaparticularlocationto minimizetheenergycost,andsimplymakinglargerdevicesdoesnotreduceenergycosts inthesameway.Nevertheless,wavedevicescanbenefitfromtheeconomiesofscalesof buildingfarmswithlargerdevicesandlargernumbersofdevices.
See,forexample,CoulombandNeuhoff2006,whichcalculatesan11%learningrateforwind excludinglearningduetoupsizing.
6
71
Unlikewindinwhichthemarketasmostlyadoptedasingletechnicalsolution(3bladed horizontalaxisturbine),therearemanydifferenttechnologyoptionsforwaveenergy devicesandthereislittleindicationatthisstageastowhichtechnologyisthebest solution.Thisindicatesthatlearningratereductionswilltakelongertorealizewhen measuredagainstcumulativeindustrycapacity. Thelearningratesforwaveenergyconvertershavebeendevelopedaspertheabove discussionandarepresentedinTableA9.ThelearningratesfortheUnitedStateswere assumedtobe1%lessthanwhatwouldbeexpectedintheUK,astheenergydensitiesofthe perspectivesitesarelower(whichsuggeststhattheremaybelessroomforcost improvement).
TableA9.LearningRates
Scenario Optimistic BaseCase
LearningRate 15% 11.5%
Pessimistic 8%
CostofEnergy CostInputData
Black&Veatchuseditsexperienceinthewaveenergyconverterindustrytodevelopacost ofelectricityforafirst10MWfarmassuming50MWinstalledglobally,whicheffectively representsthecostoftheinitialcommercialfarm;thesecostsarepresentedinTableA10. Thecostspresentedareconsideredanindustryaveragecoveringbothoffshoreandnear shorewavetechnologies.Learningrateswereappliedtothecostofelectricityonlyafterthe 50MWofcapacitywasinstalledworldwide.
72
TableA10.CostEstimatefora10MWWaveFarmafterInstallationof50MW Costs($million) Resource Costs Capital 73 62 50 77 66 53 81 68 56 Operating (annual) 4.6 3.9 3.4 4.8 4.1 3.5 5.0 4.4 3.8 Performance(%) CapacityFactor 23% 25% 28% 18% 20% 22% 14% 15% 17% Availability 88% 92% 95% 88% 92% 95% 88% 92% 95% CostofElectricity(c/kWh)
HighbandResource (2530kW/m)
Pessimistic BaseCase Optimistic
69 50 37 91 67 49 127 94 69
MediumbandResource Pessimistic (2025kW/m) BaseCase Optimistic LowbandResource (1520kW/m) Pessimistic BaseCase Optimistic
ThePessimisticandOptimisticScenariosweregeneratedtoindicatetheuncertaintiesintheanalysis.
73
GeneralAssumptions
Thesegeneralassumptionswereusedforthisanalysis: Projectlife:20years Discountrate:8%. Deviceavailability:90%intheBaseCase,92%intheOptimisticScenario,and88%inthe PessimisticScenario. Also,thecostofelectricitypresentedisin2008dollarsandfutureinflationhasnotbeen accountedfor.
CostofEnergy
Thecostofelectricitydirectlydependsonthelearningcurveandthedeploymentrate.Figure A8showsthecostofelectricityforecastfortheBaseCaselearningrateandtheBaseCase deploymentscenario(TableA9andFigureA6respectively)basedontheOptimistic,Base Case,andPessimisticcosts(TableA8).TheOptimisticandPessimisticcurvesinthefigure representtheupperandlowercostuncertaintybandsfortheBaseCasedeployment assumptionandlearningrate.
Base 90 80 70 60 CoE (c/kWh) 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 10 100 1,000 MW Installed 10,000 100,000 Optimistic Pessimistic
FigureA8.CostofenergyprojectionwithinstalledcapacityforBaseCasedeploymentandlearningrates
TheBaseCasecostofenergyfallsto17c/kWhafterapproximately5.5GWisinstalled however,thecostofelectricitythenincreasesasthebestsiteshavebeenexploitedandis 27c/kWhafter13GWisinstalled(2050).Thetwospikesinthegraphshowtheeffectof movingfromthehighbandresourcetothemediumbandresourceandfromthemedium bandtothelowbandresource. FigureA9showstheOptimisticdeploymentscenarioandlearningrateswiththeOptimistic, BaseCase,andPessimisticcosts.Theseassumptionshaveaconsiderableeffectonthecostof electricity,withtheOptimisticcostofelectricityreducingtoalowpointofapproximately 8c/kWh(BaseCase12c/kWh)afterapproximately14GWisinstalledbeforerisingasthe highbandresourceisexhaustedandthemediumbandresourceisused;thecostof
BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|AppendixA.EnergyEstimateforWaveEnergyTechnologies 74
electricitythenfallstoapproximately9c/kWh(BaseCase13c/kWh)after28.5GWis installed.Sufficientresourceisconsideredtobeavailablesothatthelowbandresourceis notrequiredby2050.

Base 90 80 70 60 CoE (c/kWh) 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 10 100 1,000 MW installed FigureA9.Costofenergy(projectionwithinstalledcapacityforOptimistic deploymentandlearningrates 10,000 100,000 Optimistic Pessimistic
FigureA10showsthePessimisticdeploymentandlearningrateswiththeOptimistic,Base Case,andPessimisticcosts.Inthisscenario,therearenohighbandresourcesites;therefore, theanalysisstartsfromthemediumbandresourcebeforemovingtothelowbandresource. ThePessimisticcostofelectricityfallstoalowpointofapproximately34c/kWh(BaseCase 24c/kWh)afterapproximately2GWisinstalled;theinstallationsthenrequirethelowband resourcewherethecostofelectricityfinisheson42c/kWh(BaseCase31c/kWh)after2.5GW isinstalled.
75
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES Base Optimistic Pessimistic
80 70 60 CoE (c/kWh) 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 10
100
1,000 MW Installed
10,000
100,000
FigureA10.Costofenergy(c/kWh)overprojectionwithinstalledcapacityfor Pessimisticdeploymentandlearningrates
CapitalandOperatingCosts
ThecapitalcostsfortheBaseCase,Optimistic,andPessimisticScenariosandtheBaseCase operatingexpenditurecoststo2050areshowninTableA11.Asstatedabove,developers wereassumedtoinstallfirstatsitesinthehighbandresource,thenatsitesinmediumband resources,andfinallyatsitesinthelowbandresource;inTableA11,thecostshighlighted ingreen,orange,andredcorrespondtoahigh,mediumandlowresourcebands, respectively.TheconstructionscheduleandoutageratesrelatetotheBaseCase.Thedatain TableA11relatedirectlytothecostsprojectedinFigureA8;theBaseCaseovernightcosts weretakenfromtheBaseCase(middle)curveinFigureA8;thelowovernightcostswere takenfromthebestcase(lowercurve)oftheOptimisticScenario(FigureA9);and,thehigh overnightcostsweretakenfromtheworstcase(uppercurve)ofthePessimisticScenario (FigureA10).
76
TableA11.CapitalandOperatingCoststo2050 Optimistic Overnight Cost High Deployment/ Learning Rate Pessimistic Overnight Cost Low Deployment/ Learning Rate
Year 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Base Case Capacity Factor (%)
Base Case Overnight Cost ($/kW)
Base Case Fixed O&M ($/kW-Yr)
Construction Schedule (Months)
Planned Outage Rate (%)
Forced Outage Rate (%)
25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 20% 15%
14,579 9,336 7,030 5,756 4,782 3,989 3,451 4,094 5,379
11,400 6,252 4,283 3,282 2,564 2,015 1,662 1,888 1,727
18,482 13,558 11,308 9,886 8,714 7,746 7,059 6,603 8,318
741 474 357 292 243 203 175 208 273
24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7%
ThedatafortheBaseCaseandOptimisticScenarioswhichassumethesame(BaseCase)costofelectricitystartingpointin2015,alongwiththeestimated cumulativeinstalledcapacityintheUnitedStatesarealsopresentedinTableA12.ThefollowingresultsaretakenfromthemidcasesoftheBaseCase andOptimisticScenarios).
77
TableA12.CapitalandOperatingCoststo2050(SameStartingCostsMiddleCases) Base Case MW Installed (in U.S.) 5 19 37 140 371 670 881 735 Base Case Overnight Cost ($/kW) 9,336 7,030 5,756 4,782 3,989 3,451 4,039 5,379 Base Case Fixed O&M ($/kW-yr) 474 357 292 243 203 175 205 273 MW Installed (in U.S.) 11 41 80 304 804 1,452 1,910 1,592 Optimistic Scenario Base Case Overnight Cost ($/kW) 9,336 6,397 4,902 3,830 3,009 2,482 2,804 2,565 Base Case Fixed O&M ($/kW) 474 325 249 195 153 126 142 130
Year 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
78
DataConfidenceLevels
Theuncertaintyassociatedwiththeresourcedataisdiscussedintheresourceestimatesection above.Thegreatestuncertaintyforresourceestimatesstemsfromthefactthattheavailabledatais locatedmostlyinverydeepregionsthatwouldnotbesuitableforinstallationofwaveenergy devices.Asaconsequence,thedatawereextrapolatedtoshallowerregions.Thismajoruncertainty fortheWestCoastresourcecouldbereducedbyusinghydrodynamicmodelstoestimatethewave energyresourceatdifferentdepths7.Thetotallackofdataforthemiddle(E2,FigureA1)and lower(E3)EastCoastoftheUnitedStatesalsoaddsuncertaintytotheresourceandcostestimates. However,becausethewaveenergyresourceisbelievedtoberelativelysmallintheseregions,the U.S.resourceassessmentcouldbeimprovedbyinvestigatingtheremainingareas(E1,FigureA2) toconfirmthatthewaveenergyresourceisnotsignificantontheEastCoast. ThecostdataprovidedinthisreportwerebasedonBlack&Veatchsexperienceworkingwith leadingwavetechnologydevelopers,substantiatedbyearlyprototypecostsandsupplychain quotes.Thesedataarebelievedtorepresentaviableestimateoffuturecosts;however,theindustry isstillinitsinfancy;andthereforethesecostsareinthemainestimates.Thisuncertaintyis reflectedintherelativelylargeerrorbands. Thedeploymentscenarioswerebasedonpotentialinstallationsgloballydeemedrealistic;however, theyareaforecastandthereforesubjecttosignificantuncertainty.Deploymentwillultimatelybe drivenbynumerousvariables,includingfinancing,gridconstraints,governmentpolicy,andthe strengthofthesupplychain.
Summary
Thedeploymentanalysisindicatesthatapproximately12.5GWofwavegenerationcouldbe installedintheUnitedStatesby2050intheBaseCasewithapproximately27GWby2050underan Optimistic(highdeployment)scenario,and2.5GWby2050underaPessimistic(lowdeployment) scenario.Noneofthescenariosreachtheirrespectiveresourceceilings. Thecostofelectricityanalysisestimatesa17c/kWhcostofelectricityforBaseCaseassumptions afterapproximately5GWisinstalled(2050BaseCaseinstalledcapacity);afterapproximately13 GWisinstalledthecostofelectricityis27c/kWh.IntheOptimisticScenario(deploymentrate, learningrate,andcosts)),thecostofelectricityisestimatedtobeaslowas9c/kWhafter approximately28.5GWisinstalled(2050).InthePessimisticScenario,thecostofelectricityafter approximately2.5GWisinstalled(2050)isestimatedat42c/kWh.
Hs/Tescatterdiagramsmustalsobeassessed,asthesearecrucialtoapplytodeviceperformancetoestimate capacityfactors.
7Notonlythemeanwavepower(kW/m)mustbeassessed,buttheyearlywaveoccurrencedatatoproduce
79
AppendixB.EnergyEstimateforTidalStreamTechnologies
ThisappendixdocumentsananalysisofthetidalenergyresourceintheUnitedStatesandprovides thebasisforinformationpresentedinSection0above.
RESOURCEESTIMATE
RawResourceAssessment
Black&VeatchsourcedtidalstreamenergydatafromexistingEPRItidalstreamenergyliterature (EPRIn.d.)forWestCoastsites(WashingtonandCalifornia)andnorthernEastCoastsites(Maine andMassachusetts).TheresultsaresummarizedinTableB1forthecontiguousUnitedStates.
TableB1.RawResourceAssessmentSummary State Site Depth (m) 2 25 4 11 6 55to75 18to36
3inNarrow 18to24off Castine
MeanAnnualised PowerDensity (kW/m2) 0.93 0.95 1.32 2.11 5.5 2.2 1.64 1.94 0.73 0.44 1.48 1.7 3.2
Cross section Area(m2) 18.2 14000 350 1620 750 16300 14500 400 5000 990 2300 62600 74100
MeanAnnualised AvailablePower (MW) 0.02 13.3 0.5 3.4 4.1 35.9 23.8 0.8 3.7 0.4 3.4 106.4 237.1
Massachusetts BlynmanCanal MuskegetChannel WoodsHolePassage CapeCodCanal LubecNarrows Maine WesternPassage OuterCobscookBay BagaduceNarrows PenobscotRiver KennebecRiverentrance PiscataquaRiver Washington California Washington California
18to21 9to20 10to14 42 90
ThesiteshighlightedinTableB1wereretainedafterconsideringdepthandresourceconstraints. Onlysitesofdepthgreaterthanapproximately20mandpowerdensitygreaterthan1kW/mwere believedtobesuitableforcommercialtidalstreamenergyextraction.Inanycase,thesitesnot highlightedhaveanegligiblecontributiontothetotal)
BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|AppendixB.EnergyEstimateforTidalStreamTechnologies
80
BasedonanunderstandingthatEPRIfocuseditsresearchonthemostpromisingstates,noother datathanthatfromEPRIwerereviewedandthereforethepotentialtidalstreamresourceforother locationswasnotassesseddirectly..AcursoryinvestigationoftheU.S.coastlinerevealedother potentiallysuitablesitessuchasLongIslandSound,ChesapeakeBay,andRhodeIsland. AssumptionsaboutthetotalU.S.potentialarediscussedintheresourcelimitssectionbelow. Toestimatetheamountofenergythatmightbeactuallyproducedfromtidalenergyconverters (TECs),threesignificantimpactfactor(SIF)8valueswereappliedtoallsitescorrespondingtothe threedifferentscenariosasfollows:10%SIFwasappliedtothePessimisticScenario,20%SIFtothe BaseCase,and50%totheOptimisticScenario.Theextractablepowerresultsaresummarizedin TableB2.
TableB2.ExtractableResourceAssessmentSummary State Sites Pessimistic Scenario Massachusetts Maine Outer Cobscook Bay Washington California Total Washington California 2 11 24 42 5 21 47 83 12 53 119 208 Muskeget Channel Western Passage 1 4 Extractable Power (MW) Base Case 3 7 Optimistic Scenario 7 18
Thetotalextractableresourcevariesfromapproximately40MWto200MW (approximately80MWfortheBaseCase). ResourceLimits

Toaccountforyettobediscoveredsites,acoefficientwasappliedtothethreetotalvaluesobtained intherawresourceassessmentsectionabove.TheresultsareshowninTableB3.
TableB3.EstimatedResourceLimits Total Multiplier GrandTotal ExtractablePower(MW) PessimisticScenario 42 1 42 BaseCase 83 2 167 OptimisticScenario 208 10 2082
8In2004and2005,aspartoftheUKMarineEnergyChallenge(MEC),Black&Veatchdefinedasignificant
impactfactor(SIF)toestimatethetidalresourceextractableintheUnitedKingdom,representingthe percentageofthetotalresourceatasitethatcouldbeextractedwithoutsignificanteconomic,environmental, orecologicaleffects.
81
Astherearesignificantuncertaintiesassociatedwiththeresourcedataassociatedwiththese estimates,anditispossiblethatthemeanannualizedpowerdensityandresourceintheCalifornia andWashingtonsitesmighthavebeenoverestimatedintheEPRIstudies,afactorofonewas appliedontheresourceinthePessimisticScenario.IntheBaseCaseandOptimisticScenario,this possibilityofoverstatementofthepotentialofknowsiteswasassumedtobesignificantlysmaller thanthepotentialofundiscoveredsites;afactorof2wasassumedintheBaseCaseandafactorof 10wasappliedintheOptimisticScenario.Basedontheseassumptions,thetotalestimatedresource forthecontiguousUnitedStates.isclosetothetotalestimatedUKresource. Toderiveestimatesofthecostoftidalstreamenergy,thesitesweresplitintothreecategories basedontheirrawpowerdensity:3%ofthesitesidentifiedearlierpresentapowerdensityofless than1.5kW/m,57%presentapowerdensitygreaterthan2.5kW/m,andtheremainingpresent apowerdensitycomprisedbetween1.5kW/mand2.5kW/m.Giventhesmallnumberofsites, thefactorsappliedtoaccountforundiscoveredsites,andBlack&Veatchsexperience,thesefigures weremodifiedtobeconsistentwithamorelikelydistribution,asshowninTableB4.
TableB4.ResourceBands Resource %Lowbandresource(<1.5kW/m2) %Mediumbandresource(>1.5kW/m2; <2.5kW/m2) %Highbandresource(>2.5kW/m2) ProportionofTotalExtractableResource 10% 50% 40%
COSTOFENERGYESTIMATE
TidalStreamDeploymentEstimate GlobalandU.S.Deployments
Globaldeploymentisrequiredtodrivethelearningrateofatechnology.Anassumptionwas developedforthedeploymentofTECsgloballyto2050.Thisestimatewasmadebyidentifyingthe plannedshortterm(to2030)futuredeploymentsoftheleadingTECtechnologies.Thegrowthrate from2020to2030wasthenusedasabasistoestimatethegrowthto2050.Thisgrowthratewas decreasedannuallyby1%from2030andeachsubsequentyearinordertorepresentanatural slowingofgrowththatislikelytooccur.Theyear2030waschosenasthestartdateforthe slowdownasthiswouldrepresentapproximately20yearsofhighgrowth,whichisreasonable basedonslowdownsexperiencedinotherindustries(e.g.,wind)thathavereflectedresourceand supplychainconstraints. Notalldevelopersarelikelytoprovesuccessful,andnaturally,notallplannedinstallationswill proceed.Assuch,weightingfactorswereappliedtoreflecttheuncertaintyrelatedtoboththe developerspotentialsuccessandtheirprojectssuccess. DeploymentofcommercialtidalfarmsintheUnitedStateswasassumedtobeacertainpercentage ofthegrowthrateofthisglobaldeploymentprojection(TableB4),consistentwiththetotal resourceceilingsidentifiedabove.
82
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES TableB4.U.S.ContributiontoGlobalTidalStreamDeployment Scenario Optimistic BaseCase Pessimistic ProportionofWorldDeployment 30% 20% 10%
FortheBaseCase,thefirst10MWfarmwasestimatedtobeinstalledafterapproximately50MW hadbeeninstalledworldwide.ThedifferentdeploymentsscenariosobtainedareshowninFigure B1.

Worst case 8000 7000 6000 Cumulative installed capacity (MW) 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 2010 2015 2020 2025 Mid case Best case
2030 2035 Time (years)
2040
2045
2050
2055
FigureB1.Deploymentscenariosfortidalstreampower(continentalwaters)intheUnitedStatesto2050
IntheBaseCaseandPessimisticScenariocases,theresourceceilingswerereachedbetween2030 and2035,whereasintheOptimisticScenariotheresourceceilingwasnotreachedevenin2050.
DeploymentAssumptions
GiventherelativelylowenergydensityofU.S.tidalresourcesites,itwasassumedthat1) developerswouldaimtomaximiseprojecteconomicsforearlyprojectsandwouldthusdeployonly atsitesinthehighbandwaveresource,2)thatwhenthisisexhausted,themediumbandresource siteswouldbeexploited,and3)thatthelowresourcesiteswouldbeusedonlyafterthemedium
83
bandresourcewasexhausted.Itisalsoassumedthattheeffectsofthelearningcurvewillmakethe mediumandlowresourcesitesmorefeasibleinthefuture.
DeploymentConstraints
Thedeploymentgrowthisonlylimitedbytheresourceconstraints.Itwasassumedthatallother factorsimpactingdeploymentareaddressed,includingbutnotlimitedto:financialrequirements, supplychaininfrastructure,sitespecificrequirements,planning,andgridinfrastructure.
Learning
Toformajudgmentastothelikelylearningratesthatcanreasonablybeassumedforthecoming years,itisappropriatetofirstconsiderempiricallearningratesfromotheremergingrenewable energyindustries.Thissectionprovidesanoverviewoflearningexperiencefromsimilar developingindustries,suggestsapplicablelearningratesfortidalstreamtechnology,andconsiders scenariosforfuturegenerationcosts.FigureA7(AppendixA)showslearningratedataforarange ofemergingrenewableenergytechnologies. Costandcumulativecapacityareobservedtoexhibitastraightlinewhenplottedonaloglog diagram;mathematically,thisstraightlineindicatesthatanincreasebyafixedpercentageof cumulativeinstalledcapacitygivesaconsistentpercentagereductionincost.Forexample,the progressratioforphotovoltaicsovertheperiod1985to1995wasapproximately65%(learning rateapproximately35%)andthatforwindpowerbetween1980and1995was82%(learningrate 18%). Anydiscussionastothelikelylearningratesthatmightbeexperiencedbythetidalstreamindustry willbesubjective.Theclosestanalogyforthetidalstreamindustryhasbeenassumedtobethe windindustry.Aprogressratioaslowaswindenergy(82%)isnotexpectedforthetidalstream industryforthefollowingreasons: Inthewindpowerindustry,muchofthelearningwasaresultofdoingthesamethingbigger orupsizingratherthandoingthesameorsomethingnew.Thisupsizinghasprobablybeen thesinglemostimportantcontributortocostreductionforwind,contributingapproximately 7%tothe18%learningrate.9Tidalturbines,likewindturbines,willbenefitfromincreasing rotorsweptareasuntilthemaximumlengthoftheblades,limitedbyloadings,isreached. However,unlikeforwindpower,theultimatephysicallimitonrotordiametercanalsobe imposedbycavitationorlimitedwaterdepth,thelatterbeingparticularlyimportantforthe relativelyshallowsitesof(2535m)thatarelikelytobedevelopedinthenearterm. Muchofthelearninginwindpoweroccurredatsmallscalewithsmallscaleunits(<100kW), oftenbyindividualswithverylowbudgets.Tidalstreamontheotherhandrequireslarge investmentstodeployprototypesandthereforerequiresasmallernumberofmoreriskysteps todevelop,whichtendstosuggestthatthelearningwillbeslower(andtheprogresswillbe ratiohigher). Tidalstreamtechnologydevelopmentisstillinitsinfancy,andlearningratesareoftenhigher duringthisperiodoftechnologydevelopment,offsettingthepointsin(2).
9See,forexample,http://www.electricitypolicy.org.uk/pubs/wp/eprg0601.pdf,whichcalculatesan11%
learningrateforwindexcludinglearningduetoupsizing.
84
The likely range of learning rates for the tidal energy industry in the United States is believed to be between 7% and15% (progress ratios of 85%93 %) with a mid range value of 11%. CostofEnergy
AninhousetechnoeconomicmodelwasusedbyBlack&VeatchtoderiveAcostofelectricitywas developedforafirst10MWfarminstalledinthethreebandresourceenvironmentdiscussedin theresourcelimitssectionabove,assumingthisinstallationoccurredafter50MWofcapacityhad beeninstalledworldwide.Thecostofelectricitypresentedisconsideredanindustryaveragefor horizontalaxisaxialflowturbines.Thelearningraterangespecifiedabovewasusedtoderivethe futurecostofelectricity.
GeneralAssumptions
Asdescribedabove,theresourcedatausedinthetechnoeconomicanalysisweresourcedfrom EPRI(n.d.).ThethreeresourcecasesweremodelledandderivedfromtheMuskegetChannelsite (approximately1kW/m)andfromthesitesinWashingtonandCalifornia(respectively approximately2kW/mand3kW/m).Thecurrentvelocitydistributionsfromtherealsiteswere slightlymodifiedtoexactlymatchthegenericresourcemidbands(1kW/m,2kW/m,and3 kW/m).Thesegeneralassumptionswereusedforthisanalysis: Depth:40mforallthreegenericsitesconsidered Projectlife:25years Discountrate:8%. Deviceavailability:92.5%intheBaseCase,95%intheOptimisticScenario,and90%inthe PessimisticScenario. Thecostofelectricitypresentedisin2009dollarsandfutureinflationhasnotbeenaccountedfor. TheexchangerateusedtoconvertanycostsfromGBPtoUSDwas:1GBP=1.65USD.
CostResults
TheestimatedcostofelectricityispresentedinTableB5.Learningrateswereonlyappliedtothe costofelectricityonlyafterthe50MWofcapacitywasinstalledworldwide.
85
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES TableB5.CostEstimatefora10MWTidalFarmafterInstallationof50MW Resource Costs Costs($million) Capital Highband Resource Pessimistic BaseCase Optimistic Medium band Resource Lowband Resource Pessimistic BaseCase Optimistic Pessimistic BaseCase Optimistic 69 59 54 74 63 58 127 104 96 Operating (annual) 2.5 2.0 1.5 2.6 2.1 1.6 4.3 3.5 2.6 Capacity Factor 22% 26% 30% 19% 23% 26% 21% 25% 29% Performance(%) Availability 90.0% 92.5% 95.0% 90.0% 92.5% 95.0% 90.0% 92.5% 95.0% Costof Electricity (c/kWh) 45.0 35.8 29.3 55.0 44.4 35.9 84.3 66.9 55.0
Black&Veatchstechnoeconomicmodelisruninsuchawaythatthetechnology(ratedpowerof thedevices)matchestheresource,hencetherangeofcapacityfactorsobtainedinTableB5.The PessimisticandOptimisticScenariosweregeneratedtoindicatetheuncertaintiesintheanalysis. ThesupplycurvesobtainedafterapplyingthelearningratestothecostofelectricityfromTableB5 areshowninFiguresB2,B3,andB4.

Best case 50 45 40 Cost of electricity (c/kWh) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Installed capacity (MW) FigureB2.SupplycurveforaBaseCaseresourceceilingandan11%learningrate Mid case Worst case
86
FromaBaseCaseofapproximately35c/kWh,thecostofelectricitydroppedtoapproximately 20c/kWhafterapproximately250MWwereinstalled.Atthatpoint,themostenergeticsiteshad beenexploitedandthemediumbandresourcesitesstarttobeexploited,hencetheoffsetinthe curve.Aftertheseadditional350MWofmediumbandresourcesiteshadbeenexploited,theBase Casecostofelectricityliesslightlyabovetheprevious20c/kWhlevel.Thelateexploitationofthe lowbandresourcebroughtthecostofelectricitybacktotheoriginallevels(approximately 35c/kWhintheBaseCase).

50 45 40 Cost of electricity (c/kWh) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Installed capacity (MW) FigureB3.SupplycurveforanOptimisticresourceceilinganda15%learningrate Best case Mid case Worst case
FromaBaseCaseofapproximately35c/kWh,thecostofelectricitydroppedtoapproximately 10c/kWhafterapproximately3,500MWhadbeeninstalled.Atthatpoint,themostenergeticsites hadbeenexploitedandthemediumbandresourcesitesstarttobeexploited,hencetheoffsetinthe curve.Aftertheseextra3,500MWofmediumresourcesiteshadbeenexploited,theBaseCasecost ofelectricitywasbackattheprevious10c/kWhlevel.
87
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES Best case 70 60 Cost of electricity (c/kWh) 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Installed capacity (MW) 120 140 160 180 Mid case Worst case
FigureB4.SupplycurveforaPessimisticresourceceilinganda7%learningrate
FromaBaseCaseofapproximately35c/kWh,thecostofelectricitydroppedtoapproximately 27c/kWhafterapproximately70MWhadbeeninstalled.Atthatpoint,themostenergeticsiteshad beenexploitedandthemediumbandresourcesitesstarttobeexploited,hencetheoffsetinthe curve.Aftertheseextra90MWofmediumbandresourcesiteshadbeenexploited,theBaseCase costofelectricityreachesapproximately30c/kWhlevel.Thelateexploitationofthelowband resourcetookthecostofelectricitytothehighestlevelsreachedinthisanalysis(approximately 48c/kWhintheBaseCase).
CapitalandOperatingCosts
ThecapitalcostsfortheBaseCase,OptimisticandPessimisticScenariosandtheBaseCaseoperating coststo2050areshowninTableB6.Asstatedabove,developerswereassumedtoinstallfirstat sitesinthehighbandresource,thenatsitesinmediumbandresources,andfinallyatsitesinthe lowbandresource.InTableB6,thecostshighlightedingreen,orange,andredcorrespondtoa high,medium,andlowresourcebands,respectively.Theconstructionscheduleandoutagerates relatetotheBaseCase.ThedatainTableB6relatedirectlytothecostsprojectedinFiguresB2 throughB4.TheBaseCaseovernightcostsweretakenfromtheBaseCase(middlecurve)ofFigure B2;thelowovernightcostsweretakenfromthebestcase(lowercurve)oftheOptimisticScenario (FigureB3);and,thehighovernightcostsweretakenfromtheworstcase(uppercurve)ofthe PessimisticScenario(FigureB4).InTableB6,inthebaseandhighovernightcostscenarios,the lowbandresourcesiteswereexploitedbetween2030and2035andhencenoredcoloredcellsare visible.
88
TableB6.CapitalandOperatingCoststo2050 Year BaseCase Capacity Factor BaseCase Overnight Cost ($/KW) Optimistic OvernightCost HighDeployment/ LearningRate ($/KW) 5,445 3,293 2,524 1,962 1,611 1,540 1,434 1,376 Pessimistic OvernightCost LowDeployment/ LearningRate ($/KW) 6,930 5,843 5,661 5,381 BaseCase Variable O&M ($/MWh) BaseCase Fixed O&M $/KWYr HeatRate (Btu/KWh) Construction Schedule (Months) Planned Outage Rate (%) Forced Outage Rate(%)
2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
26% 26% 26% 23%
5,940 4,401 3,498 3,267
198 147 117 112
24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5%
89
ThedatafortheBaseCaseandOptimisticScenarioarealsopresentedinTableB7withthesame startingpoints,alongwiththeestimatedcumulativeinstalledcapacityintheUnitedStates.The followingresultsweretakenfromthemiddlecasesoftheBaseCaseandOptimisticScenario (FiguresB2andB3).

TableB7.CapitalExpenditureCostandOperatingExpenditureCoststo2050 (SameStartingCostsMiddleCases) BaseCase Year MW Installed(in U.S.) 10 61 238 493 BaseCase Overnight Cost($/kW) 5,940 4,401 3,498 3,267 BaseCase FixedO&M ($/kWYr) 198 147 117 112 Year 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 OptimisticScenario MW Installed(in U.S.) 15 131 407 1,190 2,756 4,297 5,813 6,950 BaseCase Overnight Cost($/kW) 5,940 3,591 2,753 2,140 1,758 1,672 1,557 1,494 BaseCase FixedO&M ($/kWYr) 198 120 92 71 59 57 53 51
2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
DataConfidenceLevels
Theuncertaintyassociatedwiththeresourcedataisdiscussedintheresourceestimatesection above.TheU.S.resourceassessmentcouldbeimprovedbyinvestigatingtheremainingcoastline thathasnotyetbeeninvestigatedandbyusinghydrodynamicmodelingonthemostpromising sites. ThecostdataprovidedinthisreportwerebasedonBlack&Veatchsexperienceworkingwith leadingtidalstreamtechnologydevelopers,substantiatedbyearlyprototypecostsandsupply chainquotes.Thesedataarebelievedtorepresentaviablecurrentestimateoffuturecosts; however,theindustryisstillinitsinfancyandthereforethesecostsareinthemainestimates..This uncertaintyisreflectedintherelativelylargeerrorbands. Thedeploymentscenarioswerebasedonpotentialinstallationsgloballydeemedrealistic;however, theyareaforecastandthereforearesubjecttosignificantuncertainty.Deploymentwillultimately bedrivenbynumerousvariablesincludingfinancing,gridconstraints,governmentpolicy,andthe strengthofthesupplychain.
90
Summary
Theanalysisestimatesa20c/kWhcostofelectricityforBaseCaseassumptionsafter250MWis installed;after720MWisinstalled(BaseCasetotalresourceceiling),thecostofelectricityis estimatedtobe34c/kWhduetothelateexploitationofthelowbandresource.IntheOptimistic Scenario(deploymentrate,learningrate,andcosts),thecostofelectricityisestimatedtobeaslow as10c/kWhafter7GWisinstalled(2050resourcelevel).InthePessimisticScenario,thecostof electricityafter180MWisinstalled(PessimisticScenariototalresourceceiling)isestimatedat 48c/kWh. ThecostoftidalstreamenergyextractionintheUnitedStatescannotbefurtherinvestigateduntila fullnationalresourceassessmentiscompleted.
91
AppendixC.BreakdownofCostforSolarEnergyTechnologies
Thisappendixdocumentscapitalcostbreakdownsforbothphotovoltaicandconcentratingsolar powertechnologies,andprovidesthebasisforinformationpresentedinSections0above.
SOLARPHOTOVOLTAICS
FigureC1andTableC1showcapitalcost($/W)projectionforanumberofdifferentresidential, commercialandutilityoptionsrangingfrom40KW(directcurrent(DC))to100MW(DC), assumingnoowner'scostsandnoextramargin.TableC2breaksthesecostsdownbycomponent.
$6.00 $5.00 $4.00 $3.00 $2.00 $1.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Non-tracking utility, 1 MW (DC) Non-tracking utility, 10 MW (DC) Non-tracking utility, 100 MW (DC) 1-axis tracking utility, 1 MW (DC) 1-axis tracking utility, 10 MW (DC) Commercial, 100 kW (DC) Residential 4 kW (DC) 1-axis tracking utility, 100 MW (DC)
FigureC1.Capitalcostprojectionforsolarphotovoltaictechnology
BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|AppendixC.BreakdownofCostforSolarEnergyTechnologies
92
TableC1.SolarPhotovoltaicsCapitalCosts($/W)byTypeandSizeofInstallation UtilityPV NonTracking 1MW (DC) 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 $3.19 $2.91 $2.76 $2.64 $2.53 $2.43 $2.35 $2.28 $2.22 10MW (DC) $2.59 $2.34 $2.21 $2.09 $2.00 $1.91 $1.84 $1.77 $1.72 100MW (DC) $2.41 $2.16 $2.03 $1.92 $1.83 $1.75 $1.67 $1.61 $1.56 1MW (DC) $3.50 $3.14 $2.84 $2.69 $2.60 $2.52 $2.44 $2.37 $2.31 UtilityPV 1AxisTracking 10MW (DC) $2.83 $2.55 $2.44 $2.34 $2.26 $2.18 $2.11 $2.05 $1.99 100MW (DC) $2.69 $2.40 $2.30 $2.20 $2.12 $2.04 $1.98 $1.91 $1.86 Commercial PV 100kW (DC) $4.39 $3.52 $3.06 $2.83 $2.71 $2.62 $2.54 $2.47 $2.40 Residential PV 4kW (DC) $5.72 $4.17 $3.60 $3.33 $3.17 $3.07 $2.98 $2.90 $2.82
93
TableC2.SolarPhotovoltaicsCapitalCost($/W)BreakdownbyTypeandSizeofInstallationNoOwner'sCosts,NoExtraMargin NonTrackingUtility Year 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2010 OvernightEPC Modules Balanceofsystem(BOS) Labor,engineering,andconstruction Shipping Moduleefficiency Groundcoverageratio $3.19 $1.68 $0.73 $0.67 $0.10 9.5% 43.0% $2.59 $1.47 $0.51 $0.51 $0.10 9.5% 43.0% $2.41 $1.42 $0.49 $0.40 $0.10 9.5% 43.0% $3.50 $2.20 $0.56 $0.65 $0.08 15.0% 30.0% $2.83 $1.80 $0.49 $0.47 $0.06 15.0% 30.0% 1MW(DC) $3.19 $2.91 $2.76 $2.64 $2.53 $2.43 $2.35 $2.28 $2.22 10MW(DC) $2.59 $2.34 $2.21 $2.09 $2.00 $1.91 $1.84 $1.77 $1.72 1AxistrackingUtility 100MW(DC) $2.41 $2.16 $2.03 $1.92 $1.83 $1.75 $1.67 $1.61 $1.56 1MW(DC) $3.50 $3.14 $2.84 $2.69 $2.60 $2.52 $2.44 $2.37 $2.31 Commercial 10MW(DC) $2.83 $2.55 $2.44 $2.34 $2.26 $2.18 $2.11 $2.05 $1.99 100MW(DC) $2.69 $2.40 $2.30 $2.20 $2.12 $2.04 $1.98 $1.91 $1.86 $2.69 $1.75 $0.49 $0.38 $0.06 15.0% 30.0% $4.39 $2.33 $0.66 $1.27 $0.13 15.0% 50.0% $5.72 $3.00 $0.76 $1.77 $0.19 15.0% 100.0% Residential 100kW(DC) $4.39 $3.52 $3.06 $2.83 $2.71 $2.62 $2.54 $2.47 $2.40 4kW (DC) $5.72 $4.17 $3.60 $3.33 $3.17 $3.07 $2.98 $2.90 $2.82
94
NonTrackingUtility Year 2015 OvernightEPC Modules BOS Labor,engineering,andconstruction Shipping Moduleefficiency GroundCoverageRatio 2020 OvernightEPC Modules BOS Labor,engineering,andconstruction Shipping Moduleefficiency GroundCoverageRatio 2025 OvernightEPC Modules $2.64 $1.23 $2.09 $1.08 $2.76 $1.33 $0.74 $0.61 $0.08 12.0% 43.0% $2.21 $1.17 $0.50 $0.45 $0.08 12.0% 43.0% $2.91 $1.45 $0.75 $0.62 $0.09 11.0% 43.0% $2.34 $1.27 $0.51 $0.46 $0.09 11.0% 43.0% 1MW(DC) 10MW(DC)
1AxistrackingUtility 100MW(DC) 1MW(DC)
Commercial 10MW(DC) 100MW(DC)
Residential 100kW(DC) 4kW (DC)
$2.16 $1.23 $0.50 $0.34 $0.09 11.0% 43.0%
$3.14 $1.88 $0.57 $0.60 $0.08 16.0% 30.0%
$2.55 $1.56 $0.51 $0.42 $0.06 16.0% 30.0%
$2.40 $1.51 $0.50 $0.33 $0.06 16.0% 30.0%
$3.52 $2.00 $0.63 $0.76 $0.12 16.0% 50.0%
$4.17 $2.19 $0.73 $1.07 $0.18 16.0% 100.0%
$2.03 $1.13 $0.49 $0.33 $0.08 12.0% 43.0%
$2.84 $1.60 $0.57 $0.59 $0.08 17.0% 30.0%
$2.44 $1.47 $0.50 $0.41 $0.06 17.0% 30.0%
$2.30 $1.42 $0.50 $0.32 $0.06 17.0% 30.0%
$3.06 $1.65 $0.58 $0.72 $0.12 17.0% 50.0%
$3.60 $1.76 $0.68 $0.99 $0.17 17.0% 100.0%
$1.92 $1.04
$2.69 $1.47
$2.34 $1.39
$2.20 $1.34
$2.83 $1.50
$3.33 $1.61
95
NonTrackingUtility Year BOS Labor,engineering,andconstruction Shipping Moduleefficiency GroundCoverageRatio 2030 OvernightEPC Modules BOS Labor,engineering,andconstruction Shipping Moduleefficiency GroundCoverageRatio 2035 OvernightEPC Modules BOS Labor,engineering,andconstruction Shipping $2.43 $1.07 $0.72 $0.58 $0.07 $1.91 $0.93 $0.49 $0.43 $0.07 $2.53 $1.14 $0.73 $0.59 $0.07 14.0% 43.0% $2.00 $1.00 $0.49 $0.43 $0.07 14.0% 43.0% 1MW(DC) $0.73 $0.60 $0.08 13.0% 43.0% 10MW(DC) $0.50 $0.44 $0.08 13.0% 43.0%
1AxistrackingUtility 100MW(DC) $0.48 $0.32 $0.08 13.0% 43.0% 1MW(DC) $0.56 $0.58 $0.07 18.0% 30.0%
Commercial 10MW(DC) $0.50 $0.40 $0.06 18.0% 30.0% 100MW(DC) $0.49 $0.31 $0.06 18.0% 30.0%
Residential 100kW(DC) $0.57 $0.65 $0.11 18.0% 50.0% 4kW (DC) $0.67 $0.88 $0.16 18.0% 100.0%
$1.83 $0.96 $0.48 $0.32 $0.07 14.0% 43.0%
$2.60 $1.39 $0.56 $0.58 $0.07 19.0% 30.0%
$2.26 $1.32 $0.49 $0.40 $0.05 19.0% 30.0%
$2.12 $1.27 $0.49 $0.31 $0.05 19.0% 30.0%
$2.71 $1.42 $0.57 $0.62 $0.10 19.0% 50.0%
$3.17 $1.53 $0.67 $0.82 $0.16 19.0% 100.0%
$1.75 $0.90 $0.47 $0.31 $0.07
$2.52 $1.33 $0.55 $0.57 $0.07
$2.18 $1.25 $0.49 $0.39 $0.05
$2.04 $1.21 $0.48 $0.30 $0.05
$2.62 $1.35 $0.56 $0.61 $0.10
$3.07 $1.45 $0.66 $0.81 $0.15
96
NonTrackingUtility Year Moduleefficiency GroundCoverageRatio 2040 OvernightEPC Modules BOS Labor,engineering,andconstruction Shipping Moduleefficiency GroundCoverageRatio 2045 OvernightEPC Modules BOS Labor,engineering,andconstruction Shipping Moduleefficiency GroundCoverageRatio $2.28 $0.94 $0.71 $0.57 $0.06 17.0% 43.0% $1.77 $0.82 $0.48 $0.41 $0.06 17.0% 43.0% $2.35 $1.00 $0.72 $0.57 $0.06 16.0% 43.0% $1.84 $0.88 $0.48 $0.42 $0.06 16.0% 43.0% 1MW(DC) 15.0% 43.0% 10MW(DC) 15.0% 43.0%
1AxistrackingUtility 100MW(DC) 15.0% 43.0% 1MW(DC) 20.0% 30.0%
Commercial 10MW(DC) 20.0% 30.0% 100MW(DC) 20.0% 30.0%
Residential 100kW(DC) 20.0% 50.0% 4kW (DC) 20.0% 100.0%
$1.67 $0.84 $0.47 $0.30 $0.06 16.0% 43.0%
$2.44 $1.26 $0.55 $0.57 $0.06 21.0% 30.0%
$2.11 $1.19 $0.48 $0.39 $0.05 21.0% 30.0%
$1.98 $1.15 $0.48 $0.30 $0.05 21.0% 30.0%
$2.54 $1.29 $0.56 $0.60 $0.10 21.0% 50.0%
$2.98 $1.38 $0.66 $0.79 $0.14 21.0% 100.0%
$1.61 $0.79 $0.46 $0.30 $0.06 17.0% 43.0%
$2.37 $1.20 $0.55 $0.56 $0.06 22.0% 30.0%
$2.05 $1.14 $0.48 $0.38 $0.05 22.0% 30.0%
$1.91 $1.10 $0.47 $0.29 $0.05 22.0% 30.0%
$2.47 $1.23 $0.55 $0.60 $0.09 22.0% 50.0%
$2.90 $1.32 $0.66 $0.79 $0.14 22.0% 100.0%
97
NonTrackingUtility Year 2050 OvernightEPC Modules BOS Labor,engineering,andconstruction Shipping Moduleefficiency GroundCoverageRatio $2.22 $0.89 $0.71 $0.56 $0.06 18.0% 43.0% $1.72 $0.78 $0.47 $0.41 $0.06 18.0% 43.0% 1MW(DC) 10MW(DC)
1AxistrackingUtility 100MW(DC) 1MW(DC)
Commercial 10MW(DC) 100MW(DC)
Residential 100kW(DC) 4kW (DC)
$1.56 $0.75 $0.46 $0.29 $0.06 18.0% 43.0%
$2.31 $1.15 $0.54 $0.56 $0.06 23.0% 30.0%
$1.99 $1.09 $0.48 $0.38 $0.04 23.0% 30.0%
$1.86 $1.05 $0.47 $0.29 $0.04 23.0% 30.0%
$2.40 $1.17 $0.55 $0.59 $0.09 23.0% 50.0%
$2.82 $1.26 $0.65 $0.78 $0.13 23.0% 100.0%
98
CONCENTRATINGSOLARPOWER
TablesC3andC6showperformanceandcostfortroughsystemsin2010and2050.TablesC4and C5showperformanceandcostfortowersystemsin2010and2050.
TableC3.SolarTroughPerformancefor2010and2050 2010 Parameter Plantsize(MW) Designdirectnormalirradiance(DNI)W/m2 Solarmultiple Storage(hours) Solartothermalefficiency Thermaltoelectricefficiency Designthermaloutput(MWthhours) Requiredaperture(m ) Thermalstorage(MWthhours)
a 2
2050 Without Storage 200 950 1.4 0 0.65 0.37 541 1225517 0
a
Without Storage 200 950 1.4 0 0.6 0.37 541 1327643 0
With Storage 200 950 2 6 0.6 0.37 541 1896633 3243
With Storage 200 950 2 6 0.65 0.365b 548 1774721 3288
Improvedreflectivity,receiver Parallelstoragepenalty
99
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWERGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES TableC4.SolarTroughCapitalCostBreakdownfor2010and2050 2020 CostAssumptions Solarfield($/m2) Heattransferfluid(HTF)system($/kWe) Powerblock($/kWe) Storage($/kWhth) Contingency Solarfieldandsite($) HTFandpowerblock($) Storage($) Totalwithcontingency($) DirectCosts($/kW) Engineering,procurement, construction(%) Ownerscosts(%) Indirectcosts(%) TotalCost($/kW)
a
2050 Without Storage 195a 375 900 0 10 238,975,818 255,000,000 0 543,373,400 2,717 10 20 30 3,532
b
Without Storage 300 500 975 0 10 398,293,030 295,000,000 0 762,622,333 3,813 10 20 30 4,957
With Storage 300 500 975 40 10 568,990,043 295,000,000 129,729,730 1,093,091,750 5,465 10 20 31 7,135
With Storage 195 375 900 30 10c 346,070,656 255,000,000 97,479,452 768,406,119 3,842 10 20 30 4,995
Reducedmaterial,installation Lowerpressuredrop,advancedHTF c slightlyhighertemperature

b
TableC5.SolarTowerPlantParameters2010and2050 PlantParameters Storage(hours) Capacityfactor(5) Collectorfieldaperture(m ) Receiversurfacearea(m2) Plantcapacity(MWe) Thermalstorage(hours) Thermaltoelectricefficiency Towerheight(m) Designthermaloutput(MWth) Thermalstorage(kWhth)
a b 2
2010 6 40 1147684 847 100 6 0.425 228 235 1411765 6 41
2050
1081000a 677.6b 100 6 0.425 228 235 1411765
Betterreflectivity,lessspillage;Betteravailability,lessreceiverheatloss Higherfluxlevels;bettercoatings
100
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWERGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES TableC6.SolarTowerCapitalCostBreakdownfor2010and2050 Assumption Capacityfactor Heliostatfield Receiver Tower Powerblock Thermalstorage Totaldirectcosts Totalwith contingency Indirectcosts EPC Owners TotalDirectand IndirectCosts TotalCost($/kW) 40% 235$/m2aperture 80000$/m2receiver 901500 0.01298$/m2aperture 950$/kWe 30$/kWhth 10% $269,705,740 2010 41% 235$/m2aperture $167,555,000 $33,880,000 $17,387,382 $87,500,000 $25,764,706 $332,087,088 $365,295,797 2050
$67,760,000 50000$/m2receiver $17,387,382 901500 0.01298$/m2aperture $95,000,000 875$/kWe $42,352,941 18$/kWhth $492,206,063 $541,426,669 10%
10% 20% 30%
10% 20% $704,017,098 30% $7,040 $474,884,535 $4,749
101
AppendixD.TechnicalDescriptionofPumpedStorage HydroelectricPower
Thisappendixpresentsagenerictechnicaldescriptionandcharacteristicsofarepresentative500 MWpumpedstoragehydroelectric(PSH)plantthathasasitsprimarypurposeenergystorage.
DESIGNBASIS
Pumpedstorageisanenergystoragetechnologythatinvolvesmovingwaterbetweenanupperand lowerreservoir.Thesystemischargedbypumpingwaterfromthelowerreservoirtoareservoirata higherelevation.Todischargethesystemsstoredenergywaterisallowedtoflowfromtheupper reservoirthroughaturbinetothelowerreservoir.Theoverallefficiencyofthesystemisdetermined bytheefficiencyoftheequipment(pump/turbine,motorgenerator)aswellasthehydraulicand hydrologiclosses(frictionandevaporation)whichareincurred.Overallcycleefficienciesof75% 80%aretypical. Mostoften,apumpedstoragesystemdesignutilizesauniquereversibleFrancispump/turbineunit thatisconnectedtoamotor/generator.Equipmentcoststypicallyaccountfor30%40%ofthe capitalcostwithcivilworksmakingupthevastmajorityoftheremaining60%70%. Theconfigurationofthepumpedstorageplantusedinthisreportisdescribedasfollows:
1. The500MWpumpedstorageprojectwilloperateonadailycyclewithenergystoredona12 2. 3. 4.
5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
hourcycleandgeneratedona10hourcycle.Approximately322cyclesperyearwouldbe assumed. Forpurposesofthisevaluation,theenergystoragerequirementisequalto500MWfor10hours or5,000megawatthoursofdailypeakingenergy. Thelowerreservoirisassumedtoexistandasiteforanewupperreservoircanbefoundthathas theappropriatecharacteristics. Forevaluationpurposes,thepumpingandgeneratingheadisbasedontheaveragedifferencein theupperandlowerreservoirlevels.Therealityisthattheheadsinbothpumpingand generatingmodeswillconstantlyfluctuateduringtheirrespectivecycles.Thisfluctuationmust bedesigned Thisevaluationisbasedonanaveragenetoperatinghead(H)forbothpumpingandgenerating cyclesof800feet. Thedistancefromtheoutletoftheupperreservoirtotheoutletofthelowerreservoirisassumed tobe2,000feetresultinginanL/Hratioof2.5,whichisexcellentbyindustrystandards. Thecalculatedgeneratingflowassuminga0.82generatingefficiencyis9,000cubicfeetper second(cfs). Theactivewaterstorageinthereservoirsrequiredforthisflowoverthe10hoursgenerating cycleis7,438acrefeet.Adding10percentforinactivestorageyieldsatotalreservoirstorage requirementofabout8,200acrefeet. Thelowerreservoirisassumedtobeanexistingreservoirthatcanaffordafluctuationof7,438 acrefeetwithoutenvironmentalorotherfluctuationissues.
BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|AppendixD.TechnicalDescriptionofPumpedStorage
HydroelectricPower
102
STUDYBASISDESCRIPTIONANDCOST
Basedontheaboveprojectsizingcriteria,thefollowingreconnaissancelevelprojectdesignand associatedcapitalcostwasestimated:
1. Assuminganupperreservoirdepthof100feetyieldsasurfaceareaof82acres.Usingacircular
reservoirconstructionresultsina2,132footdiameterandacircumferenceof6,700ft.The assumeddamwouldbeagravitytypeconstructedusingrollercompactedconcrete(RCC).Other typessuchasconcretefacedrockfill,concretearch,orembankmentarepossibledependingon siteconditions.ThetotalvolumeofRCCisestimatedat670,000cubicyards(cy).Atacostof $200/cy,RCCwouldcostroughly$134million.Thefollowingareotherupperreservoirestimated costs: A. Reservoirclearing:$10million B. Emergencyspillways:$5million C. Excavationandgroutcurtain:$20million D. Inlet/Outletstructureandaccessories:$20million Thetotalreservoircostisroughly$189million.
2. Thetunnelsfromthelowerreservoirtopowerhouseandfrompowerhousetoupperreservoir
wouldinclude20footdiameteraccesstunnel(assumedtobe1,000ftlong)and2x20foot diameterpenstockanddrafttubetunnels(totalof4,200ftlong).Othertunnelsandshaftsfor ventilationandpowerlineswouldberequired.About$60millionisassumedfortunneling. 3. Thepowerhousewouldbeconstructedundergroundandbeapproximately100feetand200feet fora2x250MWpumpturbineunit.Theexcavationofthepowerhousewouldcostapproximately $35million. 4. Atanestimatecostof$750perinstalledkW,thepowerhousestructures,equipment,andbalance ofplantwouldcostabout$375million. 5. Thetotalestimateconstructioncostistherefore: A. Upperreservoir:$189million B. Tunnels:$60million C. Powerhouseexcavation:$35million D. Powerhouse:$375million Total:$659million
6. Thefollowingadditionaltechnicalassumptionshavebeenmadeforthisoption:
A. Thesitefeaturesgeologicalformationsidealforupperreservoirandunderground development. B. Arelativelyflat82acresiteisrequiredfortheupperreservoir.Atotalsitearea,including undergroundrightsisabout200acres. C. Thesiteisonlandwherenoexistinghumanmadestructuresexist. D. Nooffsiteroadsareincluded.
HydroelectricPower
103
E. Thesitehassufficientareaavailabletoaccommodateconstructionactivitiesincluding,but notlimitedto,offices,laydown,andstaging. F. Constructionpowerandwaterisassumedtobeavailableatthesiteboundary. G. Noconsiderationwasgiventopossiblefutureexpansionofthefacilities. H. A345kVgeneratorstepup(GSU)transformerisincluded.Transmissionlinesand substations/switchyardsarenotincludedinthebaseplantcostestimate.Anauxiliary transformerisincluded. I. Provisionforprotectionorrelocationofexistingfishandwildlifehabitat,wetlands, threatenedandendangeredspeciesorhistorical,cultural,andarchaeologicalartifactsisnot included. Theupperreservoirwillbecapableofovertoppingduetoaccidentaloverpumping.Aservice spillwayequaltothepumpingflowisassumed.
J.
OTHERCOSTSANDCONTINGENCY
Thefollowingarepotentialadditionalcosts:
1. Plantlocationisassumedtobewherelandisnotofsignificantsocietalvalue,withacostof 2. 3. 4. 5.
$5,000peracreor$1milliontotal. Transmissionandsubstationareassumedtobeadjacenttothesiteandisamajorsitingfactor. Projectmanagementanddesignengineeringat5%ofconstructioncostor$33million. Constructionmanagementandstartupsupportat5%ofconstructioncostof$33million. Acontingencyof$109million(15%)isassumed. Total:$176million.
BasedonthetotalConstructionCostof$659millionandtheaboveOtherCostsandContingencyof $176million,thetotalcapitalcostisestimatedtobe$835million,orroughly1,670$/kW.A20% additionforownerscostsofthetypedescribedinTextBox1insection1.2aboveyieldsacostof 2,004$/kWthatiscomparabletotheothercostestimatesprovided.
OPERATINGANDMAINTENANCECOST
Operatingandmaintenancecostsaredependentonthemodeofoperation.Forhydroelectricplants, thefollowingarethetypicalannualoperatingandmaintenancecosts:
1. RoutineMaintenanceandspareparts:$500,000 2. Personnelwages(20total@$65,000):$1.3million
A. Oneplantmanager B. Twoadministrativestaff C. Eightoperators D. Twomaintenancesupervisors E. Sevenmaintenanceandcraft
3. Personnelburden@40%ofwages:$520,000
HydroelectricPower
104
4. Staffsupplies@5%ofwages:$65,000
Total:$2.385millionperyear Hydroelectricplantstypicallyoperatefor510yearswithoutsignificantmajorrepairoroverhaul costs.Forevaluationpurposes,amajoroverhaulreserveavailableatyear10of$100perinstalled kilowattor$50millionisassumed.Whenspreadovera10yearperiod,theannualmajoroverhaul costis$5millionperyear.
CONSTRUCTIONSCHEDULE
APSHprojectisamajorcivilworksinfrastructureprojectthatwouldtakemanyyearstodevelopbut wouldprovideaprojectlifethatexceedsthatoftheotherrenewabletechnologiesevaluatedinthis report.Projectlifecanbeexpectedtobeatleast50years.Manyhydropowerprojectsconstructedin theearly1900sarestillinservicetoday.Thedevelopmentofanimpoundprojectwouldhavethe followingestimatedmilestoneschedule:
1. Permitting,design,andlandacquisition:24years 2. Equipmentmanufacturing:2years 3. Construction:3years

Total:79years
OPERATINGFACTORS
Ahydroelectricplantcanbedesignedtoprovidethefollowingoperatingfactors:
1. NormalstartupandshutdowntimeforaPSHprojectislessthan15minutesdependingonthe
2. 3. 4. 5.
statusofthewaterpassages.Iftheunitiswateredtothewicketgatesandplantauxiliariesare running,unitstartuptimeisonlyafunctionofwicketgateopeningtobringtheunituptospeed andsynchronize. APSHunitcanbetrippedoffinstantaneouslyaslongastheturbineisdesignedtooperateat runawayuntilthewicketgatesareclosed.Thiswouldbeanemergencycase. APSHplantcanloadfollowandprovidesystemfrequency/voltagecontrol. Pumpedstoragehydroelectricplantscanblackstartassumingasmallemergencygeneratoris providedforunitauxiliariesandfieldflashing. AmajorfeatureofPSHisitsabilitytooperateasspinningornonspinningreserve,changefrom pumpingtogeneratingwithin20minutes,synchronouscondensing,anditcanbedesignedto meetgridsystemoperatorcertificationofthesebenefits.
HydroelectricPower
105

Nrel Cost Report

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Nrel Cost Report

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

COSTREPORT

COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFOR POWERGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES

Construction Schedule (Months) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127

6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00

O&M=operationandmaintenance b POR=plannedoutagerate c FOR=forcedoutagerate Allcostsin2009$

Total: $6100/kW+ 30%

2900 $/KW, 47.6%

ThetotalplantlaborandinstallationisincludedintheYard/Cooling/Installationcostelement.The powerplantisassumedtobeasingleunitwithnoprovisionforfutureadditions.Switchyard, interconnectionandinterestduringconstructionarenotincluded.OwnerscostsaredefinedinText Box1above.

POR FOR (%) (%)

Total: $651/kW+ 25%

POR FOR (%) (%)

Total: $1,230/kW + 25%

$719 /kW, 58%

FixedO&M ($/kWyr) 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4

POR FOR (%) (%)

Year 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Total: $2,890/kW +35%

FixedO&M ($/kWyr) 35.2 35.2 35.2 35.2 35.2 35.2 35.2

POR FOR (%) (%) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

FixedO&M ($/kWyr) 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4

FOR POR (%) (%)

SO2 (Lb/mmbtu) 0.065

NOx (Lb/mmbtu) 0.085

PM10 (Lb/mmbtu) 0.009

Hg CO2 (%Removal) (Lb/mmbtu) 90% 32

Total: $3,830/kW -25% + 50%

NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES $1,010/kW , 17% $1,520/kW , 26% $505/kW , 8%

$130/kW , 2% $750/kW , 13%

Total: $3,500/kW +35%

NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES Table23.CostandPerformanceProjectionforOceanWaveTechnology Construction Schedule (Months) 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24

Year 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Table24.CostandPerformanceProjectionforOceanTidalCurrentTechnology Construction Schedule (Months) 24 24 24 24 24 24 24

Year 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

CapitalCost ($/kW) 5,880 4,360 3,460 3,230

POR (%) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

FOR (%) 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5

Total: $9,240/kW -30% + 45%

$350/kW , 6% $1,590/kW , 27%

Total: $5,880/kW -10% + 20%

Year 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

CapitalCost ($/kW) 3290 3190 3090 3010 2930

POR (%) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

FOR (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NonTrackingUtilityPVwitha10MW(DC)InstallSize 2008 2010 3790 2830 0 50 12.0 2.0 0.0

Year 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES Construction Schedule (Months)

Total: $2,830/kW +25%

Total: $7,060/kW -35% +15%

$420/kW , 6% $950/kW , 14% $680/kW , 10% $170/kW , 2%

Total: $7,040/kW -35% +15%

NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES Table28.CostandPerformanceProjectionforOnshoreWindTechnology Construction Schedule (Months) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES Table30.CostandPerformanceProjectionforFixedbottomOffshoreWindTechnology Construction Schedule (Months) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES Table32.CostandPerformanceProjectionforFloatingPlatformOffshoreWindTechnology Construction Schedule (Months) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

Year 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

FixedO&M ($/kWYr) 130 130 130 130 130 130 130

Total: $1,980/kW +25%

Total: $3,310/kW +35%

Total: $4,200/kW +35%

Construction Schedule (Months) 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18

Min. Load (%) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

Total: $900/kW -30% + 75%

Table36.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaPumpedStorageHydropowerPlant(500MW) Quick Start Ramp Rate (%/min.) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

Variable O&M ($/MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0