national renewable energy laboratory innovation for our energy future * nrel july 5, 2011 tradeoffs...

National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

*

*NRELJuly 5, 2011

Tradeoffs and Synergies between CSP and PV at High Grid Penetration


Bottom Line

• As penetration of variable generation (solar, wind) increase, it is increasingly important to consider the interaction between these resources and the entire grid system

• Dispatchable energy (e.g. CSP w/storage) has a higher value than non-dispatchable energy.

– At low penetration of solar and wind this difference is small– At higher penetration (15% on an energy basis) this difference

may increase by as much as 4 cents/kWh

• Overall penetration of solar energy can be increased by the use of CSP with storage which provides grid flexibility– Allows for higher levels of PV penetration by providing the

ramping rate and range needed to accommodate the variable output of PV systems

2


Increase in Energy Value Due to Dispatchability of Systems with Thermal Energy Storage

3

The actual difference in value is largely a function of penetration and overall grid system flexibility

Dispatchable solar energy sources:

1. Maintain high energy value– Always displaces the highest cost energy sources

2. Maintain high capacity value even at high solar penetration.

3. Lower curtailment than solar systems w/o storage

4. Lower integration/reserve costs


Analytic Methods

• Detailed grid simulations of the Western Interconnect– Simulates the hourly dispatch of the power plant fleet– Ensures reliability by ensuring availability of operating reserves– Validates basic transmission operability using DC power flow– Enforces power plant constraints including ramp limits, operating

limits – Calculates fuel burn and associated cost and emission– Assumed frictionless markets (best case scenario for PV)

• Two scenarios– 15% PV and 15% wind– 10% PV, 5% CSP and 15% wind

• Did not capture full range of integration costs due to uncertainty about reserve requirements of PV, short term variability and forecast errors – assumed perfect knowledge of solar resource

4

Difference in gas burn

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21

Gen

erati

on (M

W)

Hour

CSP5 Wind15 PV10 PV

Wind

Hydro

PHS/CAES

Other

Biomass

Coal

Nuclear

Geothermal

CSP

Gas

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21

Gen

erati

on (M

W)

CSP5 Wind15 PV10 PV

CSP

Wind

Hydro

PHS/CAES

Other

Biomass

Coal

Nuclear

Geothermal

Gas


1) Difference in Energy Value

5

Dispatch of CSP results in less high cost gas and more low cost fuels

10% PV 5% CSP

15% PV No CSP

Storage enables a relative fuel savings benefit over PV of about 0.5 cents/kWh at $4.50/mmBTU gas

Example WECC-wide dispatch during a 4-day period in spring

74000

76000

78000

80000

82000

84000

86000

88000

90000

92000

12 14 16 18 20 22

Hour (Ending)

Net

Lo

ad

Normal Load

2%

5%

10%

15%

2) Difference in Capacity Value of PV

6National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future

•Capacity value adder depends on market conditions - typical values of $40-$70/kW/year

•Depending on CSP system design and market conditions, adds a CSP value of 0.7-2.0 cents/kWh

Normal peak at ~4-5 pmAt 10% PV, peak is shifted to 8-9 pm. PV provides no further peak capacity benefits

At this point PV cannot reduce the need for generation capacity

CSP capacity value remains close to ~100% by shifting energy production to evening (and morning during spring/winter months)

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

0 12 24 36 48 60 72

Hour

Net

Lo

ad

Normal Load

1% PV

5%

10%

15%

20%

Curtailment results from two main constraints – ramping requirements and minimum generation constraints. Curtailment results when existing plants to not

have the flexibility to ramp


Ramp rate of conventional generator requirements increases

Ramp range of conventional generator requirements increases

3) PV Curtailment Due to Ramping Requirements

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21

Gen

erati

on (M

W)

CSP5 Wind15 PV10 PV

CSP

Wind

Hydro

PHS/CAES

Gas

Other

Biomass

Coal

Nuclear

Geothermal

Curtailment Due to Minimum Generation Constraints


Extensive coal and nuclear cycling unlikely to occur in current system

• Marginal curtailment rate of PV moving from 10% to 15% of generation was 5%

• At SunShot goals (~6 cents/kWh) this increases effective PV cost by about 0.3 cents/kWh due to underused capacity

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21 1 5 9 13 17 21

Gen

erati

on (M

W)

CSP5 Wind15 PV10 PV

CSP

Wind

Hydro

PHS/CAES

Gas

Other

Biomass

Coal

Nuclear

Geothermal

10% PV 5 % CSP

15% PV No CSP

• PV curtailment would be reduced if grid flexibility were increased

• CSP/TES provides an option to replace “baseload” capacity with more flexible generation

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Fraction of System Energy from PV

Rela

tive

Mar

gina

l LCO

E

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Suns

hot M

argi

nal L

COE

(cen

ts/k

Wh)


PV Curtailment at Higher Penetration

9

Estimates marginal curtailment as a function of PV penetration (without additional grid flexibility)

Without storage or load shifting, marginal LCOE of PV increases rapidly

“Multiplier” to base LCOE

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%Fraction of System Energy from PV

Mar

gina

l PV

Curt

ailm

ent


4) Integration and Reserve Requirements

• Variability and uncertainty of solar resource requires changes in operation, typically some re-dispatch of system resources to maintain reliability

10

-12000

-8000

-4000

0

4000

8000

12000

0 12 24

Hour

Ra

mp

Ra

te (

MW

/Ho

ur)

Normal Load

10% PV

15%

20%

Very large ramping of conventional generators is

required. This potentially means more use of fast responding but

lower efficiency generators


Reserve Requirements

11

• We have not yet analyzed the increased need for frequency regulation or forecast uncertainty for either PV or CSP– One previous PV study estimated costs of re-dispatch at 0.4-0.7

cents/kWh, but used limited data sets and is not reproducible

– Estimates from wind integration studies are in the range of 0.2-0.4 cents/kWh

• Storage enables operation at part load and ability to hold back energy during periods of high uncertainty or large reserve requirements

With gas prices in the range of $4.50-$9.00 mmBTU, the estimated value of CSP with storage is an additional 1.6-4.0 cents/kWh relative to PV due to:

•Energy shifting value: ~0.5-1.0 cents/kWh•Capacity Value ~0.7-2.0 cents/kWh•Reduced curtailment: Depends on PV cost. At 6 cents/kWh, corresponds to ~0.3 cents/kWh

•Reserve/integration costs 0.1-0.7 cents/kWh

National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future12

Summary: Impacts of Storage at 10-15% Solar


CSP as a PV Enabling Technology

13

Historical performance of U.S. small gas steam plants which are a good proxy for CSP – typical operating range of 78% with only a 7% heat rate penalty at 50% load.

• The ability of a the grid to accommodate PV is inherently limited by the increased variability and uncertainty of net load

• As PV penetration increases other generators will need:• Short start-up times

• Large ramp rates

• Large turn-down ratios

• Good part load efficiency

CSP with storage can provide these requirements

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96Hour

Lo

ad

(G

W)

Curtailed PV

Dispatched CSP

Usable PV

Wind

Conventionals

Load

Non-Dispatched CSP

Dispatched CSP


Total RE contribution is 35% on an energy basis (solar provides 23%). About 5% is curtailed.

Additional PV will largely be curtailed due to minimum generation constraints

Dispatch in a “conventional” system

CSP energy is shifted to morning and evening, increasing the contribution of solar technologies, but not providing a direct benefit to PV or wind.

Relying on thermal generators and ignoring flexibility benefits of CSP limits amount of demand that can be met with variable generation

CSP as a PV (and Wind) Enabling Technology

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96Hour

Lo

ad

(G

W)

Curtailed PV

Dispatched CSP

Usable PV

Wind

Conventionals

Load

Non-Dispatched CSP

Dispatched CSP


Dispatch in a “CSP-flexible” system

CSP provides additional ramping capacity in the evening and morning.

Minimum generation constraint reduced

CSP energy is still shifted, but also used to provide quick-start reserve capacity during periods of high PV output.

Total RE contribution is increased to 46% (solar contribution at 29%) with no increase in curtailment.

Adding the flexibility of CSP enables a greater fraction of the load to be served by variable generation

CSP as a PV (and Wind) Enabling Technology


Summary

• As penetration of variable generation (solar, wind) increase, it is increasingly important to consider the interaction between these resources and the entire grid system

• Dispatchable energy (e.g. CSP w/storage) has a higher value than non-dispatchable energy.

– At low penetration of solar and wind this difference is small– At higher penetration (15% on an energy basis) this difference

may increase by as much as 4 cents/kWh

• Overall penetration of solar energy can be increased by the use of CSP with storage which provides grid flexibility– Allows for higher levels of PV penetration by providing the

ramping rate and range needed to accommodate the variable output of PV systems

16


Questions?

17

References (Note that several of the results in this presentation have not yet been published).

Madaeni, S., R. Sioshansi, and P. Denholm, "How Thermal Energy Storage Enhances the Economic Viability of Concentrating Solar Power" accepted in Proceedings of the IEEE.

Madaeni, S. H., Sioshansi, R., Denholm, P. (2011) “Capacity Value of Concentrating Solar Power Plants” NREL Report No. TP-6A20-51253.

Brinkman, G.L., P. Denholm, E. Drury, R. Margolis, and M. Mowers. (2011) “Toward a Solar-Powered Grid - Operational Impacts of Solar Electricity Generation” IEEE Power and Energy 9, 24-32.

Denholm, P., and M. Hand. (2011) “Grid Flexibility and Storage Required to Achieve Very High Penetration of Variable Renewable Electricity” Energy Policy 39 1817-1830.

Sioshansi, R. and P. Denholm. (2010) “The Value of Concentrating Solar Power and Thermal Energy Storage.” IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy. 1 (3) 173-183.

Denholm, P., E. Ela, B. Kirby, and M. Milligan. (2010) “The Role of Energy Storage with Renewable Electricity Generation” NREL/TP-6A2-47187.

Denholm, P., R. M. Margolis and J. Milford. (2009) “Quantifying Avoided Fuel Use and Emissions from Photovoltaic Generation in the Western United States” Environmental Science and Technology. 43, 226-232.

Denholm, P., and R. M. Margolis. (2007) “Evaluating the Limits of Solar Photovoltaics (PV) in Electric Power Systems Utilizing Energy Storage and Other Enabling Technologies” Energy Policy. 35, 4424-4433.

Denholm, P., and R. M. Margolis. (2007) “Evaluating the Limits of Solar Photovoltaics (PV) in Traditional Electric Power Systems” Energy Policy. 35, 2852-2861.

national renewable energy laboratory innovation for our energy future * nrel july 5, 2011 tradeoffs...

Documents

high energy value

energy production

energy basis

energy future increase

capacity value of pv

csp value

thermal energy storage

nondispatchable energy