Global WINDPOWER 2004 - Chicago, Illinois Assessment of Potential Improvements in Large-Scale Low Wind Speed Technology Joseph Cohen Princeton Energy Resources

Global WINDPOWER 2004 - Chicago, Illinois

Assessment of Potential Improvements in Large-Scale Low Wind Speed Technology

Joseph Cohen

Princeton Energy Resources International, LLC1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 550

Rockville, Maryland 20852 [email protected]

(301) 468-8416

Global WINDPOWER 2004, Chicago, IllinoisMarch 29, 2004


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

U.S. Department of Energy Under Subcontract To:

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NWTC

NWTC Staff Paul Migliore Alan Laxson Mike Robinson Bob Thresher Scott Schreck Paul Veers (Sandia National

Laboratories)

Project Supported By: Technical Inputs:


TECHOLOGY PATHWAYS ANALYSIS

Identify TIOs

Estimate TIO Effects

Perform Analysis

Review Results

Step 4: Run these through a turbine systems model (the “Pathways Model”) to assess impact on cost of energy

Step 5: Produce a curve of COE versus likelihood of achieving it.

Step 3: Estimate the range of potential change in cost, performance, reliability, and O&M for each TIO category

Step 2: Identify a “menu” of Technology Improvement Opportunities (TIOs) that could lead to this improvement

Analysis Process

Characterize Reference

Step 1: Characterize a set of cost and performance parameters for a composite, reference turbine


CHARACTERIZE REFERENCE TURBINE

• Composite of available technologies – based primarily on (2002) WindPACT studies and commercial/market data

• Nominal Description of Reference Turbine:

1.5 MW

70 m rotor diameter

65 m Hub Height

Upwind, 3-blade; Variable pitch

Variable speed


ANALYSIS METRICS Overall evaluation metric - Levelized Cost of Energy (COE), which requires the following input variables:

Turbine Capital Cost (TCC)Balance of Station Cost (BOS)Levelized Replacement Cost (LRC)Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost (O&M)Net Annual Energy Production (AEP)

ISSUE: How to choose for “leading edge” technology, 100 MW plant, “favorable installation & maintenance conditions” consistent with large areas of class 4 winds, i.e., relatively flat land, easy access, no soil issues


REFERENCE WIND PLANT CHARACTERISTICS

ExpectedReference Inputs Minimum (most likely) MaximumTCC Turbine Capital Cost (2002 $) 920,000 1,000,000 1,100,000

Low/High Range -8% 10%BOS BOS Cost (2002 $) 368,600 388,000 465,600

Low/High Range -5% 20%LRC Levelized Replacement Costs ($) 9,750 15,000 22,500

Low/High Range -35% 50%O&M O&M Cost ($) 12,000 30,000 37,950

Low/High Range -60% 27%Land Land Lease Cost ($/kWh) 0.000648 0.00108 0.00140

-40% 30%AEP Net Annual Energy Production(kWh/yr) 3,973,500 4,415,000 4,547,450

Low/High Range -10% 3%A&L Availability and Losses 15%FCR Fixed Charge Rate 11.85%

Total Cost per kW $859 $925 $1,044Total cost per square meter 335 361 407Net Annual Energy per square meter 1,032 1,147 1,182Capacity Factor 0.302 0.336 0.346


INPUT DATA ARE DISTRIBUTIONS

15 21.25 27.5 33.75 40

5% 90% 5% 19.1225 34.9229

Mean=27650.46

Distribution for O&M Cost ($) / Mean/H38

Val

ues

in 1

0 ̂-

5

Values in Thousands

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Mean=27650.46

15 21.25 27.5 33.75 40 0.88 0.94 1 1.06

5% 90% 5% .9094 1.0263

Mean=958878.8

Distribution for Turbine Capital Cost (2002 $) /Mean/H32

Val

ues

in 1

0 ̂-

5

Values in Millions

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

Mean=958878.8

0.88 0.94 1 1.06

Turbine Capital CostO&M Cost

NREL/Sandia staff, WindPACT studies, Next Generation Turbine project, LWST proposals, in-house knowledge, etc.

NREL/Sandia staff, WindPACT studies, Next Generation Turbine project, LWST proposals, in-house knowledge, etc.

Data Sources For All Inputs


REFERENCE COE

In constant end-of-2002 dollars

Class 4 winds (13 mph average at 10 m)

Assumes financing structures typical of GenCos (i.e., balance sheet financing)

Detailed cash flow model used to calculate COE using assumptions for taxes, insurance, depreciation, cost of capital, financing fees, and construction financing

Caveat – uses a relatively high required rate of return compared to current market rates

Levelized Cost of Energy of Reference (2002) Turbine: 4.8 cents/kWh


BE CAREFUL – COE IS NOT MARKET PRICE

Constant dollars (Market uses Current)Varies, but typically 0.5 to 1+ cent/kWh

PTC (Not included in analysis)Varies, but typically above 1 cent/kWh

Year Dollars (analysis uses 2002) Range of resource in each wind power class Overnight (no costs during construction)

Typically $50/kW or more


TECNOLOGY IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES

Learning Curve Effects

Market–driven cost reductions

Advanced Tower TIOs

New Materials

Innovative structures

Advanced foundations

Self-erecting designs

New Drive Train Concept TIOs

Permanent magnet generator

Innovative mechanical drives

Site-Specific Design/Reduced Design Margin TIOs

Improved definition of site characteristics

Design load tailoring

Micrositing

Favorable wind speed distributions and shear

Advanced (Enlarged) Rotor TIOs

Advanced materials

Changed/improved structural/aero design

Active controls

Passive controls

Higher tip speed ratios/lower acoustics

Manufacturing TIOs

Manufacturing methods

Lower margins

Manufacturing markupsAdvanced Power Electronics TIOs

Incorporation of improved PE components

Advanced circuit topology

Reduced Energy Losses and Increased Availability TIOs

Health monitoring (SCADA, etc.)

Blade soiling mitigation

Extended scheduled maintenance


TIO’s POTENTIAL FOR IMPROVEMENT

(Improvement from reference, in %)(Initial Analysis for 2003; Subject To Extensive Update in 2004)

Capital Costs Annual Energy Production O&M Costs Reliability




Advanced Tower TIOs

Manufacturing TIOs


Advanced Power Electronics TIOs


+10 +20 +30-30 -20 -10 +407070-*

70--*

-65-*

8080--

8070-*

80808080

100100

--

100

Probabilityof Success*

*TBD*High Probability of Success Case


WIND TECHNOLOGIES PATHWAYS MODEL

(A Monte-Carlo Analysis Tool)Capital Costs

Annual EnergyProduction

O&M Costs Reliability




Advanced Tower TIOs

Manufacturing TIOs


Advanced Power Electronics TIOs


+10+20+30-30 -20 -10 +40

7070-*

70--*-

65-*

8080--

8070-*

80808080

100100

--

100

Probabilityof Success

*TBD

Total SystemAggregated Potential for Improvement (%)

+10+20+30-40 -30 -20 -10 +40

Total System Cost of Energy

Potential for COE Reduction (%)

-50 -40 -30 -20 -10

3 cents/kWh at 60% Confidence Level ( subject to revision)

Total System


MEAN IMPACTS ON COE INPUTS

PercentImprovement

Baseline Mean of MeanMean Pathway From Baseline

(An Input) (Output) (Absolute)

AEP (MWH) 4,312 5,804 35%TCC ($/turb) 1,006,667 872,698 13%BOS ($/turb) 400,933 377,467 6%TCC + BOS ($/turb) 1,407,600 1,250,164 11%O&M ($/turb) 26,650 26,331 1%LRC ($/turb) 15,750 13,871 12%


IMPACT OF TIOs ON ELEMENTS OF COE

TIO Categories

Incorporation of improved PE components

Improved definition of site characteristicsSite-Specific Design/Reduced Design Margin

Design load tailoringMicrositingFavorable wind speed distributions and shear

Innovative mechanical drives

Innovative structuresAdvanced foundationsSelf-erecting designs

Blade soiling mitigationExtended scheduled maintenance

Lower marginsManufacturing markups

Active controlsChanged/improved structural/aero design

Passive controls

Market-driven cost reductionsLearning Curve EffectsAdvanced circuit topology

Advanced Power Electronics

Permanent magnet generatorNew Drive Train Concepts

New Materials

Advanced Tower

Health monitoring (SCADA, etc.)Reduced Energy Losses and Increased Availability

Manufacturing methodsManufacturing

Higher tip speed ratios/lower acoustics

Advanced materials

Advanced (Enlarged) Rotor

Large Moderate Small

Cos

t En

erg

y

Pro

du

cti

on O

&M

Cost

Reliab

ilit

y

Documents

Global WINDPOWER 2004 - Chicago, Illinois Assessment of Potential Improvements in Large-Scale Low Wind Speed Technology Joseph Cohen Princeton Energy Resources