1/28/2015

1

Assessment of Natural Gas Single Cycle Turbine,

Reciprocating Engines, and g gWind Resources

for Draft Seventh Plan

Gillian Charles, Steve Simmons

January 29, 2015

Power Committee (Webinar)

Purpose of Today’s Webinar Communicate results from the work Council

staff (with aid from the GRAC) has been staff (with aid from the GRAC) has been doing recently around two key supply-side resource technologies1. Natural Gas Peakers (Single Cycle Turbines and

Reciprocating Engines)2. On-shore, Utility-scale Wind

This includes cost and performance This includes cost and performance estimates, along with definition of new resource reference plants for use in the Regional Portfolio Model

2

1/28/2015

2

Reminder: Reviewed with P4 for Input in RPM for Draft 7th Plan

Utility-scale Solar PV

Natural Gas - Combined Cycle Combustion Turbines

Utility-scale Wind

Natural Gas – Peakers (Single Cycle Turbines and Reciprocating Engines)Turbines and Reciprocating Engines)

RPS Analysis for input to RPM

3

GRAC Meetings To DateGRAC Meeting

Solar PV

CCCTGas 

PeakersWind

HydroScoping

Offshore Wind

Storage SMR EGS

1) Jun 20 2013 1

2) Oct 16 2013 2 1 1

3) Feb 27 2014 2 1

4) May 28 2014 3 3 2 1 2 1

5) Oct 2 2014 3 2 3

6) Nov 7 2014 4

7) Nov 21 2014 4

8) Dec 18 2014 4 3 1

9) Jan 27 2015 2 1 1

4

SMR = Small Modular Reactors, EGS = Enhanced Geothermal (as opposed to conventional geothermal)

1/28/2015

3

Reference Plant Basics Potential technology and configuration Likely location Likely location Capacity (MW) Normalized overnight capital cost ($/kW) O&M costs fixed ($/kW-yr) and variable ($/MWh) Levelized cost fixed ($/kW-yr) and full ($/MWh)–

annualized cost of capital and operation across the a ua ed cost o cap ta a d ope at o ac oss t e lifecycle

Heat rate if applicable Note: all $ in 2012 dollars

5

Reference Plants, Cost Estimates

NATURAL GAS SINGLE CYCLE AND RECIPROCATING ENGINES

6

1/28/2015

4

4 Key Points for Gas Peakers

1. Technology Mature technology, with continued improvements  and adaptations resulting in greater efficiency and performance – resulting in better use of natural gas and  more flexibility

2. In the Northwest

Increasing presence in the region.  Primary use has changed over the last several decades, but may provide valuable integration for regional variable energy resource generation. Plentiful natural gas supply from diverse sources and robust gas infrastructure.

3. Cost and Uncertainty

Stable capital cost estimates, but the levelized cost over 20 year  planning horizon is uncertain – depends on future natural gas supply, 

Uncertaintyprice

4. EmissionsEmits CO2 when generating, and  related methane emissions from natural gas production and transportation ‐ but are within proposed EPA regulations for CO2 emissions from new plants

7

Peaking Power Plant CharacteristicsDraft 7th Power Plan Reference Plants ($2012)

Unit Size (MW)

Capital Cost ($/kW)

Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)

Ramp Rate (Minutes)

Biggest Most expensive Least Efficient SlowestBiggest Most expensive Least Efficient Slowest

Frame1x216

Recip1,300

Frame SCCT9801

Frame  SCCT>10

Intercooled2x100

Aero SCCT1,100

Aero SCCT9048

Intercooled<10

Aero SCCT Intercooled Intercooled Aero SCCT4x47 1,000 8541 <10

Recip12x18

Frame SCCT800

Recip8370

Recip<10

Smallest Least Expensive Most Efficient Fastest

8

1/28/2015

5

Historical Peaking Plant Additions in the Region (MW)

9

Note:  There are currently no intercooled/aero hybrid plants in the PNW

Discussion Points at GRAC

Which technologies should be represented i th RPM?in the RPM? Very similar costs and attributes, RPM won’t

be able to differentiate between operating characteristics, like ramp rates

Modeling too many resources in the RPM increases run time

Choose one or two and view them as a proxy for any of the peaking technologies?

10

1/28/2015

6

Reference PlantsFrame

GE 7F 5‐Series(1) X 216 MW

AeroGE LM6000 PF SP(4) X 47 MW

IntercooledGE LMS100 PB(2) X 100 MW

Recip EngineWärtsilä

(12) X 18 MW

Location PNWWest PNWWest PNW West PNW West

Earliest In –Service 2018 2018 2018 2018

l i ( )Development time (yrs) (siting, licensing, construction)

2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75

Economic Life Years 30 30 30 30

Capacity MW 216 190 200 220

Capital Cost $/kW $800 $1,100 $1,000 $1,300

Fuel Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas

b /k h 980 90 8 8 83 0

11

Heat Rate btu/kWh 9801 9048 8541 8370

Capacity Factor %(for presentation purposes)

25 25 25 25

Inv. Tax Credit ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

O&M Fixed ($/kW‐yr),Variable ($/MWh)

$7.00, $10.00 $25.00, $5.00 $11.00, $7.00 $10.00, $9.00

Preliminary Draft 7P Capital Cost Estimate for Frame GT

$1,200

$1,400

kW)

Generic Studies

Preconstruction EstimatesPastoria Expansion High (CA); Terminated

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

OVER

NIGHT CAPITAL COST (2012 $/k As‐built/Committed

6th Plan Final

7th Plan DraftNERA NYISO B&V for NREL

EIA F‐Class

Lazard

Gas Turbine World

Regional IRPs

EIA E‐Class

Pastoria Expansion Low (CA); Terminated

Marsh Landing (CA)

12

$0

$200

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

VINTAGE OF ESTIMATE

1/28/2015

7

2000

2200

2400

$/KW)

Generic Studies

Preconstruction Estimates

Preliminary Draft 7P Capital Cost Estimate for Aeroderivative GT

Pueblo Airport GS (AZ)Highwood GS (MT)

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

OVER

NIGHT CAPITAL COST (2012 

As‐built or Committed Costs

6th Plan Final

7th Plan Draft

Gas Turbine World

Draft CEC Report

Black & Veatch

NERA for NYISO

Mariposa 1‐4GS (CA)Orange Grove (CA)

Almond, Canyon (CA)

0

200

400

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

VINTAGE OF ESTIMATE

13

Preliminary Draft 7P Capital Cost Estimate for Intercooled GT

1600

1800

Generic Studies

Preconstruction Estimates

Haynes GS (LA)

600

800

1000

1200

1400

VER

NIGHT CAPITAL COST (2012 $/kW)

As-built or Committed Costs

6th Plan Final

7th Plan Draft

CPV Sentinel (CA)

Montana Power Station (TX)

Rio Grande (NM)Panoche (CA)

Pueblo Airport (CO)

Walnut Creek Energy Park (CA)

Draft CEC Report

NERA for NYISO

Gas Turbine World

NERA for NYISO

Black & Veatch

14

0

200

400

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

OV

VINTAGE OF ESTIMATE

1/28/2015

8

1,300

1,400

1,500

1,600

Normalized Capital Costs for Reciprocating Engine Technologies Normalized to NW region and 2012 real dollars

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1,300

$/kW 2012$

15

800

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Rpt. WADE Low Rpt. WADE High Rpt. EPA 2008 Rpt. NWPCC 6th Plan 2010

Proj. Lea Co Elec Coop Proj. Port Westward II High Proj. Port Westward II Low Proj. Humboldt Bay

Rpt NW Energy IRP Rpt E3  NERA (2013) Rpt Wartsila 2013 Rpt

7th Plan Draft

10.41 10.40

10 29 10 30

140

160

Levelized Cost of Energy ‐ New Resource  Natural Gas PlantsCapacity Factor 25% ‐Medium Natural Gas Price Forecast

Capital O&M Fixed and Var Fuel Fixed and Var Trans. Fixed/Integ/Losses

18.50

20.5415.80

16 18

60.3965.28

61.6270.71

10.29 10.30

40

60

80

100

120

$/M

Wh

16

52.2444.20 40.18

32.15

16.18

0

20

40

Ntrl Gas ‐ Recip. Engine Ntrl Gas ‐ Aero GT Ntrl Gas ‐ Intercool Ntrl Gas ‐ Frame

1/28/2015

9

250

300

Levelized Cost of Energy by Capacity FactorNew Resource  Natural Gas Plants

Gas Fired Recip Eng AERO Gas Turbine Intercooled Gas Turbine Frame Gas Turbine

100

150

200

$/M

Wh

17

0

50

10% 25% 40%

Capacity Factor

Reference Plants, Cost Estimates

UTILITY-SCALE WIND

18

1/28/2015

10

4 Key Points for Wind

1. Technology Mature technology, with continued improvements in efficiency and performance – resulting in higher capacity factors and ability to capture more wind in less desirable wind resource areas

2. In the Northwest

Significant presence in the region.  Since 2000, about 7,500 MW wind capacity installed in the Pacific Northwest.  Additional ~1,000 MW in Wyoming (PacifiCorp projects) serving PNW load.

3. Cost and Uncertainty

Slightly decreasing capital cost estimates since peak in 2009/10

4. Emissions Does not emit CO2

19

Wind Development in the PNW

20

1/28/2015

11

Discussion Points at GRAC Capacity factors Improving technologies are capturing more Improving technologies are capturing more

energy. How does it effect assumed future capacity

factors? Role of Montana wind to serve Western load

centers Transmission – existing and potential new Transmission existing and potential new

upgrades/builds Winter-peaking resource matches up closer with

demand

21

Comparison of Regional 2013 Generation Shapes (MWh)

Central MT – Peak in Dec/JanC it F t 40% (6P 38%)Capacity Factor – 40% (6P = 38%)

Columbia Basin – Peak in Mar/April, Sept/OctCapacity Factor – 32% (6P = 32%)

22

Southern ID – Peak in Mar/April, Sept/OctCapacity Factor – 32% (6P = 30%)

1/28/2015

12

Preliminary Capital Cost of Wind

3600

3800

4000W)

Generic Studies

DOE Wind Tech Report

P t ti E ti t Draft CEC Report

1800

2000

2200

2400

2600

2800

3000

3200

3400

OVER

NIGHT CAPITAL COST (2012 $/kW Preconstruction Estimates

As-built or Committed Costs

6th Plan Final

7th Plan Draft

Draft CEC Report

Lazard 2014Lazard 2013

E3 for WECC

DOE 2013

Goshen North II (ID)LimeWind (OR)Biglow Canyon (OR)

Lower Snake River I (WA)

Dunlap I (WY)Shepard's Flat (OR)Spion Kop (MT)

Kittitas (WA)Palouse (WA)

Tucannon (WA)

1000

1200

1400

1600

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

VINTAGE OF ESTIMATE

Lazard 2014Lazard 2013

23

Financial Incentives Production Tax Credit (PTC) expired in 2013, was

renewed by Congress in December through 2014 Projects that began construction before end of 2014 Projects that began construction before end of 2014

eligible Extension doesn’t do much for wind development –

too late and not long enough (there was a possibility of extending through 2015)

Investment Tax Credit (ITC) Ability to take 30% ITC in lieu of PTC now expired

Draft Seventh Plan Proposal: No financial incentives included in levelized costs for wind power

24

1/28/2015

13

Reference PlantsOn‐Shore Wind(40) X 2.5 MW

On‐Shore Wind(40) X 2.5 MW

Location Columbia GorgeCentral Montana, 

delivered to BPA system

Earliest In –Service 2019 2019

Development time (yrs) (siting, licensing, construction)

4 4

Economic Life Years 25 25

Capacity MW 100 100

Capital Cost $/kW $2,240 $2,240

Fuel ‐‐ ‐‐

Heat Rate btu/kWh ‐‐ ‐‐

25

Heat Rate btu/kWh

Max Capacity Factor % 32% 40%

Inv. Tax Credit/ Production Tax Credit ‐‐ ‐‐

O&M Fixed ($/kW‐yr), Variable ($/MWh) $35.00, $2.00 $35.00, $2.00

21 23

13.27

24.4324.34

100

120

Levelized Cost of Energy ‐Wind

Capital O&M Fixed and Var Fuel Fixed and Var Trans. Fixed/Integ/Losses

76.09

63.55 60 87

21.23

17.5917.38

40

60

80

$/M

Wh

26

63.55 60.87

0

20

Wind ‐ Columbia Basin Wind‐MT NWES Expansion Wind‐MT Existing Transm.32% CF 40% CF 40% CF

1/28/2015

14

What’s Coming Next

Feb Power Committee & March Council M ti Meetings – Draft Seventh Plan generating characteristics

for use in the Regional Portfolio Model

Solar PV, CCCT, SCCT, Recips, Wind

Feb or March Power Committee (tbd)b ( b ) Regional RPS analysis

27

BACK-UP SLIDES

28

1/28/2015

15

Frame (80MW – 250 MW units)• Stationary device, weight not an issue• Strengths ‐ longevity and durability• Weaknesses – slower response time;  higher heat rate; higher exhaust temperatures/difficult air quality control• Typical use on for several days then shut down

Aeroderivative (15 – 60 MW units)• Designed from aircraft engine; lighter, moredelicate than frame• Strengths – rapid response time; lower heat rate than frame; easy maintenance; smaller unit size• Typical use – meeting short‐term peak loads and variable resource integration

Properties of Peaking Technologies

• Typical use – on for several days, then shut down• PNW – several frame units built in 1970’s –1990’s for hydro back‐up (firming)

variable resource integration• PNW – several Pratt and Whitney and a few LM6000 plants

Intercooled (100 MW units)• Hybrid of frame and aeroderivative – intercooled equipment required• Strengths – rapid response; lowest GT heat rate.  Especially useful in summer peaking

k f

Reciprocating Engine (2 ‐ 20 MW units)• Largest gas engines in world – 4 stroke • Strengths – highly modular; very rapid response, low heat rate, duel fuel capability, not sensitive to temps and elevation

l h k l d d bl• Weaknesses ‐ requires continuous source of cooling water• Typical use –short‐term peak loads and variable resource integration• PNW – none currently planned or in operation; numerous in WECC, esp. California

• Typical use – short‐term peak loads and variable resource integration• PNW – PGE built first large plant in region (Port Westward II); several smaller units in operation• Note:  aside from NG peaking, used for small biogas and cogen applications, back‐up gen

29

Categorization of Resources for the Draft Seventh Power Plan (1)Prioritization based on a resource’s commercial availability, constructability, cost‐effectiveness, and quantity of developable resource.

Primary; Significant:  Resources that look to play a major role in the future PNW power system Assessment :  In‐depth, quantitative characterization to support system integration and risk analysis modeling. Will be modeled in RPM

Secondary; Commercial w/ Limited Availability:  Resources that are fully commercial but that don’t have  a lot of developmental potential in the PNWAssessment :  Quantitative characterization sufficient to estimate levelized costs. Will 

b d l d i RPM

30

not be modeled in RPM.

Long‐term Potential: Resources that have long term potential in the PNW but may not be commercially available yetAssessment:  Qualitative discussion of status & PNW potential, quantify key numbers as available.  Will not be modeled in RPM.

1/28/2015

16

Categorization of Resources for the Draft Seventh Power Plan (2)Primary;Primary; SignificantSignificant Secondary; Commercial w/ Secondary; Commercial w/ 

Limited AvailabilityLimited AvailabilityLongLong‐‐TermTerm PotentialPotential

l G C bi d C l i h l i (l dfill i d G h lNatural Gas Combined Cycle Biogas Technologies (landfill, wastewater treatment, animal waste, etc.)

Engineered Geothermal

Wind Biomass ‐Woody residues Offshore Wind

Solar PV Conventional hydrothermal Geothermal

Modular Nuclear Units

Natural Gas Simple Cycle, Reciprocating Engine

New Hydropower Wave Energy

31

Hydropower Upgrades Tidal Energy

Waste heat recovery and CHP Coal Technologies w/ CO2

Separation

Storage Technologies* CO2 Sequestration

Storage Technologies*

* Various storage technologies may fall under different categories