Concentrating Solar Power

Mark Mehos, Chuck KutscherNational Renewable Energy Laboratory

www.nrel.gov/csp

September 19, 2007

CSP Technologies and Market Sectors

• Dispatchable Generation

• Non-Dispatchable Generation

• Dispatchable Generation– Parabolic trough– Power tower

• Non-Dispatchable Generation– Dish/Engine

0 6 12 18 24

Value of Dispatchable Power? Meeting Utility Power Demands

Generation w/ Thermal

Storage

• Storage provides– higher value

because power production can match utility needs

– lower costs because storage is cheaper than incremental turbine costs

Solar ResourceHourly Load

Parabolic Trough Output Profile Parabolic Trough Output Profile Summer Day Summer Day

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

0:00 6:00 12:00 18:00 0:00

APS

Loa

d (M

We)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Net

Sol

ar O

utpu

t (M

We)

APS Load MWe Solar Output Solar with TES

July 8, 2002 - Actual system load, modeled solar output based on actual DNI

Parabolic Trough Output Profile Parabolic Trough Output Profile Summer Day Summer Day

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

0:00 6:00 12:00 18:00 0:00

APS

Loa

d (M

We)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Net

Sol

ar O

utpu

t (M

We)

APS Load MWe Solar Output Solar with TES

December 11, 2002 - Actual system load, modeled solar output based on actual DNI

CSP Costs and Targets• Current Costs

– Highly dependent on plant size, financing, incentives– $.12-$.16/kwh nominal LCOE

• Goals – CSP Proposed Baseload Initiative:– intermediate power at 8-10 cents/kWh (nominal LCOE)

by 2015 (5-year acceleration of current plan), and– baseload power at about 6-8 cents/kWh (nominal LCOE)

by 2020 (including systems with 60-75% capacity factor)

Parabolic Trough Technology Advances

– Advanced Selective Coatings • Thermal emittance of 0.07 @ 400C• Absorptance of 95%• Transmittance of 96%

– Advanced Concentrator Designs• Increased size (EuroTrough)• Improved mirror reflectivity (95% + 96% cleanliness)

– Molten-Salt Heat Transfer Fluids and Thermal Storage• Molten-Salt (Hitec) HTF at 500ºC• Single tank thermocline TES system

Parabolic Trough Potential Cost Reductions

0.05

0.060.07

0.08

0.090.10

0.11

0.120.13

0.14

25% 35% 45% 55% 65% 75%

Annual Capacity Factor

Real

Lev

eliz

ed C

ost o

f Ene

rgy

(200

6 $/

kWh)

Baseline 100 MWe 2-Tank Indirect Baseline Plus Advanced Solar Tech

Molten-salt Thermocline @ 500C Scale-up to 200 MWePower Park 4x200 Power Park w/ 3X Learning

How Does CSP Stack Up?

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

0.11

0.12

0.13

0.14

0.15

25% 35% 45% 55% 65% 75% 85%

Annual Capacity Factor

Real

Lev

eliz

ed C

ost o

f Ene

rgy

(200

6 $/

kWh)

Baseline 2:Tank Indirect Molten-salt Thermocline @ 500CPower Park 4x200 Power Park w/ 3X LearningConventional Gas Combined Cycle Pulverized CoalSequestered Gas Combined Cycle Sequestered Coal IGCCNew Nuclear Power

U.S. Market Analysis Focused Initially on the Southwest Region

Southwest Solar Resources (With all Filters) Result: 7,000 GW (7X U.S. capacity)!

Source: Western Governors’ Association study

Southwest Solar Energy Potential

The table and map represent land that has no primary use today, exclude land with slope > 1%, and do not count sensitive lands. Solar Energy Resource ≥

6.75Capacity assumes 5 acres/MWGeneration assumes 27% annual capacity factor

Land AreaSolar

Capacity

Solar Generation

CapacityState (mi2) (MW) GWh

AZ 19,279 2,467,663 5,836,517CA 6,853 877,204 2,074,763CO 2,124 271,903 643,105NV 5,589 715,438 1,692,154NM 15,156 1,939,970 4,588,417TX 1,162 148,729 351,774UT 3,564 456,147 1,078,879

Total 53,727 6,877,055 16,265,611

3000 km

3000 km

1500 km Chicago Boston

Miami

Dallas

600 km

1500 km

500 km

1000 km

Salt Lake

Seattle

3000 km

3000 km

1500 km Chicago Boston

Miami

Dallas

600 km

1500 km

500 km

1000 km

Salt Lake

Seattle

Long distance HVDC tie would add roughly 1.5 cents/kwh to cost of CSP

Deployment of 80 GW of CSP

European Transmission Studies

“Concentrating Solar Power for the Mediterranean Region,” German Aerospace Center (DLR), 2005

Operating Central Station Systems

• The Solar Energy Generating Systems (SEGS) at Kramer Junction, CA (SEGS III-VII)

– Five 30MW hybrid trough plants for a total of 150MW Capacity

– Commissioned 1986-1988

– Performance has increased with time

• Four additional SEGS plants located in two locations (Daggett, Harper Lake) for combined total of nine plants and 354 MW capacity

Solar Thermal Capacity

0

100

200

300

400

500

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

YEAR

Cap

acity

in M

W

Annual Electricity Generation GWhr

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

YEAR

Gen

erat

ion

(GW

h) in

Solar Electric Generation Stations (SEGS) Deployment and power production 1985 – 2002.

SEGS Deployment & Production

1-MW Arizona Trough Plant – near Tucson, AZ

64 MWe Solargenix Parabolic Trough Plant

50 MW AndaSol-1 Parabolic Trough Plant w/ 7-hr Storage

Andalucia, Spain

Solucar PS10 Power Tower Sevilla, Spain

Solucar 50 MW Trough ProjectSevilla, Spain

First of 5 x 50MW parabolic trough plants under construction by Solucar

CSP Projects – mid 2007Utility/State Capacity

(MW)Technology - Status

Arizona Public Service (APS)

1 Trough – completed and in operation 2006 (Acciona)

Nevada Power 64 Trough – completed and in operation June 2007 (Acciona)

Southern Cal Edison

500-850 Dish – signed power purchase agreement (SES)

San Diego Gas & Electric

300-900 Dish – signed power purchase agreement (SES)

Pacific Gas & Electric

550 Trough – signed power purchase agreement (Solel)

Pacific Gas & Electric

500 Tower – MOU signed (Bright Source)

SW Utility joint venture (APS)

Est. 250 TBD – multiple expressions of interest submitted

New Mexico Utility Joint Venture

50-500 TBD – initial stages

U.S. projects: enabled by 30% investment tax credit and State renewable portfolio standards

State RPS RequirementArizona 15% by 2025 California 20% by 2010 Colorado 20% by 2020Nevada 20% by 2015, 5%

SolarNew Mexico 20% by 2015Texas 5,880MW (~4.2%) by

2015

CSP Projects – InternationalCountry/Company Capacity (MW) Technology -Status

Spain: Solar Millenium 4 x 50MW with storage

Trough – Andosol 1 &2 under construction.

Spain: Abengoa/Solucar 5 x 50MW Trough – 1st plant under construction

Spain: Abengoa/Solucar 11MW &20MW Power Tower (saturated steam) – PS10 operational. PS20 under construction

Spain: SENER 17MW Power Tower (molten salt) – contract terms under discussion

Spain: various TBD Projects under various stages of development due to tariff for 500MWs of CSP capacity. Cap likely to be raised to 1000MWs.

Algeria: Abener 150MW Integrated Solar Combined Cycle System (ISCCS) – 25MW Solar Capacity

Egypt: TBD 140MW ISCCS – 25MW Solar Capacity, negotiations in progress

Mexico: TBD TBD ISCCS – RFP issued

Morocco: TBD 230MW ISCCS – 35 MW Solar Capacity

Israel: Solel 2 x 125MW Trough – Northern Negev. Waiting approval from Interior Ministry

Australia: SHP 15MW,th Linear Fresnel – under construction for integration into feed water heaters in existing coal plant

Greece: TBD TBD Tariff for CSP recently enacted. Similar in design to Spanish feed-in tariff

Questions?

Mark Mehos National Renewable Energy Laboratory

mark_mehos@nrel.gov (303) 384-7458

www.nrel.gov/csp

Special Bonus Slides!!!!

SOLAR 2006, Denver“Renewable Energy: Key to Climate Recovery”

U.S. Carbon Emissions Displacement Potential from Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by 2030

57% Energy Efficiency, 43% Renewables

$3 B/yr$7 B/yr$5 B/yr$5 B/yr$9 B/yr$0 B/yr

-$108 B/yr

Total:Savingsof $82 B/yr

What doesit cost?

U.S. Renewable Electricity Generation in 2030

TechnologyPercent of GridEnergy in 2030

Concentrating Solar Power* 7

Photovoltaics 7

Wind 20

Biomass* 8

Geothermal* 9

Total 51*Can provide baseload or near-baseload power

ASES reportreleasedJan. 31, 2007

Available at: www.ases.org

Adopted by SierraClub as their“energy roadmap”