Download - Local Manufacturing Potential - Public Documents …pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/180991489696658542/07032017...HYBRIDIZING CSP -100% RENEWABLE ELECTRIC HYBRIDIZATION CSP+PV CSP+WIND THERMAL

CONCENTRATED SOLAR

POWER 2016Market Survey and Trends

New CSP Market Segments Assessment

Local Manufacturing Potential

2017-Mar-07 [email protected] 2

Market Survey and Trends

LIFE NEEDS ENERGY

[email protected]

Sun energy creates: wind, waves,

biomass, oil, coal, hydro.

GravityNuclearSun

Geothermal

Biomass

Wind

Oil, Gas, Coal

Waves

Sun

hydro Reliable, Clean, Safe, Secure,

Affordable

http://media.lookatvietnam.com/2009/12/images1902884_crude_oil.jpg

CSP TECHNOLOGIES AVAILABLE


• Conceptually similar, concentrate solar DNI and generate electricity via thermodynamic cycle

• Parabolic Dish-Stirling is ill-suited for TES, omitted from study

HYBRIDIZING CSP -100% RENEWABLE

ELECTRIC

HYBRIDIZATION

CSP+PV CSP+WIND

THERMAL

HYBRIDIZATION

CSP+BIOMASS CSP+GEOTHERMAL


TES

PV

CSP

Steam Turbine

ELECTRICAL GENERATION

TES

CSP

Steam Turbine


Wind Turbine

Biomass Boiler

CSP

Steam Turbine


GEOTHERMAL

CSP Steam Turbine


HYBRIDIZING CSP-FOSSIL FUELS

LOW SOLAR

SHARE

Solar-aided power gen. (SAPG) Integrated Solar CC (ISCC)

HIGH SOLAR

SHARE

Decoupled Solar CC (DSCC) DSCC with PV


Coal / Fuel / Boiler

CSP

Steam Turbine


Gas Turbine

HRSGCSP

Steam Turbine


Gas Turbine TES

CSP

Steam Turbine


Gas Turbine

TES

CSP

Steam Turbine


PV

INSTALLED CAPACITY

Trend in Technology choice


PT79%

HY3%

CT12%

DS0%

LF6%

Technology choice, actual

PT HY CT DS LF

STATUS IN MENA COUNTRIES

• MENA CSP CTF Investment Plan has been a driving force in the region

• All MENA countries under study have signed the Paris Agreements, most have submitted INDCs


CountryImplementation

PeriodGHG Target Type Greenhouse gas emission

Cost of implementation

Algeria 2021-2030Baseline scenario

target7-22% by 2030

Egypt 2015-2030 Not applicable USD 73 million

Jordan 2013-2020Baseline scenario

target1,5% by 2030 compared to BAU

Morocco --Baseline scenario

target32% by 2030 compared to BAU

Tunisia 2015-2030 Intensity Target7t CO2 per capita in 2010, target in 2030: 3,4t CO2per

capita. (48% reduction)USD 45 billion

Libya Not submittedSaudi Arabia 2021-2030 130 million tons of CO2eq avoided annually by 2030

Kuwait Actions onlyOman 2020-2030 Fixed Level Target GHG emissions growth by 2%UAE Not applicable

STATUS OF CSP MARKETSTechnology Focus


CSP TECHNOLOGY COMPARISON


Technology PT LF DS CT

Typical size (MW) 10 – 280 1 – 125 1 10 – 135

Concentration Factor 70 – 80 25 – 100 600 – 4000 600 – 1200

Capacity Factor (%) 30 – 50 20 – 30 20 – 30 40 – 70

Operation Temperature (ºC) 293 – 393 140 – 275 250 – 700 290 – 565

Solar Electric perf. (%) 16 – 18 9 – 11 12 – 25 16 – 20

Installed worldwide (MW) 4,336 319 3 689

Use of land (MWh/(ha·year)) 600 – 1,000 600 – 1,000 400 – 800 400 – 800

Maturity Commercial Commercial Demo Commercial

Reflector Parabolic mirror Flat/curved mirror Paraboloid mirror Curved mirror

ReceiverAbsorber tube w/

vacuum coverAbsorber tube w/

concentratorStirling engine /

gas turbineExternal / Cavity

HTF Thermal oil Saturated steam AirMolten salt / Water-steam

TESMolten salts,

indirectSteam

accumulatorN/A

Molten salts, direct / steam accumulator

TES capacity 4 – 12 hours < 1 hour N/A 6 – 14 / < 1 hours

Hybridization capable Yes, existing Yes Unlikely Yes

CSP, PV OR HYBRID?

• On production cost alone, PV is, today, significantly cheaper than CSP; it is also more modular and easy to design, construct, maintain and operate• System costs not reflected in LCOE

• When dispatchability is required, TES is cheaper to install and to run, which gives CSP a competitive edge. If combined with cost reduction, utility scale makes more sense with CSP

• Hybridizing CSP with fuels can ease the path, reducing emissions while providing track record to CSP, and time to amortize plants in operation



Note: Values in USD/MWh (2016). WACC = 8%, 25 year technical life for solar (PV-CSP)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

LCOE Range for Different Technologies

A NOTE ON SYSTEM COSTS

• Price of electricity value for the customers: as much as they need, where and when it is needed

• LCOE production cost, regardless where or when

• From LCOE to price integration costs: transmission lines (where) and backup (when)• Low capacity factor increases the unit cost of lines

• Also ancillary services not provided by PV, wind

• High RE mix integration costs can trump LCOE

• CSP integration costs are as low as conventional, especially if hybridized


A NOTE ON SYSTEM COSTS (2)

• MENA countries have a firm generation portfolio, penetration of PV/wind is possible but it has a limit

• A country/system level analysis is required to ensure grid stability

• Robust scenarios should be developed for medium/long term demand (economic & population growth) and generation (emission targets, system costs, impact of RE in wholesale market)


CSP INSTALLED CAPACITY

FORECASTMethodology and Scenarios


UNCERTAINTY IN PROJECTIONS

• Half a decade ago, expectations for CSP deployment were much higher than the current situation: most long-term forecasts and country plans have not been fulfilled

• Scenarios must be cross-checked with cost projections


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030

Insta

lled C

apacity

, G

WBAU-reference STE-GO2016 GP-IEA

ID-optim ID-reference RD-reference

RD-pessimScenarios:

BAU: business as usualID: increased deploymentRD: reduced deploymentSTE-GO: Solar Thermal

Electricity Global Outlook 2016GP-IEA: Greenpeace-IEA

BUSINESS AS USUAL SCENARIO


Scenarios:BAU: business as usualSTE-GO: Solar Thermal

Electricity Global Outlook 2016GP-IEA: Greenpeace-IEA

Scenario considering plants identified in the pipeline worldwide, up to 2025

• Operating

• Under Construction

• Under Development

• Under Planning

• Announced

Constant growth after 2025

± 20% region for optimistic-pessimistic expectations

SCENARIO IN MENA

• Under BAU assumptions, deployment is moderate

• If exporting energy to Europe is realized (DESERTEC or similar) it can be a total game-changer


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2016 2020 2025 2030

Insta

lled C

apacity

, G

W

Algeria Egypt Jordan

Kuwait Libya Morocco

Saudi Arabia Tunisia UAE

EXPORT MENA countries MENA pessimistic

MENA optimistic

COSTS AND COST TRENDSHistory and Forecast


IMPACT ON LCOE

Tower Parabolic Trough


55%

15%

30%

Investment cost O&M cost

Financial cost

59%

13%

28%

Investment cost O&M cost

Financial cost

ELEMENTS IMPACTING COST

• Installed cost• Hard costs: hardware (machinery, structures, etc.)

• Soft costs: services (engineering, design, installation, etc.) and project development (studies, permitting, etc.)

• O&M cost• Fixed costs: permanent staff, insurance, land rental

• Variable costs: auxiliary staff, spare parts, consumables

• Capacity factor

• Risk concentrated on investment (as opposed to conventional, risk concentrated on operation)


COST MODELLING

• Bottom-up model considering:• Learning by doing

• Learning by researching

𝐶𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑖 = 𝐶0

𝑖 ·𝑃𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑖

𝑃0𝑖

log2 𝑃𝑅𝑖

· 𝐾𝑆 −𝑏𝑖

• Economy of scale

𝐶𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖 = 𝐶0

𝑖 ·𝑃𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑖

𝑃0𝑖

𝑁

• Validation of parameters (𝑃𝑅𝑖, 𝑏𝑖, 𝑁) is carried out with historical data of whole plant costs


COST MODELLING

• Validation results show good correlation (r>90%) average is well represented

• High dispersion (RMSD≈40%), large plant-to-plant variation

• Average relative error ≈8%)


COST MODELLING

• Each component cost 𝐶𝑖 correlates with one metric 𝑃𝑖

• Nominal power sets the cost for:• Power block

• BoP

• EPC cost

• Owner’s cost


Reco

mercializatio

n

COST MODELLING


• Storage capacity sets the cost for:• Storage system

Values were corrected for the different operation temperature in CT and PT


COST MODELLING


• Peak power sets the cost for:• Erection and civil

• HTF fluid/system

• Mirror

• Structure/tracker

• Receiver


COSTS AND COST TRENDSResults


COST REDUCTION POTENTIAL TO 2025

Tower Parabolic


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Stru

ctu

re &

…

Rec

eive

r_To

wer

EPC

co

st_T

ow

er

Sto

rage

sys

tem

Ow

ner

's…

Mir

ror

Erec

tio

n a

nd

civ

il

Bo

P

Po

wer

blo

ck

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%

Stru

ctu

re &

…

Sto

rage

sys

tem

HTF

sys

tem

Re

ceiv

er_

PT

EPC

co

st_P

T

Mir

ror

Ow

ner

's c

ost

_PT

HFT

flu

id

Erec

tio

n a

nd

civ

il

Bo

P

Po

wer

blo

ck

Both Hard and Soft costs have a significant potential impact

Uncertainty in projections is significant; values are provided to illustrate expected trends only, discretion is advised

LCOE FORECASTED EVOLUTIONTower Parabolic


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

USD

/MW

h

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

USD

/MW

h

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

USD

/MW

h

PT - FORECASTED LCOE EVOLUTION 2016-2025

Upper uncertainty limit LCOE PT Spain (Moron) LCOE PT USA (Dagget)

LCOE PT Tunisia (Akarit) LCOE PT KSA (Duba 1) LCOE PT Algeria (Hassi R'mel)

LCOE PT Egypt (Kuraymat) LCOE PT Morocco (Ouarzazate) LCOE PT Libya (Tazirbu)

LCOE PT Jordan (WECSP) Lower uncertainty limit

Uncertainty in projections is significant; values are provided to illustrate expected trends only, discretion is advised

R&D PROGRAMSChallenges and Key players


TECHNICAL CHALLENGES

Cost reduction

• New HTF and cycles

• Structures and trackers

• Reflectors

• Receiver

• TES

Soft cost reduction is not in typical R&D programs

Other approaches

• New applications

• Dispatchability /firmness value

• Synergies

• Scale limits

• Use of water

• Hybridization


EVOLUTION OF R&D INVESTMENT –PUBLIC


0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2000

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014An

nu

al In

vest

men

t (M

illio

n U

SD/y

ear)

CHINA+INDIA MENA COUNTRIESAUSTRALIA USAEU R&D PROGRAMS EUROPEAN COUNTRIESAGGREGATED PUBLIC R&D INVESTMENT

Aggregate

d In

vestmen

t (Millio

n U

SD)

EVOLUTION OF R&D INVESTMENT –PRIVATE & AGGREGATED


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

An

nu

al In

vest

men

t (M

illio

n U

SD/y

ear)

TOTAL PUBLIC R&D TOTAL CORPORATE R&D AGGREGATED R&D INVESTMENT

Aggregate

d In

vestmen

t (Millio

n U

SD)

INNOVATION AND COST REDUCTION

Some key aspects are not included in “typical” R&D

• Soft costs in development and EPC

• Risk reduction / cost of capital

• O&M costs

• New business models


CONCLUSIONSand Recommendations


CSP STATUS

• Half a decade ago, expectations for CSP deployment were higher than the current situation: most long-term forecasts and country plans have not been fulfilled.

• There is not only one reason for this: • the quick cost reduction of PV made it a more attractive

alternative (so some efforts were moved from CSP to PV);

• several other initiatives were halted, hoping that a PV-like cost reduction would bring CSP’s LCOE closer to grid parity;

• when the cost reduction was not as quick as expected , the sector risked entering a vicious circle as a slower deployment further slowed cost reduction.


CSP’S FUTURE

• The future development of CSP is linked to its ability to provide value to the electric system in comparison with other alternatives.

• CSP’s strengths, beyond possible cost break throughs, are: • cheap storage,

• demand management capabilities,

• ancillary services, etc.


CSP’S FUTURE

• There is potential for cost reduction in both hard and soft costs, but some chapters (civil works, power block, BoP, EPC cost and Owner’s cost) have barely improved despite its significant impact

• Soft costs are not a typical target in R&D programs

• Other approaches beyond cost reduction (synergies, alternative applications) can improve CSP’s competitiveness

• Monetizing CSP energy’s desirable properties would help it compete in equal terms with PV, wind


CSP’S FUTURE

• Hybridization can be a key to the future of CSP:• Hybridizing CSP with fuels can ease the path, reducing

emissions while providing track record to CSP, and time to amortize plants in operation

• CSP integration costs are as low as conventional, especially if hybridized

• Risk is concentrated on investment in CSP, and on operation in conventional; hybrids can have a better balance between both, diluting them


CSP IN MENA COUNTRIES

• The experience in MENA countries has followed the same technology implementation pattern: first CSP power plants used PT technology in the Solar Field (ISCCs, Shams), but are already considering the development of solar tower projects.

• MENA Countries can profit from the availability of CTF funds to minimize financing costs, reducing the final energy prices. Risk allocation will be crucial as well as reducing the uncertainty in countries accessing concessional financing.



• CSP can be the backbone of a highly renewable energy system in the MENA countries, providing advantages when compared with intermittent renewable energies with chemical back-up or conventional back-up capacity

• MENA Countries may gain relevance in CSP industry through the development of concepts as DESERTEC, contributing to support the future development of CSP

• High electricity interconnection and the option of a transnational market opens possibilities for developers and off takers, adding flexibility and increasing competition



• MENA countries can benefit from the lessons learned during the development of CSP technology and become relevant players of the industry.

• CSP deployment on the selected MENA countries can become a reality if several key conditions are fulfilled: • uncertainty (perceived risks in the region ) is reduced,

• realistic targets are set up to supply local market, and

• an appropriate frame is defined to provide energy to Europe



New CSP Market Segments Assessment

CONTENTS

Technology – Process Integration CSPCSP vs Business as Usual (BAU). TodayFuture TrendsCSP DeploymentInvestment required and cost savingsEmission Savings (COP21)

Solar Field (SF)

ThermalEnergy

Storage (TES)

Heat Transfer Fluid (HTF) System Power Block (PB)

HOT

COLD

PROCESS INTEGRATION CSP

Depending on the application, TES or hybrid configurations may be needed, due to economicand security of supply reasons.

PROCESS INTEGRATION CSP

Depending on the application, TES or hybrid configurations may be needed, due to economicand security of supply reasons.

Solar Field (SF)

ThermalEnergy

Storage (TES)

Heat Transfer Fluid (HTF) System

HOT

COLD

Oil Production

Oil Refineries

Chemicals Manufacturing

Water Heating

Agriculture

Mining

PROCESS INTEGRATION CSP -REQUIREMENTS

• Minimum thermal power: 10 MWth

• Land availability

• Technical feasibility

• Stable energy demand

• Project lifetime: 15-20 years

• High investment

• Consumer commitment

NATURAL GAS AND OIL HISTORY PRICES:

Data obtained as a mean value of Fuel Prices included in “BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2016”. Available on-line at:http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review-2016/bp-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2016-full-report.pdf

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Dimensionless evolution of fuel costs (Ref 2015 prices)

Natural Gas Oil

http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review-2016/bp-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2016-full-report.pdf

OIL CONSUMPTION IN OIL PRODUCTION

- Source: US International Revenue Service & California Energy Commission.

4 Oil Barrel1 Oil Barrel

THERMAL APPLICATIONS:CSP LCOE VS BAU LCOE (2017-2030)

Fuel cost uncertainty ranges defined according to the Mean Cost Variance of the fuel during the 2000-2015 period, defined as:

𝑉𝑎𝑟 ത𝑋 =1

𝑛·𝑆𝑋ത𝑋

CSP cost uncertainty defined as Max CSP LCOE value +20% and Min CSP LCOE value – 20%LCOE cost for auxiliary fuels only considers fuel costs (96% of total costs)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

LCO

E (U

SD/M

Wh

_th

)

Uncertainty range MEAN LCOE CSPLower uncertainty limit CSP LCOE Upper uncertainty limit CSP LCOENATURAL GAS MAX NATURAL GAS MEANNATURAL GAS MIN FUELOIL MAXFUELOIL MEAN FUELOIL MIN

FUEL-OIL

CSP

NATURAL GAS

CONSUMPTION VS TEMPERATURE AND

LCOE GAP (MENA COUNTRIES)

Water Heating (Natural Gas); 86

Water Tratment and Conditioning; 5

Agriculture; 11

Biogas Production; 6

Natural Gas Transport Grid; 4

Mining; 6

Drying; 12

Solar Heating and cooling; 10

Solar Ice; 4

Oil Extraction (EOR); 316

Oil Refining; 102

Chemicals Manufacturing

(Natural Gas); 22

Solar Cooking ; 4

Desalination MED; 12

Water Heating (Fuel); 43

Chemicals Manufacturing (Fuel); 2

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Diffe

ren

ce

be

twe

en

BA

U a

nd

CS

P L

CO

E in

20

16

(U

SD

/MW

h-t

h)

Temperature (ºC)

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCES

- CSP Ready Technologies are the ones that present a possitive LCOE value compared to BAU with significant market potential- CSP Potential Technologies are the ones that present a possitive LCOE value compared to BAU or have a significant market potential.

Application Country Project Installed Capacity

Agriculture AustraliaPort Augusta

Greenhouse39 MW_th

Oil Extraction

(EOR)USA Coalinga 29 MW_th

Oil Extraction

(EOR)Oman PDO Pilot 7 MW_th

Oil Extraction

(EOR)Oman Miraah 1 GW_th

Mining Chile El Tesoro 10 MW_th

CLASSIFICATION OF CSP THERMAL

APPLICATIONS

• Classification of CSP thermal applications:

CSP Ready CSP Potential

- Oil Extraction- Mining- Agriculture

(Greenhouses)- Fuel-oil substitution

- Oil Refining- Water Heating (Large)- Chemicals

Manufacturing(Saturated Steam)

- CSP Ready Technologies present cost-competitive values (LCOE) compared to BAU and previous experiences- CSP Potential Technologies present cost-competitive values (LCOE) compared to BAU or significant market potential.

INVESTMENT AND POWER INSTALLED PER YEAR

(2017-2030)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

An

nu

al In

vest

men

t (B

illio

n U

SD/y

ear)

Ther

mal

Po

wer

Inst

alle

d (G

W_t

h/y

ear)

Solar Ice AgricultureMining (MW_th/year) Chemicals Manufacturing (MW_th/year)Water Heating (MW_th/year) Oil Refining (MW_th/year)Oil Extraction (MW_th/year) ANNUAL INVESTMENT (Billion USD/year)

EMISSION SAVINGS (2017-2030)

Only 2017-2030 period is reflected. 2030-2050 period present constant emmission savings as 2030, and decreasing during the last 13 years due to the end of the lifetime of the CSP plants.

0

2,500

5,000

7,500

10,000

12,500

15,000

17,500

20,000

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Aggre

gate

d E

mis

sio

n S

avin

gs (

Mill

Tonnes C

O2)

Annual

Em

issio

n S

avin

gs (

Mill

Tonnes C

O2/y

ear)

Oil Extraction (Annual) Oil Refining (Annual)

Water Heating (Annual) Mining (Annual)

Chemicals Manufacturing (Annual) Solar Ice (Annual)

Agriculture (Annual) Aggregated Emission Savings (Total)


谢谢

THANK YOU

Merci

Gracias

Any comments or ideas

[email protected]

Download - Local Manufacturing Potential - Public Documents …pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/180991489696658542/07032017...HYBRIDIZING CSP -100% RENEWABLE ELECTRIC HYBRIDIZATION CSP+PV CSP+WIND THERMAL

Top Related