Post on 26-Sep-2020
© Wärtsilä
Flexible LNG Power in South Africa
Authors:Wayne GlossopJyrki Leino
1
© Wärtsilä2
3 BIG QUESTIONS
• What does the SA system require from gas plants in the future?
• Which technology is best suited to meet these needs?
• What about the impact of LNG GSA’s?
© Wärtsilä
To date, there is no clear answer on what the “real” role of gas power will be in the South African Power System:
• Ministerial Determination (December 2012):
• “that baseload and/or mid-merit energy generation capacity is needed to contribute towards energy security, including 2652MW to be generated from Natural Gas.”
• Gas Power RFI (May 2015):
• “intra-day flexibility is required with lower load factors during night and higher load factors during the day and evening peak hours”.
• 35% Load Factor >500MW
• 50% Load Factor <500MW
• 600MW EoI (May 2016):
• “The Power Generation Facility is anticipated to be operated in either baseload or mid-merit mode of operation utilising appropriate power generation technologies.”
3
THE UNDEFINED ROLE OF GAS IN SOUTH AFRICA
© Wärtsilä
CC
-GT
CC
-IC
E
LN
G G
SA
4
BEST TECHNOLOGY AND IMPACT OF LNG SUPPLY?
© Wärtsilä
Using specialised Power System Optimisation software, we studied the SA power system between 2020-2030 based on the IRP using 3GW gas.
5
HOW DID WE STUDY THE SYSTEM?
-
100
200
300
400
500
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Win
d C
ap
acit
y [
MW
]
So
lar
PV
Cap
acit
y [
MW
]
1 Month Aggregated REIPPP Dispatch
Solar PV Wind
New build options
Coal Nuclear
Import
hyrdo
Gas -
CCGT
Peak -
OCGT Wind CSP Solar PV
MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW
2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300
2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300
2014 500 0 0 0 0 400 0 300
2015 500 0 0 0 0 400 0 300
2016 0 0 0 0 0 400 100 300
2017 0 0 0 0 0 400 100 300
2018 0 0 0 0 0 400 100 300
2019 250 0 0 237 0 400 100 300
2020 250 0 0 237 0 400 100 300
2021 250 0 0 237 0 400 100 300
2022 250 0 1143 0 805 400 100 300
2023 250 1600 1183 0 805 400 100 300
2024 250 1600 283 0 0 800 100 300
2025 250 1600 0 0 805 1600 100 1000
2026 1000 1600 0 0 0 400 0 500
2027 250 0 0 0 0 1600 0 500
2028 1000 1600 0 474 690 0 0 500
2029 250 1600 0 237 805 0 0 1000
2030 1000 0 0 948 0 0 0 1000
Total 6250 9600 2609 2370 3910 8400 1000 8400
© Wärtsilä6
ENERGY DISPATCH FOR GAS BASED POWER
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Ca
pa
city f
acto
r [%
]
The role of Gas capacity constantly varies depending on the supply/demand status of the system. It never remains in a single profile.
Simulated weekly gas power
dispatch profile for 2020-2022
Simulated weekly gas power
dispatch profile for 2023 onwards
Note 1: Simulations carried out with Plexos and inputs obtained from the Integrated Resource Plan (Base Case 0.0) of South African Department of Energy
Note 2: Delivered gas price estimated at 12USD/GJ.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Po
we
r o
utp
ut
Days
Po
we
r o
utp
ut
Days
© Wärtsilä
The demand for, and generation of, electricity must be kept in constant balance in order to maintain the stability of the electricity system. Frequency is the measure of system stability
• Differences between forecast and actual real time can arise from 3 main reasons:1. Unplanned outages of power plants or/and transmission lines2. Electricity demand (load) deviating from the forecast3. Intermittent renewable generation output deviating from forecast
• Need for Reserves will increase as renewable penetration exceeds 10%* in 2019• SA Grid Code defines the following start up requirements for Regulating Reserves
7
INTRODUCTION TO OPERATING RESERVES
1%3%
4%6%
8%9%
10%11%
13%14%15%
16%
20%21%
24%24%25%26%
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
22
20
23
20
24
20
25
20
26
20
27
20
28
20
29
20
30
Renewable Energy Penetration as a % of the peak demand**
* According to the International Energy Agency, the power system will start to experience the effects of variability from renewables sources after 5% penetration levels are reached (reference: IEA 2014,
“The power of transformation”).
** As per Base Case IRP2010
10s
10min 1hr
Rese
rve
MW
’s
49.85Hz
© Wärtsilä
Technology Performance Differences allow for different grid functions to be met:
8
TECHNOLOGY COMPARISONS
Conditions “Ultra-Flexible” Tech
[eg: CC-ICE]
“Conventional” Tech
[eg: CC-GT]
Output 600 MW 600 MW
Efficiency (Net, LHV) 100% load (25degC) 50% 55%
75% load (25degC) 50% 52%
50% load (25degC) 50% 48%
Start up Times Hot Standby 10min (90%) / 1:20min
(10%)
15-20min (50%) / 1:30min
(50%)
Start up Costs EUR/MW/start 5 60*
Note* As per NREL report “Power Plant Cycling Costs” April 2012
Ultra-Flex Conventional
Spinning Non-Spinning Spinning Non-Spinning
Regulating Reserves Yes Yes (90%) Partial No
Supplying Reg Reserves from non-spinning state means that
no Variable OPEX is incurred – i.e. it is the most cost
effective way to provide reserves to the system
© Wärtsilä
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Ca
pa
city fa
cto
r [%
]
Conventional Energy
Conventional Reserves
Ultra-Flex Energy
Ultra-Flex Reserves
Engines are the technology of choice to provide Regulating Reserves to the system:
9
TECHNOLOGIES AND THEIR ROLES IN ENERGY AND RESERVES
Increasing role
as reserve
provider to the
system
© Wärtsilä
-350 000
-300 000
-250 000
-200 000
-150 000
-100 000
-50 000
0
50 000
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
00
0’ U
SD
Conventional Energy
Conventional Reserves
Ultra-Flex Energy
CC-ICE Energy+Reserves
The ability to provide flexible energy and reserves generates significant annual savings:
10
SYSTEM LEVEL IMPACT FROM TECHNOLOGY AND RESERVES
Source of System Savings from Flexibility
CoalOptimisation
DieselReduction
© Wärtsilä11
What is “Coal Optimisation”?
IMPACT OF FLEXIBILITY
Coal Fleet Parameter No Gas Ultra-Flex Variation
Start p.u.p.a Pcs 8.067 7.798 -3%
Generation per start p.u MWh 360 741 372 444 3%
Duration of average pulse Hrs 724 747 3%
This may be
small but it is
against a huge
installation base
of +30GW
© Wärtsilä12
TECHNOLOGY DISPATCH VISUALS
Lower bound Upper boundary DA generation RT generation
“Typical” week with gas technologies providing energy and reserves to the system:
Ultra-Flex Tech=
Energy + Reg
Reserves
Provider
Conventional
Tech = Energy
Provider
ULT
RA
-FLE
XIB
LE
CO
NV
EN
TIO
NA
L
© Wärtsilä
FLEXIBILITY AN LNG PERSPECTIVE
13
© Wärtsilä
FixedGSA
• 100% take-or-pay obligations
• 3Mtpa offtake requirement [~65% LF for 3GW]
• Good LNG import terminal infrastructure utilisation
10USD/GJ
VariableGSA
• 0% take-or-pay obligations
• No minimum offtake obligations
• Variable LNG import terminal infrastructure utilisation
15USD/GJ
14
OPTIONS FOR LNG ‘GAS SUPPLY AGREEMENTS’
© Wärtsilä
A comparison of systems with no gas; fixed gas; and variable gas power projects
-1 800 000
-1 600 000
-1 400 000
-1 200 000
-1 000 000
-800 000
-600 000
-400 000
-200 000
0
200 000
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
00
0’ U
SD
No Gas Fixed Gas [10USD/GJ] Variable Gas [15USD/GJ]
15
PIÈCE DE RÉSISTANCE
Cheaper to have
no gas at all on
the system than
inflexible gas
Flexible gas
always creates
greater system
savings than
inflexible gas
© Wärtsilä16
3 BIG ANSWERS
• What does the SA system require from gas plants in the future?
• The ability to switch between profiles depending on the system’s supply/demand situation
• Diesel Displacement and Coal Optimisation
• Which technology is best suited to meet these needs?
• Ultra-Flexible Gas Technologies are able to provide much needed system reserves in a cost effective manner thereby creating system savings
• What about the impact of LNG GSA’s?
• The value of providing system flexibility outweighs the benefits from optimising your gas supply chain
© Wärtsilä17
Smart Power
Generation
THANK YOU
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
FUEL FLEXIBILITY
OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY