Energy-Economic-Environmental Analysis of Photovoltaics in the US
22
Brookhaven Science Associates U.S. Department of Energy Energy-Economic-Environmental Analysis of Photovoltaics in the US V.M. Fthenakis Environmental Sciences Department Brookhaven National Laboratory
description
Energy-Economic-Environmental Analysis of Photovoltaics in the US. V.M. Fthenakis Environmental Sciences Department. Brookhaven National Laboratory. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Energy-Economic-Environmental Analysis of Photovoltaics in the US
Brookhaven Science AssociatesU.S. Department of Energy
Energy-Economic-Environmental Analysis of Photovoltaics in the US
V.M. Fthenakis
Environmental Sciences DepartmentBrookhaven National Laboratory
Brookhaven Science AssociatesU.S. Department of Energy
The MARKAL model was developed as an energy and environmental systems model in the 1976-81 period in an effort involving analysts from 17 nations and two international organizations. The model is currently used for energy and environmental planning in over 35 countries. The US Energy Information Administration has chosen a version of MARKAL for projections in the International Energy Output. MARKAL is a demand-driven, multi-period, linear programming model optimization model (Fishbone and Abilock, 1981).
Brookhaven Science AssociatesU.S. Department of Energy
MARKAL establishes a competitive market to supply energy demands. All energy resources and both supply and demand technologies compete in this market in an even-handed manner.
Brookhaven Science AssociatesU.S. Department of Energy
Study Design
Study was based on the MARKAL version of the 2001 EIA Annual Energy Outlook.
PV, Wind, Advanced Combined Cycle plants and Microturbines were released from growth constraints in the AEO model. Cost and performance data for PV, wind and solar thermal technologies were drawn EPRI (1997).
These three MARKAL analyses were constrained to growth rates of 25%/year, 30%/year and 50%/year.
Brookhaven Science AssociatesU.S. Department of Energy
Study Design
These three analyses were compared among themselves and to the 25%/year Roadmap.
This allows us to compare the Roadmap with a sophisticated energy systems model under different circumstances.
Brookhaven Science AssociatesU.S. Department of Energy
Study Design
In addition, The potential role of PV on peak load was explored.
MARKAL is designed to produce the cost of electricity endogenously. We tricked the model by decreasing the length of the summer day, which forces the price of electricity to increase. We achieved a price of $287/MWh, within the range of peak prices found by Sioshansi (2000) in the Pacific Northwest.
Brookhaven Science AssociatesU.S. Department of Energy
PV 50%/y growth constraint
PV - EPRI50 (50%/y)
020
40
60
80100
120
140
160
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
GW MARKAL
Roadmap
Brookhaven Science AssociatesU.S. Department of Energy
50 %/y Competing Technologies
Microturbines and Advanced CC
0
100
200
300
400
500
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
GW
PVWindMicroturbine
Note: Wind 5-7 Limited to 100 GW Resource Limit
Brookhaven Science AssociatesU.S. Department of Energy
PV Displacement of Carbon Emissions (50%/y)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
mill
ion
met
ric to
ns/y
MARKALRoadmap
50%/y Carbon Displacement
Brookhaven Science AssociatesU.S. Department of Energy
PV - Scenario EPRI22A
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
GW
MARKALRoadmap
PV 30%/y Growth Constraint
Brookhaven Science AssociatesU.S. Department of Energy
30%/y Growth Constraint - Competing Technologies
Wind 5-7constrained to 100GW resource limit.
Competing Technologies
050
100150200250300350400
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
GW
PV
Wind
Adv CC andmicroturbine
Brookhaven Science AssociatesU.S. Department of Energy
30%/y Carbon displacement
PV Displacement of Carbon - Scenario EPRI22a
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
mill
ion
met
ric to
ns/y
MARKALRoadmap
Brookhaven Science AssociatesU.S. Department of Energy
PV: 25%/y growth
PV - Scenario EPRI22b
020406080
100120140
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
GW MARKAL
Roadmap
Brookhaven Science AssociatesU.S. Department of Energy
25%/y Growth limit - Competing technologies
Competing Technologies 25%/y growth
0
50
100
150
200
250
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
GW
PV
Wind
Adv CC,microturbines
Wind 5-7 limited to 100 GW resource
Brookhaven Science AssociatesU.S. Department of Energy
25% Carbon displacement
Carbon Emissions displaced by PV -Scenario EPRI22b
05
10152025303540
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
TWh MARKAL
Roadmap
Brookhaven Science AssociatesU.S. Department of Energy
Compare PV among three scenarios
PV- EPRI Scenario
0
2040
60
80
100120
140
160
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
GW
25%/y30%/y50%/yRoadmap
Brookhaven Science AssociatesU.S. Department of Energy
Carbon Displacement for three PV scenarios
Displaced Carbon
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
mill
ion
met
ric
tons
/yea
r
25%/y30%/y50%/yRoadmap
Brookhaven Science AssociatesU.S. Department of Energy
Potential Role of PV in peaking power
Role of PV in Peaking -SD10
0
100
200
300
400
500
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
GW
SD10TECHSM12
SD10 compresses summer day to achieve $288/MWh peak.
Brookhaven Science AssociatesU.S. Department of Energy
Implications of Peaking for PV
In a deregulated market, electric prices can be high during peak hours, especially when there is a shortage of capacity. Peak periods usually coincide with hot sunny days.
MARKAL characterizes the electric load curve in three seasons (winter, summer, intermediate), night and day, and peak. The amount the peak exceeds the average summer day (assuming a summer peak) is determined exogenously. To determine the potential role of PV for peaking, we artificially narrowed the time-period for the summer day, inducing a high cost peak ($200-$300 per MWh.)
Brookhaven Science AssociatesU.S. Department of Energy
Table 1. Characteristics of Central PV Systems (EPRI, 1997)2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Capital Cost ($/Wp) 6.08 3.33 1.72 1.47 1.27 1.12 1.01Fixed O&M ($/W) 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071Module efficiency (%) 7.2 8.8 11.2 12 12.8 13.2 13.6
Brookhaven Science AssociatesU.S. Department of Energy
Table 2a. Estimated costs of some electricity generation technologies. 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Central Wind 5-7Capital Cost ($/W) 0.750 0.720 0.675 0.665 0.655 0.645 0.635Fixed O&M ($/W) 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018
Central Wind 4Capital Cost ($/W) 0.983 0.983 0.983 0.983 0.983 0.983 0.983Fixed O&M ($/W) 0.0289 0.0289 0.0289 0.0289 0.0289 0.0289 0.0289
Natural Gas Combined Cycle 2000 (E4H)Capital Cost ($/W) 0.576 0.576 0.576 0.576 0.576 0.576 0.576Fixed O&M ($/W) 0.0141 0.0141 0.0141 0.0141 0.0141 0.0141 0.0141Variable O&M ($/GJ) 0.144 0.144 0.144 0.144 0.144 0.144 0.144Efficiency 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49
Natural Gas Combined Cycle 2010 (E4I)Capital Cost ($/W) 0.576 0.576 0.576 0.576 0.576Fixed O&M ($/W) 0.144 0.144 0.144 0.144 0.144Variable O&M ($/GJ) 0.144 0.144 0.144 0.144 0.144Efficiency 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54
Brookhaven Science AssociatesU.S. Department of Energy
Table 2b. Estimated costs of some electricity generation technologies. 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Biomass ATS TurbineCapital Cost ($/W) 1.486 1.362 1.238 1.238 1.238Variable O&M ($/GJ) 11.34 11.34 11.34 11.34 11.34
Coal Atmospheric Fluidized BedCapital Cost ($/W)1.739 1.739 1.739 1.739 1.739 1.739 1.739Fixed O&M ($/W)0.0404 0.0404 0.0404 0.0404 0.0404 0.0404 0.0404Variable O&M ($/GJ)2.54 2.54 2.54 2.54 2.54 2.54 2.54
Coal SteamCapital Cost ($/W)1.092 1.092 1.092 1.092 1.092 1.092 1.092Variable O&M ($/GJ)0.719 0.719 0.719 0.719 0.719 0.719 0.719
MicroturbineCapital Cost ($/W) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5Variable O&M ($/GJ) 0.574 0.574 0.574 0.574 0.574 0.574Efficiency 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47
