• No results found

Comparing Electricity Generation Technologies

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Comparing Electricity Generation Technologies"

Copied!
18
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Comparing Electricity

Generation Technologies

g

Stan Rosinski

P

M

R

bl G

ti

Program Manager, Renewable Generation

2011 SRP Sustainable Portfolio Review

March 3 2011

March 3, 2011

(2)

Comparing Electricity Generation Technologies

Key Takeaways

y

y

• Electric utilities must face tradeoffs in choosing among

– Power generation technologies

– Fuels

Renewable resources

– Renewable resources

• Balance business objectives with

– Environmental stewardship

Environmental stewardship

– Regulatory compliance

– Future scenarios

• Objective is to provide a clean, reliable and affordable

electricity supply

(3)

The Cost Challenge

U.S. Retail Price of Electricity

18

16

e

nts)

y

(commercial, industrial, residential)

16

14

12

(in 2007 c

e

12

10

C

ents/kWh

8

6

C

Flat real electricity prices for past 40 years…

what about the next 40 years?

4

2

3

© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

(4)

Where Does Our Electricity Come From?

2009 Electric Sector Generation

(5)

Comparing Generation Technologies

5

(6)

How Many Plants Does it Take to Power a City?

A Sense of Scale

Nuclear

Coal

Natural Gas

=

=

1

2

Solar

Photovoltaic

Wind Turbines

Geothermal

Biomass

3

=

=

=

1.6 Million

2,000

30

20

Annual electricity consumption for 1 million homes (based on average

y

p

(

g

annual household consumption of 12,000 kilowatt hours)

(7)

Which Plants are Used the Most Today?

7

(8)

Summary

• Electric utilities must face tradeoffs in choosing among

– Power generation technologies

– Fuels

Renewable resources

– Renewable resources

• Balance business objectives with

– Environmental stewardship

Environmental stewardship

– Regulatory compliance

– Future scenarios

• Objective is to provide a clean, reliable and affordable

electricity supply

St k h ld

d

t

di

f th

t d

ff i i

t

t

(9)

Energy Efficiency in

Resource Portfolio Planning

g

Omar Siddiqui

Di

t

E

Effi i

Director, Energy Efficiency

2011 SRP Sustainable Portfolio Review

(10)

24 States have Energy Efficiency Resource

Standards (4 more pending)

(

p

g)

(11)

CFLs Contribution to Savings Has Been Huge

California, 53%

Massachusetts, 52%

Residential

All sectors

New York, 24%

Vermont, 39%

2009 Savings

CFL Savings

All Other Savings

Residential

Residential

2009 Savings

g

11

© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

EISA 2007 Lighting Efficiency Standards will Change That!

EISA 2007 Lighting Efficiency Standards will Change That!

EISA 2007 Lighting Efficiency Standards will Change That!

EISA 2007 Lighting Efficiency Standards will Change That!

Source: DOE CFL Market Profile 2010

(12)

EPRI Energy Efficiency Technology Pipeline

Accelerating Readiness of Emerging Efficient Technologies

Coordinated

Accelerating Readiness of Emerging Efficient Technologies

Assessment &

R&D Field Tests/Demos

10s to 100s of units

Coordinated

Deployments

1000s of units

Full Program

Rollout

Assessment &

Lab

Testing

EPRI EE

Demonstration Project

e.g. Northwest Alliance

rollout of 8 000+

Utility

EE Programs

EPRI EE

Base Program

Demonstration Project

rollout of 8,000+

ductless heat pumps

EE Programs

• Instrument extensively

• Evaluate: estimated

deemed savings

• Performance results to

refine deemed savings

B ild

l

h i

• Full adoption

• Conduct M&V

Base Program

Technology

assessment and

validation

deemed savings,

installation,

demographics, behavior

• Build supply chain

infrastructure

validation

(13)

Energy Efficiency Potential Analysis Methodology

Does it create

positive net present

l

f

Behavioral

barriers;

value for

customers?

barriers;

supply

constraints

Program budget

realities and

learning curves

M

i

R

li ti

Economic

Potential

Maximum

Achievable

Potential

Realistic

Achievable

Potential

Market

Screen

Program

Screen

13

© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Economic

Screen

(14)

Levelized Cost of Electricity for EE Programs

Administration

• Planning, design, delivery

Capital

ƒ Equipment

Other

• R&D

Incentives

ƒ Rebates/financing - customers

g,

g ,

y

• Program EM&V

q p

ƒ Infrastructure

• other

g

ƒ Incentives – supply chain

ƒ Buy downs - manufacturers

Technical Factors

Behavioral Factors

Technical Factors

• Unit energy savings (kWh, kW)

• Useful life of measures

Behavioral Factors

• Usage rate

• Persistence/replacement

• Saturation/free-riders

• Price/Rate induced load changes

• Price/Rate induced load changes

(15)

Energy Efficiency is competitive with supply

on a cost basis

Cost of US Electric End-Use Efficiency Programs, 2009

All EE

Programs

Total U.S.

Commercial

& Industrial

ota U S

West

South

Midwest

Residential

Northeast

Cost ($/kWh)

$0.00

$0.01

$0.02

$0.03

$0.04

$0.05

$0.06

15

© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cost ($/kWh)

Source: CEE “State of the Efficiency Program Industry”, 12/10/2010. Calculated from Table 5 (US Electric Program Expenditures,

2009) & Table 21 (US Estimated Annual Electric Energy Savings for 2009). “All EE Programs” also includes programs classified

under Low Income and “Other”, which are not counted under Residential, Commercial, or Industrial.

(16)

Cost & Achievable Potential by Sector & End Use

2025 Medium Forecast Loads & Prices (Pacific Northwest)

(

)

5.2

500

600

5 0

6.0

k

Wh

)

4.3

3.6

3 2

4.6

3 1

3.4

400

500

n

ti

al

 (MW

a

)

4.0

5.0

Co

st

 (C

en

ts

/k

1.7 1.7

2.2

1 3

2.5

2.1

2.6 2.8

1.6

2.2

3.2

2.22.3

2.8

3.1

1.7

2.1

200

300

ev

ea

b

le

 Po

te

n

2.0

3.0

a

ge

 L

e

ve

liz

ed

 

Avg = 2.4 ¢/kWh

1.3

0

100

Ls

m

ip

.

ng

rs

AC

AC

rs

ng

ll)

re

on

rs

ns

ll)

nt

ry

re

ng

el

l

el

l

rs

Ach

i

0.0

1.0

Ave

ra

Re

s.

 C

FL

In

d.

 No

n‐

Al

um

in

um

m

. N

ew

 &

 R

ep

l. 

Eq

ui

p

N

ew

 &

 R

ep

l. 

Li

gh

ti

ng

Pu

m

W

at

er

 H

ea

te

rs

&

 R

ep

la

ce

m

en

HV

AC

Co

m

. R

et

ro

fit

 H

V

AC

Re

s.

 C

lo

th

es

 W

as

he

r

Co

m

. R

et

ro

fit

  L

ig

ht

in

g

ng

 S

pa

ce

 C

on

d.

 (S

he

l

Re

tr

of

it

 In

fr

as

tr

uc

tu

re

A

gr

ic

ul

tu

re

 Ir

ri

ga

tio

n

Re

s.

 W

at

er

 H

ea

te

rs

C

Sy

st

em

 C

on

ve

rs

io

n

w

 S

pa

ce

 C

on

d.

 (S

he

ll

Re

tr

of

it

  E

qu

ip

m

en

t

W

at

er

 He

at

 R

ec

ov

er

y

&

 R

ep

. I

nf

ra

st

ru

ct

ur

e

ys

te

m

 C

om

m

is

si

on

in

g

Co

m

. R

et

ro

fit

  S

he

l

&

 R

ep

la

ce

m

en

Sh

el

id

en

ti

al

 R

ef

ri

ge

ra

to

r

Co

m

Co

m

. N

Re

s.

 He

at

 P

Co

m

. Ne

w

 &

R

Co

Re

s.

 E

xi

st

in

Co

m

. R

e

A

Re

s.

 HV

A

Re

s.

 Ne

w

Co

m

Re

s.

 Ho

t W

Co

m

. Ne

w

 &

Re

s.

 H

VAC

 S

ys

Co

m

. Ne

w

 &

Re

si

d

(17)

Energy Efficiency Supply Curve by 2025

Pacific Northwest

4,000

4,500

Industrial

I i ti

3,000

3,500

,

tts

 2025

Irrigation

Commercial

Residential

2,000

2,500

Me

ga

wa

t

500

1,000

1,500

Av

er

ag

e

0

500

<1.0 <2.0 <3.0 <4.0 <5.0 <6.0 <7.0 <8.0 <9.0 <10.0 >10.0

17

© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Levelized Cost cents per kWh ($2000)

(18)

Together

Shaping the Future of Electricity

Together…Shaping the Future of Electricity

References

Related documents