IS PARABOLIC TROUGH
SOLAR POWER PLANT TECHNOLOGY
READY FOR ITS NEXT GROWTH SURGE?
David Kearney, K&A
Henry Price, NREL
WREC
Denver, Colorado
31 August 2004
YES
but why?
Excellent operating experience
Technology advances
Stronger supplier base
Large plants in development
Opportunities for significant new deployments
Parabolic Trough Collector
• Typically tracks sun
E-W on N-S axis
• High temperature oil
flows through receiver
• Receiver highly
efficient due to vacuum
annulus and selective
surface
• Major cost elements:
structure, receivers,
reflectors
• Mirror washing
proven to be very
effective
Illustration courtesy of Solar Millennium
Key Technical Characteristics
●
●
●
●
Parabolic trough collectors concentrate
direct beam radiation onto receiver,
heating circulating high temperature fluid at 400C
Via shell-and-tube heat exchangers, solar field
heat used to generate high temperature, high
pressure steam
Larger power systems can be either steam Rankine
cycles or combined cycles, from 30MWe to over
300 MWe
Systems can use fossil fuel or thermal storage to
raise capacity factor or shift time of electrical
production
Key Technical Characteristics (continued)
●
●
●
●
Dispatchability achieved with thermal storage or hybrid
operation (with fossil) => approaches firm power
Proven long-term operation in California
Technology development path to competitive electricity
cost levels identified
Ready for rapid manufacturing scale-up to GW level
deployment
Solar Electric Generating System
Rankine Cycle
Solar Field
Conventional
Steam Plant
US 395
KJ SEGS
Plants
CA 58
Edwards
AF Base
•
•
•
•
•
•
354 MWe installed
7000 GWH operations
110% peak availability
$1.25 Billion invested
Matured O&M procedures
Technical advances lowered costs
Kramer Junction, Calif.
Five 30-MWe Trough Plants
Kramer Junction Operational Experience
Electrical Output
1,000
10
800
8
Annual Generation
600
6
400
4
200
2
0
0
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
Year of Operation
1999
2001
2003
Cumulative Gross Solar
Generation (TWh)
Annual Gross Solar Generation
(GWh)
Cumulative Generation
Cost Reduction Opportunities
Parabolic Trough Technology
●
Plant Size
●
Concentrator Design
●
Advanced Receiver Technology
Thermal Energy Storage
●
O&M
● Design Optimization/Standardization
● Power Park
● Competition
●
●
Financial
Trough Development Scenario
Breakdown of Cost Reduction (Sargent & Lundy)
0.30
1984 14-MWSEGS
LCOE 2002 $/kWh
0.25
1988 30-MWSEGS
0.20
1989 80-MW SEGS
Current Potential 2004 Technology,
50-MWe Size, Optimum Location
0.15
0.10
Factors Contributing to
Cost Reduction
- Scale-up 37%
- Volume Production 27%
- Technology Dev. 42%
Future Cost Potential
2004-2012
0.05
0.00
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Cumulative Installed Capacity (MWe)
5000
Current State-of-the-Art
50 MWe Trough Plant
●
Current State-of-the-Art (Plant built today)
◗
◗
◗
◗
◗
◗
◗
50 MWe (~100 bar, 700F, 37.5% gross)
LS-2 Collectors (391 C)
Site: Kramer Junction
Receiver – Solel UVAC
Plant size, net electric [MWe]
Solar only or hybrid
Collector Aperture Area [km2]
Thermal Storage [hours]
Solar multiple 1.5
Solar-to-electric Efficiency. [%]
No thermal storage
DNI 8.0
kWh/m2-day
Current Cost
11¢/kWh
Plant Capacity Factor [%]
Capital Cost [$/kWe]
O&M Cost [$/kWh]
Fuel Cost [$/kWh]
Levelized Cost of Energy
[2002$/kWh]
Solar
Only
50
0.312
0
13.9%
29.2%
2745
0.024
0.000
0.110
Hybrid
(25%)
50
0.312
0
14.1%
39.6%
2939
0.018
0.010
0.096
Plant Size
Impact on Cost of Energy
Near-Term Trough Plant
0.25
0.204
LCOE 2002$/kWh
0.20
Reference Case
0.137
0.15
0.110
0.10
0.094
0.084
0.076
200
400
0.05
0.00
10
25
50
100
Plant Size MWe
Trough Receiver Technology
Impact on the Cost of Energy
Near-Term 50 MWe Trough Plant
0.140
0.135
Near-Term Receiver
Technology Assumption
LCOE ($/kWh)
0.130
0.125
Field Tested
0.120
0.115
E = 0.15
0.110
E = 0.10
0.105
0.100
0.91
E = 0.05
0.92
0.93
0.94
0.95
0.96
Absorptance
0.97
0.98
0.99
SEGS VI
Cermet
UVAC
UVAC2
Adv
Adv Rel
Thermal Storage Technology
Impact on Cost of Energy
Near-Term 50 MWe Trough Plant
35
LCOE
LCOE 2002$/kWh
0.115
0.110
Storage Cost
0 .110
0 .10 5
0.105
25
20
0 .10 1
0.100
30
15
0 .0 9 6
0.095
0 .0 9 1
0.090
10
0 .0 9 0
0.085
5
0
No
Storage
2-Tank
Indirect
TC
Indirect
2-Tank
Direct
450C
TC Direct TC Direct
450C
500C
Storage Cost $/kWht
0.120
Cost of Capital
Impact on Cost of Energy
Near-Term 50 MWe Trough Plant
0.120
LCOE 2002$/kWh
0.115
0.116
0.110
0.110
0.110
0.107
0.105
0.098
0.100
0.097
0.095
0.090
0.085
0.081
0.080
8.5%
6%
2%
18%
Debt rate, IRR=14%
14%
12%
IRR, debt 8.5%
8%
Tax Incentives
Impact on Cost of Energy
Near-Term 50 MWe Trough Plant
0.130
0.119
LCOE 2002$/kWh
0.120
0.110
0.115
0.109
0.110
0.100
0.093
0.090
0.078
0.080
0.070
Bas e 10%
IT C
No IT C
1.7c P T C 30% IT C
No
P rop erty
T ax
All
Future Development Scenario
Parabolic Trough Technology
SEGS VI
1989
NearTerm
MidTerm
LongTerm
30
1.2
50
1.5
100
2.5
400
2.5
Collector
Receiver
LS-2
Luz
LS-2
UVAC2
LS-3+
Adv
Adv
Adv
HTF
VP-1
390 C
VP-1
390 C
Salt
450 C
Salt
500 C
TES
NA
NA
12 hrs
TC Dir
12 hrs
TC Dir
Capacity Factor
22%
30%
56%
56%
10.6%
13.4%
16.2%
17.2%
5%
20%
Plant Size: MWe
Solar Multiple
Solar to Electric η
Cost Reduction
Capital Cost $/kWe
2954
2865
3416
2225
O&M Cost $/kWh
0.0462
0.0233
0.0103
0.0057
Trough Power Plant Scenarios
with Different Financing Assumptions
0.12
IP P w/10% ITC
IP P w/1.8c P TC
30% ITC + 1.8c P TC
M uni F ina nc ing
LCOE 2002$/kWh
0.10
0.08
0.06
Region of
Interest
0.04
0.02
0.00
Near-Term
Mid-Term
Long-Term
Country
Algeria
Australia
Brazil
Egypt
Greece
India
Iran
Israel
Italy
Jordan
Mexico
Morocco
Namibia
South Africa
Spain
United States
TOTAL
MW Capacity
2010
130
100
100
130
50
130
130
200
100
130
300
150
100
100
200
200
2250
CSP Market Areas
and
Lead Near-Term Opportunities
Market Pull Required for Success
Market aggregation
● Incentives
● Favorable financing
● Policy changes
● Electricity production must be high to
seriously impact reduction of green house
gases
● Ultimate price goals tied to GW-scale
deployment in 10-100 GW range
●
Summary
●
●
●
●
Huge domestic resource potential
Trough technology has significant opportunities
for cost reduction
Trough technology could directly compete with
fossil power technologies in the long-term
Market or financial incentives needed for early
plants