1 Wartsila

1 © Wärtsilä 03 July 2012 Smart Power Generation

SMART GRID INTERNATIONAL FORUM MARCO A.G. GOLINELLI - VICEPRESIDENTE WÄRTSILÄ ITALIA S.P.A.

ROME, 25.06.2012

Content

Wartsila

Market trends and challenges

Smart power system

Smart Power Generation

Scenario for EU 2050 roadmap

03 July 2012 Smart Power Generation 2 © Wärtsilä

Market trends and challenges


Smart Grid, Super Grid, Demand Response .....

but power generation?

• Green house gas emission targets and challenges

• Typical present capacity mix

• Cyclic operation impact on the power system

• How to manage the increasing variability

• Cyclic operation impacts on steam power plants

20-20-20 system challenges

• Typical target for year 2020, e.g. EU and USA:

– 20% energy share from renewable sources

– 20% less greenhouse gas emissions

– 20% increase in energy efficiency

• 20 % renewable energy in 2020 means 5-7 times more wind power

capacity in the EU!

– Wind power capacity will greatly exceed average load

– System operation and operation profiles of thermal plants need to

change

– Variable wind power and larger day/night load variations increase

demand for dynamic flexibility of generation assets

– It is generally agreed that security of supply is at risk, but there has not

been any perceived solution

• Present electricity markets are generally based on selling energy

(kWh’s) and do not reward dynamic flexible capacity adequately to

encourage investments

• New parallel capacity markets must be developed to enable private

investments in fast, flexible system balancing capacity (kW’s)


System impact of wind power

• Reaching 20% renewable power requires approximately 285 GW of installed wind

capacity in the EU

• A wind speed change from 9 -> 7 m/s could change wind power output with ~100 GW.

Such wind speed changes are barely notable and happen all the time.


Source: Vestas

Balancing renewables?


European wind power generation in January 2010 at various regions.

Zero carbon system?

• As in EU, Zero carbon targets for 2050 are discussed in some countries

• Present situation globally

– Fossil fuel (coal, gas & oil) based electricity production decreased

from 75% in 1973 to 68% in 2008

– Renewables share of electricity production in 2010

• Denmark 19.3 %, Spain 33.7 %, Norway 64 %, UK 3.3 %

• Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies still require substantial

innovation and investment, both the capturing process and storaging

– The confidence in CCS becoming a technically and economically

viable option is not strengthening and several CCS development

projects have been put on hold

At present there is no perceived solution for reaching a reliable zero

carbon system


Present situation Germany

1% 3% 4%

6%

11%

11%

31%

14%

3%

16%

Capacity mix 2010

3% 3% <1 %

4%

22%

3%

43%

14%

1% 7%

Power generation mix 2010

Total generated power: 607 TWh Total installed capacity: 168 GW

Source: Power eTrack


Biogas Biomass Geothermal Hydro Nuclear Solar PV

Coal Gas Oil Wind

Present situation Oman

93%

7%

Capacity mix 2010

96%

4%





Gas Oil

Present situation Sweden

<1 % 11%

44% 25%

<1 %

<1 %

3%

12%

5%

Capacity mix 2010

6%

49% 40%

<1 %

<1 %

2% 1% 2%






Coal Gas Oil Wind

Present situation India

1%

2%

0%

23%

2%

0%

53%

10%

1% 8%

Capacity mix 2010

<1 % <1 %

14%

3%

<1 %

69%

8%

1% 3%






Coal Gas Oil Wind

Present situation China

<1 %

<1 %

22%

1 %

<1 %

69%

1% 1%

5%

Capacity mix 2010

<1 % <1 %

15%

2%

<1 %

78%

1% 1% 2%






Coal Gas Oil Wind

Present situation Japan

<1 %

1%

<1 %

17%

15%

1%

18%

27%

20%

1%

Capacity mix 2010

<1 % 1% <1 %

7%

25%

0%

26%

31%

8%

<1 %






Coal Gas Oil Wind

Present situation USA

1% <1 %

<1 %

9%

9% <1 %

29%

40%

6% 4%

<1 %

Capacity mix 2010

1% 1% <1 %

6%

20%

<1 %

44%

24%

1% 2% <1 %






Coal Gas Oil Wind Solar Thermal

Existing capacity situation

• The situation varies greatly between different countries

• There is substantial excess installed capacity in many countries, but the

capacity is not suitable for future system balancing needs

• Coal is a dominant base load fuel


Transfer to low carbon generation

• The dominant role of coal is difficult to change

• Replacing it with some other dispatchable low/no carbon generation capacity is a major

challenge. The options are:

• Hydro – local solution on rivers where more hydro power can be built

• Nuclear – politically sensitive and limited uranium reserves

• CCS – not feasible today and requires major global R&D

• Biomass – global reserves not adequate for replacing coal

• Natural gas – fastest and simplest solution to dramatically reduce carbon emissions

• Replacing all coal based power generation with natural gas would reduce CO2:

– globally by 4080 million tons per annum

– in the EU by 532 million tons per annum, which represents almost half of the EU 2020

climate package target of 1160 million tons per annum.

• Substantial reduction of CO2 requires both wide wind and solar integration and transfer to

natural gas generation


Typical present 100 GW power system

• The system consists mainly of inelastic base load capacity

• Good dispatching forecastability

– Statistical load data available

– No wind variability

• Increasing daily load variations

• At low load periods (night)

– Some CCGT’s are stopped

– Other CCGT’s ramp down to minimum load

– Coal regulates

Annual Hours

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000

Sys

tem

Load (

GW

)

Annual system load duration curve and

dispatchable capacity System peak load 100 GW

Average capacity factor 0.5

Annual system energy 500 TWh

Hydro+nuclear+coal 70 %

CCGT Base load 22 %

CCGT Peaking 8 %


Grid reserve

0

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 Lo

ad (

MW

) Hour

Average daily load curve CCGT peak-load mode CCGT baseload mode Coal Hydro+Nuclear

Cyclic operation – System operator’s view

• System balancing becomes more and more challenging

due to cyclic demand and increasing share of variable

renewable capacity

• The current system capacity mix does not enable

optimum and reliable system operation

– Existing generation capacity is mainly based on

inelastic steam power plants which are not capable

of required dynamic flexibility and have poor part

load efficiency

– The capacity mix has to change so that there is

proportionally less inelastic base load capacity, and

the following needs to be added:

• Dynamic and flexible capacity for system balancing,

which can be either hydro (reservoir) or natural gas

based generation

• Two way demand response to reduce or increase the

momentary load

• Strengthening (changing?) the grid where applicable


Cyclic operation – Damage cost

• Cyclic operation has a significant

impact on the O&M cost of thermal

(steam) power plants

– Increased damage to equipment

due to thermal stresses with

related higher maintenance and

capital costs, and forced outage

rates

– Lower efficiencies below those

explained by the "heat rate

curves"

– Potentially shortened unit life

Source: Intertek


Pöyry report - Challenges of intermittency

Direct quotes from Pöyry’s report:

• “Wind 2030 and solar output will be highly variable and will not ‘average out’

• By wholesale market prices in some countries will have become highly volatile and

driven by short term weather patterns

• Thermal generation becomes ‘intermittent’ in its operation

– Inevitably the large amount of thermal capacity that essentially operates as a

backup to the wind becomes more valuable for its capacity than its energy

output.

• Unless market designs change, the investment case for thermal plant is challenging

– and this holds even for a significant shortfall against targets of renewables

deployment

• ‘Flexible demand’ may be an important dynamic, but its role is complex

• Equally, the challenge for policy makers and regulators is to create suitable market

structures without relying on the ‘golden bullets’ of more interconnection and

demand side response while definitely making efforts to promote and develop both

of these. In particular the European Target Model will need to encompass the value

of capacity and ‘flexibility’.”

Source: The challenges of intermittency in North West European power markets, Pöyry, March 2011


Scenario 2030


European Turbine Network - Position paper

Direct quotes from ETN position paper:

• “Highly flexible power production units need to be added to the grid

– The variability of renewable energy sources will require highly flexible power

production units as back-up to balance any short-falls in production

• CCS incompatible with flexible generation

– Flexible operation requires that power plants operate in cyclic mode, which

hamper current Carbon Capture Storage (CCS) technologies, therefore new

carbon capture technologies need to be developed for cyclic mode.

• Efficiency, emissions and cost penalties

– CO2 reduction by renewables is partly off-set by the lower efficiency and

higher emissions of power stations maintaining a spinning reserve to provide

back-up in case of reduced renewables production. This may also result in

higher price for CO2 reduction”

Source: European Turbine Network A.I.S.B.L. – Enabling the Increasing Share of Renewable Energy in the Grid –

Technological Challenges for Power Generation, Grid Stability and the role of Gas Turbines – Position Paper


Smart power system

• Low carbon system capacity mix and operation

• Competitive technology comparison

• The role of gas


Daily load curves, 20 % at 2020 system

Daily system load curve and capacity dispatch

Flexicycle!

0 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000 70.000 80.000 90.000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23

Load

(M

W)

Hour

Load curve, future - high wind

Solar Wind

Wind curtailment Flexible capacity

Low-carbon baseload

0 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000 70.000 80.000 90.000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23

Load

(M

W)

Hour

Load curve, future - low wind

Solar Wind

Flexible capacity Low-carbon baseload

0 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000 70.000 80.000 90.000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23

Load

(M

W)

Hour

Load curve, future - average wind

Solar Wind

Wind curtailment Flexible capacity

Low-carbon baseload

System dispatching challenges

• 49 GW wind capacity > more than system night load!

• Wind speed change 7 9 m/s leads to a wind power output change of 13,5 GW! Such wind speed changes happen all

the time!

• Dynamic thermal capacity will have to stretch tens of GWs up and down within less than 30 minutes

• System balancing will be a major challenge


System capacities, 20 % at 2020 system 1(2)

• System peak load 100 GW

• Needs 110 GW installed dispatchable

capacity (10% margin for contingency

situations)

• 20% of power produced with renewables

requires e.g.:

– 49 GW wind capacity (capacity factor 25%)

– 9 GW solar capacity (capacity factor 20%)

• The >8000h base load capacity need is

about 32 GW

• The gap between installed base load

capacity and the system peak load must

be covered with 78 GW of flexible,

dispatchable capacity

32 GW

Flexible capacity 78 GW

Wind 49 GW

Solar 9 GW

Dispatchable

Capacity 110 GW

Variable

Capacity 58 GW

Low-carbon

baseload

Capacity, future system


System capacities, 20 % at 2020 system 2(2)

Base load capacity

• Zero - or lowest possible - CO2

• Lowest possible marginal costs

• Quantity 32 GW Over 8000 h of full power operation

• No need for agility of dispatch, load range 60…100

Flexible capacity

• High agility of dispatch

• Lowest possible CO2 (high efficiency in a wide load range)

• Lowest possible marginal costs

• Decentralized locations in load pockets

• Quantity Dispatchable capacity above base load


Competitive technology comparison

*) Simple cycle / combined cycle

Electrical

efficiency

full load, %

Typical plant

size, MW

Normal starting

time to full load,

minutes

Dynamic

capabilities

CO2,

g/kWh

Nuclear 31-33 1000 - 2000 >2000 Poor -

Coal 33-45 300 - 4000 >180 Poor 820 - 1050

CCGT gas 50-57 200 - 1500 60-90 Not good 370

Gas engines 46 1 - 500 5-10 Excellent 430

Aero GT 33-41 1-300 10-13 Good 500

HDGT 30-35 100-1000 13-30 Decent 560

Flexicycle 46/50 100-500 10/60 * Very good 400


Competitive technology comparison


Electrical

efficiency,

net

Flexibility

Starting time

Ramp rate

Part load operation

Operational flexibility vs. electrical efficiency

40%

50%

Medium High

Wärtsilä

SC

Aero-

GT’s

Industrial

GT’s

Coal

CCGT’s

Steam Power Plants Simple Cycle Combustion Engines

Nuclear

Wärtsilä Flexicycle™

30%

Low


The role of gas

• Recent technical breakthroughs and commercialisation of shale gas

have lead to:

– Substantial increase in perceived lifetime/availability of gas reserves globally

– Reduction of gas price in the US from 10 $/MMBtu (2008) to less than half

– Rapid decline in demand for LNG in US and consequential surplus of supply.

US will become an exporter of LNG instead of the major importer.

– The new competitive situation is leading to

• Deindexation of gas prices from oil (LFO)

• Small scale LNG becoming commercially interesting

• Huge interest in LNG in locations with no gas infrastructure

• The use of gas in power generation will increase as it is competitively

priced and is a low carbon fuel

• The role of gas in power generation is covering multiple segments

– Base load to intermittent, in systems with low share of installed wind capacity

– Peaking to system balancing, as the share of wind capacity increases and the

net load to thermal plants decreases

– This is because gas power plants:

• Can be constructed rapidly with a reasonable cost

• Produce less CO2 emissions than other thermal dispatchable plants

• Can offer favourable dynamic characteristics


The role of gas

Quotes:

• Jeff Immelt, CEO, GE: “The world is starting a natural gas power generation

cycle”

• John Krenicki, Vice Chairman, GE : “We are looking at a 25-year very bullish

gas market”

• Linda Cook, Executive Director Gas & Power, Royal Dutch Shell: “The

decreasing cost of LNG is making it more competitive in more markets.”

• Maxime Verhagen, Deputy Prime Minister of the Netherlands: “For many

decades to come, gas will remain critically important to the energy mix

worldwide. In our effort to move to an efficient and low carbon economy, natural

gas as the cleanest of fossil fuels is indispensable. The Netherlands aims to

contribute to this transition by serving as a gas hub to North-West Europe.”



• Definition

• Features

• Benefits

• Operating modes


Reliable Sustainable

Affordable

Smart

Power

System



1) All in One! A unique combination of valuable

features!

2) The missing piece of the low carbon power

system puzzle!

Fuel

Flexibility

Operational

Flexibility

Energy

Efficiency

Smart

Power

Generation

Why is this technology Smart?

All in One! A unique combination of valuable

features!

• Extreme flexibility in operation modes, best

available dynamic features, highest available

simple cycle energy efficiency and wide fuel

portfolio form a unique combination, not

available with any other technology.

• The unique combination of valuable features

brings benefits both to power systems and

power producers.

• With its true flexibility, Smart Power

Generation is the most valuable asset also in

the coming low carbon power markets.


The missing piece of the low carbon power system puzzle! Smart power generation enables the global transition to a sustainable, reliable and affordable energy

infrastructure.

It is a new, unique solution for flexible power generation and an essential part of tomorrow´s optimized

and secure low carbon power systems.

Smart power generation can operate in multiple modes, from efficient base load power production to ultra

fast dynamic system balancing.

Smart Power Generation improves the system total efficiency, and solves the variability challenges of

maximized wind integration.


Affordable

Smart

Power

System

Enable!

What is Smart Power Generation


Fuel

Flexibility Operational

Flexibility

Energy

Efficiency

Smart

Power

Generation

Features of Smart Power Generation

• Agility of dispatch

– Megawatts to grid in 1 minute from start

– 5 minutes to full load from start

– Fast shut down in 1 minute

– Fast ramp rates up & down

– Unrestricted up/down times

– High starting reliability

– Remote operator access including start & stop

– Black start capability

• Low generation costs

– High efficiency (46% in simple cycle and >50% in

combined cycle)

• High dispatch with low CO2

– Wide economic load range

• Multiple units

• Any plant output with high efficiency

– No derating enabling higher dispatch in hot climate

and at high altitude

– Low maintenance costs, not influenced of frequent

starts and stops, and cyclic operation

– Low/no water consumption

• High plant reliability and availability

– Multiple units enable firm (n-2) power (n=number

of installed units)

– Typical unit availability > 96%

– Typical unit reliability ~ 99%

– Typical unit starting reliability > 99 %

• Optimum plant location and size

– Location inside load pockets i.e. cities

– Flexible, expandable plant size enables step by

step investments

– Low pipeline gas pressure requirement (5 bar)

• Fuel flexibility

– Natural gas and biogases with back-up fuel

– Liquid fuels (LBF, LFO, HFO)

– Fuel conversions

• Low environmental impact

– Low CO2 and local emissions even when ramping

and on part load

• Easy maintenance


Benefits to power producers

• Operate on multiple markets

– Energy markets

– Capacity markets

– Ancillary services markets

• High dispatch enabled by high efficiency

• Dependable and committable

– Multiple generating units

– High unit reliability and availability

• Optimum plant location close to

consumers

• Fuel flexibility – hedge for the future

• Fast access to income through fast-track

project delivery

• Competitive O&M costs

Fuel

Flexibility Operational

Flexibility

Energy

Efficiency

Smart

Power

Generation


Benefits to power systems

• Secures the supply of affordable and

sustainable power

– Enable highest penetration of wind and

solar power capacity

– Maximizing the use of wind power capacity

by minimizing wind curtailment

– Ensure system stability in wind variability

and contingency situations

– Avoid negative prices

• Ensures true optimization of the total power

system operation

– Remove the abusive starts and stops, and

cyclic load from base load plants that are

not designed for it

– Improves the total system efficiency

• Enables reaching the 20 % 2020 renewable

energy share targets set by many countries


Affordable



Smart

Power

System

0

10 000

20 000

30 000

40 000

50 000

60 000

70 000

80 000

90 000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Load

(M

W)

Hour

Load curve, future - high windSolar Wind Wind curtailment Flexible capacity Low-carbon baseload

True flexibility through multiple operation modes

All in one!

• Base load generation

– The technology is proven in base load applications with 47,000 MW of

references worldwide

• Rapid load following in the morning and in the evening

– Starting, loading and stopping units one by one along with changing load

• Peaking during high consumption periods

• Balancing wind power i.e. “Wind chasing”

– Starting, loading and stopping rapidly when wind conditions change

• System balancing

– Fast frequency regulation and efficient spinning reserve

• Ultra fast zero-emission NSR grid reserve for any contingency situation

– Starting and producing power in just 1 minute, and full power in 5 minutes

• Fast grid black start in case of a power system black out


Smart Power Generation in the 2050 roadmap scenarios

The role of Smart Power Technology in Energy 2050 Roadmap scenarios has

been assessed and simulated through dynamic calculations with Plexos dispatch

modeling software.

Modelling is based on the Spanish power system.

The Spanish system is fairly isolated, with limited interconnectivity, and can

therefore show impacts of large scale renewable integration as an “example of

how such a system behaves” without modelling major grid constraints and the

whole power system cost structure to get the price signals over the

interconnections correct.

.


The Model

Modelling is based on true Spanish load data (10 minute intervals) from 2010 and

on true 10 minute wind generation data from the same year.

The system capacity mix is specific for each scenario and the scenario data is

based on EU information of Spain.

Modelling covers one full year (2030), in 1 hour intervals, and takes into

consideration dynamic characteristics (for example starting and stopping times,

costs and emissions) of various power plants.

Such modelling reveals optimum operation model from cost and CO2 emission

point of view, and situations with major overproduction and lack of energy, which

would lead to obvious system reliability problems.


The Model

The power systems contains about 30 GW of combined cycle gas turbine plants.

The same amount of Smart Power Generation plants were “installed” in the

system to operate in parallel with the CCGT’s.

The software freely dispatches all the plants, allowing them to operate when their

overall cost (including starting and stopping etc.) is the best for the national power

system.

The scenarios state that biomass fired power generation is running first i.e.

probably has some kind of feed‐in tariff. However, from total system cost point of

view this does not provide lowest cost and often not even the lowest total CO2 (as

biomass is replacing wind and nuclear).

One challenge: the software knows the coming wind conditions exactly for the full

year ahead, and can plan the operation of inelastic older thermal plants without

any forecasting errors in wind generation. In real life the system reserves need to

be bigger as the wind error can be several % even over the next 10 minutes, and

even more over an hour.


Reference scenario

The Reference scenario includes current trends and long‐term projections on economic

development (gross domestic product (GDP) growth 1.7% pa). The scenario includes

policies adopted by March 2010, including the 2020 targets for RES share and GHG

reductions as well as the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) Directive. For the analysis,

several sensitivities with lower and higher GDP growth rates and lower and higher energy

import prices were analysed.

Findings: Smart Power Generation (orange) technology produces the fast peaks with

lower costs and emissions than the Combined Cycle Gas Turbine plants. Combined cycle

gas turbine plants are used as soon as they have adequate running time available (which

the software knows “too well” as it knows the accurate wind production data of the days

ahead). Coal plants are not running at all due to excessive costs. Nuclear produces on

almost full power all through the period. Because of high costs, pump storage is very little

utilised for balancing during high wind periods. No major overproduction or underproduction

occurs in this scenario during this period i.e. system balance is maintained quite well.


Reference Scenario


EU 2050 Roadmap Scenarios High Energy Efficiency

Political commitment to very high energy savings; it includes e.g. more stringent minimum

requirements for appliances and new buildings; high renovation rates of existing buildings;

establishment of energy savings obligations on energy utilities. This leads to a decrease in

energy demand of 41% by 2050 as compared to the peaks in 2005‐2006.

Findings: The load is lower in this scenario than in the others. Nuclear plants need to

reduce their output to minimum during the high wind periods and still there is substantial

overproduction of electricity (wind power must be curtailed or energy stored). Restarting

nuclear plants takes several days and costs a lot so that is not an option. Pump storage

does not provide a cost efficient method for balancing. Smart Power Generation technology

takes away the abusive peaky generation pulses from Combined Cycle Gas Turbines

(CCGT). CCGT plants do not run at all during high wind periods.

Coal is not used either. This scenario offers quite a challenging environment for the system

operator as over‐ and underproduction occurs frequently and in substantial quantities.


EU 2050 Roadmap Scenarios High Energy Efficiency


Diversified supply technologies

No technology is preferred; all energy sources can compete on a market basis

with no specific support measures. Decarbonisation is driven by carbon pricing

assuming public acceptance of both nuclear and Carbon Capture & Storage

(CCS).

Findings: Again nuclear power plants need to reduce their output to

minimum during the high wind period and still there is overproduction of

electricity, and hereby nuclear plants lose a big part of their revenues. Pump

storage again does not provide a cost effective means for system balancing.

Smart Power Generation technology takes care of the fast peaks and balancing .

CCGT plants do not run at all during high wind periods. Substantial over‐ and

underproduction occurs again over longer periods of time.


Diversified supply technologies


High Renewable energy sources (RES)

Strong support measures for RES leading to a very high share of RES in gross

final energy

consumption (75% in 2050) and a share of RES in electricity consumption

reaching 97%.

Findings: Major overproduction of electricity takes place during the study

week almost every day for extended periods. Nuclear power plants need to

reduce their output to minumum most of the time.

Pump storage does not help as overproduction is almost constant. Smart Power

Generation

technology takes care of system balancing and fast load peaks. CCGT plants do

not run at all during high wind periods, and operate only a few hours during the

whole week 8. It is obvious that there is a lot of excess energy for producing

hydrogen or for some other “storage” during this week.


High Renewable energy sources (RES)


Delayed CCS

Similar to Diversified supply technologies scenario but assuming that CCS is

delayed, leading to higher shares for nuclear energy with decarbonisation driven

by carbon prices rather than technology push. In 2030 there is almost no CCS in

the system so the actual performance and costs of CCS‐coal are not relevant.

Findings: During the study week nuclear power plants reduce their output to

minimum load over several lengthy periods. Smart Power Generation again runs

the peaks and effectively works as the system balancer. CCGT plants do not run

at all during high wind periods. The system is out of balance on Tuesday and

Wednesday for longer periods of time. Again the biomass fired generation is

pushing all the other generation types up on the graph.


Delayed CCS


Low nuclear

Similar to Diversified Supply Technologies scenario but assuming that no new

nuclear (besides reactors currently under construction) is built, resulting in a

higher penetration of CCS (around 32% in power generation).

Findings: Nuclear plants are used but again they operate long periods on

minimum load. The amount of nuclear plants is not really affecting their

operating profile in the scenarios, they always need to reduce their output to

minimum when the wind blows strongly. Pump storage does not provide an

economical solution for balancing even in this fifth scenario. Smart Power

Generation again handles the peaks and system balancing. CCGT plants run only

when they can run on extended periods (due to long and expensive starts and

stops). If wind forecasting errors were included, starting and stopping them would

be more risky and Smart Power Generation would operate even more hours.


Low nuclear


Conclusions

This dynamic power system study looked at the 2030 situation, in Spain, as part

of the EU system, with the EU targets and actions in place. All 5+1 scenarios were

modelled and studied. The results indicate that the high portion of renewables

dramatically change the way the system is operated.

Wind power pushes coal totally and gas plants partially out of the system, and

forces even the nuclear plants to run on minimum load during long hours, thereby

making their economy and payback look worse for the nuclear plant investors.

Biomass fired plants do not have a clear role in the system as they produce high

cost power and force lower cost nuclear to reduce output, and also cause

substantial overproduction over longer periods especially in the high renewable

scenarios.

The carbon emissions of the power system are in all scenarios between 20...45 %

of the average level of 2007...2009, which was 337 kg/MWhe. A distinctive step

forward in decarbonising.


Conclusions

Gas fired power plants have a central role in balancing the system.

This they can do with high efficiency and with low carbon emissions.

The results clearly indicate that economically and environmentally Smart Power

Generation is a better solution than CCGT’s in balancing.

The optimum quantity (in GW) of Smart Power Generation varies depending on

the capacity mix in question.

To reach the optimum cost and system efficiency, CCGT plants are needed, in

parallel with Smart Power Generation.

Smart Power Generation reduces the average system level variable generation

costs from 1 to 5,5 % depending on scenario. Also the CO2 emissions were

reduced in all scenarios from 1 to 12 %.

This is a remarkable result taking into account that in the Spanish energy system

in question has a high penetration of highly efficient Combined Cycle Gas Turbine

plants.


Cost reduction

Average cost reduction with Smart Power Technology.


Conclusions

CO2 emissions in different scenarios and CO2 emission reductions achieved with Smart

Power technology.


Conclusion


The EU 2050 Roadmap highlights:

‐ “ the need for flexible resources in the power system (e.g. flexible generation,

storage, demand management) as the contribution of intermittent renewable

generation increases”

‐ ” Access to markets needs to be assured for flexible supplies of all types,

demand management and storage as well as generation, and that flexibility needs

to be rewarded in the market. All types of capacity (variable, baseload, flexible)

must expect a reasonable return on investment.”

Decentralization of the power system will dramatically increase due to more

renewable generation.

Together with all the Smart technologies, Smart Power Generation technology

has the potential to play a key role in new EU policy implementation and enable

the targeted extremely low carbon levels because –the back up system has to be

efficient, low carbon and located at the right places in the grid.

Reference: STEC, Pearsall, Texas USA, 202 MW

Quotes:

• John Packard, Manager of Generation, STEC: “These flexible units have

allowed us to respond to changes in the grid when the wind stops blowing and

some of those wind resources are no longer available. Units like this can be

started to compensate for the loss of that capacity. Certainly the capital cost is

always important, but the ability to dispatch these units in increments that fit our

load, allows us to keep the units at peak efficiency rather than partially load a

larger unit where the efficiency might not be as good. So, one of the biggest

economic drivers is again that flexibility”

• Lloyd Freasier, Plant Manager, Pearsall, STEC: “The water use will be

almost zero opposed to the old steam plant. And we get rid of many chemicals,

the acids and caustics, chlorine and the hydrogen in the generators”


Reference: Chambersburg, USA ,23 MW

Quotes:

• William F. McLaughlin, President of Town Council, Chambersburg: “Key factors were

affordability and flexibility, it fitted within our financial ability and it was overall the best package

for the product and services that we’re going to keep running the plant over the long haul. From

a technical stand point, the fact that we are dual fuel, natural gas and oil, gave us a substantial

advantage in dealing with the environmental situation, the controls and licensing aspects from

both the Pennsylvania department of environmental protection and the EPA. We meet or

exceed all their criteria.

• Alexander Grier, Senior Vice President, Downs Associates: “We wanted engines that would

be able to run hour and hours at a time, but be able to be started and stopped again. Because

of market conditions it might be started and stopped two or three times per day. It’s kind of an

unusual peaking plant. It’s more of a market following plant than it is a traditional peaking plant.”


Reference: GSEC Antelope, USA 170 MW

Quote:

• Mark W. Schwirtz, President, General Manager, GSEC: “One of the driving

factors for our new generation at this point is that we need peaking capacity.

We are looking at something that is relatively low capital cost. From a

renewable stand point, there is a lot of wind generation going in at this area and

in order to back that wind generation up, we needed something that started

quickly, in less than 10 minutes. This was technology that we felt that could do

that. There are other technologies out there, but what led us to the decision to

pick the Wärtsiläs, was that they start very quickly and are efficient units. And

they provide multiple shafts, which gives us that that shaft diversity so we can

bring that generation on in small increments. This we feel will have value in the

markets that we participate in. If we look at efficiency, it is very important to us

to get the most out of our fuel dollar. The more efficient the unit, the better it is

for us. We looked at this water use, it was another key factor. And the ease of

the operation was important to us.”


THANK YOU!



Date post:	03-Nov-2014
Category:	Technology
Upload:	canaleenergia
View:	1,082 times
Download:	12 times