OUC Introduction to Renewables 3-2010

8/9/2019 OUC Introduction to Renewables 3-2010

1/93

An Introduction toAn Introduction to

RenewablesRenewables


2/93

2

Presentation OutlinePresentation Outline

Renewable Energy Drivers Resource/Policy Map Overview

Renewable Energy Technologies

Solar Photovoltaics

Solar Hot Water

Concentrating Solar

Biomass

Wind Technology

OUCs Approach


3/93

Renewable Energy DriversRenewable Energy Drivers


4/93

4

Social Drivers for RenewableSocial Drivers for Renewable

Energy InvestmentEnergy Investment

The Three Es

Economic Stability

Reduced price volatility

Opportunities for export in global market

Green job creation

Environmental Sustainability

Climate change implications of carbon

Impacts of fossil combustion on human health

NIMBY issues of nuclear

Energy Security

Large % of fossil fuel supply located outside of U.S.

Fossil fuel supply disruptions

Limited access

Fuel diversity provides a hedge against risk


5/93

5

Policy Drivers for RenewablePolicy Drivers for Renewable

Energy InvestmentEnergy Investment

Carrots

Feed-in Tariffs and Production Incentives

Provide a fixed payment for energy produced

Utility must purchase energy via power purchase agreement

Not necessarily market pricing

No help with up front costs

Can include the purchase of environmental attributes

Rebates

Provide upfront funds to buy-down the cost of technologies

Doesnt guarantee performance

Doesnt allow for purchase of environmental attributes

Tax Incentives

Must have tax liability to be of value

Sticks

Carbon/Climate Policies

Kyoto Protocol

Carbon Cap and Trade

Carbon Taxation

Renewable Portfolio Standards

Require a % of energy from renewable sources by a certain

date

Can feature technology carve outs (i.e. solar)

Can be state driven or national in scope


6/93

6

OUCOUCs Renewable Energy Businesss Renewable Energy Business

ObjectivesObjectives

Balance sustainabilitywith affordabilityand reliability

Provide a hedging strategy againstpotential regulatory requirementsthrough the acquisition of renewableenergy credits (RECs) and Carbon

Offsets

Leverage state and federal incentivesoffered to encourage the developmentof customer-sited assets

Offer an option to customer requests forenvironmentally-friendly energyinvestments

Pursue least-cost planning for futureenergy investments

7% Internal Renewable Goal


7/93

7

Key Integration ChallengesKey Integration Challenges

High Utility Reserve Margin

OUC currently maintains 130% required energy capacity

No need for power until 2020 due to slower growth rates andcustomer conservation

Heavy base load generation (coal) Low avoided energy rates (fuel only)

Lack of Government Regulation

No state or federal RPS

No carbon legislation

Higher Cost of Renewable Generation

Biomass and solar currently cost more than primary generation

sources making it more challenging to integrate without regulation


8/93

Renewable Energy Resource andRenewable Energy Resource and

Policy MapsPolicy Maps


9/93

9

Key TechnologiesKey Technologies

Biomass Energy Resources

Landfill Gas

Municipal Solid Waste

Biomass Residues

Energy Crops (Including Algae)

Solar Energy

Photovoltaics

Solar Hot Water

Concentrating Solar

Wind Energy

Horizontal Axis

Vertical Axis


10/93

10

U.S.BiomassResource


11/93

11

U.S.WindResource(50m)


12/93

12

U.S.ConcentratingSolarResource


13/93

13

U.S. Photovoltaic Solar ResourceU.S. Photovoltaic Solar Resource


14/93

14

All Resources


15/93

15

Renewable Portfolio Standards

State renewable portfolio standard

State renewable portfolio goal

www.dsireusa.org/ May 2009

Solar water heating eligible *Extra credit for solar or customer-sited renewables

Includes separate tier of non-renewable alternative resources

WA: 15% by 2020*

OR: 25% by 2025 (large utilit ies)5% - 10% by 2025 (smaller utilities)

CA: 20% by 2010

NV: 20% by 2015*

AZ: 15% by 2025

NM: 20% by 2020 (IOUs)10% by 2020 (co-ops)

HI: 20% by 2020

Minimum solar or customer-sited requirement

TX: 5,880 MW by 2015

UT: 20% by 2025*

CO: 20% by 2020 (IOUs)10% by 2020 (co-ops & large munis)*

MT: 15% by 2015

ND: 10% by 2015

SD: 10% by 2015

IA: 105 MW

MN: 25% by 2025(Xcel: 30% by 2020)

MO: 15% by 2021

IL: 25% by 2025

WI : Varies by utility;10% by 2015 goal

MI: 10% + 1,100 MWby 2015*

OH: 25% by 2025

ME: 30% by 2000New RE: 10% by 2017

NH: 23.8% by 2025

MA: 15% by 2020+ 1% annual increase

(Class I Renewables)

RI: 16% by 2020

CT: 23% by 2020

NY: 24% by 2013

NJ: 22.5% by 2021

PA: 18% by 2020

MD: 20% by 2022 DE: 20% by 2019*

DC: 20% by 2020

VA: 15% by 2025*

NC: 12.5% by 2021 (IOUs)10% by 2018 (co-ops & munis)

VT: (1) RE meets any increasein retail sales by 2012;

(2) 20% RE & CHP by 2017

28 states & DChave an RPS

5 states have goals
http://www.dsireusa.org/http://www.dsireusa.org/


16/93

16

Rebate Programs for RenewablesRebate Programs for Renewables

www.dsireusa.org/ February 2010

Utility and/or local program(s) only

State program(s) + utility and/or local program(s)

State program(s) only Puerto Rico

DC

19 states+ DC & PR

offer rebatesfor renewables

19 states+ DC & PR

offer rebatesfor renewables


17/93

17

Public Benefits Funds for RenewablesPublic Benefits Funds for Renewables

State PBF supported by voluntary contributions

www.dsireusa.org/ May 2009 (estimated funding)

* Fund does not have a specified expiration date

** The Oregon Energy Trust is scheduled to expire in 2025

RI: $2.2M in 2009$38M from 1997-2017*

MA: $25M in FY2009$524M from 1998-2017*

NJ: $78.3M in FY2009$647M from 2001-2012

DE: $3.4M in 200 9$48M from 1999-2017*

CT: $28M in FY2009$444M from 2000-2017*

VT: $5.2M in FY200 9$33M from 2004-2011

PA: $950,000 in 2009$63M from 1999-2010

IL: $3.3M in FY2009$97M from 1998-2015

NY: $15.7M in FY2009$114M from 1999-2011

WI: $7.9M in 2009$90M from 2001-2017*

MN: $19.5M in 2009$327M from 1999-2017*

MT: $750,000 in 200 9$14M from 1999-2017*

OH: $3.2M in 2 009

$63M from 2001-2010

MI: $6.7M in FY2009

$27M from 2001-2017*

ME: 2009 funding TBD$580,300 from 2002-2009

DC: $2M in FY2 009$8.8M from 2004-2012

DC

OR: $13.8M in 20 09$191M from 2001-2017**

CA: $363.7M in 2009$4,566M from 1998-201 6

State PBF

16 states +DC have public benefits

funds ($7.3 billion by2017)

ME has a voluntary PBF

16 states +DC have public benefits

funds ($7.3 billion by2017)

ME has a voluntary PBF


18/93

18

Property Tax Incentives forProperty Tax Incentives for

RenewablesRenewables

State exemption or special assessment + local government option

www.dsireusa.org/ February 2010

PuertoRico

Local governments authorized to offer exemption (no state exemption or assessment)

State exemption or special assessment only

32 States +PR

offer property

tax incentivesfor renewables

32 States +PR

offer property

tax incentivesfor renewables

DC


19/93

19

Renewable Energy TechnologyRenewable Energy Technology

OptionsOptions

Technology Availability Cost

perKWH

Current

Viability inFlorida

Landfill Gas Recovery Baseload $0.04 High

Solar Hot Water Peak/Shoulder $0.10 High

Waste to Energy Baseload $0.11 HighDirect Fired Biomass Baseload $0.14 High to Medium

Co-Fired Biomass Baseload $0.09 High to Medium

Solar Photovoltaics (Rooftop) Peak/Shoulder $0.25 Medium

Biomass Gasification Baseload $0.12 Medium

Solar Photovoltaics (CommercialScale)

Peak/Shoulder $0.20 Medium

Solar Thermal Electric Peak/Shoulder $0.18 Medium to Low

Wind (Offshore) Varies $0.22 Low


20/93

20

Current Renewable EnergyCurrent Renewable Energy

Resources in FloridaResources in Florida

Solar hot water

Solar photovoltaics

Solar thermal electric

Landfill gas

MSW

Dry Biomass

Wet Biomass


21/93

Renewable Energy TechnologiesRenewable Energy Technologies


22/93

Photovoltaic (Solar Electric)Photovoltaic (Solar Electric)

SystemsSystems


23/93

23

Solar (Electric and Thermal)Solar (Electric and Thermal)

Benefits:

No fuel costs

Carbon free Can be distributed near the user

Thermal is low cost

Creates local jobs

Challenges:

Not dispatchable

Intermittent resource PV is still expensive comparedwith conventional fuels

Minimal impact to winter peak


24/93

24

PV Versus Solar ThermalPV Versus Solar Thermal

PV uses photochemicalreactions to create an electriccurrent

Primary component is silicon orother semiconductor

Cost per KWH is around $0.21

Average system cost is around$8,000/KW

Can power electric loads

Can work in any climate

Must use batteries to storeelectricity for evening use

Solar Thermal relies onthermodynamic heat transfer towarm fluids

Primary components are glassand copper tubing

Cost per KWH is around $0.10

Average system cost is around$4,000

Cant directly power electricloads

Works best in warmer climates

Stores hot water in thermally

insulated tank for evening use

Two Different Solar Technologies


25/93

25

Levelized Cost Reductions for SolarLevelized Cost Reductions for Solar

TechnologiesTechnologies


26/93

26

History of PhotovoltaicsHistory of Photovoltaics

1839, Edmund Becquerel, a French physicist,discovered the photovoltaic effect while

experimenting with an electrolytic cell made up oftwo metal electrodes placed in an electricity-

conducting solution--generation increased whenexposed to light. Photovoltaic Effect -- Light falling on certainmaterials can produce electricity

Technology commercialized by Bell Laboratories in1951

Sharp built first solar system in 1963 ARCO released the first amorphous solar thin filmproduct in 1984

Eastman Kodak developed the first organic cell in1986


27/93

27

How Does PV Generate Electricity?How Does PV Generate Electricity?

Individual PV Cell

The built-in electric fieldpushes the electron across

and it is collected by thegrid on the surface

Photons pass through

surface and areabsorbed within thecell

The absorbedphoton gives its

energy to an

electron, whichbreaks free


28/93

28

and in parallel

to increase current

PV Cells are wired in

series to increase voltage...

PV Cells


29/93

29Cells are assembled into modules... and modules into arrays.

PV is Modular


30/93

30

Single Crystal

Polycrystalline

Thin-Film

Module Types


31/93

31

Organic Solar CellsOrganic Solar Cells


32/93

32

Crystalline vs. Thin FilmCrystalline vs. Thin FilmCrystalline Thin-Film

Area Efficiency(Watts/SQ FT)

14-21% 8-11%

Impact of

Diffuse Light

Moderate Minimal

Impact of Heat Moderate Minimal

Useful Life 25-35 Years 15-25 YearsCost per Watt $3 to $4 $2 to $3

Production Style Wafer or GlassProduction Print/Roll Production


33/93

33

PV Daily Energy Production: Rule ofPV Daily Energy Production: Rule of

ThumbThumb

1-kW PV arrayproduces 5 kWh/dayDC

1-kW grid-tied systemproduces 4 kWh/dayAC

1-kW system producesapproximately 1400kWh annually


34/93

34

World PV Market DemandWorld PV Market Demand

Grew 110% over

previous year (recordgrowth)

Spain overtook

Germany with 285%growth

U.S. pulled ahead of

Japan with 0.36 GW


35/93

35

Solar Cell (PV) ProductionSolar Cell (PV) Production

World solar productionreached 6.85 GW in 2008

up from 3.44 GW in 2007

China has begun todominate the PV Marketwith 44% global share

U.S. market growth hasbeen minimal

Thin film production

increased by 123% in 2008to 0.89 GW

Solar still accounts for lessthan 1% of world energysupply


36/93

36

PV Market PerformancePV Market Performance

Industry generated $37.1billion in 2008

Raised $12.5 billion inequity and debt in 2008

Investment up 11% over2007 despite rougheconomic landscape


37/93

37

Module Cost Reductions for PVModule Cost Reductions for PV



38/93

38

Prices Fall, Volumes RisePrices Fall, Volumes Rise


39/93

39

Crystalline PVCrystalline PV


40/93

40

ThinThin--Film PVFilm PV


41/93

41

Using PV in Our CommunityUsing PV in Our Community


42/93

42

TheThe WalWal--MartMart of PVof PV


43/93

43

Cost Reduction TargetsCost Reduction Targets


44/93

Solar Thermal (Hot Water)Solar Thermal (Hot Water)SystemsSystems


45/93

45

Passive Solar Hot WaterPassive Solar Hot Water

No moving parts

Uses gravity and pressureto move water

Collector is storage tank

Usually least cost option


46/93

46

Many Types of Solar CollectorsMany Types of Solar Collectors


47/93

47

Active Solar Hot WaterActive Solar Hot Water

Active pump circulates water

Can be PV powered Slimmer profile than passivesystem

Can be open or closed loop

Can use water or glycol for heattransfer

Tend to be more expensive thanpassive system


48/93

48

Growth of Solar ThermalGrowth of Solar Thermal


49/93

49

Commercial Hot WaterCommercial Hot Water


50/93

50

Residential Hot WaterResidential Hot Water


51/93

Concentrating Solar PowerConcentrating Solar Power


52/93

52

Solar Concentrating SystemsSolar Concentrating Systems

Concentrate solar energy through

use of mirrors or lenses.

Concentration factor (number ofsuns) may be greater than 10,000.

Systems may be small

(e.g. solar cooker)

Or really large

Utility scale electricity generation(up to 900 MWe

planned)

Furnace temperatures up to 3800oC(6800oF)

E l f CSP A li tiE l f CSP A li ti


53/93

53

Examples of CSP ApplicationsExamples of CSP Applications

Power Generation: Utility Scale: 64 MW Nevada Solar One (2007) Buildings: 200 kW Power Roof

Thermal Needs: Hot Water and Steam (Industrial & Commercial Uses)

Air Conditioning Absorption Chillers

Desalination of seawater by evaporation

Waste incineration

Solar Chemistry Manufacture of metals and semiconductors Hydrogen production (e.g. water splitting)

Materials Testing Under Extreme Conditions e.g. Design of materials for shuttle reentry


54/93

54

Primary Types of Solar CollectorsPrimary Types of Solar Collectors

Parabolic Trough

Compact Linear FresnelReflector

Solar Furnace

Parabolic Dish & Engine

Solar Central Receiver (SolarPower Tower)

Lens Concentrators

Concentrating PV

FRESNEL REFLECTOR


55/93

55

CENTRAL RECEIVER

SOLAR FURNACE

PARABOLIC DISH

PARABOLIC TROUGH

FRESNEL REFLECTOR

LENS CONCENTRATORS


56/93

56

Parabolic TroughsParabolic Troughs

Most proven solar concentrating

technology

The nine Southern CaliforniaEdison plants (354 MW total)constructed in the 1980s are

still in operation

Basis for FPL and HarmonyProjects


57/93

57

Parabolic TroughsParabolic Troughs -- OperationOperation

Parabolic mirror reflects solar

energy onto a receiver (e.g. aevacuated tube).

Heat transfer fluid such as oil or

water is circulated through pipeloop. (250oF to 550oF)

Collectors track sun from east to

west during day.

Thermal energy transferred frompipe loop to process.


58/93

58

Thermal StorageThermal Storage

Uses high heat capacity fluids as heat transferstorage mediums

12 to 17 hours of storage will allow plants to have upto 60% to 70% capacity factors.

Thermal Output of HybridThermal Output of Hybrid


59/93

59

Thermal Output of HybridThermal Output of Hybrid

Plant with Thermal StoragePlant with Thermal Storage


60/93

Biomass Energy ResourcesBiomass Energy Resources


61/93

61

Range of Biomass EnergyRange of Biomass Energy

OptionsOptions

Trees

Grasses

Agricultural

CropsResidues

AnimalWastes

MunicipalSolidWaste

Algae

FoodOils

EnzymaticFermentation

Gas/liquidFermentation

Acid

Hydrolysis

FermentationGasification

Combustion

Cofiring

Transesterification

BiomassBiomassFeedstockFeedstock

ConversionConversionProcessesProcesses

ProductsProducts

Fuels

Ethanol

Biodiesel

Power

Electricity

Heat

Chemicals

Plastics

Solvents

ChemicalIntermediates

Adhesives

Fatty

Acids

AceticAcid

Paints

Dyes,Pigments,andInk

Detergents

FoodandFeed


62/93

62

Biomass EnergyBiomass Energy Value ChainValue Chain

Production

Harvesting, collection

Handling

Transport

Storage

Pre-treatment (e.g.,

milling)

Feeding

Conversion

S C f


63/93

63

Supply Chain Economics ofSupply Chain Economics of

Woody BiomassWoody Biomass

Elements of the supply chain cost

Stumpage to the landowner

Brokerage fee to the wood dealer

Material harvest and in-forest handling to producer

Transportation to end user

Further on-site processing cost by user if required

Material cost + transportation cost sets the supply radius from site

Economic Flow

End User

Wood Producer Transportaion

Material Flow

Wood Dealer

Timberland Owner

$$ $ $

C i f P d W d


64/93

64

Comparison of Processed WoodyComparison of Processed Woody

Feedstock CostFeedstock Cost

Harvest Whole tree

Pulp Wood Residue fuel chips

Stumpage $6 $1 $6

Production $10 $17 $9Transportation $6 $6 $6

Brokerage $2 $2 $2

On-site chipping $7 $0 $0Total $31 $26 $23

$/green ton

Utilit S l C b ti


65/93

65

UtilityUtility--Scale CombustionScale Combustion


Stoker Boilers

Developed in the 1920s and 1930s

Fuel burned on a grate and heat

transferred to water

Limited ability to switch fuels

Need consistent moisture content andfree of impurities

Fluidized Bed Combustion

Burns fuel in a bed of sand suspended by

updrafts of air

Reduces SOx and NOx emissions andallows a wider range of fuels

Currently in commercial use for biomass

More costly than stoker boilers

Co-firing in existing boilers

Add wood to the fuel supply

Sawmills and furniture manufacturers

Reduces SOx emissions

Can raise efficiency of biomassconversion at lower cost

Can create more maintenance costsbecause of slagging

S fP i F l d S l ti f


66/93

66

Primary Fuel and Selection ofPrimary Fuel and Selection of

TechnologyTechnology

Source: Babcock & Wilcox


67/93

67

Biomass GasificationBiomass Gasification Gasification reaction:

Syngas typically hasrelatively low heating value:100 to 150 Btu/scf

Fired in close-coupled boilersor reciprocating engines

Syngas

may be cleaned prior

to injection into boiler

Typically employ fluidized

bed reactors to gasifybiomass

biomass + limited oxygenbiomass + limited oxygen

syngassyngas + heat+ heat

Biomass Gasifier SystemBiomass Gasifier System


68/93

68

SCR

ESP

Separated

Biomass Ash Co-Product SeparatedCoal Ash Co-Product

SeparatedBIOMASS

Gas Feedto Boiler

SeparateCOAL Feed

ExistingPowerBoiler

Alternative Re-burn Fuel Mitigated Volatile Alkali Risk Mitigated Chloride Risk Gasifier retrofit < new FB boiler

o ass Gas e Systey

Source: B&V


69/93

69

CoCo

--firing Methodsfiring Methods

Direct Co-firing Methods

Solid biomass combusted with coal in existing boiler systems

Examples include:

Fuel Blending

Separate Injection

Indirect Co-firing Methods

Solid biomass processed in a separate combustor or reactor, with

products

of the process utilized in existing thermal systems

Examples include:

Separate Combustion

Pyrolysis

primary product: bio-oil

Gasification

primary product: syngas


70/93

70

CoCo

--firing Methodsfiring Methods

Fuel BlendingFuel Blending

Mixing of coal and biomass prior to injection into the boiler

Mixed on existing fuel pile via mobile equipment

For pulverized coal systems, fuel blending results in co-milling of fuels inexisting pulverizers

Simplest and least expensive method of co-firing

Limits of co-firing via fuel blending:

PC boilers: 2% to 3%(by heat input)

Cyclone and FB boilers:

10% to 20% (heat input)

Source: B&V

CC fi i M th dfi i M th d S tS t


71/93

71

CoCo--firing Methodsfiring Methods

SeparateSeparate

InjectionInjection

Requires separate biomass handling system and boilermodification

Allows biomass to provide greater proportion of heat input:

For PC units: 10% or greater

For cyclone or fluidized bed units: 20% or greater

Existing Boiler

Turbine

Steam

ExistingMills

BiomassSizing

Source: B&V

CC fi i M th dfi i M th d I di t CI di t C


72/93

72

CoCo--firing Methodsfiring Methods

Indirect CoIndirect Co--

firing via Gasificationfiring via Gasification

Reduces quantity of biomass ash introduced into existingboiler systems

Syngas may be utilized as a NOx re-burning fuel

Significantly higher capital costs relative to direct co-firing

Gasifier Cyclone

Turbine

SteamExisting Boiler

Syngas

Source: B&V


73/93

73

Benefits of Biomass CombustionBenefits of Biomass Combustion

Can be a least cost option

Allows for fuel switching

Can be used 24 hours/day

Carbon neutral or negativefuel (depending onfeedstock)

Feedstock can be burnedas solid or gas usingconventional technologies

Challenges of Biomass CombustionChallenges of Biomass Combustion


74/93

74

Challenges of Biomass CombustionChallenges of Biomass Combustion

Lower BTU content than coal

Lower density/higher moisturecontent

Competing uses

Short-term vendor contracts

Handling challenges

Supply costs can vary greatlydepending on feedstock sourceSpecialized handling and firingequipment

Modifications to air quality controlsystems

Multiple suppliers to deal with

Fugitive dust and odor issues

Fuel flexibility and fluctuatingsupplies


75/93

75

Waste to EnergyWaste to Energy

Solves two problems at once by

reducing waste stream andcreating electricity

Common Methods ofConversion

Direct Combustion Gasification

Anaerobic Digestion

Requires pre-processing

Feedstock handling can bechallenging

Heterogeneous feedstock meaninconsistent fuel quality


76/93

76

Landfill Gas CaptureLandfill Gas Capture

Benefits:

Can be co-fired

Can be used 24 hours/day

Extremely low cost

Carbon reduction benefits

Challenges:

Slightly lower BTU value thannatural gas

May need to be cleaned

Location specific


77/93

Wind PowerWind Power


78/93

78

Wind PowerWind Power

Benefits:

No fuel costs

Carbon free

Can be low cost whereresources are available

Can allow for multiple uses ofland

Challenges:

Not dispatchable Intermittent resource

Very location specific

Minimum wind speeds requiredfor operation

Classes of Wind Power Density atClasses of Wind Power Density at


79/93

79

Classes of Wind Power Density atClasses of Wind Power Density at

Heights of 10 m and 50 mHeights of 10 m and 50 m

Wind PowerClass*

10 m (33 ft) 50 m (164 ft)

Wind PowerDensity(W/m2) Speed m/s

(mph)

Wind PowerDensity(W/m2) Speed m/s

(mph)

1 100 4.4 (9.8) 200 5.6 (12.5)

2 150 5.1 (11.5) 300 6.4 (14.3)

3 200 5.6 (12.5) 400 7.0 (15.7)

4 250 6.0 (13.4) 500 7.5 (16.8)

5 300 6.4 (14.3) 600 8.0 (17.9)

6 400 7.0 (15.7) 800 8.8 (19.7)

7 1,000 9.4 (21.1) 2,000 11.9 (26.6)


80/93

80

Wind Technology BasicsWind Technology Basics

Winds are created by uneven heating of theatmosphere by the sun, irregularities of the

Earth's surface, and the rotation of the Earth.

Winds are strongly influenced and modified bylocal terrain, bodies of water, weather patterns,vegetative cover, and other factors.

Vertical extrapolation of wind speed based on the

1/7 power law

The wind profile power law is a relationship betweenthe wind speeds at one height, and those atanother.

Power in the area swept by the wind turbine rotor:

P = 0.5 x rho x A x V3

where:

P = power in watts

rho = air density (about 1.225 kg/m3 at sea level,less higher up)

A = rotor swept area, exposed to the wind (m2)

V = wind speed in meters/sec

Wind Turbine ComponentsWind Turbine Components


81/93

81

Wind Turbine ComponentsWind Turbine Components


82/93

82

OUCOUCs Approachs Approach

O l dO l d G F t AlliG F t Alli


83/93

83

OrlandoOrlandos Green Future Alliances Green Future Alliance

Received USDOE Solar CitiesGrant to promote solar

Established an integrated

energy alliance with the City ofOrlando and Orange CountyGovernment to promote greenmarket transformation inCentral Florida

Conducting a series of energytraining courses and

stakeholder workshops todetermine best practices andneeds of our community

Goal of 15 MW of Solar by 2015


84/93

84

Biomass Energy ProjectsBiomass Energy Projects

Landfill Methane Recovery Projects

Orange County Landfill displaces 3% offuel required for either of Stantons coal

units ~ expanding to 22 MW

St. Cloud Landfill 1 MW project beingplanned

Holopaw Landfill Project recentlyapproved (~ 15 MW)

Harmony Hybrid Solar/BiomassPower Plant

5 MW Plant will be located in HarmonysFlorida Sustainable Energy ResearchPark

Uses biomass gasifiers andconcentrating solar to generate electricity

Includes educational partnership withFSU

MSW Gasification with City of Orlando

Net Metered System

Turns trash to Syngas

in a closed loop

system

No dioxins produced

Will provide co-generation to City watertreatment facility

1 to 2 MW in scale


85/93

85

OUCOUCs Existing Solar Projectss Existing Solar Projects

Solar Production Incentive

Provides incentives for producing energy fromsolar hot water and PV

$.03 to $.05/KWH Currently re-evaluating

incentive levels

Solar Billed Solution

Provides no/low interest loans through theOrlando Federal Credit Union (OFCU)

OUC buys down interest

Preparing to re-bid

Solar Electric Vehicle Charging Station at OUC

2.8 KW

Provides 80% solar fraction for charging

Solar on Utility Poles

Partnership with PetraSolar

Uses micro-inverters

10 systems installed

Jetport/Stanton Solar PPA

9.31 MW DC

22% Capacity Factor

In negotiations with vendor


86/93

86

New Solar Business ModelsNew Solar Business Models

Community Solar Farm

500 KW to 1 MW depending oncustomer participation

OUC holds PPA with vendorand acts as billing agent

No upfront cost to participate

Fixed monthly rate for 20+years

Virtual net metering

Allows for multi-familyparticipants

Removes siting barriers

OUC owns RECs

Commercial Solar Aggregation

Pilot

OUC holds PPA with vendorand acts as billing agent

No upfront cost to participate

Fixed monthly rate for 20+years

Customer retains demandsavings and any net metering

Sited on the customers rooftop

Price reductions from projectaggregation

OUC owns RECs


87/93

87

New Biomass OpportunitiesNew Biomass Opportunities

Biomass Co-Firing

Possibly up to 10% of boilercapacity (90 MW)

Ship biomass feedstock viarail cars from longerdistances

Consider torrefaction toimprove BTU content and

moisture content


88/93

88

New Biomass OpportunitiesNew Biomass Opportunities

Algae Biomass Project

Opportunities to use algae totreat wastewater

Fed CO2 from post-

scrubbed flue gas

Algae is cracked

to obtain

biofuels and biomassfeedstock for co-firing.

Summer Peak DaySummer Peak Day


89/93

89

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

HR1HR2

HR3

HR4HR5

HR6HR7

HR8

HR9

HR10

HR11

HR12

HR13

HR14

HR15

HR16

HR17

HR18

HR19

HR20

HR21

HR22

HR23

HR24

STN A 06/22/2009

STN #2 06/22/2009

STN #1 06/22/2009

MP #3 06/22/2009

IR CTD 06/22/2009

IR CTC 06/22/2009

IR CTA 06/22/2009 Natural Gas

Coal and LandfillLandfill

Gas

Summer Peak Day with RenewablesSummer Peak Day with Renewables


90/93

90

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

HR1HR2

HR3

HR4HR5

HR6HR7

HR8

HR9

HR10

HR11

HR12

HR13

HR14

HR15

HR16

HR17

HR18

HR19

HR20

HR21

HR22

HR23

HR24

PhotovoltaicsSTN A 06/22/2009

STN #2 06/22/2009

STN #1 06/22/2009

MP #3 06/22/2009

IR CTD 06/22/2009

IR CTC 06/22/2009IR CTA 06/22/2009

PV Contribution

Biomass Co-FiringOpportunities

BiogasOpportunities

y

Winter Peak DayWinter Peak Day


91/93

91

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

HR1

HR2

HR3

HR4

HR5

HR6

HR7

HR8

HR9

HR10

HR11

HR12

HR13

HR14

HR15

HR16

HR17

HR18

HR19

HR20

HR21

HR22

HR23

HR24

STN A 01/11/2010

STN #2 01/11/2010

STN #1 01/11/2010

MP #3 01/11/2010

IR CTB 01/11/2010

IR CTA 01/11/2010

yy

Winter Peak Day with RenewablesWinter Peak Day with Renewables


92/93

92

yy

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

HR1

HR2

HR3

HR4

HR5

HR6

HR7

HR8

HR9

HR10

HR11

HR12

HR13

HR14

HR15

HR16

HR17

HR18

HR19

HR20

HR21

HR22

HR23

HR24

Photovoltaics

STN A 01/11/2010

STN #2 01/11/2010

STN #1 01/11/2010

MP #3 01/11/2010

IR CTB 01/11/2010

IR CTA 01/11/2010

PV Contribution

BiogasOpportunities

Biomass Co-FiringOpportunities


93/93

Additional ResourcesAdditional Resources

www.solarbuzz.com

www.greenbiz.com www.fsec.ucf.edu

www.nrel.gov

www.irecusa.org www.solarelectricpower.org

www.ases.org

www.cleantech.org www.cleantech.com

www.prometheus.org

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jenniferskislakszaro
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

OUC Introduction to Renewables 3-2010

Documents