Status and Perspectives of CSP Technology · Significant change in market share between Power Tower...

Status and Perspectives of CSP Technology

Robert Pitz-Paal

1. Characteristics of CSP

2. Market und Cost Development

3. Benefits for a mix of PV und CSP

4. Innovation to drive cost reduction

5. Conclusions

Outline

> AGCS Expert Days 2017 > Robert Pitz-Paal • CSP Technology > 02.11.2017 DLR.de • Chart 2





5. Conclusions

Outline


Conventional power plant

What is CSP?

4

www.DLR.de • Folie 4 > AGCS Expert Days 2017 > Robert Pitz-Paal • CSP Technology > 02.11.2017

What is CSP?

5

www.DLR.de • Folie 5

Concentrating solarpower plant

> AGCS Expert Days 2017 > Robert Pitz-Paal • CSP Technology > 02.11.2017

Trough vs. Tower


© DLR

Line Focus

Point Focus

Trough vs. Tower

• Solar energy collected by reflection


• Solar energy collected by piping

Solar Resource direct und diffuse radiation Block size mWatt to some 100 Installation: everywhere (roof top) etc.) Capacity : 700 – 2000 full load hours Back-up Capacity external (e.g. gas turbine) Inst. Power (2016) 305 GW LCOE 0,03 – 0,13 €/kWh

direct Radiation 10 MW to some 100 MW flat unused land 2000 – 7000 full load hours therm. Storage / fossil backup 5 GW 0,06 – 0,12 €/kWh

Characteristics PV CSP


Thermal Storage vs. Electric Storage

CSP with thermal storage and fossil back provides reliable dispatchble power at no additional cost

2000 h

+2000 h

η >95 %

η = 75%

200 h

Firm capacity


CSP only suitable in areas with high direct normal radiation > AGCS Expert Days 2017 > Robert Pitz-Paal • CSP Technology > 02.11.2017 DLR.de • Chart 10

High shares of cheap Wind and PV capacity lead to a strongly fluctuating residual load that need to covered by other technologies


PV and CSP

• Two technologies that complement each other perfectly in many regions of the world, in particular if large shares fossil fuel can not be used Scenario for Electricity Supply for North Africa for 2015 based on high shares of renewable energies *

*Results from the EU Better Study (www.better-project.net)






5. Conclusions

Outline


Global expansion of CSP in three phases


Lilliestam, J., Labordena, M., Patt, A. & Pfenninger, S. Nat. Energy 2, 17094 (2017).

Market Development CSP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2010 2015 2020 2025

Inst

alle

d po

wer

(cum

ulat

ed, G

We)

Year historisch Heliokon

40% 60%

2020 Tower

2020 Trough 60%

40% 2025 Tower

2025 Trough

Significant change in market share between Power Tower and Trough

5 GWe installed in 2015

8.5 GWe will be installed until 2020 Currently 2 GWe under construction

18.5 GWe planned until 2025 depend on cost development

Confirmed Planned

Tower

Trough

www.DLR.de • Chart 15 > AGCS Expert Days 2017 > Robert Pitz-Paal • CSP Technology > 02.11.2017

Cost reduction over last 5 years at a learning rate of > 25%


Lilliestam, J., Labordena, M., Patt, A. & Pfenninger, S. Nat. Energy 2, 17094 (2017).

Cost for CSP and PV have dropped dramatically

• Installed CSP capacity is more than an order of magnitude smaller than PV capacty

Energy sales price PV

Energy sales prices CSP

2014

2007

2014

Module price PV

Dubai 2017 Chile 2016

www.DLR.de • Chart 17

2016

Australia 2017


More than 5000 full load hours

Solar electricity competive with natural gas? 700 MW @ 5500 h CSP á 7,3 $cents/kWh + 800 MW @ 2300 h PV a 3 $Cents/kWh

= 5,95 $cents/kWh = 5,07 €cents/kWh for 24/7 electricity


What is behind these numbers?

Example Dubai: DEWA Project: What do we know? • PPA Price 7,3 $cents/kWh • PPA duration 35 years • Total investment 3‘900 Mio.$ = 5570 $/kW • Solar Resource: ~2200kWh/m²a • average of 12 hours of storage

What we don‘t know • Capacity factor of plant? • O&M cost? Result in financing conditions (WACC) 4,8%

Let‘ try to estimate 60% 2% of invest


What does a WACC of 4,8% mean?

• All these constellations leads to a WACC of 4,8%

Loan Period 35y 35 y 35y Equity share 20% 30% 20% Loan interest 2,5% 2,5% 3,5% IRR 6,1% 5,0 % 2,8% (during loan period) ⇒Very low financing conditions, compared to other markets ⇒Places with better solar resources may allow for higher financing cost at

the same electricity price






5. Conclusions

Outline


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

[MW

]

x 1

00

00

Installed Capacity

PumpBatteryCSP_SolarPV_SolarWindOtherHydro_NCREHydro_RORHydro_DamDieselLNGGeothermalBiomassCoal

2029

Social acceptance

Energy demand

Technological change in BESS

Externality costs

RE investment costs

Fossil fuel costs

CSP LCOE

Scenario B High High Low High Low High USD 50 /MWh by 2025

Chile Scenario Results – Expansion Model Scenario 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

[GW

h]

x 1

00

00

Generation

BatteryPumpDieselPV_SolarCSP_SolarWindHydro_RORHydro_NCREGeothermalOtherBiomassLNGHydro_DamCoal

Chile Scenario Results – Expansion Model Scenario 1

2029

Social acceptance

Energy demand

Technological change in BESS

Externality costs

RE investment costs

Fossil fuel costs

CSP LCOE

Scenario B High High Low High Low High USD 50 /MWh by 2025

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

Pow

er (M

W)

PV_SOLCSP_SOLLNG_CCGTLNG_GTWINDHYDRO_RORHYDRO_DAMGEODIECOGBIOCOAL

Chile Szenario results: Short Term Simulation

2035 summer week dispatch by technology

CSP





5. Conclusions

Outline


Advanced Silicon Oil in Parabolic Troughs Environmental Safety Capacity / Performance

• low pour point (-55°C) reduces auxiliary consumption for freeze protection

• slower degradation at 425°C in comparison to DPO/BP at only 400°C

• 425°C field outlet temperature increases conversion efficiency of Rankine cycle and allows for smaller heat storage systems


Advanced Silicon Oil in Parabolic Troughs

Enhanced thermal stability

• Comparison of DPO/BP at only 400°C with HELISOL® 5A at 425°C • Considerably slower formation of low boiling degradation products • Less hydrogen formation (enhanced receiver lifetimes expected)


A

A

A

Advanced Silicon Oil in Parabolic Troughs

Benefits over DPO/BP state-of-the-art thermal oil • Increased performance due to higher live steam temperatures • Lower storage costs due to increased temperature spread • LCOE by cost reduction potential of about 5% for different sites and plant sizes


A

Heat transfer fluid DPO/BP HELISOL® 5A Unit Nominal solar field temperature °C 393 430 Gross power block efficiency (wet cooling) % 39.0 40.5 Gross power block efficiency (ACC) % 37.7 39.2 Nominal specific solar field parasitics W/m² 8 6.4 Specific investment solar field €/m² 235 235 Specific investment storage €/kWh 40 33 Specific HTF cost (identical) €/kg 4 4 Annual HTF replacement rate (identical) % 2 2 Mean volumetric heat capacity kJ/(m³K) 1871 1397

SITEF Project 2016-2017


German-Spanish cooperation PROMETEO test facility at Plataforma Solar de Almería (Spain) • Durability and loop scale applicability of HELISOL® 5A at 425°C • Comprehensive laboratory analysis – degradation • Functionality parabolic trough collector components at up to 450°C

• Receiver Tubes • Rotation and expansion performing assemblies

• Economic benefit of HELISOL® 5A • technical investments / greater energy output • Safety concept and (permitting process for relevant target markets)

Outline



3. Benefits for a Mix of PV und CSP

4. Innovation to drive Cost reduction Near term: Advanced silicon Oil in parabolic troughs Mid term: Parabolic Trough with Molten Salt Long term: Particle Receiver Technology 5. Conclusions


Molten Salt in Parabolic Trough Power Plants

Thermal oil (TO) based plant Molten salt (MS) based plant

Advantages of the Molten Salt System • Higher overall system efficiencies due to higher working parameters (up to

565°C/150 bar instead of 400°C/100 bar) • Solar Field and power block fully decoupled • Lower price for heat transfer fluid (HTF), no need of heat exchangers and

additional pumps • Environmentally friendly heat transfer fluid vs. thermal oil

DLR.de • Folie 31 > AGCS Expert Days 2017 > Robert Pitz-Paal • CSP Technology > 02.11.2017

DLR.de • Folie 32

Parabolic Trough Night operation /w molten salt

Salt Mixtures Decomp. Temperature

Freezing Temperature

MS-A NaK-NO3 (Solar Salt)

>550°C 238°C @ 60/40 Mixture

MS-B NaKCa-NO3 <500°C ~150°C MS-C NaKLi-NO3 ~530°C ~140°C


• Minimum temperature in solar field must not drop to solidification temperature of the salt

• Choice of salt defines hours of so called anti-freeze operation of a cooled down solar field, e.g. during night and overcast times

• Energy for anti-freeze operation during night and overcast situations is provided by the sun! Part of the thermal energy storage is reserved for anti-freeze and loaded during the day. Only in seldom cases of exception a fossil burner supports.

• Wirkungsgrad und Kostenpotenzial

DLR.de • Folie 33

Energy flow diagram of MS-A molten salt parabolic trough system

Optical loss PTCs1207.8 GWh

Heat loss PTRs293.9 GWh

Heat loss pipings25.6 GWh

Heat loss tanks8.3 GWh

Heat loss SG9.8 GWh

Heat loss auxiliary heater

4.5 GWh

Power block768.1 GWh

Power block heat up48.2 GWh

Solar field Power block

Heat loss switch steady-->transient

16.2 GWh

Auxiliary heater45.2 GWh

Pump solar field12.6 GWhe

Tanks and AH

Pump power block12.2 GWhe

Electricity 596 GWhe

numerical error0.7 GWh

Loss pump7.2 GWh

Dumping140.9 GWh

Sun3057.2 GWh

100%

gross 19,2%

Net 18,1%

3% of solar thermal power by fossil fuel

2,1% of electricity 2% of electricity


Rügamer, T., H. Kamp, et al. (2013). Molten Salt for Parabolic Trough Applications: System Simulation and Scale Effects. 19th SolarPACES Conference, Las Vegas.

DLR.de • Folie 34

Road map of Cost reductions for molten salt parabolic trough plants at (IRR of 8% over 25 years)

2013


1. Filling and draining of the plant 2. Anti-freeze parasitic load 3. Danger of freezing 4. Blackout scenarios 5. Corrosion at high temperature 6. System performance 7. Flexible connection technology: Proof of functionality and tightness 8. Steam Generating System leakage 9. Maintenance procedures 10. Stability of salt mixtures

DLR.de • Folie 35

Proof of concept needs to show:


> AGCS Expert Days 2017 > Robert Pitz-Paal • CSP Technology > 02.11.2017 DLR.de • Folie 36

DLR‘s objective in Évora, Portugal: to confute all concerns

Once-Through Steam Generating System

Thermal Energy Storage

Drainage Tank with permanent Melting Unit

Solar Field Site

Control Room

Wind Fence

Project: HPS2 – High Performance Solar 2 Commissioning of the plant: January 2018

W/S-Cycle

HelioTrough loop will be installed

See also: http://www.dlr.de/sf/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-10436/20

Outline



3. Benefits for a Mix of PV und CSP

4. Innovation to drive Cost reduction Near term: Advanced silicon Oil in parabolic troughs Mid term: Parabolic Trough with Molten Salt Long term: Particle Receiver Technology 5. Conclusions


Long Term Perspective: Path to High Temperatures

Target: higher system efficiency • Increased power cycle efficiency by increased process temperatures

• Steam cycles with up to 620°C: ηcycle up to 48% • Supercritical CO2 cycles with up to 700°C: ηcycle > 50%?

• Higher cycle efficiency ⇒ less heliostats required ⇒ lower cost • Higher receiver temperature: Trec > 600°C

• Suitable heat transfer media for higher receiver temperatures: • New molten salt mixtures: cost, corrosion, degradation? • Liquid metals: cost, corrosion, safety? • Solid particles?


Bauxite particles • Very high operation temperature possible (up to 1000°C) • Direct absorption of solar radiation: high efficiency

⇒ no solar flux density limit, less high temperature materials

• Direct storage of the heat transfer medium • High temperature spread in storage ⇒ low storage cost • Low parasitic power: no freezing ⇒ no trace-heating

Reference system: molten salt, steam cycle @540°C

Principle of a Solar Particle System


Particle Direct Absorption Receiver: Falling Film Receiver

• Solar tests at temperatures > 700°C • Particles: sintered bauxite (“proppants”) • High particle velocities might be problematic (abrasion, attrition)

Particle receiver tests at Sandia Natl. Labs, USA


DLR Approach: Direct Absorption Receiver: Centrifugal Receiver • Rotating receiver • Centrifugal force keeps particles at the wall • Residence time controlled by rotational speed

• Good temperature control in all load situations


Centrifugal Particle Receiver: 10kW Test Receiver

receiver

Successful lab testing up to 900°C

Electric Xe arc lamps High receiver efficiency due to high flux capability


• 500 kWth currently under testing • >800°C particle outlet temperature

already achieved

Centrifugal Particle Receiver: 500kW Prototype

DLR solar tower test facility in Jülich, Germany


http://www.dlr.de/sf/DesktopDefault.aspx/tabid-8560/15527_read-44867/gallery-1/gallery_read-Image.73.22867/

Economics of Solar Particle Systems vs. State of the Art Molten Salt Tower ⇒ LCoE reduction potential: about 16%






5. Conclusions

Outline


• PV and CSP with storage and hybridization are complementary technologies: • PV provides energy • CSP Energy + secured power

• PV market is booming since today often the most cost-effective option,

• CSP is at the edge of being competitive to gas in combination with PV: further cost reduction is expected

• Cost reduction requires higher process temperature to reach to higher solar-electric efficiency

• New heat transfer fluids needs to be integrated to reach higher process temperature

• Advanced oil, molten salt or solid particles are currently under large-scale testing to proof their feasibility

Conclusion


Date post:	03-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Status and Perspectives of CSP Technology · Significant change in market share between Power Tower...

Documents