1 / 12

Biogas Working Group Case Studies Economic Conditions and Investment Opportunities

Biogas Working Group Case Studies Economic Conditions and Investment Opportunities On-site Generation Ziqhing Zhang & Ricardo Amon CEC Bio-methane injection to NG pipeline Kenneth Brennan, PGE; Ty Korenwinder , Sempra Utilities Policy Recommendations and Next Steps. On-site Generation.

asasia
Télécharger la présentation

Biogas Working Group Case Studies Economic Conditions and Investment Opportunities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Biogas Working Group Case Studies • Economic Conditions and Investment Opportunities • On-site Generation • Ziqhing Zhang & Ricardo Amon CEC • Bio-methane injection to NG pipeline • Kenneth Brennan, PGE; Ty Korenwinder , Sempra Utilities • Policy Recommendations and Next Steps

  2. On-site Generation • California Dairy Power Production Program • Partnership with the California Energy Commission & Western United Dairyman • $10 million Grant Funding Program

  3. Background • California Dairy Power Production Program (DPPP) • 18 dairies received awards with a total $5.8 million of SB5X fund by 2007 • 10 dairies installed and operated biogas systems • 9 dairies collected cost and performance data on the biogas systems

  4. California Biomass Facilities Reporting System (BFRS)   Resource Assessments • Technical Resource 2010 BDT/y - Total Animal Manure STATE Total 3,890,000 • Existing Facilities 2.8 MW • Technical Electrical Capacity • 2010 Tech STATE Total 303 MW • Technical Electrical Energy • 2010 Tech – STATE Total 2,300,000 MWH

  5. 10 Digesters Installed under DPPP Blakes Landing

  6. Ten Digester Locations by Utility Service Areas 3 1 5 1

  7. Performance of Biogas to Electricity Systems for Actual Cases

  8. Existing Critical Issues • Air Quality Regulations • NOX 9ppm standard for stationary engines • Feed-in Tariff with Power Purchase Agreement • Utilities offer flat price that holds for 10-, 15-, or 20-year for plants under 1.5 MW. • For Market Price Referent, for plants starting up in 2008, it is 9.271 cents/kWh for 10-year contract and 9.572 c/kWh for 20-year contract. • SCE offers as-delivered capacity for plants under 1 MW, so there is no penalty as with a firm capacity contract if the farmer’s plant goes down briefly. • PG&E offers time of day rates on top of MPR with their Standard Contract. • SDG&E is smaller but welcomes farmers to meet with them to negotiate mutually beneficial contract terms.

  9. Existing Critical Issues (cont’d) • High Capital and O&M Costs • Net-Energy Metering • Utility 12 month contract with no excess power purchase agreement • Demand payments and standby demand charge • Commodity market for co-products (liquid or solid fertilizer) • Production Tax Credit • The section 45 10-yr PTC for dairy waste is 0.01 cents/kWh under the open loop biomass classification. This is half the closed loop price. Credits escalate with inflation.

  10. Research Needed for Potential Biogas System Development in California • Policies • Collaboration among utility, permit, and funding agencies to resolve existing issues on net metering, feed-in tariffs with long term contract, permitting, engine emission and sustainability standards. • Lower capital cost • Standardized digester design • Invest in low capital cost systems meeting air and water emission standard • Gas cleanup and upgrading • Engine emission reduction • Alternative power system design • Efficiency improvement • Feed and feedstock optimization • Digester optimization • Engine design and application • Heat utilization • Peaking power production • Utilization of economy of scales by allowing centralized, co- or multi-feedstock biogas systems, which might allow non-recourse project finance with debt. • Hybrid systems • Better performance data

  11. Conclusions • Some biogas power system proved to be economically feasible without grant • Hilarides dairy biogas digester – no subsidy power • Grants are still needed for most systems to encourage future development • high capital and O&M costs • customized system for each digester • a few developers to choose • requirement to meet different environmental standards from different funding resources • Most plants are all equity financed, so there is some room for an aggregator or other developer, but it is likely many farmers will continue to use all equity. • Research needs to be continued to ensure innovation in biogas system design to reduce capital cost and operating expenses, and to improve efficiency. • Air emission standards (9 ppm. NOX) for stationary engines difficult to permit in SJV • Need to explore other business opportunities: • Fuels cell biogas generation under feed-in-tariff contract • CNG for transportation fuels on municipal flets

  12. Thank you for your time and attention! For questions, please contact: Zhiqin Zhang California Energy Commission Phone: 916-654-4063 Email: Zzhang@energy.state.ca.us Ricardo Amon California Energy Commission Phone: 916-654-4019 Email: ramon@energy.state.ca.us

More Related