1 / 58

Fuel Choice Study Results

Fuel Choice Study Results. Michael Schilmoeller and Tom Eckman Northwest Power and Conservation Council WebCast Friday, March 18, 2011. Overview. Study approach Interpreting the RPM results Next Steps. Study Approach. Basic concepts Data preparation for the RPM The simulation

elaina
Télécharger la présentation

Fuel Choice Study Results

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. Fuel Choice Study Results Michael Schilmoeller and Tom Eckman Northwest Power and Conservation Council WebCast Friday, March 18, 2011

  2. Overview • Study approach • Interpreting the RPM results • Next Steps

  3. Study Approach • Basic concepts • Data preparation for the RPM • The simulation • Representation of segment group “classes” based on energy profiles • How the model tries to find “the best” policy with respect to appliance choice • RPM results

  4. Premise of the Study • As a space heater is nearing the end of its life, a customer considers alternatives for replacement • Some decision maker (probably not the customer) makes their best guess about future natural gas and electricity prices, about future carbon mitigation policies, and so forth. They want to minimize total societal cost (“total resource cost” or TRC). • The customer, somehow influenced by the policy maker’s decision, buys and installs the appliance(s). • Their actual cost depends on whatever carbon penalty, and natural gas and electricity prices occur.

  5. New Segment Groups

  6. 20 New Segment GroupsAssociated withFAF Electric and Electric DHW Determine retrofit baseline

  7. New Segments

  8. 20 segments Associated withElectric FAF and Electric DHW → Gas FAF Electric and Instant Gas DHW

  9. Translation: The existing appliances are a gas forced air furnace (FAF) and gas water heater with a tank holding no more than 55 gallons. The single family structure has no basement, existing gas service, and no air conditioning. The default retrofit for this segment group is replacement in kind (gas forced air furnace and water heater). C:\Backups\Plan 6\Studies\Model Development\Direct Use of Gas\Presentations\110318 RTF Webinar - First results\illustrations\FCM 08 XSN for illustrations.xlsm

  10. C:\Backups\Plan 6\Studies\Model Development\Direct Use of Gas\Presentations\110318 RTF Webinar - First results\illustrations\FCM 08 XSN for illustrations.xlsm

  11. C:\Backups\Plan 6\Studies\Model Development\Direct Use of Gas\Presentations\110318 RTF Webinar - First results\illustrations\FCM 08 XSN for illustrations.xlsm

  12. Table of Least-Cost Choices

  13. Tables Not Shown There are nineother 25 x 25 tables used to describe segment group 43. These are incremental* changes in • fixed costs ($/hr) • natural gas use (MMBTU/h) • electricity use (MWh/h) • electric energy (MWh/h) one for each of six profiles * These are incremental in two ways: they reflect how much can be added in the model’s decision time period (standard quarter) and how different from the assumed replacement-in-kind values. That is, if replacement-in-kind is the least-cost option for a given gas and power price, the entry corresponding to that combination is zero in all tables.

  14. Energy Distributions • On- and off-peak distribution of energy • Seasonal distribution • Five principal distributions • Model will carry along electric energy assumptions and results data for each one

  15. Roll-Up • The RPM uses 10 “roll-up” tables representing sums across the 95 segment groups • If the selection criterion is based solely on electricity and natural gas price, we can come back and “drill down” into results by segment group to see the detailed conversion behavior. This assumes, of course, a fixed appliance selection policy.

  16. Simulation

  17. The Selector • The RPM “plan optimizer” needs knobs it can tweak to test appliance pair selection • The selection is an event that occurs over and over as the simulation marches chronologically through each future. (Remember, RPM plan and policy decisions cannot know the future.) • The rule for appliance selection can be anything • The test is, “Does it work?” (i.e., lower cost or risk) • Need not be tied to economics, although that is what we think most policy makers would use.

  18. The Selector • There are many ways to do this, for example, • Changing relative fixed cost of appliances in the selection process • Letting the optimizer test every option for each segment group and tracking • If the decision is influenced by perceptions of likely future economics, let’s use that • We already model electricity and gas price uncertainty • Use the “diagonal” nature of the typical boundary between gas and electric appliances

  19. C:\Backups\Plan 6\Studies\Model Development\Direct Use of Gas\101004 Study\FCM 05.xlsm

  20. Show the L814e and L814dFeasibility Spaces selector

  21. L814d Plans Colored ByDUG Premium Level selector

  22. Plan Comparisons selector

  23. Plan Comparisons selector

  24. Effect of the Selector on the Move to Gas

  25. Overview • Study approach • Interpreting the RPM results • Next Steps

  26. System EffectsOperating (Fuel) Costs GAS TANK 70% EFF COMBUSTION TURBINE 48% EFF(7100 BTU/kWh) ELEC TANK 93% EFF

  27. System EffectsOperating (Fuel) Costs • The higher thermal efficiency of the natural gas appliance has several important implications to operating cost • The operating cost of the gas appliance will always be lower, regardless of the price of electricity and of natural gas • The gas appliance will produce less CO2, unless additional carbon capture technologies are introduced

  28. System EffectsHow Conservative is Use of Turbine Costs? • Non-dispatchable resources and resources with very low variable cost (hydrogeneration) are (almost*) never on the margin in the long-term • Consequently, changes to electric load affect dispatchable, fossil-fuel resources • This places a lower limit on the generation efficiencies in the previous slide *Ok, ok, system operation can produce some additional amount of hydrogeneration spill. Hopefully, this is rare and of little long-term consequence.

  29. System EffectsFixed Costs per Yearassuming same end-use energy Gas Extension (MF) $183.59/yr, RL 2006$ ?? Gas Main (MF) $373.30/yr, RL 2006$ $125.02/yr, RL 2006$ Average BTU/h= 1.90 ?? $74.69 /yr, RL 2006$ $/yr=($/kWyr)*(kW), and $/kWyr = 195 RL $79.74/yr, RL 2006$, Average kW=0.38 Average BTU/h= 1.30

  30. No Systems Effect

  31. Turbine operating cost The likelihood of carbon penalties and curtailed coal plant production make these prices unlikely in the next decade. These are all heat pump water heaters with gas FAF.

  32. Turbine Operating and Fixed Cost

  33. Preliminary Observations(to be disavowed if attributed) • The initial RPM selection probably got over 75% of the 130,000 per year of households correct: • Homes with gas appliances that might otherwise move to electric appliances (50,000+ per year) should stay with gas appliances (NEW FINDING), but … • If we do not expect to displace future generation turbines then electric heat pump water heaters may be better than gas water heating appliances. (Work forthcoming….) • Small, multi-family households in areas that would require a gas main are probably best served with electric zonal space heating and resistance hot water tanks • The “best plan” selector value did not change this outcome

  34. Preliminary Observations(to be disavowed if attributed) • Where the initial selection criterion probably got it wrong: • Some households were converted to gas when, in fact, they would have been best served by electric appliances • Larger single-family homes (26,000 per year) requiring gas mains • Some households were converted to gas, although the best outcome will depend on displacing new turbines in the future • CO2 emissions were about the same, irrespective of the conversions

  35. CO2 Emissions selector selector

  36. Overview • Study approach • Interpreting the RPM results • Next Steps

  37. Remaining Workand Questions • We will try an alternative selection method that provides the optimizer with better granularity: • Lock down selections that we feel are pretty stable • Aggregate segment groups that appear to be sensitive to similar issues, such as opportunity to defer new turbines • Provide the optimizer several knobs for picking the best outcomes for each aggregate group • Are there load forecast implications we have not considered? How closely does our underlying load forecast match our replacement-in-kind values?

  38. Remaining Workand Questions • What will be the impact of revised conservation supply curves? • These currently assume a specific replacement policy • Conversion to more efficient electric appliances introduces double-counting • Conversion to gas removes the opportunity entirely • This will result in some take-back of benefits of remaining on or converting to natural gas • Would alternative market-purchase power carbon loading assumptions change the results? • What are the oxides of nitrogen emission implications? • The only emission we valued was CO2

  39. Remaining Workand Questions • What are the current impediments and incentives for modifying consumer behavior? • Retail rate structure • Tax deductions and credits • How well aligned are these with the least-cost and risk choices we have identified? • How well is the market doing?

  40. Questions?

  41. Reserve Slides

  42. Power Distribution forDomestic Hot Water

  43. Power Distribution forDomestic Hot Water Average on-peak requirement to off-peak* requirement: 1.93 *Sunday is all off-peak C:\Backups\Plan 6\Studies\Model Development\Direct Use of Gas\101004 Study\hourly_res_loads\[Residential Water Heating load shapes and hourly consumptions sent to KC on Dec 30 2008_MJS.xlsx]DWH

  44. Energy Distributions Winter water heating on- to off-peak ratio: 1.70 (=1.373/.0820)

  45. Average MWh/h Increase Across Futures

  46. What’s Going On Here?CCCT1,2 costs • Levelized fixed cost3: $195/kWyr ($22.31/MWh ) • 7100 BTU/kWh heat rate; • energy cost at $5/MMBTU for gas, $37.32/MWh (= 35.5 ng + 1.82 VOM) • Levelized total: $59.63/MWh Sixth Power Plan, L813 (source: C:\Backups\Plan 6\Studies\L814\L814d DUG 110125\Analysis\RL construction costs.xls) 2006 dollars Ignores overnight construction cost uncertainty

  47. What’s Going On Here?Fuel Fidelity1 Costs Segment Group 43 • Segment 713 (Replacement in Kind) • Gas FAF/Gas Tank • MMBTU/h = 32.50; RL fixed $/h = 224.76; kWh/h = 0 • Segment 714 • Electric FAF/Electric Resistance • MMBTU/h = 0; RL fixed $/h = 108.25; kWh/h = 8,032.25 (MMBTU/h = 27.41) • Levelized opportunity fixed cost3: $14.50/MWh ($127.07/kWyr) • Opportunity heat rate4: 4,046 MBTU/kWh • Levelized total ($5/MMBTU for gas): $34.73/MWh • Societal opportunity costs for refraining from switching to less costly electric appliances from gas appliances. • 2006 dollars • [FCM 05.xls]!’all segments’: $/MWh =[fixed $/h]/[kWh/h*1000] ($/kWyr =$/MWh*8760/1000) • [FCM 05.xls]!’all segments’: BTU/kWh =[MMBTU/h]*[BTU/MMBTU]/[kWh/h]

  48. A Brief Digression … • Want to compare two alternatives economically • We will take two perspectives, • a consumer or “conversion opportunity” perspective, and • a system’s or societal perspective

More Related