1 / 43

Introduction to Wind Energy

Introduction to Wind Energy. Fall, 2016. James McCalley ( jdm@iastate.edu ) EE 459X/559X, Electromechanical wind energy conversion and grid integration. Overview (focus mainly on US). Capacity factor Background on wind power growth Policy issues for wind energy Wind energy in context

smattox
Télécharger la présentation

Introduction to Wind Energy

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. Introduction to Wind Energy Fall, 2016 James McCalley (jdm@iastate.edu) EE 459X/559X, Electromechanical wind energy conversion and grid integration

  2. Overview (focus mainly on US) • Capacity factor • Background on wind power growth • Policy issues for wind energy • Wind energy in context • Grand challenge questions 2

  3. Capacity factor, CF CF×Prated×8760 gives annual energy production. Power, P(t) 1.5 MW Aside: CF×Prated is a poor characterization for plant capacity at peak load. Use capacity credit (CC) for that. Typical CC≈12-13% Time, t  • CF: actual annual energy production as % of annual energy production at Prated. • Typical windfarm CFs range 0.3-0.5. • CF is often used to assess wind resource. • Capacity and energy are not the same! 3

  4. EU-28: 28 member states of EU. BRICS: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (developing or newly developed countries with fast-growing economies). Worldwide - renewables • 2012 world electric gen capacity ≈6800GW so 785/6800=11.5% • Hydro is not included as a renewable here. • Wind>50% of renewables • China is 1rst, US is 2nd • Leading continent: Europe Source: RenewableS 2016, Global Status Report 4

  5. Worldwide Source: RenewableS 2016, Global Status Report 5

  6. Worldwide Does not correspond to 11.5% figure on slide 4 because here, it includes all energy (not just electric); also, slide 4 did not include hydro. Source: RenewableS 2016, Global Status Report 6

  7. By % of electric energy consumption - 2012 Worldwide Iowa (2013) Source: US DOE, 2012 Wind technologies market report, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/2012_wind_technologies_market_report.pdf 7

  8. By % of electric energy consumption - 2014 Worldwide Iowa (2015) Source: US DOE, 2014 Wind technologies market report, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/2012_wind_technologies_market_report.pdf 8

  9. Worldwide Source: BTM Consultants, www.btm.dk/reports/world+market+update+2010 9

  10. Source: Renewables 2013, Global Status Report Market shares of top 10 wind turbine manufacturers Worldwide 2011 2012 10

  11. Worldwide Source: RenewableS 2016, Global Status Report 11

  12. US Generation mix Background on Wind Energy in US 2015 2010 • Coal = 33% • Natural gas = 33% • Nuclear = 20% • Hydropower = 6% • Other renewables = 7% • Biomass = 1.6% • Geothermal = 0.4% • Solar = 0.6% • Wind = 4.7% • Petroleum = 1% • Other gases = <1% Wind & renewables are 3.6% by energy. Source:US EIA: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3 Source: AWEA 2010 Annual Wind Report 12

  13. Background on Wind Energy in US Wind growth has previously and still does depend on the production tax credit (PTC). The PTC has provided a direct tax rebate from the federal government of about 2.2 cents/kwh of wind energy production over the first 10 years of the wind plant’s life. This is $22/MWhr. Is this very much? 13

  14. www.misoenergy.org/LMPContourMap/MISO_All.html When energy prices are below $70/MWhr, $22 is a lot. It can even motivate you to produce when the price is negative! Consider a 200MW wind plant @ CF=0.35: 0.35×200×8760=613,200MWhrs. 613,200MWhrs×$22/MWhr=$13.5M/yr 1:10 pm, Monday August 22, 2016 14

  15. Background on Wind Energy in US U.S. Annual & Cumulative Wind Power Capacity growth, ‘97-’13 Annual additions decreased in ‘00, ‘02, ‘04, ’13 because of PTC expirations. 3 questions: • Why did wind growth in 2010-2011 drop? • What has happened to PTC since 2013? • What’s next? Source: AWEA 2014 Annual Wind Report 15

  16. Q1. Why did wind growth in 2010/2011 drop? Poor 2008-2009 economy: • Less willingness to loan, to build projects • Less power demand! www.census.gov/economic-indicators/ Declining natural gas prices See www.cmegroup.com/trading/energy/natural-gas/natural-gas.html Question 1.1 Why did gas price get so low? 16 16

  17. Shale gas was previously uneconomic to obtain, but technology developed in 1990’s/2000’s, called hydraulic fracturing (with horizontal drilling), has enabled access to it. Because this has greatly increased the natural gas supply, natural gas prices have plummeted (see below) 17

  18. Capacity additions by technology: 1950-2015 Gas, Wind Wind, Gas, Solar  Coal, Gas, Nuke, Hydro Coal, Gas, Hydro Gas, Gas 2012, 2015, wind investment is #1! Source: US DOE EIA http://marketrealist.com/2016/05/understanding-shift-us-power-generation-fuel-mix/ 18

  19. Q2: What has happened to PTC since 2013? • Renewed for 1 year by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (H.R. 8, Sec. 407) in January 2013; • Renewed for 1 year by the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014 (H.R. 5771, Sec. 155) in December 2014; • Renewed by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (H.R. 2029, Sec. 301) in December 2015. However, the intent is that this will be the last renewal; the PTC will be phased out over time, as follows: • For wind facilities commencing construction in 2017, the PTC amount is reduced by 20% • For wind facilities commencing construction in 2018, the PTC amount is reduced by 40% • For wind facilities commencing construction in 2019, the PTC amount is reduced by 60% • For wind facilities commencing construction after 12/31/2019, no PTC will be applied. 19

  20. Q2: What has happened to PTC since 2013? 20

  21. Q3: What’s next? After 2019, wind will not longer get PTC and therefore will no longer be competitive… or will it? Let’s think about this… • Coal is going away. • Gas is a risk. • Solar is expensive (at least right now) • Nuclear takes too long and receives high public resistance. • Other technologies will require more time to become economic. 21

  22. Q3-A: What’s next? Why is coal going away? 1. Potential for environmental policy on CO2 emissions… August 3, 2015: EPA finalized the Clean Power Plan (CPP), aiming to return CO2 gen emissions to 1980 levels. • Establishes interim and final statewide goals in three forms: • A rate-based state goal measured in pounds per megawatt hour (lb/MWh); • A mass-based state goal measured in total short tons of CO2; • A mass-based state goal with a new source complement measured in total short tons of CO2. • States then develop and implement plans that ensure that the power plants in their state • either individually, together or in combination with other measures • achieve the interim CO2 emissions performance rates over the period of 2022 to 2029 and • the final CO2 emission performance rates, rate-based goals or mass-based goals by 2030. States will be required to submit a final plan, or an initial submittal with an extension request, by 9/6/2016. Final complete state plans must be submitted no later than 9/6/2018. 22

  23. Q3-A: What’s next? Why is coal going away? Rate-based is advantageous if a state expects to grow low-CO2 gen production without retiring much hi-CO2 gen, because in this case, mass (numerator) is unchanged but denominator increases. Mass-based is advantageous if a state expects to reduce its hi-CO2 gen production. 23

  24. Q3-A: What’s next? Why is coal going away? This is based on total mass cuts; because some states may choose rate cuts, this picture gives only approximate view. 24

  25. Q3-A: What’s next? Why is coal going away? 25 http://www.eenews.net/interactive/clean_power_plan/fact_sheets/legal

  26. Q3-A: What’s next? Why is coal going away? (As of April 2016) …and so maybe coal is not going away? See www.ncsl.org/research/energy/states-reactions-to-proposed-epa-greenhouse-gas-emissions-standards635333237.aspx 26

  27. Q3-A: What’s next? Why is coal going away? 2. Existence of other environmental policies Requires states to improve air quality by reducing power plant emissions that contribute to ozone and/or fine particle pollution in other states https://www3.epa.gov/crossstaterule/ Replaced by Cross-state air pollution rule Mercury & Air Toxics Standards: sets standards for all hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emitted gens ≥ 25 MW; mainly targets coal & oil-fired (gas units usually comply or are exempt). 2014 EPA Rule on Cooling water Intakes requires 544 power plants to reduce mortality to fish and other aquatic organisms. It targets plants using once-thru cooling: coal & nuke. 2014 EPA Rule on Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) from Gens establishes nationally applicable minimum criteria for the safe disposal of CCR. CCR includes fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and flue gas desulfurization materials. The effective date of the final rule is October 19, 2015. However, the final rule establishes timeframes for certain technical criteria based on the amount of time determined to be necessary to implement the requirements, so that compliance requirements on most of its issues do not begin until 2016, 2017, and in some cases, 2018. See Q29 at https://www.epa.gov/coalash/frequent-questions-about-coal-ash-disposal-rule. Withdrawn on 1/8/2014; Replaced by CPP. Coal ash disposal in Alabama. 27

  28. Q3-A: What’s next? Why is coal going away? Coal Gas These data are from plans, not forecasts. 28 www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/2015LTRA%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf

  29. Q3-B: What’s next? Why is gas a risk? We have lots shale gas, but… • Supply reduction if concerns for seismic and/or groundwater impacts intensify; • Demand increase due to increased electric sector dependence, increased exports, and increased unconventional uses (e.g., transportation CNG/LNG). • Combusted gas from NGCC units have 700lbs/MWh CO2 production, half of coal, but 700 lbs/MWh more than wind. 29

  30. Q3-C: What’s next? What about solar-PV? (Unsubsidized) Lazard’s levelized cost of energy analysis- Version 9.0, November 2015, available https://www.lazard.com/media/2390/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-90.pdf 30

  31. Q3-C: What’s next? What about solar-PV? Dashed line shows 2015 LCOE for wind Lazard’s levelized cost of energy analysis- Version 9.0, November 2015, available https://www.lazard.com/media/2390/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-90.pdf 31

  32. Q3-C: What’s next? What about solar-PV? • As a distributed technology? • Effect on transmission? • O&M cost? • Effect on system reliability? • Are there locational effects? • In terms of satisfying the “green community”? 32

  33. Q3-C: What’s next? What about solar-PV? Distributed solar is about 40% residential and 60% other (assumed to be commercial/industrial). (NERC 2015 LTRA). Wind, EIA Gas, EIA Solar growth is modest; hard to tell (yet) if there is potential for solar PV to outpace wind and/or gas. Solar, NERC SOLAR, EIA 33

  34. Q3-C: What’s next? What about solar-PV? • Distributed gen (DG): Connected to distribution - can be done with wind or solar, but DG-wind requires land & height, whereas DG-solar requires only roofs; DG-wind is not a player. • Transmission: DG reduces reliance on transmission. • O&M: Low for solar, hi for wind. Low for utility-scale, high for DG. • Reliability: SAIDI, SAIFI - duration, frequency interruptions per customer. DG effect unclear because depends on (a) O&M; (b) normal outages; (c) “Sandy”-like outages; (d) whether isolation capability (microgrid) is available; (e) change in gen reliability from centralized to DG; (f) cloud intermittency & capacity backup; (g) the impact of diminished role of transmission on distribution reliability. There are two questions: • Will DG improve SAIDI and SAIFI? • Assuming the answer is “yes”, will the improvement come close to justifying the additional investment relative to maintaining central gen. 34

  35. Q3-C: What’s next? What about solar-PV? “Major events” make a difference! SAIDI, SAIFI, are, on average, pretty good. Can we reduce much; how beneficial is it to do so? J. Eto and K. LaCommare, “Tracking the reliability of the US Electric Power System: An assessment of publicly available information reported to state public utility commissions,” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Report LBNL-1092E, October, 2008. 35

  36. Q3-C: What’s next? What about solar-PV? • Reverse flow: DG growth becomes much less economically attractive at levels that violate the reverse flow-line capacity. So this may well represent an upper-bound to DG investment. • Location: Utility gen (connected to transmission) can be done with wind or solar, but utility-solar requires more land per MW-hr produced, not a problem in desert but of some concern when agricultural use of land brings high revenues. Compare resource quality to lost opportunity cost. • Utility interest in wind/solar investment depends on location. 36

  37. Q3-C: What’s next? What about solar-PV? • Green people: They want direct contribution of bringing clean energy - willing to pay extra. Two options: (1) rooftop; (2) community solar. • Community solar: There are three models: (1) Utility-sponsored model; (2) Special purpose entity model; (3) Non-profit model. Prairie Lakes Park in Cedar Falls http://datareadings.com/client/moduleSystem/kiosk/site/bin/kiosk.cfm?k=2h4UV8j3 https://www.cfu.net/webres/File/save-energy/FAQs_November%202015.pdf J. Coughlin, et al., “A guide to community solar: :utility, private, and non-profit project development,” Nov., 2010, US DOE, available at http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/49930.pdf. 37

  38. Rsrch challenge #1: local siting Address potential concerns about local siting, including visual/audible, impact on agriculture, and wildlife. • Visual: a sociological issue This issue has not been significant yet. Today, in Iowa, there are ~3600 turbines, with capacity ~6200 MW. At 2 MW/turbine, a growth to 60 GW would require 30000 turbines, and assuming turbines are located only on cropland having class 3 or better winds (about 1/6 of the state), this means these regions would see, on average, one turbine every 144 acres (instead of one every 1440 acres!) • Agriculture: Agronomists indicate wind turbines may help! • Migratory birds and bats: cannot ignore this issue. 38

  39. Rsrch challenge #1: local siting • Bats & avian impacts must be considered: • Ecological side effects of bat/bird kill that are difficult to predict but potentially high consequence, e.g., • Bats consume night-flying insects, some of which can cause crop damage • Loss of bats in NA could lead to Ag losses estimated at more than $3.7B/yr (Boyles et al., 2011) • Laws prohibiting harm to wildlife: • Federal Endangered Species Act • $100k fines, with jail time for • unlawful “take” • State Endangered Species Act • Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 • Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act Excellent 15 min video: http://science.kqed.org/quest/video/fatal-attraction-birds-and-wind-turbines/ Acknowledgement for all information on this slide: Caroline Jezierski, Nebraska Wind Energy & Wildlife Project Coordinator, see http://home.engineering.iastate.edu/~jdm/wind/#REUAdditional. 39

  40. Rsrch challenge #2: improve WF economics • Investment: Improve manufacturing/supply chain processes, construction, collection circuit layout, interconnection cost, land lease, and financing • Operating & maintenance: • Improve monitoring/evaluation for health assessment/prediction/life-ext • Decrease maintenance costs (gearbox vs. direct-drive) • Enhance energy extraction from wind per unit land area • Improved turbine siting • Inter-turbine and inter-farm control • Increased efficiency of drive-train/generator/converters • Lighter, stronger materials and improved control of rotor blades • Taller turbines 40

  41. Rsrchchallenge #3: accommodate variability and uncertainty • Variability: • Increase gas turbines • Wind turbine control • Load control • Storage (pumped hydro, compressed air, flywheels, batteries, others) • Increase geodiversity • Uncertainty: • Reduce forecast uncertainty 41

  42. Source: US DOE, 2014 Wind technologies market report, http://energy.gov/eere/wind/downloads/2014-wind-technologies-market-report US • 14 of top 20 are in the interior of the nation. • Top 3 coastal states are West. • East coast is light on wind but heavy on load. • Implication? 31.3% for 2015 3 options for East coast use of wind: Build high cost inland wind, go offshore, or use transmission to move it from Midwest 42

  43. Research challenge #4: Transmission WIND WIND & SOLAR SOLAR SOLAR 43

More Related