análisis económico y ambiental dr. oscar alfredo jaramillo salgado centro de investigación en...

Análisis Económico y Ambiental

Dr. Oscar Alfredo Jaramillo SalgadoCentro de Investigación en Energía. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

[email protected] 1 de Dic. 2011

mailto:[email protected]

Source: World Energy Council

Sólo por ofrecer un orden de magnitud

Primary Energy:The energy content of the annual solar radiation

which reaches the earth and its atmosphere is 2,895,000 EJ,

The total non-renewable energy resources of 325,300 EJ (oil, 8,690 EJ (20 times); gas, 17,280 EJ (40 times); uranium, 114000 EJ (250 times); coal, 185 330 EJ (400 times)).

The energy content of other major renewables is estimated as 1960 EJ (4 times) (hydro, 90 EJ; wind, 630 EJ; photosynthetic storage/ biomass, 1 260 EJ),

Current world primary energy consumption is about 425 EJ/yr.

So the total amount of energy irradiated from the sun to the earth’s surface is enough to

1. Global solar radiation on earth

(TWh/y) 240 * 106

2. Dessertic areas (7% of earth surface)

(TWh/y) 16 * 106

3. Solar fraction of DNI available (70%)

(TWh/y) 11,2 * 106

4. Efficiency of CSP plants (15%)

(TWh/y) 1,68 * 106

5. Percentage of area with good infrastructures (2% of dessert areas)

(TWh/y) 33.6 * 103

6. World electricity demand year 2025

(TWh/y) 30 * 103

2% of arid and semi-arid areas are enough to supply annual World demand of electricity

Electricidad Solar Térmica:

2. Balance global de energía

Clatrato de metano en plena combustión.

Oil Shale. Esquistos bituminosos

40 N

35 S

El 70% de la población del planeta vive dentro de la denominada “Franja Solar”.

Illustration of the distribution of energy use on the planet. (Courtesy of C. Mayhew and R. Simmon and NASA/GSFC archive.)

Primary Energy:The energy content of the annual solar radiationwhich

reaches the earth and its atmosphere is 2,895,000 EJ,The total non-renewable energy resources of 325,300 EJ (oil,

8,690 EJ (20 times); gas, 17,280 EJ (40 times); uranium, 114000 EJ (250 times); coal, 185 330 EJ (400 times)).

The energy content of other major renewables isestimated a 1960 EJ (4 times) (hydro, 90 EJ; wind, 630 EJ; photosynthetic storage/ biomass, 260 EJ),

Current world primary energy consumption is about 425So the total amount of energy irradiated from the sun to the

earth’s surface is enough to

1. Global solar radiation on earth

(TWh/y) 240 * 106

2. Dessertic areas (7% of earth surface)

(TWh/y) 16 * 106

3. Solar fraction of DNI available (70%)

(TWh/y) 11,2 * 106

4. Efficiency of CSP plants (15%)

(TWh/y) 1,68 * 106

5. Percentage of area with good infrastructures (2% of dessert areas)

(TWh/y) 33.6 * 103

6. World electricity demand year 2025

(TWh/y) 30 * 103

2% of arid and semi-arid areas are enough to supply annual World demand of electricity

Electricidad Solar Térmica:

3. Taza de utilización de la energía per cápita

4. Explosión demográfica

5. La función de penetración de mercadoEn 1846, Pierre Frankcois Verhulst propuso una formulación matemática plausible del crecimiento demográfico conocida ahora como la ecuación de Verhulst. Esta ecuación es un punto de partida excelente para entender el problema de la substitución tecnológica, es decir, la cuestión de cómo una tecnología más avanzada substituirá a una tecnología más vieja.

Como un ejercicio de propositico, Marchetti usa las líneas de tendencia de la Figura 1.8, obtenida sólo de los datos de 1935, y calcula el comportamiento de la cuota del mercado del petróleo empleando la formula:

Los resultados se muestran en la Figura 1.9. Son muy exactos y llevó a Marchetti a comentar: “podríamos predecir la cuota de mercado fraccionaria del petróleo en los E.E.U.U. hasta 1970 con una precisión de uno por ciento.”

Si extendemos el gráfico de Marchetti a 2008, encontramos un buen acuerdo del comportamiento del carbón y del gas, en las cuales se basa el pronóstico, pero el modelo no es muy bueno para los tiempos modernos (véase Figura 1.10)

Si durante el período de la penetración del mercado, existe un aumento substancial en capital disponible, éste alterará el índice de penetración, aunque puede no aumentar lo beneficioso de la empresa. Sería de gran valor si fuera posible estimar cuánto se aceleraría la penetración en función de una cantidad de inversión dada en el nuevo mercado. Desafortunadamente, esto no es todavía posible. La formulación antedicha implica que cuando una tecnología comienza a penetrar el mercado, el mercado debe ya estar bien desarrollado y su grado de madurez determinará el índice de penetración eventualmente. Así, “la magnitud de la inversión externa original determina realmente las condiciones iniciales para el modelo” (Peterka, 1977). Las reglas de la penetración de mercado discutidas en esta subsección proporcionan una herramienta de gran alcance para el planeamiento, pero se deben utilizar con mucha precaución y con mucha atención a las suposiciones implícitas.

6. La utilización de la energía

7. Emisiones de Carbón

9. Costo Nivelado de Producción de Electricidad

CSP cost reduction objective

0.00

0.16

0.04

0.08

GEF & Preferred

Financing Green Pricing

0.18Subsidized

Introductory Markets

Green Power

Markets

InitialCompetetive

Markets

Sustained Global

Markets

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025Year

0.12 EURO/kWh

Feed-in

Tariffs

Competitive Price Range for Grid- Connected Intermediate Load Power

10. Perspectivas de Mercado

Tres vías a la reducción de costos• Escalamiento•Volumen de producción•Investigación y desarrollo

EU

RO

/kW

h

Tecnología de los Helióstatos

450 €/m2 250 €/m2 140 €/m2

1980

1985

2000

CASA (39 m2)

Asinel (65 m2)

INABENSA (91 m2)

El funcionamiento de la estructura de metal-vidrio es robusta y estable. Se han reducido los costos de fabricación hasta 140€/m2.

Cost distribution and main figures of the 50 MWe parabolic trough reference plant using oil as HTF and 3h thermal storage

investment breakdown

investment solar field51%

investment power block, BOP

22%

investment storage8%

investment land2%

contingencies17%

(~Andasol)

Impact of innovations on LEC for solar-only operation of a parabolic trough plant with HTF and 3h thermal storage (full load from 9a.m. – 11p.m.)

6%

17%

3% 3% 3% 4%6%

3% 3%

29%

2%

6%

0% 2% 2% 3%4%

1% 2%

13%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Front surfacemirrors, thin

glass

Multilayerplastics &innovativestructures

Dustrepellentmirrors

1-tankthermoclinemolten salt

storage

concretestorage

tubelessconcretestorage

tubelessconcrete

storage withadvancedcharging/

discharging

Increasedmaximum

HTFtemperature

Reducedpressurelosses

(parasitics) insolar field

and piping

Combinationof selectedmeasures

Red

uct

ion

in L

EC

to r

efer

ence

in %high cost reduction estimation low cost reduction estimation

Concentrator Storage Other

Combination of selected measures:

• Multilayer plastics and innovative structures

• Dust repellent mirrors

• Tubeless concrete storage with advanced charging/discharging

• Increased maximum HTF temperature

• Reduced parasitics

(~Andasol)

investment solar field

64%

investment storage

0%investment

power block, BOP17%

investment land2%

contingencies17%

Cost distribution and main figures of the 50 Mwe parabolic trough reference plant using water/steam as HTF and 3h thermal storage

110 ºC

100 bar, 400 ºC

Deaereator

Auxiliary heater

Solar field

Steam turbine

Condenser

Separator

110 ºC

100 bar, 400 ºC100 bar, 400 ºC

Deaereator

Auxiliary heater

Solar field

Steam turbine

Condenser

Separator

(~DSG)

Impact of innovations on LEC for solar-only operation of a parabolic trough plant using water/steam as HTF and thermal

storage (full load from 9a.m. – 11p.m.)

14%

19%

28%

16%

18%

15%16%

38%

14%15%

18%

14%

16%

14%15%

23%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Upscaling ofpower block to

47 MW

Front surfacemirrors with thin

glass

Multilayerplastics &innovativestructures

Dust repellentmirrors

Advancedstorage

Increased solarfield outlet

temperature

Reducedpressure losses

(parasitics) insolar field and

piping

Combination ofselected

measures

Red

uct

ion

in L

EC

to r

efer

ence

in %

high cost reduction estimation low cost reduction estimation

Concentrator Storage Others


• Front surface mirrors


• advanced concrete storage

• Increased field outlet temperature

• Reduced parasitics

(~DSG)

DSG Cost reduction compared to Trough w/ Oil

6.0%

8.6%

11.7%

14.9%

28.0%

30.3%

34.8%

6.0%

8.5%9.9%

13.6%

21.3%22.9%

24.4%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

Ups

calin

g of

pow

erbl

ock

to 4

7 M

W(4

00°C

, no

stor

age)

Incr

ease

d so

lar f

ield

outle

t tem

p (4

80°C

)(e

ta_c

yle

= 41

,5 /

40,5

%)

DIS

S S

tora

ge 3

0 /4

0E

uro/

kWh

Sto

rage

15

/20

Eur

o/kW

h

Mul

tilay

er p

last

ics

&in

nova

tive

stru

ctur

es(1

40/1

60 E

uro/

m²)

Dus

t rep

elle

nt m

irror

s(r

ho =

0,9

1 / 0

,9)

Hig

h ef

ficie

ntco

llect

or e

ta_0

= 0

,8 /

0,78

Red

uct

ion

in L

EC

to r

efer

ence

in %


+ + + + + +

Cumulative cost reduction of parabolic trough DSG Systems compared to parabolic trough with oil reference system

Storage TankCold Salt

Storage TankHot Salt

ConventionalEPGS

Steam Generator

o C565290 o C

Cost distribution and main figures of the CRS reference plant with molten salt and 3h thermal storage

investmentsolar field

36%

investment powerblock24%

investmentreceiver

15%

investmenttower3%

investmentstorage

3%

investmentland2%

indirectcosts17%

(~Solar TRES)

Impact of innovations on LEC for solar-only operation of a CRS with molten salt and 3h thermal storage

(full load from 9a.m. – 11p.m.)


• Scale-up of the module size

• Large area heliostat

• Thermocline storage


7.3%

10.9%

4.4%3.1%

2.4%1.2%

10.8%

24.8%

3.6%

7.3%

1.1% 0.5% 1.2% 0.1%2.6%

10.8%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Gangedheliostats

Large areaheliostats

Thin glassmirrors

Dust repellantmirrors

Autonomousheliostats

Thermoclinestorage

Increasedmodule size


Red

ucti

on in

LE

C t

o re

fere

nce

in %


(~Solar TRES)

investment breakdown


38%

investmentpower block

20%

investmentreceiver

14%

investmenttower5%

investmentstorage

4%

investmentland2%

indirect costs17%

Cost distribution and main figures of a 50 MWe CRS plant with saturated steam and 3h thermal storage

(~PS10)

Impact of innovations on LEC for solar-only operation of a 50 MWe CRS plant with saturated steam and 3h thermal storage (full load from 9a.m. – 11p.m.)

7.7%

11.6%

4.4%

2.7% 2.6%

7.5%

10.1% 10.5%

33.2%

3.9%

7.7%

1.2% 0.5% 1.3%

5.3%6.3%

5.4%

21.3%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Gangedheliostats


Thin glassmirrors

Dust repellantmirrors


Advancedstorage

Change fromsaturated tosuperheated

steam

Upscaling to50 MW


Red

ucti

on in

LE

C t

o re

fere

nce

in %




• Large area heliostats

• Advanced storage


• Change to superheated steam

(~PS10)

Cost distribution and main figures of the 50 MWe CRS using Atmospheric Air and 3h thermal storage

Results

Specific investment costs 3989 €/kWel

Capacity factor 32.5 %

Fraction of the load demand satisfied by solar

57.1 %

Levelised electricity costs (solar-only)

0.179 €/kWhel

Included O&M cost / kWh 0.033 €/kWhel

~

Heliostat Field

Receiver

Power Block

Steam Generator

Thermal Storage

Blower

Hot Air 680ºC

Cold Air 110ºC

Blower

Steam65 bar, 460ºC

~

Heliostat Field

Receiver

Power Block

Steam Generator

Thermal Storage

Blower

Hot Air 680ºC

Cold Air 110ºC

Blower

Steam65 bar, 460ºC


35%

investment powerblock15%

investmentreceiver

13%

investmenttower5%

investmentstorage

13%

investmentland2%

indirectcosts17%

(~Phoebus-TSA &SOLAIR)

Impact of innovations on LEC for solar-only operation of a 50 MWe CRS using Atmospheric Air and 3h thermal storage

(full load from 9a.m. – 11p.m.)

7.3%

11.0%

4.4%3.1% 2.4%

7.4% 7.7%8.5%

14.5%

6.7%

36.9%

3.7%

7.3%

1.1% 0.5% 1.2%

5.3%

2.9%4.3%

8.3%

3.4%

24.6%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

Gangedheliostats


Thin glassmirrors

Dustrepellantmirrors


PhaseChange

Cascade

SolidMaterialmobile

SolidMaterial .CeramicSaddles

Increasedmodule size

Increasedreceiver

performance


Re

du

cti

on

in

LE

C t

o r

efe

ren

ce

in

%


Concentrator Storage Other




• Storage with mobile solid material


• Improved receiver performance

(~Phoebus-TSA &SOLAIR)

Cost distribution and main figures of the 50 MWe CRS using pressurized air hybrid turbine

Results

Specific investment costs 1622 €/kWel

Capacity factor 55 %

Fraction of the load demand satisfied by solar

19 %

Levelised electricity costs (solar-only)

0.082 €/kWhel

fuel costs included in fossil LEC 0.030 €/kWhel

investmenttower8%

investmentstorage

0%

investmentland3%


22%

investmentpower block

39%

indirect costs17%

investmentreceiver11%

(~REFOS/SOLGATE/SOLHYCO)

Impact of innovations on CRS using pressurized air in combination with a solar hybrid gas-turbine

(3-h storage, full load from 9 a.m. to 11 p.m.).




• Increased module size

• Thermal storage integration

Change in solar LEC

7.5%

11.3%

4.2%2.4% 2.5%

9.8% 9.4%

2.3% 1.5%

28.3%

3.8%

7.5%

1.0% 0.5% 1.3%

7.4%

3.1% 0.6% 0.5%

17.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Red

ucti

on in

LE

C t

o re

fere

nce

in %


(~REFOS/SOLGATE/SOLHYCO)

Cost distribution and main figures of the 50 MWe dish-Stirling farm

Solar Receiver & Combustor Parabolic

DishConcentrator

ConcentratedSunlight

Stirling Engine& Generator

investment solar field

38%

investment power block

37%

investmentstorage

0%

investment land1%

indirect costs17%

investment receiver

7%

(Dish-Stirling)

Impact of innovations on solar LEC for the dish/engine system (full load from 9 a.m. to 11 p.m.). No storage

38.7%

49.4%

44.8% 44.6%47.6%

40.5% 39.5%

50.9%

66.4%

38.7%

46.4%

41.8% 41.0%43.1%

39.6% 39.1%

44.6%

54.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

massproduction of

2900 units

Improveavailability &

reduced O&Mcosts

Reducedengine costs

Increasedengine

efficiency

Increased dishsize & reduce

cost

Reducedreceiver costs

Increasedmirror

reflectivity andtrackingaccuracy

Brayton cycle Combinationof selectedmeasures

Red

uct

ion

in L

EC

to

ref

eren

ce in

%


Change in solar LEC(Dish-Stirling)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Troug

h with

HTF

Troug

h DSG

CRS molt

en sa

lt

CRS sat

urat

ed s

team

CRS atm

osph

eric

air

CRS pre

ssur

ized

air /

solar

Dish e

ngine

rela

tive

cost

red

uct

ion

optimistic cost reduction estimationpessimistic cost reduction estimation

Summary of relative cost reduction for 7 CSP

Innovation driven cost reduction potential for the 7 CSP technologies investigated in this study based on the LEC for the 50 MWe reference system and assuming a combination of selected innovations for each system.

CENTRO DE INVESTIGACIÓN EN ENERGÍA www.cie.unam.mx

Nuestro Compromiso, Nuestros Hijos

Las acciones que tomemos o dejemos de hacer, a partir de ahora, determinarán nuestra capacidad para satisfacer los requerimientos energéticos en los próximos años.

análisis económico y ambiental dr. oscar alfredo jaramillo salgado centro de investigación en...

Documents