An Introduction to Renewables

Presentation Outline
• Renewable Energy Drivers • Resource/Policy Map Overview • Renewable Energy Technologies
– – – – – Solar Photovoltaics Solar Hot Water Concentrating Solar Biomass Wind Technology

• OUC’s Approach
2

Renewable Energy Drivers

Social Drivers for Renewable Energy Investment
The Three E’s
– Economic Stability
• Reduced price volatility • Opportunities for export in global market • Green job creation

– Environmental Sustainability
• Climate change implications of carbon • Impacts of fossil combustion on human health • NIMBY issues of nuclear

– Energy Security
• • • • Large % of fossil fuel supply located outside of U.S. Fossil fuel supply disruptions Limited access Fuel diversity provides a hedge against risk
4

Policy Drivers for Renewable Energy Investment
• Carrots
– Feed-in Tariffs and Production Incentives
• • • • • Provide a fixed payment for energy produced Utility must purchase energy via power purchase agreement Not necessarily market pricing No help with up front costs Can include the purchase of environmental attributes

– Rebates
• Provide upfront funds to buy-down the cost of technologies • Doesn’t guarantee performance • Doesn’t allow for purchase of environmental attributes

– Tax Incentives
• Must have tax liability to be of value

Sticks
– Carbon/Climate Policies
• Kyoto Protocol • Carbon Cap and Trade • Carbon Taxation

– Renewable Portfolio Standards
• Require a % of energy from renewable sources by a certain date • Can feature technology carve outs (i.e. solar) • Can be state driven or national in scope

5

OUC’s Renewable Energy Business Objectives
• Balance sustainability with affordability and reliability • Provide a hedging strategy against potential regulatory requirements through the acquisition of renewable energy credits (RECs) and Carbon Offsets • Leverage state and federal incentives offered to encourage the development of customer-sited assets • Offer an option to customer requests for environmentally-friendly energy investments • Pursue least-cost planning for future energy investments • 7% Internal Renewable Goal
6

Key Integration Challenges
• High Utility Reserve Margin
– OUC currently maintains 130% required energy capacity – No need for power until 2020 due to slower growth rates and customer conservation – Heavy base load generation (coal) – Low avoided energy rates (fuel only)

• Lack of Government Regulation
– No state or federal RPS – No carbon legislation

• Higher Cost of Renewable Generation
– Biomass and solar currently cost more than primary generation sources making it more challenging to integrate without regulation
7

Renewable Energy Resource and Policy Maps

Key Technologies
• Biomass Energy Resources
– – – – Landfill Gas Municipal Solid Waste Biomass Residues Energy Crops (Including Algae)

Solar Energy
– Photovoltaics – Solar Hot Water – Concentrating Solar

Wind Energy
– Horizontal Axis – Vertical Axis

9

U.S. Biomass Resource

10

U.S. Wind Resource (50m)

11

U.S. Concentrating Solar Resource

12

U.S. Photovoltaic Solar Resource

13

All Resources

14

Renewable Portfolio Standards
WA: 15% by 2020* MT: 15% by 2015
OR: 25% by 2025
(large utilities) 5% - 10% by 2025 (smaller utilities)

MN: 25% by 2025
(Xcel: 30% by 2020) ND: 10% by 2015 SD: 10% by 2015

VT: (1) RE meets any increase in retail sales by 2012; (2) 20% RE & CHP by 2017

ME: 30% by 2000
New RE: 10% by 2017

☼ NH: 23.8% by 2025 ☼ MA: 15% by 2020
+ 1% annual increase
(Class I Renewables)

MI: 10% + 1,100 MW
by 2015*

WI: Varies by utility;
10% by 2015 goal

☼ NY: 24% by 2013

RI: 16% by 2020 CT: 23% by 2020

☼ NV: 20% by 2015*
UT: 20% by 2025*

IA: 105 MW

☼ OH: 25% by 2025†
VA: 15% by 2025*

CA: 20% by 2010

10% by 2020 (co-ops & large munis)*

☼ CO: 20% by 2020 (IOUs)

IL: 25% by 2025 ☼ MO: 15% by 2021

☼ PA: 18% by 2020† ☼ NJ: 22.5% by 2021 ☼ MD: 20% by 2022 ☼ DE: 20% by 2019* ☼ DC: 20% by 2020

☼ AZ: 15% by 2025 ☼ NM: 20% by 2020 (IOUs)
10% by 2020 (co-ops)

☼ NC: 12.5% by 2021 (IOUs)
10% by 2018 (co-ops & munis)

TX: 5,880 MW by 2015 HI: 20% by 2020

28 states

& DC

have an RPS

State renewable portfolio standard State renewable portfolio goal Solar water heating eligible

☼ Minimum solar or customer-sited requirement

5 states have goals

* †

Extra credit for solar or customer-sited renewables Includes separate tier of non-renewable alternative resources

www.dsireusa.org / May 2009

15

Rebate Programs for Renewables
www.dsireusa.org / February 2010

DC

State program(s) only Utility and/or local program(s) only State program(s) + utility and/or local program(s)

Puerto Rico

+ DC & PR offer rebates for renewables

19 states

16

Public Benefits Funds for Renewables
www.dsireusa.org / May 2009 (estimated funding)
MT: $750,000 in 2009 $14M from 1999-2017* MN: $19.5M in 2009 $327M from 1999-2017* MI: $6.7M in FY2009 $27M from 2001-2017* WI: $7.9M in 2009 $90M from 2001-2017* ME: 2009 funding TBD $580,300 from 2002-2009 VT: $5.2M in FY2009 $33M from 2004-2011 MA: $25M in FY2009 $524M from 1998-2017* RI: $2.2M in 2009 $38M from 1997-2017* CT: $28M in FY2009 $444M from 2000-2017* NJ: $78.3M in FY2009 $647M from 2001-2012

OR: $13.8M in 2009 $191M from 2001-2017**

CA: $363.7M in 2009 $4,566M from 1998-2016

IL: $3.3M in FY2009 $97M from 1998-2015

OH: $3.2M in 2009 $63M from 2001-2010

DC
DC: $2M in FY2009 $8.8M from 2004-2012

NY: $15.7M in FY2009 $114M from 1999-2011 PA: $950,000 in 2009 $63M from 1999-2010 DE: $3.4M in 2009 $48M from 1999-2017*

State PBF State PBF supported by voluntary contributions
* Fund does not have a specified expiration date ** The Oregon Energy Trust is scheduled to expire in 2025

DC have public benefits have public benefits
ME has a voluntary PBF ME has a voluntary PBF
funds ($7.3 billion by funds ($7.3 billion by 2017) 2017)

16 states +

17

Property Tax Incentives for Renewables
www.dsireusa.org / February 2010

DC

Puerto Rico

32 States +
State exemption or special assessment only Local governments authorized to offer exemption (no state exemption or assessment) State exemption or special assessment + local government option

PR offer property tax incentives for renewables

18

Renewable Energy Technology Options
Technology Availability Cost per KWH
$0.04 $0.10 $0.11 $0.14 $0.09 $0.25 $0.12 $0.20 $0.18 $0.22

Current Viability in Florida
High High High High to Medium High to Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium to Low Low 19

Landfill Gas Recovery Solar Hot Water Waste to Energy Direct Fired Biomass Co-Fired Biomass Solar Photovoltaics (Rooftop) Biomass Gasification Solar Photovoltaics (Commercial Scale) Solar Thermal Electric Wind (Offshore)

Baseload Peak/Shoulder Baseload Baseload Baseload Peak/Shoulder Baseload Peak/Shoulder Peak/Shoulder Varies

Current Renewable Energy Resources in Florida
• • • • • • • Solar hot water Solar photovoltaics Solar thermal electric Landfill gas MSW Dry Biomass Wet Biomass

20

Renewable Energy Technologies

Photovoltaic (Solar Electric) Systems

Solar (Electric and Thermal)
• Benefits:
– – – – – No fuel costs Carbon free Can be distributed near the user Thermal is low cost Creates local jobs

• Challenges:
– Not dispatchable – Intermittent resource – PV is still expensive compared with conventional fuels – Minimal impact to winter peak
23

PV Versus Solar Thermal
Two Different Solar Technologies
• • • • • • • PV uses photochemical reactions to create an electric current Primary component is silicon or other semiconductor Cost per KWH is around $0.21 Average system cost is around $8,000/KW Can power electric loads Can work in any climate Must use batteries to store electricity for evening use • • • • • • • Solar Thermal relies on thermodynamic heat transfer to warm fluids Primary components are glass and copper tubing Cost per KWH is around $0.10 Average system cost is around $4,000 Can’t directly power electric loads Works best in warmer climates Stores hot water in thermally insulated tank for evening use
24

Levelized Cost Reductions for Solar Technologies

25

History of Photovoltaics
• 1839, Edmund Becquerel, a French physicist, discovered the photovoltaic effect while experimenting with an electrolytic cell made up of two metal electrodes placed in an electricityconducting solution--generation increased when exposed to light. • Photovoltaic Effect -- Light falling on certain materials can produce electricity • Technology commercialized by Bell Laboratories in 1951 • Sharp built first solar system in 1963 • ARCO released the first amorphous solar thin film product in 1984 • Eastman Kodak developed the first organic cell in 1986
26

How Does PV Generate Electricity?
The built-in electric field pushes the electron across and it is collected by the grid on the surface

Photons pass through surface and are absorbed within the cell

The absorbed photon gives its energy to an electron, which breaks free

Individual PV Cell
27

PV Cells
PV Cells are wired in series to increase voltage... and in parallel to increase current

28

PV is Modular

Cells are assembled into modules... and modules into arrays.

29

Module Types

Polycrystalline Single Crystal

Thin-Film

30

Organic Solar Cells

31

Crystalline vs. Thin Film
Crystalline Area Efficiency (Watts/SQ FT) Impact of Diffuse Light Impact of Heat Useful Life Cost per Watt 14-21% Moderate Moderate 25-35 Years $3 to $4 Thin-Film 8-11% Minimal Minimal 15-25 Years $2 to $3 Print/Roll Production
32

Production Style Wafer or Glass Production

PV Daily Energy Production: Rule of Thumb
• 1-kW PV array produces 5 kWh/day DC • 1-kW grid-tied system produces 4 kWh/day AC • 1-kW system produces approximately 1400 kWh annually
33

World PV Market Demand
• Grew 110% over previous year (record growth) • Spain overtook Germany with 285% growth • U.S. pulled ahead of Japan with 0.36 GW

34

Solar Cell (PV) Production
• World solar production reached 6.85 GW in 2008 up from 3.44 GW in 2007 • China has begun to dominate the PV Market with 44% global share • U.S. market growth has been minimal • Thin film production increased by 123% in 2008 to 0.89 GW • Solar still accounts for less than 1% of world energy supply
35

PV Market Performance
• Industry generated $37.1 billion in 2008 • Raised $12.5 billion in equity and debt in 2008 • Investment up 11% over 2007 despite rough economic landscape

36

Module Cost Reductions for PV Technologies

37

Prices Fall, Volumes Rise

38

Crystalline PV

39

Thin-Film PV

40

Using PV in Our Community

41

The “Wal-Mart” of PV

42

Cost Reduction Targets

43

Solar Thermal (Hot Water) Systems

Passive Solar Hot Water
• No moving parts • Uses gravity and pressure to move water • Collector is storage tank • Usually least cost option

45

Many Types of Solar Collectors

46

Active Solar Hot Water
• • • Active pump circulates water Can be PV powered Slimmer profile than passive system • Can be open or closed loop • Can use water or glycol for heat transfer • Tend to be more expensive than passive system

47

Growth of Solar Thermal

48

Commercial Hot Water

49

Residential Hot Water

50

Concentrating Solar Power

Solar Concentrating Systems
• Concentrate solar energy through use of mirrors or lenses. Concentration factor (“number of suns”) may be greater than 10,000. Systems may be small
– (e.g. solar cooker)

• •

Or really large
– Utility scale electricity generation (up to 900 MWe planned)
– Furnace temperatures up to 3800oC (6800oF)

52

Examples of CSP Applications
Power Generation:
Utility Scale: 64 MW Nevada Solar One (2007) Buildings: 200 kW “Power Roof”

Thermal Needs:
Hot Water and Steam (Industrial & Commercial Uses) Air Conditioning – Absorption Chillers Desalination of seawater by evaporation Waste incineration

“Solar Chemistry”
Manufacture of metals and semiconductors Hydrogen production (e.g. water splitting)

Materials Testing Under Extreme Conditions
e.g. Design of materials for shuttle reentry
53

Primary Types of Solar Collectors
• • • • • •

Parabolic Trough Compact Linear Fresnel Reflector Solar Furnace Parabolic Dish & Engine Solar Central Receiver (Solar Power Tower) Lens Concentrators
Concentrating PV

54

FRESNEL REFLECTOR

LENS CONCENTRATORS PARABOLIC TROUGH

PARABOLIC DISH CENTRAL RECEIVER

SOLAR FURNACE

55

Parabolic Troughs
• • Most proven solar concentrating technology The nine Southern California Edison plants (354 MW total) constructed in the 1980’s are still in operation Basis for FPL and Harmony Projects

56

Parabolic Troughs - Operation
• Parabolic mirror reflects solar energy onto a receiver (e.g. a evacuated tube). Heat transfer fluid such as oil or water is circulated through pipe loop. (250oF to 550oF) Collectors track sun from east to west during day. Thermal energy transferred from pipe loop to process.
57

Thermal Storage
• Uses high heat capacity fluids as heat transfer storage mediums • 12 to 17 hours of storage will allow plants to have up to 60% to 70% capacity factors.

58

Thermal Output of Hybrid Plant with Thermal Storage

59

Biomass Energy Resources

Range of Biomass Energy Options
Biomass Feedstock Conversion Processes
• Fuels
• •

Products

Ethanol Biodiesel Electricity Heat Plastics Solvents Chemical Intermediates Adhesives Fatty Acids Acetic Acid Paints Dyes, Pigments, and Ink Detergents 61

Power 
• •

Chemicals
• • • • • • • • •

•Trees •Grasses •Agricultural Crops •Residues •Animal Wastes •Municipal Solid Waste •Algae •Food Oils

•Enzymatic Fermentation •Gas/liquid Fermentation •Acid Hydrolysis Fermentation •Gasification •Combustion •Co‐firing •Transesterification

Food and Feed

Biomass Energy “Value Chain”
• • • • • • Production Harvesting, collection Handling Transport Storage Pre-treatment (e.g., milling) • Feeding • Conversion
62

Supply Chain Economics of Woody Biomass
Economic Flow $
Timberland Owner

$

Wood Dealer

$
Transportaion

$
End User

Wood Producer

Material Flow

Elements of the supply chain cost
• • • • • Stumpage to the landowner Brokerage fee to the wood dealer Material harvest and in-forest handling to producer Transportation to end user Further on-site processing cost by user if required

Material cost + transportation cost sets the supply radius from site
63

Comparison of Processed Woody Feedstock Cost
$/green ton Harvest Whole tree Pulp Wood Residue fuel chips $6 $1 $6 $10 $17 $9 $6 $6 $6 $2 $2 $2 $0 $0 $7 $23 $31 $26

Stumpage Production Transportation Brokerage On-site chipping Total

64

Utility-Scale Combustion Technologies
• Stoker Boilers
• • • • Developed in the 1920s and 1930s Fuel burned on a grate and heat transferred to water Limited ability to switch fuels Need consistent moisture content and free of impurities Burns fuel in a bed of sand suspended by updrafts of air Reduces SOx and NOx emissions and allows a wider range of fuels Currently in commercial use for biomass More costly than stoker boilers Add wood to the fuel supply Sawmills and furniture manufacturers Reduces SOx emissions Can raise efficiency of biomass conversion at lower cost Can create more maintenance costs because of slagging 65

Fluidized Bed Combustion
• • • •

Co-firing in existing boilers
• • • • •

Primary Fuel and Selection of Technology

Source: Babcock & Wilcox

66

Biomass Gasification
• Gasification reaction:
biomass + limited oxygen → syngas + heat

• Syngas typically has relatively low heating value: 100 to 150 Btu/scf
– Fired in close-coupled boilers or reciprocating engines – Syngas may be cleaned prior to injection into boiler

• Typically employ fluidized bed reactors to gasify biomass

67

Biomass Gasifier System
Separated BIOMASS Gas Feed to Boiler

Existing Power Boiler

SCR

Separate COAL Feed • • • • Alternative Re-burn Fuel Mitigated Volatile Alkali Risk Mitigated Chloride Risk Gasifier retrofit < new FB boiler Separated Biomass Ash Co-Product
Source: B&V

ESP

Separated Coal Ash Co-Product
68

Co-firing Methods
• Direct Co-firing Methods
– Solid biomass combusted with coal in existing boiler systems – Examples include:
• Fuel Blending • Separate Injection

• Indirect Co-firing Methods
– Solid biomass processed in a separate combustor or reactor, with products of the process utilized in existing thermal systems – Examples include:
• Separate Combustion • Pyrolysis – primary product: bio-oil • Gasification – primary product: syngas

69

Co-firing Methods – Fuel Blending
• Mixing of coal and biomass prior to injection into the boiler
– Mixed on existing fuel pile via mobile equipment – For pulverized coal systems, fuel blending results in co-milling of fuels in existing pulverizers

• Simplest and least expensive method of co-firing • Limits of co-firing via fuel blending:
– PC boilers: 2% to 3% (by heat input) – Cyclone and FB boilers: 10% to 20% (heat input)

Source: B&V

70

Co-firing Methods – Separate Injection
• Requires separate biomass handling system and boiler modification • Allows biomass to provide greater proportion of heat input:
– For PC units: 10% or greater – For cyclone or fluidized bed units: 20% or greater
Steam

Existing Boiler

Biomass Sizing Existing Mills

Turbine

Source: B&V

71

Co-firing Methods – Indirect Cofiring via Gasification
• Reduces quantity of biomass ash introduced into existing boiler systems • Syngas may be utilized as a NOx re-burning fuel • Significantly higher capital costs relative to direct co-firing
Syngas Steam
Existing Boiler Turbine
Gasifier
Cyclone

Source: B&V

72

Benefits of Biomass Combustion
• • • • Can be a least cost option Allows for fuel switching Can be used 24 hours/day Carbon neutral or negative fuel (depending on feedstock) • Feedstock can be burned as solid or gas using conventional technologies

73

Challenges of Biomass Combustion
• • • • • • Lower BTU content than coal Lower density/higher moisture content Competing uses Short-term vendor contracts Handling challenges Supply costs can vary greatly depending on feedstock source Specialized handling and firing equipment Modifications to air quality control systems Multiple suppliers to deal with Fugitive dust and odor issues Fuel flexibility and fluctuating supplies
74

• • • •

Waste to Energy
• • Solves two problems at once by reducing waste stream and creating electricity Common Methods of Conversion
– Direct Combustion – Gasification – Anaerobic Digestion

• • •

Requires pre-processing Feedstock handling can be challenging Heterogeneous feedstock mean inconsistent fuel quality
75

Landfill Gas Capture
• Benefits:
– – – – Can be co-fired Can be used 24 hours/day Extremely low cost Carbon reduction benefits

• Challenges:
– Slightly lower BTU value than natural gas – May need to be cleaned – Location specific

76

Wind Power

Wind Power
• Benefits:
– No fuel costs – Carbon free – Can be low cost where resources are available – Can allow for multiple uses of land

Challenges:
– – – – Not dispatchable Intermittent resource Very location specific Minimum wind speeds required for operation
78

Classes of Wind Power Density at Heights of 10 m and 50 m
10 m (33 ft) Wind Power Class* Wind Power Density (W/m2) 100 150 200 250 300 400 1,000 50 m (164 ft) Wind Power Density (W/m2) 200 300 400 500 600 800 2,000 Speed m/s (mph) 4.4 (9.8) 5.1 (11.5) 5.6 (12.5) 6.0 (13.4) 6.4 (14.3) 7.0 (15.7) 9.4 (21.1) Speed m/s (mph) 5.6 (12.5) 6.4 (14.3) 7.0 (15.7) 7.5 (16.8) 8.0 (17.9) 8.8 (19.7) 11.9 (26.6) 79

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Wind Technology Basics
• • • Winds are created by uneven heating of the atmosphere by the sun, irregularities of the Earth's surface, and the rotation of the Earth. Winds are strongly influenced and modified by local terrain, bodies of water, weather patterns, vegetative cover, and other factors. Vertical extrapolation of wind speed based on the 1/7 power law
– The wind profile power law is a relationship between the wind speeds at one height, and those at another. P = 0.5 x rho x A x V3 where: P = power in watts rho = air density (about 1.225 kg/m3 at sea level, less higher up) A = rotor swept area, exposed to the wind (m2) V = wind speed in meters/sec 80

Power in the area swept by the wind turbine rotor:
– – – – –

Wind Turbine Components

81

OUC’s Approach

82

Orlando’s Green Future Alliance
• Received USDOE Solar Cities Grant to promote solar • Established an integrated energy alliance with the City of Orlando and Orange County Government to promote green market transformation in Central Florida • Conducting a series of energy training courses and stakeholder workshops to determine best practices and needs of our community • Goal of 15 MW of Solar by 2015
83

Biomass Energy Projects
• Landfill Methane Recovery Projects
– – – Orange County Landfill displaces 3% of fuel required for either of Stanton’s coal units ~ expanding to 22 MW St. Cloud Landfill 1 MW project being planned Holopaw Landfill Project recently approved (~ 15 MW)

Harmony Hybrid Solar/Biomass Power Plant
– – –

5 MW Plant will be located in Harmony’s Florida Sustainable Energy Research Park Uses biomass gasifiers and concentrating solar to generate electricity Includes educational partnership with FSU Net Metered System Turns trash to Syngas in a closed loop system No dioxins produced Will provide co-generation to City water treatment facility 1 to 2 MW in scale

MSW Gasification with City of Orlando
– – – – –

84

OUC’s Existing Solar Projects
• Solar Production Incentive
– Provides incentives for producing energy from solar hot water and PV – $.03 to $.05/KWH Currently re-evaluating incentive levels

Solar Billed Solution
– Provides no/low interest loans through the Orlando Federal Credit Union (OFCU) – OUC buys down interest – Preparing to re-bid

• •

Solar Electric Vehicle Charging Station at OUC
– 2.8 KW – Provides 80% solar fraction for charging

Solar on Utility Poles
– Partnership with PetraSolar – Uses micro-inverters – 10 systems installed

Jetport/Stanton Solar PPA
– 9.31 MW DC – 22% Capacity Factor – In negotiations with vendor
85

New Solar Business Models
• Community Solar Farm
– 500 KW to 1 MW depending on customer participation – OUC holds PPA with vendor and acts as billing agent – No upfront cost to participate – Fixed monthly rate for 20+ years – Virtual net metering – Allows for multi-family participants – Removes siting barriers – OUC owns RECs

Commercial Solar Aggregation Pilot
– OUC holds PPA with vendor and acts as billing agent – No upfront cost to participate – Fixed monthly rate for 20+ years – Customer retains demand savings and any net metering – Sited on the customer’s rooftop – Price reductions from project aggregation – OUC owns RECs
86

New Biomass Opportunities
• Biomass Co-Firing
– Possibly up to 10% of boiler capacity (90 MW) – Ship biomass feedstock via rail cars from longer distances – Consider torrefaction to improve BTU content and moisture content

87

New Biomass Opportunities
• Algae Biomass Project
– Opportunities to use algae to treat wastewater – Fed CO2 from postscrubbed flue gas – Algae is “cracked” to obtain biofuels and biomass feedstock for co-firing.

88

Summer Peak Day
1600
STN A 06/22/2009

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

STN #2 06/22/2009 STN #1 06/22/2009 MP #3 06/22/2009 IR CTD 06/22/2009 IR CTC 06/22/2009 IR CTA 06/22/2009

Natural Gas

Coal and Landfill Gas

H 9 R 10 H R 11 H R 12 H R 13 H R 14 H R 15 H R 16 H R 17 H R 18 H R 19 H R 20 H R 21 H R 22 H R 23 H R 24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 R

8 R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

89

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

Summer Peak Day with Renewables
1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0
22 23 R R R R R R R R R 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 3 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H
90
Photovoltaics STN A 06/22/2009 STN #2 06/22/2009 STN #1 06/22/2009 MP #3 06/22/2009 IR CTD 06/22/2009 IR CTC 06/22/2009 IR CTA 06/22/2009

PV Contribution

Biogas Opportunities

Biomass Co-Firing Opportunities

R

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

Winter Peak Day
1600
STN A 01/11/2010 STN #2 01/11/2010 STN #1 01/11/2010 MP #3 01/11/2010 IR CTB 01/11/2010 IR CTA 01/11/2010

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
R 11 R 12 R 13 R 14 19 R 20 R 21 R 22 7 8 3 1 2 4 9 10 15 16 17 18 23 R 5 R 6 R R R R R R R H R H R H R H R H R H R H R H R H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 24

91

Winter Peak Day with Renewables
1600
Photovoltaics

PV Contribution
1400

STN A 01/11/2010 STN #2 01/11/2010 STN #1 01/11/2010 MP #3 01/11/2010 IR CTB 01/11/2010

1200

IR CTA 01/11/2010

1000

Biogas Opportunities

800

600

Biomass Co-Firing Opportunities

400

200

0
2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 17 18 16 15 19 20 21 22 11 12 23 R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H R 24

92

Additional Resources
• • • • • • • • • • www.solarbuzz.com www.greenbiz.com www.fsec.ucf.edu www.nrel.gov www.irecusa.org www.solarelectricpower.org www.ases.org www.cleantech.org www.cleantech.com www.prometheus.org
93