Nrel Cost Report PDF

COSTREPORT
COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFOR
POWERGENERATION
TECHNOLOGIES
Preparedforthe
NationalRenewableEnergyLaboratory
FEBRUARY2012
Black&VeatchHoldingCompany2011.Allrightsreserved.
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWERGENERATION
TECHNOLOGIES
TableofContents
1Introduction...............................................................................................................................................................................3
1.1Assumptions...........................................................................................................................................................3
1.2EstimationofDataandMethodology...........................................................................................................5
2CostEstimatesandPerformanceDataforConventionalElectricityTechnologies......................................9
2.1NuclearPowerTechnology..............................................................................................................................9
2.2CombustionTurbineTechnology...............................................................................................................11
2.3CombinedCycleTechnology........................................................................................................................13
2.4CombinedCycleWithCarbonCaptureandSequestration..............................................................15
2.5PulverizedCoalFiredPowerGeneration................................................................................................17
2.6PulverizedCoalFiredPowerGenerationWithCarbon
CaptureandSequestration............................................................................................................................19
2.7GasificationCombinedCycleTechnology...............................................................................................21
2.8GasificationCombinedCycleTechnologyWithCarbon
CaptureandSequestration............................................................................................................................23
2.9FlueGasDesulfurizationRetrofitTechnology.......................................................................................25
3CostEstimatesandPerformanceDataforRenewableElectricityTechnologies.......................................27
3.1BiopowerTechnologies..................................................................................................................................27
3.2GeothermalEnergyTechnologies..............................................................................................................31
3.3HydropowerTechnologies............................................................................................................................34
3.4OceanEnergyTechnologies..........................................................................................................................35
3.5SolarEnergyTechnologies............................................................................................................................38
3.6WindEnergyTechnologies............................................................................................................................45
4CostandPerformanceDataforEnergyStorageTechnologies..........................................................................51
4.1CompressedAirEnergyStorage(CAES)Technology.........................................................................52
4.2PumpedStorageHydropowerTechnology............................................................................................54
4.3BatteryEnergyStorageTechnology..........................................................................................................56
5References...............................................................................................................................................................................59
AppendixA.EnergyEstimateforWaveEnergyTechnologies..............................................................................61
ResourceEstimate.....................................................................................................................................................61
CostofEnergyEstimate..........................................................................................................................................69
AppendixB.EnergyEstimateforTidalStreamTechnologies................................................................................80
ResourceEstimate.....................................................................................................................................................80
CostofEnergyEstimate..........................................................................................................................................82
AppendixC.BreakdownofCostforSolarEnergyTechnologies............................................................................92
SolarPhotovoltaics...................................................................................................................................................92
BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|TableofContents
TECHNOLOGIES
ConcentratingSolarPower....................................................................................................................................99
AppendixD.TechnicalDescriptionofPumpedStorageHydroelectricPower.............................................102
DesignBasis..............................................................................................................................................................102
StudyBasisDescriptionandCost.....................................................................................................................103
OtherCostsandContingency.............................................................................................................................104
OperatingandMaintenanceCost.....................................................................................................................104
ConstructionSchedule..........................................................................................................................................105
OperatingFactors...................................................................................................................................................105
BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|TableofContents
ii
TECHNOLOGIES
1Introduction
Black&VeatchcontractedwiththeNationalRenewableEnergyLaboratory(NREL)in2009to
providethepowergeneratingtechnologycostandperformanceestimatesthataredescribedinthis
report.Thesedataweresynthesizedfromvarioussourcesinlate2009andearly2010andtherefore
reflecttheenvironmentandthinkingatthattimeorsomewhatearlier,andnotofthepresentday.
Manyfactorsdrivethecostandpriceofagiventechnology.Maturetechnologiesgenerallyhavea
smallerbandofuncertaintyaroundtheircostsbecausedemand/supplyismorestableand
technologyvariationsarefewer.Formatureplants,theprimaryuncertaintyisassociatedwiththe
ownerdefinedscopethatisrequiredtoimplementthetechnologyandwiththesitespecificvariable
costs.Thesearesitespecificitems(suchaslaborrates,indoorversusoutdoorplant,watersupply,
accessroads,laborcamps,permittingandlicensing,orlaydownareas)andownerspecificitems
(suchassalestaxes,financingcosts,orlegalcosts).Maturepowerplantcostsaregenerallyexpected
tofollowtheoverallgeneralinflationrateoverthelongterm.
Overthelasttenyears,therehasbeendoublinginthenominalcostofallpowergeneration
technologiesandanevensteeperincreaseincoalandnuclearbecausethepriceofcommoditiessuch
asiron,steel,concrete,copper,nickel,zinc,andaluminumhaverisenataratemuchgreaterthan
generalinflation;constructioncostspeakin2009foralltypesofnewpowerplants.Eventhecostof
engineersandconstructorshasincreasedfasterthangeneralinflationhas.Withtherecenteconomic
recession,therehasbeenadecreaseincommoditycosts;somedegreeoflevelingoffisexpectedas
theUnitedStatescompleteseconomicrecovery.
Itisnotpossibletoreasonablyforecastwhetherfuturecommoditypriceswillincrease,decrease,or
remainthesame.Althoughthecostsin2009aremuchhigherthanearlierinthedecade,formodeling
purposes,thecostspresentedheredonotanticipatedramaticincreasesordecreasesinbasic
commoditypricesthrough2050.Costtrajectorieswereassumedtobebasedontechnologymaturity
levelsandexpectedperformanceimprovementsduetolearning,normalevolutionarydevelopment,
deploymentincentives,etc.
Black&Veatchdoesnotencourageuniversalusesolelyoflearningcurveeffects,whichgiveacost
reductionwitheachdoublinginimplementationdependentonanassumeddeploymentpolicy.Many
factorsinfluenceratesofdeploymentandtheresultingcostreduction,andincontrasttolearning
curves,alinearimprovementwasmodeledtotheextentpossible.
1.1ASSUMPTIONS
Thecostestimatespresentedinthisreportarebasedonthefollowingsetofcommonofassumptions:
1. Unlessotherwisenotedinthetext,costsarepresentedin2009dollars.
2. Unlessotherwisenotedinthetext,theestimateswerebasedononsiteconstructioninthe
MidwesternUnitedStates.
3. Plantswereassumedtobeconstructedongreenfieldsites.Thesiteswereassumedtobe
reasonablylevelandclear,withnohazardousmaterials,nostandingtimber,nowetlands,andno
endangeredspecies.
4. Budgetaryquotationswerenotrequestedforthisactivity.ValuesfromtheBlack&Veatch
proprietarydatabaseofestimatetemplateswereused.
5. Theconceptscreeninglevelcostestimatesweredevelopedbasedonexperienceandestimating
factors.Theestimatesreflectanovernight,turnkeyEngineeringProcurementConstruction,
directhire,open/meritshop,contractingphilosophy.
BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|1Introduction
TECHNOLOGIES
6. Demolitionofanyexistingstructureswasnotincludedinthecostestimates.
7. Siteselectionwasassumedtobesuchthatfoundationswouldrequirecastinplaceconcretepiers
atelevationstobedeterminedduringdetaileddesign.Allexcavationswereassumedtobe
rippablerockorsoils(i.e.,noblastingwasassumedtoberequired).Pilingwasassumedunder
majorequipment.
8. Theestimateswerebasedonusinggranularbackfillmaterialsfromnearbyborrowareas.
9. ThedesignoftheHVACandcoolingwatersystemsandfreezeprotectionsystemsreflectedasite
locationinarelativelycoldclimate.Withtheexceptionofgeothermalandsolar,theplantswere
designedasindoorplants.
10. Thesiteswereassumedtohavesufficientareaavailabletoaccommodateconstructionactivities
includingbutnotlimitedtoconstructionoffices,warehouses,laydownandstagingareas,field
fabricationareas,andconcretebatchplantfacilities,ifrequired.
11. Procurementswereassumedtonotbeconstrainedbyanyownersourcingrestrictions,i.e.,global
sourcing.Manufacturersstandardproductswereassumedtobeusedtothegreatestextent
possible.
12. Gasplantswereassumedtobesinglefuelonly.Naturalgaswasassumedtobeavailableatthe
plantfenceattherequiredpressureandvolumeasapipelineconnection.Coalplantswerefueled
withaMidwesternbituminouscoal.
13. Waterwasassumedtobeavailableattheplantfencewithapipelineconnection.
14. Theestimatesincludedanadministration/controlbuilding.
15. Theestimateswerebasedon2009costs;therefore,escalationwasnotincluded.
16. Directestimatedcostsincludedthepurchaseofmajorequipment,balanceofplant(BOP)
equipmentandmaterials,erectionlabor,andallcontractorservicesforfurnishanderect
subcontractitems.
17. Sparepartsforstartupandcommissioningwereincludedintheownerscosts.
18. Constructionpersonhourswerebasedona50hourworkweekusingmerit/openshop
craftspersons.
19. ThecompositecrewlaborratewasfortheMidwesternstates.Ratesincludedpayrollandpayroll
taxesandbenefits.
20. Projectmanagement,engineering,procurement,qualitycontrol,andrelatedserviceswere
includedintheengineeringservices.
21. Fieldconstructionmanagementservicesincludedfieldmanagementstaffwithsupportingstaff
personnel,fieldcontractadministration,fieldinspectionandqualityassurance,andproject
control.Alsoincludedwastechnicaldirectionandmanagementofstartupandtesting,cleanup
expensefortheportionnotincludedinthedirectcostconstructioncontracts,safetyandmedical
services,guardsandothersecurityservices.
22. Engineering,procurement,andconstruction(EPC)contractorcontingencyandprofitallowances
wereincludedwiththeinstallationcosts.
23. Constructionmanagementcostestimateswerebasedonapercentageofcraftlaborpersonhours.
Constructionutilitiesandstartuputilitiessuchaswater,power,andfuelweretobeprovidedby
theowner.Onsiteconstructiondistributioninfrastructuresfortheseutilitieswereincludedin
theestimate.
24. Ownerscostswereincludedasaseparatelineitem.
25. Operationalsparepartswereincludedasanownerscost.
26. Projectinsurances,includingBuildersAllRiskinsurance,wereincludedintheestimatesasan
ownerscost.
27. Constructionpermitswereassumedtobeownerscosts.
TECHNOLOGIES
28. Theestimatesincludedanyproperty,salesorusetaxes,grossreceipttax,importorexportduties,
exciseorlocaltaxes,licensefees,valueaddedtax,orothersimilartaxesintheownerscosts.
29. Coststoupgraderoads,bridges,railroads,andotherinfrastructureoutsidethesiteboundary,for
equipmenttransportationtothefacilitysite,wereincludedintheownerscosts.
30. Costsofland,andallrightofwayaccess,wereprovidedintheownersCosts.
31. Allpermittingandlicensingwereincludedintheownerscosts.
32. Allcostswerebasedonscopeendingatthestepuptransformer.Theelectricswitchyard,
transmissiontapline,andinterconnectionwereexcluded.
33. Similarly,theinterestduringconstruction(IDC)wasexcluded.
34. Otherownerscostswereincluded.
Insomecases,ablendedaveragetechnologyconfigurationwasusedastheproxyforarangeof
possibletechnologiesinagivencategory.Forexample,anumberofconcentratingsolarpower
technologiesmaybecommercializedoverthenext40years.Black&Veatchusedtroughtechnology
fortheearlytrajectoryandtowertechnologyforthelaterpartofthetrajectory.Thecostswere
meanttorepresenttheexpectedcostofarangeofpossibletechnologysolutions.Similarly,many
marinehydrokineticoptionsmaybecommercializedoverthenext40years.Nosingletechnology
offeringismodeled.
Fortechnologiessuchasenhancedgeothermal,deepoffshorewind,ormarinehydrokineticwhere
thetechnologyhasnotbeenfullydemonstratedandcommercialized,estimateswerebasedonNth
plantcosts.Thedateoffirstimplementationwasassumedtobeafteratleastthreefullscaleplants
havesuccessfullyoperatedfor35years.ThefirstNthplantswerethereforemodeledatafuturetime
beyond2010.Forthesenewandcurrentlynoncommercialtechnologies,demonstrationplantcost
premiumsandearlyfinancialpremiumswereexcluded.Inparticular,althoughcostsarein2009
dollars,severaltechnologiesarenotcurrentlyinconstructionandcouldnotbeonlinein2010.
Thecostdatapresentedinthisreportprovideafuturetrajectorypredictedprimarilyfromhistorical
pricingdataasinfluencedbyexistinglevelsofgovernmentandprivateresearch,development,
demonstration,anddeploymentincentives.
Black&Veatchestimatedcostsforfullydemonstratedtechnologieswerebasedonexperience
obtainedinEPCprojects,engineeringstudies,ownersengineerandduediligencework,and
evaluationofpowerpurchaseagreement(PPA)pricing.Costsforothertechnologiesoradvanced
versionsofdemonstratedtechnologieswerebasedonengineeringstudiesandotherpublished
sources.Amorecompletediscussionofthecostestimatingdataandmethodologiesfollows.
1.2ESTIMATIONOFDATAANDMETHODOLOGY
ThebestestimatesavailabletoBlack&VeatchwereEPCestimatesfromprojectsforwhichBlack&
Veatchperformedconstructionorconstructionmanagementservices.Secondbestwereprojectsfor
whichBlack&Veatchwastheownersengineerfortheprojectowner.Theseestimatesprovidedan
understandingofthedetaileddirectandindirectcostsforequipment,materialsandlabor,andthe
relationshipbetweeneachofthesecostsatalevelofdetailrequiringlittlecontingency.These
detailedconstructionestimatesalsoallowedanunderstandingoftheownerscostsandtheirimpact
ontheoverallestimate.Black&Veatchtracksthedetailedestimatesandoftenusesthesetoperform
studiesanddevelopestimatesforprojectsdefinedatlowerlevelsofdetail.Black&Veatchisableto
staycurrentwithmarketconditionsthroughduediligenceworkitdoesforfinancialinstitutionsand
othersandwhenitreviewsenergypricesfornewPPAs.Finally,Black&Veatchalsoprepares
proposalsforprojectsofasimilarnature.Currentmarketinsightisusedtoadjustdetailedestimates
TECHNOLOGIES
asrequiredtokeepthemuptodate.Thus,itisanimportantpartofthecompanysbusinessmodelto
staycurrentwithcostsforalltypesofprojects.Projectcostsforsitespecificengineeringstudiesand
formoregenericengineeringstudiesarefrequentlyadjustedbyadding,orsubtracting,specificscope
itemsassociatedwithaparticularsitelocation.Thus,Black&Veatchhasanunderstandingofthe
rangeofcoststhatmightbeexpectedforparticulartechnologyapplications.(SeeTextBox1fora
discussionofcostuncertaintybands.)
Black&Veatchisabletoaugmentitsdataandtointerpretitusingpublishedthirdpartysources;
Black&Veatchisalsoabletounderstandpublishedsourcesandapplyjudgmentininterpreting
thirdpartycostreportsandestimatesinordertounderstandthemarketplace.Reportedcostsoften
differfromBlack&Veatchsexperience,butBlack&Veatchisabletoinferpossiblereasons
dependinguponthesourceanddetailofthecostdata.Black&Veatchalsousesitscostdataand
understandingofthatdatatopreparemodelsandtools.
Thoughfuturetechnologycostsarehighlyuncertain,theexperiencesandexpertisedescribedabove
enableBlack&Veatchtomakereasonablecostandperformanceprojectionsforawidearrayof
generationtechnologies.Thoughtechnologycostscanvaryregionally,costdatapresentedinthis
reportareinstrongagreementwithothertechnologycostestimates(FERC2008,Keltonetal.2009,
Lazard2009).Thisreportdescribestheprojectedcostdataandperformancedataforelectric
generationtechnologies.
TECHNOLOGIES
TextBox1.WhyEstimatesAreNotSinglePoints
Inarecentutilitysolicitationfor(engineering,procurementandconstruction)EPCandpowerpurchaseagreement
(PPA)bidsforthesamewindprojectataspecificsite,thebidsvariedby60%.Moretypically,whenbidderspropose
ontheexactscopeatthesamelocationforthesameclient,theirbidsvarybyontheorderof10%ormore.Why
doesthisvariabilityoccurandwhatdoesitmean?Differentbiddersmakedifferentassumptions,theyoftenobtain
bidsfrommultipleequipmentsuppliers,differentconstructioncontractors,theyhavedifferentoverheads,different
profitrequirementsandtheyhavebetterorworsecapabilitiestoestimateandperformthework.Thesefactorscan
allshowupasarangeofbidstoaccomplishthesamescopeforthesameclientinthesamelocation.
Proposingfordifferentclientsgenerallyresultsinincreasedvariability.Utilities,PrivatePowerProducers,Stateor
Federalentities,allcanhavedifferentrequirementsthatimpactcosts.Sparingrequirements,assumptionsusedfor
economictradeoffs,aclientssalestaxstatus,orfinancialandeconomicassumptions,equipmentwarranty
requirements,orplantperformanceguaranteesinformbidcosts.Bidderscontractingphilosophycanalsointroduce
variability.Somewillcontractlumpsumfixedpriceandsomewillcontractusingcostplus.Somewillusemany
contractorsandconsultants;somewillwantasinglesource.Somemanagewithinhouseresourcesandaccountfor
thoseresources;someuseallexternalresources.Thisvariationalonecanimpactcostsstillanother10%ormore
becauseitimpactsthevisibilityofcosts,theallocationofrisksandprofitmargins,andtheextenttowhichprofits
mightoccuratseveraldifferentplacesintheprojectstructure.
Changethesiteandvariabilityincreasesstillfurther.Differentlocationscanhavedifferingrequirementsforuseof
unionornonunionlabor.Overallproductivityandlaborcostvaryindifferentregions.Salestaxratesvary,local
marketconditionsvary,andevenprofitmarginsandperceivedriskcanvary.
Sitespecificscopeisalsoanissue.Accessroads,laydownareas,1transportationdistancestothesiteandavailability
ofutilities,indoorvs.outdoorbuildings,ambienttemperaturesandmanyothersitespecificissuescanaffectscope
andspecificequipmentneedsandchoices.
OwnerswillalsohavespecificneedsandtheircostswillvaryforacostcategoryreferredtoasOwnerscosts.The
ElectricPowerResearchInstitute(EPRI)standardownerscostsinclude1)paiduproyaltyallowance,2)
preproductioncosts,3)inventorycapitaland4)landcosts.However,thistotalconstructioncostortotalcapital
requirementbyEPRIdoesnotincludemanyoftheotherownerscoststhatacontractorlikeBlack&Veatchwould
includeinprojectcostcomparisons.Theseadditionalelementsincludethefollowing:
Sparepartsandplantequipmentincludesmaterials,suppliesandparts,machineshopequipment,rolling
stock,plantfurnishingsandsupplies.
Utilityinterconnectionsincludenaturalgasservice,gassystemupgrades,electricaltransmission,
substation/switchyard,wastewaterandsupplywaterorwellsandrailroad.
Projectdevelopmentincludesfuelrelatedprojectmanagementandengineering,siteselection,preliminary
engineering,landandrezoning,rightsofwayforpipelines,laydownyard,accessroads,demolition,
environmentalpermittingandoffsets,publicrelations,communitydevelopment,sitedevelopmentlegal
assistance,mancamp,heliport,bargeunloadingfacility,airstripanddieselfuelstorage.
Ownersprojectmanagementincludesbiddocumentpreparation,ownersprojectmanagement,
engineeringduediligenceandownerssiteconstructionmanagement.
1Alaydownyardorareaisanareawhereequipmenttobeinstalledistemporarilystored.
TECHNOLOGIES
Taxes/ins/advisoryfees/legalincludessales/useandpropertytax,marketandenvironmentalconsultants
andratingagencies,ownerslegalexpenses,PPA,interconnectagreements,contractprocurementand
construction,propertytransfer/title/escrowandconstructionallriskinsurance.
Financingincludesfinancialadvisor,marketanalystandengineer,loanadministrationandcommitmentfees
anddebtservicereservefund.
Plantstartup/constructionsupportincludesownerssitemobilization,operationandmaintenance(O&M)
stafftrainingandprecommercialoperation,startup,initialtestfluids,initialinventoryofchemicaland
reagents,majorconsumablesandcostoffuelnotcoveredrecoveredinpowersales.
Someoverlapcanbeseeninthecategoriesabove,whichisanothercontributortovariabilitydifferentestimators
prepareestimatesusingdifferentformatsandmethodologies.
Anotherformofvariabilitythatexistsinestimatesconcernstheuseofdifferentclassesofestimateandassociated
typesofcontingency.Thereareindustryguidelinesfordifferentclassesofestimatethatprovidelevelsof
contingencytobeappliedfortheparticularclass.Afinalestimatesuitableforbiddingwouldhavelotsofdetail
identifiedandwouldincludea5to10%projectcontingency.Acompleteprocessdesignmighthavelessdetail
definedandincludea10to15%contingency.Thelowestlevelofconceptualestimatemightbebasedonatotal
plantperformanceestimatewithsomesitespecificconditionsanditmightincludea20to30%contingency.
Contingencyismeanttocoverbothitemsnotestimatedanderrorsintheestimateaswellasvariabilitydealingwith
sitespecificdifferences.
Givenallthesesourcesofvariability,contractorsnormallyspeakintermsofcostrangesandnotspecificvalues.
Modelers,ontheotherhand,oftenfinditeasiertodealwithsinglepointestimates.Whilemodelersoften
convenientlythinkofoneprice,competitioncanresultinmanyprice/costoptions.Itisnotpossibletoestimatecosts
withasmuchprecisionasmanythinkitispossibletodo;further,theideaofanationalaveragecostthatcanbe
applieduniversallyisactuallyproblematic.Onecancalculateahistoricalnationalaveragecostforanything,but
predictingafuturenationalaveragecostwithsomecertaintyforadevelopingtechnologyandgeographicallydiverse
marketsthatareevolvingisfarfromstraightforward.
Implications
Becausecostestimatesreflectthesesourcesofvariability,theyarebestthoughtofasrangesthatreflectthe
variabilityaswellasotheruncertainties.Whenthecostestimaterangesfortwotechnologiesoverlap,either
technologycouldbethemostcosteffectivesolutionforanygivenspecificownerandsite.Ofcourse,capitalcosts
maynotreflecttheentirevaluepropositionofatechnology,andothercostcomponents,likeO&Morfuelcostswith
theirownsourcesofvariabilityanduncertainty,mightbenecessarytoincludeinacostanalysis.
Formodels,weoftensimplifycalculationsbyusingpointsinsteadofrangesthatreflectvariabilityanduncertainty,so
thatwecanmoreeasilyaddressotherimportantcomplexitiessuchasthecostoftransmissionorsystemintegration.
However,wemustrememberthatwhenactualdecisionsaremade,decisionmakerswillincludeimplicitorexplicit
considerationofcapitalcostuncertaintywhenassessingtechnologytradeoffs.Thisiswhytwoadjacentutilitieswith
seeminglysimilarneedsmayprocuretwocompletelydifferenttechnologysolutions.Economicoptimizationmodels
generallycannotbereliedonasthefinalbasisforsitespecificdecisions.Oneofthereasonsisestimateuncertainty.
Arelativelyminorchangeincostcanresultinachangeintechnologyselection.Becauseofunknownsatparticular
siteandcustomerspecificsituations,itisunlikelythatallcustomerswouldswitchtoaspecifictechnologysolutionat
thesametime.Therefore,modelersshouldensurethatmodelalgorithmsorinputcriteriadonotallowmajorshifts
intechnologychoiceforsmalldifferencesintechnologycost.Inaddition,genericestimatesshouldnotbeusedin
sitespecificuserspecificanalyses.
TECHNOLOGIES
2CostEstimatesandPerformanceDataforConventional
ElectricityTechnologies
Thissectionincludesdescriptionandtabulardataonthecostandperformanceprojectionsfor
conventionalnonrenewabletechnologies,whichincludefossiltechnologies(naturalgas
combustionturbine,naturalgascombinedcycle,andpulverizedcoal)withandwithoutcarbon
captureandstorage,andnucleartechnologies.Inaddition,costsforfluegasdesulfurization2(FGD)
retrofitsarealsodescribed.
2.1NUCLEARPOWERTECHNOLOGY
Black&Veatchsnuclearexperiencespansthefullrangeofnuclearengineeringservices,including
EPC,modificationservices,designandconsultingservicesandresearchsupport.Black&Veatchis
currentlyworkingunderserviceagreementarrangementswithMHIforbothgenericandplant
specificdesignsoftheUnitedStatesAdvancedPressurizedWaterReactor(USAPWR).Black&Veatch
historicaldataandrecentmarketdatawereusedtomakeadjustmentstostudyestimatestoinclude
ownerscosts.ThenuclearplantproxywasbasedonacommercialWestinghouseAP1000reactor
designproducing1,125netMW.Thecapitalcostin2010wasestimatedat6,100$/kW+30%.We
anticipatethatadvanceddesignscouldbecommercializedintheUnitedStatesundergovernment
sponsoredprograms.Whilewedonotanticipatecostsavingsassociatedwiththeseadvanced
designs,weassumedacostreductionof10%forpotentialimprovedmetallurgyforpipingand
vessels.Table1presentscostandperformancedatafornuclearpower.Figure1showsthe2010cost
breakdownforanuclearpowerplant.
2Fluegasdesulfurization(FGD)technologyisalsoreferredtoasSO scrubbertechnology.
2
BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|2CostEstimatesandPerformanceDataforConventional
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWERGENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES
Table1.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaNuclearPowerPlant(1125MW)
a
CapitalCost FixedO&M
Year
($/kW)
($/kWyr)
HeatRate
(Btu/kWh)
Construction
Schedule
(Months)
POR
(%)
FOR Min.Load
(%)
(%)
SpinRamp
Rate
(%/min)
QuickStart
RampRate
(%/min)
2008
6,230
5.00
5.00
2010
6,100
127
9,720
60
6.00
4.00
50
5.00
5.00
2015
6,100
127
9,720
60
6.00
4.00
50
5.00
5.00
2020
6,100
127
9,720
60
6.00
4.00
50
5.00
5.00
2025
6,100
127
9,720
60
6.00
4.00
50
5.00
5.00
2030
6,100
127
9,720
60
6.00
4.00
50
5.00
5.00
2035
6,100
127
9,720
60
6.00
4.00
50
5.00
5.00
2040
6,100
127
9,720
60
6.00
4.00
50
5.00
5.00
2045
6,100
127
9,720
60
6.00
4.00
50
5.00
5.00
2050
6,100
127
9,720
60
6.00
4.00
50
5.00
5.00
O&M=operationandmaintenance
b
POR=plannedoutagerate
c
FOR=forcedoutagerate
Allcostsin2009$
BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|2CostEstimatesandPerformanceDataforConventionalElectricityTechnologies
10
TECHNOLOGIES
765 $/KW, 12.6%
1165$/KW, 19%
300 $/KW, 4.9%

NuclearIslandEquipment
TurbineIslandEquipment
Yard/Cooling/Installation
Engineering,Procurement,
ConstructionManagement
Owner'sCosts
970$/KW,15.9%
Total: $6100/kW+ 30%
2900 $/KW, 47.6%
Figure1.Capitalcostbreakdownforanuclearpowerplant
ThetotalplantlaborandinstallationisincludedintheYard/Cooling/Installationcostelement.The
powerplantisassumedtobeasingleunitwithnoprovisionforfutureadditions.Switchyard,
interconnectionandinterestduringconstructionarenotincluded.OwnerscostsaredefinedinText
Box1above.
2.2COMBUSTIONTURBINETECHNOLOGY
Naturalgascombustionturbinecostswerebasedonatypicalindustrialheavydutygasturbine,GE
Frame7FAorequivalentofthe211netMWsize.Theestimatedidnotincludethecostofselective
catalyticreduction(SCR)/carbonmonoxide(CO)reactorforNOxandCOreduction.Thecombustion
turbinegeneratorwasassumedtoincludeadry,lowNOxcombustionsystemcapableofrealizing9
partspermillionbyvolume,dry(ppmvd)@15%O2atfullload.A2010capitalcostwasestimatedat
651$/kW+25%.Costuncertaintyforthistechnologyislow.Althoughitispossiblethatadvanced
configurationswillbedevelopedoverthenext40years,theeconomicincentivefornewdevelopment
hasnotbeenapparentinthelastfewdecades(Shelley2008).Costestimatesdidnotincludeanycost
orperformanceimprovementsthrough2050.Table2presentscostandperformancedataforgas
turbinetechnology.Table3presentsemissionratesforthetechnology.Figure2showsthe2010
capitalcostbreakdownbycomponentforanaturalgascombustionturbineplant.
11
Table2.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaGasTurbinePowerPlant(211MW)
CapitalCost VariableO&M
Year
($/kW)
($/MWh)
FixedO&M
($/kWyr)
HeatRate
(Btu/kWh)
Construction
Schedule
(Months)
POR FOR
(%) (%)
Min.Load
(%)
SpinRamp
Rate
(%/min)
QuickStart
RampRate
(%/min)
2008
671
2010
651
29.9
5.26
10,390
30
5.00 3.00
50
8.33
22.20
2015
651
29.9
5.26
10,390
30
5.00 3.00
50
8.33
22.20
2020
651
29.9
5.26
10,390
30
5.00 3.00
50
8.33
22.20
2025
651
29.9
5.26
10,390
30
5.00 3.00
50
8.33
22.20
2030
651
29.9
5.26
10,390
30
5.00 3.00
50
8.33
22.20
2035
651
29.9
5.26
10,390
30
5.00 3.00
50
8.33
22.20
2040
651
29.9
5.26
10,390
30
5.00 3.00
50
8.33
22.20
2045
651
29.9
5.26
10,390
30
5.00 3.00
50
8.33
22.20
2050
651
29.9
5.26
10,390
30
5.00 3.00
50
8.33
22.20
Table3.EmissionRatesforaGasTurbinePowerPlant
SO2
(Lb/mmbtu)
NOx
(Lb/mmbtu)
PM10
(Lb/mmbtu)
CO2
(Lb/mmbtu)
0.0002
0.033
0.006
117
12
TECHNOLOGIES
$110/kW , 17%
$258/kW , 40%
Gas turbine
$20/kW , 3%
Balance of plant
Engineering, procurement,
construction management services
Owner's cost
$263/kW , 40%
Total: $651/kW+ 25%
Figure2.Capitalcostbreakdownforagasturbinepowerplant
2.3COMBINEDCYCLETECHNOLOGY
Naturalgascombinedcycle(CC)technologywasrepresentedbya615MWplant.Costswerebased
ontwoGE7FAcombustionturbinesorequivalent,twoheatrecoverysteamgenerators(HRSGs),a
singlereheatsteamturbineandawetmechanicaldraftcoolingtower.ThecostincludedaSCR/CO
reactorhousedwithintheHRSGsforNOxandCOreduction.Thecombustionturbinegeneratorwas
assumedtoincludedrylowNOxcombustionsystemcapableofrealizing9ppmvd@15%O2atfull
load.
2010capitalcostwasestimatedtobe1,230$/kW+25%.CostuncertaintyforCCtechnologyislow.
AlthoughitispossiblethatadvancedconfigurationsforCCcomponentswillbedevelopedoverthe
next40years,theeconomicincentivefornewdevelopmenthasnotbeenapparentinthelastfew
decades.Thecostestimatesdidnotincludeanycostreductionthrough2050.Table4presentscost
andperformancedataforcombinedcycletechnology.Table5presentsemissiondataforthe
technology.The2010capitalcostbreakdownforthecombinedcyclepowerplantisshowninFigure
3.
13
Table4.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaCombinedCyclePowerPlant(580MW)
Year
($/kW)
($/MWh)
FixedO&M
($/kWYr)
HeatRate
(Btu/kWh)
Construction
Schedule
(Months)
POR FOR
(%) (%)
Min.Load
(%)
SpinRamp
Rate
(%/min)
QuickStart
RampRate
(%/min)
2008
1250
2010
1230
3.67
6.31
6,705
41
6.00 4.00
50
5.00
2.50
2015
1230
3.67
6.31
6,705
41
6.00 4.00
50
5.00
2.50
2020
1230
3.67
6.31
6,705
41
6.00 4.00
50
5.00
2.50
2025
1230
3.67
6.31
6,705
41
6.00 4.00
50
5.00
2.50
2030
1230
3.67
6.31
6,705
41
6.00 4.00
50
5.00
2.50
2035
1230
3.67
6.31
6,705
41
6.00 4.00
50
5.00
2.50
2040
1230
3.67
6.31
6,705
41
6.00 4.00
50
5.00
2.50
2045
1230
3.67
6.31
6,705
41
6.00 4.00
50
5.00
2.50
2050
1230
3.67
6.31
6,705
41
6.00 4.00
50
5.00
2.50
Table5.EmissionRatesforaCombinedCyclePowerPlant
SO2
(Lb/mmbtu)
NOX
(LB/mmbtu)
PM10
(Lb/mmbtu)
CO2
(Lb/mmbtu)
0.0002
0.0073
0.0058
117
14
TECHNOLOGIES
$209/kW , 17%
$177/kW , 14%
$57/kW , 5%
Gas turbines
$68/kW , 6%
Steam Turbines
Balance of plant
Owner's cost
Total: $1,230/kW + 25%
$719 /kW, 58%
Figure3.Capitalcostbreakdownforacombinedcyclepowerplant
2.4COMBINEDCYCLEWITHCARBONCAPTUREANDSEQUESTRATION
Carboncaptureandsequestration(CCS)wasaddedtotheaboveCC.Black&VeatchhasnoEPC
estimatesforCCSsinceitisnotcommercialatthistime.However,Black&Veatchhasparticipatedin
engineeringandcoststudiesofCCSandhassomeunderstandingoftherangeofexpectedcostsfor
CO2storageindifferentgeologicconditions.TheCCcostswerebasedontwocombustionturbines,a
singlesteamturbineandwetcoolingtowerproducing580netMWaftertakingintoconsideration
CCS.ThisisthesamecombinedcycledescribedabovebutwithCCSaddedtoachieve85%capture.
CCSisassumedtobecommerciallyavailableafter2020.2020capitalcostwasestimatedat
3,750$/kW+35%.CostuncertaintyishigherthanfortheCCwithoutCCSduetotheuncertainty
associatedwiththeCCSsystem.AlthoughitispossiblethatadvancedCCconfigurationswillbe
developedoverthenext40years,theeconomicincentivefornewgasturbineCCdevelopmenthas
notbeenapparentinthelastdecade.Further,whilecostimprovementsinCCSmaybedeveloped
overtime,itisexpectedthatgeologicconditionswillbecomemoredifficultasinitialeasiersitesare
used.Thecostofperpetualstorageinsurancewasnotestimatedorincluded.Table4presentscost
andperformancedataforcombinedcyclewithcarboncaptureandsequestrationtechnology.Table5
presentsemissiondataforthetechnology.
15
Table6.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaCombinedCyclePowerPlant(580MW)withCarbonCaptureandSequestration
Year
($/kW)
($/MWh)
FixedO&M
($/kWyr)
Const.
HeatRate Schedule
(Btu/kWh) (Months)
POR FOR
(%) (%)
MinLoad
(%
SpinRamp
Rate
(%/min)
QuickStart
RampRate
(%/min)
2008
3860
2010
2015
2020
3750
10
18.4
10,080
44
6.00 4.00
50
5.00
2.50
2025
3750
10
18.4
10,080
44
6.00 4.00
50
5.00
2.50
2030
3750
10
18.4
10,080
44
6.00 4.00
50
5.00
2.50
2035
3750
10
18.4
10,080
44
6.00 4.00
50
5.00
2.50
2040
3750
10
18.4
10,080
44
6.00 4.00
50
5.00
2.50
2045
3750
10
18.4
10,080
44
6.00 4.00
50
5.00
2.50
2050
3750
10
18.4
10,080
44
6.00 4.00
50
5.00
2.50
Table7.EmissionRatesforaCombinedCyclePowerPlantwithCarbonCaptureandSequestration
SO2
(Lb/mmbtu)
NOx
(LB/mmbtu)
PM10
(Lb/mmbtu)
CO2
(Lb/mmbtu)
0.0002
0.0073
0.0058
18
16
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWER
GENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES
2.5PULVERIZEDCOALFIREDPOWERGENERATION
Pulverizedcoalfiredpowerplantcostswerebasedonasinglereheat,condensing,tandem
compound,fourflowsteamturbinegeneratorset,asinglereheatsupercriticalsteam
generatorandwetmechanicaldraftcoolingtower,aSCR,andairqualitycontrolequipment
forparticulateandSO2control,alldesignedastypicalofrecentU.S.installations.The
estimateincludedthecostofaSCRreactor.Thesteamgeneratorwasassumedtoinclude
lowNOxburnersandotherfeaturestocontrolNOx.Netoutputwasapproximately606MW.
2010capitalcostwasestimatedat2,890$/kW+35%.Costcertaintyforthistechnologyis
relativelyhigh.Overthe40yearanalysisperiod,a4%improvementinheatratewas
assumed.Table8presentscostandperformancedataforpulverizedcoalfiredtechnology.
Table9presentsemissionsratesforthetechnology.The2010capitalcostbreakdownfor
thepulverizedcoalfiredpowerplantisshowninFigure4.
17
Table8.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaPulverizedCoalFiredPowerPlant(606MW)
Year
($/kW)
($/MWh)
FixedO&M
($/kWYr)
HeatRate
(Btu/kWh)
Construction
Schedule
POR
(Months)
(%)
FOR
(%)
MinLoad
(%)
SpinRamp
Rate
(%/min)
2008
3040
2010
2890
3.71
23.0
9,370
55
10
40
2.00
2015
2890
3.71
23.0
9,370
55
10
40
2.00
2020
2890
3.71
23.0
9,370
55
10
40
2.00
2025
2890
3.71
23.0
9,000
55
10
40
2.00
2030
2890
3.71
23.0
9,000
55
10
40
2.00
2035
2890
3.71
23.0
9,000
55
10
40
2.00
2040
2890
3.71
23.0
9,000
55
10
40
2.00
2045
2890
3.71
23.0
9,000
55
10
40
2.00
2050
2890
3.71
23.0
9,000
55
10
40
2.00
Table9.EmissionRatesforaPulverizedCoalFiredPowerPlant
SO2
(Lb/mmbtu)
NOx
(Lb/mmbtu)
PM10
(Lb/mmbtu)
0.055
0.05
0.011
Hg
CO2
(%removal) (Lb/mmbtu)
90
215
18
$490/kW , 17%
$150/kW , 5%
$265/kW , 9%
Turbine equipment
Boiler equipment
$215/kW , 8%
Balance of plant/Installation
Owner's cost
Total: $2,890/kW +35%
$1,770/kW , 61%
Figure4.Capitalcostbreakdownforapulverizedcoalfiredpowerplant
2.6PULVERIZEDCOALFIREDPOWERGENERATIONWITHCARBON
CAPTUREANDSEQUESTRATION
Black&Veatchisaleadingdesignerofelectricgeneratingstationsandtheforemost
designerandconstructorofcoalfueledpowergenerationplantsworldwide.Black&
Veatchscoalfueledgeneratingstationexperienceincludes10,000MWofsupercritical
pulverizedcoalfiredpowerplantprojects.
Thepulverizedcoalfiredpowerplantcostswerebasedonasupercriticalsteamcycleand
wetcoolingtowerdesigntypicalofrecentU.S.installations,thesameplantdescribedabove
butwithCCS.Netoutputwasapproximately455MW.CCSwouldbebasedon85%CO2
removal.CCSwasassumedtobecommerciallyavailableafter2020.2020capitalcostwas
estimatedat6,560$/kW45%and+35%.Costuncertaintyishigherthanforthepulverized
coalfiredplantonlyduetotheuncertaintyassociatedwiththeCCS.
Weassumeda4%improvementinheatratetoaccountfortechnologypotentialalready
existingbutnotfrequentlyusedintheUnitedStates.Thecostofperpetualstorage
insurancewasnotestimatedorincluded.Table8presentscostandperformancedatafor
pulverizedcoalfiredwithcarboncaptureandsequestrationtechnology.
Table911presentsemissionsratesforthetechnology.
19
Table10.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaPulverizedCoalFiredPowerPlant(455MW)withCarbonCaptureandSequestration
Year
($/kW)
($/MWh)
FixedO&M
($/kWyr)
HeatRate
(Btu/kWh)
Construction
Schedule
POR
(Months)
(%)
FOR
(%)
MinLoad
(%)
SpinRamp
Rate
(%/min)
2008
6890
2010
2.00
2015
2.00
2020
6560
6.02
35.2
12,600
66
10
40
2.00
2025
5640
6.02
35.2
12,100
66
10
40
2.00
2030
5640
6.02
35.2
12,100
66
10
40
2.00
2035
5640
6.02
35.2
12,100
66
10
40
2.00
2040
5640
6.02
35.2
12,100
66
10
40
2.00
2045
5640
6.02
35.2
12,100
66
10
40
2.00
2050
5640
6.02
35.2
12,100
66
10
40
2.00
Table11.EmissionRatesforaPulverizedCoalFiredPowerPlantwithCarbonCaptureandSequestration
SO2
(Lb/mmbtu)
NOx
(Lb/mmbtu)
PM10
(Lb/mmbtu)
0.055
0.05
0.011
Hg
CO2
(%removal) (Lb/mmbtu)
90
32
20
2.7GASIFICATIONCOMBINEDCYCLETECHNOLOGY
Veatchscoalfueledgeneratingstationexperienceincludesintegratedgasification
combinedcycletechnologies.Black&Veatchhasdesigned,performedfeasibilitystudies,
andperformedindependentprojectassessmentsfornumerousgasificationandgasification
combinedcycle(GCC)projectsusingvariousgasificationtechnologies.Black&Veatch
historicaldatawereusedtomakeadjustmentstostudyestimatestoincludeownerscosts.
Specialcarewastakentoadjustto2009dollarsbasedonmarketexperience.TheGCC
estimatewasbasedonacommercialgasificationprocessintegratedwithaconventional
combinedcycleandwetcoolingtowerproducing590netMW.2010capitalcostwas
estimatedat4,010$/kW+35%..Costcertaintyforthistechnologyisrelativelyhigh.We
assumeda12%improvementinheatrateby2025.Table812presentscostand
performancedataforgasificationcombinedcycletechnology.
Table913presentsemissionsratesforthetechnology.TheBlack&VeatchGCCestimateis
consistentwiththeFERCestimaterange.
21
Table12.CostandPerformanceProjectionforanIntegratedGasificationCombinedCyclePowerPlant(590MW)
Year
($/kW)
($/MWh)
FixedO&M
($/kWyr)
HeatRate
(Btu/kWh)
Construction
Schedule
(Months)
POR FOR
(%) (%)
MinLoad
(%)
SpinRamp
Rate
(%/min)
QuickStart
RampRate
(%/min)
2008
4210
2010
4010
6.54
31.1
9,030
57
12
50
2.50
2015
4010
6.54
31.1
9,030
57
12
50
2.50
2020
4010
6.54
31.1
9,030
57
12
50
2.50
2025
4010
6.54
31.1
7,950
57
12
50
2.50
2030
4010
6.54
31.1
7,950
57
12
50
2.50
2035
4010
6.54
31.1
7,950
57
12
50
2.50
2040
4010
6.54
31.1
7,950
57
12
50
2.50
2045
4010
6.54
31.1
7,950
57
12
50
2.50
2050
4010
6.54
31.1
7,950
57
12
50
2.50
Table13.EmissionRatesforanIntegratedGasificationCombinedCyclePowerPlant
SO2
NOx
(Lb/mmbtu)
(Lb/mmbtu)
PM10
(Lb/mmbtu)
0.065
0.085
0.009
Mercury
CO2
(%Removal) (Lb/mmbtu)
90
215
22
2.8GASIFICATIONCOMBINEDCYCLETECHNOLOGYWITHCARBON
CAPTUREANDSEQUESTRATION
Veatchscoalfueledgeneratingstationexperienceincludesintegratedgasification
combinedcycletechnologies.Black&Veatchhasdesigned,performedfeasibilitystudies,
andperformedindependentprojectassessmentsfornumerousgasificationandIGCC
projectsusingvariousgasificationtechnologies.Black&Veatchhistoricaldatawereusedto
makeadjustmentstostudyestimatestoincludeownerscosts.TheGCCwasbasedona
commercialgasificationprocessintegratedwithaconventionalCCandwetcoolingtower,
thesameplantasdescribedabovebutwithCCS.Netcapacitywas520MW.Carboncapture,
sequestration,andstoragewerebasedon85%carbonremoval.Carboncaptureandstorage
isassumedtobecommerciallyavailableafter2020.2020capitalcostwasestimatedat
6,600$/kW+35%.Thecostofperpetualstorageinsurancewasnotestimatedorincluded.
Table814presentscostandperformancedataforgasificationcombinedcycletechnology
integratedwithcarboncaptureandsequestration.
Table915presentsemissionsratesforthetechnology.
23
Table14.CostandPerformanceProjectionforanIntegratedGasificationCombinedCyclePowerPlant(520MW)withCarbonCaptureandSequestration
Year
($/kW)
($/MWh)
FixedO&M
($/kWyr)
HeatRate
(Btu/KWh)
Construction
Schedule
(Months)
FOR POR
(%) (%)
MinLoad
(%)
SpinRamp
Rate
(%/min)
QuickStart
Ramp
Rate(%/min)
2008
6,930
5.00
2.50
2010
5.00
2.50
2015
2020
6,600
10.6
44.4
11,800
59
12.0 8.00
50
5.00
2.50
2025
6,600
10.6
44.4
10,380
59
12.0 8.00
50
5.00
2.50
2030
6,600
10.6
44.4
10,380
59
12.0 8.00
50
5.00
2.50
2035
6,600
10.6
44.4
10,380
59
12.0 8.00
50
5.00
2.50
2040
6,600
10.6
44.4
10,380
59
12.0 8.00
50
5.00
2.50
2045
6,600
10.6
44.4
10,380
59
12.0 8.00
50
5.00
2.50
2050
6,600
10.6
44.4
10,380
59
12.0 8.00
50
5.00
2.50
Table15.EmissionRatesforanIntegratedGasificationCombinedCyclePowerPlantwithCarbonCaptureandSequestration
SO2
(Lb/mmbtu)
NOx
(Lb/mmbtu)
PM10
(Lb/mmbtu)
0.065
0.085
0.009
Hg
CO2
(%Removal) (Lb/mmbtu)
90%
32
24
2.9FLUEGASDESULFURIZATIONRETROFITTECHNOLOGY
Fluegasdesulfurization(FGD)retrofitwasassumedtobeacommercialdesigntoachieve
95%removalofsulfurdioxideandequipmentwasaddedtomeetcurrentmercuryand
particulatestandards.AwetlimestoneFGDsystem,afabricfilter,andapowderedactivated
carbon(PAC)injectionsystemwereincluded.Itisalsoassumedthattheexistingstackwas
notdesignedforawetFGDsystem;therefore,anewstackwasincluded.Black&Veatch
estimatedretrofitcapitalcostin2010tobe360$/kW+25%withnocostreduction
assumedthrough2050.Table16presentscostsandaconstructionscheduleforfluegas
desulfurizationretrofittechnology.
Table16.CostandScheduleforaPowerPlant(606MW)withFlueGas
DesulfurizationRetrofitTechnology
Year
RetrofitCost VariableO&M
($/kW)
($/MWh)
FixedO&M
($/kWyr)
ConstructionSchedule
(Months)
2008
371
2010
360
3.71
23.2
36
2015
360
3.71
23.2
36
2020
360
3.71
23.2
36
2025
360
3.71
23.2
36
2030
360
3.71
23.2
36
2035
360
3.71
23.2
36
2040
360
3.71
23.2
36
2045
360
3.71
23.2
36
2050
360
3.71
23.2
36
25
TextBox2.CyclingConsiderations
Cyclingincreasesfailuresandmaintenancecost.
Powerplantsofthefuturewillneedincreasedflexibilityandincreased
efficiency;thesequalitiesruncountertoeachother.
Highertemperaturesrequiredforincreasedefficiencymeanslowerramprates
andlessabilitytooperateoffdesign.Similarly,environmentalfeaturessuchas
baghouses,SCR,gasturbineNOxcontrol,FGD,andcarboncapturemakeit
moredifficulttooperateatoffdesignconditions.
Earlylessefficientpowerplantswithoutmodernenvironmentalemissions
controlsprobablyhavemoreabilitytocyclethannewermorehighlytuned
designs.
Peaktemperatureandrateofchangeoftemperaturearekeylimitationsfor
cycling.Waterchemistryisanissue.
Thenumberofdiscretepulverizersisalimitationforpulverizedcoalpower
plantsandthenumberofmodulesinaddonsystemsthatmustbeintegrated
toachieveenvironmentalcontrolisalimitation.
Theramprateforcoalplantsisnotlinearasitisafunctionofbringingpulverizerson
lineasloadincreases.A600MWpulverizedcoalfiredunit(e.g.,PowderRiverBasin)
canhavesixpulverizers.AssuminganN+1sparingphilosophy,fivepulverizersare
requiredforfullloadsoeachpulverizercanprovidefuelforabout20%offullload.
Fromminimumstableloadatabout40%tofullload,itisthejudgmentofBlack&
Veatch,basedonactualexperienceincoalplantoperations,thattherampratewillbe5
MW/minuteathighloads.Thisisabout1%/minuteforaunitwhenat500MW.
Theramprateforacombinedcycleplantisacombinationofcombustionturbineramp
rateandsteamturbineramprate.Theconventionalwarmstartwilltakeabout76
minutesfromstartinitiationtofullloadonthecombinedcycle.Thecombinedramp
ratefromminute62tominute76isshownbyGEtobeabout5%/minuteforawarm
conventionalstartup.
GEshowsthatthetotaldurationofa"rapidresponse"combinedcyclestartup
assumingacombustionturbinefaststartis54minutesascomparedtoaconventional
startdurationof76minutesforawarmstart.TheramprateisshownbyGEtobe
slowerduringarapidstartup.Theoveralldurationisshorterbutthehighload
combinedramprateis2.5%.
Aftertheunithasbeenonlineanduptotemperature,wewouldexpecttheramprate
tobe5%.
26
3CostEstimatesandPerformanceDataforRenewable
Thissectionincludescostandperformancedataforrenewableenergytechnologies,
includingbiopower(biomasscofiringandstandalone),geothermal(hydrothermaland
enhancedgeothermalsystems),hydropower,oceanenergytechnologies(waveandtidal),
solarenergytechnologies(photovoltaicsandconcentratingsolarpower),andwindenergy
technologies(onshoreandoffshore).
3.1BIOPOWERTECHNOLOGIES
3.1.1BiomassCofiring
Frominitialtechnologyresearchandprojectdevelopment,throughturnkeydesignand
construction,Black&Veatchhasworkedwithprojectdevelopers,utilities,lenders,and
governmentagenciesonbiomassprojectsusingmorethan40differentbiomassfuels
throughouttheworld.Black&Veatchhasexceptionaltoolstoevaluatetheimpactsof
biomasscofiringontheexistingfacility,suchastheVISTAmodel,whichevaluatesimpacts
tothecoalfueledboilerandbalanceofplantsystemsduetochangesinfuels.
Althoughthemaximuminjectionofbiomassdependsonboilertypeandthenumberand
typesofnecessarymodificationstotheboiler,biomasscofiringwasassumedtobelimited
toamaximumof15%forallcoalplants.Forthebiomasscofiringretrofit,Black&Veatch
estimated2010capitalcostsof990$/kW50%and+25%.Costuncertaintyissignificantly
impactedbythedegreeofmodificationsneededforaparticularfuelandboiler
combination.Significantlylessboilermodificationmaybenecessaryinsomecases.Black&
Veatchdidnotestimateanycostimprovementovertime.Table17presentscofiringcost
andperformancedata.Inthepresentconvention,thecapitalcosttoretrofitacoalplantto
cofirebiomassisappliedtothebiomassportiononly3.Similarly,O&Mcostsareappliedto
thenewretrofittedcapacityonly.Table17showsrepresentativeheatrates;the
performancecharacteristicsofaretrofittedplantwereassumedtobethesameasthatof
thepreviouslyexistingcoalplant.Manyvariationsarepossiblebutwerenotmodeled.Table
18showstherangeofcostsusingvariouscofiringapproachesoverarangeofcofiringfuel
levelsvaryingfrom5%to30%.Emissionscontrolequipmentperformancelimitationsmay
limittheoverallrangeofcofiringpossible.
3Forexample,retrofittinga100MWcoalplanttocofireupto15%biomasshasacostof100MWx
15%x$990,000/MW=$14,850,000.
BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|3CostEstimatesandPerformanceDataforRenewableElectricity
Technologies
27
Table17.CostandPerformanceProjectionforBiomassCofiringTechnology
Year
Variable FixedO&M
CapitalCost O&MCost
Cost
($/kW)
($/MWh) ($/kWYr)
HeatRate
(Btu/KWh)
Construction
Schedule
(Months)
POR
(%)
FOR
(%)
2008
1,020
2010
990
20
10,000
12
2015
990
20
10,000
12
2020
990
20
10,000
12
2025
990
20
10,000
12
2030
990
20
10,000
12
2035
990
20
10,000
12
2040
990
20
10,000
12
2045
990
20
10,000
12
2050
990
20
10,000
12
Table18.CostsforCoFiringMethodsversusFuelAmount
CofiringLevel FuelBlending
(%)
($/kW)
SeparateInjection
($/kW)
Gasification
($/kW)
10001500
13001800
25003500
10
8001200
10001500
20002500
20
600
7001100
18002300
30
7001100
17002200
Technologies
28
3.1.2BiomassStandalone
Black&Veatchisrecognizedasoneofthemostdiverseprovidersofbiomass(solid
biomass,biogas,andwastetoenergy)systemsandservices.Frominitialtechnology
researchandprojectdevelopment,throughturnkeydesignandconstruction,Black&
Veatchhasworkedwithprojectdevelopers,utilities,lenders,andgovernmentagencieson
biomassprojectsusingmorethan40differentbiomassfuelsthroughouttheworld.This
backgroundwasusedtodevelopthecostestimatesvettedintheWesternRenewable
EnergyZone(WREZ)stakeholderprocessandtosubsequentlyupdatethatpricingand
adjustownerscosts.
AstandardRankinecyclewithwetmechanicaldraftcoolingtowerproducing50MWnetis
initiallyassumedforthestandalonebiomassgenerator.4Black&Veatchassumedthe2010
capitalcosttobe3,830$/kW25%and+50%.Costcertaintyishighforthismature
technology,buttherearemorehighcostthanlowcostoutliersduetouniquefuelsand
technologysolutions.Formodelingpurposes,itwasassumedthatgasificationcombined
cyclesystemsdisplacethedirectcombustionsystemsgraduallyresultinginanaverage
systemheatratethatimprovesby14%through2050.However,additionalcostislikely
requiredinitiallytoachievethisheatrateimprovementandthereforenoimprovementin
costwasassumedforthecosts.Table19presentscostandperformancedatafora
standalonebiomasspowerplant.Thecapitalcostbreakdownforthebiomassstandalone
powerplantisshowninFigure5.
4Standalonebiomassgeneratorsarealsoreferredtoasdedicatedplantstodistinguishthemfrom
cofiredplants.
Technologies
29
Table19.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaStandAloneBiomassPowerPlant(50MWNet)
Year
CapitalCost
$/kW
Variable
O&MCost
($/MWh)
FixedO&M
Cost
($/kWYr)
HeatRate
(Btu/KWh)
Construction
Schedule
(Months)
POR
(%)
FOR
(%)
Minimum
Load
(%)
2008
4,020
2010
3,830
15
95
14,500
36
7.6
40
2015
3,830
15
95
14,200
36
7.6
40
2020
3,830
15
95
14,000
36
7.6
40
2025
3,830
15
95
13,800
36
7.6
40
2030
3,830
15
95
13,500
36
7.6
40
2035
3,830
15
95
13,200
36
7.6
40
2040
3,830
15
95
13,000
36
7.6
40
2045
3,830
15
95
12,800
36
7.6
40
2050
3,830
15
95
12,500
36
7.6
40
BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|3CostEstimatesandPerformanceDataforRenewableElectricityTechnologies
30
$730 /kW, 19%
$650/kW , 17%
Turbine
Boiler
Balance of plant
Owner's cost
$575/kW , 15%
$880/kW , 23%
Total: $3,830/kW -25% + 50%
$995/kW , 26%
Figure5.Capitalcostbreakdownforastandalonebiomasspowerplant
3.2GEOTHERMALENERGYTECHNOLOGIES
Hydrothermaltechnologyisarelativelymaturecommercialtechnologyforwhichcost
improvementwasnotassumed.Forenhancedgeothermalsystems(EGS)technology,Black
&Veatchestimatedfuturecostimprovementsbasedonimprovementsofgeothermalfluid
pumpsanddevelopmentofmultiple,contiguousEGSunitstobenefitfromeconomyofscale
forEGSfielddevelopment.Thequalityofgeothermalresourcesaresiteandresource
specific,thereforecostsofgeothermalresourcescanvarysignificantlyfromregionto
region.Thecostestimatesshowninthisreportaresinglevaluegenericestimatesandmay
notberepresentativeofanyindividualsite.Table20andTable21presentcostand
performancedataforhydrothermalandenhancedgeothermalsystems,respectively,based
onthesesinglevalueestimates.
Technologies
31
Table20.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaHydrothermalPowerPlant
($/kW)
($/MWh)
Year
FixedO&M
($/kWYr)
Construction
Schedule
POR FOR
(Months)
(%) (%)
2008
6,240
2010
5,940
31
36
2.41 0.75
2015
5,940
31
36
2.41 0.75
2020
5,940
31
36
2.41 0.75
2025
5,940
31
36
2.41 0.75
2030
5,940
31
36
2.41 0.75
2035
5,940
31
36
2.41 0.75
2040
5,940
31
36
2.41 0.75
2045
5,940
31
36
2.41 0.75
2050
5,940
31
36
2.41 0.75
Table21.CostandPerformanceProjectionforanEnhancedGeothermalSystemsPowerPlant
Year
($/kW)
($/MWh)
FixedO&M
($/kWYr)
Construction
Schedule
(Months)
POR
(%)
FOR
(%)
2008
10,400
31
36
2.41
0.75
2010
9,900
31
36
2.41
0.75
2015
9,720
31
36
2.41
0.75
2020
9,625
31
36
2.41
0.75
2025
9,438
31
36
2.41
0.75
2030
9,250
31
36
2.41
0.75
2035
8,970
31
36
2.41
0.75
2040
8,786
31
36
2.41
0.75
2045
8,600
31
36
2.41
0.75
2050
8,420
31
36
2.41
0.75
Thecapitalcostbreakdownforthehydrothermalgeothermalpowerplantisshownin
Figure6.
Technologies
32
$1,010/kW , 17%
Wells
$1,520/kW , 26%
$505/kW , 8%
Gathering system
Heat exchanger
Turbine
Balance of plant
$505/kW , 8%
$1,520/kW , 26%
$130/kW , 2%
Owner's cost
Total: $5,940/kW
$750/kW , 13%
Figure6.Capitalcostbreakdownforahydrothermalgeothermalpowerplant
Thecapitalcostbreakdownfortheenhancedgeothermalsystempowerplantisshownin
Figure7.
$1,690/kW , 17%
$3,890/kW , 39%
Wells
$700/kW , 7%
Gathering system
Heat exchanger
Turbine
Balance of plant
$1,520/kW , 15%
$750/kW , 8%
Total: $9,910/kW
$130/kW , 1%
$1,230/kW , 13%
Owner's cost
Figure7.Capitalcostbreakdownforanenhancedgeothermalsystempowerplant
Enhancedgeothermalsystemcostreductionswilloccurprimarilyinthewells,turbine,and
BOPcategoriesovertime.
Technologies
33
3.3HYDROPOWERTECHNOLOGIES
Nearly500hydropowerprojectstotalingmorethan50,000MWhavebeenservedbyBlack
&Veatchworldwide.TheBlack&Veatchhistoricaldatabaseincorporatesagood
understandingofhydroelectriccosts.Black&Veatchusedthishistoricalbackgroundto
developthecostestimatesvettedintheWREZ(PletkaandFinn2009)stakeholderprocess
andtosubsequentlyupdatethatpricingandadjustownerscostsasnecessary.
Similartogeothermaltechnologies,thecostofhydropowertechnologiescanbesite
specific.Numerousoptionsareavailableforhydroelectricgeneration;repoweringan
existingdamorgenerator,orinstallinganewdamorgenerator,areoptions.Assuch,the
costestimatesshowninthisreportaresinglevalueestimatesandmaynotbe
representativeofanyindividualsite.2010capitalcostfora500MWhydropowerfacility
wasestimatedat3,500$/kW+35%.Table22presentscostandperformancedatafor
hydroelectricpowertechnology.
Table22.CostandPerformanceDataforaHydroelectricPowerPlant(500MW)
Year
($/kW)
($/MWh)
FixedO&M
($/kWYr)
Construction
Schedule
POR FOR
(Months)
(%) (%)
2008
3,600
2010
3,500
15
24
1.9
5.0
2015
3,500
15
24
1.9
5.0
2020
3,500
15
24
1.9
5.0
2025
3,500
15
24
1.9
5.0
2030
3,500
15
24
1.9
5.0
2035
3,500
15
24
1.9
5.0
2040
3,500
15
24
1.9
5.0
2045
3,500
15
24
1.9
5.0
2050
3,500
15
24
1.9
5.0
Technologies
34
ThecapitalcostbreakdownforthehydroelectricpowerplantisshowninFigure8.
$810/kW , 23%
Reservoir
$911/kW , 26%
Tunnel
Powerhouse and shafts
Powerhouse equipment
$238/kW , 7%
$486/kW , 14%
Owner's cost
$556/kW , 16%
Total: $3,500/kW +35%
$499/kW , 14%
Figure8.Capitalcostbreakdownforahydroelectricpowerplant
Hydroelectricpowerplantcostreductionswillbeprimarilyinthepowerblockcost
categoryovertime.
3.4OCEANENERGYTECHNOLOGIES
Waveandtidalcurrentresourceassessmentandtechnologycostsweredevelopedbasedon
Europeandemonstrationandhistoricaldataobtainedfromstudies.Aseparateassessment
ofthehydrokineticresourceuncertaintyisincludedinAppendicesAandB,informedbya
Black&Veatchanalysisthatincludesanupdatedresourceassessmentforwaveandtidal
currenttechnologiesandassumptionsusedtodeveloptechnologycostestimates.Wave
capitalcostin2015wasestimatedat9,240$/kW30%and+45%.Thisisanemerging
technologywithmuchuncertaintyandmanyoptionsavailable.Acostimprovementof63%
wasassumedthrough2040andthenacostincreasethrough2050reflectingtheneedto
developlowerqualityresources.Tidalcurrenttechnologyissimilarlyimmaturewithmany
technicaloptions.Capitalcostin2015wasestimatedat5,880$/kW10%and+20%.A
costimprovementof45%wasassumedastheresourceestimatedtobeavailableisfully
utilizedby2030.EstimatedO&Mcostsincludeinsurance,seabedrentals,andother
recurringcoststhatwerenotincludedintheonetimecapitalcostestimate.WaveO&M
costsarehigherthantidalcurrentcostsduetomoresevereconditions.Table23and
Table24presentcostandperformanceforwaveandtidalcurrenttechnologies,
respectively.Thecapitalcostbreakdownforwaveandcurrentpowerplantsareshownin
Figure9andFigure10,respectively.
Technologies
35
Table23.CostandPerformanceProjectionforOceanWaveTechnology
Year
CapitalCost
($/kW)
FixedO&M
($/kWyr)
Construction
Schedule
(Months)
2015
9,240
474
24
2020
6,960
357
24
2025
5,700
292
24
2030
4,730
243
24
2035
3,950
203
24
2040
3,420
175
24
2045
4,000
208
24
2050
5,330
273
24
POR
(%)
FOR
(%)
Table24.CostandPerformanceProjectionforOceanTidalCurrentTechnology
Year
CapitalCost
($/kW)
FixedO&M
($/kWyr)
Construction
Schedule
(Months)
POR
(%)
FOR
(%)
2015
5,880
198
2020
4,360
147
24
1.0
6.5
2025
3,460
117
24
1.0
6.5
2030
3,230
112
24
1.0
6.5
2035
112
24
1.0
6.5
2040
112
24
1.0
6.5
2045
112
24
1.0
6.5
2050
112
24
1.0
6.5
Technologies
36
$1,660/kW , 18%
Hydrodynamic absorber
$925/kW , 10%
$3,140/kW , 34%
Power takeoff
Control
Reaction/Fixation
$740/kW , 8%
Owner's cost
$185/kW , 2%
Total: $9,240/kW -30% + 45%
$2,590/kW , 28%
Figure9.Capitalcostbreakdownforanoceanwavepowerplant
$940/kW , 16%
$880/kW , 15%
Hydrodynamic absorber
Power takeoff
Control
Reaction/Fixation
$1,060/kW , 18%
$1,060/kW , 18%
$350/kW , 6%
Owner's cost
Total: $5,880/kW -10% + 20%
$1,590/kW , 27%
Figure10.Capitalcostbreakdownforanoceantidalpowerplant
Technologies
37
AppendicesAandBhighlighttheuncertaintyassociatedwithestimatesofwaveandtidal
energyresources.Theyformthebasisfortheestimatesabove.
3.5SOLARENERGYTECHNOLOGIES
3.5.1SolarPhotovoltaicTechnologies
Black&Veatchhasbeeninvolvedinthedevelopmentofutilityscalesolarphotovoltaic(PV)
systems,includingsitingsupport,interconnectionsupport,technologyduediligence,and
conceptuallayout.SpecificallyBlack&Veatchhasperformedduediligenceonmorethan
200MWofutilityscalePVprojectsforlendersandownersaswellasassistedinthe
developmentofmorethan1,500MWofprojectsforutilitiesanddevelopers.Black&Veatch
hasbeentheindependentengineerfor35distributedPVprojectstotaling16MWin
CaliforniaandanindependentengineerfortwoofthelargestPVsystemsinNorthAmerica.
IthasalsoreviewedsolarPVnewPPApricinganddoneprojectandmanufacturerdue
diligenceinvestigations.Thisbackgroundwasusedtodevelopthecostestimatesvettedin
theWREZstakeholderprocessandtosubsequentlyupdatethatpricingandadjustowners
costs.
Estimatesforanumberofdifferentresidential,commercialandutilityoptionsrangingfrom
40KW(directcurrent(DC))to100MW(DC)areprovided.Thecapitalcostswereassumed
tohaveuncertaintiesof+25%.Costuncertaintyisnothighforcurrentofferingsbutover
time,anumberofprojected,potentialtechnologyimprovementsmayaffectcostsforthis
technology.ChoosingthenontrackingutilityPVwitha100MW(DC)sizeasa
representativecase,a35%reductionincostwasexpectedthrough2050.Table25presents
costandperformancedataforawiderangeofPVsystems.Table25includes2008coststo
illustratetheimpact(inconstant2009dollars)ofthecommoditypricedropthatoccurred
between2008and2010.Formostgenerationtechnologies,thedeclineincommodityprices
overthetwoyearsresultsina3%5%reductionincapitalcost.AsseeninTable25,the
dropinPVtechnologycostsissignificantlygreater.ForPV,the2008costswerebasedon
actualmarketdataadjustedto2009dollars.Overthesetwoyears,PVexperiencedadrastic
fallincosts,duetotechnologyimprovements,economiesofscale,increasedsupplyinraw
materials,andotherfactors.ThecapitalcostbreakdownforthePVpowerplant(non
trackingUtilityPVwitha10MW(DC)installsize)isshowninFigure11.Notethat100MW
utilityPVsystemsrepresentingnthplantconfigurationsarenotavailablein2010.
Table25.CostandPerformanceProjectionforSolarPhotovoltaicTechnology
Year
CapitalCost
($/kW)
VariableO&M
($/MWh)
FixedO&M
($/kWyr)
Construction
Schedule
(Months)
POR
(%)
FOR
(%)
ResidentialPVwitha4kW(DC)installsize
2008
7690
2010
5950
50
2.0
2.0
0.0
2015
4340
48
1.9
2.0
0.0
2020
3750
45
1.8
2.0
0.0
2025
3460
43
1.7
2.0
0.0
Technologies
38
CapitalCost
($/kW)
VariableO&M
($/MWh)
FixedO&M
($/kWyr)
Construction
Schedule
(Months)
POR
(%)
FOR
(%)
2030
3290
41
1.6
2.0
0.0
2035
3190
39
1.5
2.0
0.0
2040
3090
37
1.5
2.0
0.0
2045
3010
35
1.4
2.0
0.0
2050
2930
33
1.3
2.0
0.0
Year
CommercialPVwitha100kW(DC)installsize
2008
5610
2010
4790
50
6.0
2.0
0.0
2015
3840
48
5.7
2.0
0.0
2020
3340
45
5.4
2.0
0.0
2025
3090
43
5.1
2.0
0.0
2030
2960
41
4.9
2.0
0.0
2035
2860
39
4.6
2.0
0.0
2040
2770
37
4.4
2.0
0.0
2045
2690
35
4.2
2.0
0.0
2050
2620
33
4.0
2.0
0.0
NonTrackingUtilityPVwitha1MW(DC)InstallSize
2008
4610
2010
3480
50
8.0
2.0
0.0
2015
3180
48
7.6
2.0
0.0
2020
3010
45
7.2
2.0
0.0
2025
2880
43
6.9
2.0
0.0
2030
2760
41
6.5
2.0
0.0
2035
2660
39
6.2
2.0
0.0
2040
2570
37
5.9
2.0
0.0
2045
2490
35
5.6
2.0
0.0
2050
2420
33
5.3
2.0
0.0
2008
3790
2010
2830
50
12.0
2.0
0.0
Technologies
39
CapitalCost
($/kW)
VariableO&M
($/MWh)
FixedO&M
($/kWyr)
Construction
Schedule
(Months)
POR
(%)
FOR
(%)
2015
2550
48
11.4
2.0
0.0
2020
2410
45
10.8
2.0
0.0
2025
2280
43
10.3
2.0
0.0
2030
2180
41
9.8
2.0
0.0
2035
2090
39
9.3
2.0
0.0
2040
2010
37
8.8
2.0
0.0
2045
1940
35
8.4
2.0
0.0
2050
1870
33
8.0
2.0
0.0
Year
2008
3210
2010
2015
2357
48
17.1
2.0
0.0
2020
2220
45
16.2
2.0
0.0
2025
2100
43
15.4
2.0
0.0
2030
1990
41
14.7
2.0
0.0
2035
1905
39
13.9
2.0
0.0
2040
1830
37
13.2
2.0
0.0
2045
1760
35
12.6
2.0
0.0
2050
1700
33
11.9
2.0
0.0
1AxisTrackingUtilityPVwitha1MW(DC)InstallSize
2008
5280
2010
3820
50
10.0
2.0
0.0
2015
3420
48
9.5
2.0
0.0
2020
3100
45
9.0
2.0
0.0
2025
2940
43
8.6
2.0
0.0
2030
2840
41
8.1
2.0
0.0
2035
2750
39
7.7
2.0
0.0
2040
2670
37
7.4
2.0
0.0
2045
2590
35
7.0
2.0
0.0
2050
2520
33
6.6
2.0
0.0
Technologies
40
Year
CapitalCost
($/kW)
VariableO&M
($/MWh)
FixedO&M
($/kWyr)
Construction
Schedule
(Months)
POR
(%)
FOR
(%)
2008
4010
2010
3090
50
14.0
2.0
0.0
2015
2780
48
13.3
2.0
0.0
2020
2670
45
12.6
2.0
0.0
2025
2560
43
12.0
2.0
0.0
2030
2380
41
11.4
2.0
0.0
2035
2380
39
10.8
2.0
0.0
2040
2300
37
10.3
2.0
0.0
2045
2230
35
9.8
2.0
0.0
2050
2170
33
9.3
2.0
0.0
2008
3920
2010
2015
2620
48
13.3
2.0
0.0
2020
2510
45
12.6
2.0
0.0
2025
2410
43
12.0
2.0
0.0
2030
2310
41
11.4
2.0
0.0
2035
2230
39
10.8
2.0
0.0
2040
2160
37
10.3
2.0
0.0
2045
2090
35
9.8
2.0
0.0
2050
2030
33
9.3
2.0
0.0
Technologies
41
$55 /kW, 2%
$140/kW , 5%
$1,400/kW , 49%
$185/kW , 7%
Modules
Structures
$240/kW , 8%
Inverters
Balance of S
$810/kW , 29%
Owner's cost
Total: $2,830/kW +25%
Figure11.Capitalcostbreakdownforasolarphotovoltaicpowerplant
AppendixCpresentsfurtherbreakdownsforphotovoltaiccosts.
3.5.2ConcentratingSolarPowerTechnologies
Black&Veatchhasparticipatedinnumerousconcentratingsolarpower(CSP)pilotplant
andstudyactivitiessincethe1970s.Thecompanyhasbeentheindependentengineerfor
CSPprojectsandhasperformedduediligenceonCSPmanufacturers.Black&Veatchhas
alsoreviewedcostsinnewCSPpurchaseagreements.Thishistoricalknowledgeandrecent
marketdatawasusedtodevelopthecostestimatesvettedintheWREZstakeholderprocess
andtosubsequentlyupdatethatpricingandmakeadjustmentstoownerscosts.
MultipleCSPoptionswererepresented,includingCSPwithoutstorageandCSPwith
storage.TheCSPwithoutstorageoptionwasassumedtoberepresentedbytroughsystems
forallyears.FortheCSPoptionwithstorage,thecostdatarepresentedtroughsystemsuntil
2025,afterwhich,towersystemswererepresented.Thesemodelassumptionsdonot
representCSPtechnologychoicepredictionsbyBlack&Veatch.Thelocationassumedfor
costingofCSPsystemsistheSouthwestUnitedStates,nottheMidwestasusedforother
technologies.AllCSPsystemswerebasedondrycooledtechnologies.Thecostand
performancedatapresentedherewerebasedon200MWnetpowerplants.Multiple
towerswereusedinthetowerconfiguration.
Black&Veatchestimatedcapitalcoststobe4,910$/kW35%and+15%withoutstorage
and7,060$/kW35%and+15%withstoragefor2010.Thereisgreaterdownsidepotential
thanupsidecostgrowthduetotheexpectedemergenceofnewtechnologyoptions.New
CSPtechnologiesareexpectedtobecommercializedbefore2050,and30%33%capital
costimprovementswereassumedforallsystemsthrough2050.Table26andTable
27presentcostandperformancedataforCSPpowerplantswithoutandwithstorage,
respectively.Forthewithstorageoption,troughcostswererepresentedinyearsuptoand
including2025;towercostswereprovidedafter2025.Capitalcostbreakdownforthe2010
CSPplantswithstorageareshowninFigure12andFigure13fortroughandtowersystems,
respectively.
Technologies
42
Table26.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaConcentratingSolarPowerPlantwithoutStoragea
Year
CapitalCost
($/kW)
Variable
O&MCost
($/MWh)
Fixed
O&MCost
($/kWYr)
Construction
Schedule
(Months)
POR
(%)
FOR
(%)
2008
5,050
2010
4,910
50
24
2015
4,720
50
24
2020
4,540
50
24
2025
4,350
50
24
2030
4,170
50
24
2035
3,987
50
24
2040
3,800
50
24
2045
3,620
50
24
2050
3,430
50
24
Concentratingsolarpowerdrycooling,nostorage,andasolarmultipleof1.4.
Table27.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaConcentratingSolarPowerPlantwithStoragea
Year
CapitalCost
($/kW)
Variable
O&MCost
($/MWh)
2008
7280
2010
7060
50
24
2015
6800
50
24
2020
6530
50
24
2025
5920
50
24
2030
5310
50
24
2035
4700
50
24
2040
4700
50
24
2045
4700
50
24
2050
4700
50
24
Fixed
O&MCost
($/kWYr)
Construction
Schedule
(months)
POR
(%)
FOR
(%)
Concentratingsolarpowerdrycooling,6hourstorage,andasolarmultipleof2.
Technologies
43
$1,090/kW , 16%
$2,820/kW , 40%
Solar Field
$544/kW , 8%
Heat Transfer Fluid (HTF) System
Power Block
Storage
$642/kW , 9%
Owner's cost
Total: $7,060/kW -35% +15%
$1,300/kW , 18%
$664/kW , 9%
Figure12.Capitalcostbreakdownforatroughconcentratingsolarpowerplantwithstorage
$1,090/kW , 15%
$2,700/kW , 38%
Heliostat Field
Receiver
$540/kW , 8%
Tower
Power block
$490/kW , 7%
Thermal Storage
Contingency
$420/kW , 6%
$950/kW , 14%
Total: $7,040/kW -35% +15%
$680/kW , 10%
$170/kW , 2%
Owner's cost
Figure13.Capitalcostbreakdownforatowerconcentratingsolarpowerplantwithstorage
Technologies
44
3.6WINDENERGYTECHNOLOGIES
Black&Veatchhasexperienceachievedin10,000MWofwindengineering,development,
andduediligenceprojectsfrom2005to2010.Inaddition,significantunderstandingofthe
detailsofwindcostestimateswasobtainedbyperforming300MWofdetaileddesignand
300MWofconstructionservicesin2008.Black&Veatchalsohasreviewedwindproject
PPApricing.ThisbackgroundwasusedtodevelopthecostestimatesvettedintheWREZ
stakeholderprocessandtosubsequentlyupdatethatpricingandadjustownerscosts.Costs
areprovidedforonshore,fixedbottomoffshoreandfloatingplatformoffshorewind
turbineinstallations.Thesecostandperformanceestimatesareslightlymoreconservative
thanestimatesidentifiedinOConnellandPletka2007forthe20%WindEnergyby2030
study.Improvementsseensince2004to2006havebeensomewhatlessthanpreviously
estimatedasthetechnologymorefullymatures.Additionalimprovementisexpectedbutat
aslightlyslowerpace.Thereisbothincreasedcostandincreasedperformanceuncertainty
forfloatingplatformoffshoresystems.
3.6.1OnshoreTechnology
Black&Veatchestimatedacapitalcostat1,980$/kW+25%.Costcertaintyisrelatively
highforthismaturingtechnologyandnocostimprovementswereassumedthrough2050.
Capacityfactorimprovementswereassumeduntil2030;furtherimprovementswerenot
assumedtobeachievableafter2030.
3.6.2FixedBottomOffshoreTechnology
Fixedbottomoffshorewindprojectswereassumedtobeatadepththatallowserectionofa
talltowerwithafoundationthattouchestheseafloor.Historicaldataforfixedbottom
offshorewindEPCprojectsarenotgenerallyavailableintheUnitedStates,butNREL
reviewedengineeringstudiesandpublisheddataforEuropeanprojects.Black&Veatch
estimatedacapitalcostat3,310$/kW+35%.Costandcapacityfactorimprovementswere
assumedtobeachievablebefore2030;costimprovementsofapproximately10%were
assumedthrough2030andcapacityfactorimprovementswereassumedforlowerwind
classesthrough2030.
3.6.3FloatingPlatformOffshoreTechnology
Floatingplatformoffshorewindtechnologywasassumedtobeneededinwaterdepths
whereatalltowerandfoundationisnotcosteffective/feasible.Black&Veatchviewedthe
floatingplatformwindturbinecostestimatesasmuchmorespeculative.Thistechnology
wasassumedtobeunavailableintheUnitedStatesuntil2020.Fewerstudiesandpublished
sourcesexistcomparedwithonshoreandfixedbottomoffshoresystems.Black&Veatch
estimateda2020capitalcostat4,200$/kW+35%.Costimprovementsof10%were
assumedthrough2030andcapacityfactorimprovementswereassumedforlowerwind
classesuntil2030.
Table28throughTable33presentwindcostandperformancedata,includingcapacity
factors,foronshore,fixedbottomoffshore,andfloatingplatformoffshoretechnologies.
CapitalcostbreakdownsforthesetechnologiesareshowninFigure14throughFigure16.
Technologies
45
Table28.CostandPerformanceProjectionforOnshoreWindTechnology
Year
($/kW)
($/MWh)
FixedO&M
($/kWyr)
Construction
Schedule
(Months)
POR FOR
(%) (%)
2008
2,060
2010
1,980
60
12
0.6
2015
1,980
60
12
0.6
2020
1,980
60
12
0.6
2025
1,980
60
12
0.6
2030
1,980
60
12
0.6
2035
1,980
60
12
0.6
2040
1,980
60
12
0.6
2045
1,980
60
12
0.6
2050
1,980
60
12
0.6
Table29.CapacityFactorProjectionforOnshoreWindTechnology
CapacityFactor(%)
Year Class3
Class4
Class5
Class6
Class7
2010
32
36
41
44
46
2015
33
37
41
44
46
2020
33
37
42
44
46
2025
34
38
42
45
46
2030
35
38
43
45
46
2035
35
38
43
45
46
2040
35
38
43
45
46
2045
35
38
43
45
46
2050
35
38
43
45
46
Technologies
46
Table30.CostandPerformanceProjectionforFixedbottomOffshoreWindTechnology
Year
CapitaCost
($/kW)
VariableO&M
($/MWh)
FixedO&M
($/kWyr)
Construction
Schedule
(Months)
2008
3,410
2010
3,310
100
12
0.6
2015
3,230
100
12
0.6
2020
3,150
100
12
0.6
2025
3,070
100
12
0.6
2030
2,990
100
12
0.6
2035
2,990
100
12
0.6
2040
2,990
100
12
0.6
2045
2,990
100
12
0.6
2050
2,990
100
12
0.6
POR FOR
(%) (%)
Table31.CapacityFactorProjectionforFixedbottomOffshoreWindTechnology
CapacityFactor(%)
Year Class3
Class4
Class5
Class6
Class7
2010
36
39
45
48
50
2015
36
39
45
48
50
2020
37
39
45
48
50
2025
37
40
45
48
50
2030
38
40
45
48
50
2035
38
40
45
48
50
2040
38
40
45
48
50
2045
38
40
45
48
50
2050
38
40
45
48
50
Technologies
47
Table32.CostandPerformanceProjectionforFloatingPlatformOffshoreWindTechnology
Year
($/kW)
($/MWh)
FixedO&M
($/kWYr)
Construction
Schedule
(Months)
POR FOR
(%) (%)
2020
4,200
130
12
0.6
2025
4,090
130
12
0.6
2030
3,990
130
12
0.6
2035
3,990
130
12
0.6
2040
3,990
130
12
0.6
2045
3,990
130
12
0.6
2050
3,990
130
12
0.6
Table33.CapacityFactorProjectionforFloatingPlatformOffshoreWindTechnology
CapacityFactor(%)
Year
Class3
Class4
Class5
Class6
Class7
2020
37
39
45
48
50
2025
37
40
45
48
50
2030
38
40
45
48
50
2035
38
40
45
48
50
2040
38
40
45
48
50
2045
38
40
45
48
50
2050
38
40
45
48
50
Technologies
48
$100/kW , 5%
$79/kW , 4%
Wind turbine
$257/kW , 13%
Distribution
Balance of plant/Erection
Owner's cost
$198/kW , 10%
Total: $1,980/kW +25%
$1,346/kW , 68%
Figure14.Capitalcostbreakdownforanonshorewindpowerplant
$189/kW , 6%
$165/kW , 5%
Wind turbine
$894/kW , 27%
Distribution
Owner's cost
Total: $3,310/kW +35%
$1,665/kW , 50%
$397/kW , 12%
Figure15.Capitalcostbreakdownforafixedbottomoffshorewindpowerplant
Technologies
49
$252/kW , 6%
$252/kW , 6%
$1,890/kW , 45%
Wind turbine
Distribution
Owner's cost
$1,260/kW , 30%
Total: $4,200/kW +35%
$546/kW , 13%
Figure16.Capitalcostbreakdownforafloatingplatformoffshorewindpowerplant
Technologies
50
4CostandPerformanceDataforEnergyStorage
Technologies
Selectingarepresentativeprojectdefinitionforcompressedairenergystorage(CAES)and
pumpedstoragehydropower(PSH)technologiesthatcanthenbeusedtoidentifya
representativecostisextremelydifficult;oneproblemisthataverylowcostcanbe
estimatedforthesetechnologiesifthebestcircumstancesareassumed(e.g.,useofexisting
infrastructure).Forexample,anassumptioncanbemadeforCAESthatalmostnobelow
groundcostiscontributedwhenbuildingasmallprojectthatcanbeaccommodatedbyan
abandonedgaswellofadequatesize.ForPSH,onecanassumeonlytwoexistingreservoirs
needtobeconnectedwithapumpandturbineatthelowerreservoir.Theselowcost
solutionscanbecomparedtohighcostsolutions;forCAES,excavationofanentirecavern
outofhardrockcouldbeassumed,andforPSHconstructionofnewreservoirsandsupply
ofpump/turbineandinterconnectionsbetweenreservoirscouldbeassumed.These
scenariosareentirelydifferentfrompossiblelowcostormidcostoptions.Whilethis
situationmakesidentifyingarepresentative,oraverage,projectdifficult,thisselectionmust
bemadebeforethediscussionofcostscanbeopened.Thedesignoptionsandassociated
costsforCAESandPSHareunlimited.Historyisnohelpbecausecircumstancesarenow
differentfromthosethatexistedwhenthepreviousgenerationofpumpedhydropowerwas
builtandbecausetherearenotalargenumberofexistingCAESunitstoreview.Another
issuewithPSHisthattransmissionhasbeenequallychallengingwithcostand
environmentalissueslimitingpumpedoptions.
NoCAESorPSHplantshavebeenbuiltrecently.Further,inthecaseofPCH,theElectric
PowerResearchInstitutehasindicated,scarcityofsuitablesurfacetopographythatis
environmentallyacceptableislikelytoinhibitfurthersignificantdomesticdevelopmentof
utilitypumpedhydrostorage.5
Black&VeatchinitiallyselectedpointestimatesforCAESandPSHwithrangesaround
pointsthatcancaptureabroadrangeofprojectconfigurationassumptions.The
disadvantageofthestorageestimatesinitiallyselectedisthattheymightnotadequately
reflecttheverylowestcostoptionsthatmayeventuallybeavailable.However,the
advantageisthattheyareexamplesofwhatrealdevelopershaverecentlyconsideredfor
development;developershaveconsideredprojectswiththesecostsanddescriptionstobe
worthyofstudy.Theyarenottheleastcostexamplesthatcouldsomedaybeavailablefor
considerationbydevelopers,buttheyarerecentexamplesofsiteandtechnology
combinationsthatdevelopersactuallyhavehadavailableforconsideration.Inaddition,the
PSHexampleisofrelativelysmallcapacitythatmaybesuitableinalargernumberof
locations;itisnotalessexpensive,largercapacitysystemthatmaynotbeasavailablein
manypartsofthecountry.Lastly,becauseBlack&Veatchviewsthecostsasmidrange,they
maybeconsideredreasonablyconservative.Black&Veatchrecognizesthatitcouldhave
chosenlowercostcases,butthecasesinitiallyshownherearerepresentativeofprojects
thatdevelopershaveactuallyrecentlyconsidered.
5PumpedHydroelectricStorage,http://www.rkmaonline.com/utilityenergystorageSAMPLE.pdf
BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|4CostandPerformanceDataforEnergyStorageTechnologies
51
4.1COMPRESSEDAIRENERGYSTORAGE(CAES)TECHNOLOGY
AconfidentialCAESinhousereferencestudyforanindependentpowerproducerhasbeen
usedforthepointestimate,andtherangewasbasedonhistoricaldata.Atwounit
recuperatedexpanderwithstorageinasolutionminedsaltdomewasassumedforthis
estimate.Approximately262MWnetwith15hoursofstoragewasassumedtobeprovided.
Fivecompressorswereassumedtobeincluded.A2010capitalcostwasestimatedat900
$/kW30%+75%.Nocostimprovementwasassumedovertime.Table34presentscosts
andperformancedataforCAES.Table535presentsemissiondataforthetechnology.
52
Table34.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaCompressedAirEnergyStoragePlant(262MW)
Year
Heat
Rate
(Btu/kWh)
Capit
al
Cost
($/kW)
Variable
O&M
($/MWh)
Fixed
O&M
($/kW-year)
RoundTrip
Efficiency
FOR
(%)
2008
4910
927
2010
2015
4910
900
1.55
2020
4910
900
2025
4910
2030
Quick
Start
Ramp
Rate
(%/min.)
POR
(%)
Construction
Schedule
(Months)
Min.
Load
(%)
Spin
Ramp
Rate
(%/min.)
11.6
1.25
18
50
10
1.55
11.6
1.25
18
50
10
900
1.55
11.6
1.25
18
50
10
4910
900
1.55
11.6
1.25
18
50
10
2035
4910
900
1.55
11.6
1.25
18
50
10
2040
4910
900
1.55
11.6
1.25
18
50
10
2045
4910
900
1.55
11.6
1.25
18
50
10
2050
4910
900
1.55
11.6
1.25
18
50
10
Table35.EmissionRatesforCompressedAirEnergyStorage
SO2
(lb/ hr)
NOX
(lb/hr)
Hg
Micro
(lb/hr)
PM10
(lb/hr)
CO2
(kpph)
3.4
47
11.6
135
53
ThecapitalcostbreakdownfortheCAESplantisshowninFigure17.
$60/kW , 7%
$30kW , 3%
Turbine
$270/kW , 30%
Compressor
Balance of plant
Cavern
$360/kW , 40%
Total: $900/kW -30% + 75%
$130/kW , 14%
Owner's cost
$50/kW , 6%
Figure17.Capitalcostbreakdownforacompressedairenergystoragepowerplant
CAESplantcostsavingswilloccurinallcostcategoriesovertime.
4.2PUMPEDSTORAGEHYDROPOWERTECHNOLOGY
Aconfidentialinhousereferencestudyforanindependentpowerproducerwasusedfor
thepointestimate,andtherangewasestablishedbasedonhistoricaldata.ThePSHcost
estimateassumedanetcapacityof500MWwith10hoursofstorage.A2010capitalcost
wasestimatedat2,004$/kW+50%.AppendixDprovidesadditionaldetailoncost
considerationsforPSHtechnologies.Thisisamaturetechnologywithnocostimprovement
assumedovertime..AlistofcurrentFERCpreliminarylicensesindicatesanaveragesize
between500and800MW.CostandperformancedataforPSHarepresentedinTable36.
54
Table36.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaPumpedStorageHydropowerPlant(500MW)
Quick
Start
Ramp
Rate
(%/min.)
Year
Capital
Cost
($/kW)
Variable
O&M
($/MWh)
Fixed
O&M
($/kWyr)
RoundTrip
Efficiency
(%)
FOR
(%)
POR
(%)
Construction
Schedule
(Months)
Min.
Load
(%)
Spin
Ramp
Rate
(%/min.)
2008
2297
2010
2230
30.8
0.8
3.00
3.80
30
33
50
50
2015
2230
30.8
0.8
3.00
3.80
30
33
50
50
2020
2230
30.8
0.8
3.00
3.80
30
33
50
50
2025
2230
30.8
0.8
3.00
3.80
30
33
50
50
2030
2230
30.8
0.8
3.00
3.80
30
33
50
50
2035
2230
30.8
0.8
3.00
3.80
30
33
50
50
2040
2230
30.8
0.8
3.00
3.80
30
33
50
50
2045
2230
30.8
0.8
3.00
3.80
30
33
50
50
2050
2230
30.8
0.8
3.00
3.80
30
33
50
50
55
Thecapitalcostbreakdownforthepumpedstoragehydropowerplantisshownin
Figure18.
$370/kW , 17%
$420/kW , 19%
Upper reservoir
Tunels
$135 , 6%
$80 , 4%
Powerhouse excavation
Powerhouse
$390/kW , 17%
Owner's cost
Total: $2,230/kW +50%
$835/kW , 37%
Figure18.CapitalCostbreakdownforapumpedstoragehydropowerplant
Pumpedhydroelectricpowerplantcostsavingswilloccurprimarilyinthepowerhouse
categoryovertime.
4.3BATTERYENERGYSTORAGETECHNOLOGY
Aconfidentialinhousereferencestudyforanindependentpowerproducerhasbeenused
forthepointestimate,andtherangehasbeenestablishedbasedonhistoricaldata.The
batteryproxywasassumedtobeasodiumsulfidetypewithanetcapacityof7.2MW.The
storagewasassumedtobe8.1hours.Acapitalcostisestimatedat3,990$/kW(or1,000
$/kWand350$/kWh)+75%.Costimprovementovertimewasassumedfordevelopment
ofasignificantnumberofnewbatteryoptions.Table37presentscostandperformance
dataforbatteryenergystorage.TheO&Mcostincludesthecostofbatteryreplacement
every5,000hours.
56
Table37.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaBatteryEnergyStoragePlant(7.2MW)
POR
(%)
Construction
Schedule
(Months)
Min.
Load
(%)
Spin
Ramp
Rate
(%/sec)
Quick
Start
Ramp
Rate
(%/sec)
0.75
2.00
0.55
20
20
25.2
0.75
2.00
0.55
20
20
59
25.2
0.75
2.00
0.55
20
20
3690
59
25.2
0.75
2.00
0.55
20
20
2030
3590
59
25.2
0.75
2.00
0.55
20
20
2035
3490
59
25.2
0.75
2.00
0.55
20
20
2040
3390
59
25.2
0.75
2.00
0.55
20
20
2045
3290
59
25.2
0.75
2.00
0.55
20
20
2050
3190
59
25.2
0.75
2.00
0.55
20
20
(Year)
Capital
Cost
($/kW)
Variable
O&M
($/MWh)
Fixed
O&M
($/kWyr)
RoundTrip
Efficiency
(%)
FOR
(%)
2008
4110
2010
3990
59
25.2
2015
3890
59
2020
3790
2025
57
ThecapitalcostbreakdownforthebatteryenergystorageplantisshowninFigure19.
$600/kW,15%
$1920/kW,48%
$140/kW,4%
Owner'sCost
Engineering,Procurement,
ConstructionManagement
Services
PowerConversion
Battery
$1330/kW,33%
Total: $3,990/kW +75%
Figure19.CapitalCostBreakdownforaBatteryEnergyStoragePlant
Batteryenergystorageplantcostreductionswilloccurprimarilyinthebatterycost
categoryovertime.
58
5References
Kane,M.(2005,April).CaliforniaSmallHydropowerandOceanWaveEnergy:Resourcesin
Supportofthe2005IntegratedEnergyPolicyReport.StaffpaperpresentedattheCalifornia
EnergyCommission,May9,2005.CEC5002005074.Sacramento,CA:CaliforniaEnergy
Commission.
Coulomb,L.;Neuhoff,K.(2006,February).LearningCurvesandChangingProduct
Attributes:theCaseofWindTurbines.CWPE0618andEPRG0601.Cambridge:Electricity
PolicyResearchGroup,UniversityofCambridge.
Delaquil,P.;Goldstein,G.;Wright,E.(n.d.).USTechnologyChoices,CostsandOpportunities
undertheLiebermanWarnerClimateSecurityAct:AssessingCompliancePathways.
http://docs.nrdc.org/globalWarming/files/glo_08051401a.pdf.
InternationalEnergyAgency(EIA).(2000).ExperienceCurvesforEnergyTechnologyPolicy.
ISBN92641765002000.Paris:InternationalEnergyAgency.http://www.iea
.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2000/curve2000.pdf.
ElectricPowerResearchInstitute(EPRI).(n.d.).Tidalenergyreports.
http://oceanenergy.epri.com/streamenergy.html
#reports.
EPRI.(n.d.).Waveenergyreports.http://oceanenergy.epri.com/waveenergy.html#reports
FERC(FederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission).(2008,June).IncreasingCostsinElectric
Markets.http://www.ferc.gov/legal/staffreports/061908costelectric.pdf.
FolleyM.;ElsaesserB.;WhittakerT.(2009,September)AnalysisoftheWaveEnergy
ResourceattheEuropeanMarineEnergyCentre.Belfast:Belfast:QueensUniversityBelfast;
RPSGroupPlc.
GTP(GeothermalTechnologiesProgram),U.S.DepartmentofEnergy(DOE).(2008a).Multi
YearResearch,DevelopmentandDemonstrationPlan:20092015withProgramActivitiesto
2025(DRAFT).Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofEnergy,EnergyEfficiencyand
RenewableEnergy.https://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/pdfs/gtp_myrdd_2009
complete.pdf.
GTP.(2008b).AnEvaluationofEnhancedGeothermalSystemsTechnology.Washington,
DC:U.S.DepartmentofEnergy,EnergyEfficiencyandRenewableEnergy.http://www1.eere.
energy.gov/geothermal/pdfs/evaluation_egs_tech_2008.pdf.
Hagerman,G.;Bedard,R.;Previsic,M.(2004a,June)."E2IEPRISurveyandCharacterization
ofPotentialOffshoreWaveEnergySitesinMaine.PaloAlto,CA:ElectricPowerResearch
Institute.E2IEPRIWP003ME.http://oceanenergy.epri.com/
attachments/wave/reports/003_Maine_Site_Report_Rev_1.pdf
EPRI.(2004b,May)."E2IEPRISurveyandCharacterizationofPotentialOffshoreWave
EnergySitesinWashington.PaloAlto,CA:ElectricPowerResearchInstitute.E2IEPRIWP
WA003.http://oceanenergy.epri.com/attachments/wave/reports/003_Washington_
Site_Report.pdf
EPRI.(2004c,May)."E2IEPRISurveyandCharacterizationofPotentialOffshoreWave
EnergySitesinOregon.PaloAlto,CA:ElectricPowerResearchInstitute.E2IEPRIWPOR
003.http://oceanenergy.epri.com/attachments/wave/reports/003_Oregon_Site_
Report.pdf
BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|5References
59
IHSCambridgeEnergyResearchAssociates(CERA).(2009).PowerCapitalCostsIndexShows
ConstructionCostsPeakingin2009forAllTypesOfNewPowerPlants.June23,2009.
http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/news/pressReleases/pressReleaseDetails.aspx
?CID=10429.AccessedSeptember24,2010.
Kelton,S.;Sturgeon,J.I.;Richman,B.(2009,October).WhichWayForward?Alternative
PathsforGeneratingElectricityinAmericasHeartland:HowwillMissouri,Oklahoma,
NebraskaandKansasCopewiththeChallengesandOpportunitiesthatLieAhead?Economic
ConsultingSolutions,Inc.
Lazard(2009,February).LevelizedCostofEnergyAnalysisVersion3.0.
Lovekin,J.;Pletka,R.(2010).GeothermalAssessmentasPartofCalifornia'sRenewable
EnergyTransmissionInitiative(RETI).InproceedingsoftheWorldGeothermalCongress
2010,Bali,Indonesia,April2529,2010.
OConnell,R.;Pletka,R.(2007).20PercentWindEnergyPenetrationintheUnitedStates:A
TechnicalAnalysisoftheEnergyResource.144864.PreparedbyBlack&Veatch,Overland
Park,KS.Washington,DC:AmericanWindEnergyAssociation.
Pletka,R.;Finn,J.(2009,October).WesternRenewableEnergyZones,Phase1:QRA
IdentificationTechnicalReport.NREL/SR6A246877.WorkperformedbyBlack&Veatch
Corporation,OverlandPark,KS.Golden,CO:NationalRenewableEnergyLaboratory.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/46877.pdf.
Shelley,S.(2008).BuyingaGasTurbine,NoQuickPick.TurbomachineryInternational
(January/February2008).
BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|5References
60
AppendixA.EnergyEstimateforWaveEnergy
Technologies
RESOURCEESTIMATE
ThisappendixdocumentsananalysisofthewaveenergyresourceintheUnitedStatesand
providesthebasisforinformationpresentedinSection0above.
CoastlineoftheUnitedStates
UsingGoogleEarth,Black&VeatchsketchedaroughoutlineoftheEastandWestCoastsof
theUnitedStates,anddividedeachintocoastalsegmentstomatchtheavailablewavedata,
asdescribedinFigureA1andTableA1.ThestatesofAlaskaandHawaiiwerenotincluded.
FigureA1.DesignatedCoastalSegments
E1:Portland,ME(4.9kW/m@19m)
W1:NeahBay,WA(26.5kW/m@?m)
E2:Middle(13.8kW/m@74m)
W2:Coquille,OR(21.2kW/m@64m)
W3:SanFrancisco,CA(20kW/m@52m) E3:SouthEast(kW/m@m)
TableA1.LengthofCoastlinesinUnitedStates
CoastalSegment CoastlineLength(km)
Description
W1
238
Washington
W2
492
Oregon
W3
1322
California
WestTotal
2052
E1
465
MaineMassachusetts
E2
942
MassachusettsNorthCarolina
E3
1390
NorthCarolinaFlorida
EastTotal
2797
BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|AppendixA.EnergyEstimateforWaveEnergyTechnologies
61
WaveEnergyResource
WaveenergyresourcedataforWestCoastsites(Washington,Oregon,andCalifornia)and
northernEastCoastsites(MaineandMassachusetts)wereextractedfromseveralrelevant
reports(EPRIn.d.).
Inadditiontodatafromasmallnumberofspecificbuoys,EPRI(n.d.)containedannual
averagepowerforsitesalongthecoastsofselectedstates,asshownonFigureA2.These
datawereusedtoestimatethewaveenergyresourceforthecontiguousUnitedStates.
Maine(E1)
(Hagermanetal.2004a)
Washington(W1)
(Hagermanetal.2004b)
Oregon(W2)
(Hagermanetal.2004c)
FigureA2.WaveFluxforMaine,Washington,andOregon
InadditiontotheEPRIdata,wavefluxresults(inkW/m),fromKane(2005,Table8)were
alsousedtoestimateCaliforniaswaveenergyresourceasshowninFigureA3.Mostsites
assessedinKanearedeeperthan100m,butapproximately3ofthe10sitesarefrom
shallowerbuoys,includingDelNorte(60m),Mendocino(82m),andSantaCruz(13m,60
80m).
62
Del Norte
27.8
Humboldt
33.7
Mendocino
28.5
Sonoma
32.2
SanFrancisco
30.3
Monterey
28
Santa Barbara
29.7
Los Angeles
26.4
San Diego
32.2
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Wave Flux (kW/m)
FigureA3.WaveFluxforCalifornia
(CoastalsegmentW3,FigureA1)(Kane2005,Table8)
Theavailabledatawereusedtoestimateanaveragewaveenergyresourceforeachcoastal
segment.Asaspotcheck,theEPRI(n.d.)cites20kW/mwavefluxat52mdepthattheSan
Franciscosite,whichapproximatelymatchesthe30kW/mcitedbyKane(2005,Table8)for
SanFranciscoatadeepsite.Consequently,bothstudieswereusedwithrelativeconfidence.
Nowaveresourcedatawerefoundforthecentral(E2,FigureA1)andsouthern(E3)East
Coast.
Normalizingto50mDepth
Allwaveresourceswerenormalizedtoa50mdepthcontour.Thisdepthisbelievedto
representforthenext10yearstheaveragedepthtargetedbymostwaveenergydevelopers,
andisthebasisforthecostestimatespresentedbelow.Withinthenext50years,exploiting
thewaveenergyresourceatgreaterdepthswilllikelybepossible.Whilemoreenergymay
beavailableatdeepersites,itmightnotbeascommerciallyexploitable,asthewave
directionwouldbemorevariableandgridconnectioncostswouldincreasesignificantly.
Thewaveenergydatapresentedabovearesourcedfromdeepwateroffthecontinental
shelf.ResultsfromastudybyQueensUniversityBelfast&RPSGroup(Folleyetal.2009)
wereusedtoestimatetheresourceat50mdepth.Usingwavedataandmodelingforthe
EuropeanMarineEnergyCentre(EMEC)siteinScotland,Folleyetal.calculatedthegross
(omnidirectional),net(directionallyresolved),andexploitable(netpowerlessthanfour
timesthemeanpowerdensity)foranumberofsitedepths.Figure
A4showstheresultsfromthisstudy.
Giventhelackofotheravailabledata,Black&VeatchassumedtheEMECresultsapplytothe
UnitedStatesandusedthemtoestimategrosspowerat50mdepthfromU.S.offshorewave
datafromthepreviouslymentionedsources(takentobeoffshorealldirections).By
multiplyingtheU.S.offshoredataby23.5/41(asreadfromFigureA4),thewavefluxwas
normalizedto50mdepth.
63
Average incident wave power density (kW/m)
45
Offshore (all directions)
Offshore
50m deep wave site
30m deep wave site
10m deep wave site
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Gross power
Net power
Exploitable power
FigureA4.Grossv.ExploitablePoweratVaryingSeaDepths
(Folleyetal.2009,p.7)
However,theparticularsiteconditionsattheEMECsitemightmeantheseconclusionsare
notapplicabletoallsites.Localbathymetrycancreatehighandlowresourceareas,andthe
seabedslopeisrelativelysteepattheEMECsite,whichreducesthedistancebetweendeep
andshallowsitesandtheenergydissipatedbetweenthem.Itis,forexample,clearfrom
FigureA2thatthewaveenergyresourcedissipationfromoffshoretonearshoreismuch
higherinOregonthanitisinWashington.
AdditionalstudiesareneededtoestablishthevalidityofthisrelationshipfortheU.S.
coastline,butitisbelievedtobeareasonablefirstestimate.
Directionality
Black&VeatchwasnotabletolocatedirectionalwavedataforU.S.sites;adirectionalityof
0.9,whichhashistoricallybeenusedforUKwaveenergysites,wasthereforeassumedfor
theBaseCase.
APessimisticScenario(lowdeployment)andanOptimisticScenario(highdeployment)were
developedtoreflecttheuncertaintyintheU.S.waveresource.InthePessimisticScenarioand
theOptimisticScenario,factorsof0.8and1.0respectivelywereappliedtoreflectthefactthat
atsomesitesthewaveresourceismorefocusedthanatothers(particularlyinshallower
waters)andthatsomewavedevicesareabletocopewithdirectionalitymoreefficientlythan
others(e.g.,pointabsorbers).
Spacing
Thespacingbetweenthedeviceswasnotconsideredintheestimateofthewaveenergy
resource,astheresourcestudyisbasedonavailablewaveenergyperwavefront.Hence,no
farmconfigurationwasconsideredforthewavedevices,andenergyavailableisbasedonly
onapercentageofextractionfromtheavailableresource.
64
ConversionfromAbsorbedPowertoElectricalPower
Awaveenergyconverterefficiencyof70%fromtheabsorbedpowertotheelectricalpower
generatedatshorewasgenerallyassumed,as70%isthetypicalvalueusedforwavedevices.
InthePessimisticScenario,efficiencyof60%isassumedand80%isassumedinthe
OptimisticScenario.
ExploitableCoastline
IntheBaseCase,50%ofthecoastlinelengthwasestimatedtobeexploitable.Inthe
OptimisticScenario,thefulllengthofcoastlinewasconsideredexploitable,reflectingthefact
thatifasitewouldnotbesuitablefordevelopmentat50minthenextfewyears,itmightbe
exploitableatdeeperorshallowerwatersinthenext50years.UnderthePessimistic
Scenario,25%ofthecoastlinewasconsideredexploitable.
ExtractableEnergyfromtheWaveResource
Clearly,thewholeenergyresourcecannotbeextractedfromthewavefrontwithout
impactingtheenvironmentandtheprojecteconomics.Black&Veatchdidnotconsider
environmentalissuesandsetthecriteriaforextractablewaveenergyontheeconomicalcut
offpoint.Asawaveenergyprojectisbelievedtobeuneconomicalforwaveresourcelower
thana15kW/mthreshold,thepercentageofextractablepowercomparedtotheavailable
resourcewassettoensuretheavailablewaveresourcedoesnotdropbelowthiseconomic
threshold.
WaveEnergyRegime
ThewaveresourcewasclassifiedintowaveenergyregimesasshowninTableA2.
TableA2.WaveEnergyRegimeClassification
WaveEnergyRegime
WaveFluxat50mDepth(kW/m)
VeryLow
<15
Low
1520
Medium
2025
High
>25
Thewaveenergyresource(inkW/m)datawerereviewedforeachsite,andasplitinthe
resourcewasestimated(TableA3).Forexample,becauseapproximately10ofthe13data
pointsfortheW2(Oregon)coastlinehaveawaveenergyresourceabove25kW/m,75%of
theresourcewasestimatedashigh,withtheremainderbeingestimatedasmedium.
TableA3.WaveEnergyRegimeSplit
VeryLow
Low
Medium
High
W1
100%
0%
W2
25%
75%
W3
100%
E1
100%
E2
100%
E3
100%
65
CoastalsegmentE1(FigureA1),withapeakaverageoffshorewaveenergyresourceofless
than20kW/m,correspondingtoanequivalentwaveenergyresourceoflessthan11kW/m
at50m,wasclassifiedasverylowandwasnotcountedinthewaveresourceestimate.
CoastalsegmentsE2andE3werebothassumedtohaveamilderwaveregimethanE1,and
thereforetoalsofallintotheverylowcategoryandwerenotincludedintheresource
estimate.
WaveEnergyMeanAnnualResource
Bymultiplyingtheaveragewaveenergyresource(at50mdepth)foreachsegmentbythe
coastallength,andthewaveenergyregimesplit(TableATable3),theU.S.waveenergy
resourcewasestimatedfortheBaseCaseasshowninTableA4.Thisestimatedoesnot
construeanydevicecapacityfactorsbutdoestakeintoaccountthedirectionality,
efficiencies,andexploitablepercentageexplainedabove.ThevaluesaregiveninMW,and
hencetheyrepresentmeanannualelectricalpower.
TableA4.MeanAnnualU.S.WaveEnergyResource(MW)BaseCase
CoastalSegment
Low
Medium
High
Total
W1
707
707
W2
476
1,429
1,905
W3
1,539
1,539
WestTotal
1,500
1,200
1,400
4,100
EastTotal
1,500
1,200
1,400
4,100
TOTAL
Asexplainedabove,themeanannualU.S.waveenergyresourceforthePessimisticand
OptimisticScenariosareshowninTableA5andTableA6respectively,consistentwiththe
directionality,thespacing,andthepercentageofcoastlineexploitableassumptionsforthese
Scenariosdescribedabove.
TableA5.MeanAnnualU.S.WaveEnergyResource(MW)PessimisticScenario
CoastalSegment
Low
Medium
High
Total
W1
269
269
W2
181
544
726
W3
586
586
WestTotal
600
500
500
1,600
EastTotal
600
500
500
1,600
TOTAL
66
TableA6.MeanAnnualU.S.WaveEnergyResource(MW)OptimisticScenario
Coastal Segment
Low
Medium
High
Total
W1
1,795
1,795
W2
1,210
3,629
4,838
W3
3,908
3,908
West Total
3,900
3,000
3,600
10,500
East Total
3,900
3,000
3,600
10,500
TOTAL
CapacityFactor
TheU.S.waveresourceissmallerthantheUKresource.Black&Veatchbaseditscost
estimatesonUKbasedtechnologiesdesignedmostlyforUKsites.Theratedpowerand
powermatrixthatisbeingusedinthiscostestimatewasdevelopedforanaverageUKsiteof
approximately30kW/m,whichishigherthanforanyU.S.site.Typically,technology
developerswouldchangetheratedpowerconditionsandtuningoftheirdevicetomatcha
lowerpowerresourcesite,however,inthisanalysisthetechnologieshavenotbeen
optimizedforthedifferentsiteconditions.
TableA7showsthecapacityfactorsthatwereappliedinthecostestimatesforthedifferent
resourcebands.Asexplainedabove,thesearelowerthantheywouldbeifthedevicewere
optimizedspecificallyforaU.S.siteratherthanforaUKsite,butthisisnotexpectedtomake
asignificantdifferencetotheresults,bearinginmindtheotherpotentialuncertaintiesinthe
analysis.
TableA7.CapacityFactorsfortheDifferentResourceBandsintheUnitedStates
ResourceBand
RepresentativeSite
CapacityFactor
Low(15kW/m20kW/m)
Massachusetts
15%
Medium(20kW/m25kW/m)
Oregon
20%
High(25kW/m30kW/m)
UK
25%
InstalledCapacityLimitsintheUnitedStates
ThevaluesinTablesA4toA6areannualaveragepowergenerationastheywerecalculated
fromtheannualwaveenergyresourceavailablefromthewavefront.Toestimatethe
correspondinginstalledcapacity,thevaluesstatedaboveweredividedbythecapacity
factorsgiveninTableA7.Clearly,majoruncertaintiesareinherenttothewaveresourcein
theUnitedStates,andhencethetotalwaveenergyresourcerangesfrom9,000MWto55,000
MWelectricalinstalledcapacity(includingefficiencies),asshowninTableA8and
FigureA5.
67
Low (15-20 kW/m)
Medium (20-25 kW/m)
High (>25 kW/m)
Installed Capacity (MW)
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
Pessimistic
Base
Optimistic
FigureA5
TableA8.U.S.WaveEnergyResource(MW)InstalledCapacitySummaryforallScenarios
Scenario
LowBand
MediumBand
HighBand
Total
(1520kW/m)
(2025kW/m)
(>25kW/m)
Pessimistic
4,000
3,000
2,000
9,000
BaseCase
10,000
6,000
6,000
22,000
Optimistic
26,000
15,000
14,000
55,000
Low (15-20 kW/m)
Medium (20-25 kW/m)
High (>25 kW/m)
Installed Capacity (MW)
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
Pessimistic
Base
Optimistic
FigureA5.Waveresourceestimatefordifferentscenarios
68
COSTOFENERGYESTIMATE
ToforecastthefuturecostofenergyofwavepowerintheUnitedStates,anumberofkey
assumptionsmustbemade.Initially,adeploymentscenariomustbegeneratedtoforecast
thepotentialgrowthoftheindustry;astartingcostofenergymustbedeterminedbasedon
thecurrentmarketcosts;and,alearningrateorcurveisrequiredtoreflectpotential
reductionsinthecostofenergywithtime.ThissectiondetailsBlack&Veatchsmethodsto
determineafutureforecastofthepotentialeconomicsofthewavepowerindustryinthe
UnitedStates.
Giventherelativeuncertaintiesduetotheearlystageofthewavepowermarket,an
OptimisticScenario,aBaseCase,andaPessimisticScenariowereconsideredforthe
deploymentrates,costofelectricity,andlearningrates.TheBaseCaserepresentsBlack&
Veatchsmostlikelyestimate,whiletheOptimisticandPessimisticScenariosrepresentthe
potentialrangeoftheprimaryuncertaintiesintheanalysis.
WaveDeploymentEstimate
GlobalDeployment
Globaldeploymentisrequiredtodrivethelearningrateofatechnology;therefore,Black&
Veatchdevelopedanassumptionforthedeploymentofwaveenergyconvertersgloballyto
2050.Thisestimatewasmadeidentifyingtheplannedshortterm(to2030)future
deploymentsoftheleadingwaveenergyconvertertechnologies.Thegrowthratefrom2020
to2030wasthenusedasabasistoestimatethegrowthto2050.Thisgrowthratewas
decreasedannuallyby1%from2030andeachsubsequentyearinordertorepresenta
naturalslowingofgrowththatislikelytooccur.Theyear2030waschosenasthestartdate
fortheslowdownasthiswouldrepresentapproximately20yearsofhighgrowth,whichis
reasonablebasedonslowdownsexperiencedinotherindustries(e.g.,wind)thathave
reflectedresourceandsupplychainconstraints.
Notalldevelopersarelikelytoprovesuccessful,andnaturally,notallplannedinstallations
willproceed.Assuch,weightingfactorswereappliedtoreflecttheuncertaintyrelatedto
boththedeveloperspotentialsuccessandtheirprojectssuccess.
DeploymentintheUnitedStates
DeploymentintheUnitedStateshasbeenbasedonthegrowthrateofglobaldeployment.
Thecurrentinstalledcapacityandtheplannedinstalledcapacityfor2010intheUnited
Stateswerecalculated.Thesestartingvalueswerethenusedincombinationwiththeglobal
growthratetodeterminethescenariosforU.S.deploymentto2050.Thegrowthratesforthe
OptimisticScenario,theBaseCase,andthePessimisticScenariowerebasedon25%ofhigh,
16%ofbase,and8%oflowglobaldeploymentscenariosrespectivelyandthereforeeach
wasassignedauniquegrowthrate.Thetotalresourceinstalledcapacitiesestimatesforthe
scenarioscalculatedabovewereapplied.FigureA6showstheresultsoftheanalysis.
69
60000
50000
MW Installed
40000
U.S. deployment high

U.S. deployment medium
30000
U.S. deployment low

High resource limit
20000
Base resource limit

Low resource limit
10000
0
2048
2043
2038
2033
2028
2023
2018
2013
Year
FigureA6.DeploymentScenariosforWavePowerintheUnitedStatesto2050
TheanalysisshowsthattheUnitedStatescouldinstalltoapproximately13gigawatt(GW)by
2050intheBaseCasewithanOptimisticdeploymentscenarioofapproximately28.5GW;the
Pessimisticdeploymentscenarioinstalled2.5GWby2050;noneofthescenariosreachesits
respectivedeploymentlimit.Thegrowthratesvaryamongthedeploymentscenarios;these
differentratesarethemajorcontributingfactortothelargevarianceamongthescenarios
andreflectthecurrentlackofunderstandingoftheU.S.resourceandtheearlystageof
developmentofthewaveenergyconverterindustry.
DeploymentAssumption
GiventherelativelylowenergydensityofU.S.waveresourcesites,itwasassumedthat1)
developerswouldaimtomaximiseprojecteconomicsforearlyprojectsandwouldthus
deployonlyatsitesinthehighbandwaveresource,2)thatwhenthisisexhausted,the
mediumbandresourcesiteswouldbeexploited,and3)thatthelowresourcesiteswouldbe
usedonlyafterthemediumbandresourcewasexhausted.Itisalsoassumedthattheeffects
ofthelearningcurvewillmakethemediumandlowresourcesitesmorefeasibleinthe
future.Thisorderofexploitationisakeyassumptionusedthroughoutthecostmodelling
andwillnaturallyresult,asseenbelow,indistinctoffsetsincostofelectricityprojectionsat
thepointsoftransitionbetweentheresourcebands.
DeploymentConstraints
Thedeploymentgrowthislimitedonlybytheresourceconstraints.Itwasassumedthatall
otherfactorsimpactingdeploymentwouldbeaddressed,includingbutnotlimitedto:
financialrequirements,supplychaininfrastructure,sitespecificrequirements,planning,and
supportinggridinfrastructure.
70
Learning
Toformajudgmentastothelikelylearningratesthatcanreasonablybeassumedforthe
comingyears,itisappropriatetofirstconsiderempiricallearningratesfromotheremerging
renewableenergyindustries.Thissectionprovidesanoverviewoflearningexperiencefrom
similardevelopingindustries,suggestsapplicablelearningratesforwavetechnology,and
considersscenariosforfuturegenerationcosts.FigureA7showslearningratedatafora
rangeofemergingrenewableenergytechnologies.
FigureA7.LearninginRenewableEnergyTechnologies
(IEA2000)
Costandcumulativecapacityareobservedtoexhibitastraightlinewhenplottedonaloglog
diagram;mathematically,thisstraightlineindicatesthatanincreasebyafixedpercentageof
cumulativeinstalledcapacitygivesaconsistentpercentagereductionincost.Forexample,
theprogressratioforphotovoltaicsduring19851995wasapproximately65%(learning
rateapproximately35%),andtheprogressratioforwindpowerbetween1980and1995
was82%(learningrate18%).
Anydiscussionastothelikelylearningratesthatmaybeexperiencedinthewaveenergy
industrywillbesubjective.Theclosestanalogyforthewaveindustryhasbeenassumedto
bethewindindustry.Aprogressratioaslowaswindenergy(82%)isnotexpectedforthe
waveindustryforthefollowingreasons:
Inwind,muchofthelearningwasaresultofdoingthesamethingbiggerorupsizing
ratherthandoingthesameorsomethingnew.Thisupsizinghasprobablybeenthe
singlemostimportantcontributortocostreductionforwind,contributingapproximately
7%tothe18%learningrate.6Mostwaveenergydevices(particularlyresonantdevices)
donotworkinthisway.Acertainsizeofdeviceisrequiredforaparticularlocationto
minimizetheenergycost,andsimplymakinglargerdevicesdoesnotreduceenergycosts
inthesameway.Nevertheless,wavedevicescanbenefitfromtheeconomiesofscalesof
buildingfarmswithlargerdevicesandlargernumbersofdevices.
See,forexample,CoulombandNeuhoff2006,whichcalculatesan11%learningrateforwind
excludinglearningduetoupsizing.
6
71
Unlikewindinwhichthemarketasmostlyadoptedasingletechnicalsolution(3bladed
horizontalaxisturbine),therearemanydifferenttechnologyoptionsforwaveenergy
devicesandthereislittleindicationatthisstageastowhichtechnologyisthebest
solution.Thisindicatesthatlearningratereductionswilltakelongertorealizewhen
measuredagainstcumulativeindustrycapacity.
Thelearningratesforwaveenergyconvertershavebeendevelopedaspertheabove
discussionandarepresentedinTableA9.ThelearningratesfortheUnitedStateswere
assumedtobe1%lessthanwhatwouldbeexpectedintheUK,astheenergydensitiesofthe
perspectivesitesarelower(whichsuggeststhattheremaybelessroomforcost
improvement).
TableA9.LearningRates
Scenario
LearningRate
Optimistic
15%
BaseCase
11.5%
Pessimistic 8%
CostofEnergy
CostInputData
Black&Veatchuseditsexperienceinthewaveenergyconverterindustrytodevelopacost
ofelectricityforafirst10MWfarmassuming50MWinstalledglobally,whicheffectively
representsthecostoftheinitialcommercialfarm;thesecostsarepresentedinTableA10.
Thecostspresentedareconsideredanindustryaveragecoveringbothoffshoreandnear
shorewavetechnologies.Learningrateswereappliedtothecostofelectricityonlyafterthe
50MWofcapacitywasinstalledworldwide.
72
TableA10.CostEstimatefora10MWWaveFarmafterInstallationof50MW
Costs($million)
Resource
Capital
Operating
(annual)
CapacityFactor
Availability
CostofElectricity(c/kWh)
Pessimistic
73
4.6
23%
88%
69
BaseCase
62
3.9
25%
92%
50
Optimistic
50
3.4
28%
95%
37
MediumbandResource Pessimistic
77
4.8
18%
88%
91
(2025kW/m)
BaseCase
66
4.1
20%
92%
67
Optimistic
53
3.5
22%
95%
49
Pessimistic
81
5.0
14%
88%
127
BaseCase
68
4.4
15%
92%
94
Optimistic
56
3.8
17%
95%
69
HighbandResource
(2530kW/m)
LowbandResource
(1520kW/m)
Costs
Performance(%)
ThePessimisticandOptimisticScenariosweregeneratedtoindicatetheuncertaintiesintheanalysis.
73
GeneralAssumptions
Thesegeneralassumptionswereusedforthisanalysis:
Projectlife:20years
Discountrate:8%.
Deviceavailability:90%intheBaseCase,92%intheOptimisticScenario,and88%inthe
PessimisticScenario.
Also,thecostofelectricitypresentedisin2008dollarsandfutureinflationhasnotbeen
accountedfor.
CostofEnergy
Thecostofelectricitydirectlydependsonthelearningcurveandthedeploymentrate.Figure
A8showsthecostofelectricityforecastfortheBaseCaselearningrateandtheBaseCase
deploymentscenario(TableA9andFigureA6respectively)basedontheOptimistic,Base
Case,andPessimisticcosts(TableA8).TheOptimisticandPessimisticcurvesinthefigure
representtheupperandlowercostuncertaintybandsfortheBaseCasedeployment
assumptionandlearningrate.
Base
Optimistic
Pessimistic
90
80
70
CoE (c/kWh)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
MW Installed
FigureA8.CostofenergyprojectionwithinstalledcapacityforBaseCasedeploymentandlearningrates
TheBaseCasecostofenergyfallsto17c/kWhafterapproximately5.5GWisinstalled
however,thecostofelectricitythenincreasesasthebestsiteshavebeenexploitedandis
27c/kWhafter13GWisinstalled(2050).Thetwospikesinthegraphshowtheeffectof
movingfromthehighbandresourcetothemediumbandresourceandfromthemedium
bandtothelowbandresource.
FigureA9showstheOptimisticdeploymentscenarioandlearningrateswiththeOptimistic,
BaseCase,andPessimisticcosts.Theseassumptionshaveaconsiderableeffectonthecostof
electricity,withtheOptimisticcostofelectricityreducingtoalowpointofapproximately
8c/kWh(BaseCase12c/kWh)afterapproximately14GWisinstalledbeforerisingasthe
highbandresourceisexhaustedandthemediumbandresourceisused;thecostof
74
electricitythenfallstoapproximately9c/kWh(BaseCase13c/kWh)after28.5GWis
installed.Sufficientresourceisconsideredtobeavailablesothatthelowbandresourceis
notrequiredby2050.
Base
Optimistic
Pessimistic
90
80
70
CoE (c/kWh)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
MW installed
FigureA9.Costofenergy(projectionwithinstalledcapacityforOptimistic
deploymentandlearningrates
FigureA10showsthePessimisticdeploymentandlearningrateswiththeOptimistic,Base
Case,andPessimisticcosts.Inthisscenario,therearenohighbandresourcesites;therefore,
theanalysisstartsfromthemediumbandresourcebeforemovingtothelowbandresource.
ThePessimisticcostofelectricityfallstoalowpointofapproximately34c/kWh(BaseCase
24c/kWh)afterapproximately2GWisinstalled;theinstallationsthenrequirethelowband
resourcewherethecostofelectricityfinisheson42c/kWh(BaseCase31c/kWh)after2.5GW
isinstalled.
75
Base
80
Optimistic
Pessimistic
70
CoE (c/kWh)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
MW Installed
FigureA10.Costofenergy(c/kWh)overprojectionwithinstalledcapacityfor
Pessimisticdeploymentandlearningrates
CapitalandOperatingCosts
ThecapitalcostsfortheBaseCase,Optimistic,andPessimisticScenariosandtheBaseCase
operatingexpenditurecoststo2050areshowninTableA11.Asstatedabove,developers
wereassumedtoinstallfirstatsitesinthehighbandresource,thenatsitesinmediumband
resources,andfinallyatsitesinthelowbandresource;inTableA11,thecostshighlighted
ingreen,orange,andredcorrespondtoahigh,mediumandlowresourcebands,
respectively.TheconstructionscheduleandoutageratesrelatetotheBaseCase.Thedatain
TableA11relatedirectlytothecostsprojectedinFigureA8;theBaseCaseovernightcosts
weretakenfromtheBaseCase(middle)curveinFigureA8;thelowovernightcostswere
takenfromthebestcase(lowercurve)oftheOptimisticScenario(FigureA9);and,thehigh
overnightcostsweretakenfromtheworstcase(uppercurve)ofthePessimisticScenario
(FigureA10).
76
TableA11.CapitalandOperatingCoststo2050
Base Case
Capacity
Factor (%)
Base Case
Overnight Cost
($/kW)
Optimistic
Overnight Cost
High
Deployment/
Learning Rate
2010
25%
14,579
11,400
18,482
741
24
1%
7%
2015
25%
9,336
6,252
13,558
474
24
1%
7%
2020
25%
7,030
4,283
11,308
357
24
1%
7%
2025
25%
5,756
3,282
9,886
292
24
1%
7%
2030
25%
4,782
2,564
8,714
243
24
1%
7%
2035
25%
3,989
2,015
7,746
203
24
1%
7%
2040
25%
3,451
1,662
7,059
175
24
1%
7%
2045
20%
4,094
1,888
6,603
208
24
1%
7%
2050
15%
5,379
1,727
8,318
273
24
1%
7%
Year
Pessimistic
Overnight Cost
Low
Deployment/
Learning Rate
Base Case
Fixed O&M
($/kW-Yr)
Construction
Schedule
(Months)
Planned
Outage Rate
(%)
Forced Outage
Rate (%)
2008
ThedatafortheBaseCaseandOptimisticScenarioswhichassumethesame(BaseCase)costofelectricitystartingpointin2015,alongwiththeestimated
cumulativeinstalledcapacityintheUnitedStatesarealsopresentedinTableA12.ThefollowingresultsaretakenfromthemidcasesoftheBaseCase
andOptimisticScenarios).
77
TableA12.CapitalandOperatingCoststo2050(SameStartingCostsMiddleCases)
Base Case
Optimistic Scenario
Year
MW Installed (in
U.S.)
Base Case Overnight

Cost ($/kW)
Base Case Fixed

O&M ($/kW-yr)
MW Installed (in
U.S.)
Base Case Overnight

Cost ($/kW)
Base Case Fixed

O&M ($/kW)
2008
2010
2015
9,336
474
11
9,336
474
2020
19
7,030
357
41
6,397
325
2025
37
5,756
292
80
4,902
249
2030
140
4,782
243
304
3,830
195
2035
371
3,989
203
804
3,009
153
2040
670
3,451
175
1,452
2,482
126
2045
881
4,039
205
1,910
2,804
142
2050
735
5,379
273
1,592
2,565
130
78
DataConfidenceLevels
Theuncertaintyassociatedwiththeresourcedataisdiscussedintheresourceestimatesection
above.Thegreatestuncertaintyforresourceestimatesstemsfromthefactthattheavailabledatais
locatedmostlyinverydeepregionsthatwouldnotbesuitableforinstallationofwaveenergy
devices.Asaconsequence,thedatawereextrapolatedtoshallowerregions.Thismajoruncertainty
fortheWestCoastresourcecouldbereducedbyusinghydrodynamicmodelstoestimatethewave
energyresourceatdifferentdepths7.Thetotallackofdataforthemiddle(E2,FigureA1)and
lower(E3)EastCoastoftheUnitedStatesalsoaddsuncertaintytotheresourceandcostestimates.
However,becausethewaveenergyresourceisbelievedtoberelativelysmallintheseregions,the
U.S.resourceassessmentcouldbeimprovedbyinvestigatingtheremainingareas(E1,FigureA2)
toconfirmthatthewaveenergyresourceisnotsignificantontheEastCoast.
ThecostdataprovidedinthisreportwerebasedonBlack&Veatchsexperienceworkingwith
leadingwavetechnologydevelopers,substantiatedbyearlyprototypecostsandsupplychain
quotes.Thesedataarebelievedtorepresentaviableestimateoffuturecosts;however,theindustry
isstillinitsinfancy;andthereforethesecostsareinthemainestimates.Thisuncertaintyis
reflectedintherelativelylargeerrorbands.
Thedeploymentscenarioswerebasedonpotentialinstallationsgloballydeemedrealistic;however,
theyareaforecastandthereforesubjecttosignificantuncertainty.Deploymentwillultimatelybe
drivenbynumerousvariables,includingfinancing,gridconstraints,governmentpolicy,andthe
strengthofthesupplychain.
Summary
Thedeploymentanalysisindicatesthatapproximately12.5GWofwavegenerationcouldbe
installedintheUnitedStatesby2050intheBaseCasewithapproximately27GWby2050underan
Optimistic(highdeployment)scenario,and2.5GWby2050underaPessimistic(lowdeployment)
scenario.Noneofthescenariosreachtheirrespectiveresourceceilings.
Thecostofelectricityanalysisestimatesa17c/kWhcostofelectricityforBaseCaseassumptions
afterapproximately5GWisinstalled(2050BaseCaseinstalledcapacity);afterapproximately13
GWisinstalledthecostofelectricityis27c/kWh.IntheOptimisticScenario(deploymentrate,
learningrate,andcosts)),thecostofelectricityisestimatedtobeaslowas9c/kWhafter
approximately28.5GWisinstalled(2050).InthePessimisticScenario,thecostofelectricityafter
approximately2.5GWisinstalled(2050)isestimatedat42c/kWh.
7Notonlythemeanwavepower(kW/m)mustbeassessed,buttheyearlywaveoccurrencedatatoproduce
Hs/Tescatterdiagramsmustalsobeassessed,asthesearecrucialtoapplytodeviceperformancetoestimate
capacityfactors.
79
AppendixB.EnergyEstimateforTidalStreamTechnologies
ThisappendixdocumentsananalysisofthetidalenergyresourceintheUnitedStatesandprovides
thebasisforinformationpresentedinSection0above.
RESOURCEESTIMATE
RawResourceAssessment
Black&VeatchsourcedtidalstreamenergydatafromexistingEPRItidalstreamenergyliterature
(EPRIn.d.)forWestCoastsites(WashingtonandCalifornia)andnorthernEastCoastsites(Maine
andMassachusetts).TheresultsaresummarizedinTableB1forthecontiguousUnitedStates.
TableB1.RawResourceAssessmentSummary
State
Site
Depth
(m)
MeanAnnualised
PowerDensity
(kW/m2)
Cross
section
Area(m2)
MeanAnnualised
AvailablePower
(MW)
0.93
18.2
0.02
MuskegetChannel
25
0.95
14000
13.3
WoodsHolePassage
1.32
350
0.5
CapeCodCanal
11
2.11
1620
3.4
LubecNarrows
5.5
750
4.1
WesternPassage
55to75
2.2
16300
35.9
OuterCobscookBay
18to36
1.64
14500
23.8
3inNarrow
18to24off
Castine
1.94
400
0.8
PenobscotRiver
18to21
0.73
5000
3.7
KennebecRiverentrance
9to20
0.44
990
0.4
PiscataquaRiver
10to14
1.48
2300
3.4
Massachusetts BlynmanCanal
Maine
BagaduceNarrows
Washington
Washington
42
1.7
62600
106.4
California
California
90
3.2
74100
237.1
ThesiteshighlightedinTableB1wereretainedafterconsideringdepthandresourceconstraints.
Onlysitesofdepthgreaterthanapproximately20mandpowerdensitygreaterthan1kW/mwere
believedtobesuitableforcommercialtidalstreamenergyextraction.Inanycase,thesitesnot
highlightedhaveanegligiblecontributiontothetotal)
BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|AppendixB.EnergyEstimateforTidalStreamTechnologies
80
BasedonanunderstandingthatEPRIfocuseditsresearchonthemostpromisingstates,noother
datathanthatfromEPRIwerereviewedandthereforethepotentialtidalstreamresourceforother
locationswasnotassesseddirectly..AcursoryinvestigationoftheU.S.coastlinerevealedother
potentiallysuitablesitessuchasLongIslandSound,ChesapeakeBay,andRhodeIsland.
AssumptionsaboutthetotalU.S.potentialarediscussedintheresourcelimitssectionbelow.
Toestimatetheamountofenergythatmightbeactuallyproducedfromtidalenergyconverters
(TECs),threesignificantimpactfactor(SIF)8valueswereappliedtoallsitescorrespondingtothe
threedifferentscenariosasfollows:10%SIFwasappliedtothePessimisticScenario,20%SIFtothe
BaseCase,and50%totheOptimisticScenario.Theextractablepowerresultsaresummarizedin
TableB2.
TableB2.ExtractableResourceAssessmentSummary
State
Sites
Extractable Power (MW)

Pessimistic
Scenario
Base Case
Optimistic
Scenario
Muskeget Channel
Western Passage
18
Outer Cobscook Bay
12
Washington
Washington
11
21
53
California
California
24
47
119
42
83
208
Massachusetts
Maine
Total
Thetotalextractableresourcevariesfromapproximately40MWto200MW
(approximately80MWfortheBaseCase).
ResourceLimits
Toaccountforyettobediscoveredsites,acoefficientwasappliedtothethreetotalvaluesobtained
intherawresourceassessmentsectionabove.TheresultsareshowninTableB3.
TableB3.EstimatedResourceLimits
ExtractablePower(MW)
PessimisticScenario
BaseCase
OptimisticScenario
Total
42
83
208
Multiplier
10
GrandTotal
42
167
2082
8In2004and2005,aspartoftheUKMarineEnergyChallenge(MEC),Black&Veatchdefinedasignificant
impactfactor(SIF)toestimatethetidalresourceextractableintheUnitedKingdom,representingthe
percentageofthetotalresourceatasitethatcouldbeextractedwithoutsignificanteconomic,environmental,
orecologicaleffects.
81
Astherearesignificantuncertaintiesassociatedwiththeresourcedataassociatedwiththese
estimates,anditispossiblethatthemeanannualizedpowerdensityandresourceintheCalifornia
andWashingtonsitesmighthavebeenoverestimatedintheEPRIstudies,afactorofonewas
appliedontheresourceinthePessimisticScenario.IntheBaseCaseandOptimisticScenario,this
possibilityofoverstatementofthepotentialofknowsiteswasassumedtobesignificantlysmaller
thanthepotentialofundiscoveredsites;afactorof2wasassumedintheBaseCaseandafactorof
10wasappliedintheOptimisticScenario.Basedontheseassumptions,thetotalestimatedresource
forthecontiguousUnitedStates.isclosetothetotalestimatedUKresource.
Toderiveestimatesofthecostoftidalstreamenergy,thesitesweresplitintothreecategories
basedontheirrawpowerdensity:3%ofthesitesidentifiedearlierpresentapowerdensityofless
than1.5kW/m,57%presentapowerdensitygreaterthan2.5kW/m,andtheremainingpresent
apowerdensitycomprisedbetween1.5kW/mand2.5kW/m.Giventhesmallnumberofsites,
thefactorsappliedtoaccountforundiscoveredsites,andBlack&Veatchsexperience,thesefigures
weremodifiedtobeconsistentwithamorelikelydistribution,asshowninTableB4.
TableB4.ResourceBands
Resource
ProportionofTotalExtractableResource
%Lowbandresource(<1.5kW/m2)
10%
%Mediumbandresource(>1.5kW/m2;
<2.5kW/m2)
50%
%Highbandresource(>2.5kW/m2)
40%
COSTOFENERGYESTIMATE
TidalStreamDeploymentEstimate
GlobalandU.S.Deployments
Globaldeploymentisrequiredtodrivethelearningrateofatechnology.Anassumptionwas
developedforthedeploymentofTECsgloballyto2050.Thisestimatewasmadebyidentifyingthe
plannedshortterm(to2030)futuredeploymentsoftheleadingTECtechnologies.Thegrowthrate
from2020to2030wasthenusedasabasistoestimatethegrowthto2050.Thisgrowthratewas
decreasedannuallyby1%from2030andeachsubsequentyearinordertorepresentanatural
slowingofgrowththatislikelytooccur.Theyear2030waschosenasthestartdateforthe
slowdownasthiswouldrepresentapproximately20yearsofhighgrowth,whichisreasonable
basedonslowdownsexperiencedinotherindustries(e.g.,wind)thathavereflectedresourceand
supplychainconstraints.
Notalldevelopersarelikelytoprovesuccessful,andnaturally,notallplannedinstallationswill
proceed.Assuch,weightingfactorswereappliedtoreflecttheuncertaintyrelatedtoboththe
developerspotentialsuccessandtheirprojectssuccess.
DeploymentofcommercialtidalfarmsintheUnitedStateswasassumedtobeacertainpercentage
ofthegrowthrateofthisglobaldeploymentprojection(TableB4),consistentwiththetotal
resourceceilingsidentifiedabove.
82
TableB4.U.S.ContributiontoGlobalTidalStreamDeployment
Scenario
ProportionofWorldDeployment
Optimistic
30%
BaseCase
20%
Pessimistic
10%
FortheBaseCase,thefirst10MWfarmwasestimatedtobeinstalledafterapproximately50MW
hadbeeninstalledworldwide.ThedifferentdeploymentsscenariosobtainedareshowninFigure
B1.
Worst case
Mid case
Best case
8000
7000
Cumulative installed capacity (MW)
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
Time (years)
2040
2045
2050
2055
FigureB1.Deploymentscenariosfortidalstreampower(continentalwaters)intheUnitedStatesto2050
IntheBaseCaseandPessimisticScenariocases,theresourceceilingswerereachedbetween2030
and2035,whereasintheOptimisticScenariotheresourceceilingwasnotreachedevenin2050.
DeploymentAssumptions
GiventherelativelylowenergydensityofU.S.tidalresourcesites,itwasassumedthat1)
developerswouldaimtomaximiseprojecteconomicsforearlyprojectsandwouldthusdeployonly
atsitesinthehighbandwaveresource,2)thatwhenthisisexhausted,themediumbandresource
siteswouldbeexploited,and3)thatthelowresourcesiteswouldbeusedonlyafterthemedium
83
bandresourcewasexhausted.Itisalsoassumedthattheeffectsofthelearningcurvewillmakethe
mediumandlowresourcesitesmorefeasibleinthefuture.
DeploymentConstraints
Thedeploymentgrowthisonlylimitedbytheresourceconstraints.Itwasassumedthatallother
factorsimpactingdeploymentareaddressed,includingbutnotlimitedto:financialrequirements,
supplychaininfrastructure,sitespecificrequirements,planning,andgridinfrastructure.
Learning
Toformajudgmentastothelikelylearningratesthatcanreasonablybeassumedforthecoming
years,itisappropriatetofirstconsiderempiricallearningratesfromotheremergingrenewable
energyindustries.Thissectionprovidesanoverviewoflearningexperiencefromsimilar
developingindustries,suggestsapplicablelearningratesfortidalstreamtechnology,andconsiders
scenariosforfuturegenerationcosts.FigureA7(AppendixA)showslearningratedataforarange
ofemergingrenewableenergytechnologies.
Costandcumulativecapacityareobservedtoexhibitastraightlinewhenplottedonaloglog
diagram;mathematically,thisstraightlineindicatesthatanincreasebyafixedpercentageof
cumulativeinstalledcapacitygivesaconsistentpercentagereductionincost.Forexample,the
progressratioforphotovoltaicsovertheperiod1985to1995wasapproximately65%(learning
rateapproximately35%)andthatforwindpowerbetween1980and1995was82%(learningrate
18%).
Anydiscussionastothelikelylearningratesthatmightbeexperiencedbythetidalstreamindustry
willbesubjective.Theclosestanalogyforthetidalstreamindustryhasbeenassumedtobethe
windindustry.Aprogressratioaslowaswindenergy(82%)isnotexpectedforthetidalstream
industryforthefollowingreasons:
Inthewindpowerindustry,muchofthelearningwasaresultofdoingthesamethingbigger
orupsizingratherthandoingthesameorsomethingnew.Thisupsizinghasprobablybeen
thesinglemostimportantcontributortocostreductionforwind,contributingapproximately
7%tothe18%learningrate.9Tidalturbines,likewindturbines,willbenefitfromincreasing
rotorsweptareasuntilthemaximumlengthoftheblades,limitedbyloadings,isreached.
However,unlikeforwindpower,theultimatephysicallimitonrotordiametercanalsobe
imposedbycavitationorlimitedwaterdepth,thelatterbeingparticularlyimportantforthe
relativelyshallowsitesof(2535m)thatarelikelytobedevelopedinthenearterm.
Muchofthelearninginwindpoweroccurredatsmallscalewithsmallscaleunits(<100kW),
oftenbyindividualswithverylowbudgets.Tidalstreamontheotherhandrequireslarge
investmentstodeployprototypesandthereforerequiresasmallernumberofmoreriskysteps
todevelop,whichtendstosuggestthatthelearningwillbeslower(andtheprogresswillbe
ratiohigher).
Tidalstreamtechnologydevelopmentisstillinitsinfancy,andlearningratesareoftenhigher
duringthisperiodoftechnologydevelopment,offsettingthepointsin(2).
9See,forexample,http://www.electricitypolicy.org.uk/pubs/wp/eprg0601.pdf,whichcalculatesan11%
learningrateforwindexcludinglearningduetoupsizing.
84
The likely range of learning rates for the tidal energy industry in the United States is believed
to be between 7% and15% (progress ratios of 85%93 %) with a mid range value of 11%.
CostofEnergy
AninhousetechnoeconomicmodelwasusedbyBlack&VeatchtoderiveAcostofelectricitywas
developedforafirst10MWfarminstalledinthethreebandresourceenvironmentdiscussedin
theresourcelimitssectionabove,assumingthisinstallationoccurredafter50MWofcapacityhad
beeninstalledworldwide.Thecostofelectricitypresentedisconsideredanindustryaveragefor
horizontalaxisaxialflowturbines.Thelearningraterangespecifiedabovewasusedtoderivethe
futurecostofelectricity.
GeneralAssumptions
Asdescribedabove,theresourcedatausedinthetechnoeconomicanalysisweresourcedfrom
EPRI(n.d.).ThethreeresourcecasesweremodelledandderivedfromtheMuskegetChannelsite
(approximately1kW/m)andfromthesitesinWashingtonandCalifornia(respectively
approximately2kW/mand3kW/m).Thecurrentvelocitydistributionsfromtherealsiteswere
slightlymodifiedtoexactlymatchthegenericresourcemidbands(1kW/m,2kW/m,and3
kW/m).Thesegeneralassumptionswereusedforthisanalysis:
Depth:40mforallthreegenericsitesconsidered
Projectlife:25years
Discountrate:8%.
Deviceavailability:92.5%intheBaseCase,95%intheOptimisticScenario,and90%inthe
PessimisticScenario.
Thecostofelectricitypresentedisin2009dollarsandfutureinflationhasnotbeenaccountedfor.
TheexchangerateusedtoconvertanycostsfromGBPtoUSDwas:1GBP=1.65USD.
CostResults
TheestimatedcostofelectricityispresentedinTableB5.Learningrateswereonlyappliedtothe
costofelectricityonlyafterthe50MWofcapacitywasinstalledworldwide.
85
TableB5.CostEstimatefora10MWTidalFarmafterInstallationof50MW
Resource
Highband
Resource
Medium
band
Resource
Lowband
Resource
Costs
Costs($million)
Performance(%)
Costof
Electricity
(c/kWh)
Capital
Operating
(annual)
Capacity
Factor
Availability
Pessimistic
69
2.5
22%
90.0%
45.0
BaseCase
59
2.0
26%
92.5%
35.8
Optimistic
54
1.5
30%
95.0%
29.3
Pessimistic
74
2.6
19%
90.0%
55.0
BaseCase
63
2.1
23%
92.5%
44.4
Optimistic
58
1.6
26%
95.0%
35.9
Pessimistic
127
4.3
21%
90.0%
84.3
BaseCase
104
3.5
25%
92.5%
66.9
Optimistic
96
2.6
29%
95.0%
55.0
Black&Veatchstechnoeconomicmodelisruninsuchawaythatthetechnology(ratedpowerof
thedevices)matchestheresource,hencetherangeofcapacityfactorsobtainedinTableB5.The
PessimisticandOptimisticScenariosweregeneratedtoindicatetheuncertaintiesintheanalysis.
ThesupplycurvesobtainedafterapplyingthelearningratestothecostofelectricityfromTableB5
areshowninFiguresB2,B3,andB4.
Best case
Mid case
Worst case
50
45
Cost of electricity (c/kWh)
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Installed capacity (MW)
FigureB2.SupplycurveforaBaseCaseresourceceilingandan11%learningrate
86
FromaBaseCaseofapproximately35c/kWh,thecostofelectricitydroppedtoapproximately
20c/kWhafterapproximately250MWwereinstalled.Atthatpoint,themostenergeticsiteshad
beenexploitedandthemediumbandresourcesitesstarttobeexploited,hencetheoffsetinthe
curve.Aftertheseadditional350MWofmediumbandresourcesiteshadbeenexploited,theBase
Casecostofelectricityliesslightlyabovetheprevious20c/kWhlevel.Thelateexploitationofthe
lowbandresourcebroughtthecostofelectricitybacktotheoriginallevels(approximately
35c/kWhintheBaseCase).
Best case
50
Mid case
Worst case
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
FigureB3.SupplycurveforanOptimisticresourceceilinganda15%learningrate
10c/kWhafterapproximately3,500MWhadbeeninstalled.Atthatpoint,themostenergeticsites
hadbeenexploitedandthemediumbandresourcesitesstarttobeexploited,hencetheoffsetinthe
curve.Aftertheseextra3,500MWofmediumresourcesiteshadbeenexploited,theBaseCasecost
ofelectricitywasbackattheprevious10c/kWhlevel.
87
Best case
Mid case
Worst case
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
FigureB4.SupplycurveforaPessimisticresourceceilinganda7%learningrate
27c/kWhafterapproximately70MWhadbeeninstalled.Atthatpoint,themostenergeticsiteshad
beenexploitedandthemediumbandresourcesitesstarttobeexploited,hencetheoffsetinthe
curve.Aftertheseextra90MWofmediumbandresourcesiteshadbeenexploited,theBaseCase
costofelectricityreachesapproximately30c/kWhlevel.Thelateexploitationofthelowband
resourcetookthecostofelectricitytothehighestlevelsreachedinthisanalysis(approximately
48c/kWhintheBaseCase).
CapitalandOperatingCosts
ThecapitalcostsfortheBaseCase,OptimisticandPessimisticScenariosandtheBaseCaseoperating
coststo2050areshowninTableB6.Asstatedabove,developerswereassumedtoinstallfirstat
sitesinthehighbandresource,thenatsitesinmediumbandresources,andfinallyatsitesinthe
lowbandresource.InTableB6,thecostshighlightedingreen,orange,andredcorrespondtoa
high,medium,andlowresourcebands,respectively.Theconstructionscheduleandoutagerates
relatetotheBaseCase.ThedatainTableB6relatedirectlytothecostsprojectedinFiguresB2
throughB4.TheBaseCaseovernightcostsweretakenfromtheBaseCase(middlecurve)ofFigure
B2;thelowovernightcostsweretakenfromthebestcase(lowercurve)oftheOptimisticScenario
(FigureB3);and,thehighovernightcostsweretakenfromtheworstcase(uppercurve)ofthe
PessimisticScenario(FigureB4).InTableB6,inthebaseandhighovernightcostscenarios,the
lowbandresourcesiteswereexploitedbetween2030and2035andhencenoredcoloredcellsare
visible.
88
TableB6.CapitalandOperatingCoststo2050
Year
BaseCase
Capacity
Factor
BaseCase
Overnight
Cost
($/KW)
Optimistic
OvernightCost
HighDeployment/
BaseCase
LearningRate
($/KW)
Pessimistic
OvernightCost
LowDeployment/
LearningRate
($/KW)
Variable
O&M
($/MWh)
BaseCase
Fixed
O&M
$/KWYr
HeatRate
(Btu/KWh)
Construction
Schedule
(Months)
Planned
Outage
Rate
(%)
Forced
Outage
Rate(%)
2008
2010
2015
26%
5,940
5,445
6,930
198
24
1%
6.5%
2020
26%
4,401
3,293
5,843
147
24
1%
6.5%
2025
26%
3,498
2,524
5,661
117
24
1%
6.5%
2030
23%
3,267
1,962
5,381
112
24
1%
6.5%
2035
1,611
24
1%
6.5%
2040
1,540
24
1%
6.5%
2045
1,434
24
1%
6.5%
2050
1,376
24
1%
6.5%
89
ThedatafortheBaseCaseandOptimisticScenarioarealsopresentedinTableB7withthesame
startingpoints,alongwiththeestimatedcumulativeinstalledcapacityintheUnitedStates.The
followingresultsweretakenfromthemiddlecasesoftheBaseCaseandOptimisticScenario
(FiguresB2andB3).
TableB7.CapitalExpenditureCostandOperatingExpenditureCoststo2050
(SameStartingCostsMiddleCases)
BaseCase
Year
MW
Installed(in
U.S.)
BaseCase
Overnight
Cost($/kW)
BaseCase
FixedO&M
($/kWYr)
2008
2010
2015
10
2020
OptimisticScenario
Year
MW
Installed(in
U.S.)
BaseCase
Overnight
Cost($/kW)
BaseCase
FixedO&M
($/kWYr)
2008
2010
5,940
198
2015
15
5,940
198
61
4,401
147
2020
131
3,591
120
2025
238
3,498
117
2025
407
2,753
92
2030
493
3,267
112
2030
1,190
2,140
71
2035
2035
2,756
1,758
59
2040
2040
4,297
1,672
57
2045
2045
5,813
1,557
53
2050
2050
6,950
1,494
51
DataConfidenceLevels
Theuncertaintyassociatedwiththeresourcedataisdiscussedintheresourceestimatesection
above.TheU.S.resourceassessmentcouldbeimprovedbyinvestigatingtheremainingcoastline
thathasnotyetbeeninvestigatedandbyusinghydrodynamicmodelingonthemostpromising
sites.
ThecostdataprovidedinthisreportwerebasedonBlack&Veatchsexperienceworkingwith
leadingtidalstreamtechnologydevelopers,substantiatedbyearlyprototypecostsandsupply
chainquotes.Thesedataarebelievedtorepresentaviablecurrentestimateoffuturecosts;
however,theindustryisstillinitsinfancyandthereforethesecostsareinthemainestimates..This
uncertaintyisreflectedintherelativelylargeerrorbands.
Thedeploymentscenarioswerebasedonpotentialinstallationsgloballydeemedrealistic;however,
theyareaforecastandthereforearesubjecttosignificantuncertainty.Deploymentwillultimately
bedrivenbynumerousvariablesincludingfinancing,gridconstraints,governmentpolicy,andthe
strengthofthesupplychain.
90
Summary
Theanalysisestimatesa20c/kWhcostofelectricityforBaseCaseassumptionsafter250MWis
installed;after720MWisinstalled(BaseCasetotalresourceceiling),thecostofelectricityis
estimatedtobe34c/kWhduetothelateexploitationofthelowbandresource.IntheOptimistic
Scenario(deploymentrate,learningrate,andcosts),thecostofelectricityisestimatedtobeaslow
as10c/kWhafter7GWisinstalled(2050resourcelevel).InthePessimisticScenario,thecostof
electricityafter180MWisinstalled(PessimisticScenariototalresourceceiling)isestimatedat
48c/kWh.
ThecostoftidalstreamenergyextractionintheUnitedStatescannotbefurtherinvestigateduntila
fullnationalresourceassessmentiscompleted.
91
AppendixC.BreakdownofCostforSolarEnergyTechnologies
Thisappendixdocumentscapitalcostbreakdownsforbothphotovoltaicandconcentratingsolar
powertechnologies,andprovidesthebasisforinformationpresentedinSections0above.
SOLARPHOTOVOLTAICS
FigureC1andTableC1showcapitalcost($/W)projectionforanumberofdifferentresidential,
commercialandutilityoptionsrangingfrom40KW(directcurrent(DC))to100MW(DC),
assumingnoowner'scostsandnoextramargin.TableC2breaksthesecostsdownbycomponent.
$6.00
$5.00
Non-tracking utility, 1 MW (DC)

$4.00

1-axis tracking utility, 1 MW (DC)
$3.00

Commercial, 100 kW (DC)
Residential 4 kW (DC)
$2.00

$1.00
1
FigureC1.Capitalcostprojectionforsolarphotovoltaictechnology
BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|AppendixC.BreakdownofCostforSolarEnergyTechnologies
92
TableC1.SolarPhotovoltaicsCapitalCosts($/W)byTypeandSizeofInstallation
UtilityPV
NonTracking
UtilityPV
1AxisTracking
Commercial
PV
Residential
PV
1MW
(DC)
10MW
(DC)
100MW
(DC)
1MW
(DC)
10MW
(DC)
100MW
(DC)
100kW
(DC)
4kW
(DC)
2010
$3.19
$2.59
$2.41
$3.50
$2.83
$2.69
$4.39
$5.72
2015
$2.91
$2.34
$2.16
$3.14
$2.55
$2.40
$3.52
$4.17
2020
$2.76
$2.21
$2.03
$2.84
$2.44
$2.30
$3.06
$3.60
2025
$2.64
$2.09
$1.92
$2.69
$2.34
$2.20
$2.83
$3.33
2030
$2.53
$2.00
$1.83
$2.60
$2.26
$2.12
$2.71
$3.17
2035
$2.43
$1.91
$1.75
$2.52
$2.18
$2.04
$2.62
$3.07
2040
$2.35
$1.84
$1.67
$2.44
$2.11
$1.98
$2.54
$2.98
2045
$2.28
$1.77
$1.61
$2.37
$2.05
$1.91
$2.47
$2.90
2050
$2.22
$1.72
$1.56
$2.31
$1.99
$1.86
$2.40
$2.82
93
TableC2.SolarPhotovoltaicsCapitalCost($/W)BreakdownbyTypeandSizeofInstallationNoOwner'sCosts,NoExtraMargin
NonTrackingUtility
1AxistrackingUtility
Commercial
Residential
Year
1MW(DC)
10MW(DC)
100MW(DC)
1MW(DC)
10MW(DC)
100MW(DC)
100kW(DC)
4kW
(DC)
2010
$3.19
$2.59
$2.41
$3.50
$2.83
$2.69
$4.39
$5.72
2015
$2.91
$2.34
$2.16
$3.14
$2.55
$2.40
$3.52
$4.17
2020
$2.76
$2.21
$2.03
$2.84
$2.44
$2.30
$3.06
$3.60
2025
$2.64
$2.09
$1.92
$2.69
$2.34
$2.20
$2.83
$3.33
2030
$2.53
$2.00
$1.83
$2.60
$2.26
$2.12
$2.71
$3.17
2035
$2.43
$1.91
$1.75
$2.52
$2.18
$2.04
$2.62
$3.07
2040
$2.35
$1.84
$1.67
$2.44
$2.11
$1.98
$2.54
$2.98
2045
$2.28
$1.77
$1.61
$2.37
$2.05
$1.91
$2.47
$2.90
2050
$2.22
$1.72
$1.56
$2.31
$1.99
$1.86
$2.40
$2.82
2010
OvernightEPC
$3.19
$2.59
$2.41
$3.50
$2.83
$2.69
$4.39
$5.72
Modules
$1.68
$1.47
$1.42
$2.20
$1.80
$1.75
$2.33
$3.00
Balanceofsystem(BOS)
$0.73
$0.51
$0.49
$0.56
$0.49
$0.49
$0.66
$0.76
Labor,engineering,andconstruction
$0.67
$0.51
$0.40
$0.65
$0.47
$0.38
$1.27
$1.77
Shipping
$0.10
$0.10
$0.10
$0.08
$0.06
$0.06
$0.13
$0.19
Moduleefficiency
9.5%
9.5%
9.5%
15.0%
15.0%
15.0%
15.0%
15.0%
Groundcoverageratio
43.0%
43.0%
43.0%
30.0%
30.0%
30.0%
50.0%
100.0%
94
NonTrackingUtility
Year
1MW(DC)
10MW(DC)
100MW(DC)
1MW(DC)
Commercial
10MW(DC)
2015
100MW(DC)
100kW(DC)
4kW
(DC)
OvernightEPC
$2.91
$2.34
$2.16
$3.14
$2.55
$2.40
$3.52
$4.17
Modules
$1.45
$1.27
$1.23
$1.88
$1.56
$1.51
$2.00
$2.19
BOS
$0.75
$0.51
$0.50
$0.57
$0.51
$0.50
$0.63
$0.73
$0.62
$0.46
$0.34
$0.60
$0.42
$0.33
$0.76
$1.07
Shipping
$0.09
$0.09
$0.09
$0.08
$0.06
$0.06
$0.12
$0.18
Moduleefficiency
11.0%
11.0%
11.0%
16.0%
16.0%
16.0%
16.0%
16.0%
GroundCoverageRatio
43.0%
43.0%
43.0%
30.0%
30.0%
30.0%
50.0%
100.0%
2020
OvernightEPC
$2.76
$2.21
$2.03
$2.84
$2.44
$2.30
$3.06
$3.60
Modules
$1.33
$1.17
$1.13
$1.60
$1.47
$1.42
$1.65
$1.76
BOS
$0.74
$0.50
$0.49
$0.57
$0.50
$0.50
$0.58
$0.68
$0.61
$0.45
$0.33
$0.59
$0.41
$0.32
$0.72
$0.99
Shipping
$0.08
$0.08
$0.08
$0.08
$0.06
$0.06
$0.12
$0.17
Moduleefficiency
12.0%
12.0%
12.0%
17.0%
17.0%
17.0%
17.0%
17.0%
GroundCoverageRatio
43.0%
43.0%
43.0%
30.0%
30.0%
30.0%
50.0%
100.0%
2025
Residential
OvernightEPC
$2.64
$2.09
$1.92
$2.69
$2.34
$2.20
$2.83
$3.33
Modules
$1.23
$1.08
$1.04
$1.47
$1.39
$1.34
$1.50
$1.61
95
NonTrackingUtility
Commercial
1MW(DC)
10MW(DC)
100MW(DC)
1MW(DC)
10MW(DC)
100MW(DC)
100kW(DC)
4kW
(DC)
BOS
$0.73
$0.50
$0.48
$0.56
$0.50
$0.49
$0.57
$0.67
$0.60
$0.44
$0.32
$0.58
$0.40
$0.31
$0.65
$0.88
Shipping
$0.08
$0.08
$0.08
$0.07
$0.06
$0.06
$0.11
$0.16
Moduleefficiency
13.0%
13.0%
13.0%
18.0%
18.0%
18.0%
18.0%
18.0%
GroundCoverageRatio
43.0%
43.0%
43.0%
30.0%
30.0%
30.0%
50.0%
100.0%
Year
2030
OvernightEPC
$2.53
$2.00
$1.83
$2.60
$2.26
$2.12
$2.71
$3.17
Modules
$1.14
$1.00
$0.96
$1.39
$1.32
$1.27
$1.42
$1.53
BOS
$0.73
$0.49
$0.48
$0.56
$0.49
$0.49
$0.57
$0.67
$0.59
$0.43
$0.32
$0.58
$0.40
$0.31
$0.62
$0.82
Shipping
$0.07
$0.07
$0.07
$0.07
$0.05
$0.05
$0.10
$0.16
Moduleefficiency
14.0%
14.0%
14.0%
19.0%
19.0%
19.0%
19.0%
19.0%
GroundCoverageRatio
43.0%
43.0%
43.0%
30.0%
30.0%
30.0%
50.0%
100.0%
2035
Residential
OvernightEPC
$2.43
$1.91
$1.75
$2.52
$2.18
$2.04
$2.62
$3.07
Modules
$1.07
$0.93
$0.90
$1.33
$1.25
$1.21
$1.35
$1.45
BOS
$0.72
$0.49
$0.47
$0.55
$0.49
$0.48
$0.56
$0.66
$0.58
$0.43
$0.31
$0.57
$0.39
$0.30
$0.61
$0.81
Shipping
$0.07
$0.07
$0.07
$0.07
$0.05
$0.05
$0.10
$0.15
96
NonTrackingUtility
Commercial
Residential
1MW(DC)
10MW(DC)
100MW(DC)
1MW(DC)
10MW(DC)
100MW(DC)
100kW(DC)
4kW
(DC)
Moduleefficiency
15.0%
15.0%
15.0%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
GroundCoverageRatio
43.0%
43.0%
43.0%
30.0%
30.0%
30.0%
50.0%
100.0%
Year
2040
OvernightEPC
$2.35
$1.84
$1.67
$2.44
$2.11
$1.98
$2.54
$2.98
Modules
$1.00
$0.88
$0.84
$1.26
$1.19
$1.15
$1.29
$1.38
BOS
$0.72
$0.48
$0.47
$0.55
$0.48
$0.48
$0.56
$0.66
$0.57
$0.42
$0.30
$0.57
$0.39
$0.30
$0.60
$0.79
Shipping
$0.06
$0.06
$0.06
$0.06
$0.05
$0.05
$0.10
$0.14
Moduleefficiency
16.0%
16.0%
16.0%
21.0%
21.0%
21.0%
21.0%
21.0%
GroundCoverageRatio
43.0%
43.0%
43.0%
30.0%
30.0%
30.0%
50.0%
100.0%
2045
OvernightEPC
$2.28
$1.77
$1.61
$2.37
$2.05
$1.91
$2.47
$2.90
Modules
$0.94
$0.82
$0.79
$1.20
$1.14
$1.10
$1.23
$1.32
BOS
$0.71
$0.48
$0.46
$0.55
$0.48
$0.47
$0.55
$0.66
$0.57
$0.41
$0.30
$0.56
$0.38
$0.29
$0.60
$0.79
Shipping
$0.06
$0.06
$0.06
$0.06
$0.05
$0.05
$0.09
$0.14
Moduleefficiency
17.0%
17.0%
17.0%
22.0%
22.0%
22.0%
22.0%
22.0%
GroundCoverageRatio
43.0%
43.0%
43.0%
30.0%
30.0%
30.0%
50.0%
100.0%
97
NonTrackingUtility
Year
1MW(DC)
10MW(DC)
100MW(DC)
1MW(DC)
Commercial
10MW(DC)
2050
Residential
100MW(DC)
100kW(DC)
4kW
(DC)
OvernightEPC
$2.22
$1.72
$1.56
$2.31
$1.99
$1.86
$2.40
$2.82
Modules
$0.89
$0.78
$0.75
$1.15
$1.09
$1.05
$1.17
$1.26
BOS
$0.71
$0.47
$0.46
$0.54
$0.48
$0.47
$0.55
$0.65
$0.56
$0.41
$0.29
$0.56
$0.38
$0.29
$0.59
$0.78
Shipping
$0.06
$0.06
$0.06
$0.06
$0.04
$0.04
$0.09
$0.13
Moduleefficiency
18.0%
18.0%
18.0%
23.0%
23.0%
23.0%
23.0%
23.0%
GroundCoverageRatio
43.0%
43.0%
43.0%
30.0%
30.0%
30.0%
50.0%
100.0%
98
TECHNOLOGIES
CONCENTRATINGSOLARPOWER
TablesC3andC6showperformanceandcostfortroughsystemsin2010and2050.TablesC4and
C5showperformanceandcostfortowersystemsin2010and2050.
TableC3.SolarTroughPerformancefor2010and2050
2010
2050
Parameter
Without
Storage
With
Storage
Without
Storage
With
Storage
Plantsize(MW)
200
200
200
200
Designdirectnormalirradiance(DNI)W/m2
950
950
950
950
Solarmultiple
1.4
1.4
Storage(hours)
6
a
Solartothermalefficiency
0.6
0.6
0.65
0.65
Thermaltoelectricefficiency
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.365b
Designthermaloutput(MWthhours)
541
541
541
548
Requiredaperture(m )
1327643
1896633
1225517
1774721
Thermalstorage(MWthhours)
3243
3288
Improvedreflectivity,receiver
Parallelstoragepenalty
99
TECHNOLOGIES
TableC4.SolarTroughCapitalCostBreakdownfor2010and2050
2020
2050
CostAssumptions
Without
Storage
With
Storage
Without
Storage
With
Storage
Solarfield($/m2)
300
300
195a
195
Heattransferfluid(HTF)system($/kWe)
500
500
375
375
Powerblock($/kWe)
975
975
900
900
Storage($/kWhth)
40
30
Contingency
10
10
10
10c
Solarfieldandsite($)
398,293,030
568,990,043
238,975,818
346,070,656
HTFandpowerblock($)
295,000,000
295,000,000
255,000,000
255,000,000
Storage($)
129,729,730
97,479,452
Totalwithcontingency($)
762,622,333
1,093,091,750
543,373,400
768,406,119
DirectCosts($/kW)
3,813
5,465
2,717
3,842
10
10
10
Engineering,procurement,
construction(%)
10
Ownerscosts(%)
20
20
20
20
Indirectcosts(%)
30
31
30
30
TotalCost($/kW)
4,957
7,135
3,532
4,995
Reducedmaterial,installation
Lowerpressuredrop,advancedHTF
c
slightlyhighertemperature
b
TableC5.SolarTowerPlantParameters2010and2050
PlantParameters
2010
Storage(hours)
40
41
Collectorfieldaperture(m )
1147684
1081000a
Receiversurfacearea(m2)
847
677.6b
Plantcapacity(MWe)
100
100
Thermalstorage(hours)
Thermaltoelectricefficiency
0.425
0.425
Towerheight(m)
228
228
Designthermaloutput(MWth)
235
235
Thermalstorage(kWhth)
1411765
1411765
Capacityfactor(5)
2
2050
Betterreflectivity,lessspillage;Betteravailability,lessreceiverheatloss
Higherfluxlevels;bettercoatings
100
TECHNOLOGIES
TableC6.SolarTowerCapitalCostBreakdownfor2010and2050
Assumption
2010
2050
Capacityfactor
40%
Heliostatfield
235$/m2aperture
Receiver
80000$/m2receiver
$67,760,000 50000$/m2receiver
$33,880,000
Tower
901500
0.01298$/m2aperture
$17,387,382 901500
0.01298$/m2aperture
$17,387,382
Powerblock
950$/kWe
$95,000,000 875$/kWe
$87,500,000
Thermalstorage
30$/kWhth
$42,352,941 18$/kWhth
$25,764,706
Totaldirectcosts
$492,206,063
$332,087,088
Totalwith
contingency
10%
$541,426,669 10%
$365,295,797
Indirectcosts
EPC
10%
10%
Owners
20%
20%
30%
$704,017,098 30%
TotalDirectand
IndirectCosts
TotalCost($/kW)
41%
$269,705,740
$7,040
235$/m2aperture
$167,555,000
$474,884,535
$4,749
101
TECHNOLOGIES
AppendixD.TechnicalDescriptionofPumpedStorage
HydroelectricPower
Thisappendixpresentsagenerictechnicaldescriptionandcharacteristicsofarepresentative500
MWpumpedstoragehydroelectric(PSH)plantthathasasitsprimarypurposeenergystorage.
DESIGNBASIS
Pumpedstorageisanenergystoragetechnologythatinvolvesmovingwaterbetweenanupperand
lowerreservoir.Thesystemischargedbypumpingwaterfromthelowerreservoirtoareservoirata
higherelevation.Todischargethesystemsstoredenergywaterisallowedtoflowfromtheupper
reservoirthroughaturbinetothelowerreservoir.Theoverallefficiencyofthesystemisdetermined
bytheefficiencyoftheequipment(pump/turbine,motorgenerator)aswellasthehydraulicand
hydrologiclosses(frictionandevaporation)whichareincurred.Overallcycleefficienciesof75%
80%aretypical.
Mostoften,apumpedstoragesystemdesignutilizesauniquereversibleFrancispump/turbineunit
thatisconnectedtoamotor/generator.Equipmentcoststypicallyaccountfor30%40%ofthe
capitalcostwithcivilworksmakingupthevastmajorityoftheremaining60%70%.
Theconfigurationofthepumpedstorageplantusedinthisreportisdescribedasfollows:
1. The500MWpumpedstorageprojectwilloperateonadailycyclewithenergystoredona12
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
hourcycleandgeneratedona10hourcycle.Approximately322cyclesperyearwouldbe
assumed.
Forpurposesofthisevaluation,theenergystoragerequirementisequalto500MWfor10hours
or5,000megawatthoursofdailypeakingenergy.
Thelowerreservoirisassumedtoexistandasiteforanewupperreservoircanbefoundthathas
theappropriatecharacteristics.
Forevaluationpurposes,thepumpingandgeneratingheadisbasedontheaveragedifferencein
theupperandlowerreservoirlevels.Therealityisthattheheadsinbothpumpingand
generatingmodeswillconstantlyfluctuateduringtheirrespectivecycles.Thisfluctuationmust
bedesigned
Thisevaluationisbasedonanaveragenetoperatinghead(H)forbothpumpingandgenerating
cyclesof800feet.
Thedistancefromtheoutletoftheupperreservoirtotheoutletofthelowerreservoirisassumed
tobe2,000feetresultinginanL/Hratioof2.5,whichisexcellentbyindustrystandards.
Thecalculatedgeneratingflowassuminga0.82generatingefficiencyis9,000cubicfeetper
second(cfs).
Theactivewaterstorageinthereservoirsrequiredforthisflowoverthe10hoursgenerating
cycleis7,438acrefeet.Adding10percentforinactivestorageyieldsatotalreservoirstorage
requirementofabout8,200acrefeet.
Thelowerreservoirisassumedtobeanexistingreservoirthatcanaffordafluctuationof7,438
acrefeetwithoutenvironmentalorotherfluctuationissues.
BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|AppendixD.TechnicalDescriptionofPumpedStorage
HydroelectricPower
102
TECHNOLOGIES
STUDYBASISDESCRIPTIONANDCOST
Basedontheaboveprojectsizingcriteria,thefollowingreconnaissancelevelprojectdesignand
associatedcapitalcostwasestimated:
1. Assuminganupperreservoirdepthof100feetyieldsasurfaceareaof82acres.Usingacircular
reservoirconstructionresultsina2,132footdiameterandacircumferenceof6,700ft.The
assumeddamwouldbeagravitytypeconstructedusingrollercompactedconcrete(RCC).Other
typessuchasconcretefacedrockfill,concretearch,orembankmentarepossibledependingon
siteconditions.ThetotalvolumeofRCCisestimatedat670,000cubicyards(cy).Atacostof
$200/cy,RCCwouldcostroughly$134million.Thefollowingareotherupperreservoirestimated
costs:
A. Reservoirclearing:$10million
B. Emergencyspillways:$5million
C. Excavationandgroutcurtain:$20million
D. Inlet/Outletstructureandaccessories:$20million
Thetotalreservoircostisroughly$189million.
2. Thetunnelsfromthelowerreservoirtopowerhouseandfrompowerhousetoupperreservoir
wouldinclude20footdiameteraccesstunnel(assumedtobe1,000ftlong)and2x20foot
diameterpenstockanddrafttubetunnels(totalof4,200ftlong).Othertunnelsandshaftsfor
ventilationandpowerlineswouldberequired.About$60millionisassumedfortunneling.
3. Thepowerhousewouldbeconstructedundergroundandbeapproximately100feetand200feet
fora2x250MWpumpturbineunit.Theexcavationofthepowerhousewouldcostapproximately
$35million.
4. Atanestimatecostof$750perinstalledkW,thepowerhousestructures,equipment,andbalance
ofplantwouldcostabout$375million.
5. Thetotalestimateconstructioncostistherefore:
A. Upperreservoir:$189million
B. Tunnels:$60million
C. Powerhouseexcavation:$35million
D. Powerhouse:$375million
Total:$659million
6. Thefollowingadditionaltechnicalassumptionshavebeenmadeforthisoption:
A. Thesitefeaturesgeologicalformationsidealforupperreservoirandunderground
development.
B. Arelativelyflat82acresiteisrequiredfortheupperreservoir.Atotalsitearea,including
undergroundrightsisabout200acres.
C. Thesiteisonlandwherenoexistinghumanmadestructuresexist.
D. Nooffsiteroadsareincluded.
HydroelectricPower
103
TECHNOLOGIES
E. Thesitehassufficientareaavailabletoaccommodateconstructionactivitiesincluding,but
notlimitedto,offices,laydown,andstaging.
F. Constructionpowerandwaterisassumedtobeavailableatthesiteboundary.
G. Noconsiderationwasgiventopossiblefutureexpansionofthefacilities.
H. A345kVgeneratorstepup(GSU)transformerisincluded.Transmissionlinesand
substations/switchyardsarenotincludedinthebaseplantcostestimate.Anauxiliary
transformerisincluded.
I.
Provisionforprotectionorrelocationofexistingfishandwildlifehabitat,wetlands,
threatenedandendangeredspeciesorhistorical,cultural,andarchaeologicalartifactsisnot
included.
J.
Theupperreservoirwillbecapableofovertoppingduetoaccidentaloverpumping.Aservice
spillwayequaltothepumpingflowisassumed.
OTHERCOSTSANDCONTINGENCY
Thefollowingarepotentialadditionalcosts:
1. Plantlocationisassumedtobewherelandisnotofsignificantsocietalvalue,withacostof
2.
3.
4.
5.
$5,000peracreor$1milliontotal.
Transmissionandsubstationareassumedtobeadjacenttothesiteandisamajorsitingfactor.
Projectmanagementanddesignengineeringat5%ofconstructioncostor$33million.
Constructionmanagementandstartupsupportat5%ofconstructioncostof$33million.
Acontingencyof$109million(15%)isassumed.
Total:$176million.
BasedonthetotalConstructionCostof$659millionandtheaboveOtherCostsandContingencyof
$176million,thetotalcapitalcostisestimatedtobe$835million,orroughly1,670$/kW.A20%
additionforownerscostsofthetypedescribedinTextBox1insection1.2aboveyieldsacostof
2,004$/kWthatiscomparabletotheothercostestimatesprovided.
OPERATINGANDMAINTENANCECOST
Operatingandmaintenancecostsaredependentonthemodeofoperation.Forhydroelectricplants,
thefollowingarethetypicalannualoperatingandmaintenancecosts:
1. RoutineMaintenanceandspareparts:$500,000
2. Personnelwages(20total@$65,000):$1.3million
A. Oneplantmanager
B. Twoadministrativestaff
C. Eightoperators
D. Twomaintenancesupervisors
E. Sevenmaintenanceandcraft
3. Personnelburden@40%ofwages:$520,000
HydroelectricPower
104
TECHNOLOGIES
4. Staffsupplies@5%ofwages:$65,000
Total:$2.385millionperyear
Hydroelectricplantstypicallyoperatefor510yearswithoutsignificantmajorrepairoroverhaul
costs.Forevaluationpurposes,amajoroverhaulreserveavailableatyear10of$100perinstalled
kilowattor$50millionisassumed.Whenspreadovera10yearperiod,theannualmajoroverhaul
costis$5millionperyear.
CONSTRUCTIONSCHEDULE
APSHprojectisamajorcivilworksinfrastructureprojectthatwouldtakemanyyearstodevelopbut
wouldprovideaprojectlifethatexceedsthatoftheotherrenewabletechnologiesevaluatedinthis
report.Projectlifecanbeexpectedtobeatleast50years.Manyhydropowerprojectsconstructedin
theearly1900sarestillinservicetoday.Thedevelopmentofanimpoundprojectwouldhavethe
followingestimatedmilestoneschedule:
1. Permitting,design,andlandacquisition:24years
2. Equipmentmanufacturing:2years
3. Construction:3years
Total:79years
OPERATINGFACTORS
Ahydroelectricplantcanbedesignedtoprovidethefollowingoperatingfactors:
1. NormalstartupandshutdowntimeforaPSHprojectislessthan15minutesdependingonthe
2.
3.
4.
5.
statusofthewaterpassages.Iftheunitiswateredtothewicketgatesandplantauxiliariesare
running,unitstartuptimeisonlyafunctionofwicketgateopeningtobringtheunituptospeed
andsynchronize.
APSHunitcanbetrippedoffinstantaneouslyaslongastheturbineisdesignedtooperateat
runawayuntilthewicketgatesareclosed.Thiswouldbeanemergencycase.
APSHplantcanloadfollowandprovidesystemfrequency/voltagecontrol.
Pumpedstoragehydroelectricplantscanblackstartassumingasmallemergencygeneratoris
providedforunitauxiliariesandfieldflashing.
AmajorfeatureofPSHisitsabilitytooperateasspinningornonspinningreserve,changefrom
pumpingtogeneratingwithin20minutes,synchronouscondensing,anditcanbedesignedto
meetgridsystemoperatorcertificationofthesebenefits.
HydroelectricPower
105

Nrel Cost Report PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nrel Cost Report PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COSTREPORT

765 $/KW, 12.6%

300 $/KW, 4.9%

Total: $6100/kW+ 30%

2900 $/KW, 47.6%

Total: $651/kW+ 25%

Total: $1,230/kW + 25%

$719 /kW, 58%

Total: $2,890/kW +35%

Total: $3,830/kW -25% + 50%

Total: $3,500/kW +35%

Total: $9,240/kW -30% + 45%

Total: $5,880/kW -10% + 20%

Total: $2,830/kW +25%

Total: $7,060/kW -35% +15%

Total: $7,040/kW -35% +15%

Total: $1,980/kW +25%

Total: $3,310/kW +35%

Total: $4,200/kW +35%

Total: $900/kW -30% + 75%

Total: $2,230/kW +50%

Total: $3,990/kW +75%

Wave Flux (kW/m)

Average incident wave power density (kW/m)

Medium (20-25 kW/m)

High (>25 kW/m)

Installed Capacity (MW)

Low (15-20 kW/m)

Medium (20-25 kW/m)

High (>25 kW/m)

Installed Capacity (MW)

U.S. deployment high

U.S. deployment low

Base resource limit

Base Case Overnight

Base Case Fixed

Base Case Overnight

Base Case Fixed

Extractable Power (MW)

Outer Cobscook Bay

Cumulative installed capacity (MW)

Cost of electricity (c/kWh)

Installed capacity (MW)

Cost of electricity (c/kWh)

Installed capacity (MW)

Cost of electricity (c/kWh)

Non-tracking utility, 1 MW (DC)

Non-tracking utility, 100 MW (DC)

1-axis tracking utility, 10 MW (DC)

1-axis tracking utility, 100 MW (DC)

You might also like