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 i

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 3

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
9
NATIONALRENEWABLEENERGYLABORATORY(NREL)|COSTANDPERFORMANCEDATAFORPOWERGENERATIONTECHNOLOGIES
Table1.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaNuclearPowerPlant(1125MW)
Construction SpinRamp QuickStart

a b c
CapitalCost FixedO&M HeatRate Schedule POR FOR Min.Load Rate RampRate
Year ($/kW) ($/kWyr) (Btu/kWh) (Months) (%) (%) (%) (%/min) (%/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
a
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%
2900 $/KW, 47.6%
Total: $6100/kW+ 30%
Figure1.Capitalcostbreakdownforanuclearpowerplant
ThetotalplantlaborandinstallationisincludedintheYard/Cooling/Installationcostelement.The
powerplantisassumedtobeasingleunitwithnoprovisionforfutureadditions.Switchyard,
interconnectionandinterestduringconstructionarenotincluded.OwnerscostsaredefinedinText
Box1above.
2.2COMBUSTIONTURBINETECHNOLOGY
Naturalgascombustionturbinecostswerebasedonatypicalindustrialheavydutygasturbine,GE
Frame7FAorequivalentofthe211netMWsize.Theestimatedidnotincludethecostofselective
catalyticreduction(SCR)/carbonmonoxide(CO)reactorforNOxandCOreduction.Thecombustion
turbinegeneratorwasassumedtoincludeadry,lowNOxcombustionsystemcapableofrealizing9
partspermillionbyvolume,dry(ppmvd)@15%O2atfullload.A2010capitalcostwasestimatedat
651$/kW+25%.Costuncertaintyforthistechnologyislow.Althoughitispossiblethatadvanced
configurationswillbedevelopedoverthenext40years,theeconomicincentivefornewdevelopment
hasnotbeenapparentinthelastfewdecades(Shelley2008).Costestimatesdidnotincludeanycost
orperformanceimprovementsthrough2050.Table2presentscostandperformancedataforgas
turbinetechnology.Table3presentsemissionratesforthetechnology.Figure2showsthe2010
capitalcostbreakdownbycomponentforanaturalgascombustionturbineplant.
11
Table2.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaGasTurbinePowerPlant(211MW)

CapitalCost VariableO&M FixedO&M HeatRate Schedule POR FOR Min.Load Rate RampRate
Year ($/kW) ($/MWh) ($/kWyr) (Btu/kWh) (Months) (%) (%) (%) (%/min) (%/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 NOx PM10 CO2

(Lb/mmbtu) (Lb/mmbtu) (Lb/mmbtu) (Lb/mmbtu)
0.0002 0.033 0.006 117

TECHNOLOGIES
$110/kW , 17% $258/kW , 40%
$20/kW , 3% Gas turbine
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)

CapitalCost VariableO&M FixedO&M HeatRate Schedule POR FOR Min.Load Rate RampRate
Year ($/kW) ($/MWh) ($/kWYr) (Btu/kWh) (Months) (%) (%) (%) (%/min) (%/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 NOX PM10 CO2

(Lb/mmbtu) (LB/mmbtu) (Lb/mmbtu) (Lb/mmbtu)
0.0002 0.0073 0.0058 117

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
Const. SpinRamp QuickStart

CapitalCost VariableO&M FixedO&M HeatRate Schedule POR FOR MinLoad Rate RampRate
Year ($/kW) ($/MWh) ($/kWyr) (Btu/kWh) (Months) (%) (%) (% (%/min) (%/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 NOx PM10 CO2

(Lb/mmbtu) (LB/mmbtu) (Lb/mmbtu) (Lb/mmbtu)
0.0002 0.0073 0.0058 18

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$/kW+35%.Costcertaintyforthistechnologyis
relativelyhigh.Overthe40yearanalysisperiod,a4%improvementinheatratewas
assumed.Table8presentscostandperformancedataforpulverizedcoalfiredtechnology.
Table9presentsemissionsratesforthetechnology.The2010capitalcostbreakdownfor
thepulverizedcoalfiredpowerplantisshowninFigure4.
17
Table8.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaPulverizedCoalFiredPowerPlant(606MW)
Construction SpinRamp
CapitalCost VariableO&M FixedO&M HeatRate Schedule POR FOR MinLoad Rate
Year ($/kW) ($/MWh) ($/kWYr) (Btu/kWh) (Months) (%) (%) (%) (%/min)
2008 3040
2010 2890 3.71 23.0 9,370 55 10 6 40 2.00
2015 2890 3.71 23.0 9,370 55 10 6 40 2.00
2020 2890 3.71 23.0 9,370 55 10 6 40 2.00
2025 2890 3.71 23.0 9,000 55 10 6 40 2.00
2030 2890 3.71 23.0 9,000 55 10 6 40 2.00
2035 2890 3.71 23.0 9,000 55 10 6 40 2.00
2040 2890 3.71 23.0 9,000 55 10 6 40 2.00
2045 2890 3.71 23.0 9,000 55 10 6 40 2.00

2050 2890 3.71 23.0 9,000 55 10 6 40 2.00
Table9.EmissionRatesforaPulverizedCoalFiredPowerPlant
SO2 NOx PM10 Hg CO2

(Lb/mmbtu) (Lb/mmbtu) (Lb/mmbtu) (%removal) (Lb/mmbtu)
0.055 0.05 0.011 90 215

$150/kW , 5%
$490/kW , 17%
$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$/kW45%and+35%.Costuncertaintyishigherthanforthepulverized
coalfiredplantonlyduetotheuncertaintyassociatedwiththeCCS.
Weassumeda4%improvementinheatratetoaccountfortechnologypotentialalready
existingbutnotfrequentlyusedintheUnitedStates.Thecostofperpetualstorage
insurancewasnotestimatedorincluded.Table8presentscostandperformancedatafor
pulverizedcoalfiredwithcarboncaptureandsequestrationtechnology.
Table911presentsemissionsratesforthetechnology.
19
Table10.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaPulverizedCoalFiredPowerPlant(455MW)withCarbonCaptureandSequestration
Construction SpinRamp
CapitalCost VariableO&M FixedO&M HeatRate Schedule POR FOR MinLoad Rate
Year ($/kW) ($/MWh) ($/kWyr) (Btu/kWh) (Months) (%) (%) (%) (%/min)
2008 6890
2010 2.00
2015 2.00
2020 6560 6.02 35.2 12,600 66 10 6 40 2.00
2025 5640 6.02 35.2 12,100 66 10 6 40 2.00
2030 5640 6.02 35.2 12,100 66 10 6 40 2.00
2035 5640 6.02 35.2 12,100 66 10 6 40 2.00
2040 5640 6.02 35.2 12,100 66 10 6 40 2.00
2045 5640 6.02 35.2 12,100 66 10 6 40 2.00
2050 5640 6.02 35.2 12,100 66 10 6 40 2.00
Table11.EmissionRatesforaPulverizedCoalFiredPowerPlantwithCarbonCaptureandSequestration
SO2 NOx PM10 Hg CO2

(Lb/mmbtu) (Lb/mmbtu) (Lb/mmbtu) (%removal) (Lb/mmbtu)
0.055 0.05 0.011 90 32

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)

CapitalCost VariableO&M FixedO&M HeatRate Schedule POR FOR MinLoad Rate RampRate
Year ($/kW) ($/MWh) ($/kWyr) (Btu/kWh) (Months) (%) (%) (%) (%/min) (%/min)
2008 4210
2010 4010 6.54 31.1 9,030 57 12 8 50 5 2.50
2015 4010 6.54 31.1 9,030 57 12 8 50 5 2.50
2020 4010 6.54 31.1 9,030 57 12 8 50 5 2.50
2025 4010 6.54 31.1 7,950 57 12 8 50 5 2.50
2030 4010 6.54 31.1 7,950 57 12 8 50 5 2.50
2035 4010 6.54 31.1 7,950 57 12 8 50 5 2.50
2040 4010 6.54 31.1 7,950 57 12 8 50 5 2.50
2045 4010 6.54 31.1 7,950 57 12 8 50 5 2.50
2050 4010 6.54 31.1 7,950 57 12 8 50 5 2.50
Table13.EmissionRatesforanIntegratedGasificationCombinedCyclePowerPlant
SO2 NOx PM10 Mercury CO2

(Lb/mmbtu) (Lb/mmbtu) (Lb/mmbtu) (%Removal) (Lb/mmbtu)
0.065 0.085 0.009 90 215

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

CapitalCost VariableO&M FixedO&M HeatRate Schedule FOR POR MinLoad Rate Ramp
Year ($/kW) ($/MWh) ($/kWyr) (Btu/KWh) (Months) (%) (%) (%) (%/min) 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 NOx PM10 Hg CO2
(Lb/mmbtu) (Lb/mmbtu) (Lb/mmbtu) (%Removal) (Lb/mmbtu)
0.065 0.085 0.009 90% 32

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
RetrofitCost VariableO&M FixedO&M ConstructionSchedule

Year ($/kW) ($/MWh) ($/kWyr) (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
27
Technologies
Table17.CostandPerformanceProjectionforBiomassCofiringTechnology
Variable FixedO&M Construction

CapitalCost O&MCost Cost HeatRate Schedule POR FOR
Year ($/kW) ($/MWh) ($/kWYr) (Btu/KWh) (Months) (%) (%)
2008 1,020
2010 990 0 20 10,000 12 9 7
2015 990 0 20 10,000 12 9 7
2020 990 0 20 10,000 12 9 7
2025 990 0 20 10,000 12 9 7
2030 990 0 20 10,000 12 9 7
2035 990 0 20 10,000 12 9 7
2040 990 0 20 10,000 12 9 7
2045 990 0 20 10,000 12 9 7
2050 990 0 20 10,000 12 9 7
Table18.CostsforCoFiringMethodsversusFuelAmount
CofiringLevel FuelBlending SeparateInjection Gasification

(%) ($/kW) ($/kW) ($/kW)
5 10001500 13001800 25003500
10 8001200 10001500 20002500
20 600 7001100 18002300
30 7001100 17002200

28
Technologies
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.
29
Technologies
Table19.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaStandAloneBiomassPowerPlant(50MWNet)
Variable FixedO&M Construction Minimum

CapitalCost O&MCost Cost HeatRate Schedule POR FOR Load
Year $/kW ($/MWh) ($/kWYr) (Btu/KWh) (Months) (%) (%) (%)
2008 4,020
2010 3,830 15 95 14,500 36 7.6 9 40
2015 3,830 15 95 14,200 36 7.6 9 40
2020 3,830 15 95 14,000 36 7.6 9 40
2025 3,830 15 95 13,800 36 7.6 9 40
2030 3,830 15 95 13,500 36 7.6 9 40
2035 3,830 15 95 13,200 36 7.6 9 40
2040 3,830 15 95 13,000 36 7.6 9 40
2045 3,830 15 95 12,800 36 7.6 9 40
2050 3,830 15 95 12,500 36 7.6 9 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% $995/kW , 26%
Figure5.Capitalcostbreakdownforastandalonebiomasspowerplant
3.2GEOTHERMALENERGYTECHNOLOGIES
Hydrothermaltechnologyisarelativelymaturecommercialtechnologyforwhichcost
improvementwasnotassumed.Forenhancedgeothermalsystems(EGS)technology,Black
&Veatchestimatedfuturecostimprovementsbasedonimprovementsofgeothermalfluid
pumpsanddevelopmentofmultiple,contiguousEGSunitstobenefitfromeconomyofscale
forEGSfielddevelopment.Thequalityofgeothermalresourcesaresiteandresource
specific,thereforecostsofgeothermalresourcescanvarysignificantlyfromregionto
region.Thecostestimatesshowninthisreportaresinglevaluegenericestimatesandmay
notberepresentativeofanyindividualsite.Table20andTable21presentcostand
performancedataforhydrothermalandenhancedgeothermalsystems,respectively,based
onthesesinglevalueestimates.
31
Technologies
Table20.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaHydrothermalPowerPlant
Construction
CapitalCost VariableO&M FixedO&M Schedule POR FOR
Year ($/kW) ($/MWh) ($/kWYr) (Months) (%) (%)
2008 6,240
2010 5,940 31 0 36 2.41 0.75
2015 5,940 31 0 36 2.41 0.75
2020 5,940 31 0 36 2.41 0.75
2025 5,940 31 0 36 2.41 0.75
2030 5,940 31 0 36 2.41 0.75
2035 5,940 31 0 36 2.41 0.75
2040 5,940 31 0 36 2.41 0.75
2045 5,940 31 0 36 2.41 0.75
2050 5,940 31 0 36 2.41 0.75
Table21.CostandPerformanceProjectionforanEnhancedGeothermalSystemsPowerPlant
Construction
2008 10,400 31 0 36 2.41 0.75
2010 9,900 31 0 36 2.41 0.75
2015 9,720 31 0 36 2.41 0.75
2020 9,625 31 0 36 2.41 0.75
2025 9,438 31 0 36 2.41 0.75
2030 9,250 31 0 36 2.41 0.75
2035 8,970 31 0 36 2.41 0.75
2040 8,786 31 0 36 2.41 0.75
2045 8,600 31 0 36 2.41 0.75
2050 8,420 31 0 36 2.41 0.75
Thecapitalcostbreakdownforthehydrothermalgeothermalpowerplantisshownin
Figure6.
32
Technologies
$1,010/kW , 17%
Wells
$1,520/kW , 26%
Gathering system
$505/kW , 8% Heat exchanger
Turbine
Balance of plant
$505/kW , 8%
$1,520/kW , 26% construction management services
$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% construction management services
$1,230/kW , 13% Owner's cost
Total: $9,910/kW $130/kW , 1%
Figure7.Capitalcostbreakdownforanenhancedgeothermalsystempowerplant
Enhancedgeothermalsystemcostreductionswilloccurprimarilyinthewells,turbine,and
BOPcategoriesovertime.
33
Technologies
3.3HYDROPOWERTECHNOLOGIES
Nearly500hydropowerprojectstotalingmorethan50,000MWhavebeenservedbyBlack
&Veatchworldwide.TheBlack&Veatchhistoricaldatabaseincorporatesagood
understandingofhydroelectriccosts.Black&Veatchusedthishistoricalbackgroundto
developthecostestimatesvettedintheWREZ(PletkaandFinn2009)stakeholderprocess
andtosubsequentlyupdatethatpricingandadjustownerscostsasnecessary.
Similartogeothermaltechnologies,thecostofhydropowertechnologiescanbesite
specific.Numerousoptionsareavailableforhydroelectricgeneration;repoweringan
existingdamorgenerator,orinstallinganewdamorgenerator,areoptions.Assuch,the
costestimatesshowninthisreportaresinglevalueestimatesandmaynotbe
representativeofanyindividualsite.2010capitalcostfora500MWhydropowerfacility
wasestimatedat3,500$/kW+35%.Table22presentscostandperformancedatafor
hydroelectricpowertechnology.
Table22.CostandPerformanceDataforaHydroelectricPowerPlant(500MW)
Construction
2008 3,600
2010 3,500 6 15 24 1.9 5.0
2015 3,500 6 15 24 1.9 5.0
2020 3,500 6 15 24 1.9 5.0
2025 3,500 6 15 24 1.9 5.0
2030 3,500 6 15 24 1.9 5.0
2035 3,500 6 15 24 1.9 5.0
2040 3,500 6 15 24 1.9 5.0
2045 3,500 6 15 24 1.9 5.0
2050 3,500 6 15 24 1.9 5.0
34
Technologies
ThecapitalcostbreakdownforthehydroelectricpowerplantisshowninFigure8.
$810/kW , 23% Reservoir

$911/kW , 26%
Tunnel
Powerhouse and shafts
Powerhouse equipment
$238/kW , 7% Engineering, procurement,

$556/kW , 16% Owner's cost
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.
35
Technologies
Table23.CostandPerformanceProjectionforOceanWaveTechnology
Construction
CapitalCost FixedO&M Schedule POR FOR
Year ($/kW) ($/kWyr) (Months) (%) (%)
2015 9,240 474 24 1 7
2020 6,960 357 24 1 7
2025 5,700 292 24 1 7
2030 4,730 243 24 1 7
2035 3,950 203 24 1 7
2040 3,420 175 24 1 7
2045 4,000 208 24 1 7
2050 5,330 273 24 1 7
Table24.CostandPerformanceProjectionforOceanTidalCurrentTechnology
Construction
CapitalCost FixedO&M Schedule POR FOR
Year ($/kW) ($/kWyr) (Months) (%) (%)
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

36
Technologies
$1,660/kW , 18%
Hydrodynamic absorber
$925/kW , 10% $3,140/kW , 34%
Power takeoff
Control
Reaction/Fixation
$740/kW , 8% Engineering, procurement,

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% construction management services
$350/kW , 6%
Owner's cost
Total: $5,880/kW -10% + 20%
$1,590/kW , 27%
Figure10.Capitalcostbreakdownforanoceantidalpowerplant
37
Technologies
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
Construction
Year ($/kW) ($/MWh) ($/kWyr) (Months) (%) (%)
ResidentialPVwitha4kW(DC)installsize
2008 7690
2010 5950 0 50 2.0 2.0 0.0
2015 4340 0 48 1.9 2.0 0.0
2020 3750 0 45 1.8 2.0 0.0
2025 3460 0 43 1.7 2.0 0.0
38
Technologies
Construction
2030 3290 0 41 1.6 2.0 0.0
2035 3190 0 39 1.5 2.0 0.0
2040 3090 0 37 1.5 2.0 0.0
2045 3010 0 35 1.4 2.0 0.0
2050 2930 0 33 1.3 2.0 0.0
CommercialPVwitha100kW(DC)installsize
2008 5610
2010 4790 0 50 6.0 2.0 0.0
2015 3840 0 48 5.7 2.0 0.0
2020 3340 0 45 5.4 2.0 0.0
2025 3090 0 43 5.1 2.0 0.0
2030 2960 0 41 4.9 2.0 0.0
2035 2860 0 39 4.6 2.0 0.0
2040 2770 0 37 4.4 2.0 0.0
2045 2690 0 35 4.2 2.0 0.0
2050 2620 0 33 4.0 2.0 0.0
NonTrackingUtilityPVwitha1MW(DC)InstallSize
2008 4610
2010 3480 0 50 8.0 2.0 0.0
2015 3180 0 48 7.6 2.0 0.0

2020 3010 0 45 7.2 2.0 0.0
2025 2880 0 43 6.9 2.0 0.0
2030 2760 0 41 6.5 2.0 0.0
2035 2660 0 39 6.2 2.0 0.0
2040 2570 0 37 5.9 2.0 0.0
2045 2490 0 35 5.6 2.0 0.0
2050 2420 0 33 5.3 2.0 0.0
2008 3790
2010 2830 0 50 12.0 2.0 0.0
39
Technologies
Construction
2015 2550 0 48 11.4 2.0 0.0
2020 2410 0 45 10.8 2.0 0.0
2025 2280 0 43 10.3 2.0 0.0
2030 2180 0 41 9.8 2.0 0.0
2035 2090 0 39 9.3 2.0 0.0
2040 2010 0 37 8.8 2.0 0.0
2045 1940 0 35 8.4 2.0 0.0
2050 1870 0 33 8.0 2.0 0.0
2008 3210
2010
2015 2357 0 48 17.1 2.0 0.0
2020 2220 0 45 16.2 2.0 0.0
2025 2100 0 43 15.4 2.0 0.0
2030 1990 0 41 14.7 2.0 0.0
2035 1905 0 39 13.9 2.0 0.0
2040 1830 0 37 13.2 2.0 0.0
2045 1760 0 35 12.6 2.0 0.0
2050 1700 0 33 11.9 2.0 0.0
1AxisTrackingUtilityPVwitha1MW(DC)InstallSize
2008 5280
2010 3820 0 50 10.0 2.0 0.0
2015 3420 0 48 9.5 2.0 0.0
2020 3100 0 45 9.0 2.0 0.0
2025 2940 0 43 8.6 2.0 0.0
2030 2840 0 41 8.1 2.0 0.0
2035 2750 0 39 7.7 2.0 0.0
2040 2670 0 37 7.4 2.0 0.0
2045 2590 0 35 7.0 2.0 0.0
2050 2520 0 33 6.6 2.0 0.0
40
Technologies
Construction
2008 4010
2010 3090 0 50 14.0 2.0 0.0
2015 2780 0 48 13.3 2.0 0.0
2020 2670 0 45 12.6 2.0 0.0
2025 2560 0 43 12.0 2.0 0.0
2030 2380 0 41 11.4 2.0 0.0
2035 2380 0 39 10.8 2.0 0.0
2040 2300 0 37 10.3 2.0 0.0
2045 2230 0 35 9.8 2.0 0.0
2050 2170 0 33 9.3 2.0 0.0
2008 3920
2010
2015 2620 0 48 13.3 2.0 0.0
2020 2510 0 45 12.6 2.0 0.0
2025 2410 0 43 12.0 2.0 0.0
2030 2310 0 41 11.4 2.0 0.0
2035 2230 0 39 10.8 2.0 0.0
2040 2160 0 37 10.3 2.0 0.0
2045 2090 0 35 9.8 2.0 0.0
2050 2030 0 33 9.3 2.0 0.0

41
Technologies
$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.
42
Technologies
Table26.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaConcentratingSolarPowerPlantwithoutStoragea
Variable Fixed Construction

CapitalCost O&MCost O&MCost Schedule POR FOR
2008 5,050
2010 4,910 0 50 24 0 6
2015 4,720 0 50 24 0 6
2020 4,540 0 50 24 0 6
2025 4,350 0 50 24 0 6
2030 4,170 0 50 24 0 6
2035 3,987 0 50 24 0 6
2040 3,800 0 50 24 0 6
2045 3,620 0 50 24 0 6
2050 3,430 0 50 24 0 6
a
Concentratingsolarpowerdrycooling,nostorage,andasolarmultipleof1.4.
Table27.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaConcentratingSolarPowerPlantwithStoragea
Variable Fixed Construction

CapitalCost O&MCost O&MCost Schedule POR FOR
Year ($/kW) ($/MWh) ($/kWYr) (months) (%) (%)
2008 7280
2010 7060 0 50 24 0 6
2015 6800 0 50 24 0 6
2020 6530 0 50 24 0 6
2025 5920 0 50 24 0 6
2030 5310 0 50 24 0 6
2035 4700 0 50 24 0 6
2040 4700 0 50 24 0 6
2045 4700 0 50 24 0 6
2050 4700 0 50 24 0 6
a
Concentratingsolarpowerdrycooling,6hourstorage,andasolarmultipleof2.
43
Technologies
$1,090/kW , 16%
$2,820/kW , 40%
Solar Field
$544/kW , 8%
Heat Transfer Fluid (HTF) System
Power Block
Storage
Owner's cost
Total: $7,060/kW -35% +15% $664/kW , 9%
$1,300/kW , 18%
Figure12.Capitalcostbreakdownforatroughconcentratingsolarpowerplantwithstorage
$1,090/kW , 15%
Heliostat Field
$2,700/kW , 38%
Receiver
$540/kW , 8%
Tower
Power block
$490/kW , 7% Thermal Storage
Contingency
$420/kW , 6%
$680/kW , 10%
Owner's cost
Total: $7,040/kW -35% +15% $170/kW , 2%
Figure13.Capitalcostbreakdownforatowerconcentratingsolarpowerplantwithstorage

44
Technologies
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.
45
Technologies
Table28.CostandPerformanceProjectionforOnshoreWindTechnology
Construction
2008 2,060
2010 1,980 0 60 12 0.6 5
2015 1,980 0 60 12 0.6 5
2020 1,980 0 60 12 0.6 5
2025 1,980 0 60 12 0.6 5
2030 1,980 0 60 12 0.6 5
2035 1,980 0 60 12 0.6 5
2040 1,980 0 60 12 0.6 5
2045 1,980 0 60 12 0.6 5
2050 1,980 0 60 12 0.6 5
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

46
Technologies
Table30.CostandPerformanceProjectionforFixedbottomOffshoreWindTechnology
Construction
CapitaCost VariableO&M FixedO&M Schedule POR FOR
2008 3,410
2010 3,310 0 100 12 0.6 5
2015 3,230 0 100 12 0.6 5
2020 3,150 0 100 12 0.6 5
2025 3,070 0 100 12 0.6 5
2030 2,990 0 100 12 0.6 5
2035 2,990 0 100 12 0.6 5
2040 2,990 0 100 12 0.6 5
2045 2,990 0 100 12 0.6 5
2050 2,990 0 100 12 0.6 5
Table31.CapacityFactorProjectionforFixedbottomOffshoreWindTechnology
CapacityFactor(%)
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
47
Technologies
Table32.CostandPerformanceProjectionforFloatingPlatformOffshoreWindTechnology
Construction
2020 4,200 0 130 12 0.6 5
2025 4,090 0 130 12 0.6 5
2030 3,990 0 130 12 0.6 5
2035 3,990 0 130 12 0.6 5
2040 3,990 0 130 12 0.6 5
2045 3,990 0 130 12 0.6 5
2050 3,990 0 130 12 0.6 5
Table33.CapacityFactorProjectionforFloatingPlatformOffshoreWindTechnology
CapacityFactor(%)
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

48
Technologies
$100/kW , 5%
$79/kW , 4%
Wind turbine
$257/kW , 13%
Distribution
Balance of plant/Erection
Owner's cost
$198/kW , 10%
$1,346/kW , 68%
Total: $1,980/kW +25%
Figure14.Capitalcostbreakdownforanonshorewindpowerplant
$189/kW , 6%
$165/kW , 5%
$894/kW , 27% Wind turbine
Distribution
Owner's cost
$1,665/kW , 50%
Total: $3,310/kW +35%
$397/kW , 12%
Figure15.Capitalcostbreakdownforafixedbottomoffshorewindpowerplant
49
Technologies
$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

50
Technologies
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.

Table34.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaCompressedAirEnergyStoragePlant(262MW)
Quick
Capit Spin Start
Heat al Variable Fixed Round- Construction Min. Ramp Ramp
Rate Cost O&M O&M Trip FOR POR Schedule Load Rate Rate
Year (Btu/kWh) ($/kW) ($/MWh) ($/kW-year) Efficiency (%) (%) (Months) (%) (%/min.) (%/min.)
2008 4910 927
2010
2015 4910 900 1.55 11.6 1.25 3 4 18 50 10 4
2020 4910 900 1.55 11.6 1.25 3 4 18 50 10 4
2025 4910 900 1.55 11.6 1.25 3 4 18 50 10 4
2030 4910 900 1.55 11.6 1.25 3 4 18 50 10 4
2035 4910 900 1.55 11.6 1.25 3 4 18 50 10 4
2040 4910 900 1.55 11.6 1.25 3 4 18 50 10 4
2045 4910 900 1.55 11.6 1.25 3 4 18 50 10 4
2050 4910 900 1.55 11.6 1.25 3 4 18 50 10 4
Table35.EmissionRatesforCompressedAirEnergyStorage
Hg
SO2 NOX Micro PM10 CO2
(lb/ hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (kpph)
3.4 47 0 11.6 135

ThecapitalcostbreakdownfortheCAESplantisshowninFigure17.
$60/kW , 7%
$30kW , 3% Turbine
$270/kW , 30%
Compressor
Balance of plant
Cavern
$360/kW , 40%
$130/kW , 14% Owner's cost
Total: $900/kW -30% + 75% $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.

Table36.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaPumpedStorageHydropowerPlant(500MW)
Quick
Spin Start
Capital Variable Fixed RoundTrip Construction Min. Ramp Ramp
Cost O&M O&M Efficiency FOR POR Schedule Load Rate Rate
Year ($/kW) ($/MWh) ($/kWyr) (%) (%) (%) (Months) (%) (%/min.) (%/min.)
2008 2297
2010 2230 0 30.8 0.8 3.00 3.80 30 33 50 50
2015 2230 0 30.8 0.8 3.00 3.80 30 33 50 50
2020 2230 0 30.8 0.8 3.00 3.80 30 33 50 50
2025 2230 0 30.8 0.8 3.00 3.80 30 33 50 50
2030 2230 0 30.8 0.8 3.00 3.80 30 33 50 50
2035 2230 0 30.8 0.8 3.00 3.80 30 33 50 50
2040 2230 0 30.8 0.8 3.00 3.80 30 33 50 50
2045 2230 0 30.8 0.8 3.00 3.80 30 33 50 50
2050 2230 0 30.8 0.8 3.00 3.80 30 33 50 50

Thecapitalcostbreakdownforthepumpedstoragehydropowerplantisshownin
Figure18.
$370/kW , 17% $420/kW , 19%

Upper reservoir
Tunels
$135 , 6% Powerhouse excavation
$80 , 4% Powerhouse
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.

Table37.CostandPerformanceProjectionforaBatteryEnergyStoragePlant(7.2MW)

Quick
Spin Start
Capital Variable Fixed RoundTrip Construction Min. Ramp Ramp
Cost O&M O&M Efficiency FOR POR Schedule Load Rate Rate
(Year) ($/kW) ($/MWh) ($/kWyr) (%) (%) (%) (Months) (%) (%/sec) (%/sec)
2008 4110
2010 3990 59 25.2 0.75 2.00 0.55 6 0 20 20
2015 3890 59 25.2 0.75 2.00 0.55 6 0 20 20
2020 3790 59 25.2 0.75 2.00 0.55 6 0 20 20
2025 3690 59 25.2 0.75 2.00 0.55 6 0 20 20
2030 3590 59 25.2 0.75 2.00 0.55 6 0 20 20
2035 3490 59 25.2 0.75 2.00 0.55 6 0 20 20
2040 3390 59 25.2 0.75 2.00 0.55 6 0 20 20
2045 3290 59 25.2 0.75 2.00 0.55 6 0 20 20
2050 3190 59 25.2 0.75 2.00 0.55 6 0 20 20

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.

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
W1:NeahBay,WA(26.5kW/m@?m) E1:Portland,ME(4.9kW/m@19m)
W2:Coquille,OR(21.2kW/m@64m) E2:Middle(13.8kW/m@74m)
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) Washington(W1) Oregon(W2)

(Hagermanetal.2004a) (Hagermanetal.2004b) (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).

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 5 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.

45
Offshore (all directions)
40 Offshore
Average incident wave power density (kW/m)

50m deep wave site
35 30m deep wave site
10m deep wave site
30
25
20
15
10
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.

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%

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
TOTAL 1,500 1,200 1,400 4,100
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
TOTAL 600 500 500 1,600

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
TOTAL 3,900 3,000 3,600 10,500
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.

Low (15-20 kW/m) Medium (20-25 kW/m) High (>25 kW/m)

60000
50000
Installed Capacity (MW)
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)

60000
50000
Installed Capacity (MW)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
Pessimistic Base Optimistic

FigureA5.Waveresourceestimatefordifferentscenarios

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.

60000
50000
40000
U.S. deployment high
MW Installed
U.S. deployment medium

30000
U.S. deployment low
High resource limit
20000
Base resource limit
Low resource limit
10000
0
2013
2018
2023
2028
2033
2038
2043
2048
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.

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.
6
See,forexample,CoulombandNeuhoff2006,whichcalculatesan11%learningrateforwind
excludinglearningduetoupsizing.

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.

TableA10.CostEstimatefora10MWWaveFarmafterInstallationof50MW
Costs($million) Performance(%)
Resource Costs Capital Operating CapacityFactor Availability CostofElectricity(c/kWh)
(annual)
HighbandResource Pessimistic 73 4.6 23% 88% 69
(2530kW/m)
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
LowbandResource Pessimistic 81 5.0 14% 88% 127
(1520kW/m)
BaseCase 68 4.4 15% 92% 94
Optimistic 56 3.8 17% 95% 69
ThePessimisticandOptimisticScenariosweregeneratedtoindicatetheuncertaintiesintheanalysis.

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
60
CoE (c/kWh)
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

electricitythenfallstoapproximately9c/kWh(BaseCase13c/kWh)after28.5GWis
installed.Sufficientresourceisconsideredtobeavailablesothatthelowbandresourceis
notrequiredby2050.

90
80
70
60
CoE (c/kWh)
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.


80
70
60
50
CoE (c/kWh)
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).

TableA11.CapitalandOperatingCoststo2050
Optimistic Pessimistic
Overnight Cost Overnight Cost
Base Case Base Case High Low Base Case Construction Planned
Capacity Overnight Cost Deployment/ Deployment/ Fixed O&M Schedule Outage Rate Forced Outage
Year Factor (%) ($/kW) Learning Rate Learning Rate ($/kW-Yr) (Months) (%) Rate (%)
2008
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%
ThedatafortheBaseCaseandOptimisticScenarioswhichassumethesame(BaseCase)costofelectricitystartingpointin2015,alongwiththeestimated
cumulativeinstalledcapacityintheUnitedStatesarealsopresentedinTableA12.ThefollowingresultsaretakenfromthemidcasesoftheBaseCase
andOptimisticScenarios).


TableA12.CapitalandOperatingCoststo2050(SameStartingCostsMiddleCases)
Base Case Optimistic Scenario
MW Installed (in Base Case Overnight Base Case Fixed MW Installed (in Base Case Overnight Base Case Fixed
Year U.S.) Cost ($/kW) O&M ($/kW-yr) U.S.) Cost ($/kW) O&M ($/kW)
2008
2010
2015 5 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

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.

AppendixB.EnergyEstimateforTidalStreamTechnologies
ThisappendixdocumentsananalysisofthetidalenergyresourceintheUnitedStatesandprovides
thebasisforinformationpresentedinSection0above.
RESOURCEESTIMATE
RawResourceAssessment
Black&VeatchsourcedtidalstreamenergydatafromexistingEPRItidalstreamenergyliterature
(EPRIn.d.)forWestCoastsites(WashingtonandCalifornia)andnorthernEastCoastsites(Maine
andMassachusetts).TheresultsaresummarizedinTableB1forthecontiguousUnitedStates.
TableB1.RawResourceAssessmentSummary
State Site Depth MeanAnnualised Cross MeanAnnualised

(m) PowerDensity section AvailablePower
(kW/m2) Area(m2) (MW)
Massachusetts BlynmanCanal 2 0.93 18.2 0.02
MuskegetChannel 25 0.95 14000 13.3
WoodsHolePassage 4 1.32 350 0.5
CapeCodCanal 11 2.11 1620 3.4
LubecNarrows 6 5.5 750 4.1
Maine WesternPassage 55to75 2.2 16300 35.9
OuterCobscookBay 18to36 1.64 14500 23.8
3inNarrow
BagaduceNarrows 18to24off 1.94 400 0.8
Castine
PenobscotRiver 18to21 0.73 5000 3.7

KennebecRiverentrance 9to20 0.44 990 0.4
PiscataquaRiver 10to14 1.48 2300 3.4
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 Base Case Optimistic
Scenario Scenario
Massachusetts Muskeget Channel 1 3 7
Western Passage 4 7 18
Maine
Outer Cobscook Bay 2 5 12
Washington Washington 11 21 53
California California 24 47 119
Total 42 83 208
Thetotalextractableresourcevariesfromapproximately40MWto200MW
(approximately80MWfortheBaseCase).
ResourceLimits
Toaccountforyettobediscoveredsites,acoefficientwasappliedtothethreetotalvaluesobtained
intherawresourceassessmentsectionabove.TheresultsareshowninTableB3.
TableB3.EstimatedResourceLimits
ExtractablePower(MW)
PessimisticScenario BaseCase OptimisticScenario
Total 42 83 208
Multiplier 1 2 10
GrandTotal 42 167 2082
8In2004and2005,aspartoftheUKMarineEnergyChallenge(MEC),Black&Veatchdefinedasignificant
impactfactor(SIF)toestimatethetidalresourceextractableintheUnitedKingdom,representingthe
percentageofthetotalresourceatasitethatcouldbeextractedwithoutsignificanteconomic,environmental,
orecologicaleffects.

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;
50%
<2.5kW/m2)
%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.

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
6000
Cumulative installed capacity (MW)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055
. Time (years)
FigureB1.Deploymentscenariosfortidalstreampower(continentalwaters)intheUnitedStatesto2050
IntheBaseCaseandPessimisticScenariocases,theresourceceilingswerereachedbetween2030
and2035,whereasintheOptimisticScenariotheresourceceilingwasnotreachedevenin2050.
DeploymentAssumptions
GiventherelativelylowenergydensityofU.S.tidalresourcesites,itwasassumedthat1)
developerswouldaimtomaximiseprojecteconomicsforearlyprojectsandwouldthusdeployonly
atsitesinthehighbandwaveresource,2)thatwhenthisisexhausted,themediumbandresource
siteswouldbeexploited,and3)thatthelowresourcesiteswouldbeusedonlyafterthemedium

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.

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.

TableB5.CostEstimatefora10MWTidalFarmafterInstallationof50MW
Resource Costs Costs($million) Performance(%) Costof

Electricity
Capital Operating Capacity Availability
(c/kWh)
(annual) Factor
Highband Pessimistic 69 2.5 22% 90.0% 45.0
Resource
BaseCase 59 2.0 26% 92.5% 35.8
Optimistic 54 1.5 30% 95.0% 29.3
Medium Pessimistic 74 2.6 19% 90.0% 55.0
band
BaseCase 63 2.1 23% 92.5% 44.4
Resource
Optimistic 58 1.6 26% 95.0% 35.9
Lowband Pessimistic 127 4.3 21% 90.0% 84.3
Resource
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
40
35
Cost of electricity (c/kWh)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Installed capacity (MW)
FigureB2.SupplycurveforaBaseCaseresourceceilingandan11%learningrate

FromaBaseCaseofapproximately35c/kWh,thecostofelectricitydroppedtoapproximately
20c/kWhafterapproximately250MWwereinstalled.Atthatpoint,themostenergeticsiteshad
beenexploitedandthemediumbandresourcesitesstarttobeexploited,hencetheoffsetinthe
curve.Aftertheseadditional350MWofmediumbandresourcesiteshadbeenexploited,theBase
Casecostofelectricityliesslightlyabovetheprevious20c/kWhlevel.Thelateexploitationofthe
lowbandresourcebroughtthecostofelectricitybacktotheoriginallevels(approximately
35c/kWhintheBaseCase).

50
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.


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.

TableB6.CapitalandOperatingCoststo2050
Year BaseCase BaseCase Optimistic Pessimistic BaseCase BaseCase HeatRate Construction Planned Forced
Capacity Overnight OvernightCost OvernightCost Variable Fixed (Btu/KWh) Schedule Outage Outage
Factor Cost HighDeployment/ LowDeployment/ O&M O&M (Months) Rate Rate(%)
($/KW) LearningRate LearningRate ($/MWh) $/KWYr (%)
($/KW) ($/KW)
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%

ThedatafortheBaseCaseandOptimisticScenarioarealsopresentedinTableB7withthesame
startingpoints,alongwiththeestimatedcumulativeinstalledcapacityintheUnitedStates.The
followingresultsweretakenfromthemiddlecasesoftheBaseCaseandOptimisticScenario
(FiguresB2andB3).
TableB7.CapitalExpenditureCostandOperatingExpenditureCoststo2050
(SameStartingCostsMiddleCases)
BaseCase OptimisticScenario
Year MW BaseCase BaseCase Year MW BaseCase BaseCase
Installed(in Overnight FixedO&M Installed(in Overnight FixedO&M
U.S.) Cost($/kW) ($/kWYr) U.S.) Cost($/kW) ($/kWYr)
2008 2008
2010 2010
2015 10 5,940 198 2015 15 5,940 198
2020 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.

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.

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)

Non-tracking utility, 10 MW (DC)
$4.00 Non-tracking utility, 100 MW (DC)
1-axis tracking utility, 1 MW (DC)
$3.00 1-axis tracking utility, 10 MW (DC)
Commercial, 100 kW (DC)
$2.00 Residential 4 kW (DC)
1-axis tracking utility, 100 MW (DC)
$1.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
FigureC1.Capitalcostprojectionforsolarphotovoltaictechnology
BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|AppendixC.BreakdownofCostforSolarEnergyTechnologies 92

TableC1.SolarPhotovoltaicsCapitalCosts($/W)byTypeandSizeofInstallation
UtilityPV UtilityPV Commercial Residential

NonTracking 1AxisTracking PV PV
1MW 10MW 100MW 1MW 10MW 100MW 100kW 4kW

(DC) (DC) (DC) (DC) (DC) (DC) (DC) (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

TableC2.SolarPhotovoltaicsCapitalCost($/W)BreakdownbyTypeandSizeofInstallationNoOwner'sCosts,NoExtraMargin
NonTrackingUtility 1AxistrackingUtility Commercial Residential

4kW
Year 1MW(DC) 10MW(DC) 100MW(DC) 1MW(DC) 10MW(DC) 100MW(DC) 100kW(DC)
(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%



4kW
(DC)
2015
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
Shipping $0.09 $0.09 $0.09 $0.08 $0.06 $0.06 $0.12 $0.18
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
Shipping $0.08 $0.08 $0.08 $0.08 $0.06 $0.06 $0.12 $0.17
2025
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


4kW
(DC)
BOS $0.73 $0.50 $0.48 $0.56 $0.50 $0.49 $0.57 $0.67
Shipping $0.08 $0.08 $0.08 $0.07 $0.06 $0.06 $0.11 $0.16
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
Shipping $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.05 $0.05 $0.10 $0.16
2035
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
Shipping $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.05 $0.05 $0.10 $0.15


4kW
(DC)
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
Shipping $0.06 $0.06 $0.06 $0.06 $0.05 $0.05 $0.10 $0.14
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
Shipping $0.06 $0.06 $0.06 $0.06 $0.05 $0.05 $0.09 $0.14



4kW
(DC)
2050
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
Shipping $0.06 $0.06 $0.06 $0.06 $0.04 $0.04 $0.09 $0.13

TECHNOLOGIES
CONCENTRATINGSOLARPOWER
TablesC3andC6showperformanceandcostfortroughsystemsin2010and2050.TablesC4and
C5showperformanceandcostfortowersystemsin2010and2050.
TableC3.SolarTroughPerformancefor2010and2050
2010 2050
Without With Without With
Parameter Storage Storage Storage Storage
Plantsize(MW) 200 200 200 200
Designdirectnormalirradiance(DNI)W/m2 950 950 950 950
Solarmultiple 1.4 2 1.4 2
Storage(hours) 0 6 0 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
2
Requiredaperture(m ) 1327643 1896633 1225517 1774721
Thermalstorage(MWthhours) 0 3243 0 3288
a
Improvedreflectivity,receiver
b
Parallelstoragepenalty

TECHNOLOGIES
TableC4.SolarTroughCapitalCostBreakdownfor2010and2050
2020 2050
Without With Without With
CostAssumptions Storage Storage Storage Storage
Solarfield($/m2) 300 300 195a 195
b
Heattransferfluid(HTF)system($/kWe) 500 500 375 375
Powerblock($/kWe) 975 975 900 900
Storage($/kWhth) 0 40 0 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($) 0 129,729,730 0 97,479,452
Totalwithcontingency($) 762,622,333 1,093,091,750 543,373,400 768,406,119
DirectCosts($/kW) 3,813 5,465 2,717 3,842
Engineering,procurement, 10 10 10
10
construction(%)
Ownerscosts(%) 20 20 20 20
Indirectcosts(%) 30 31 30 30
TotalCost($/kW) 4,957 7,135 3,532 4,995
a
Reducedmaterial,installation
b
Lowerpressuredrop,advancedHTF
c
slightlyhighertemperature
TableC5.SolarTowerPlantParameters2010and2050
PlantParameters 2010 2050

Storage(hours) 6 6
Capacityfactor(5) 40 41
2
Collectorfieldaperture(m ) 1147684 1081000a
Receiversurfacearea(m2) 847 677.6b
Plantcapacity(MWe) 100 100
Thermalstorage(hours) 6 6
Thermaltoelectricefficiency 0.425 0.425
Towerheight(m) 228 228
Designthermaloutput(MWth) 235 235
Thermalstorage(kWhth) 1411765 1411765
a
Betterreflectivity,lessspillage;Betteravailability,lessreceiverheatloss
b
Higherfluxlevels;bettercoatings

TECHNOLOGIES
TableC6.SolarTowerCapitalCostBreakdownfor2010and2050
Assumption 2010 2050

Capacityfactor 40% 41%
Heliostatfield 235$/m2aperture $269,705,740 235$/m2aperture $167,555,000
Receiver 80000$/m2receiver $67,760,000 50000$/m2receiver $33,880,000
Tower 901500 $17,387,382 901500 $17,387,382
0.01298$/m2aperture 0.01298$/m2aperture
Powerblock 950$/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 10% $541,426,669 10% $365,295,797
contingency
Indirectcosts
EPC 10% 10%
Owners 20% 20%
TotalDirectand 30% $704,017,098 30% $474,884,535
IndirectCosts
TotalCost($/kW) $7,040 $4,749

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
hourcycleandgeneratedona10hourcycle.Approximately322cyclesperyearwouldbe
assumed.
2. Forpurposesofthisevaluation,theenergystoragerequirementisequalto500MWfor10hours
or5,000megawatthoursofdailypeakingenergy.
3. Thelowerreservoirisassumedtoexistandasiteforanewupperreservoircanbefoundthathas
theappropriatecharacteristics.
4. Forevaluationpurposes,thepumpingandgeneratingheadisbasedontheaveragedifferencein
theupperandlowerreservoirlevels.Therealityisthattheheadsinbothpumpingand
generatingmodeswillconstantlyfluctuateduringtheirrespectivecycles.Thisfluctuationmust
bedesigned
5. Thisevaluationisbasedonanaveragenetoperatinghead(H)forbothpumpingandgenerating
cyclesof800feet.
6. Thedistancefromtheoutletoftheupperreservoirtotheoutletofthelowerreservoirisassumed
tobe2,000feetresultinginanL/Hratioof2.5,whichisexcellentbyindustrystandards.
7. Thecalculatedgeneratingflowassuminga0.82generatingefficiencyis9,000cubicfeetper
second(cfs).
8. Theactivewaterstorageinthereservoirsrequiredforthisflowoverthe10hoursgenerating
cycleis7,438acrefeet.Adding10percentforinactivestorageyieldsatotalreservoirstorage
requirementofabout8,200acrefeet.
9. Thelowerreservoirisassumedtobeanexistingreservoirthatcanaffordafluctuationof7,438
acrefeetwithoutenvironmentalorotherfluctuationissues.
BLACK&VEATCHCORPORATION|AppendixD.TechnicalDescriptionofPumpedStorage
102
HydroelectricPower
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.
103
HydroelectricPower
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
$5,000peracreor$1milliontotal.
2. Transmissionandsubstationareassumedtobeadjacenttothesiteandisamajorsitingfactor.
3. Projectmanagementanddesignengineeringat5%ofconstructioncostor$33million.
4. Constructionmanagementandstartupsupportat5%ofconstructioncostof$33million.
5. 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
104
HydroelectricPower
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
statusofthewaterpassages.Iftheunitiswateredtothewicketgatesandplantauxiliariesare
running,unitstartuptimeisonlyafunctionofwicketgateopeningtobringtheunituptospeed
andsynchronize.
2. APSHunitcanbetrippedoffinstantaneouslyaslongastheturbineisdesignedtooperateat
runawayuntilthewicketgatesareclosed.Thiswouldbeanemergencycase.
3. APSHplantcanloadfollowandprovidesystemfrequency/voltagecontrol.
4. Pumpedstoragehydroelectricplantscanblackstartassumingasmallemergencygeneratoris
providedforunitauxiliariesandfieldflashing.
5. AmajorfeatureofPSHisitsabilitytooperateasspinningornonspinningreserve,changefrom
pumpingtogeneratingwithin20minutes,synchronouscondensing,anditcanbedesignedto
meetgridsystemoperatorcertificationofthesebenefits.
105
HydroelectricPower

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

Construction SpinRamp QuickStart

765 $/KW, 12.6%

Construction SpinRamp QuickStart

SO2 NOx PM10 CO2

$110/kW , 17% $258/kW , 40%

$20/kW , 3% Gas turbine

Total: $651/kW+ 25%

Construction SpinRamp QuickStart

SO2 NOX PM10 CO2

$209/kW , 17% $177/kW , 14%

Total: $1,230/kW + 25% $719 /kW, 58%

Const. SpinRamp QuickStart

SO2 NOx PM10 CO2

2045 2890 3.71 23.0 9,000 55 10 6 40 2.00

SO2 NOx PM10 Hg CO2

Total: $2,890/kW +35% $1,770/kW , 61%

SO2 NOx PM10 Hg CO2

Construction SpinRamp QuickStart

SO2 NOx PM10 Mercury CO2

Construction SpinRamp QuickStart

RetrofitCost VariableO&M FixedO&M ConstructionSchedule

Variable FixedO&M Construction

CofiringLevel FuelBlending SeparateInjection Gasification

Variable FixedO&M Construction Minimum

$730 /kW, 19% $650/kW , 17%

$505/kW , 8% Heat exchanger

$810/kW , 23% Reservoir

Powerhouse and shafts

$238/kW , 7% Engineering, procurement,

$556/kW , 16% Owner's cost

Total: $3,500/kW +35% $499/kW , 14%

$740/kW , 8% Engineering, procurement,

Total: $9,240/kW -30% + 45% $2,590/kW , 28%

$940/kW , 16% $880/kW , 15%

2015 3180 0 48 7.6 2.0 0.0

$55 /kW, 2% $140/kW , 5% $1,400/kW , 49%

Total: $2,830/kW +25%

Variable Fixed Construction

Variable Fixed Construction

$490/kW , 7% Thermal Storage

$894/kW , 27% Wind turbine

Total: $4,200/kW +35%

Total: $900/kW -30% + 75% $50/kW , 6%

$370/kW , 17% $420/kW , 19%

$135 , 6% Powerhouse excavation

Total: $2,230/kW +50% $835/kW , 37%

CoastalSegment CoastlineLength(km) Description

Maine(E1) Washington(W1) Oregon(W2)

Del Norte 27.8

Santa Barbara 29.7

Los Angeles 26.4

San Diego 32.2

Average incident wave power density (kW/m)

VeryLow Low Medium High

CoastalSegment Low Medium High Total

W2 476 1,429 1,905

WestTotal 1,500 1,200 1,400 4,100

TOTAL 1,500 1,200 1,400 4,100

CoastalSegment Low Medium High Total

Coastal Segment Low Medium High Total

ResourceBand RepresentativeSite CapacityFactor

Low(15kW/m20kW/m) Massachusetts 15%