Hydrogen Transition Sensitivity Studies using H2Sim · 2014. 3. 13. · 9 August 2006 Page 1 of 20...
22
Page 1 of 20 9 August 2006 2006-8-9 DOE Transition Workshop Hydrogen Transition Sensitivity Studies using H2Sim August 9, 2006 Brian D. James Julie Perez Peter Schmidt (703) 243 – 3383 [email protected] Directed Technologies, Inc.
Transcript of Hydrogen Transition Sensitivity Studies using H2Sim · 2014. 3. 13. · 9 August 2006 Page 1 of 20...
Page 1 of 209 August 20062006-8-9 DOE Transition Workshop
Hydrogen Transition Sensitivity Studies
using H2SimAugust 9, 2006
Brian D. JamesJulie Perez
Peter Schmidt(703) 243 – 3383
[email protected] Technologies, Inc.
Page 2 of 209 August 20062006-8-9 DOE Transition Workshop
Project OverviewObjectives / Goals
• Create a tool robust enough to test the impact of different assumptions on the development of hydrogen infrastructure
• Exercise the tool under different assumptions to understand the infrastructure’s sensitivity to different scenarios
• Suggest to DOE areas of further research based on the parameters most influential in the infrastructure development
Page 3 of 209 August 20062006-8-9 DOE Transition Workshop
Model EnhancementsFeature
H2Sim 1.0“Old”
H2Sim 2.0“New”
Pathways in Each Year
One pathway built in a given year.
Multiple build rounds considered, allows multiple
pathways
Delivery Evolution Delivery method is fixed to production plant
“Pathway’s can’t change”
Production plant can change delivery methods (eg. Central plant that trucks H2
initially, then switches to pipeline)
Stranding Entire pathways Strands individual portions (eg. Prod., Del., Disp.)
Dispensing Stations Build-Out
Disp. stations capacity = Prod. Capacity,
all built in same year
Dispensing stations built as required by demand
Page 4 of 209 August 20062006-8-9 DOE Transition Workshop
Model Enhancements, cont.Feature
H2Sim 1.0“Old”
H2Sim 2.0“New”
Dispensing Cost Algorithm
Lookup tables populated with H2A
data
Discounted Cash Flow within model
Delivery Cost Algorithm
Lookup tables populated with city-specific H2A data
Delivery cost computed within model. Allows rapid modeling of different size
cities.Pipelines Optimized Ring
Structure used in HDSAM (Rev. 22 Apr 06)
Minimum Spanning Tree Approach as suggested by
UC DavisEthanol Not an available
production optionIncludes Forecourt Ethanol
(1.5tpd)
Page 5 of 209 August 20062006-8-9 DOE Transition Workshop
Review of “Old” ResultsBaseline Build-Out Plot
Evaluation & Selection Process is repeated for each year of the analysis. Forecourt SMR is seen to win every year.
Legend defines which
pathways are built in each year.
1.5tpd NG Forecourt SMR was selected
every year.(Demand: Los Angeles 15%
Penetration in 10 yrs.)
Page 6 of 209 August 20062006-8-9 DOE Transition Workshop
Forecourt Sensitivity (1,500kg/day station)
…”Upper Bound” Forecourt SMR has ahigher cost than leading pathways and thus…
Forecourt SMR with “Upper Bound” capital cost raises
cost substantially
Forecourt SMR (1.5tpd)
Coal/Pipeline
Coal/Pipeline/CO2 Seq.
Biomass/Pipeline
SMR/GT
SMR/Pipeline
Coal/LT
SMR/GT/CO2 Seq.
SMR/Pipeline/CO2 Seq.
Assuming “Upper Bound”Forecourt SMR, Central
Coal with Pipeline became lowest cost pathway.
1.5 tpd NG Forecourt SMR beat all other
options by >$0.50/kg.
Review of “Old” Results, cont.
Page 7 of 209 August 20062006-8-9 DOE Transition Workshop
Baseline Case and SensitivitiesUsing the “New” Model
(H2Sim 2.0)
Page 8 of 209 August 20062006-8-9 DOE Transition Workshop
Baseline Assumptions• City of Choice: Los Angeles• DOE LA Demand Scenario
– LA Scenario 1 is baseline (Scenario 2 examined in sensitivity analysis)– Curve has Vehicle Penetration of 5.8% in 10 yrs, 99% by 2050– Assumes MTA Population & Vehicles
• Initial Dispensing Station Penetration set at 0.5% (20 stations)• Forecourt SMRs at “Lower Bound” capital cost estimates
– “Upper Bound” capital cost assessed in sensitivity analysis• Central Coal plants must use sequestration
– CA: No power plant emissions greater than that from IGCC plants– Limited number of sequestration sites in California
• Coal plant in Wyoming becomes available in 2020– 1,000 mile pipeline from Power River Basin to LA (~$700k/mile)– Not fully optimized: will examine larger production/pipelines
• Urban Pipelines are not allowed until 2025 (Modeling practicality). – Costs are set at $1M/mi. (to represent urban pipeline cost)
Page 9 of 209 August 20062006-8-9 DOE Transition Workshop
Baseline Assumptions, continued
• Step change in Dispensing Technology in 2020 (“DOE 2017 Delivery”)– Increase compressor efficiency from 65% to 80%– Decrease # of purchased compressors from 3 to 1– Compressor cost factor decreases from $6300 to $4100/(kg/hr)– Decrease storage tank costs from $818/kg to $300/kg– Maintenance & Repair cost factor drops from 1.8% to 1.5%– Output pressure increases to 10kpsi
• New Delivery option in 2020– Cold Compressed Gas Truck (CCGT) carries 1100 kg (previous HPGT
carried 657kg)– Also applies to gaseous storage at Dispensing Stations & Terminals
• Step change in Terminal Technology in 2020– Decrease # of purchased compressors from 3 to 2– Decrease storage compressors from 2 to 1– Decrease storage tank costs from $818/kg to $300/kg– Compressor cost factor (NG to H2 compressors) decreases from 130% to
80%
Page 10 of 209 August 20062006-8-9 DOE Transition Workshop
Sensitivity StudiesIncrease the initial #
of dispensing stationsto 2% of city total
Increase ForecourtSMR Capital Costs to
Upper BoundEstimates
Same as previous butwith higher pipeline
costs ($2M/mi)
Increase ForecourtSMR Capital Costs to
Upper BoundEstimates
View Baseline Caseout to 2050
BaselineCase
(Los AngelesDemand Scenario 1)
View Scenario 2 buildout to 2050
Increase Demand(Los Angeles
Demand Scenario 2)
Page 11 of 209 August 20062006-8-9 DOE Transition Workshop
Baseline
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 20250
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Year
Volu
me
(TPD
)
Buildout (Pro.)
20 20 20 205
20527
20527
36
20527
36
47
20527
36
47
56
20527
36
47
56
60
20527
36
47
56
60
68
20527
36
47
56
60
68
78
(2015) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 20(2018) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 5(2019) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 27(2020) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 36(2021) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 47(2022) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 56(2023) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 60(2024) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 68(2025) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 78CapacityDemand
ForecourtNG-SMR (lower
bound)wins every time
Page 12 of 209 August 20062006-8-9 DOE Transition Workshop
Displays profited cost of H2 if build new for entire demandStatic Price Plot- Baseline
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 20252
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
Year
Prof
ited
Cos
t (ne
w fa
cilit
ies)
NG Forecourt SMR (0.100 tpd)
Forecourt Ethanol(1.5 tpd) – DOE Target ~$3.00
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 20252
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
Year
Prof
ited
Cos
t (ne
w fa
cilit
ies)
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 20252
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
Year
Prof
ited
Cos
t (ne
w fa
cilit
ies)
NG Forecourt SMR (1.5 tpd) Upper Bound
NG Forecourt SMR (1.5 tpd)
WY: 2015 Coal+SEQPL to CCGT
NG City Gate SMR(15 tpd) with HPGT
Central (Bio/SMR/Coal)
with CCGT
Central (Bio/SMR/Coal)
with HPGT
Central (Bio/SMR/Coal)
with LT
In general:Biomass < SMR < Coal+Seq.
*◊
Existing LAwith LT
Existing LAwith HPGT
Page 13 of 209 August 20062006-8-9 DOE Transition Workshop
Scenario 1: Upper Bound SMR
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 20250
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Year
Volu
me
(TPD
)Buildout (Pro.)
1 1 1 11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
(2015) CG,EX @ 46 x 1(2020) C,NG-SMR @ 19 x 1(2015) CG,EX => 48CapacityDemand
Existing LA gaseous capacity + New
Liquefier w/ liquid truck delivery (but HPGT is only slightly more
expensive)
Central NG-SMR w/ cold
compressed gas truck (CCGT)
Existing LA capacity
switches to CCGT
Liquid truck technology stranded!
Page 14 of 209 August 20062006-8-9 DOE Transition Workshop
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 20250
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Year
Volu
me
(TPD
)
1 1 1 11
1
12
1
12
47
1
12
47
56
1
12
47
56
60
1
12
47
56
60
68
1
12
47
56
60
68
78
(2015) CG,EX @ 48 x 1(2020) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 12(2021) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 47(2022) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 56(2023) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 60(2024) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 68(2025) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 78CapacityDemand
Scenario 1 with 78 Disp. Stations in 2015(2% initial station penetration)
Existing LA gaseous capacity +
New Liquefier w/ liquid truck delivery
Forecourt NG-SMR
Page 15 of 209 August 20062006-8-9 DOE Transition Workshop
2010 2015 2020 20250
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Year
Volu
me
(TPD
)Buildout (Pro.)
1 1 1 1 1 1
48
1
48
66
1
48
66
79
1
48
66
79
86
1
48
66
79
86
94
1
48
66
79
86
94
99
1
48
66
79
86
94
99
107
1
48
66
79
86
94
99
107
126
1
48
66
79
86
94
99
107
126
138
(2012) CG,EX @ 47 x 1(2017) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 48(2018) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 66(2019) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 79(2020) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 86(2021) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 94(2022) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 99(2023) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 107(2024) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 126(2025) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 138CapacityDemand
Scenario 2: Lower Bound SMR (13.3% vehicle penetration in 2025)
ForecourtNG-SMR
wins every time (just like
baseline scenario)
2012 – 2017: Existing LA
gaseous capacity + New Liquefier w/
liquid truck delivery
Page 16 of 209 August 20062006-8-9 DOE Transition Workshop
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 20260
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Year
Volu
me
(TPD
)
Buildout (Pro.)
1 1 1 1 1 11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
(2012) CG,EX @ 46 x 1(2017) C,BIO-G @ 40 x 1(2019) C,BIO-G @ 40 x 1(2020) C,NG-SMR @ 19 x 1(2019) C,BIO-G => 42(2021) C,BIO-G @ 40 x 1(2021) C,BIO-G => 42(2022) C,BIO-G @ 42 x 1(2023) C,BIO-G @ 42 x 1(2024) C,BIO-G @ 42 x 1(2025) C,BIO-G @ 42 x 1CapacityDemand
(13.3% vehicle penetration in 2025)
Scenario 2: Upper Bound SMR
Existing LA gaseous capacity + New Liquefier w/ liquid truck
delivery
Central Biomass/ NG-SMR w/ cold compressed gas
truck (CCGT)
Liquid truck technology stranded!
Page 17 of 209 August 20062006-8-9 DOE Transition Workshop
Scenario 1: Baseline out to 2050
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 20550
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Year
Volu
me
(TPD
)Buildout (Pro.)
20 20 20 205 20527 2052736 205273647 205273647562052736475660
20527364756606820527364756606878
20527364756606878103
20527364756606878103126
20527364756606878103126155
20527364756606878103126155187
20527364756606878103126155187223
20527364756606878103126155187223262
20527364756606878103126155187223262301
20527364756606878103126155187223262301
3
20527364756606878103126155187223262301
3
3
527364756606878103126155187223262301
3
3
3
527364756606878103126155187223262301
3
3
3
3
527364756606878103126155187223262301
3
3
3
3
3
27364756606878103126155187223262301
3
3
3
3
3
3
364756606878103126155187223262301
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4756606878103126155187223262301
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
56606878103126155187223262301
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
2
606878103126155187223262301
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
2
3
6878103126155187223262301
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
2
3
2
78103126155187223262301
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
2
3
22
103126155187223262301
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
2
3
222
126155187223262301
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
2
3
2222
155187223262301
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
2
3
22222
187223262301
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
2
3
222222
223262301
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
2
3
2222222
262301
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
2
3
22222222
(2015) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 20(2018) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 5
(2019) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 27(2020) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 36(2021) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 47(2022) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 56
(2023) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 60(2024) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 68
(2025) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 78(2026) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 103(2027) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 126(2028) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 155
(2029) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 187(2030) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 223
(2031) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 262(2032) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 301(2033) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 3(2034) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 3
(2035) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 3(2036) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 3(2037) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 3(2038) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 3
(2039) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 4(2040) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 3
(2041) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 2(2042) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 3(2043) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 2(2044) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 2
(2045) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 2(2046) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 2
(2047) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 2(2048) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 2(2049) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 2(2050) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 2
CapacityDemand
…then Central (Biomass/SMR/
Coal)w/ Pipeline($1M/mile)
Forecourt NG-SMR to
2032…
Page 18 of 209 August 20062006-8-9 DOE Transition Workshop
Scenario 2: Build out to 2050
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 20550
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Year
Volu
me
(TPD
)Buildout (Pro.)
1 1 1 1 1 148148661486679148667986
148667986941486679869499
1486679869499107
1486679869499107126
1486679869499107126138
1486679869499107126138185
1486679869499107126138185215
1486679869499107126138185215245
1486679869499107126138185215245276
14866798694991071261381852152452763
486679869499107126138185215245276312
4866798694991071261381852152452763123
48667986949910712613818521524527631233
486679869499107126138185215245276312332
4866798694991071261381852152452763123323
48667986949910712613818521524527631233233
6679869499107126138185215245276312332333
798694991071261381852152452763123323333
86949910712613818521524527631233233332
9499107126138185215245276312332333323
991071261381852152452763123323333232
10712613818521524527631233233332322
126138185215245276312332333323223
1381852152452763123323333232232
18521524527631233233332322321
215245276312332333323223213
2452763123323333232232132
27631233233332322321322
312332333323223213223
312332333323223213223
(2012) CG,EX @ 47 x 1(2017) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 48(2018) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 66(2019) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 79(2020) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 86(2021) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 94(2022) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 99(2023) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 107(2024) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 126(2025) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 138(2026) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 185(2027) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 215(2028) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 245(2029) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 276(2030) C,BIO-G @ 42 x 3(2012) CG,EX => 48(2031) C,BIO-G @ 42 x 2(2032) C,BIO-G @ 42 x 3(2033) C,BIO-G @ 42 x 3(2034) C,BIO-G @ 42 x 2(2035) C,BIO-G @ 42 x 3(2036) C,BIO-G @ 42 x 3(2037) C,BIO-G @ 42 x 3(2038) C,BIO-G @ 42 x 3(2039) C,BIO-G @ 42 x 2(2040) C,BIO-G @ 42 x 3(2041) C,BIO-G @ 42 x 2(2042) C,BIO-G @ 42 x 2(2043) C,BIO-G @ 42 x 3(2044) C,BIO-G @ 42 x 2(2045) C,BIO-G @ 42 x 1(2046) C,BIO-G @ 42 x 3(2047) C,BIO-G @ 42 x 2(2048) C,BIO-G @ 42 x 2(2049) C,BIO-G @ 42 x 3CapacityDemand
Forecourt NG-SMR
from 2017 to 2030…
…then Central
(Biomass/SMR/Coal)
w/ Pipeline($1M/mile)
2012 – 2017: Existing LA
gaseous capacity + New Liquefier w/
liquid truck delivery
Page 19 of 209 August 20062006-8-9 DOE Transition Workshop
Scenario 1: Higher Pipeline Costs
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 20550
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Year
Volu
me
(TPD
)Buildout (Pro.)
202020205205272052736205273647205273647562052736475660
20527364756606820527364756606878
20527364756606878102
20527364756606878102128
20527364756606878102128154
20527364756606878102128154188
20527364756606878102128154188221
20527364756606878102128154188221264
20527364756606878102128154188221264300
20527364756606878102128154188221264300339
20527364756606878102128154188221264300339373
527364756606878102128154188221264300339373
425
527364756606878102128154188221264300339373
425
417
527364756606878102128154188221264300339373
425
417
418
27364756606878102128154188221264300339373
425
417
418
422
364756606878102128154188221264300339373
425
417
418
422
419
4756606878102128154188221264300339373
425
417
418
422
419
401
56606878102128154188221264300339373
425
417
418
422
419
401360
606878102128154188221264300339373
425
417
418
422
419
401360369
6878102128154188221264300339373
425
417
418
422
419
401
360369295
78102128154188221264300339373
425
417
418
422
419
401360369295277
102128154188221264300339373
425
417
418
422
419
401
360369295277260
128154188221264300339373
425
417
418
422
419
401360369295277260259
154188221264300339373
425
417
418
422
419
401360369295277260259232
188221264300339373
425
417
418
422
419
401360369295277260259232259
221264300339373
425
417
418
422
419
401
360369295277260259232259266
264300339373
425
417
418
422
419
401360369295277260259232259266273
(2015) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 20(2018) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 5(2019) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 27(2020) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 36(2021) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 47(2022) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 56(2023) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 60(2024) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 68(2025) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 78(2026) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 102(2027) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 128(2028) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 154(2029) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 188(2030) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 221(2031) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 264(2032) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 300(2033) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 339(2034) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 373(2035) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 425(2036) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 417(2037) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 418(2038) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 422(2039) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 419(2040) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 401(2041) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 360(2042) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 369(2043) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 295(2044) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 277(2045) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 260(2046) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 259(2047) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 232(2048) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 259(2049) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 266(2050) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 273CapacityDemand
ForecourtNG-SMR
wins every time
Page 20 of 209 August 20062006-8-9 DOE Transition Workshop
Questions?
Page 21 of 209 August 20062006-8-9 DOE Transition Workshop
(15% initial station penetration)
Scenario 1 with 576 Disp. Station in 2015
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 20250
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Year
Volu
me
(TPD
)( )
1 1 1 11
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
(2015) CG,EX @ 48 x 1(2020) C,BIO-G @ 40 x 1(2015) CG,EX => 46(2023) C,BIO-G @ 40 x 1(2025) C,BIO-G @ 40 x 1CapacityDemand
Existing LA
capacity w/ liquid truck
Liquid truck technology stranded over a 2-yr. period
Existing LA capacity w/
CCGT Central biomass w/ CCGT
15% penetration
still not reached in
2025!
Page 22 of 209 August 20062006-8-9 DOE Transition Workshop
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 20550
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Year
Volu
me
(TPD
)Buildout (Pro.)
20 20 20 205 20527 2052736 205273647 205273647562052736475660
205273647566068
20527364756606878
20527364756606878103
20527364756606878103126
20527364756606878103126155
20527364756606878103126155187
205273647566068781031261551872
2052736475660687810312615518722
20527364756606878103126155187222
20527364756606878103126155187222
3
20527364756606878103126155187222
3
3
527364756606878103126155187222
3
3
3
527364756606878103126155187222
3
3
3
3
527364756606878103126155187222
3
3
3
3
3
273647566068781031261551872
22
3
3
3
3
3
3
364756606878103126155187222
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4756606878103126155187222
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
566068781031261551872
22
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
2
606878103126155187222
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
2
3
687810312615518722
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
2
3
2
78103126155187222
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
2
3
22
1031261551872
22
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
2
3
22
2
12615518722
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
2
3
2
222
155187222
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
2
3
222
22
18722
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
2
3
2222
22
22
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
2
3
2222
222
2
22
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
2
3
2
22
222
2
(2015) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 20(2018) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 5
(2019) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 27(2020) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 36(2021) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 47
(2022) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 56(2023) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 60
(2024) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 68(2025) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 78
(2026) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 103(2027) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 126(2028) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 155
(2029) FC,NG-SMR,1.5 @ 33 x 187(2030) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 2(2031) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 2(2032) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 2
(2033) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 3(2034) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 3(2035) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 3
(2036) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 3(2037) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 3(2038) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 3(2039) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 4
(2040) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 3(2041) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 2(2042) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 3
(2043) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 2(2044) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 2
(2045) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 2(2046) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 2
(2047) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 2(2048) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 2(2049) C,BIO-G @ 43 x 2
CapacityDemand
Scenario 1: Lower Pipeline Costs
Forecourt NG-SMR to
2029…
…then Central (Biomass/SMR/
Coal)w/ Pipeline
($700K/mile)
Transition is 2 years earlier with $700K/mile
pipeline than with $1M/mile
