Technical Advancements and Public Policies Affecting Wind Power’s Role in a Low Carbon Future
description
Transcript of Technical Advancements and Public Policies Affecting Wind Power’s Role in a Low Carbon Future
1
Technical Advancements and Public Policies Affecting Wind Power’s Role in a Low Carbon Future
Photo Source: GE Energy
Climate Decision Making Center NSF SES-034578
Costa SamarasDecember 1, 2005
2
Problem Statement Wind power is poised to be serious player in the
electricity generation portfolio and play a role in a low carbon future.
• What was the relative role played by governmental R&D, incremental innovations, and advances in and transfers from industries outside of wind energy in bringing wind to its current status?
• How have different approaches in wind energy public policy affected the cost and adoption of wind generated electricity?
3
Agenda
• Introduction and research relevance• Data and methods• Capital costs and competition• Wind energy R&D and public
policies affecting wind power• Technological transfers• Summary and policy implications
Photo Source: GE Energy
4
Research Relevance
TechnologyDevelopment
(Supply & Demand)
ElectricityIndustry
Climatepolicy and
decisionmakers
Future Climate System
This work is the first step in a broader effort to try to understand which strategies work best for different technologies
5
Wind energy worldwide growth
Sources:
NREL, BTM Consult Aps, March 2003, Windpower Monthly, January 2005, AWEA, IEA
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
1986 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 01 02 03 04
Year
Inst
alle
d C
apac
ity
(MW
)
Rest of the World North America Europe
Europe
U.S.
Other
2004 Cumulative MW ≅ 46,000• Europe - 34,600 MW• U.S. - 6,700 MW• Rest of World – 5,100 MW• 28% avg. annual growth since 1995
6
Changes in Regional Share of Installed Wind Capacity
Sources: NREL, BTM Consult Aps, March 2003
Windpower Monthly, January 2005, AWEA
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Year
Reg
ion
al S
har
e (
% o
f In
stal
led
MW
)
Rest of the World North America Europe
Europe
U.S.
Other
7
Comparative Costs of Generating Options
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50
Cost of CO2, $/metric ton
Le
veliz
ed
Co
st
of
Ele
ctri
cit
y, $
/MW
h
Wind@29% Capacity Factor, $1200/kW Capital Cost
Coal w/o CSS
IGCC w/o CSS
NGCC@$13
Source: Original chart prepared by EPRI, Generation Options in a Carbon Constrained World 2005, NYMEX NG Futures Jan 2006, Assumes $850/kW for NGCC, wind cost is net of any transmission and/or intermittency charges
8
Comparative Costs of Generating Optionswith Production Tax Credits (PTC)
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50
Cost of CO2, $/metric ton
Le
veliz
ed
Co
st
of
Ele
ctri
cit
y, $
/MW
h
Coal w/o CSS
IGCC w/o CSS
NGCC@$13
Wind@29% Capacity Factor,$1200/kW
PTC
Source: Original chart prepared by EPRI, Generation Options in a Carbon Constrained World 2005, NYMEX NG Futures Jan 2006, Assumes $850/kW for NGCC, wind cost is net of any transmission and/or intermittency charges
9
Sensitivity of wind power costs to capital cost
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50Cost of CO2, $/metric ton
Coal w/o CSS
IGCC w/o CSS
NGCC@$13
$800/kW
Le
veliz
ed
Co
st
of
Ele
ctri
cit
y, $
/MW
h
$1200/kW
$1600/kW
Source: Original chart prepared by EPRI, Generation Options in a Carbon Constrained World 2005, NYMEX NG Futures Jan 2006, Assumes $850/kW for NGCC, wind cost is net of any transmission and/or intermittency charges
10
Sensitivity of wind power costs to capacity factor
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50Cost of CO2, $/metric ton
Coal w/o CSS
IGCC w/o CSS
NGCC@$13
40% CF
Le
veliz
ed
Co
st
of
Ele
ctri
cit
y, $
/MW
h
29% CF
20% CF
Source: Original chart prepared by EPRI, Generation Options in a Carbon Constrained World 2005, NYMEX NG Futures Jan 2006, Assumes $850/kW for NGCC, wind cost is net of any transmission and/or intermittency charges
11
Data and Methods
• Data– Installed capacity, generation and capital cost data– Capital cost breakdown by components over time– Federal Wind R&D expenditures by country– Patent data, US and abroad– Policy timeline in U.S. and E.U.– Academic, government, and trade literature,
government and industry interviews• Methods
– Quantitative and qualitative cost and policy analyses• Comparing governmental expenditures to expected outcomes
– Technology tracing case studies
12
Cost of Wind Energy Declining38.00
15.00
10.008.00
6.004.00 4.00
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Year
U.S
. In
stal
led
Cap
acit
y (M
W)
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
Co
st o
f E
lect
rici
ty
($20
02 c
ents
/kW
h)
Installed Capacity Cost of Wind Power
Source: American Wind Energy Association, 2002 and NREL Renewable Electric Plant Information System (REPiS)
5.0
13
Growth of Commercial Wind Turbines
Sources: European Wind Energy Association (EWEA), Technology Factsheet, NRELImages: wikipedia.com, WQED
Rot
or D
iam
eter
(m
)
14Source: IEA R&D Database
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
1974 1980 1986 1992 1998 2004 2010
Year
Win
d E
ner
gy
R&
D
(2
003
$Mill
ion
)
Denmark Germany Netherlands Spain United States
United States
Germany
Netherlands
Denmark
Spain
DOE / NASA MOD Program
NREL NWTC formed
Public Wind Energy R&D 1974-2003
15
Wind Energy Cumulative R&D By Country 1974-2003
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year
Win
d E
ner
gy
Cu
mu
lati
ve R
&D
(200
3 $M
illio
n)
Public Wind Energy R&D 1974-2003
Source: IEA R&D Database
United States $1200M
Germany $550M
Netherlands $310M
Denmark $170M
Spain $85M
16
Installed MW per $Million Wind R&D 1974-2003
Sources: IEA R&D Database, IEA - Electricity Information - 2004 European Wind Energy Association American Wind Energy Association NREL (REPiS)
Cumulative Installed Capacity per Cumulative $M Wind R&D
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year
Cu
mu
lati
ve
MW
/C
um
ula
tiv
e 2
00
3 $
Mill
ion
Win
d
R&
D
United States
Germany
Netherlands
Denmark
Spain $75MW/$M
2003 Installed Capacity • Germany – 14,609 MW• U.S. - 6,700 MW• Spain – 6,203 MW • Denmark -3115 MW• Netherlands - 910 MW
17
Carbon Abatement Efficiency of R&D Expenditures
U.S.
Germany
Denmark
Netherlands
Spain
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100
$2003 Wind R&D per ton CO2 Avoided
To
tal
Win
d E
ner
gy
Gen
erat
ed
1982
-200
3 (G
Wh
)
Data Source: IEA, EuroStat, EIA, California Energy Commission, Danish Wind Energy Association, Lewis and Wiser (2005)
2003 Major Wind Manufacturers • Germany – 4• U.S. - 1• Spain – 2• Denmark -3• Netherlands - 0
18
U.S. Demand Pull Public Policies
38.00
15.00
10.008.00
6.004.00 4.00
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Year
U.S
. In
stal
led
Cap
acit
y (M
W)
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
Co
st o
f E
lect
rici
ty
($20
02 c
ents
/kW
h)
Installed Capacity Cost of Wind Power
Source: American Wind Energy Association, 2002 and NREL Renewable Electric Plant Information System (REPiS)
Investment tax credit
PTC
PTC set to expire
RPS
Accelerated depreciation
5.0
19
Renewable Portfolio StandardsNevada: 20% by 2015, solar 5% of annual
Hawaii: 20% by 2020
Texas: 5,880 MW (~4.2%) by 2015
California: 20% by 2017
Colorado: 10% by 2015
New Mexico: 10% by 2011
Arizona: 1.1% by 2007, 60% solar
Iowa: 2% by 1999
Minnesota: 19% by 2015*
Wisconsin:2.2% by 2011
New York:24% by 2013
Maine: 30%by 2000
MA: 4%by 2009
CT: 10% by 2010
RI: 16%by 2019
Pennsylvania:8% by 2020
NJ: 6.5% by 2008
Maryland:7.5% by 2019
21 States + D.C.
*Includes requirements adopted in 1994 and 2003 for one utility, Xcel Energy.
**No specific enforcement measures, but utility regulatory intent and authority appears sufficient.
Washington D.C:11% by 2022
Montana:15% by 2015
DE: 10% by 2019
Illinois: 8%by 2013**
Source: Original slide prepared by Union of Concerned Scientists, www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies
20
Distribution of Capital Costs
Rotor
Nacelle
Tower
BOS
Photo Source: GE Energy
21
Wind power cost of energy ($/kWh)
AEP
O&MLRCBOSTCCFCR
)( )(COE
• Decreased capital and BOS costs• Longer lived capital in place
• Favorable financing and ownership• Decreased O&M costs
• Larger rotors• Improved capacity factor
• Improved specific yield (kWh/m2) • Improved reliability
Source: NREL, EPRI
22
Power from the wind: Increasing annual energy production
pCΑV 3 ½ Power Higher towers
Larger rotors
Better turbine siting
Variable speed operation
Advanced airfoilsand blade sections
23
Innovations and impactsInnovation Increases
AEPReduces
O&MDecreases loads and
failures
Reduces capital cost
Composite blades ● ● ●Variable speed drive ● ●SCADA/sensors ● ●Power electronics ● ●Direct drive gearboxes ● ●Fiberglass manufacturing techniques
●
24
Transfers from Other Industries
Photo Source: GE Energy
• Fiberglass application• Carbon fiber
• Boatbuilding• Pipe manufacturing
• Variable speed operation• Permanent magnet generators• Direct Drive gearboxes
• Tubular steel, high strength alloys• “Soft” towers
• Steel and materials for high mast utility & light poles• Pipe manufacturing • Power
electronics• Foundations• Logistics
• Utilities• IT• Traction power
• AC motor control
• Hard disk industry
25
Larger Rotors – increased area
•Tapered and twisted blades• Composite materials• Pitch control• Dynamic braking• Advanced airfoils• Advanced manufacturing
• Structural integrity• Load Shedding• Lighter
Larger Rotors &Rotor Swept
Area
Higher rated capacity / greater kWhs
Photo Sources: NREL
Composite Industry, Robotics, Power Electronics, Boatbuilding, pipe manufacturing
26
Higher capacity factors
• Variable speed drives• Advanced power electronics• Direct drive• SCADA
• Greater efficiencies• Greater energy capture in low speed areas• Turbine health monitoring
• Greater availability• Lower O&M Costs• Higher capacity Factors
More kWhs per project,Lower COE,
Photo Sources: NREL
AC motor control, Traction power industry Utility industries, Telemetry and oil and gas
27
Borrowed Technology
Material Science
Composites
Aerodynamics
Computer science,Data collection and
testing
Power Electronics
Source: Manwell, McGowan, Rogers (2002), Loiter and Norberg-Bohm (1999)
High strength alloys
CFD and advancedDesign models
SCADA andRemote sensors
Permanent magnets
Variable speed power conversion
Dynamic braking
Soft-starting
AC Motor control
Boatbuilding
Steel industry
Aviation and helicopter design
IT and hard disk
Oil and gas industry
Utilities
Power semiconductors
Fans and motors
28
Components
Capital Cost
Logisticsand
Installation
Learning byDoing and Economies
of scale
Intra-industry advances
Transfers from
other industries
Demand pullPublic policies
Federal R&D
Manufacturing
Capital Cost Influence Diagram
29
Initial Findings
• Only 30% of wind turbine components were traditionally manufactured solely for the wind industry1; blades are the primary component in this value
• Wind power has evolved into commercial viability largely independent of governmental R&D
• Previous literature2 and industry interviews offer similar conclusion
1 Neij (1999), NREL (1995), WindForce10 (1999)2 Loiter and Norberg-Bohm (1999 &1997) Gipe (1995), Heymann (1998), Van Est (1999)
30
Policy Implications
• Why is it that this technology has evolved and did it largely independently of governmental R&D?
• Which technology policies caused either direct or indirect advances in wind power?
• When does it make sense to offer demand-pull polices versus supply push policies in low carbon energy technologies?
31
Research Goals and Summary• We are attempting to gain insights about
attributes of successful low carbon technologies– What can lead to path dependencies?– How do current climate models account for this?
• In the long run we intend to compare other technologies
• What portfolio of R&D, subsidies, taxes, or regulations are most appropriate for different technologies?
32Photo Sources: GE Energy
Questions and Comments