Technical & Economic Assessment Grid, Mini-grid & Off-grid Electrification Technologies

Chubu Electric Power Co.,Inc. (CEPCO)Toyo Engineering Co. (TOYO)The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI)Princeton Energy Resources Institute (PERI)

Study Objective

To characterize the current and future comparative economic costs of generation from renewable and fossil fuel-fired electricity generation technologies configured to suit off-grid, mini-grid and grid applications (50 W to 500 MWs)

Generating Types

Off-grid Mini-grid Grid-connected 10w 100w 1kw 10kw 100kw 1MW 10MW 100MW 1GW

Renewable(13)

Solar PV Wind PV-Wind Hybrids Solar thermalGeothermal Biomass Gasifier Landfill Gas Biomass SteamBiogasPico/Micro HydroMini HydroLarge HydroPumped storage Hydro

Fossil(9)

Diesel/Gasoline GeneratorMicro TurbinesFuel CellsOil/Gas Combustion Turbines Oil/Gas Combined Cycle Coal Steam (subcritical, SC, USC)

Coal IGCCCoal AFB Oil Steam

Power Generation Options

Estimated by Study team, based on World Energy Outlook 2005(IEA), International Energy Outlook (DOE) and World Bank.

Fuel cost include transportation cost and refinery cost.(Gasoline:50%, LO: 40%) Base crude oil : 38$/bbl

Levelized Fuel Cost

(2004 $/GJ)

Generating Technology

Oil

Gasoline19.6

(2.4$/gal) Gasoline-generator

Light oil 14.7(2.0$/gal)

Diesel-generator, Combustion-turbine, Combined-cycle

Residual Oil 5.7 Diesel-generator, Oil steam

Coal

India (Sulfur 0.6%) 1.6 AFBC

Australia (Sulfur 0.8%)

2.1 Coal-steam, IGCC

Gas Natural gas 5.7Combustion-turbine, Combined-cycle, Micro-turbine

Fuel Prices

Power Generation Options for Off-grid, Mini-grid and Grid-connected Applications

Pico Hydro 1kW

Gas Combined Cycle 300MW

Coal Steam subcritical 300MW

Coal IGCC 300MW

Coal AFBC 300MW

Oil Steam 300MW

Biomass Gasifier 100kW

Biogas 60kW

Micro Hydro 100kW

Wind 10MW

Geothermal 50MW

Bio Steam 50MW

MSW/ Landfill Gas 5MW

Mini Hydro 5MW

Diesel Generator 5MW

Fuel Cells 5MW

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

20042015

20042015

20042015

20042015

20042015

20042015

20042015

20042015

20042015

20042015

20042015

20042015

20042015

20042015

20042015

20042015

Off

-Gri

dM

ini-

Gri

dG

rid

con

necte

d

(cent/kWh)

Average

Sensitivity Range

Many renewables are generally more economical than comparable conventional

generation options in off-grid (1 kW or less) configurations

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

(cent/kWh)

Diesel/Gasolene Generator 1kW(CF=30%)

Diesel/Gasolene Generator 300W(CF=30%)

Pico Hydro 1kW(CF=30%)

Pico Hydro 300W(CF=30%)

PV-Wind Hybrid 300W (CF=30%)

Wind 300W(CF=30%)

Solar PV 300W(CF=20%)

Solar PV 50W(CF=20%)

Average

Sensitivity Range

Renewables also compare favorably with comparable conventional generation options

in mini-grid (5kW-500kW) configurations

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

(cent/kWh)

Solar PV 25kW(CF=20%)

Wind 100kW(CF=30%)

PV-Wind Hybrid100kW (CF=30%)

Geothermal 200kW(CF=70%)

Biomass Gasifier 100kW (CF=80%)

Biogas 60kW(CF=80%)

Micro Hydro 100kW(CF=30%)

Diesel Generator 100kW (CF=80%)

Micro Turbines 100kW(CF=80%)

Fuel Cells 200kW(CF=80%)

Some renewables are more economical than conventional generation in small (5MW –

50MW) grid-connected applications

0 5 10 15 20 25

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

(cent/kWh)

Wind 10MW(CF=30%)

Solar Thermal without storage 30MW (CF=20%)

Solar Thermal with storage 30MW (CF=54%)

Geothermal 20MW(CF=85%)

Geothermal 50MW(CF=90%)

Biomass Gasifier 20MW (CF=80%)

Bio Steam 50MW(CF=80%)

MSW/Landfill Gas 5MW (CF=80%)

Mini Hydro 5MW(CF=45%)

Diesel Generator (Base)5MW (CF=80%)

Diesel Generator (Peak)5MW (CF=10%)

Fuel Cell 5MW(CF=80%)

Conventional generation options remain more economical for grid-connected applications

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

(cent/kWh)

Wind 100MW(CF=30%)

Geothermal 50MW(CF=90%)

Large Hydro 100MW(CF=50%)

Gas Comb. Turbines (Peak) 150MW (CF=10%)

Gas Combined Cycle 300MW (CF=80%)

Coal Steam 300MW(CF=80%)

Coal IGCC 300MW(CF=80%)

Coal AFBC 300MW(CF=80%)

Oil Steam 300MW(CF=80%)

Many Coal generation options; best choice depends on fuel costs and environmental

requirements

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

2004

2015

(cent/kWh)

Coal Steam subcritical300MW (CF=80%)

Coal IGCC 300MW(CF=80%)

Coal AFBC 300MW(CF=80%)

Coal Steam subcritical500MW (CF=80%)

Coal Steam SC500MW (CF=80%)

Coal Steam USC500MW (CF=80%)

Coal IGCC 500MW(CF=80%)

Coal AFBC 500MW(CF=80%)

Advanced generation options have considerable potential

Supercritical PC offers higher efficiency and lower risk with potential for further improvements

AFBC is competitive especially with low quality fuels IGCC economics are expected to improve

500 MW Plant

Generating Types Capital Cost ($/kW)Generating Cost

(cent/kWh)

  2004 2010 2015 2004 2010 2015

Coal Steam (Subcritical) 1,060 1,040 1,020 4.25 4.08 4.08

Coal Steam (SC) 1,090 1,070 1,050 4.20 4.04 4.03

Coal Steam (USC) 1,170 1,140 1,100 4.19 4.02 3.99

Coal AFB 1,050 1,020 990 3.84 3.86 3.83

Coal IGCC 1,400 1,300 1,190 5.02 4.74 4.60

Factors being taken into account

Fuel price forecasts Technology development trends Grid connection costs and issues Risks Climate change considerations

Fuel Price Forecasts

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

($/G

J, in

200

4)

33$/bbl → 38$/bbl

4.1$/MMBtu → 5.1$/MMBtu

35$/ton → 40$/ton

High-case

2005, Reference-

case

High-case

2005, Reference-

case

High-case2005, Reference-case

2004, Reference-

case

OilGasCoal

2004, Reference-

case

2004, Reference-case

Source: Estimated by Study team, based on World Energy Outlook 2005(IEA), International Energy Outlook (DOE) and World Bank

500 MW Thermal Power PlantCO2 Reduction Potential

Net Efficiency (%LHV)

Annual CO2 Reduction

(million tons/year)

Value of CO2 Reductions at

$20/ton ($millions/year

)

Subcritical 39.0 Base BaseSupercritical 41.0 -0.138 -2.75Ultra-supercritical

44.0 -0.320 -6.41

IGCC (2005) 43.2 -0.274 -5.48IGCC (2020) 45.0 -0.376 -7.52

Capacity Factor: 80%

Conclusions Renewables are competitive especially

for off-grid and mini-grid applications Thermal power still preferable for large

grid connected applications Technological developments and

climate change may alter the cost-effectiveness of technologies

Site-specific factors affect significantly the technology selection

Remaining activities under the project: Complete risk assessment Develop spreadsheet to assess costs

considering site-specific considerations