Renewable Energy Technology Assessments - Kauai Island Utility ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative Renewable Energy Technology Assessments 4.0 Renewable Energy Technology Screening Table 4-2. Screening Methodology Scoring Guidelines. Criteria Weight Scoring Details Cost of energy 50 100 = levelized busbar cost of 5¢/kWh or less 0 = levelized busbar cost of 25¢/kWh or more Proportionately scored between 5 and 25¢/kWh Kauai resource potential Fit to KIUC needs Technology maturity Environmental impact Socioeconomic impact Incentives/ Barriers 10 100 = developable potential of 500 GWh/yr or more 0 = developable potential of 5 GWh/yr or less Proportionately scored between 500 and 5GWh/yr 10 100 = resource is of appropriate scale, energy production profile matches KIUC needs, and meets KIUC needs regarding dispatchability, capacity vs. energy, etc. 0 = typical project is too large or small, produces energy at unneeded times, and provides product (such as capacity) of little value. Proportionately scored between two extremes 10 100 = established commercial technology that has been widely adopted. Technology is offered by multiple competitive vendors and fully warranted. 75 = established technology that has been used in several similar applications 50 = early commercial technology that has been successfully demonstrated 25 = emerging technology in the demonstration phase 10 = technology still in research and development 0 = technology concept 7.5 Relative to other renewable energy technologies: 100 = substantial environmental benefits leading to a cleaner and more sustainable environment 50 = some environmental benefits (base score) 0 = negative environmental effects 7.5 Relative to other renewable energy technologies: 100 = substantial socioeconomic benefits enhancing the island’s economy, health, and general well-being 50 = some socioeconomic benefits (base score) 0 = negative socioeconomic effects 5 100 = Significant incentives (e.g., substantial federal subsidy) and no apparent barriers to development. 50 = No significant incentives or barriers 0 = No incentives but substantial obstacles to successful project development Notes: * Indicates that a failing score for these criteria may result in elimination of the technology from further consideration. For example, lack of geothermal resources on the island eliminates this option from further consideration. ** Indicates that the score may change over time. For example, wave energy technology is currently in the early demonstration phase, but early commercial applications are expected within the next few years. 4.4 Screening Results The screening methodology was applied to each of the renewable energy technologies for their potential to contribute to the renewable energy supply within the next 3, 5, 10, and 20 years. The results for each of the criteria are summarized below. 21 March 2005 4-4 Black & Veatch
Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative Renewable Energy Technology Assessments 4.0 Renewable Energy Technology Screening 4.4.1 Cost of Energy The levelized cost of energy is a measure of the total life-cycle cost of a project or technology to generate power. Because the cost of developing a facility can vary considerably, even with modular technologies such as solar photovoltaic or wind energy, a range of project costs and performance assumptions were used to develop levelized cost estimates for each renewable energy technology. The multi-fuel generation technologies were evaluated separately as a fuel has not yet been selected for each of these technologies and the levelized cost of generation is heavily dependent upon the fuel cost. Black & Veatch used the technology cost and performance assumptions developed in the previous section, which are summarized in Table 4-3 for the three year timeframe. The values shown in the table were chosen as representative of the technology application in Kauai. Of the renewable energy technologies evaluated, wind power has the lowest capital cost per kW installed at $1,200-1,600/kW. This has resulted in a 30 percent annual increase in wind installations worldwide over the last five years. System costs have gone down as single turbines have achieved megawatt sizes. In comparison, conventional biomass and geothermal technologies have capital costs in the range of $2,600-3,900/kW and $3,300-5,200/kW, respectively. The high cost of biomass plants has to do with their relatively small size, extensive fuel and ash handling requirements, and the need for a robust plant design to handle the variability in the fuel quality. Geothermal power plant costs and complexity are highly dependent on the temperature of the geothermal resource, its proximity to the surface and the quality of the brine to be handled. Due to their extensive material handling and emissions control requirements, waste to energy technologies have a substantially higher capital cost than biomass plants, ranging from $6,500 to 11,700/kW. The small size of a potential waste to energy plant in Kauai also increases its relative costs due to economies of scale. Hydroelectric power plants have a wide range of capital costs from $1,700–5,700/kW. Given the turbine technology used for power production is quite mature and costs are low, the civil work that needs to be done to build dams and penstocks tends to be the driving factor behind the capital cost of these systems. Photovoltaic systems are by far the most expensive renewable energy technology with capital costs from $8,300–10,500/kW and a capacity factor of only 20 percent. These systems are currently too expensive to be applied competitively at utility scale. However, they have found a niche in the remote power supply market for rural electrification, water supply, and other applications. 21 March 2005 4-5 Black & Veatch
Page 1 and 2:
11401 Lamar Black & Veatch Corporat
Page 3 and 4:
Page 3 Kaua’i Island Utility Coop
Page 5 and 6:
Principal Investigators: Ryan Pletk
Page 7 and 8:
Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
Page 137: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
show all

Renewable Energy Technology Assessments - Kauai Island Utility ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?