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 In general, the scores trend upward over the 20 year evaluation period. The reasons for this are improvements in cost of electricity, developable resource, and technology maturity. Wave energy and biofuels are examples of technologies that start with relatively modest scores, but increase rapidly during the evaluation period. The small decline for wind and hydro between year 5 and year 10 is due to a change in the Fit to KIUC score that favors capacity resources in the long term. Although cost of energy is by far the largest contributor to the overall score, a poor score in this category does not necessarily imply an overall low score. A good example is direct fired biomass, which makes up for its poor economics with high scores in resource potential, socioeconomic impacts, fit to KIUC needs, and technology maturity. On the other hand, biodiesel, ethanol, and solar photovoltaics are unable to overcome their poor economics with ancillary benefits. Based on the results of the scoring process and the information detailed elsewhere in this report, the following observations are made about the technologies: • Landfill Gas – Very good all around scores and low cost. However, potential is limited to around 1 MW. • Wind – Very good all around with potentially lowest levelized cost of all technologies evaluated. Implementation of larger projects (>10 MW) will likely require advanced supporting technologies, such as energy storage. • Direct Fired Biomass / Biomass Cofiring – High resource potential and socioeconomic impacts overcome relatively high cost of electricity. A project based on low cost resources (wood waste, bagasse, etc.) will have substantially improved economics. Cofiring of biomass in a new coal plant may also have attractive economics, if a coal plant can be built. • Hydroelectric – The potential for hydroelectric is strong due to good resource potential and generally attractive economics. However, more than any other resource, hydro costs are highly site specific, and it is difficult to generalize about the competitiveness of the resource against the other renewables. Detailed information is needed on specific project opportunities to further assess the prospects for hydro on Kauai. • Waste to Energy (Plasma Arc, MSW Mass Burn, and Refuse Derived Fuel) – Of the waste to energy options, MSW mass burn is likely the preferred option, even though plasma arc has a slightly higher score in the long term. The primary reason for this is that mass burn is proven technology, while plasma arc is still in early demonstration. The substantially higher cost of a refuse derived fuel plant does not appear to outweigh its slightly higher ancillary benefits. For all the waste to energy options, a tipping fee higher than the 21 March 2005 4-24 Black & Veatch
Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative Renewable Energy Technology Assessments 4.0 Renewable Energy Technology Screening $50/ton number used for this screening process will significantly enhance its score. A tipping fee of $65/ton or higher would give mass burn an overall score very near landfill gas and wind. • Ocean Thermal – The relatively moderate projected cost of offshore ocean thermal makes it a potentially attractive resource in the 10 to 20 year timeframe. The projected cost assumes that the technology will develop through continued R&D, demonstration projects, and successful commercial installations. Given that Hawaii is one of the better locations in the world for ocean thermal, KIUC should monitor development of this technology. • Solar Thermal – Similar to ocean thermal, solar thermal power could be an interesting option for KIUC – provided investments are made in the technology to allow continued cost and performance increases sufficient to match the projections presented here. Central station solar thermal is much more attractive economically than solar photovoltaics. • Biofuels – Despite having high ancillary benefits (job creation, excellent fit to KIUC, and good incentives) ethanol and biodiesel appear unattractive due to high cost. The assumed fuel cost ($15-23/MBtu) may be competitive for transportation markets, but not for power production. That said, there is currently only a very limited market for alternative fuels in Hawaii, so it is difficult to estimate what the final fuel price will be for power production applications. Incentives and subsidies may significantly help biofuels. Further, KIUC could very easily integrate biodiesel into its existing fuel supply system without high capital costs or extensive equipment modifications. • Wave – The prospects for wave energy are highly dependent on successful R&D, demonstration and commercialization of the technology. Kauai could be an ideal place for wave energy demonstration projects if incentives for demonstration project development are available. KIUC should monitor development of the technology for possible application in Kauai. • Solar photovoltaic – Solar photovoltaics are the most expensive renewable energy technology. It is projected that solar photovoltaics will remain too expensive to be applied competitively at utility scale throughout the 20-year evaluation period. However, solar can be economical in niche applications (remote power supply, etc.) or when heavily subsidized. Finally, solar photovoltaics have extremely high public appeal, and despite their high cost, they are often a part of a utility’s generating portfolio for this value alone. 21 March 2005 4-25 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:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
Page 157: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
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?