Renewable Energy Technology Assessments - Kauai Island Utility ...
Renewable Energy Technology Assessments - Kauai Island Utility ... Renewable Energy Technology Assessments - Kauai Island Utility ...
Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative Renewable Energy Technology Assessments 7.0 Biomass and Municipal Solid Waste 7.3.1 Biomass Project Screening The primary question addressed for the stand-alone biomass configuration is scale. Although biomass plants benefit greatly from economies and efficiencies of scale, larger plants on Kauai will have higher average fuel costs. There is a limited quantity of low cost biomass resources on the island. Larger biomass plants will require the development of dedicated energy crops that are much more expensive than waste resources such as wood chips and bagasse. The figure below show some of the preliminary analyses undertaken to explore these variables. For illustration, Figure 7-3 compares the levelized busbar costs for a range of standalone biomass plant sizes using different fuel costs. Plant capacity clearly controls the busbar cost. The curve labeled “Estimated Composite” was generated by calculating the specific fuel price that is expected for each capacity output, according to the biomass fuel supply curve in Figure 7-1. The initial conclusion is that despite higher fuel costs, larger biomass plants are more economical. Between about 20 and 30 MW the incremental improvements in levelized cost begin to slow down. Based on discussion with KIUC, it was determined that 20 MW would be the selected biomass size for detailed characterization. Levelized busbar Cost, $/MWh 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 $5/MBtu Estimated Composite $4/MBtu $3/MBtu $2/MBtu 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Plant Capacity, MW Figure 7-3. Comparative Biomass Busbar Cost with Varying Fuel Price. 21 March 2005 7-6 Black & Veatch
Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative Renewable Energy Technology Assessments 7.0 Biomass and Municipal Solid Waste 7.3.2 WTE Project Screening Scale is also the principal question for the MSW option, but only two sizes have been considered, 200 tpd and 300 tpd. As with the biomass option, the larger plant will be more efficient and have a lower capital cost per kilowatt. Further, staffing costs, a large portion of the overall O&M costs, will be similar between the two sizes. Black & Veatch modeled the two sizes. For the reasons listed above, it appears that even if there is a shortage of MSW and biomass has to be purchased, the larger plant produces lower cost energy. For this reason, it has been recommended that only the 300 tpd size be evaluated further for the Final Report. Figure 7-4 shows two levelized busbar cost curves that are generated for various sized MSW plants with two different tipping fees. Both plant size and tipping fee strongly impact the results of the busbar cost calculation. Levelized Busbar Cost, $/MWh 200.0 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 -50.0 -100.0 $56 $90 Gate fee $/ton Plant Capacity, MW Figure 7-4. Comparative MSW Busbar Cost with Varying Fuel Price. 7.3.3 Combined Biomass and MSW Project Screening At the screening level, the levelized costs for the standalone biomass and MSW projects are high. Neither project achieves a large enough capacity to take advantage of significant economies of scale. Plants of this type and size are particularly impacted by high staffing requirements. Combining the MSW and biomass in a single project is technically feasible, will better utilize staff, and has promise to offer better economic 21 March 2005 7-7 Black & Veatch
- Page 141 and 142: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 143 and 144: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 145 and 146: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 147 and 148: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 149 and 150: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 151 and 152: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 153 and 154: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 155 and 156: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 157 and 158: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 159 and 160: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 161 and 162: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 163 and 164: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 165 and 166: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 167 and 168: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 169 and 170: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 171 and 172: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 173 and 174: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 175 and 176: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 177 and 178: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 179 and 180: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 181 and 182: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 183 and 184: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 185 and 186: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 187 and 188: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 189 and 190: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 191: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 195 and 196: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 197 and 198: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 199 and 200: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 201 and 202: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 203 and 204: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 205 and 206: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 207 and 208: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 209 and 210: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 211 and 212: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 213 and 214: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 215 and 216: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 217 and 218: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 219 and 220: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 221 and 222: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 223 and 224: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 225 and 226: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 227 and 228: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 229 and 230: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 231 and 232: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 233 and 234: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 235 and 236: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 237 and 238: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 239 and 240: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
- Page 241 and 242: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
Kaua’i <strong>Island</strong> <strong>Utility</strong> Cooperative<br />
<strong>Renewable</strong> <strong>Energy</strong> <strong>Technology</strong> <strong>Assessments</strong> 7.0 Biomass and Municipal Solid Waste<br />
7.3.1 Biomass Project Screening<br />
The primary question addressed for the stand-alone biomass configuration is<br />
scale. Although biomass plants benefit greatly from economies and efficiencies of scale,<br />
larger plants on <strong>Kauai</strong> will have higher average fuel costs. There is a limited quantity of<br />
low cost biomass resources on the island. Larger biomass plants will require the<br />
development of dedicated energy crops that are much more expensive than waste<br />
resources such as wood chips and bagasse. The figure below show some of the<br />
preliminary analyses undertaken to explore these variables. For illustration, Figure 7-3<br />
compares the levelized busbar costs for a range of standalone biomass plant sizes using<br />
different fuel costs. Plant capacity clearly controls the busbar cost. The curve labeled<br />
“Estimated Composite” was generated by calculating the specific fuel price that is<br />
expected for each capacity output, according to the biomass fuel supply curve in Figure<br />
7-1.<br />
The initial conclusion is that despite higher fuel costs, larger biomass plants are<br />
more economical. Between about 20 and 30 MW the incremental improvements in<br />
levelized cost begin to slow down. Based on discussion with KIUC, it was determined<br />
that 20 MW would be the selected biomass size for detailed characterization.<br />
Levelized busbar Cost, $/MWh<br />
300<br />
250<br />
200<br />
150<br />
100<br />
50<br />
0<br />
$5/MBtu<br />
Estimated Composite<br />
$4/MBtu<br />
$3/MBtu<br />
$2/MBtu<br />
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35<br />
Plant Capacity, MW<br />
Figure 7-3. Comparative Biomass Busbar Cost with Varying Fuel Price.<br />
21 March 2005 7-6 Black & Veatch
Change language