Renewable Energy Technology Assessments - Kauai Island Utility ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 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:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
Page 191: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?