Characteristics

1
Characteristics Information Update of Solar
Thermal Generation
Mark Skowronski for Solargenix Energy (formerly
Duke Solar Energy)
Presentation to the Arizona Corporation
Commission (April 5, 2004)
2
Simplified Schematic ofParabolic Trough Solar
Collector
3
Parabolic Trough Collector

• Typically tracks sun E-W on N-S axis
• High temperature oil flows through receiver
• Receiver highly efficient due to vacuum annulus
  and selective surface
• Major cost elements structure, receivers,
  reflectors
• Mirror washing proven to be very effective

4
(No Transcript)
5
Solar Combined Cycle Systems-Offers Additional
Cost Savings
6
Kramer Junction, Calif. Five 30-MWe Trough Plants
US 395
KJ SEGS Plants
CA 58
Edwards AF Base

• 354 MWe installed
• 7000 GWH operations
• 110 peak availability
• 1.25 Billion invested
• Matured OM procedures
• Technical advances lowered costs

7
Trough Learning Curve
8
Capital Cost Learning Curves
9
Multiple Ownership Scenarios Offer Opportunity
to AZ Utilities to Cost Effectively Meet RPS Goals
10
Solar Thermal Provides Value to the AZ Grid
11
An Overview ofConcentrating Solar Power
SOLAR POWER TOWER
Dr. Thomas R. Mancini CSP Program Manager Sandia
National Laboratories Albuquerque, New Mexico,
USA Presentation for the Arizona Corporation
Commission April 5, 2004
12
Molten-Salt Power Tower
Power Tower or Central Receiver
Energy collection decoupled from power production
13
Arizona Solar Resources are Immense!

• Start with direct normal solar resource estimates
  derived from 10 km satellite data with
  modifications by NREL.
• Exclude
• locations with less than 6.75 kwh/m2/day
• environmentally sensitive lands, major urban
  areas, and water features.
• land areas with greater than 1 average land
  slope
• areas with a minimum contiguous area of less than
  10 square kilometers.

14
Siting AnalysisPotential Locations
Preliminary sites identified based on
transmission access and located near load centers
Location 1
Location 2
15
Solar Power TowerApplications and Features
Dispatchable Power (100s MW) Utility-scale
peaking and intermediate market
applications Minimum size 50 MW Preferred size
is 100 MW
Dispatchability thermal storage for peaking,
load following, and extended operation.
Increased capacity factor (storage) requires
additional collector area. Manufacturing
Conventional technology (glass, steel, gears,
turbines, etc.) allows rapid manufacturing
scale-up, low risk, and conventional maintenance
16
Cost-Effective Storage is the Key!

• Storage provides
• decoupling of energy collection and generation
• lower costs because storage is cheaper than
  incremental turbine costs
• higher value because power production can match
  utility needs
• zero emissions

From Storage
17
The Solar Two Demonstration

• After 10-15 years of salt development RD
• Consortium of 8 utilities, EPRI, CEC, DOE, SunLab
  formed in early 1990s to cost-share a
  demonstration project
• Solar Two Objectives
• Validate technical characteristics
• Improve accuracy of economic projections
• Simulate design of 100 MWe plant
• Collect, evaluate and distribute knowledge gained
• Stimulate consortium capable of building
  commercial plants

All Objectives Were Met
18
Projected Costs

• No commercial power tower plants have been built
  anywhere in the world.
• A 40 MW (equivalent) power tower has been
  proposed in Spain.
• Cost projections are based on Sargent Lundy
  study performed for the National Academy of
  Sciences.

/kWh
SL
SunLab

1000 2000 3000
4000 Megawatts
ASSESSMENT OF PARABOLIC TROUGH AND POWER TOWER
SOLAR TECHNOLOGY COST AND PERFORMANCE FORECASTS,
SL-5641 MAY 2003.
19
Emissions and Leveraging

• There are no emissions from a power tower plant.
• Leveraging opportunities for CSP technologies
  include participation in the 1000 MW CSP
  southwestern initiative currently being
  considered by the Western Governors Association.

20
Economic Benefits to the State

• At its peak, installation of 1000 MW of CSP power
  plants would create nearly 7,000 new jobs.
• New jobs will be created to build, assemble and
  operate the CSP plants.
• 1000 MW would result in 300 - 500M increase to
  Arizonas annual GSP.
• 1000 MW will result in local CSP design,
  construction, and operating experience, allowing
  Arizona to export these services to neighboring
  states.

21
Overall Evaluation of CSP Must Include Value of
Product Delivered as Well as Cost

• Firm on peak energy considerably more valuable
  than as-available energy during non peak times
• Only Solar thermal can provide renewable on-peak
  generation or (with storage) whenever energy is
  needed
• Following graphs correspond to the Calif PUC
  rules governing how energy is evaluated on an
  all-in energy cost basis
• Value isnt necessarily defined as lowest LEC

22
Generation Cost Comparison Report (Oct 2003)
Levelized Costs of Electricity of CT
and CC as Function of Capacity Factor
(Based on Calif PUC Rule No. 6 Issued June 19
2003)
35
30
25
CT Cost 15.7 cents/kWh at 9.8
20
Capacity Factor per CEC Report
LEC (cents/kWh)
CC Cost 5.2 cents/kWh at 90
15
Capacity Factor per CEC Report
10
Combustion Turbine
5
Combined Cycle
0
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Capacity Factor ()
23
Generation Cost Comparison Report (Oct 2003)
Solar/Boiler Levelized Costs of Electricity
vs CT and CC as Function of Capacity Factor
(Based on Calif PUC Rule No. 6 Issued June 19
2003)
35
PUC Value 29 Million
Cost at 12 cents/kWh 28 Million
30
40 Capacity Factor
25
CT Cost 15.7 cents/kWh at 9.8
Capacity Factor per CEC Report
20
LEC (cents/kWh)
CC Cost 5.2 cents/kWh at 90
15
Capacity Factor per CEC Report
12 cent/kWh
10
Combustion Turbine
5
Combined Cycle
0
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Capacity Factor ()
24
Generation Cost Comparison Report (Oct 2003)
Peaking Solar Levelized Costs of Electricity
vs CT and CC as Function of Capacity Factor
(Based on PUC Rule No. 6 Issued June 19 2003)
35
PUC Value 40 Million
Cost at 13 cents/kWh 31 Million
30
25
CT Cost 15.7 cents/kWh at 9.8
16 Capacity Factor
Capacity Factor per CEC Report
20
LEC (cents/kWh)
CC Cost 5.2 cents/kWh at 90
15
Capacity Factor per CEC Report
13 cent/kWh
10
Combustion Turbine
5
Combined Cycle
0
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Capacity Factor ()
25
Cost to Arizona Ratepayer for 100 MW Solar
Thermal Plant as Function of Overcharge

26
CSP (Trough or Central Receiver) Provides
Multiple Benefits to AZ Ratepayers

• Firm Energy at Competitive Pricing when evaluated
  against comparable products (See PUC Rule No. 6)
• Creation of Jobs
• 3 to 4 times more construction jobs
• Potential to locate manufacturing facility in
  state
• 2 to 3 times more operating personnel
• Creation of Tax Base
• Tax base of 3 to 4 times more than a conventional
  combine cycle plant
• Hedge against fossil fuel pricing
• Use of a natural indigenous resource
• Promise of even lower pricing due to expected
  technology advancement of new technology not
  available with existing fossil technology

27
Groundbreaking of first CSP plant in the US since
1991- Red Rocks Arizona March 24, 2004
Breaking news