A Comparison of Fuel Cell and Energy Storage Technologies' Potential to Reduce CO2 Emissions and Meet Renewable Generation Goals

Transcription

1 A Comparison of Fuel Cell and Energy Storage Technologies' Potential to Reduce CO2 Emissions and Meet Renewable Generation Goals Advanced Power and Energy Program University of California, Irvine Prepared by: Kate Forrest 17 November 2015

2 Motivation: California AB 32, Scoping Plan TRANSPORTATION ENERGY RPS targets 33% RE by % RE by 2030 AGRICULTURE 2012 Emissions 2020 = Emissions MMT 431 MMT CO CO 2 e 2 e CO 2 e WASTE MANAGEMENT 80% reduction NATURAL & WORKING LANDS ~6% reduction WATER 2/45

3 Renewable Generation Reproduced from CAISO Daily Renewables Watch. Profile for 25 February /45

4 Impact of Increased Renewables 60 Electrical Generation Delivered (GW) Day of the Year Curtailed Wind & Solar Peakers Load-Following Hydro Geothermal Baseload Demand 4/45

5 The Decommissioning of SONGS Offline since 2012 Capacity: 2.2 GW Additional power plant closures expected due to new environmental legislation San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station New capacity required: 3.3 to 4.5 GW by 2020 a a California Air Resources Board. Assembly Bill 1318, /45

6 Project Question and Approach How can we address grid reliability and emission reduction goals with a portfolio of increased renewables? We can deploy technologies: Fuel Cells Energy Storage Which technology can provide the greatest CO 2 reduction? Model deployment of fuel cells versus energy storage to determine CO2 reduction potential: at 33 percent renewables at 50 percent renewables 6/45

7 HiGRID Dispatch Modeling Tool HiGRID Inputs Electricity demand Technology mix Generator parameters Meteorological data Reserve Requirements Emission factors Economic information RENEWABLE MODULE HiGRID HiGRID Outputs DISPATCHABLE LOAD MODULE Hydro Energy Storage Demand Response Criteria pollutant emissions GHG emissions Energy use Resource consumption/curtailment Cost BALANCE GENERATION MODULE Baseload Load Followers Peakers COST OF GENERATION MODULE 7/45

8 Fuel Cell Scenarios TIGER: Transmission Integrated Grid Energy Resource MW fuel cell clusters Located at substations High operational control Scenario 1 - Scenario 2 - Scenario 3 - Scenario 4 - Highly Dynamic High Efficiency/ Dynamic Exceptional Dispatch -Baseload Baseload Minimum Load Point (%) Generator Rated Efficiency (%) Source: Brendan Shaffer 8/45

9 Energy Storage Scenarios 9/45

10 Energy Storage Scenarios Pumped Hydro CAES Flow Batteries Power Capacity 5 GW 5 GW 5 GW Energy Capacity GW-h 5-50 GW-h GW-h Feasible Dispatch Time 1-72 hours 1-48 hours 1-10 hoursc Round Trip Efficiency 75-85%a 55-75%b 65-85%c achen, H., et al., Progress in electrical energy storage system: A critical review Easan, et al., The value of compressed air energy storage in energy and reserve markets. calotto, Piergiorgio, et al., Redox flow batteries for the storage of renewable energy: A review. bdrury, Optimal Dispatch Times for Energy Storage Technologies Pumped Hydro Compressed Air Flow Batteries 33 percent 1 hour 10 hours 1 hour 50 percent 30 hours 24 hours 24 hours 10/45

11 Scenarios For Renewables at 33/50 Percent Electricity Generation Install 5 GW of the Following: Scenario 1: Fuel Cells Load Following Scenario 2: Fuel Cells Load Following High Eff./Turn-down Scenario 3: Fuel Cells Baseload with Exceptional Dispatch Scenario 4: Fuel Cells Baseload Scenario 5: Pumped Hydro (PH) Scenario 6: Compressed Air (CAES) Scenario 7: Flow Batteries (FB) 11/45

12 33 Percent RE: CO 2 Emissions CO 2 Emissions [-] Fuel Cell Solar Thermal CAES Legacy Peaker Load Following New Peaker 0 Base BASE Fuel FC LF Cells 1 Fuel FC LF/HE Cells 2 Fuel FC DP-BL Cells 3 Fuel FC Cells BL 4 PH CAES FB 12/45

13 50 Percent RE: CO 2 Emissions CO 2 Emissions [-] Fuel Cell Solar Thermal CAES Legacy Peaker Load Following New Peaker 0 Base BASE Fuel FC Cells LF 1 Fuel FC LF/HE Cells 2 Fuel FC Cells DP-BL 3 Fuel FC Cells BL 4 PH PH CAES FB FB 13/45

14 Levelized Cost of Electricity $/MWh Base FC LF FC LF/HE FC DP-BL FC BL PH CAES FB RE 33 RE 50 14/45

15 CO 2 Reduction Cost per Ton $/ton CO 2 Reduced $ 0 Load Following FC Baseload FC-80 Pumped Hydro Flow Batteries 33 Percent 50 Percent -$33 N/A FC LF FC LF/HE FC DP-BL FC BL PH CAES FB 15/45

16 Summary At 5 GW power capacity, All fuel cell cases show greater CO 2 emission reduction potential than energy storage At 33 percent renewables, Baseload fuel cells show greatest CO 2 emissions reduction Energy storage CO 2 reduction potential minimal At 50 percent renewables, All scenarios require new peaker capacity energy storage minimizes new peaker capacity High efficiency, dynamic fuel cells yield greatest reduction in CO 2 emissions 16/45

17 Conclusions In near term, baseload fuel cells can support CO 2 reduction As renewable levels increase, there is an increased need for dynamic control More dynamic fuel cell operations can support CO 2 reduction goals in the long term At higher renewable levels, there is potential to utilize energy storage 17/45

18 Thank you! Professor Samuelsen Dr. Brian Tarroja Brendan Shaffer APEP professors, students, and staff 18/45