Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Sam Baldwin | CSP, PV and a Renewable Future

Loading in …3

Check these out next

1 of 44 Ad

More Related Content

Slideshows for you (20)


Similar to Sam Baldwin | CSP, PV and a Renewable Future (20)

More from GW Solar Institute (20)


Recently uploaded (20)

Sam Baldwin | CSP, PV and a Renewable Future

  1. 1. CSP, PV, and a Renewable Future Institute for Analysis of Solar Energy George Washington University 24 April 2009 Sam Baldwin Chief Technology Officer and Member, Board of Directors Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy U.S. Department of Energy
  2. 2. Energy-Linked Challenges <ul><li>Economic — economic development and growth; energy costs </li></ul><ul><li>Security — foreign energy dependence, reliability, stability </li></ul><ul><li>Environmental — local (particulates), regional (acid rain), global (GHGs) </li></ul><ul><li>Scale and Time Constants </li></ul><ul><li>Responses </li></ul><ul><li>CSP Technologies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>System Design </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Growing Markets </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Value of CSP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>R&D Needs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The Renewable Future </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Technologies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Scale </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Utility Integration </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Policy & Incentives </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mobilizing Capital </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Human Resources </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Nations that HAVE oil (% of Global Reserves) Saudi Arabia 26% Iraq 11 Kuwait 10 Iran 9 UAE 8 Venezuela 6 Russia 5 Mexico 3 Libya 3 China 3 Nigeria 2 U.S. 2% Nations that NEED Oil (% of Global Consumption) U.S. 24. % China 8.6 Japan 5.9 Russia 3.4 India 3.1 Germany 2.9 Canada 2.8 Brazil 2.6 S. Korea 2.6 Mexico 2.4 France 2.3 Italy 2.0 Global ~85 MM Bbl/day Source: EIA International Energy Annual The Oil Problem
  4. 4. Impacts of Oil Dependence <ul><li>Domestic Economic Impact </li></ul><ul><li>Trade Deficit : Oil ~ 57% of $677B trade deficit in 2008 </li></ul><ul><li>Foreign Policy Impacts </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Strategic competition for access to oil </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Oil money supports undesirable regimes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Oil money finds its way to terrorist organizations </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Vulnerabilities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>to system failures: tanker spills; pipeline corrosion; … </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>to natural disasters: Katrina; … </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>to political upheaval: Nigeria; … </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>to terrorist acts: Yemen; Saudi Arabia; … </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Economic Development </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Developing world growth stunted by high oil prices; increases instability </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Natural Gas? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Largest producers: Algeria, Iran, Qatar, Russia, Venezuela </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Russia provides 40% of European NG imports now; 70% by 2030. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Russia cut-off of natural gas to Ukraine </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Oil Futures
  6. 6. Oil Sources <ul><li>Constraints </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cost </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Energy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Water </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Atmosphere </li></ul></ul>Source: David Greene, ORNL <ul><li>Resources </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Oil Shale </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>U.S.—Over 1.2 trillion Bbls-equiv. in highest-grade deposits </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tar Sands </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Canadian Athabasca Tar Sands—1.7 T Bbls-equivalent </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Venezuelan Orinoco Tar Sands (Heavy Oil)—1.8 T Bbls-equiv. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Coal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Coal Liquefaction—4 Bbls/ton </li></ul></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Potential Impacts of GHG Emissions <ul><li>Temperature Increases </li></ul><ul><li>Precipitation Changes </li></ul><ul><li>Glacier & Sea-Ice Loss </li></ul><ul><li>Water Availability </li></ul><ul><li>Wildfire Increases </li></ul><ul><li>Ecological Zone Shifts </li></ul><ul><li>Extinctions </li></ul><ul><li>Agricultural Zone Shifts </li></ul><ul><li>Agricultural Productivity </li></ul><ul><li>Ocean Acidification </li></ul><ul><li>Ocean Oxygen Levels </li></ul><ul><li>Sea Level Rise </li></ul><ul><li>Human Health Impacts </li></ul><ul><li>Feedback Effects </li></ul>U.S.: 5.9 GT CO 2 /yr energy-related World: 28.3 GT CO 2 /yr Hoegh-Guldberg, et al, Science, V.318, pp.1737, 14 Dec. 2007
  8. 8. Climate Change <ul><ul><li>“ We urge all nations … to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change …”. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>National Academies’ of Science, 2005: Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom, U.S.A . </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Joint Science Academies’ Statement : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring.” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“… most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities.” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Long-term global efforts to create a more healthy, prosperous, and sustainable world may be severely hindered by changes in climate.” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>National Academies’ of Science, 2008: “ Immediate large-scale mitigation action is required ” </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. New York City during the August 2003 blackout Kristina Hamachi LaCommare, and Joseph H. Eto, LBNL Costs of Power Interruptions
  10. 10. Scale of the Challenge <ul><li>Increase fuel economy of 2 billion cars from 30 to 60 mpg. </li></ul><ul><li>Cut carbon emissions from buildings by one-fourth by 2050—on top of projected improvements. </li></ul><ul><li>With today’s coal power output doubled, operate it at 60% instead of 40% efficiency (compared with 32% today). </li></ul><ul><li>Introduce Carbon Capture and Storage at 800 GW of coal-fired power. </li></ul><ul><li>Install 1 million 2-MW wind turbines. </li></ul><ul><li>Install 3000 GW-peak of Solar power. </li></ul><ul><li>Apply conservation tillage to all cropland (10X today). </li></ul><ul><li>Install 700 GW of nuclear power. </li></ul><ul><li>Source: S. Pacala and R. Socolow, “Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technology”, Science 13 August 2004, pp.968-972. </li></ul>
  11. 11. Time Constants <ul><li>Political consensus building ~ 3-30+ years </li></ul><ul><li>Technical R&D ~10+ </li></ul><ul><li>Production model ~ 4+ </li></ul><ul><li>Financial ~ 2++ </li></ul><ul><li>Market penetration ~10++ </li></ul><ul><li>Capital stock turnover </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cars ~ 15 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Appliances ~ 10-20 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Industrial Equipment ~ 10-30/40+ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Power plants ~ 40+ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Buildings ~ 80 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Urban form ~100’s </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Lifetime of Greenhouse Gases ~10’s-1000’s </li></ul><ul><li>Reversal of Land Use Change ~100’s </li></ul><ul><li>Reversal of Extinctions Never </li></ul><ul><li>Time available for significant action ?? </li></ul>
  12. 12. Solar Energy <ul><li>Price of electricity from grid-connected PV systems are ~20 ¢/kWh . (Down from ~$2.00/kWh in 1980) </li></ul><ul><li>Nine parabolic trough plants with a total rated capacity of 354 MW have operated since 1985, with demonstrated system costs of ~14 ¢/kWh. </li></ul>
  13. 13. Photovoltaics Source: EERE/STP
  14. 14. Best Research-Cell Efficiencies 026587136 University Linz Siemens ECN, The Netherlands Princeton UC Berkeley Source: NREL 40.8 19.9 Efficiency (%) University of Maine Boeing Boeing Boeing Boeing ARCO NREL Boeing Euro-CIS 2000 1995 1990 1985 1980 1975 NREL/ Spectrolab NREL NREL Japan Energy Spire No. Carolina State University Multijunction Concentrators Three-junction (2-terminal, monolithic) Two-junction (2-terminal, monolithic) Crystalline Si Cells Single crystal Multicrystalline Thin Si Thin Film Technologies Cu(In,Ga)Se 2 CdTe Amorphous Si:H (stabilized) Emerging PV Dye cells Organic cells (various technologies) Varian RCA Solarex UNSW UNSW ARCO UNSW UNSW UNSW Spire Stanford Westing- house UNSW Georgia Tech Georgia Tech Sharp AstroPower NREL AstroPower Spectrolab NREL Masushita Monosolar Kodak Kodak AMETEK Photon Energy University So. Florida NREL NREL NREL Cu(In,Ga)Se 2 14x concentration NREL United Solar United Solar RCA RCA RCA RCA RCA RCA Spectrolab Solarex 12 8 4 0 16 20 24 28 32 36 University of Lausanne University of Lausanne 2005 Kodak UCSB Cambridge NREL
  15. 15. PV Shipments and U.S. Market Share
  16. 16. Trough Systems Power Towers Dish Systems Concentrating Solar Thermal Power Source: NREL Linear Fresnel Dish Systems Source: EERE/STP
  17. 17. Parabolic Trough Operation
  18. 18. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future 354 MW Luz Solar Electric Generating Systems (SEGS) Nine Plants built 1984 - 1991 Source: Mark Mehos, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
  19. 19. 1-MW Arizona Trough Plant Tucson, AZ Source: Mark Mehos, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
  20. 20. 64 MW e Acciona Nevada Solar One Solar Parabolic Trough Plant Source: Mark Mehos, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
  21. 21. 50 MW AndaSol One and Two Parabolic Trough Plant w/ 7-hr Storage, Andalucía Source: Mark Mehos, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
  22. 22. Abengoa PS10 and PS 20; Seville, Spain Source: Mark Mehos, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
  23. 23. US Projects Under Development Source: Mark Mehos, National Renewable Energy Laboratory 424 MW 4503 MW
  24. 24. International Projects Under Development Source: Mark Mehos, National Renewable Energy Laboratory 658 MW 3180 MW
  25. 25. Value of Dispatchable Power? Meets Utility Peak Power Demands <ul><li>Storage provides </li></ul><ul><ul><li>higher value because power production can match utility needs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>lower costs because storage is cheaper than incremental turbine costs </li></ul></ul>National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future Solar Resource Hourly Load 0 6 12 18 24 Generation w/ Thermal Storage
  26. 26. Concentrating Solar Power U.S. Southwest <ul><li>Cost Reduction Potential </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Estimates from Sargent & Lundy and WGA Solar Task Force indicate CSP costs can go below 6 cents/kWh assuming R&D and deployment. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Factors Contributing to Cost Reduction </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Scale-up ~37% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Volume Production ~ 21% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Technology Development 42% </li></ul></ul>Direct-Normal Solar Resource for the Southwest U.S. Map and table courtesy of NREL Filters: Transmission >6.75 kWh/m 2 d Environment X Land Use X Slope < 1% Area > 1 km 2 5 acres/MW 27% annual CF
  27. 27. CSP R&D Opportunities <ul><li>CSP Solar Field R&D : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Accounts for ~50-60% of capital cost </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>High-performance long-life low-cost reflectors with self-cleaning or hydrophobic coatings; Increase optical accuracy and aiming. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Receiver: Stable, high temperature, high performance selective surfaces. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>CSP Thermal Storage : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Accounts for ~20-25% of capital cost </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Stable, high temperature heat transfer and thermal storage materials to 600C (1200 C for advanced technology), with low vapor pressure, low freezing points, low cost ($15/kW th ) , appropriate viscosity & density, etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Advanced CSP Systems : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Power block accounts for ~10-15% of capital cost; 37.6% efficiency </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Brayton Cycles for higher temperature, higher efficiency </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Fuels: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>High-temperature thermochemical cycles for CSP production—353 found & scored; 12 under further study; Develop falling particle receiver and heat transfer system for up to 1000 C cycles. Develop reactor/receiver designs and materials for up to 1800 C cycles </li></ul></ul>
  28. 28. <ul><li>BUILDINGS </li></ul><ul><li>Passive Solar Design </li></ul><ul><li>Daylighting </li></ul><ul><li>Solar Water Heaters </li></ul><ul><li>Active Solar Heating/Cooling </li></ul>Source: Building Technology Program Core Databook, August 2003. ; Annual Energy Outlook 2008. Often Forgotten Solar Buildings: Total Primary Energy 38.9 quads (2006) <ul><li>INDUSTRY </li></ul><ul><li>Industrial Process Heat </li></ul><ul><li>Solar Water Heaters </li></ul><ul><li>Daylighting </li></ul>Industry: Total Primary Energy 32.7 quads (2006)
  29. 29. A Renewable Future <ul><li>Power: (Energy Information Administration) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>2007: Total: 3900 TWh; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fossil: 3000 TWh; Nuclear: 800 Twh; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>RE: 350 Twh Wind: 26 TWh Solar: 0.5 TWh </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2030: Total: 5000 TWh </li></ul></ul><ul><li>ISSUES: </li></ul><ul><li>HOW FAR? </li></ul><ul><li>HOW FAST? </li></ul><ul><li>HOW WELL? </li></ul><ul><li>AT WHAT COST? </li></ul><ul><li>BEST PATHWAYS? </li></ul><ul><li>Efficiency </li></ul><ul><li>Renewable Energy </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Biomass Power </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Geothermal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hydropower </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ocean Energy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Solar Photovoltaics / Battery Storage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Solar Thermal / Thermal Storage / Natural Gas </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Solar: 2000 TWh/y  1500 GW  40 GW/y </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Wind / CAES / Natural Gas </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Wind: 2000 TWh/y  600 GW  15 GW/y </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Transmission Infrastructure/Smart Grid </li></ul><ul><li>End-Use Systems </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Smart End-Use Equipment (dispatched w/ PV) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Plug-In Hybrids/Smart Charging Stations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>4100 Bmiles in 2030 3 miles/kWh ( [email_address] ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li> 1400 TWh/y </li></ul></ul><ul><li>CHALLENGES </li></ul><ul><li>Efficiency Improvements. </li></ul><ul><li>Supply R&D: PV, CSP, Wind. </li></ul><ul><li>Storage R&D: CAES, Thermal, Battery. </li></ul><ul><li>Materials Supply </li></ul><ul><li>Grid Integration </li></ul><ul><li>Manufacturing Ramp-up; Supply-Chain Development </li></ul><ul><li>Policy </li></ul><ul><li>Training </li></ul>
  30. 30. Energy Efficiency: 1970-2007 Efficiency; Structural Change: Total 106.8 New Supply Gas 1.8Q RE 2.8 Nucl 8.2 Oil 10.3 Coal 10.5 Total 33.8
  31. 31. U.S. Refrigerator Energy Consumption (Average energy consumption of new refrigerators sold in the U.S.) Source: LBNL Savings: ~1400 kWh/year * $0.10/kWh *100 M households = $14 B/year
  32. 32.
  33. 33. Plug-In Hybrids <ul><li>Battery Storage, Power Electronics, System Int. </li></ul><ul><li>A123 -- Nano-Structured Iron-Phosphate Cathode. </li></ul><ul><li>Wind 200 GW  450 GW </li></ul>
  34. 34. Wind Energy <ul><li>Cost of wind power from 80 cents per kilowatt-hour in 1979 to a current range of ~5+ cents per kWh (Class 5-6). </li></ul><ul><li>Low wind speed technology: x20 resource; x5 proximity </li></ul><ul><li>>8000 GW of available land-based wind resources </li></ul><ul><li>~600 GW at $0.06-0.10/kWh, including 500 miles of Transmission. </li></ul><ul><li>Offshore Resources. </li></ul><ul><li>Directly Employs 85,000 people in the U.S. </li></ul>11,600 2006 ~16,800 2007 Source: EERE/WTP ~25,500 2008
  35. 35. Wind Energy GE Wind 1.5 MW Source: EERE/WTP Source: S. Succar, R. Williams, “CAES: Theory, Resources, Applications…” 4/08
  36. 36. Geothermal Technologies <ul><li>Current U.S. capacity is ~2,800 MW; 8,000 MW worldwide. </li></ul><ul><li>Current cost is 5 to 8 ¢/kWh ; Down from 15 ¢/kWh in 1985 </li></ul><ul><li>2010 goal: 3-5 ¢/kWh . </li></ul>
  37. 37. A Renewable Electricity Future? Photovoltaics Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) Smart Grid Distributed Generation Plug-in Hybrids c-Si Cu(In,Ga)Se 2 500x Wind
  38. 38. Materials <ul><li>Commodity Materials </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Steel, Cement, Glass, Copper </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Silicon </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Speciality Materials </li></ul><ul><ul><li>CIGS, CdTe, others. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lithium; Cobalt; Ruthenium </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Responses </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Supply chain development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Efficiency; Substitution (LiFePO 4 ) </li></ul></ul>Material World Production Material at 20 GW/y % Current Production Indium 250 MT/y 400 MT/y 160% Selenium 2,200 MT/y 800 MT/y 36% Gallium 150 MT/y 70 MT/y 47% Tellurium 450 MT/y (2000 MT/y unused) 930 MT/y 38% (of total) Cadmium 26,000 MT/y 800 MT/y 3%
  39. 39. Grid Integration <ul><li>Assess potential effects of large-scale Wind/Solar deployment on grid operations and reliability: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Behavior of solar/wind systems and impacts on existing grid </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Effects on central generation maintenance and operation costs, including peaking power plants </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Engage with utilities to mitigate barriers to technology adoption </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Prevent grid impacts from becoming basis for market barriers, e.g. caps on net metering and denied interconnections to “preserve” grid </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provide utilities with needed simulations, controls, and field demos </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Develop technologies for integration: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Smart Grid/Dispatch. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Barriers: Variable output; Low capacity factor; Located on weak circuits; Lack of utility experience; Economics of transmission work against wind/solar. </li></ul><ul><li>ISSUES </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Geographic Diversity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ramp Times </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Islanding </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>System Interactions </li></ul></ul>
  40. 40. Policy: Federal / State <ul><li>Technology Transfer : Partnerships; Solicitations; SBIR; Growth Fora; Incubators; IP </li></ul><ul><li>Investment Tax Credit (ITC): solar, fuel cells, geothermal, microturbines </li></ul><ul><ul><li>30% credit for solar </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Depreciation: Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System—5 year class </li></ul><ul><li>Production Tax Credits </li></ul><ul><li>Renewable Portfolio Standards </li></ul><ul><li>Net Metering </li></ul><ul><li>Property & Sales Tax Exemptions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>WGA Task Force : Exempt early CSP plants from state sales and property taxes; Encourage 30 year PPAs; Foster large-block purchases </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Systems Benefit Charges </li></ul><ul><li>State & Local Bonds </li></ul><ul><li>Permitting: Streamline, as approp. </li></ul><ul><li>Codes & Standards </li></ul><ul><li>Education & Certification </li></ul><ul><li>Public Outreach </li></ul><ul><li>ISSUES </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Planning Horizons </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Targeting Incentives/Buy-down </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Renewable Electricity Standards </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Carbon Policy? </li></ul></ul>
  41. 41. State Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS)
  42. 42. Mobilizing Capital <ul><li>Investment (notional numbers) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Wind @ 15 GW/y  ~$27 B/y </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Solar @ 38 GW/y  ~$70 B/y </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Total  $100 B/y </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Offsets </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fossil @ 770/40  ~$60 B/y </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fuel  ~$x B/y </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Issues </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How to best mobilize capital with the most leverage at the minimum public expense? </li></ul></ul>
  43. 43. Human Resources: Solar Decathlon Carnegie Mellon; Cornell; Georgia Tech; Kansas State; Lawrence Technological University; MIT; New York Institute of Technology; Pennsylvania State; Santa Clara University; Team Montreal ( É cole de Technologie Sup é rieure, Universit é de Montr é al, McGill University); Technische Universit ä t Darmstadt; Texas A&M; Universidad Polit é cnica de Madrid; Universidad de Puerto Rico; University of Colorado – Boulder; University of Cincinnati; University of Illinois; University of Maryland; University of Missouri, Rolla; University of Texas, Austin. Architecture Engineering Market Viability Communications Comfort Appliances Hot Water Lighting Energy Balance Getting Around Source: STP <ul><li>Issues </li></ul><ul><ul><li>At $100K/cap, $100B/y  1 M Jobs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How can this scale be ramped up to quickly? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How can quality control best be maintained? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What outreach to state/local level will be most effective? </li></ul></ul>
  44. 44. For more information [email_address]

Editor's Notes