Richard Perez | Practical Solar Analysis
•Download as PPSX, PDF•
4 likes•1,901 views
This document discusses the value of solar photovoltaics (PV) for New York state. It notes that PV provides value to system owners, utilities, and constituents. For each group, it lists various costs and benefits to consider when evaluating the net benefit of PV, such as equipment costs, incentives, impact on utility bills, tax effects, and utility cost savings. The document emphasizes that a comprehensive initial evaluation is needed to understand the full value proposition of PV for New York across energy production, generation capacity, transmission and distribution infrastructure deferral, environmental impacts, and economic development.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
More from GW Solar Institute
More from GW Solar Institute (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Richard Perez | Practical Solar Analysis
- 1. Richard Perez U. Albany, ASRC
- 2. © Richard Perez, et al.
- 3. Richard Perez, et al.
- 4. Each square foot in New York can generate 20 kWh of photovoltaic electricity per year Photograph courtesy of AltPower, Inc. Richard Perez, et al.
- 5. 120 billion kWh / year More than twice CONED’s sales 73 million metric tons CO2 (13 million cars) © Richard Perez
- 7. Only 0.75% of New York’s area* would be needed to produce all the electricity used in the State *using 10% PV conversion Buildings, parking lots and roadways cover almost 3% of New York’s area © Richard Perez
- 8. © Richard Perez, et al.
- 9. 9 MW 10 kW Richard Perez, et al.
- 10. © Richard Perez
- 11. All US electrical energy 25,000 km2 PV 0.32% US Land Area © Richard Perez
- 12. 7%US electricity Hydropower artificial lakes > 100,000 km2 © Richard Perez
- 13. All World electrical energy from solar: 0.07% World Land Area © Richard Perez
- 14. © R. Perez et al. World energy use 16 TW-yr per year ~ 475 exajoules 16 ~ 460 Quads
- 15. RENEWABLES 1,2 25-70 WIND © R. Perez et al. per year Waves11,3 215 0.2-2 total Natural Gas 1,8 3 -11 per year 240 OTEC1,4 total Petroleum 1,8 2 – 6 per year ANWR Biomass 1,5 3 – 4 per year 16 90-300 HYDRO 1,6 Total 0.3 – 2 per year TIDES 1 Geothermal1,7 0.3 per year Uranium 1,9 900 FINITE ENERGY Total reserve RESERVES COAL 1,8
- 16. 1,2 25-70 WIND © R. Perez et al. per year Waves11,3 215 0.2-2 total SOLAR 10 Natural Gas 1,8 23,000 per year 3 -11 per year 240 OTEC1,4 total Petroleum 1,8 2 – 6 per year ANWR World energy use 16 TW-yr Biomass 1,5 per year 3 – 4 per year 90-300 HYDRO 1,6 Total 0.3 – 2 per year TIDES 1 Geothermal1,7 0.3 per year Uranium 1,9 900 Total reserve COAL 1,8
- 17. © R. Perez et al.
- 18. © R. Perez et al.
- 19. © R. Perez et al.
- 20. Richard Perez, et al.
- 21. SOLAR ENERGY IS RELIABLE IN NEW YORK
- 22. © Richard Perez, et al.
- 23. ELECTRICAL DEMAND THROUGHOUT ONE YEAR Load Duration Curve © Richard Perez et al.
- 24. ELECTRICAL DEMAND THROUGHOUT ONE YEAR NO PV PV at 10% Peak penetration 8760 hours © Richard Perez et al.
- 25. PV IMPACT AT 10% CAPCITY PENETRATION NO PV PV at 10% Peak penetration 8760 hours NO PV PV at 10% Peak penetration Displacing highest stress 8760 hours © Richard Perez et al.
- 26. Minimal Load Management or Storage NO PV PV at 10% Peak penetration Displacing highest stress 8760 hours © Richard Perez et al.
- 27. SOLAR ENERGY IS RELIABLE IN NEW YORK Heat wave © Richard Perez, et al. A/C electrical demand peak
- 28. Heat wave © Richard Perez, et al. A/C electrical demand peak
- 29. NO PV PV at 10% Peak penetration 8760 hours Site-time specific PV output information Typical (TMY) data not suitable © Richard Perez, et al.
- 30. SATELLITE-DERIVED SOLAR RESOURCE TILTED IRRADIANCE Modeled Irradiance MODELS DAYLIGHT Luminous efficacy 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 Clear low sun blue scale -60 -80 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 Sky luminance Vertical Diffuse Angular Distribution Illuminances © R. Perez et al
- 31. 2007 – Real Time Clean Power Research SolarAnywhere R TILTED IRRADIANCE Modeled Irradiance MODELS DAYLIGHT 1-hour to 7-Day Forecasts Luminous efficacy 1998 – 2006 80 60 NSRDB NREL 40 20 0 -20 -40 Clear low sun blue scale -60 -80 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 Sky luminance Vertical Diffuse Angular Distribution Illuminances © R. Perez et al
- 32. Summer 2006 peak demand day New York City 12000 11500 11000 L o a d (M W ) 10500 10000 9500 9000 NYC L O A D 8500 NYC L O A D with 1 0 0 0 M W P V 8000 © Richard Perez, et al.
- 33. Commonwealth Edison Minnesota Power and Light HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC Indianapolis Power & Light First Energy Wisconsin Public Service Corp Central Illinois Light Co Black Hills Corporation Wisconsin Electric Power Co Idaho Power Company Northern States Power Ameren Seattle Dept. of Lighting Illinois Power Company Bonneville Power Administration Portland General Central Maine Power Consolidated Edison Orange and Rockland Cambridge Electric Light Co Boston Edison Tucson Electric United Illuminating Co Salt River Project Rochester Gas & Electric Arizona Public Service SMUD S.Diego Gas & Electric Co Tennessee Valley Authority Pacific Gas & Electric City of Chattanooga Nevada Power Jacksonville Electric Authority Tampa Electric Florida Power and Light Lincoln Electric System Colorado Public Service Co Omaha Public Power District Golden Spread Electric Coop City of Austin © Richard Perez et al., ASRC
- 34. Traditional View Lowest Capacity Random Energy output Power Plant Highest Capacity ENERGY Ideally Dispatchable Power Plant source: RReDC CAPACITY Effective View © Richard Perez, et al.
- 35. Idaho Power Company Nevada Power Pacific Gas & Electric S.Diego Gas & Electric Co EFFECTIVE CAPACITY SMUD Rochester Gas & Electric Omaha Public Power District 1991-2003 tendencies Arizona Public Service Golden Spread Electric Coop Colorado Public Service Co Salt River Project Lincoln Electric System Illinois Power Company United Illuminating Co Tucson Electric Ameren Boston Edison Cambridge Electric Light Co Northern States Power Wisconsin Electric Power Co Orange and Rockland Central Illinois Light Co Black Hills Corporation Wisconsin Public Service Corp Consolidated Edison First Energy Florida Power and Light City of Chattanooga Indianapolis Power & Light Tampa Electric Commonwealth Edison Hawaiian Electric Central Maine Power 2000-2005 Jacksonville Electric Authority Anomaly Authority Tennesee Valley 2002-03 Portland General experimental Minnesota Power and Light values Bonneville Power Administration . 1991-estimates Seattle Dept. of Lighting 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% © Richard Perez et al., ASRC 2-axis-tracking reference ELCC
- 36. Northeast US – AUG 14th, 2003 Perez et al., ASRC
- 37. Toronto Detroit Boston Cleveland NYC © Richard Perez, et al.
- 38. X Sub-Island with enough generation to meet demand Sub-Islands with insufficient generation to meet demand Boston Toronto Detroit NYC Cleveland Northeast Electrical Island Boundary © Richard Perez, et al.
- 39. NYC $1 Billion (Reuters) $1.1 Billion (The Guardian) US-Can $6.8 - $10.3 B (ICF Consulting) Perez et al., ASRC
- 40. Perez et al., ASRC
- 41. 18:00 GMT 17:00 GMT As little as 500 MW of PV dispersed around the major northeastern cities would have prevented the blackout An investment of $ 3 billion 20:00 GMT 19:00 GMT Outage cost $ 8 billion © Richard Perez, et al.
- 42. © Richard Perez, et al.
- 43. SHORT-TERM VARIABILITY IMPLICATIONS FOR THE POWER GRID © Richard Perez, et al.
- 44. Very High Penetration Storage & Load Management 2000 16000 S o la r G e ne ra tio n P e a king s to ra ge utiliza tio n No rma l s to ra ge o r v a ria ble ge n E xc e s s s o la r to s to ra ge Base Load 12000 1500 N et L o ad (M W ) 8000 1000 4000 500 0 0 -4000 -5 0 0 © Richard Perez, et al.
- 45. Richard Perez, et al.
- 47. Richard Perez, et al.
- 48. What is the value of PV for New York? Value to S ystem O w n ers U tility C on stitu en ts cost E qu ipm en t benefit cost In cen tives benefit cost U tility B ill benefit cost T ax E ffects benefit U tility C ost S avin gs benefit C on stitu en t B en efits N et B en efit ??? ??? ??? © Richard Perez & Thomas Hoff
- 49. What is the value of PV for New York? Value to S ystem O w n ers U tility C on stitu en ts cost E qu ipm en t benefit cost In cen tives benefit cost U tility B ill benefit cost T ax E ffects benefit U tility C ost S avin gs benefit C on stitu en t B en efits N et B en efit ??? ??? ??? © Richard Perez & Thomas Hoff
- 50. What is the value of PV for New York? Value to S ystem O w n ers U tility C on stitu en ts cost E qu ipm en t benefit cost In cen tives benefit cost U tility B ill benefit cost T ax E ffects benefit U tility C ost S avin gs benefit C on stitu en t B en efits N et B en efit ??? ??? ??? © Richard Perez & Thomas Hoff
- 51. What is the value of PV for New York? S ystem O w n ers U tility C on stitu en ts cost E qu ipm en t benefit cost In cen tives benefit cost U tility B ill benefit cost T ax E ffects benefit U tility C ost S avin gs benefit C on stitu en t B en efits N et B en efit ??? ??? ??? © Richard Perez & Thomas Hoff
- 52. What is the value of PV for New York? S ystem O w n ers U tility C on stitu en ts cost E qu ipm en t benefit cost In cen tives benefit cost U tility B ill benefit cost T ax E ffects benefit U tility C ost S avin gs benefit C on stitu en t B en efits N et B en efit ??? ??? ??? © Richard Perez & Thomas Hoff
- 53. What is the value of PV for New York? S ystem O w n ers U tility C on stitu en ts cost E qu ipm en t benefit cost In cen tives benefit cost U tility B ill benefit cost T ax E ffects benefit U tility C ost S avin gs benefit C on stitu en t B en efits N et B en efit ??? ??? ??? © Richard Perez & Thomas Hoff
- 54. What is the value of PV for New York? S ystem O w n ers U tility C on stitu en ts cost E qu ipm en t benefit cost In cen tives benefit cost U tility B ill benefit cost T ax E ffects benefit U tility C ost S avin gs benefit C on stitu en t B en efits N et B en efit ??? ??? ??? © Richard Perez & Thomas Hoff
- 55. What is the value of PV for New York? S ystem O w n ers U tility C on stitu en ts cost E qu ipm en t benefit cost In cen tives benefit cost U tility B ill benefit cost T ax E ffects benefit U tility C ost S avin gs benefit C on stitu en t B en efits Energy Production Value N et B en efit ??? ??? ??? Generation Capacity Value T&D capacity deferral value Loss savings Environmental compliance value Fuel price hedge protection © Richard Perez & Thomas Hoff
- 56. Long-term, system-wide rate protection Environmental health benefits Business development opportunities (job and business creation) Use of in-state resource and reduction of state imports Power grid security enhancement Disaster recovery S ystem O w n ers U tility C on stitu en ts cost E qu ipm en t benefit cost In cen tives benefit cost U tility B ill benefit cost T ax E ffects benefit U tility C ost S avin gs benefit C on stitu en t B en efits Energy Production Value N et B en efit ??? ??? ??? Generation Capacity Value T&D capacity deferral value Loss savings INITIAL EVALUATION Environmental compliance value Fuel price hedge protection © Richard Perez & Thomas Hoff
- 57. Long-term, system-wide rate protection Environmental health benefits Business development opportunities (job and business creation) Use of in-state resource and reduction of state imports What is the value of PV for New York? Power grid security enhancement Disaster recovery S ystem O w n ers U tility C on stitu en ts cost E qu ipm en t benefit cost In cen tives benefit cost U tility B ill benefit cost T ax E ffects benefit U tility C ost S avin gs benefit C on stitu en t B en efits Energy Production Value N et B en efit ??? ??? ??? Generation Capacity Value T&D capacity deferral value Loss savings INITIAL EVALUATION Environmental compliance value Fuel price hedge protection © Richard Perez & Thomas Hoff
- 58. 3 CASE STUDIES CAPITAL WEST LONG ISLAND Energy Production Value Generation Capacity Value T&D capacity deferral value Loss savings INITIAL EVALUATION Environmental compliance value Fuel price hedge protection © Richard Perez & Thomas Hoff
- 59. ENERGY PRODUCTION VALUE LBMP Location Based Marginal Pricing CAPITAL WEST LONG PV Value / MWh ISLAND ALL YEAR P V G e o m e try AVERAGE o S o u th e s t 3 0 T ilt L o c a tio n P R IC E L o n g Is la n d $ 109 $ 93 C a p ita l $ 78 $ 73 W est $ 62 $ 55 SUMMER P V G e o m e try AVERAGE o S o u th e s t 3 0 T ilt L o c a tio n P R IC E L o n g Is la n d $ 123 $ 91 C a p ita l $ 81 $ 69 W est $ 73 $ 60 © Richard Perez & Thomas Hoff
- 60. ENERGY PRODUCTION VALUE CONGESTION Penalty CAPITAL WEST LONG PV Value / MWh ISLAND ALL YEAR PV Geometry AVERAGE Southest 30o Tilt Location PRICE Long Island $ (34) $ (24) Capital $ (7) $ (8) West $ (2) $ (2) SUMMER PV Geometry AVERAGE Southest 30o Tilt Location PRICE Long Island $ (39) $ (19) Capital $ (2) $ (1) West $ - $ - © Richard Perez & Thomas Hoff
- 61. GENERATION CAPACITY VALUE CAPITAL WEST LONG ISLAND © Richard Perez & Thomas Hoff
- 62. ELCC-SLC COMPOSITE CAPACITY CREDIT CAPITAL WEST LONG ISLAND 100% C apac ity C redit W es t L.Is land C apac ity C redit L.Is land C apac ity C redit C apital C apac ity C redit C apital C apac ity F ac tor W es t C apac ity F ac tor L.Is land 80% C apac ity F ac tor L.Is land C apac ity F ac tor C apital C a p a c ity C re d it 60% 40% 20% 0% 2% 5% 10% 15% 20% G rid P e n e tra tio n © Richard Perez & Thomas Hoff
- 63. GENERATION CAPACITY VALUE Unlike energy, is not a directly traded commodity But it can be estimated: • NYISO DR programs provide up to $100 per kW per year for stand-by customer-sited capacity that may, or may not be called upon. • Demand-based tariffs e.g., $180/kW per year upstate (National Grid) and $250/kW per year downstate (ConEdison). © Richard Perez & Thomas Hoff
- 64. ALL YEAR P V G e o m e try AVERAGE o GENERATION iltCAPACITY3VALUE S o u th e s t 3 0 T L o c a tio n P R IC E L o n g Is la n d $ 109 $ 9 C a p ita l $ 78 $ 73 W est $ 62 $ 55 Unlike energy,enot try directlyVtraded commodity PV G om e a SUMMER A ERAGE o S o u th e s t 3 0 T ilt L o c a tio n P R IC E But it can be estimated: $ L o n g Is la n d $ 123 91 C a p ita l $ 81 $ 69 W est $ 73 $ 60 • NYISO DR programs provide up to $100 per kW per year for stand-by customer-sited capacity that may, or may not be called upon. • Demand-based tarrifs e.g., $180/kW per year upstate 10.9 ¢ per kWh Displaced energy year downstate (National Grid) and $250/kW per (ConEdison). + 4.5 ¢ per kWh Displaced capacity 15.4 ¢ per kWh value of net metered systems in L.I. Net-metered retail rate in L. I. 20 ¢ per kWh X © Richard Perez & Thomas Hoff
- 65. Long-term, system-wide rate protection Environmental health benefits Business development opportunities (job and business creation) Energy Production Value Use of in-state resource and reduction of state Generation Capacity Value imports T&D capacity deferral value Power grid security77% enhancement Loss savings Disaster recovery Very likely that utility Environmental compliance value VALUE TO COST RATIO Fuel price hedge protection >>100% Value to Cost Ratio 15.4 ¢ per kWh Value to utility 77% Net-metered retail to utility I. Cost rate in L. 20 ¢ per kWh © Richard Perez & Thomas Hoff
- 66. Thanks for your attention