147-slide deck used in seminar at the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), Nov. 12, 2014, Energy Training Workshop. Whereas the IDB has skewed investment and financial support to South and Central American and Caribbean nations into large-scale hydrodams, and large-scale fossil fuel projects (power plants, pipelines), this presentation focuses on the superior least-cost-and-risk strategy based on end-use efficiency gains, onsite and distributed microgrids, powered with solar and wind power.
LEAST-COST-&-RISK LIFECYCLE DELIVERED ENERGY SERVICES
1. SOLAR
RESOURCE
OF
LATIN
AMERICA
LEAST-‐COST-‐&-‐RISK
LIFECYCLE
DELIVERED
ENERGY
SERVICES
Michael
P
To,en,
Senior
Fellow,
Rocky
Mountain
Ins:tute,
Nov.
12,
2014
Presenta:on
to
the
IDB
ENE
CSF
Energy
Training
Workshop
EPPs
+
+
Efficiency
Power
Plants
2. Summary
of
Key
Points
1. Least-‐Cost-‐and-‐Risk
Lifecycle
PorLolio
of
Delivered
Energy
Services
top
priority
2. Risks
include
intrinsic
uncertain:es
and
surprises
–
climate
disrup:on
costs,
price
vola:li:es
of
fuel,
water,
pollu:on
and
emissions,
catastrophic
accident
fat-‐tail
probabili:es,
destruc:on
of
ecosystem
services,
cultural
disrup:on
3. End-‐use
efficiency
gains
(Eta,
η)
vast
pool
capable
of
delivering
50
to
75%
of
new
energy
services
for
decades,
far
cheaper
than
any
supply
op:on
–
integrated
design
intelligence/knowledge
displacing
energy
resources
&
materials.
4. Wind
power
now
cheapest
supply
op:on
in
countries
and
regions
with
wind
resources.
5. Solar
Photovoltaics
(PV)
systems
now
equal
to
or
less
than
the
grid
electricity
from
other
sources
in
79
countries.
Within
60
months
(by
2020)
–
as
the
scale
of
deployments
grows
and
the
costs
con:nue
to
decline
–
more
than
80%
humanity
will
live
in
regions
where
solar
will
be
compe::ve
with
electricity
from
other
sources.
6. Efficiency,
Wind
&
Solar,
once
installed,
are
risk-‐free
from
price
vola:lity
over
lifecycle
given
no
fuel
demand,
virtually
no
water,
no
pollu:on,
waste
or
emissions
in
genera:ng
and
delivering
electricity
services.
3. Natural Gas
provides fuel for
transportation,
electricity, and
heat
Telecom
provides SCADA
and
communications
technologies
Transportation
provides fuel
transport and
shipping
Electric Power
provides energy to
support facility
operations
Water
provides water for
production, cooling,
and emissions
reductions
Oil
provides fuel and
lubricants
Figure 3. Examples of Critical Infrastructure Interdependencies
Adapted from: Rinaldi, Peerenboom, and Kelly (2001)”Identifying, Understanding, and Analyzing Critical Infrastructure Interdependencies” IEEE Control Systems Magazine,
December. Available at: http://www.ce.cmu.edu/~hsm/im2004/readings/CII-Rinaldi.pdf.
CriZcal
Infrastructure
Interdependencies
Cybersecurity
and
the
North
American
Electric
Grid:
New
Policy
Approaches
to
Address
an
Evolving
Threat,
Bipar:san
Policy
Center,
Feb.
2014
4. Threats
Landscape:
ELECTRIC
POWER
SECTOR
Spectrum of Threats do today. The Chertoff Group was biological, or radiological attacks). As
F I G U R E 1
THREAT LANDSCAPE: ELECTRIC POWER SECTOR
Source: The Chertoff Group, December 2013
Cyber Attack
Physical Attack / Theft
Coordinated Physical and Cyber Attack
Insider Threat
Electromagnetic Interference / EMP
Natural Disasters
Pandemic
Supply Chain Compromise
Chemical, Biological or Radiological Attack
Nuclear Attack
LIKELIHOOD
CONSEQUENCE
5. UglyGorilla
(Chinese)
Hack
of
U.S.
UZlity
Exposes
Cyberwar
Threat
“This
is
as
big
a
naZonal
security
threat
as
I
have
ever
seen
in
the
history
of
this
country
that
we
are
not
prepared
for,”
said
U.S.
Congressman
Mike
Rogers
(R-‐MI)
,
chairman,
USHR
intelligence
commiaee.
“Your
palms
get
a
liale
sweaty
thinking
about
what
the
outcome
of
those
aaacks
might
have
been
and
how
close
they
actually
came.”
6. National Security
and the
Accelerating Risks
of Climate Change
Military Advisory Board
General Paul Kern, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Gerald E. Galloway Jr., USA (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Lee Gunn, USN (Ret.)
Admiral Frank “Skip” Bowman, USN (Ret.)
General James Conway, USMC (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Ken Eickmann, USAF (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Larry Farrell, USAF (Ret.)
General Don Hoffman, USAF (Ret.)
General Ron Keys, USAF (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti, British Royal Navy (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Ann Rondeau, USN (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Keith Stalder, USMC (Ret.)
General Gordon Sullivan, USA (Ret.)
Rear Admiral David Titley, USN (Ret.)
General Charles “Chuck” Wald, USAF (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Richard Zilmer, USMC (Ret.)
Pentagon
Report:
U.S.
Military
Considers
Climate
Change
a
'Threat
MulZplier'
That
Could
Exacerbate
Terrorism
7. BUILDING A
RESILIENT
POWER GRID
Industry and government are working together to ensure
necessary investments—not only to anticipate and prevent
possible harm to critical energy supply—but also to ensure a
constant focus on building a more resilient grid.
8. ENERGY
STRATEGIES
FOR
NATIONAL
SECURITY
(and
profits,
jobs,
nature
and
climate)
Funded
by
Dept
Defense
Civil
Defense
Preparedness
Agency
Funded
by
Department
of
Defense
1980
2005
9. Main
Utility Grid
PCC
Household appliances and electronics
DC Coupled Subsystem
Modes of Operation: ISLANDED
US
Dept
of
Defense
Mandated
Islandable
Microgrids
at
Military
Bases
to
operate
even
if
Grid
Collapses
16. You’re Telling Me An EE Power Plant
Is Just Like A Fossil Power Plant?
.
7
• Yes, and it’s less expensive,
removes more pollutants,
and saves water
• Answer these questions to
build an EE power plant:
– How many MW and MWh?
– When and where?
– Quantity of tons needed to
be removed?
Building
Energy
Efficiency
Power
Plants:
Cu^ng
Through
the
Fog
or
Why
EE
Advocates
Should
Engage
Air
Regulators,
Christopher
James,
Principal,
Regulatory
Assistance
Project
(RAP),
ACEEE
Summer
Study,
August
2014
17. Efficiency
Power
Plant
(EPP)
calculator,
Regulatory
Assistance
Project,
h,p://www.raponline.org/featured-‐work/cu^ng-‐
through-‐the-‐fog-‐to-‐build-‐energy-‐efficiency
Efficiency
Power
Plant
(EPP)
Calculator
18. Building
Energy
Efficiency
Power
Plants:
Cu^ng
Through
the
Fog
or
Why
EE
Advocates
Should
Engage
Air
Regulators,
Christopher
James,
Principal,
Regulatory
Assistance
Project
(RAP),
ACEEE
Summer
Study,
August
2014
same principles as our demonstration tool, that could potentially be used by states as part of their
future plans. Indeed, many existing tools used by efficiency program administrators would
require only modest modifications (and perhaps no modifications in some cases) to provide such
functionality.
Figure 2. Efficiency power plant planning tool inputs.
17
"End Use" (what the
electricity is being
used for)
Representative
installed equipment
(also called
"Measure")
Unit of installed
equipment (what
are you counting?)
Quantity of
installed
equipment
(how many
will be
installed?)
Savings
per Unit
(kWh/yr)
Total
Savings
(MWh/yr)
RESIDENTIAL
Residential Cooling ENERGY STAR Central A/C Air Conditioner 756 150 113
Cooking & Laundry CEE Tier 3 Washer Washing Machine 6,830 237 1,619
Lighting CFL Light Bulb 981,130 35 34,340
Refrigeration Recycled Refrigerator Refrigerator 2,127 720 1,531
Space Heating Weatherization One Home 542 1,500 813
Water Heating Low Flow Showerhead Showerhead 3,530 260 918
Other Custom Projects One Home 3,257 1,000 3,257
Total Residential 42,591
COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL
A/C Project One C&I Project 623 5,505 3,429
Hot Water Project One C&I Project 139 1,000 139
Industrial Process Project One C&I Project 73 140,000 10,220
Interior Lighting Project One C&I Project 2,621 16,000 41,936
Motors VFD<= 10 HP One C&I Project 1,509 5,400 8,149
Refrigeration Project One C&I Project 147 17,500 2,573
Space Heating Project One C&I Project 112 4,250 476
Ventilation Project One C&I Project 73 13,400 978
Compressed Air Project One C&I Project 62 29,187 1,810
Other Project One C&I Project 540 2,000 1,080
Total Commercial & Industrial 70,789
Enter the quantity
for each row in the
bright yellow cell in
Column E
Only change the savings
per unit in the light
yellow cells in Column F if
you have savings
estimates that are
specific to the service
territory you are
analyzing
What
Might
an
Efficiency
Power
Plant
Look
Like?
19. EE Power Plant Output by Month
12
Building
Energy
Efficiency
Power
Plants:
Cu^ng
Through
the
Fog
or
Why
EE
Advocates
Should
Engage
Air
Regulators,
Christopher
James,
Principal,
Regulatory
Assistance
Project
(RAP),
ACEEE
Summer
Study,
August
2014
MWh
savings
12,000
10,000
20. EE Power Plant for a July Day
13
MWhSavings
Building
Energy
Efficiency
Power
Plants:
Cu^ng
Through
the
Fog
or
Why
EE
Advocates
Should
Engage
Air
Regulators,
Christopher
James,
Principal,
Regulatory
Assistance
Project
(RAP),
ACEEE
Summer
Study,
August
2014
MWh
savings
21. Reducing
Greenhouse
Gases
and
Improving
Air
Quality
Through
Energy
Efficiency
Power
Plants:
Cu^ng
Through
the
Fog
to
Help
Air
Regulators
“Build"
EPPs,
Chris
James
and
Ken
Colburn,
Regulatory
Assistance
Project
Chris
Neme
and
Jim
Greva,,
Energy
Futures
Group,
ACEEE
Summer
Study,
August
2014
Figure 1. Ozone design values 2009-11. Source: EPA 2014b
Opportunities to Include Energy Efficiency in Clean Air Act Requirements
The EE community can help spur the inclusion of EE in new and revised air quality rules,
and promote EE’s role in helping states and air pollution sources comply with such rules, in two
principal areas. First, the EE community should assure that EPA rules explicitly include EE as a
compliance option. Because many states are expressly prohibited by their state constitutions
LocaZons
with
Air
PolluZon
Exceeding
Clean
Air
Standards
OpportuniZes
to
include
Energy
Efficiency
in
Clean
Air
Requirements
22. New York
California
USA minus CA & NY
Per Capital
Electricity
Consumption
165 GW
Coal
Power
Plants
Californian’s have
net savings of
$1,000 per family
[EPPs]
For delivering least-cost & risk electricity, natural gas & water services
Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) & Decoupling sales from
revenues are key to harnessing Efficiency Power Plants
California 30 year proof of IRP value in promoting
lower cost efficiency over new power plants or
hydro dams, and lower GHG emissions.
California signed MOUs with Provinces in China
to share IRP expertise (now underway in Jiangsu).
Net
Savings
$165
per
capita
23. 14
Annual Energy Savings from Efficiency Programs and Standards
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
GWh/year
Appliance Standards
Building Standards
Utility Efficiency
Programs at a cost of
~1% of electric bill
~15% of Annual Electricity Use in California in 2003
Arthur
H.
Rosenfeld,
Commissioner
California
Energy
Commission,
Successes
of
Energy
Efficiency:
The
United
States
and
California,
Na:onal
Environmental
Trust,
May
2,
2007
24. COOL
CITIES
BENIGN
GEOENGINEERING
Over 4000 Walmart stores with
white roofs, and standard
practice since 1990
Reflects away 80% of solar heat
SOLAR REFLECTORS
25. A
Real-‐World
Example
of
Cooling
25
The whitewashed
greenhouses of
Almeria, Spain have
cooled the region by
0.8 degrees Celsius
each decade compared
to surrounding regions,
according to 20 years
of weather station data.
Source:
Google
Earth
26. Hashem Akbari Arthur Rosenfeld and Surabi Menon, Global Cooling: Increasing World-wide Urban Albedos to Offset CO2, 5th Annual California Climate Change
Conference, Sacramento, CA, September 9, 2008, http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/events/2008_conference/presentations/index.html
World of Solar Reflecting Cities
$2+ Trillion Global Savings Potential, 59 Gt CO2 Reduction
100 m2
27. 27
White
roofs,
cool-‐colored
roofs
save
money
and
can
even
avoid
the
need
to
air
condi:on
flat,
white
pitched,
white
pitched,
cool
&
colored
OLD
NEW
AC
savings
≈
15%
AC
savings
≈
10%
AC
savings
≈
5%
AC
savings
≈
15%
AC
savings
≈
10%
28. Temperature
and
Smog
Forma:on
28
Source:
Maryland
Commission
on
Climate
Change
EPA
Compliance
Std
=
75
TransiZon
Zone
29. Calif
Title
24
“Cool
Roof”
standards
• In
2005,
California’s
“Title
24”
energy
efficiency
standards
prescribed
white
surfaces
for
low-‐sloped
roofs
on
commercial
and
large
residen:al
buildings
(apartments,
hotels,
etc.).
Several
hot
states
are
following.
• In
2008,
California
prescribed
“cool
colored”
surfaces
for
steep
residen:al
roofs
in
its
5
ho,est
climate
zones,
but
not
yet
Los
Angeles.
• Other
U.S.
states
&
all
countries
with
hot
summers
ought
to
follow.
29
32. Now use 1/2 global power
30-50% efficiency savings achievable w/ high ROI
ELECTRIC MOTOR SYSTEMS
33. Improvement Over Time
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
NormalizedEUI(1975Use=100)
Year
Improvement in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (Year 1975-2013)
90-1975 90A -1980
90.1-1989
90.1-
1999
90.1-
2007
90.1-
2010
90.1-2004
14%
4.5% 0.5%
12.3%
4.5%
18.5%
90.1-2001
90.1-
2013
18.5%
6~8%
Improvement
in
ASHRAE
Standard
90.1
(1975-‐2013)
PNNL,
Building
Codes
Commercial
Landscape,
PNNL-‐SA-‐103479,
June
2014
34. 10 Source: David Goldstein
New United States Refrigerator Use v. Time
and Retail Prices
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
1947 1952 1957 1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002
AverageEnergyUseorPrice
0
5
10
15
20
25
Refrigeratorvolume(cubicfeet)
Energy Use per Unit
(kWh/Year)
Refrigerator
Size (cubic ft)
Refrigerator Price
in 1983 $
$ 1,270
$ 462
Arthur
H.
Rosenfeld,
Commissioner
California
Energy
Commission,
Successes
of
Energy
Efficiency:
The
United
States
and
California,
Na:onal
Environmental
Trust,
May
2,
2007
35. ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Projections
11
Heating and cooling use index based on weighted equipment efficiency
requirement changes; Envelope based on typical medium office steel frame wall
and window areas with U-factor changes; Lighting power based on building area
allowances weighted for U.S. building floor area; Overall Standard 90.1 progress
based on PNNL’s analysis.
ASHRAE
Standard
90.1
ProjecZons
to
2030
PNNL,
Building
Codes
Commercial
Landscape,
PNNL-‐SA-‐103479,
June
2014
36. Interrelationships
IECC
adopts
90.1
by
reference
–
designer
choice
which
to
use
but
cannot
‘pick
and
choose’,
must
use
one
or
the
other
only
IgCC
adopts
the
IECC
by
reference
but
adds
criteria
to
address
addiZonal
items
not
covered
in
the
IECC
or
increases
stringency
of
the
IECC
IgCC
adopts
189.1
by
reference
–
designer
choice
which
to
use
but
cannot
‘pick
and
choose’,
must
use
one
or
the
other
only
ASHRAE
189.1
adopts
90.1
by
reference
but
adds
criteria
to
address
addiZonal
items
not
covered
by
90.1
or
increases
stringency
of
90.1
InterrelaZonships
Building
Energy
Commercial
Codes
ASHRAE
189.1
ASHRAE
90.1
37. ASHRAE--Chiller Plant Efficiency
0.5
(7.0)
0.6
(5.9)
0.7
(5.0)
0.8
(4.4)
0.9
(3.9)
1.0
(3.5)
1.1
(3.2)
1.2
(2.9)
NEEDS IMPROVEMENTFAIRGOODEXCELLENT
AVERAGE ANNUAL CHILLER PLANT EFFICIENCY IN KW/TON (C.O.P.)
(Input energy includes chillers, condenser pumps, tower fans and chilled water pumping)
New Technology
All-Variable Speed
Chiller Plants
High-efficiency
Optimized
Chiller Plants
Conventional
Code Based
Chiller Plants
Older Chiller
Plants
Chiller Plants with
Correctable Design or
Operational Problems
Based on electrically driven centrifugal chiller plants in comfort conditioning applications with
42F (5.6C) nominal chilled water supply temperature and open cooling towers sized for 85F
(29.4C) maximum entering condenser water temperature and 20% excess capacity.
Local Climate adjustment for North American climates is +/- 0.05 kW/ton
kW/ton
C.O.P.
0.59 typical Trane Guaranty
Source: LEE Eng Lock, Singapore
0.49
Infosys,
Bangalore,
India
0.59
Trane,
Singapore
Sources:
LEE
Eng
Lock,
Trane,
Singapore;
Punit
Desai,
Infosys,
Bangalore,
India;
Tom
Hartman,
TX,
h,p://www.hartmanco.com/
38. Source: LEE Eng Lock, Singapore
Typical Chiller Plant -- Needs Improvement
(1.2 kW per ton)
39. Source: LEE Eng Lock, Singapore
High Performance Chiller Plant (0.56 kW/t)
40. Source: LEE Eng Lock, Singapore
HOW? Bigger pipes, 45° angles, Smaller chillers
41. Financial Benefits
Before After
Cooling TonHr/Week 80,000 80,000
System kWH/Week 152,000 47,200
kWh/TonH 1.90 0.59
Energy Savings in %
Energy Savings in kWH / Year
Energy Savings in $/Year @ $0.20/KWH
Water usage per year (M3) 0 34,682
Water Charge per year (New Water @ $1.0/M3)
Estimated Total $ Savings per Year
Annual Reduction in Carbon Emission per year (Tones)
$34,682
$1,055,238
2,724,800
68.95%
5,449,600
$1,089,920
ROI = 29%. Energy Savings over 15 years = S$15M
42. ! Making pipes just 50% fatter reduces friction by 86%
Pipe%Dia%in%
inch%
Flow%in%
GPM%
Velocity%
Ft%/sec%
Head%loss%
S/100S%
6% 800% 8.8% 3.5%
10% 800% 3.2% 0.3%
Big Pipe, small pumps
Punit
Desai,
Environmental
Sustainability
at
Infosys
Driven
by
values,
Powered
by
innova:on,
InfoSys,
presenta:on
to
RMI,
Sept
15,
2014
43. 1. Ask for 0.60 kW/RT or better for chiller plant.
2. Ask for performance guarantee backed by clear
financial penalties in event of performance shortfall.
3. Ask for accurate Measurement & Verification system
of at least +-5% accuracy in accordance to
international standards of ARI-550 & ASHRAE guides
14P & 22.
4. Ask for online internet access to monitor the plant
performance.
5. Ask for track record.
Source: LEE Eng Lock, Singapore
Simple Guide to retrofit success
0.50
44. design temperature, thus reducing pump system opportunities.
Figure 4: US Pumping System Efficiency Supply Curve
Cost effective energy saving
potential
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000
CostofConservedElectricity(US$/MWh-saved)
Annual Electricity Saving Potential (GWh/yr)
Pump System Efficiency Supply Curve for U.S. Industry
Average Unit Price of
Electricity for U.S Industr
in 2008:70.1 US$/MWh*
5
6
8
7
9
10
Cost effective electricity
savingpotential:
36,148 GWh/yr
Technicalelectricity
savingpotential:
54,023 GWh/yr
4
2
1
3
* The dotted lines represent the range of price from the sensitivity analysis- see Section 4.5.
NOTE: this supply curve is intended to provide an indicator of the relative cost-effectiveness of system energy efficiency measures at the
national level. The cost-effectiveness of individual measures will vary based on site-specific conditions.
US
Pumping
System
Efficiency
Supply
Curve
Annual
Electricity
Saving
PotenZal
(GWh/yr)
Cost
of
Conserved
Electricity
($US/MWh-‐saved)
*
The
do,ed
lines
represent
the
range
of
price
from
the
sensi:vity
analysis-‐
see
Sec:on
4.5.
NOTE:
this
supply
curve
is
intended
to
provide
an
indicator
of
the
rela:ve
cost-‐effec:veness
of
system
energy
efficiency
measures
at
the
na:onal
level.
The
cost-‐effec:veness
of
individual
measures
will
vary
based
on
site-‐specific
condi:ons.
Motor
Systems
Efficiency
Supply
Curves,
UNIDO,
UN
Industrial
Development
Organiza:on,
December
2010
Equal
to
14
natural
gas
power
plants
(500MW
each)
45. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
No. Energy Efficiency Measure
Cumulative
Annual
Electricity Saving
Potential in
Industry (GWh/yr)
Final CCE
(US$/MWh-
Saved)
Cumulative
Annual Primary
Energy Saving
Potential in
Industry (TJ/yr)
Cumulative
Annual CO2
Emission
Reduction
Potential from
Industry
(kton CO2 /yr)
1
Isolate flow paths to non-essential or
non-operating equipment
10,589 0.0 116,265 6,382
2 Install variable speed drive 23,295 44.5 255,784 14,040
3
Trim or change impeller to match output
to requirements
33,279 57.0 365,405 20,057
4
Use pressure switches to shut down
unnecessary pumps
36,148 65.7 396,905 21,786
5 Fix leaks, damaged seals, and packing 37,510 84.1 411,855 22,607
6
Replace motor with more energy efficient
type
39,084 116.9 429,138 23,555
7
Remove sediment/scale buildup from
piping
42,523 126.3 466,906 25,628
8
Replace pump with more energy efficient
type
48,954 132.2 537,516 29,504
9 Initiate predictive maintenance program 52,302 189.0 574,280 31,522
10
Remove scale from components such as
heat exchangers and strainers
54,023 330.9 593,171 32,559
Table 14: Cumulative Annual Electricity Saving and CO2 Emission Reduction for Pumping
System Efficiency Measures in the US Ranked by their Final CCE
Table 15: Total Annual Cost-effective and Technical Energy Saving and CO2 Emission
Reduction Potential for US Industrial Pumping Systems
CumulaZve
Annual
Electricity
Saving
and
CO2
Emission
ReducZon
for
Pumping
System
Efficiency
Measures
in
the
US
Ranked
by
their
Final
CCE
Motor
Systems
Efficiency
Supply
Curves,
UNIDO,
UN
Industrial
Development
Organiza:on,
December
2010
46. Hidden treasure: Why energy efficiency deserves a second look
Germany introduced an energy tax (the “eco-tax”) in
1999 to encourage energy savings in the private, public
Switzerland’s Energy Strategy 2050 framework propo-
ses similar measures with compulsory efficiency targets
Note: * Estimation for industrial companies, where direct energy costs account for ~5% of total costs
Sources: US Department of Energy; Energy Tax Advisory Case Studies; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Bain analysis
Energy
consumption
Taxes
and
incentives
Operational
non-energy
costs
Input material
costs
Own
generation/load
balancing
EE invest/
spend
Improved
profit margin
Sales
leverage
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
~ 1%
~ 0.5%
~ 0.5%
?
~ 0.5% ~ 0.5%
2%
SALESCOST REDUCTION
Percentage of net income (averaged over three years)
10%-30%
savings in
energy costs
for typical
IG&S
companies
In most OECD
countries, tax
measures
typically add
30%-50%
on top of the
expected
energy gains
Non-energy
costs savings
typically
amount to an
additional
50% of
energy savings
Not
quantified
10-30%
reduction
in suppliers’
energy costs,
50% pass-
through
Energy
efficiency
measures
with average
investment
payback
of ~1.5
years, when
measured
against
direct energy
savings
Figure 2: Typical manufacturing companies* can improve their profit margins by 2%
within three years
Typical
manufacturing
companies*
can
improve
their
profit
margins
by
2%
within
36
months
48. • 1/4th
Total
USA
Electricity
Consumed
For
LighZng
(and
associated
Cooling
to
remove
heat
from
lights)
• Equivalent
to
Nearly
Half
of
U.S.
Coal
Plants
• High-‐efficiency
LED
Luminaires
Can
Deliver
Beaer
Quality
Light
While
EliminaZng
Need
for
Half
of
Coal
Plants
at
a
LCOE
[Levelized
Cost
Of
Electricity]
Lower
than
current
coal
plant
operaZng
costs
IlluminaZon
Services
1
LED
lamp
provides
life3me
light
output
of
more
than
1
million
candles
at
frac3on
of
cost
49. Candle
consumes
about
80
waas
(W)
of
chemical
energy
to
emit
12
lumens
of
light
for
about
seven
and
a
half
hours.
Carbon-‐filament
bulb
used
¼
less
energy
(60
W),
emiaed
15
Zmes
as
much
light
(180
lumens),
and
lasted
133
Zmes
as
long
as
the
candle.
Tungsten
filament
replaced
the
carbon
one,
efficiency
soared
4-‐
fold
.
Tungsten
bulb
now
matched
lifeZme
output
of
8,100
candles,
yet
the
lamp
and
electricity
cost
only
as
much
as
14
candles.
CFL
same
lumen
output
as
incandescent,
but
consumes
75%
less
electricity
&
lasts
10
Zmes
longer.
One
CFL
now
displaces
the
need
for
500,000
candles.
LED
(Light-‐Emi{ng
Diode)
lamp
provides
same
lumen
output
as
CFL,
but
consumes
1/3rd
less
electricity
&
lasts
10
Zmes
longer.
One
LED
now
displaces
need
for
more
than
1
million
candles.
50. 4
Assuming constant lumen demand per square
Residential Commercial Industrial Outdoor
General
Service
Incandescent
Sectors
Decorative Directional Linear
Low /
High Bay
Street /
Roadway
Parking
Building
Exterior
Submarkets
Technologies
Incandescent
Reflector
Halogen
CFL Reflector CFL Pin T5
Metal Halide
High Pressure
Sodium
Mercury Vapor LED Lamp LED Luminaire
Halogen Reflector CFL
T8 T12
Energy
Savings
Forecast
of
Solid-‐State
Ligh:ng
in
General
Illumina:on
Applica:ons,
U.S.
Department
of
Energy
August
2014
LighZng
Landscape
51. Energy
Savings
Forecast
of
Solid-‐State
Ligh:ng
in
General
Illumina:on
Applica:ons,
U.S.
Department
of
Energy
August
2014
BR=Bulged
Reflector
MR=Mul:faceted
Reflector
PAR=Parabolic
Aluminized
Reflector
53. http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/nlpip/lightinganswers/hwcfl/HWCFL-efficacy.asp
Hi-Wattage CFL (55-200 watts)
CFL (27-40 watts)
Compact Fluorescent Lamp (CFL) (5-26 watts)
Mercury Vapor
Halogen Infrared Reflecting
Tungsten Halogen
Incandescent
Fluorescent (full-size & U-tube)
Electrodeless fluorescent
Metal halide
High-Pressure Sodium (HPS/HID)
White Sodium
Smart LEDs (tunable color spectrum)
Efficacy of Various Light Sources
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
Low-Pressure Sodium (yellow-orange color)
Lumens per Watt !
(lamp plus ballast)
54. =
Smart!
LED
1!
80 watt!
LED
Smart LED Advantages!
Higher Lumens & lower Watts from Fewer lamps
Smart LED other benefits - longer lifespan, no mercury, fully
dimmable, instant start/restart, less heat, tunable colour spectrum
100k hrs 20k hrs 2k hrs
10k to 20k hrs
Luminaire
55. Energy
Savings
Forecast
of
Solid-‐State
Ligh:ng
in
General
Illumina:on
Applica:ons,
U.S.
Department
of
Energy
August
2014
U.S.
LighZng
Service
Forecast
2013
to
2030
(Trillions
of
Lumen-‐hours)
Fluorescent
High-‐Intensity
Discharge
(HID)
LED
Luminaires
LED
lamps
CFLs
56. SEM
oF
ROD
(blue)
and
CONE
(green)
cells
of
the
re:na.
ROD
cells
are
sensi:ve
to
low
light
levels
and
produce
low-‐clarity
black
and
white
vision.
CONE
cells
are
sensi:ve
to
higher
levels
of
light
and
produce
sharp,
high-‐clarity
trichroma:c
color
Cone
Rod
LIGHT
FACTORY
-‐-‐
ReZnal
Rods
and
Cones
Cone
Rod
top-‐down
view
57. 3
types
of
light-‐sensi:ve
CONE
cells
create
TRI-‐CHROMATIC
(or
TRI-‐STIMULUS)
color
–
blue,
green
&
red
–
or
short-‐wavelength,
medium-‐wavelength
and
long
wavelength
sensi:vity,
respec:vely.
ROD
cells
mediate
no
color
vision.
Mesopic Vision
RODs
CONEs
RODs
&
CONEs
ReZnal
SensiZvity
ReZnal
SensiZvity
58. Our
visual
system
consists
of
a
2-‐receptor
system:
CONE
cells
providing
vision
in
bright
light
(PHOTOPIC
vision)
ROD
cells
providing
vision
in
very
low
levels
of
light
(SCOTOPIC
vision)
RODS
&
CONES
func:on
together
at
:mes
like
dusk
(MESOPIC
vision).
3
types
of
CONE
cells,
red,
green
&
blue
(TRI-‐
STIMULUS),
provide
wide
range
color
percep:on
in
bright
light.
59. MESOPIC
region
is
where
both
the
rods
and
cones
are
func:oning.
The
lower
light
level
allows
the
ROD
to
replenish
the
light
sensi:ve
rhodopsin
and
begin
func:oning.
The
TRI-‐STIMULUS
CONE
receptors
s:ll
have
enough
light
to
provide
some
amounts
of
color
vision.
60. SCOTOPIC
region
occurs
in
very
dim
light
like
viewing
grass
in
a
moonless
night.
Here
only
the
RODS
are
func:oning.
The
chemicals
in
the
CONES
no
longer
have
enough
light
to
respond,
thus
we
no
longer
see
color.
61. PHOTOPIC,
MESOPIC
&
SCOTOPIC
together
allow
us
to
see
over
a
wide
range
of
ligh:ng
levels
with
about
1
or
2
billion
:mes
(109,
nine
orders
of
magnitude)
range
from
the
dimmest
to
the
brightest
image
we
can
see.
Luminous
Intensity
(Candela
per
sq
meter)
1
Candela
=
62.
Reliance
on
the
lumen
(lm)
as
the
sole
measure
of
ligh3ng
benefits
(lm/m2
and
lm/W)
can
unnecessarily
waste
energy,
increase
costs,
and
reduce
safety,
security
and
visibility.
U3liza3on
of
analogous
benefit
metrics
in
ligh3ng
standards
that
characterize
human
visual
responses
would
increase
the
value
of
ligh3ng
for
many
applica3ons.
BETTER
LIGHTING
METRICS
OpportuniZes
with
LEDs
for
Increasing
the
Visual
Benefits
of
LighZng
Mark
S.
Rea,
LighZng
Research
Center,
Rensselaer
Polytechnic
InsZtute,
Troy
NY
64. We thus see the future of public lighting as a transition from analog to digital, from
fluorescent lightbulbs to solid-state lighting—all connected to an energy grid throug
variety of last-mile access technologies (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Moving from “Traditional” to “Intelligent” Lighting Networks.
Additional savings can be achieved by incorporating connected controls to the Intern
Source: Philips and Cisco, 2012
Moving from “Traditional” to “Intelligent” Lighting Networks
source: The Time Is Right for Connected Public Lighting Within Smart Cities, CISCO & Philips, October 2012
65. Smart LED RFPs Should Include !
Key Technical Specifications
LED photometric testing standards: !
• IES LM-79-08 Light output, efficacy, color for LED products!
• IES LM-80-08 Light output over time, temperature for LED packages
IES TM-21-11 Extrapolating LM-80 test data to predict life!
• IES LM-82-12 Light output, efficacy, color over temperature for light engines!
• ANSI/UL 153:2002 (Secs. 124-128A) Methods for in-situ temperature
ANSI/UL 1574:2004 (Sec. 54) method (ISTM) testing for EnergyStar!
• IP6 Addressable
Approved method describing procedures and precautions in
performing reproducible measurements of LEDs:!
! – total flux,
– electrical power,
– efficacy (lm/watt), and
– chromaticity!
N A N C Y C L A N T O N , P E , F I E S , I A L D
L E E D F E L L O W
C L A N T O N & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .
B O U L D E R , C O L O R A D O
W W W . C L A N T O N A S S O C I A T E S . C O M
Streetlighting Guidel
and Design Decisio
www.clantonassociates.com
Questions?
www.clantonassociates.com
66. BIM
EvoluZon
BIM Evolution
Hand Drawing
2D CAD
evolution
3D CAD
BIM
3D/4D/5D..XD
BIM;
Building
Informa:on
Modeling,
but
also
encompasses
Building
Intelligence
Management
67. Neil
Calvert,
“Why
We
Care
About
BIM…,”
Direc:ons
Magazine,
Dec.
11,
2013,
h,p://www.direc:onsmag.com/ar:cles/why-‐we-‐care-‐about-‐bim/368436
68. • 20%
reducZon
in
build
costs
(buy
4,
get
one
free!)
• 33%
reducZon
is
costs
over
the
lifeZme
of
the
building
• 47%
to
65%
reducZon
in
conflicts
and
re-‐work
during
construcZon
• 44%
to
59%
increase
in
the
overall
project
quality
• 35%
to
43%
reducZon
in
risk,
beaer
predictability
of
outcomes
• 34%
to
40%
beaer
performing
completed
infrastructure
• 32%
to
38%
improvement
in
review
and
approval
cycles
BIM
SIMs
69. Neil
Calvert,
“Why
We
Care
About
BIM…,”
Direc:ons
Magazine,
Dec.
11,
2013,
h,p://www.direc:onsmag.com/ar:cles/why-‐we-‐care-‐about-‐bim/368436
70. Issa, Suermann and Olbina
(A) Solar radiation Analysis (B) Daylighting analysis
(C) Shading analysis (D) Ventilation and Airflow Analysis
Figure 1: Different kinds of analysis performed by Autodesk Ecotect (Source: <www.autodesk.com/revit>)
Increase
in
project
Value
with
increase
in
BIM
details
Solar
RadiaZon
Analysis
DaylighZng
Analysis
Shading
Analysis
VenZlaZon
&
Airflow
Analysis
73. Building Analytics in action
At one client facility running Building Analytics, the preheating
coil and cooling coil were operating simultaneously and wasting
more than $900 and 80,000 kBTUs on a daily basis. The problem
was pinpointed at a leaking chilled water valve that once repaired
produced $60,000 in annual savings with ROI in the first month.
Mixed air
temperature
sensor
Outdoor
air temp
“Occupancy”
is at set point
Return fan
status
Preheating
discharge
temperature
Heating
valve
position
Cooling
valve
position
Supply air
temperature
set point
Supply fan
status
Simultaneous
heating and cooling
Building name:
Equipment name:
Analysis name:
Estimated daily cost savings:
Problem:
Excess or simultaneous heating
and cooling
either providing excess heating or cooling
or operating simultaneously.
Possible causes:
and is leaking.
> Temperature sensor error or sensor
installation error is causing improper
control of the valves.
74. Issa, Suermann and Olbina
2D 3D 4D 5D
Risk
Figure 3: Decrease in project risk with the increase in model details
VICO Control is a location based virtual construction system that allows the creation of compressed schedules which al-
low the user to determine progress by comparing actual productivity to the project schedule. Many BIM models are not able
to store information beyond what the building looks like and as such do not allow the user to store info on the construction
process. VICO Control allows integrated construction of the whole project and allows the user to link duration and cost in-
formation directly to the model. Accordingly the user can instantly see the impact of changes in scope and schedule on the
entire project. It links the building model to estimating and scheduling information going from 3D to 5D and allows the user
Decrease
in
project
risk
with
increase
in
BIM
details
6D
Cradle-‐to-‐Cradle
Facility
Lifespan
Integra3on
7D
Neil
Calvert,
“Why
We
Care
About
BIM…,”
Direc:ons
Magazine,
Dec.
11,
2013,
h,p://www.direc:onsmag.com/ar:cles/why-‐we-‐care-‐about-‐bim/368436
75. John
Boecker,
Integra:ve
Energy,
Water,
and
Waste
Community
Design…from
vision
and
concept
to
prac:cal
Implementa:on,
Army
Net-‐Zero
Installa:ons
Conference:
19
January
2012
Integrative Design Mantra
Everyone
Engaging
Everything
!!!!group
Everything
Early
www.sevengroup.com
77. Integrated and goal oriented design approach
HVAC(Goal( Ligh3ng(Goal( Water(Goal(
! Max envelope heat gain 1.0 W/sqft
! Total building @ 750-1000 sqft/TR
! 25 deg C, 55% RH
! LPD of 0.45 W/sqft
! 90% of building to be day lit > 110 lux
! No Glare throughout the year
! Architects
! Facade Specialists
! IT Specialists
! HVAC Engineers
! Lighting Specialists
! Architects
! Facade Specialists
! Lighting Specialists
! Electrical Designers
! PHE Engineers
! Architects
! Landscape Architects
! Less than 25 LPD for
office building
! Zero discharge
! 100% self sufficient
T
E
A
M
G
O
A
L(
13
Punit
Desai,
Environmental
Sustainability
at
Infosys
Driven
by
values,
Powered
by
innova:on,
InfoSys,
presenta:on
to
RMI,
Sept
15,
2014
78. und partnerund partner
Arena
Amazônia
Leed
Silver
World
Soccer
Stadium
2014
Manaus,
Brazil
• Brazil
ranks
among
the
world’s
top
5
countries
with
LEED-‐cerZfied
projects.
• 30
million
•2
of
LEED-‐cerZfied
space.
• Six
were
cerZfied
for
use
in
the
2014
World
Cup
Soccer
Championships.
• Arena
Amazônia
used
a
fracZon
of
the
steel
(5,700
tons)
compared
to
convenZonal
sports
and
entertainment
venues.
79. Arena
Amazônia
State-‐of-‐the-‐art
lightweight
roof
based
on
the
principle
of
a
horizontally
oriented
spoked
wheel.
The
circular
roof
structure
is
comprised
of
high-‐strength
cables
connecZng
inner
“tension
rings”
at
the
center
of
the
circle
to
an
outer
rim,
or
“compression
ring.”
The
cable
“spokes,”
which
are
allocated
at
the
inner
edge
of
the
roof,
are
Zghtened
between
the
outer
compression
ring
and
the
tension
rings.
This
creates
a
lightweight,
almost
floaZng
roof.
A
secondary
steel
structure
serves
as
a
frame
to
support
the
polytetrafluoroethylene
(PTFE)-‐coated
high-‐strength
resilient
fiberglass
membrane
cladding.
The
roof
elements
also
serve
as
guaers
to
collect
the
large
amounts
of
water
expected
during
the
rainy
seasons.
The
design
of
the
guaers
facilitates
rainwater
collecZon
to
be
used
in
the
arena’s
plumbing
systems.
80. by Arup Associates [7], and the Saint-Etienne Métropole's
Zénith Rhône-Alpes (fig. 18), by Foster and Partner
architectural firme [8] represents a new contemporary
interpretation for the Islamic-Arab windcatcher. Both applied
the same design concept of capturing the prevailing wind and
disperse it around the building.
Fig. 17. Kensington cricket ground, ARP Associates [7]
Fig. 19. Burj al
2008 by Eckhar
The Showe
projects in the
into the futur
behind the he
and extensive
ventilate the r
drawn in from
level) and ind
shower tower
Kensington
Oval
cricket
Stadium,
Barbados
Designed
with
tradi:onal
Wind
Catcher
Natural
cooling
&
ven:la:on
design
by
capturing
the
prevailing
wind
and
dispersing
it
around
the
building
Design
with
Nature:
Windcatcher
as
a
Paradigm
of
Natural
Ven:la:on
Device
in
Buildings,
Dr.
Abdel-‐moniem
El-‐Shorbagy,
Interna:onal
Journal
of
Civil
&
Environmental
Engineering
IJCEE-‐IJENS
Vol:10
No:03,
2010
83. The
Federal
Energy
Regulatory
Commission
has
es:mated
that
the
U.S.
could
avoid
building
188
GWs
of
power
plants,
or
approximately
$400
billion
in
capital
investment,
through
dynamic
peak
power
controls.
Amit
Narayan,
U:lity
and
Consumer
Data:
A
New
Source
of
Power
in
the
Energy
Internet
of
Things,
GreenTechMedia,
Oct
9,
2014,
h,p://www.greentechmedia.com/ar:cles/read/U:lity-‐and-‐Consumer-‐Data-‐is-‐a-‐New-‐Source-‐of-‐Power-‐in-‐the-‐Energy-‐Internet-‐o?
utm_source=Daily&utm_medium=Headline&utm_campaign=GTMDaily
Demand
Response
(DR)
84. Figure 2: U.S Demand Response Potential by Program Type (2019)
0
50
100
150
200
PeakReduction(GW)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
%ofPeakDemand
Other DR
Interruptible Tariffs
DLC
Pricing w/o Tech
Pricing w/Tech
38 GW,
4% of peak
82 GW,
9% of peak
138 GW,
14% of peak
188 GW,
20% of peak
Business-as- Expanded Achievable Full
Usual BAU Participation Participation
effect of dynamic pricing over time is dependent on AMI market penetration, which increases throughout
the forecast horizon. The more aggressive AMI deployment assumption in the AP and FP scenarios
explains why demand response increases more significantly in the later years of those scenarios.
It is interesting to compare the relative impacts of the four scenarios. Moving from the BAU scenario to
the EBAU scenario, the peak demand reduction in 2019 is more than twice as large. This difference is
attributable to the incremental potential for aggressively pursuing nonpricing programs in states that have
U.S
Demand
Response
(DR)
PotenZal
by
Program
Type
(10
year
Zmeframe)
2500
Peaking
Plants
(75MW
each)
=
85. The
New
Smart
Power
Plants
Example
of
a
networking
kits
capable
of
running
the
industrial
Internet-‐of-‐Things
(IoT),
or
Internet-‐of-‐Everything
(IoE),
and
IT-‐based
Energy
Services
87. Key
advantage
of
IPv6
over
IPv4
is
large
address
space.
IPv6
address
length
is
128
bits
vs.
32
bits
in
IPv4.
The
address
space
therefore
has
3.4×1038
addresses,
or
314
trillion
trillion
trillion
addresses
(sex:llion).
This
would
be
about
100
addresses
for
every
atom
on
the
surface
of
the
earth.
IPv6
Internet
Protocol
version
6
88. Dr.
Janusz
Bryzek,
Chair,
TSensors
Summit,
VP,
MEMS
and
Sensing
Solu:ons,
Fairchild
Semiconductor,
Roadmap
for
the
Trillion
Sensor
Universe,
Nov.
26,
2013
89. e Suite
gy
rs,
nd
e
r
ess
Cisco EnergyWise Discovery Service and
Optimization Service
Cisco EnergyWise Management Software
for Distributed Offices and Data Center
Core Switches
Storage
UPSs
CPUs
PDUsMainframes
Blade
Servers
Virtualized
Servers
Servers
Data Center
Gateways
Lighting
Access
Control
Systems
Video
Cameras
CRAC
HVAC
Facilities
(BMS partners)
VoIP Phones
Laptops
Macs
Thin Clients
Access Points
Servers
Desktops
Printers
Campus
Routers Switches Network Based
No Agents!
Policy Based
and Automated
Announcing the new and improved Cisco EnergyWise Suite
See, Measure and Manage
CISCO
EnergyWise
Management
OpZmizaZon
So•ware
h,p://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/switches/energywise-‐op:miza:on-‐service/index.html
90.
91. 9
12 3 6 9 12 3 6 9
Hourly Prices for 7/1/0915¢
10¢
5¢
¢perkWh¢perkWh
am pm
Prevents PHEVs
from charging
during peak hours
Adjusts space temp.
and chilled water
temp. set points
Dispatches thermal
storage or gen-sets in
response to loss
in solar PV output
Throttles servers
for non-critical
applications
Ensures fans do not
overcompensate for
new CHW set points
Provides real-time
visibility to building
managers
Automatically
dims lighting
Marginal cost of power
increases, T&D systems
become congested
Curtailment signal or real-time
price provided by ISO/utility
1
2
3
5
7
8
6
9
10
4
High summer temps
drive up cooling loads
Example of an Automated Demand Response Event
9
92. Control – A “Spectrum” of Demand Response Options
Direct Load
Control
(AC Cycling)
Logic, decision making and control can sit with the load-serving entity, the customer, or
anywhere between (e.g. a curtailment service provider):
Pure Real -Time PriceInterruptible Rate
Wholesale Capacity
Programs
Traditional “Aggregator”
Model
Critical Peak Pricing
Wholesale Energy
Programs
Voluntary Demand
Bidding
Central Control Autonomous Control
7
Historical DR has been centrally controlled, but there is a push to the right of the
spectrum. Buildings benefit.
93. Case Study – Automated Demand Response:
Georgia Institute of Technology
• Georgia Institute of Technology is on a
dynamic hourly tariff from Georgia Power.
• Each hour, the building management system
reads prices for the next 48 hours from the
utility’s web-service feed.
• The facilities director sets the price threshold
for automated load shedding mode.
Observing a 1MW peak load reduction, ~7% of load for participating buildings
Savings during initial summer 2006 pilot
10
96. Jim
Lazar,
The
Regulatory
Assistance
Project,
Status
of
Distributed
Genera:on
Installa:on
and
Rate
Making
In
the
US,
American
Public
Power
Associa:on
Workshop,
Jan.
13,
2014
Typical DG Advocate View
Marginal Cost Perspective:
• Value of distributed resource is greater than the than retail
rate;
• Net-metering results in subsidy to the grid from innovators.
12
Distributed
GeneraZon
(DG)
MulZple
System
Values
98. Source: International Energy Agency, Energy Technology Perspectives, 2008, p. 366. The figure is based on National
Petroleum Council, 2007 after Craig, Cunningham and Saigo.
Oil
Gas
Uranium
Coal
ANNUAL Wind
Hydro
Photosynthesis
ANNUAL Solar Energy
Annual global energy consumption by humans
SOLAR PHOTONS
ACCRUED IN A MONTH
EXCEED THE EARTH’S
FOSSIL FUEL RESERVES
1
:me
use
99. In the USA, cities and residences cover 56 million hectares.
Every kWh of current U.S. energy requirements can be met simply by
applying photovoltaics (PV) to 7% of existing urban area—
on roofs, parking lots, along highway walls, on sides of buildings, and
in dual-uses. Requires 93% less water than fossil fuels.
Experts say we wouldn’t have to appropriate a single acre of new
land to make PV our primary energy source!
15%
100. Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov
1
Program Name or Ancillary Text eere.energy.gov
WIND AND WATER POWER PROGRAM
1
2013 Wind Technologies
Market Report
Ryan Wiser and Mark Bolinger
Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory
Report Summary
August 2014
101. 10
U.S. Lagging Other Countries in Wind As a
Percentage of Electricity Consumption
Note: Figure only includes the countries with the most installed wind
power capacity at the end of 2012
Wind
as
Percentage
of
a
Country’s
Electricity
ConsumpZon
102. WIND AND WATER POWER PROGRAM
Wind PPA Prices Have Reached All-Time
Lows
50
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
Jan-96
Jan-97
Jan-98
Jan-99
Jan-00
Jan-01
Jan-02
Jan-03
Jan-04
Jan-05
Jan-06
Jan-07
Jan-08
Jan-09
Jan-10
Jan-11
Jan-12
Jan-13
Jan-14
PPA Execution Date
Interior (18,178 MW, 192 contracts)
West (7,124 MW, 72 contracts)
Great Lakes (3,044 MW, 42 contracts)
Northeast (1,018 MW, 25 contracts)
Southeast (268 MW, 6 contracts)
LevelizedPPAPrice(2013$/MWh)
75 MW
150 MW 50 MW
103. that the turbine scaling and other improvements to turbine efficiency described in Chapter 4 have
more than overcome these headwinds to help drive PPA prices lower.
Source: Berkeley Lab
Figure 46. Generation-weighted average levelized wind PPA prices by PPA execution date and region
Figure 46 also shows trends in the generation-weighted average levelized PPA price over time
among four of the five regions broken out in Figure 30 (the Southeast region is omitted from
Figure 46 owing to its small sample size). Figures 45 and 46 both demonstrate that, based on our
data sample, PPA prices are generally low in the U.S. Interior, high in the West, and in the
middle in the Great Lakes and Northeast regions. The large Interior region, where much of U.S.
wind project development occurs, saw average levelized PPA prices of just $22/MWh in 2013.
USA
Wind
Power
LCOE
PPA
in
2013
2.5¢/kWH
GLOBAL
Wind
Power
LCOE
in
2013
6.5¢/kWh
Ryan
Wiser
&
Mark
Bollinger,
2013
Wind
Technologies
Market
Report,
Lawrence
Berkeley,
August
2014
6¢/kWh
2¢/kWh
4¢/kWh
104. WIND AND WATER POWER PROGRAM
Recent Wind Prices Are Hard to Beat:
Competitive with Expected Future Cost of
Burning Fuel in Natural Gas Plants
54
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
Range of AEO14 gas price projections
AEO14 reference case gas price projection
Wind 2011 PPA execution (3,980 MW, 38 contracts)
Wind 2012 PPA execution (970 MW, 13 contracts)
Wind 2013 PPA execution (2,761 MW, 18 contracts)
2013$/MWh
Price comparison shown here is far from perfect – see full report for caveats
105. WIND AND WATER POWER PROGRAM
Turbine Nameplate Capacity, Hub Height,
and Rotor Diameter Have All Increased
Significantly Over the Long Term
29
106.
107. energy.gov/sunshot
energy.gov/sunshot
Photovoltaic System
Pricing Trends
Historical, Recent, and Near-Term
Projections
2014 Edition
David Feldman1, Galen Barbose2, Robert
Margolis1, Ted James1, Samantha Weaver2, Naïm
Darghouth2, Ran Fu1, Carolyn Davidson1, Sam
Booth1, and Ryan Wiser2
September 22, 2014
1National Renewable Energy Laboratory
2Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
NREL/PR-6A20-62558
108. Tracking the Sun VII
An Historical Summary of the Installed Price of
Photovoltaics in the United States from 1998 to 2013
Galen Barbose, Samantha Weaver and Naïm Darghouth
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
— Report Summary —
September 2014
This analysis was funded by the Solar Energy Technologies Office, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No.
DE-AC02-05CH11231.
109.
110. $0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Installation Year
10-100 kW
>100 kW
Residential & Commercial PV
(Median Values)
InstalledPrice(2013$/WDC)
Installed prices continued their precipitous
decline in 2013
12
Median installed prices fell by $0.7/W (12-15%) from 2012-2013,
across the three size ranges shown, and have fallen by an average of
$0.5/W (6-8%) annually over the full historical period
Note: Median installed prices are shown only if 15 or more observations are available for the individual size range
Median prices for systems installed in 2013 (n=50,614):
$4.7/W $4.3/W (10-100 kW), $3.9/W (>100kW)
111. PARAMETERS SUMMARIES
In reality, conditions vary substantially among countries and, as
discussed above, the LCOE for a technology is driven every bit
as much by the cost of capital and the availability of equipment
locally as it is by natural resource availability. This is particularly
cost capital can at times be extremely challenging to source and tariffs
or other barriers can make the importation of goods challenging.
-
Industrial power prices vs onshore wind and solar photovoltaic LCOE, 2013 ($/MWh)
Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance
Botswana
Haiti
Guatemala
Nigeria
Myanmar
SierraLeone
ElSalvador
Coted’Ivoire
Bolivia
Argentina
Jamaica
CostaRica
India
Kenya
Venezuela
Senegal
Pakistan
Bangladesh
Paraguay
Ethiopia
Honduras
Belize
Nepal
Trinidad&Tobago
Zambia
Nicaragua
China
Peru
SouthAfrica
Uganda
Mexico
Indonesia
Suriname
Rwanda
Chile
Zimbabwe
Malawi
Tajikistan
Barbados
Ghana
Colombia
Panama
Bahamas
Dom.Republic
Brazil
Tanzania
Guyana
Uruguay
SriLanka
Ecuador
Mozambique
450
400
350
300
250
200
Solar PV LCOE
Onshore wind LCOE
150
100
50
0
tial customers in the 55 nations and found they averaged 14.7
cents per kilowatt-hour in 20133
. However, prices were above
15 cents per kilowatt-hour in 20 Climatescope countries and 22
cents in 16 countries. Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates
the levelized cost of residential electricity for solar power at ap-
proximately 15 cents per kWh with the LCOE potentially much
lower in the sunniest parts of the world. That is, when power
sense for a homeowner to install a solar system rather than
La:n
American
&
Caribbean
na:ons
Industrial
power
prices
vs
onshore
wind
&
solar
PV
LCOE
2013
($MWh)
112. PARAMETERS SUMMARY
Progress on policy
Climatescope surveyed 55 developing nations to get a better un-
derstanding of what policy frameworks have been established to
date and which may be most effective. Data collection included
the creation of policy records now accessible at
www.global-climatescope.org.
In all, the survey found at least 359 clean energy-supportive poli-
cies on the books in these countries today dating back to 2006.
Residential power prices vs residential solar photovoltaic LCOE, 2013 ($/MWh)
Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance
Barbados
Haiti
Peru
Botswana
Guyana
Guatemala
Nigeria
China
Argentina
Rwanda
Colombia
Mexico
Mozambique
SriLanka
Kenya
SierraLeone
Zimbabwe
India
Suriname
ElSalvador
Chile
SouthAfrica
Indonesia
Myanmar
Nicaragua
Ghana
Ecuador
Zambia
Venezuela
Senegal
Pakistan
Tanzania
Trinidad&Tobago
Tajikistan
Dom.Republic
CostaRica
Malawi
Cameroon
Ethiopia
Jamaica
Panama
Honduras
Bolivia
Bahamas
Belize
Coted’Ivoire
Nepal
Uruguay
Uganda
Brazil
Paraguay
Bangladesh
450
400
350
300
250
200
Residential solar PV LCOE
150
100
50
0
Policies in force by type and year of establishment
64
71
75
Carbon Market
Mechanism
Debt Finance
Mechanism
Number of policies
La:n
American
&
Caribbean
na:ons
ResidenZal
power
prices
vs
residenZal
solar
PV
LCOE,
2013
($MWh)
113. FIRST
SOLAR
UZlity-‐Scale
Solar
PV
2013
LCOE
$0.07-‐0.15/kWh*
*2013
data,
costs
depending
on
irradiance
levels,
interest
rates,
and
other
factors,
e.g.
development
costs,
h,p://www.firstsolar.com/en/solu:ons/u:lity-‐scale-‐genera:on
Cents/kWh
114. *Permi^ng,
inspec:on,
and
interconnec:on
costs
**
Includes
installer
and
integrator
margin,
legal
fees,
professional
fees,
financing
transac:onal
costs,
O+M
costs,
produc:on
guarantees,
reserves,
and
warranty
costs.
Jesse
Morris
et
al,
REDUCING
SOLAR
PV
SOFT
COST,
A
FOCUS
ON
INSTALLATION
LABOR,
Rocky
Mountain
Ins:itute,
2013,
www.rmi.org/
Solar
PV
roo•op
system
installed
costs
vary
several-‐
fold
from
country
to
country,
state
to
state,
depending
on
pracZces
and
policies.
115. Bloomberg
New
Energy
Finance,
2030
Market
Outlook:
Solar,
June
27,
2014
Global
ResidenZal-‐Scale
Solar
PV
System
Economics
some parts of the Americas have already begun to see uptake of unsubsidised PV systems such
as utility-scale PV in Chile. As solar technology gets cheaper we expect households and
businesses to increasing opt for solar systems. There will however be opposition from utilities and
changing rate structures for consumers. The first signs of this trend can already be observed: in
Spain, for example, the government has threatened to impose a tax on electricity generated for
auto-consumption, although the final bill is still pending. Ultimately however we don't believe
developments such as this will have a material effect on the size of the market in the long term,
particularly as the small-scale power storage solutions become increasingly viable.
Figure 9: Global residential-scale PV system economics
2014 2025
500 ]
500
450 450
. any
50GW
400
. any
400 Hawaii
.Hawaii Denmark
8 8..1350
tit 350
Slovakia
Australia
INeth.
stralia
Neth. •
"' Slovakia 100GW
"' - 100GW
Q) Q)
0
Switz.Po 9 0
§. 250 '§. 250
ChileQ)
200 • Chile
•a. 8. 200 -
"(ij
150
'(ij
150
100 100
50 50
Arabia
0 0
750 1,250 1,750 2,250 750 1,250 1,750 2,250
Irradiation (kWhlkW/year) Irradiation (kWh/kW/year)
Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Note: NJ, New Jersey; CA, California.
-
c:.
-
!:..
;
<-
"'
-;:
2014
2025
116. RISKS
IN
RANKING
LEAST-‐COST-‐RISK
(LCR)
DELIVERED
ENERGY
SERVICES
(DES)
119. CO2e!budget!for!2°C!Limit!
111!
Listed Fossil Fuel
Reserves & Resources
Global Non-Listed
Fossil Fuel Reserves
Remaining Available
2°C Carbon Budget
Through 2100
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Unburnable
Carbon
Reserves
GtCO2Estimate
A significant portion of the world’s fossil fuel reserves
will need to remain in the ground in 2050
if we are to avoid catastrophic levels of climate change.
Fossil fuel companies, however, continue to develop reserves
that may never be used.
1541
987
2098
Fossil Fuel Assets at Risk
Unburnable Carbon Reserves
If!humanity!is!to!prevent!global!average!
temperature!rise!from!exceeding!2°C!,!then!
80%!of!fossil!fuel!assets!(now!owned!by!
corporaAons!or!governments)!must!not!be!
burned.!
!
This!means!leaving!the!majority!in!the!
ground!as!stranded!assets,!or!those!that!are!
consumed!must!be!done!with!zero!emission!
releases,!such!as!carbon!capture!and!
storage!(CCS).!
!
With!CCS,!both!coal!and!most!gasZfired!
power!plants!are!technically!and!
economically!unnecessary,!given!robust!
compeAAon!that!can!deliver!electricity!
services!at!the!leastZcostZandZrisk!LCOE!
(levelized!cost!of!electricity).!
Chart!source:!CERES!&!CarbonTracker,!Investors!ask!fossil!fuel!companies!to!assess!how!business!plans!fare!in!lowZcarbon!future!ZZ!coaliAon!of!70!investors!worth!
$3!trillion!call!on!world’s!largest!oil!&!gas,!coal!and!electric!power!companies!to!assess!risks!under!climate!acAon!and!‘business!as!usual’!scenarios,!Nov!2013!!
CO2
budget
for
2°C
Limit
$28
trillion
in
Stranded
Carbon
Assets
120. 2.2
5.5
27.3
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
$40/tCO2
$100
/tCO2
$500/tCO2
cents
per
kWh
¢
¢
¢
AddiZonal
Cost
per
kWh
of
natural
gas-‐generated
electricity
(at
$40,
$100
and
$500
per
metric
ton
of
CO2
fee)
Steam
Turbine
1.4
3.5
17.7
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
$40/tCO2
$100
/tCO2
$500/tCO2
cents
per
kWh
Advanced
Gas
Turbine
¢
¢
¢
121. Amory Lovins & Imran Sheikh, The Nuclear Illusion, May 2008, www.rmi.org
nuclear coal CC gas wind farm CC ind
cogen
bldg scale
cogen
recycled
ind cogen
end-use
efficiency
CCS
Cost of new delivered electricity (US¢/kWh)
US current
average
122. 1¢/kWh
2¢ 47
93 kg
Amory Lovins & Imran Sheikh, The Nuclear Illusion, May 2008, www.rmi.org
Coal-fired CO2
emissions displaced
per dollar spent on
electrical services
Carbon
displacement
at
various
efficiency
costs/kWh
Keystone
high
nuclear
cost
scenario
3¢
4¢
kg
CO2,
displaced
per
2007
dollar
123. ies was expected to decline, at the same time Mexico could see the highest growth rate jump,
t from 1.8 percent in the current decade.
Figure 31: Electricity in Latin America’s Generation Mix
: Based on Ariel Yepes et al., Meeting the Balance of Electricity Supply and Demand in Latin America an
ean. World Bank 2010
coal fuel oil
natural
gas
hydro nuclear
oil
products
others
2008 4.6% 8.4% 22.0% 58.6% 2.8% 2.3% 1.3%
2030 7.9% 3.3% 29.4% 50.0% 4.2% 1.2% 4.1%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
2008
2030
Based
on
Ariel
Yepes
et
al.,
Mee:ng
the
Balance
of
Electricity
Supply
and
Demand
in
La:n
America
and
the
Caribbean.
World
Bank
2010,
cited
in
“La:n
America’s
Energy
Future”
by
Roger
Tissot
for
the
Inter-‐American
Development
Bank
and
the
Inter-‐American
Dialogue
Energy
Working
Paper
Series,
No.
IDB-‐DP-‐252,
December
2012.
Electricity
in
LaZn
America’s
GeneraZon
Mix
–
2008
and
2030
124. America and the Caribbean are rich in natural resources, not only of a renewable
n. Since natural resources have historically been primarily harnessed through the
blishment of hydro plants, this region can nowadays boost one of the cleanest
ricity mixes in the world in terms of GHG emissions.
e 1 below shows total installed capacity and hydroelectric share in the region.
Figure 1. Installed capacity and hydroelectric share in Latin America (source: IDB, 2013)
e the availability and quality of data on the real potential of each of these resources
s considerably, the potential for exploiting new renewable energy sources, such as
Installed capacity GW (Hydroelectric share %)
Installed
capacity
&
hydroelectric
share
in
LaZn
America
(Le€
Map
2010,
Right
Map
Amazon
Dams
Opera:ng
&
Planned)
Le€
Map:
Carlos
Batlle
and
Juan
Roberto
Paredes,
Analysis
of
the
impact
of
increased
Non-‐
Conven:onal
Renewable
Energy
genera:on
on
La:n
American
Electric
Power
Systems,
Tools
and
Methodologies
for
assessing
future
Opera:on,
Planning
and
Expansion,
Discussion
paper
No.
IDB-‐DP-‐341,
January
2014
Right
Map:
Dams
in
Amazonia,
h,p://dams-‐info.org/en
125. Updated data, Synapse
Leakage rates uncertainty
Wind, Solar, Efficiency
Wind
power
Solar
power
End-use
Efficiency
Assembled
and
adapted
from
mul:ple
sources
GHG
Emissions
Comparison
from
different
Sources
126. Net Emissions from Brazilian Reservoirs compared with
Combined Cycle Natural Gas
Source: Patrick McCully, Tropical Hydropower is a Significant Source of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Interim response to the International
Hydropower Association, International Rivers Network, June 2004
DAM
Reservoir
Area
(km2)
Generating
Capacity
(MW)
km2/
MW
Emissions:
Hydro
(MtCO2-
eq/yr)
Emissions:
CC Gas
(MtCO2-
eq/yr)
Emissions
Ratio
Hydro/Gas
Tucuruí 24330 4240 6 8.60 2.22 4
Curuá-
Una
72 40 2 0.15 0.02 7.5
Balbina 3150 250 13 6.91 0.12 58
127. concentrations of methane at different reservoir depths, the depth of turbine and spillway intakes, and
the type of spillway design.
■ Surface emissions vary widely among different parts of the same reservoir (largely due to changes in
depth, exposure to wind and sun, and growth of aquatic plants), and from year to year, season to season,
and between night and day. This greatly complicates efforts to develop reliable whole-reservoir estimates
from a limited set of samples measured at specific points in the reservoir during specific time periods.
Confidence in the measurements themselves is also hampered by the different results obtained through
different measuring equipment and techniques, and disagreements over which measuring methods are
most appropriate.22
Factors affecting degassing emission volumes include variations in the volume of
water discharged, and the proportion of turbined water versus that which is spilled.
Length of
Annual Ice Cover
CO2
Diffusion
CH4
Bubbles
Decomposition
of Flooded
Biomass & Soils
Wind Forcing
Growth & Decay
of Aquatic Plants
Degassing
Water Level
Fluctuation
Plankton
Growth
& Decay
Carbon Inputs
from Watershed
Drawdown
Vegetation
FIGURE 3. SOME KEY FACTORS INFLUENCING RESERVOIR GHG EMISSIONS
Hydropower
Dam
GHG
Emissions
Can
be
Significant
Some
Key
Factors
Influencing
Reservoir
GHG
Emissions
128. 4
TABLE 1. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM HYDROPOWER PLANTS
Hydro plant Power Installed Flooded CO2 CH4 CH4 Total Electricity Reservoir Emissions
density capacity area reservoir reservoir degassing emissions generation age per kWh
(W/m2
) (MW) (km2
) surface surface (Mt gas/yr) (Mt CO2eq/yr) (GWh/yr) (years)§ (gCO2eq/kWh)
(Mt gas/yr) (Mt gas/yr)
Boreal Sainte-Marguerite 10.38 882 85 0.02 0.000 0.02 2,770 N/A 8
gross Churchill/Nelson 2.80 3,925 1,400 0.22 0.003 0.28 14,000 N/A 20
(Canada) Manic Complex 1.91 5,044 2,645 0.64 0.008 0.80 20,000 N/A 40
La Grande Complex 1.20 15,552 13,000 3.28 0.039 4.10 82,000 N/A 50
Churchill Falls 0.81 5,428 6,705 1.67 0.020 2.09 35,000 N/A 60
Average 3.42 6,166 4,767 1.17 0.014 1.46 30,754 N/A 36
Tropical Tucuruí 1.74 4,240 2,430 9.34#
0.094 0.970 31.56 18,030 6 (1990) 1,751
“reservoir Curuá-Una .56 40 72 0.04#
0.001 0.022 0.51 190 13 (1990) 2,704
net”* (Brazil) Samuel 0.40 216 540 0.22#
0.010 0.030 1.06 530 12 (2000) 2,008
Average 0.90 1,499 1,014 3.20#
0.035 0.341 11.05 6,250 2,154
Balbina 0.08 250 3,150 23.60 0.036 0.034 28.44 970 3 (1990) 29,322
Tropical Petit Saut 0.32 115 365 0.24 0.012 0.023 1.21 470 20 year avg 2,577
gross (French Guyana)
including
degassing
Tropical Xingó 50.00 3,000 60 0.13 0.001 0.15 13,140 4-5 12
gross Segredo 15.37 1,260 82 0.08 0.0003 0.09 5,519 6-7 16
excluding Itaipú 8.13 12,600 1,549 0.10 0.012 0.34 55,188 16-17 6
degassing Miranda 7.65 390 51 0.08 0.003 0.14 1,708 2-3 83
(Brazil) Tucuruí 1.74 4,240 2,430 7.52 0.097 9.55 18,571 14-15 514
Serra da Mesa 0.71 1,275 1,784 2.59 0.033 3.28 5,585 3-4 588
Barra Bonita 0.45 141 312 0.45 0.002 0.50 618 36-37 816
Samuel 0.39 216 559 1.52 0.021 1.97 946 10-11 2,077
Três Marias 0.38 396 1,040 0.42 0.075 1.99 1,734 35-36 1,147
Average 9.43 2,613 874 1.43 0.027 2.00 11,445 14-15 584
Table
1.:
Patrick
McCully,
Fizzy
Science,
Interna:onal
Rivers
Network,
November
2006
160
to
250
g
CO2eq/
kWh
*update
*update:
William
Steinhurst,
Patrick
Knight,
and
Melissa
Schultz,
Hydropower
Greenhouse
Gas
Emissions,
State
of
the
Research,
Synapse,
February
14,
2012,
www.synapse-‐energy.com
Table
1.
GHG
Emissions
from
Hydropower
Plants
131. “We
don’t
have
a
robust
energy
system,
and
the
costs
are
significant.
The
cost
today
is
measured
in
the
billions.
Over
the
coming
decades,
it
will
be
in
the
trillions.
You
can’t
just
put
your
head
in
the
sand
anymore.”
U.S.
Dept.
of
Energy
Official
Jonathan
Pershing,
2013
Hurricane
Sandy,
2012
132. SECURING THE U.S.
ELECTRICAL GRID
THE HONORABLE THOMAS F. McLARTY III
&
THE HONORABLE THOMAS J. RIDGE
PROJECT CO-CHAIRS
Energy
Surety
Microgrid
U.S.
Military
bases
mandated
to
be
“islandable”
–
capable
of
operaZng
even
if
grid
collapses
Power
Grid
DisrupZon
Risks
&
Threats
Human
or
Technical
Error,
Cybera,acks,
Military
A,acts
or
Terrorism,
Climate
Disrup:on
&
Natural
Disasters
133. A:f
Ansar,
Bent
Flyvbjerg,
Alexander
Budzier,
Daniel
Lun
Should
we
build
more
large
dams?
The
actual
costs
of
hydropower
megaproject
development.
Energy
Policy
(2014),
h,p://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.
2013.10.069
6. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, also see Hufschmidt and Gerin
(1970),3
and Merewitz (1973) on the U.S. water-resource con-
struction agencies.
acquisition and resettlement; design engineerin
management services; construction of all civil w
ities; equipment purchases. Actual outturn costs
real, accounted construction costs determined a
Fig. 1. Sample distribution of 245 large dams (1934–2007), across five continents, worth USD 353B (2010 prices).
A. Ansar et al. / Energy Policy ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎4
• ex
post
outcomes
of
schedule
&
cost
es:mates
of
hydropower
dams.
• Es:mates
are
systema:cally
&
severely
biased
below
actual
values.
• Projects
that
take
longer
have
greater
cost
overruns;
bigger
projects
take
longer.
•
Upli€
required
to
de-‐bias
systema:c
cost
under-‐
es:ma:on
for
large
dams
is
+99%.
6. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, also see Hufschmidt and Gerin
(1970),3
and Merewitz (1973) on the U.S. water-resource con-
struction agencies.
The procedures applied to the cost and schedule data here are
acquisition and resettlement; design engineering an
management services; construction of all civil works
ities; equipment purchases. Actual outturn costs are d
real, accounted construction costs determined at the
project completion. Estimated costs are defined as bud
Fig. 1. Sample distribution of 245 large dams (1934–2007), across five continents, worth USD 353B (2010 prices).
A. Ansar et al. / Energy Policy ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎4
Hydropower
Dam
Cost
Overruns
134. A:f
Ansar,
Bent
Flyvbjerg,
Alexander
Budzier,
Daniel
Lun
Should
we
build
more
large
dams?
The
actual
costs
of
hydropower
megaproject
development.
Energy
Policy
(2014),
h,p://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.069
Fig. 3. Location of large dams in the sample and cost overruns by geography.
A. Ansar et al. / Energy Policy ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎6
“Using
the
largest
and
most
reliable
reference
data
of
its
kind
and
mul:level
sta:s:cal
techniques
applied
to
large
dams
for
the
first
:me,
we
were
successful
in
fi^ng
parsimonious
models
to
predict
cost
and
schedule
overruns.
…in
most
countries
large
hydropower
dams
will
be
too
costly
in
absolute
terms
and
take
too
long
to
build
to
deliver
a
posi:ve
risk-‐adjusted
return
unless
suitable
risk
management
can
be
affordably
provided.”
“Policymakers,
par3cularly
in
developing
countries,
are
advised
to
prefer
agile
energy
alterna3ves
that
can
be
built
over
shorter
3me
horizons
to
energy
megaprojects.”
Hydropower
Dam
Cost
Overruns
135. Corn ethanol
Cellulosic ethanol
Wind-battery
turbine spacing
Wind turbines
ground footprint
Solar-battery
Mark Z. Jacobson, Wind Versus Biofuels for Addressing Climate, Health, and Energy, Atmosphere/Energy Program, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, March 5,
2007, http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/E85vWindSol
Area to Power 100% of U.S. Onroad Vehicles
COMPARISON OF LAND NEEDED TO POWER VEHICLES
Solar-battery and Wind-battery refer to battery storage of these intermittent renewable
resources in plug-in electric driven vehicles
136. Map
of
basins
with
assessed
shale
oil
&
shale
gas
formaZons,
2013
Argen:na
2nd
largest
deposits
in
world
137. Natural
Gas,
Coal
&
Oil
Fueled
Power
Plants
in
LaZn
America
(30%,
8%,
and
4.5%,
respecZvely,
in
2030)
Based
on
Ariel
Yepes
et
al.,
Mee:ng
the
Balance
of
Electricity
Supply
and
Demand
in
La:n
America
and
the
Caribbean.
World
Bank
2010,
cited
in
“La:n
America’s
Energy
Future”
by
Roger
Tissot
for
the
Inter-‐American
Development
Bank
and
the
Inter-‐American
Dialogue
Energy
Working
Paper
Series,
No.
IDB-‐DP-‐252,
December
2012.
143. Policies!&!Subsidies!promote!highZ
Emission!investments!over!ZeroZE!OpAons!
128!
Total Global
Investments in
Renewables
Billions of Dollars Invested
2012 Investments in
Fossil Fuel Reserves Versus Clean Energy
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
$674
$281
Corporate Investments
in Developing
Fossil Fuel Reserves
www.ceres.org www.carbontracker.org
Legacy!policies,!subsidies,!
and!regulaAons!(or!lack!
thereof)!conAnue!to!steer!
investments!into!energy!
opAons!with!highZemission!
output.!!The!IMF!esAmates!
$2!trillion!per!year!
worldwide!in!subsidies!to!
the!fossil!fuel!industry.!!
Another!$4!trillion!per!year!in!economic!losses!are!due!to!fossil!fuel!
externaliAes!that!go!unpriced!or!unregulated,!according!to!esAmates!by!UN!
Finance!IniAaAve.!!This!skewing!of!decisionmaking!creates!uncertainty!as!to!
whether!emissions!will!steeply!rise!(BAU)!or!major!policy!changes!will!occur.!!
Chart!source:!CERES!&!CarbonTracker,!Investors!ask!fossil!fuel!companies!to!assess!how!business!plans!fare!in!lowZcarbon!future!ZZ!coaliAon!of!70!investors!worth!
$3!trillion!call!on!world’s!largest!oil!&!gas,!coal!and!electric!power!companies!to!assess!risks!under!climate!acAon!and!‘business!as!usual’!scenarios,!Nov!2013!!
144. Water!&!CCS!impact!by!power!plant!
150!
Water and Carbon Capture Impact
Source: Gerdes, K.; Nichols, C. Water Requirements for Existing and Emerging Thermoelectric Plant Technologies; DOE/NETL Report
402/080108; U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory: Morgantown, WV, 2009.
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Subcritical
pc
Supercritical
pc
IGCC – Dry
Feed
IGCC –
Slurry Feed
NGCC
No Capture 0.52 0.45 0.30 0.31 0.19
With Capture 0.99 0.84 0.48 0.45 0.34
Estimated Water Consumption Increase with
CO2 Capture and Compression
gal/
kWh
% Increase 91 87 61 46 76
pc=!pulverized!coal;!IGCC=!integrated!gasificaAon!combined!cycle!coal!plant;!!
NGCCZ!natural!gas!combined!cycle!
Gerdes,!K.;!Nichols,!C.!Water!Requirements!for!ExisAng!and!Emerging!Thermoelectric!Plant!Technologies;!DOE/NETL!
Report!402/080108;!U.S.!Department!of!Energy!NaAonal!Energy!Technology!Laboratory:!Morgantown,!WV,!2009.!