california energy commission cec’s energy r&d program and the potential for storage...
TRANSCRIPT
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
CEC’s Energy R&D Program and the Potential for Storage Technologies
Electrical Energy Storage - Applications and Technology ConferenceSan Francisco, California
Terry Surles, Director
Public Interest Energy Research Program
California Energy Commission
April 15, 2002
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
GDP (2000)
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
U.S.
Japan
Germany
U.K.
CALIFORNIA
France
China
Italy
Canada
Brazil
Mexico
GDP (2000) [trillions of U.S. dollars]
9,900
GDP (2000)
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
California (2000)284 TWh
US (1999)3,752 TWh
Natural GasCoal
Nuclear
Natural Gas
Nuclear
Hydro
Geothermal
Hydro
38%
12%
15%
5%
50%
15%
19%
9%
Production of Electricity by Source
RenewablesWind/Solar - 2%Biomass/waste - 2%Small hydro - 3%
Renewables - 2%Oil - 3%
Natural gas - 16%Hydro - 32%Coal - 52%Imports
23%
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
Peak Demand is Increasing Faster than Newly Installed Capacity
Me g
a wa t
t s
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Peak Load Growth
Capacity Additions
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
California Energy Perspective Previous system wasn’t broken Market power became concentrated
profits up by selling less for more
No price signal for end users Loss of momentum on demand side management
10 GWh saved by early 1990’s Restructuring derails utility DSM
1.4 GW of renewable cancelled “No need” Price was above cost to utilities
Results Demand up 0.7%, price up 130% Blackouts with 28 GW load with ~ 50 GW capacity
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
ISO Daily Peak LoadsJanuary 2000 - August 31, 2001
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
1/1
/00
2/1
/00
3/1
/00
4/1
/00
5/1
/00
6/1
/00
7/1
/00
8/1
/00
9/1
/00
10
/1/0
0
11
/1/0
0
12
/1/0
0
1/1
/01
2/1
/01
3/1
/01
4/1
/01
5/1
/01
6/1
/01
7/1
/01
8/1
/01
Meg
awat
ts
Summer Peak is 50%higher than rest of year
Yet blackoutsoccurred here
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
Average Monthly Power Plant Outages(megawatts per day)
0
1500
3000
4500
6000
7500
9000
10500
12000
13500
15000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Me
ga
wa
tts
1999 2000 2001 2002
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
California Energy Issues:Interdependencies
Relationship of natural gas to electricity use storage down 87% from 11/99 to 11/00 generators pass through spot gas prices $3 to $69 MBtu from 12/12/99 to 12/12/00
1-in75 year drought will cause increased gas demand 600Bcf in west, 225 Bcf in So Cal
SONGS outages reduced 1100 MW of generating capacity increase gas demand by 200 Mcfd
First cold winter in US in three years price up all over, higher in California
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
What Changed by Summer & Fall 2001?
CA peak demand > 40,000 MW on only 9 days FERC ordered generators to offer power FERC threatened scrutiny of outages Conservation of ~8% from publicity campaign and
higher prices Capacity additions 1/1/01 - 8/1/01 8/2/01 - 8/1/02
CA & N. Baja 3,192 MW 7,652 MW
NW, Alberta, BC 2,104 MW 4,038 MW
SW 2,331 MW 3,212 MW
7,627 MW 14,902 MW
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
40000
45000
50000
55000
60000
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Recession
Weather
Demand Reduction and Weather
Peak Demand
Influenced by Economics and Weather
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
Summer 2001 Peak Demand Reductions versus Summer 2000
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%Actual
Adjusted forweather
Adjusted forweather andeconomicactivity
Jun Jul Aug Sep
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
Per-capita electricity consumption, 1960–2000
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Rest of U.S.
California
(DOE and CEC data, compiled 1960–89 by Worldwatch Institute, 1990–2000 by Rocky Mountain Institute; 2000 data are preliminary; 1991–2000 population data not yet renormalized to 2000 Census findings)
California: policy really does workM
Wh
per
pers
on-y
ear
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
End-Use/Sector
Meg
awat
ts
15% 14%
11% 11%
7% 6%
4% 4% 4% 4%
Top Ten Peak Energy Uses/Sectors
(assumes a 56,000 MW peak)
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
Cal ISO Daily Peak LoadsJanuary 1, 2000 - December 31, 2000
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1/1/
00
1/15
/00
1/29
/00
2/12
/00
2/26
/00
3/11
/00
3/25
/00
4/8/
00
4/22
/00
5/6/
00
5/20
/00
6/3/
00
6/17
/00
7/1/
00
7/15
/00
7/29
/00
8/12
/00
8/26
/00
9/9/
00
9/23
/00
10/7
/00
10/2
1/00
11/4
/00
11/1
8/00
12/2
/00
12/1
6/00
12/3
0/00
GW
Peak Day August 16 - 43.5 GW
Commercial AC
Residential AC
CAL ISO Daily Peak LoadsJanuary 1, 2000 - December 31, 2000
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
PIER Objectives: Meeting Ratepayer Needs in Near- and Long-Term
Relevance: Reliability, Safety,Quality, Cost
TangibleProducts
- near-term - perception
Externalities - environment - security
Future Choices - efficiency - distributed energy resources
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
Funded Program Areas to January 2002 (in millions)
Supply $82Renewables, EPAG
Demand $50Buildings, Ind/Ag/Water
$48Systems Integration, Environmental
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
Reasons for PIER Interest in Storage Technologies
Need to be responsive to the end-user and system needs Need to have tools for mitigating energy problems Newer emerging storage technologies that hold promise Demonstration for acceptance and integration into electricity
system CA’s needs present an opportunity for storage technologies
ranging from less than a second for power quality oriented applications to several hours of energy as customer and system level backup
Deregulation of energy made manifest the costs of instability and blackouts thus increasing the value of storage technologies
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
PX Constrained Price in Northern CaliforniaJanuary 2000 to December 2000
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
$/M
Wh
Average Retail Rate
ISO Price Cap
PX Prices
January February March April May June July August Sept. October November Dec.
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
CA Real Time Electricity PriceDaily Variations
For March 11, 2002 (California ISO)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Time of day [hours]
Ele
ctri
city
pri
ce [
$/M
Wh
]
Storage charging
Storagedischarging
~ $
50/
MW
h
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
California’s Future Storage Technology Portfolio Must Address Certain Issues
Industrial Need for increased reliability Need for improved power quality due to increased use of digital
controls in industry
System Support Manage transmission and distribution instability caused by
congestion Overcome transmission bottlenecks caused by limited
transmission capacity
Distributed Generation Improve dispatchability and reliability of intermittent renewables Create load-following capability for fuel cells
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
Emerging Technologies for Funding Consideration
Short-Term Power Quality Supermagnetic energy storage (SMES) High-speed flywheels for short-term power Ultracapacitors
Load management and reliability Low-speed flywheels Modular pumped-hydro energy storage Advanced batteries
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
Developing Storage Technologies for Intermittent Renewables is a Mechanism for
Improving Electricity Systems Value Increase overall capacity factor Meet ISO’s need to better schedule power that
meets demand Enable wind park operators the ability to provide
reasonable day-ahead bids to ISO Allow wind to act as a dispatchable resource as
tied to new predictive models
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
Example: CEC Cofunded Development of the AFS Trinity Advanced Flywheel System
Distributed generation load following, cold start and islanding for fuel cells, microturbines and natural gas engine gensets
Industrial power management chip fab tools light rail transit electronic power distribution voltage stability
Power quality/UPS alternative to lead-acid batteries
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
Attributes for Addressing State Issues
Program Integration
Balanced Technology Portfolio-Temporal-Technology-Risk
TechnologyPartnerships- Universities- Industry- Federal
Focus onCalifornia- Specific to State needs
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$ M
illio
ns
CEC
DOE
State Funded R&D Programs Result in Collaboratively-Funded Programs with U.S.
Department of Energy
Current Collaborative Programs
Renewables
Efficiency Small-scale Fossil
Systems &
Environment
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
Next Steps for CEC Storage Technology R&D
Establish criteria for targeted, programmatic solicitation
Develop solicitation for storage applications in partnership with DOE and industry
Aim for 2-3 demonstrations of emerging technologies