solar storage analyses by team nu for argonne energy storage conference
TRANSCRIPT
ANALYSES
+SOLAR STORAGE
we need
1996First Western electricity coordination council blackout 2M people affected in 14 states
2MPEOPLE
1996
Second Western electricity coordination
council blackout 7M people affected in US &
Canada
7MPEOPLE
$42-45BEST. COST
2OO1
Summer Power Crisis in CA
$6BEST. COST
2OO3
New England Blackout, 50M people affected,
2O13
SAN JOSEsubstation shooting
1977Lightening causes blackout affecting 1OM people in NY
$3OOMEST. COST
2OO5 Energy Policy Act
2OO7Energy Independence Security Act (smart grid)
2OO9 ExecutiveOrder 13514
1994 2MPEOPLE
lose power in western states
$15MEST. COST
Microgrid:
Renewables
Storage
Local Site
UtilityGrid
the
LOW COST RELIABIILTY SECURITY
GRID OPTIMIZATION ENVIRONMENT REMOTE
LOCATIONS
our
Quantitative Analysis Qualitative Analysis
Costs involved
Payback period& savings
Resiliency
CO2 emissions
Sustainability Efforts
Microgrid Modeling
Tools Used
HOMER
DER-CAM
ESVT
our
Gather Data112 months, 15 mins kW & kWh, utility tariff structure
Cleanse the data2
Input Data3into HOMER, DER-CAM & ESVT [simulation results]
Analyze the results4
Compare & contrast outputs5
Feature
HOMER DER-CAM ESVT
Parent Organization NREL LBL EPRI
Year Launched 2OOO 2OOO 2O13
User Base 1OO,OOO(193 countries)
—(42 countries) —
MOLP
Electrical Loads
Thermal Loads
Model Type Simulation Optimization Optimization
Financial
Energy Charge Demand Charge&
Energy Consumption
Time
Dem
and
(kW
) Peak LoadENERGY CHARGEEnergy Consumption* (Electric Charge/kWh)
DEMAND CHARGEEnergy Consumption* (Electric Charge/kWh)
DEMAND CHARGEPeak Load * Demand Rate ($/kW/month)
Case Study # 1
Northwestern University (NU) is aprivate research university based inEvanston, Illinois, with campuses inEvanston & Chicago, Illinois, SanFrancisco, California and Doha, Qatar.
LOCATION
Evanston, ILFACILITY TYPE
Research University
OWNERSHIP
NPO
Tech Building Visitor’s Center North Campus
SITE SELECTION
Tech Building Visitor’s Center
North Campus
SPACECONSTRAINT
POTENTIALALTERNATIVE
Ideal location for both quantitative &
qualitative benefits, Client’s
Interest.
?
ANNUAL ENERGY PROFILEVisitor CenterENERGY CONSUMPTION ( kWh)
1,199,374 kWh PEAK LOAD ( kW )
474 kWFLAT ELECTRICITY CHARGE
7.5 cents/kWhDEMAND RATE$4.5O/kW
TOTAL ELECTRICITY CHARGE
$ 1O4,658
COST OF ENERGY (COE)
8.71 cents/kWh
EN
ER
GY
CO
NS
UM
PTI
ON
AN
ALY
SIS
Daily Profile Seasonal Profile
Yearly Profile
days
hour
s
kW
HO
ME
R
OU
TPU
T
DE
R-C
AM
O
UTP
UT
No Storage Suggested
Yearly investments & operational costs (k$)
DE
R-C
AM
O
UTP
UT
DE
R-C
AM
O
UTP
UT
Annualized Energy Costs (k$)
Optimal Dispatch for Electricity Technologies (January-week)D
ER
-CA
M
OU
TPU
T
EN
ER
GY
SAV
ING
SEnergy Charges Energy
Savings
SOLAR ONLY(125 KW )
GRID ONLY
SOLAR + STORAGE(175 KW + 400 KW )
Demand Charges Demand Savings
ENERGY CHARGES
$71,913ENERGY SAVINGS
$18,O71DEMAND
CHARGES$14,113
DEMAND SAVINGS
$561
ENERGY CHARGES
$77,2OOENERGY SAVINGS
$12,784DEMAND
CHARGES$14,171
DEMAND SAVINGS
$5O3TOTAL
SAVINGS N/A TOTAL SAVINGS
$
13,287 TOTAL SAVINGS
$
18,632COE/KWH 8.71 CENTS 7.6O
CENTSCOE/KWH 7.1O
CENTSCOE/KWH
ENERGY CHARGES
$71,913ENERGY SAVINGS N/ADEMAND
CHARGES$14,113
DEMAND SAVINGS N/A
FIN
AN
CIA
LO
UTC
OM
E ASSUMPTIONS
System Size 125 kW 175 kW + 4OO kW
Project Payback 2.7 years 5.7 years
IRR (2O Years) 26.8% 11.6%
NPV $39O,123 $37O,557
CAPEX $O.34M $1.45M
SOLAR ONLY SOLAR + STORAGE
ANCILLARY SERVICES – 400 KW BATTERY
1. ITC Benefit: 3O%2. Discount Rate: 6%3. Demand Charge Escalator: 3%4. Inflation: 2%5. Solar Panel Cost: $1.5/Watt6. Flow Battery Cost: $73O/kWh
1. Arbitrage - NA2. Frequency Regulation:
$34,O8O/year3. Demand Response: $15,526/year
QU
ALITATIV
E
BE
NE
FITS
Output from Homer
QUANTITY ONLY GRID SOLAR + STORAGE % Change
Carbon di Oxide 758,004 604,586 -20.24%
Sulphur di Oxide 3,286 2,621 -20.24%
Nitrogen Oxides 1,607 1,281 -20.29%
AN
UU
AL
EM
ISS
ION
S
Research Purpose Showcase Sustainability
Risks &
TECHNOLOGY CASH FLOW LOAD UTILITY
Effe
cts
Miti
gatio
n
Actual performance less than optimal
O&M costs more than expected
Customer non-paymentIncentives withheld or need verification
Customer load changes dramatically
Utility changes tariff structure in a way that is unfavorable
Performance guaranteeMeaningful WarrantyEPC with hardware specific experience
Creditworthy customerTransparent incentive programsFor owner: Min. required payments
Customer load changes dramatically
For owner: Specify acceptable
changes to loadin contract
Support a powerful trade organization Faith in the current status-quo utility model
TECHNOLOGY LOAD
Effe
cts
Miti
gatio
n
Actual performance less than optimal
O&M costs more than expected
Customer load changes dramatically
Performance guaranteeMeaningful WarrantyEPC with hardware specific experience
Customer load changes dramatically
For owner: Specify acceptable
changes to loadin contract
Our
Importance of analyzing Mission Critical Loads.
COE (Solar + Storage) < COE (Grid)
microgrids are a viable option
Despite this,
when ITC and ancillary services are considered.
HOMER & DER-CAM are more sophisticated toolscompared to other tools available in the market. eg: ESVT, etc.
We learned some
what makes a
+SOLAR STORAGE MARKET
Higher UtilityTariff RatesGenerally
> $O.1O/kWhDemand Charges
> $12.5/kW/Month
Availability of Ancillary Services
DescriptionSolar PV and energy storage savings
are packaged and price as a fixed monthly charge
Energy storage savings accrue to the 3rd party owner, who in turn offers a lower PAA rate
Customer signs a PPA for solar generation and lease or shared savings for energy
storage
Customer Transactio
nOne Bill for the customer
Two Bills: • Energy @ PPA rate• Pass through
a demand savings
Two Bills: • Energy @ PPA rate• Payment for lease or
shared demand savings
Contract Risk Customer Third-party owner Third-party owner
Ability to Finance Easy Moderate Moderate
Common 3rd Party Agreement Types
LEASE SUBSIDIZED PPA DUAL AGREEMENT
PRESENTATION DESIGN BY