energy and economic profitability of the emo conceptescagues-gk-enea... · 1 €/nm3 2 €/nm3 3...
TRANSCRIPT
Energy and economic profitability of the EMOconceptA. RÉVEILLÈRE (GEOSTOCK), S. ESCAGÜES (ENEA)
November 8th, 2019
• Why does the cost structure matter ?
• Underground storage costs estimation
• Levelized cost of storage estimation
• Conclusion
| 08/11/2019 |Underground Energy Storage workshop 2
Why does the cost structure matter?
| 08/11/2019 |Underground Energy Storage workshop 3
Simplified EMO storage equipment: « energy transformation »
or « storage »
Required equipments related to:
• the transformation capacity of the facility =
• the storage capacity of the facility = 3 salt caverns
| 08/11/2019 |Underground Energy Storage workshop 4
ElectrolyserMethanation
reactorCH4 storage
O2 storage
Oxycombustion
turbine
CO2 storage
H2 CH4CH4
O2
CO2
O2
CO2
– Oxycombustion– MethanationElectrolysis
Simplified energy storage
technological competition
| 08/11/2019 |Underground Energy Storage workshop 5
Technology CAPEX breakdown
« Transformation
equipments »
« Storage
equipments »
Techno 1 1000 €/kW 100 €/kWh
Techno 2 5000 €/kW 10 €/kWh
Storage demand
Power demand 1 MW 1 MW
Cycles 12h/12h
365 times
per year
6 months / 6
months
Once a year
→ Storage
capacity
demand
12 MWh 4 380 MWh
→ Total
CAPEX
involved
2.2 M€
5 M€
440 M€
50 M€
Reality is more complex
| 08/11/2019 |Underground Energy Storage workshop 6
A comparison of competing storage solutions has to be done carefully. Many parameters
come into play:
• The investment and operation costs for « power equipment » • high for power-to-gas solutions, including EMO
• The investment and operation costs for « storage equipment »• low for salt caverns
• The cost & frequency of replacement• high for batteries
• The storage efficiency • 30% for H2 storage; 95% for Li-ion batteries
• The market(s) conditions• Currently, the « capacity market » pays more than the « energy markets »
• Last, projects can combine different techniques. • The HDF 140 MWh storage projet CEOG (Centrale Électrique de l’Ouest Guyanais) combines 20 MWh of
batteries and 120 MWh of H2 storage.
A usefull tool : Levelised Cost Of Storage (LCOS)
The breakeven selling price of the storage service
IEA, 2019
𝐿𝐶𝑂𝑆 =σ𝑛=1𝑁 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑛
1 +𝑊𝐴𝐶𝐶 𝑛
σ𝑛=1𝑁 𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑛
1 +𝑊𝐴𝐶𝐶 𝑛
Lifetime of the
facility (years)
Weighted Average
Cost of Capital
𝐶𝐴𝑃𝐸𝑋 𝑛 + 𝑂𝑃𝐸𝑋𝑓𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑑+𝑂𝑃𝐸𝑋𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 × 𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑛
MWh produced
during year n
𝐿𝐶𝑂𝑆,
Cost structures and competing technologies are driving the
cycles / storage range targetted by EMO storage
• Power to gas, including EMO storage, is in
competition with other techniques
| 08/11/2019 |Underground Energy Storage workshop 8
What storage cycles should
EMO consider ?
Is this technology competitive ?
Moore & Shabani, 2015
• Underground storage cost
estimate
• « Energy transformation »,
or surface equipments cost
estimate
• → LCOS
• →Comparison with
competing techniques
• → Definition of cycles
Underground costs estimation
| 08/11/2019 |Underground Energy Storage workshop 9
Nm3 per m3 : definition of an operating enveloppe and
consideration of the storage cavern thermodynamics
| 08/11/2019 |Underground Energy Storage workshop 10
Cycles:
• Weekly
• Seasonal
Depth
Pressure
5 000 000
10 000 000
15 000 000
200 500 1 000 1 500
Wo
rkin
gga
s(N
m3)
Cavity depth (m)
CO2
O2
CH4
10 000 000
20 000 000
30 000 000
40 000 000
50 000 000
60 000 000
200 500 1 000 1 500
Wo
rkin
gga
s(N
m3 )
Cavity depth (m)
CO2
O2
CH4
€/m3 and per depth: Consideration of the well design, the number
of wells, and the leaching cost.
| 08/11/2019 |Underground Energy Storage workshop 11
• Proposition of a
typical well
architecture
• Cost estimate for
various depths
• Adaptation of the
number of wells to
the acceptable flow
rates
0 €/Nm3
1 €/Nm3
2 €/Nm3
3 €/Nm3
4 €/Nm3
200 m 500 m 1 000 m 1 500 m
Underground storage costs for various depths
CH4 hebdo
CH4 saisonnier
→ Cost of 0.4 €/Nm3 or 2 €/Nm3 of
working gas for the weekly or
seasonal storage.
→ 1000 m case. For all gases.
→ Suited to Manosque / Etrez /
Hauterives / Tersanne conditions
Storage service cost estimation
(LCOS)
| 08/11/2019 |Underground Energy Storage workshop 12
The Levelized Cost of Storage (LCOS) accounts for the capital
and operating costs of each component of the EMO process
| 08/11/2019 |Underground Energy Storage workshop 13
Electricity
Electricity
O2
H2
CO2
SNG
η = 74% η = 79% η = 52 %
Water
Water
200MW
Temp ( C)
Press.(Bar)
Flow (Nm3/h)
155 MW
482MW
35 C, 20 bar
35 C, 20 bar
35 C, 20 bar
20
35
56 500
Electrolysis Methanation Storage Combustion
20
35
14 075
20
35
83 731
20
35
28 460
20
35
14 519
20
35
86 561
20
35
166 977
H2 Compressor Methanation reactorPost methanation
drying unit
SNG
CompressorOxycombustion Turbine
CO2 CompressorPost oxycombustion
drying unit
O2 Compressor
O2 Cavity
SNG Cavity
Electrolyser
CO2 Cavity
O2
H2
CO2
SNG
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
EMO - interseasonal cyclingNominal assumptions
EMO - weekly cyclingNominal assumptions
LCO
S (€
/MW
he
l fe
d b
ack
into
th
e g
rid
)
Post oxycombustion drying unit
Oxycombustion turbine
Gas turbine
CO2 cavity storage
CO2 compression
O2 cavity storage
O2 compression
CH4 cavity storage
SNG compression
Post methanation drying unit
Methanation reactor
CO2 supply
Electrolysis
Power grid connection
Electricity conversion losses
Energylosses 20%
Charge43%
Storage16%
Discharge 21%
Energylosses 22%
Charge56%
Storage2%
Discharge 21%
Charging and discharging account for the majority of EMO’s
LCOS in both interseasonal and weekly cycling scenarios
| 08/11/2019 |Underground Energy Storage workshop 14
738€/MWh
516€/MWh
For weekly storage, EMO competes against proven
technologies
| 08/11/2019 |Underground Energy Storage workshop 15
ElectrolysisMethanation
Cavitystorage
Oxycombustion
Water pumping
Water storage in
dam
Water turbine
Air compression
Cavitystorage
Air decompression
EMOPumped Storage Power Stations
Compressed Air Energy Storage
CH4CO2O2
Air
EMO is not competitive against CAES and pumped storage
(PSPS)
| 08/11/2019 |Underground Energy Storage workshop 16
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
EMO - weekly cyclingOptimistic assumptions
CAES PSPS
LCO
S (€
/MW
hel
fed
bac
k in
to t
he
grid
)
High LCOS
Low LCOS
Post oxycombustion dryingunitOxycombustion turbine
Gas turbine
CO2 cavity storage
CO2 compression
O2 cavity storage
O2 compression
CH4 cavity storage
SNG compression
Post methanation drying unit
Methanation reactor
CO2 supply
Electrolysis
Power grid connection
Electricity conversion losses
424€/MWh
290€/MWh
90€/MWh
For interseasonal storage, EMO competes against other
power-to-gas-to-power technologies
| 08/11/2019 |Underground Energy Storage workshop 17
EMOConventionalmethanation
Pure hydrogen withfuel cell
ElectrolysisMethanation
Cavitystorage
Oxycombustion
Cavitystorage
Fuel cell
CH4
CO2
O2
H2
ElectrolysisMethanation
Electrolysis
Cavitystorage
CH4
Conventionalcombustion
EMO falls within a similar cost range as other power-to-gas-to-
power technologies, with potential for further cost reductions
| 08/11/2019 |Underground Energy Storage workshop 18
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
EMO Conventional methanation Pure H2 with FC
LCO
S (€
/MW
he
l fed
bac
k in
to th
e gr
id)
Potential fuel cell surplus cost
Fuel cell
Gas turbine
Post oxycombustion dryingunitOxycombustion turbine
H2 storage
H2 compression
CO2 cavity storage
CO2 compression
O2 cavity storage
O2 compression
CH4 cavity storage
SNG compression
Post methanation drying unit
Methanation reactor
CO2 supply
Electrolysis
Power grid connection
Electricity conversion losses
738€/MWh
668€/MWh
856€/MWh
Storage 118€/MWh
Conclusions
| 08/11/2019 |Underground Energy Storage workshop 19
Conclusions
Power-to-gas is adapted to interseasonal storage
• Power-to-gas cannot compete with PSPS for weekly storage demand
• Power-to-gas is costly, but it is the only suitable technology for interseasonal storage
EMO system must be able to undergo short times of discharge
• Charging assets and cavities must handle short to long charging periods (6 hours to 8 days)
• Discharging assets and cavities must handle very short to moderate periods (6 hours to 8 days)
| 08/11/2019 |Underground Energy Storage workshop 20
Thank you for your attention !
Acknowledgments:We are thankful to the ANR FluidStory project for funding us in this work
We also thank Guillaume d’Herouville, whose final year internship
produced part of the comprehension presented (in the caverns costs section)
| 08/11/2019 |Underground Energy Storage workshop 21