prism 2.0: preliminary insights from epri’s regional …prism 2.0: preliminary insights from...

Prism 2.0:Preliminary Insights from EPRI’s Regional Model

Francisco de la Chesnaye,

Senior Economist, Global Climate Program

Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center

December 8, 2010

Presentation Topics

• Introduction to EPRI and Prism 2.0

• Importance of Regional Details for Renewable Wind Generation

2© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

• Prism 2.0 Electricity Sector Test Drive

The Electric Power Research Institute

� Independent, unbiased, collaborative research organization

� Full-spectrum industry coverage

– Nuclear

– Generation

RD&D for the Electricity Industry


– Generation

– Environment

– Power Delivery & Utilization

� 460 participants in more than 40 countries

� More than 500 Engineers and Scientists with Major offices

and Laboratories in Palo Alto, CA; Charlotte, NC; Knoxville,

TN; Lenox, MA; and Washington, DC.

EPRI’s Prism / MERGE Analysis

� Released in 2007, Updated in 2009

� Detailed analysis of a possible

pathway to reducing CO2 emissions

across the electricity sector


� MERGE model provided economic

analysis to highlight role of technology

in reducing CO2 emissions in the US

� Cited in numerous national and

international publications

Why Prism 2.0?

• New Regional Economic Model

• Improved treatment of renewable energy

– High-resolution wind and solar resource data

– Full biomass model with resource competition


• Expanded demand-side detail

– Energy efficiency potential by region and technology

– Fully developed transportation module

• Full complement of environmental regulations

The Next Generation of EPRI Analysis

Regional Model Structure

Pacific

Mountain

NW-Central

NE-Central

M-Atlantic

NE


California

Mountain

Texas

SW-Central

S-Atlantic

SE-Central

Florida

12 Regions

• Dynamic model of overall economy

• Detailed electric power sector module

• Detailed energy use

Prism 2.0 Model Status

General Equilibrium

Macro Module

Electric Sector Module

PARTIALLY COMPLETE


Electric Sector Module

CO2 Technologies

Completed

Env Controls

In Progress

Integration

COMPLETED by early 2011

Energy efficiency in industrial, commercial, and

residential sectors

Build out of electric transportation technologies

REGIONAL SPECIFICS


REGIONAL SPECIFICS

Ca

pit

al

Co

st

($/k

W)

4000

5000

6000

7000

Coal with CCS (IGCC)

Nuclear

New Generation Technology Options:Capital costs vary across regions


Ca

pit

al

Co

st

($/k

W)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Biomass

Coal without CCS (SCPC)

NG Gas Turbine

NGCC with CCS

NGCC without CCS

Solar (CSP) – West only

Wind

Net Inter-Region Trade Positions in 2007

Pacific

(+15)

NW-Central

(+8)

+2-8

NE-Central

(+66)

M-Atlantic

(+32)

NE

(-1)-11

-9


California

(-85)

Mountain

(+71)

Texas

(+8)

SW-Central

(-4)

-6

S-Atlantic

(-83)

SE-Central

(+3)

Net Exports in TWh

(source: EIA)

Florida

(-28)

Central U.S. – Significant Wind Energy Resources

• EPRI’s model has 12 years of hourly wind data (AWS Truepower)

• Identified 5300+ “utility-scale” sites of >100 MW each


each

• Exclusion areas

• 100 MW site minimum

• Distance to grid

• Terrain/wake

effects

$400

$350

$300

$250

National Wind Energy Potential Supply Curve* (excluding delivery costs)

Co

st

of

Ele

ctr

icit

y (

$/M

Wh

)

Generation Cost2007 Genby Coal

$400

$350

$300

$250

Levelized Cost of Electricity = (0.11 × Capital Cost + FOM) / (8760 × CF)


$200

$150

$100

$50

$0

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000

Wind TWh (million MWh)

Co

st

of

Ele

ctr

icit

y (

$/M

Wh

)

*EPRI – AWS TruePower National Wind Energy Supply Curve

$200

$150

$100

$50

$0

100

120

140

160

180

200

CO

E (

$/M

Wh

)

Texas (9.3%)

NW Central (47.4%)

Mountain (18.5%)

NE Central (7.5%)

NW Central

Mountain

Texas

Regional Wind Energy Potential Supply Curve


-

20

40

60

80

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

CO

E (

$/M

Wh

)

Annual Wind Energy (TWh)

California (2.7%)

NE Central (7.5%)

SW Central (4.9%)

Pacific (4.1%)

Mid Atlantic (2.9%)

Uneven Regional Distribution…. ~50% of Economic Resource in NW Central

Example Analysis for NW-Central Region

• State hourly load data for 2007 from Energy Velocity

• Hourly loads and wind output synchronized so driven by NW-


synchronized so driven by same 2007 meteorology

• Add 50 GW new installed wind capacity within region

• Rank sites by capacity factor, build best sites first

NW-Central

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

NWC Time Series from 2/28/07 to 3/7/07 w 50 GW Added

New Wind Data Captures Variability

Max for year near the 50 GW of capacity Minimum < 5 GW


-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

MW

Wind

NWC Load

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

NWC Time Series from 8/9/07 to 8/16/07 w 50 GW Added

Anti-correlation of Wind with Load Creates Ramping Issues

The morning up-ramp

The evening down-ramp


-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

MW

Wind

NWC Load

$400

$350

$300

$250

$200

80

70

60

50

40

National Wind Energy Potential Supply Curves* (including delivery costs)

Co

st

of

Ele

ctr

icit

y (

$/M

Wh

)

Ne

w T

ran

sm

iss

ion

Lin

e M

ile

s (

tho

us

an

ds

)

Delivered Cost with Existing Transmission

Generation Cost

Delivered Cost with New Transmission

Transmission Line Miles

To Deliver 1,000 TWh…


$150

$100

$50

$0

30

20

10

0

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000

Wind TWh (million MWh)

Co

st

of

Ele

ctr

icit

y (

$/M

Wh

)

Ne

w T

ran

sm

iss

ion

Lin

e M

ile

s (

tho

us

an

ds

)

To Deliver 1,000 TWh…• 260 GW of new turbines

~$650 billion~175,000 turbines

• 19 new EHV trans lines~$50 billion~13,000 line miles

*EPRI – AWS TruePower National Wind Energy Supply Curves

PRISM 2.0 “TEST DRIVE”


PRISM 2.0 “TEST DRIVE”

Taking Prism 2.0 for a “Test Drive”

• How does regional detail impact the national picture?

• How to represent new economics of CO2 policy?

– Details and timing of potential federal action on limiting

New insights for the role of technology in a

carbon-constrained world


– Details and timing of potential federal action on limiting emissions remain unclear

– Without specifying a particular approach, we can simulate an aggressive policy with a rising CO2 price

– Leads to efficient allocation of abatement options

Emissions Reductions at Least Cost

• Actual policy mechanisms may not lead to a least-cost path (e.g. portfolio standards, regulatory mandates)

• Understanding the least-cost path is still a valuable exercise and can illustrate the interactions between technologies

$200


Results are preliminary…further development in progress

$30

Rising at 5%

per year

$200

$150

$100

$50

$02010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

$ p

er

ton

CO

2

Prism 2.0 “Test Drive” Generation Mix

4000

5000

6000

Energy Efficiency*

Solar

Geothermal

Biomass

Wind

Hydro+

AEO 2010 Reference Case

EE and Price Response

Wind


0

1000

2000

3000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

TW

h

Hydro+

Nuclear (New)

Nuclear (Existing)

Gas-CCS

Gas

Coal -CCS (New)

CCS Retrofit

Coal

* Includes new programs, technology, and behavioral price response

New Nuclear

Existing Nuclear

Gas-CCSGas

New Coal-CCSExisting Coal

$30 $38 $49 $62 $80 $102 $130CO2 Price $165

MERGE vs. Prism 2.0 “Test Drive”

Prism 2.0 “Test Drive”

Electric sector module only

TWh GtCO2

2

2.5

5000

6000

7000

MERGE with 80% by 2050 CapTWh GtCO2

2

2.5

5000

6000

7000

Energy Efficiency*

Geo+Sol

EE & Price Response EE &

Price Response


0

0.5

1

1.5

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Wind

Nuclear

Gas-CCSGas

Coal-CCS0

0.5

1

1.5

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Geo+Sol

Biomass

Wind

Hydro+

Nuclear

Gas-CCS

Gas

Coal-CCS

Coal

Tons CO2

Wind

Nuclear

Gas

Coal-CCS

Coal Coal* Includes new programs, technology, and behavioral price response

Prism 2.0 “Test Drive” Insights…2010-2025

4000

5000

6000

Energy Efficiency*

Solar

Geothermal

Biomass

Wind

Hydro+


Wind

Efficiency and renewables grow

EE andPrice Response


0

1000

2000

3000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

TW

h

Hydro+

Nuclear (New)

Nuclear (Existing)

Gas- CCS

Gas

Coal -CCS (New)

CCS Retrofit

Coal


Wind

Existing Nuclear

Gas

Coal

renewables grow

Managed transition for

existing coal fleet

$30 $38 $49 $62 $80 $102 $130CO2 Price $165

4000

5000

6000

Energy Efficiency*

Solar

Geothermal

Biomass

Wind

Hydro+


Wind growth

Wind


Prism 2.0 “Test Drive” Insights…

Post-2025


0

1000

2000

3000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

TW

h

Hydro+

Nuclear (New)

Nuclear (Existing)

Gas- CCS

Gas

Coal - CCS (New)

CCS Retrofit

Coal


growth slows

Nuclear and CCS begin to expand

New Nuclear

Existing Nuclear

Gas-CCSGas

Coal-CCSCoal

$30 $38 $49 $62 $80 $102 $130CO2 Price $165

Solar

Geothermal

Biomass

Wind

Hydro+

Nuclear (New)

Nuclear (Existing)

Gas-CCS

Gas

Coal-CCS (New)

Coal

ImportsCCS Retrofit

500

1000

1500

2000

TW

h

1500

2000

1500

2000

Total Energy for Load (after EE)

WEST MIDWEST

EAST

Coal

Nuclear New Nuclear

Import

GasGas-CCS


Regional Generation Mix


0

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050T

Wh0

500

1000

1500

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

TW

h

0

500

1000

1500

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

TW

h

Responses to CO2 policy differ greatly by region

Geothermal

WindHydro+

Gas Gas-CCS Coal-CCS

Wind

Gas

Coal

Coal

SOUTH

Coal

Nuclear

New Nuclear

Import

Coal-CCS

GasGas-CCS

600

800

Total US Wind Generation in 2030

(TWh)

16% of

total

0 20 40 60 80 100

Eastern

Seaboard

Great Lakes

New Wind Additions through 2030 (GW)


What if no new inter-region transmission?


0

200

400

Unlimited New

Capacity

Existing Links Only

11% of

total

Northern Plains

Southern Plains

(OK)

Texas

WECC

Unlimited New Capacity

Existing Links Only

Less wind, more regionally distributed

4000

5000

6000

Biomass

Energy Efficiency*

Solar

Geothermal

Biomass

Wind

Hydro+



After 2025,


What if no new nuclear or CCS?


0

1000

2000

3000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

TW

h

Wind

Gas

Existing Nuclear

Biomass

Coal

Hydro+

Nuclear (New)

Nuclear (Existing)

Gas- CCS

Gas

Coal - CCS (New)

CCS Retrofit

Coal


After 2025, efficiency

and renewables must further

expand

$30 $38 $49 $62 $80 $102 $130CO2 Price $165

What We Are Seeing … Initial Insights

• Near term response to high CO2 price likely dominated by renewables, efficiency and natural gas

– Coal retirements offset by new renewables, efficiency

– Natural gas fills any remaining demand


• Wind integration costs significant at high penetration

– New balancing resources required (transmission, storage, smart grid, PHEVs)

– Ramping impacts on thermal fleet � increased O&M

• Longer term, nuclear and CCS will be important

– Without them, rely on more costly renewables, efficiency

Next: Costs of Environmental Controls

• Identify primary near-term challenges for existing/new fossil fleet

– Air pollutants (SO2, NOx)

– Air toxics (Hg)

– Coal combustion products (CCPs)

– Water (thermal cooling, effluent)


• Develop a set of control technologies for each, and identify costs and performance characteristics using existing assessments

• With project funders, identify scenarios for potential Federal/State environmental control regulations

Likely to modify rate of transition in generation mix

Next: Energy Efficiency as a Resource

• Demand divided into distinct end-uses and sectors

• Supply curves constructed for each end-use in each region using EPRI EE Group’s potential estimates

• Each end-use will respond differently to changes in the wholesale price from reference levels:


wholesale price from reference levels:

– Different retail margins depending on sector

– Different substitution opportunities with capital, other fuels (EE Group’s dataset used to calibrate)

– Different service demand elasticities (i.e. substitution away from energy toward non-energy goods)

Develop demand-side to equivalent level of detail

Next: Fully-Developed Transportation Module

Passenger Cars / Light Trucks Local Trucks / Busses

60%of transport

energy

5%of transport

energy


Long-Haul Trucks / Rail / Air Non-Road (e.g. ports, water)

25%of transport

energy

10%of transport

energy

Fuel Demands

Oil Electricity GasBiofuel

Prism 2.0: Forward on a Parallel Process

Detailed Analyses & Communication of Results

MODEL DEVELOPMENTElectric Sector Module- refine CO2 mitigation technologies- incorporate environmental controlsEconomy-wide Framework- build out rest of the economy- incorporate energy efficiency- incorporate transportation


Communication of Results

Timeline

2nd Half 2010 1st Half 2011 Rest of 2011

- incorporate transportation-Other

SCENARIO SPECIFICATION- Environmental regulations- Renewable Energy Standards- Energy price sensitivities- CO2 Legislation and policies- Other

Contact information:

Francisco 202-293-6347 [email protected]

de la Chesnaye

Geoff Blanford 650-855-2126 [email protected]


Geoff Blanford 650-855-2126 [email protected]

Vic Niemeyer 650-855-2262 [email protected]

Steven Rose 202-293-6183 [email protected]

Tom Wilson 650-855-7928 [email protected]

Revis James 202-293-6348 [email protected]

James Merrick 650-855-8616 [email protected]

prism 2.0: preliminary insights from epri’s regional …prism 2.0: preliminary insights from...

Documents