zzzzzzzzz

April 25, 2012

Supply Side Options

Guam Power Authority

2

2012 Integrated Resource Plan

• The IRP looks at both “Demand Side” and “Supply Side” options that will minimize costs and assure adequate supply of power for Guam’s future.

• This presentation focuses on Supply Side options, including both conventional and renewable generation alternatives, that can be considered in the planning process.

Two Crucial Goals

• GPA’s goal to provide reliable, cost effective power supply with minimal environmental impact • Fuel diversity• Renewables

• The 2008 IRP set the stage for the acquisition of major renewable resources—20 MW of solar at a minimum in the near term and perhaps more

3

2012 IRP Supply Side Options

• Base Case (existing power plants + new solar plant)• Existing Generation with new investment to improve efficiency• LNG Regasification terminal (with fuel conversion of certain power plants)• Repower of an existing power plant• New Combined Cycle• Small Module Reactor (Nuclear)• Renewables

• Solar• Wind• Biomass• Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC)• Sea Water Air Conditioning (SWAC)• Geothermal

4

Base Case: Existing Power Plants

5

LNG Regasification Terminal Options

• Conceptual design for the current daily fuel demand for GPA power plants (34,000 MMBtu/day) and 30 to 60 days of storage• Land Based: Offshore dock with pipe bridge and single storage tank

on land• Capital Cost estimated $200 to $225 million with piping to Cabras and

Piti• Operating expenses estimated $10 to $15 million/yr

• Ship Based: Floating storage and regasification unit (FSRU)• Capital Cost estimated $12 to $15 million• Operating expenses estimated $80 to $90 million/yr

6

LNG: Example Land Based Option

7

LNG: Example Floating Storage & Regasification Unit

8

Conversion to Burn LNG

• Cabras 1 & 2• Capital cost is estimated to be $12 million per unit

• Cabras 3 & 4 and Piti 8 & 9• Capital cost is estimated to be $13.5 million per unit

9

LNG: Pros and Cons

• Pros:• Minimal Capacity and Heat Rate Impacts• Lower emissions• Reduced operating costs on converted units• Possibility for reduced fuel cost

• Cons:• Large capital investment for regas facility• Permit and siting required for regas facility• Permit modifications likely required for converted units

10

Repower Piti 7 to Combined Cycle

11

Repower: Details

• Capacity increase by 20 MW to 60 MW• Heat Rate (efficiency) improvement from 11,500

Btu/kWh to 7,800 Btu/kWh(estimated)• Capital Cost $70 to $80 million (4,000/kW)• Non-fuel operating cost $8 to $12/MWh

12

Repower: Pros and Cons

• Pros:• Most efficient fossil fuel unit and significantly reduce

oil consumption• Lower operating cost ($/MWh)• Operational flexibility• Low technology risk

• Cons:• Permit modification required• Water needs increase

13

Example New Combined Cycle

14

New Combined Cycle: Details

• Capacity of 60 to 110 MW• Heat Rate 7,800 Btu/kWh(estimated)• Capital Cost of $150 to $200 million ($2,000/kW)• Non-fuel operating cost $8 to $12/MWh

15

New Combined Cycle: Pros and Cons

• Pros:• Most efficient fossil fuel unit• Lower operating cost ($/MWh)• Operational flexibility• Low technology risk

• Cons:• Permitting challenges (air and water)• Sizeable capital investment

16

Example Small Modular Reactor

17 Image Source: NuScale

Small Module Reactor: Details

• Capacity 25 to 350 MW• Heat rate ??• Technology is in development stages• DOE and several private entities engaged• Capital Cost ??• Operating Cost??

18

Small Modular Reactor:Pros and Cons

• Pros:• Low variable operating cost• Does not use fossil fuel

• Cons:• Licensing process uncertain• Licensing and construction duration long (>10 years before

available)• Large capital investment• What to do with spent fuel?• Unknown safety and emergency response requirements?

19

Renewables

• Biomass• Solar• Wind• Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC)• Sea Water Air Conditioning (SWAC)• Geothermal• And potentially others…. Waste to energy, wave

power, and others

20

Example Biomass Facility

21 Image Source: Topaz Power Group LLC

Biomass: Details

• Capacity 10 to 20 MW• Heat rate 15,000 to 20,000 Btu/kWh• Fuel source options (wood pellets, etc.)• Capital cost of $80 to $120 million ($5,000/kW)• Non-fuel operating cost $80 to $120/MWh

22

Biomass: Pros and Cons

• Pros:• Possible lower cost fuel• Sustainable and renewable resource

• Cons:• High operating costs• Physical fuel acquisition and delivery challenges• Permitting required (air and water)• Ash handling and disposal

23

Example Solar Stationary Photovoltaic

24 Image Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)

Solar: Details

• Capacity 10 to 20 MW (AC)• Capacity factor (utilization) of 20 to 30%• Stationary Photovoltaic • Capital cost $40 to $80 million ($4,000/kW)• Low operating cost

25

Solar: Pros and Cons

• Pros:• No fuel cost• No emissions and renewable resource• Low operating cost

• Cons:• Low capacity factor• Requires large footprint

26

Example Wind Farm

27 Image Source: self-sufficient-blog.com

Wind: Details

• 20 MW (about 10 wind turbines)• Capacity factor (utilization) of 20 to 30%• Capital cost $50 to $70 million ($3,000/kW)• Operating cost $500,000 to $1.5 mil/yr

28

Wind: Pros and Cons

• Pros:• No fuel cost• No emissions and renewable resource• Low operating cost

• Cons:• Low capacity factors• Intermittent resource• Requires large footprint

29

Example Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion

30 Image Source: Lockeed Martin

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion:Details

• Uses warm (surface) sea water to vaporize operating fluid (ie. ammonia) and cold sea water to condense operating fluid

• Requires pipe (20-30 ft in diameter, 1-4 miles long) to be submerged into the ocean and a land based power station

• Technology in development• Capital cost ??• Operating cost ??

31

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion: Pros and Cons

• Pros:• No fuel cost• No emissions and renewable resource

• Cons:• Technology in development stage• Large capital investment• Rigorous permitting• Environmental concerns

32

Example Sea Water Air Conditioning

33 Image Source: Construction Week Online

Sea Water Air Conditioning: Details

• Uses cold sea water to cool operating fluid in air conditioning loop on land

• Requires large (3 to 5 ft diameter), long (1 to 4 miles) pipe submerged into the ocean and land based piping loops

• Technology in operation at limited sites• Sizes are scalable, but larger systems are more cost

effective• Capital cost ?? (Hawaii $250 million)• Operating cost ??

34

Sea Water Air Conditioning: Pros and Cons

• Pros:• May reduce cost for cooling, a major component of

power demanded

• Cons:• Capital intensive• Permitting• Environmental concerns

35

Example Geothermal

36 Image Source: U.S. Department of Energy

Geothermal: Details

• Uses energy from steam or hot, high pressure water from deep inside the earth to drive a turbine

• Three Types• Dry Steam – Uses steam to drive a turbine• Flash Steam – Flashes (vaporizes) hot, high pressure water into steam

to drive a turbine• Binary – Uses heat exchanger to transfer heat to closed loop system

with working fluid that drives turbine

• Guam geothermal resource potential currently unknown• Capital cost ?? (likely > $5,000/kW)• Operating cost ??

37

Geothermal: Pros and Cons

• Pros:• No fuel cost• No emissions and renewable resource• High capacity factor• Scalable based on resource

• Cons:• Capital intensive• Long development duration (geologic study)• Permitting

38

Stakeholder Questions

• Which options might be a good fit for Guam?

• Which options might not be a good fit for Guam?

39