Tompkins County E Energy Plan Pl EAS 4010/5010 Combined Final EAS 4010/5010 Combined Final Presentation Katherine Meek, Holly Taylor, Neyvin DeLeon, Bryan Regis, Michael Brancato Yipeng Li Grace Wang and Hsiao Chi- Michael Brancato, Yipeng Li, Grace Wang, and Hsiao Chi- Peng Edited by L. Cathles
Recommendations from Last Recommendations from Last year… � Short term plan: Mix of wind and natural gas with recreational solar g � 75% Natural gas, 25% Wind, + Solar 25% Wind, + Solar 25% of AES Cayuga’s 350 MW = 87.5 MW 25% of AES Cayuga s 350 MW 87.5 MW � Long term plan: Phase out natural gas for nuclear continue expanding renewables nuclear, continue expanding renewables
Wind Costs Wind Costs – 175 turbines 175 t rbines � Financial � Financial � Land � Land � 35km 2 = 8700 acres � Startup - $280 million � Yearly Revenue - � Yearly Revenue � Temporary 280 acres � Temporary - 280 acres $38.4 million � Permanent - 130 acres � NPV - $78 million � Embedded CO 2 � Steel - 35 000 tons � Steel 35,000 tons � Coal - 2.3 million tons AES Cayuga per year
Energy Storage - Feasibility Comparison
Energy Storage - Feasibility Comparison Not Feasible Not Feasible Molten Salt - Better for larger scale solar applications which � are not feasible in Tompkins County Pumped Hydro - High capital costs, geographical & topological limitations Pumped Hydro High capital costs geographical & topological limitations � � Batteries / Flow Batteries - Large-scale storage applications are not well tested � Flywheels - Not well-suited for storage applications � Feasible Compressed Air – Most cost-effective, sufficient power output / duration � Compressed Air – Nearby suitable locations: Cargill Cayuga and the Morton Salt Mines (Himrod, NY) NYSEG (2009)
Compressed Air Cost Estimates Capital cost range for 87.5 MW of power delivery: $35 million to $44 million NYSEG (2009) Adds 12 to 16% to cost of wind farm
Rooftop Solar Power in Tompkins County Assume 5% of houses install rooftop solar panels: (20,000 houses)(5%) = 1,000 houses (Solar incident energy)(Efficiency): (175W/m 2 )(2%) = 21 W/m 2 (21W/m 2 )(50m 2 /house) = 1.05 kW/house (1.05 kW/house)(1,000 houses) = 1.05 MW Average energy consumption per person in US is 1.4kW
Summary � Last year: 25% wind + rooftop solar � Implementation of last year’s � Implementation of last year s recommendations requires energy storage � Compressed air is most feasible energy � Compressed air is most feasible energy storage option � Local sites appear to have adequate capacity � L l it t h d t it � Affordable relative to other large scale energy storage options storage options
Retrofitting AES Cayuga with a Natural Gas Operating NGCC Plants to Deliver Energy in the Operating NGCC Plants to Deliver Energy in the Combined Cycle Unit (NGCC) Most Cost Efficient Way Economic Analysis � Typically nuclear, coal and geothermal plants are the base load generators (assisted by any renewables that are online) � Highly efficient NGCC units are used to meet intermediate loads � Powered up and down several times a year. This, however, does p y , , not make NGCC a fast solution to immediate power needs � For peak power consumption, inefficient gas combustion turbines are employed but these turbines are used infrequently due to their high fuel demands
CO 2 Savings of NGCC Plant: � Burning gas reduces CO 2 emissions by 50% Fossil Fuel Emission Levels compared to coal burning compared to coal burning ‐ Pounds per Billion Btu of Energy Input � NGCC can run at 60% efficiency to reduce Pollutant Natural Gas Oil Coal CO 2 emissions even further, estimates project a reduction by 78% p j y Carbon Dioxide 117,000 164,000 208,000 � CO 2 Emissions due to Transportation Carbon Monoxide 40 33 208 � CO 2 emissions by trucks used in Nitrogen Oxides 92 448 457 transportation for the 2100 wells in Sulfur Dioxide S lf Di id 1 1 1 122 1,122 2,591 2 591 Tompkins County (18,043 tons/yr) are k ( / ) 0.76% of the CO 2 emissions by the Particulates 7 84 2,744 Millikan Coal Plant (2,370,486 tons/yr) Mercury 0.000 0.007 0.016 for a single year g y � Negligible emissions from compressor <http://www.naturalgas.org/environment/naturalgas.sp> stations during regular operation, and close to zero emissions from the pipelines used in the transportation of pipelines used in the transportation of natural gas
NGCC Construction Budget � Capital Cost: $950 per kW of C it l C t $950 kW f capacity � 263 MW are to be generated using CCGT � This amounts to $250,000,000 for Installation � Operation and maintenance is NGCC $8/kW-yr � Total maintanence cost: $2,100,000/year
NGCC Ti NGCC Timeline li � Initial installation takes 2 years NPV-Natural Gas 15 000 15.000 � The average NGCC unit 10.000 c/kWh) lasts 25 years 5.000 0 000 0.000 NPV (c � Assume 10% discount -5.000 rate -10.000 -15 000 15.000 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 � Operating at 0.85 Year capacity factor, selling at 8 cents/kwh 8 cents/kwh
G Gas could be supplied locally ld b li d l ll � AES Cayuga Coal Burning Facility: 300-350 MW of energy generated � Power density of Marcellus:1.6 W/m 2 Power density of Marcellus:1 6 W/m 2 � Gas recovered from a 12 x 12-mile area could supply Tompkins County area could supply Tompkins County for the next 30 years � Tompkins County: 250 sq miles of Marcellus shale gas resource Marcellus shale gas resource � If natural gas contributes only 10% of our energy needs, an area between 25-100 sq miles overlaying the Marcellus could maintain current Marcellus could maintain current Picture from “Energy Alternatives for energy output for the next 125 years Ithaca Area”, L.M. Cathles, 2011
L Long term: Nuclear AP 1000 t N l AP 1000 � Westinghouse Generation III+ reactor � Many simplified passive safety measures in place safety measures in place � 1154 MW � 12 units are scheduled for operation in China by 2015 operation in China by 2015 � 14 licenses have been filed for reactors in the US, and 1 contract has been agreed g upon in Vogtle, GA � First Generation III+ reactor to have been approved by Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Cost ~$2 bn Commission Cost electricity generated < gas or coal Extra power to sell
N Nuclear Safety l S f t � All previous accidents due to unusual circumstances � Fukushima - critical safety precautions overlooked + tsunami � Chernobyl - safety checks overrode by workers � 3 Mile Island – mechanical failures + inadequate training of workers � New Nuclear Plants have redundant safety features that will properly shut down a plant during an emergency � Reactor meltdown would average to ~400 deaths � Average 10,000 deaths per year due to air pollution
Environmental Impacts Cayuga Lake Carbon Emissions Heat Autumn Temp. high e p g Temp. low Temp. low Density low Density high MIXED Temp. low Temp. low Density Density Density high high • Excess heat from • Nuclear power plant p p waste water will delay operation emits no or negligible amounts of nutrients from mixing carbon dioxide carbon dioxide. with the lower layers with the lower layers to later in the season.
C Convincing the Public i i th P bli � A nuclear facility would provide more A l f ilit ld id energy than Tompkins County consumes gy p y � Financial incentive - sell back excess energy to grid � Petitioning represents an additional means P titi i t dditi l for the public to raise safety concerns p y U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Public Petition Process , NUREG/BR-0200, Rev. 5, February 2003.
Conclusions: Conclusions: � Short term plan: Mix of wind + coal � 75% Coal, 25% Wind will keep coal because in short term gas is too controversial � Longer term plan: Mix of wind and natural gas with rooftop solar g � 75% Natural gas, 25% Wind, + Solar � Long term plan: Phase out natural gas for nuclear continue expanding renewables nuclear, continue expanding renewables
Recommend
More recommend
