P OWER 2016 2016 Market Survey and Trends New CSP Market Segments - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
p ower 2016 2016
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

P OWER 2016 2016 Market Survey and Trends New CSP Market Segments - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jan 25, 2024 37 likes •600 views

C ONCENTRATED S OLAR P OWER 2016 2016 Market Survey and Trends New CSP Market Segments Assessment Local Manufacturing Potential Market Survey and Trends 2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 2 L IF IFE NEEDS ENERGY Geothermal Gravity Sun

slide-1
SLIDE 1

CONCENTRATED SOLAR POWER 2016 2016

Market Survey and Trends New CSP Market Segments Assessment Local Manufacturing Potential

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 2

Market Survey and Trends

slide-3
SLIDE 3

LIF

IFE NEEDS ENERGY

jservert@sta-solar.com

Sun energy creates: wind, waves, biomass, oil, coal, hydro. Gravity Nuclear Sun Geothermal

Biomass Wind Oil, Gas, Coal Waves Sun hydro

Reliable, Clean, Safe, Secure, Affordable

slide-4
SLIDE 4

CSP TECHNOLOGIE

IES AVAIL ILABLE

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 4

  • Conceptually similar,

concentrate solar DNI and generate electricity via thermodynamic cycle

  • Parabolic Dish-Stirling is

ill-suited for TES,

  • mitted from study
slide-5
SLIDE 5

HYBRIDIZ

IZING CSP -100% RENEWABLE

ELECTRIC HYBRIDIZATION CSP+PV CSP+WIND THERMAL HYBRIDIZATION CSP+BIOMASS CSP+GEOTHERMAL

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 5

TES PV CSP Steam Turbine

ELECTRICAL GENERATION

TES CSP Steam Turbine

ELECTRICAL GENERATION

Wind Turbine Biomass Boiler CSP Steam Turbine

ELECTRICAL GENERATION

GEOTHERMAL CSP Steam Turbine

ELECTRICAL GENERATION

slide-6
SLIDE 6

HYBRIDIZ

IZING CSP-FOSSIL IL FUELS

LOW SOLAR SHARE Solar-aided power gen. (SAPG) Integrated Solar CC (ISCC) HIGH SOLAR SHARE Decoupled Solar CC (DSCC) DSCC with PV

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 6

Coal / Fuel / Boiler CSP Steam Turbine

ELECTRICAL GENERATION

Gas Turbine HRSG CSP Steam Turbine

ELECTRICAL GENERATION

Gas Turbine TES CSP Steam Turbine

ELECTRICAL GENERATION

Gas Turbine TES CSP Steam Turbine

ELECTRICAL GENERATION

PV

slide-7
SLIDE 7

INSTALLED CAPACIT

ITY

Trend in Technology choice

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 7

PT 79% HY 3% CT 12% DS 0% LF 6%

Technology choice, actual

PT HY CT DS LF

slide-8
SLIDE 8

STATUS IN

IN MENA COUNTRIES

  • MENA CSP CTF Investment Plan has been a driving

force in the region

  • All MENA countries under study have signed the

Paris Agreements, most have submitted INDCs

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 8 Country Implementation Period GHG Target Type Greenhouse gas emission Cost of implementation Algeria 2021-2030 Baseline scenario target 7-22% by 2030 Egypt 2015-2030 Not applicable USD 73 million Jordan 2013-2020 Baseline scenario target 1,5% by 2030 compared to BAU Morocco

  • Baseline scenario

target 32% by 2030 compared to BAU Tunisia 2015-2030 Intensity Target 7t CO2 per capita in 2010, target in 2030: 3,4t CO2per

  • capita. (48% reduction)

USD 45 billion Libya Not submitted Saudi Arabia 2021-2030 130 million tons of CO2eq avoided annually by 2030 Kuwait Actions only Oman 2020-2030 Fixed Level Target GHG emissions growth by 2% UAE Not applicable

slide-9
SLIDE 9

STATUS OF

OF CSP MARKETS

Technology Focus

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 29

slide-10
SLIDE 10

CSP TECHNOLOGY COMPARIS

ISON

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 30

Technology PT LF DS CT Typical size (MW) 10 – 280 1 – 125 1 10 – 135 Concentration Factor 70 – 80 25 – 100 600 – 4000 600 – 1200 Capacity Factor (%) 30 – 50 20 – 30 20 – 30 40 – 70 Operation Temperature (ºC) 293 – 393 140 – 275 250 – 700 290 – 565 Solar  Electric perf. (%) 16 – 18 9 – 11 12 – 25 16 – 20 Installed worldwide (MW) 4,336 319 3 689 Use of land (MWh/(ha·year)) 600 – 1,000 600 – 1,000 400 – 800 400 – 800 Maturity Commercial Commercial Demo Commercial Reflector

Parabolic mirror Flat/curved mirror Paraboloid mirror Curved mirror

Receiver

Absorber tube w/ vacuum cover Absorber tube w/ concentrator Stirling engine / gas turbine External / Cavity

HTF

Thermal oil Saturated steam Air Molten salt / Water-steam

TES

Molten salts, indirect Steam accumulator N/A Molten salts, direct / steam accumulator

TES capacity

4 – 12 hours < 1 hour N/A 6 – 14 / < 1 hours

Hybridization capable

Yes, existing Yes Unlikely Yes

slide-11
SLIDE 11

CSP, , PV OR

OR HYBRID ID?

  • On production cost alone, PV is, today, significantly

cheaper than CSP; it is also more modular and easy to design, construct, maintain and operate

  • System costs not reflected in LCOE
  • When dispatchability is required, TES is cheaper to

install and to run, which gives CSP a competitive

  • edge. If combined with cost reduction, utility scale

makes more sense with CSP

  • Hybridizing CSP with fuels can ease the path,

reducing emissions while providing track record to CSP, and time to amortize plants in operation

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 31

slide-12
SLIDE 12

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 32 Note: Values in USD/MWh (2016). WACC = 8%, 25 year technical life for solar (PV-CSP)

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

LCOE Range for Different Technologies

slide-13
SLIDE 13

A NOTE ON

ON SYSTEM COSTS

  • Price of electricity  value for the customers: as

much as they need, where and when it is needed

  • LCOE  production cost, regardless where or when
  • From LCOE to price  integration costs:

transmission lines (where) and backup (when)

  • Low capacity factor increases the unit cost of lines
  • Also ancillary services not provided by PV, wind
  • High RE mix  integration costs can trump LCOE
  • CSP integration costs are as low as conventional,

especially if hybridized

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 33

slide-14
SLIDE 14

A NOTE ON

ON SYSTEM COSTS (2

(2)

  • MENA countries have a firm generation portfolio,

penetration of PV/wind is possible but it has a limit

  • A country/system level analysis is required to

ensure grid stability

  • Robust scenarios should be developed for

medium/long term demand (economic & population growth) and generation (emission targets, system costs, impact of RE in wholesale market)

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 34

slide-15
SLIDE 15

CSP INSTALLED CAPACITY FORECAST

Methodology and Scenarios

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 35

slide-16
SLIDE 16

UNCERTAINTY IN

IN PROJECTIO IONS

  • Half a decade ago,

expectations for CSP deployment were much higher than the current situation: most long- term forecasts and country plans have not been fulfilled

  • Scenarios must be

cross-checked with cost projections

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 36

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 Installed Capacity, GW BAU-reference STE-GO2016 GP-IEA ID-optim ID-reference RD-reference RD-pessim

Scenarios: BAU: business as usual ID: increased deployment RD: reduced deployment STE-GO: Solar Thermal Electricity Global Outlook 2016 GP-IEA: Greenpeace-IEA

slide-17
SLIDE 17

BUSINESS AS USUAL SCENARIO

IO

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 37 Scenarios: BAU: business as usual STE-GO: Solar Thermal Electricity Global Outlook 2016 GP-IEA: Greenpeace-IEA

Scenario considering plants identified in the pipeline worldwide, up to 2025

  • Operating
  • Under Construction
  • Under Development
  • Under Planning
  • Announced

Constant growth after 2025 ± 20% region for optimistic- pessimistic expectations

slide-18
SLIDE 18

SCENARIO

IO IN IN MENA

  • Under BAU

assumptions, deployment is moderate

  • If exporting energy to

Europe is realized (DESERTEC or similar) it can be a total game-changer

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2016 2020 2025 2030 Installed Capacity, GW Algeria Egypt Jordan Kuwait Libya Morocco Saudi Arabia Tunisia UAE EXPORT MENA countries MENA pessimistic MENA optimistic

slide-19
SLIDE 19

COSTS AND

AND COST TRENDS

History and Forecast

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 41

slide-20
SLIDE 20

IMPACT

CT ON ON LCOE

Tower Parabolic Trough

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 42

55% 15% 30% Investment cost O&M cost Financial cost 59% 13% 28% Investment cost O&M cost Financial cost

slide-21
SLIDE 21

ELE

LEMENTS IMPACT CTING COST OST

  • Installed cost
  • Hard costs: hardware (machinery, structures, etc.)
  • Soft costs: services (engineering, design, installation,

etc.) and project development (studies, permitting, etc.)

  • O&M cost
  • Fixed costs: permanent staff, insurance, land rental
  • Variable costs: auxiliary staff, spare parts, consumables
  • Capacity factor
  • Risk concentrated on investment (as opposed to

conventional, risk concentrated on operation)

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 43

slide-22
SLIDE 22

COST

OST MODELLING

  • Bottom-up model considering:
  • Learning by doing
  • Learning by researching

𝐷𝑧𝑓𝑏𝑠

𝑗

= 𝐷0

𝑗 · 𝑄 𝑧𝑓𝑏𝑠 𝑗

𝑄

𝑗 log2 𝑄𝑆𝑗

· 𝐿𝑇 −𝑐𝑗

  • Economy of scale

𝐷𝑡𝑗𝑨𝑓 𝑝𝑔 𝑢ℎ𝑓 𝑞𝑝𝑥𝑓𝑠 𝑞𝑚𝑏𝑜𝑢

𝑗

= 𝐷0

𝑗 · 𝑄𝑡𝑗𝑨𝑓 𝑗

𝑄

𝑗 𝑂

  • Validation of parameters (𝑄𝑆𝑗, 𝑐𝑗, 𝑂) is carried out

with historical data of whole plant costs

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 47

slide-23
SLIDE 23

COST MODELLING

  • Validation results show

good correlation (r>90%)  average is well represented

  • High dispersion

(RMSD≈40%), large plant-to-plant variation

  • Average relative error

≈8%)

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 48

slide-24
SLIDE 24

COST

OST MODELLING

  • Each component cost

𝐷𝑗 correlates with one metric 𝑄𝑗

  • Nominal power sets the

cost for:

  • Power block
  • BoP
  • EPC cost
  • Owner’s cost

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 49

Recomercialization

slide-25
SLIDE 25

COST

OST MODELLING

  • Each component cost

𝐷𝑗 correlates with one metric 𝑄𝑗

  • Storage capacity sets

the cost for:

  • Storage system

Values were corrected for the different operation temperature in CT and PT

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 50

slide-26
SLIDE 26

COST

OST MODELLING

  • Each component cost

𝐷𝑗 correlates with one metric 𝑄𝑗

  • Peak power sets the

cost for:

  • Erection and civil
  • HTF fluid/system
  • Mirror
  • Structure/tracker
  • Receiver

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 51

slide-27
SLIDE 27

COSTS AND

AND COST TRENDS

Results

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 52

slide-28
SLIDE 28

COST

OST REDUCT CTIO ION POTENTIA IAL TO TO 2025

2025

Tower Parabolic

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 53

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Structure &… Receiver_Tower EPC cost_Tower Storage system Owner's… Mirror Erection and civil BoP Power block 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% Structure &… Storage system HTF system Receiver_PT EPC cost_PT Mirror Owner's cost_PT HFT fluid Erection and civil BoP Power block

Both Hard and Soft costs have a significant potential impact

Uncertainty in projections is significant; values are provided to illustrate expected trends only, discretion is advised

slide-29
SLIDE 29

LCOE FORECASTED EVOLUTIO

ION

Tower Parabolic

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 55

50 100 150 200 250 300 USD/MWh 50 100 150 200 250 300 USD/MWh Upper uncertainty limit LCOE PT Spain (Moron) LCOE PT USA (Dagget) LCOE PT Tunisia (Akarit) LCOE PT KSA (Duba 1) LCOE PT Algeria (Hassi R'mel) LCOE PT Egypt (Kuraymat) LCOE PT Morocco (Ouarzazate) LCOE PT Libya (Tazirbu) LCOE PT Jordan (WECSP) Lower uncertainty limit

Uncertainty in projections is significant; values are provided to illustrate expected trends only, discretion is advised

slide-30
SLIDE 30

R&D PROGRAMS

Challenges and Key players

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 56

slide-31
SLIDE 31

TECHNIC

ICAL CHALLENGES

Cost reduction

  • New HTF and cycles
  • Structures and trackers
  • Reflectors
  • Receiver
  • TES

Soft cost reduction is not in typical R&D programs

Other approaches

  • New applications
  • Dispatchability /firmness

value

  • Synergies
  • Scale limits
  • Use of water
  • Hybridization

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 57

slide-32
SLIDE 32

EVOLUTIO

ION OF OF R&D INVESTMENT –

PUBLIC

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 58

250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Annual Investment (Million USD/year) CHINA+INDIA MENA COUNTRIES AUSTRALIA USA EU R&D PROGRAMS EUROPEAN COUNTRIES AGGREGATED PUBLIC R&D INVESTMENT

Aggregated Investment (Million USD)

slide-33
SLIDE 33

EVOLUTIO

ION OF OF R&D INVESTMENT –

PRIV

IVATE & AGGREGATED

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 59

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Annual Investment (Million USD/year) TOTAL PUBLIC R&D TOTAL CORPORATE R&D AGGREGATED R&D INVESTMENT

Aggregated Investment (Million USD)

slide-34
SLIDE 34

INNOVATION AND

AND COST OST REDUCT CTION

Some key aspects are not included in “typical” R&D

  • Soft costs in development and EPC
  • Risk reduction / cost of capital
  • O&M costs
  • New business models

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 60

slide-35
SLIDE 35

CONCLUSIONS

and Recommendations

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 61

slide-36
SLIDE 36

CSP STATUS

  • Half a decade ago, expectations for CSP deployment

were higher than the current situation: most long-term forecasts and country plans have not been fulfilled.

  • There is not only one reason for this:
  • the quick cost reduction of PV made it a more attractive

alternative (so some efforts were moved from CSP to PV);

  • several other initiatives were halted, hoping that a PV-like

cost reduction would bring CSP’s LCOE closer to grid parity;

  • when the cost reduction was not as quick as expected , the

sector risked entering a vicious circle as a slower deployment further slowed cost reduction.

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 62

slide-37
SLIDE 37

CSP’S FUTURE

  • The future development of CSP is linked to its

ability to provide value to the electric system in comparison with other alternatives.

  • CSP’s strengths, beyond possible cost break

throughs, are:

  • cheap storage,
  • demand management capabilities,
  • ancillary services, etc.

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 63

slide-38
SLIDE 38

CSP’S FUTURE

  • There is potential for cost reduction in both hard

and soft costs, but some chapters (civil works, power block, BoP, EPC cost and Owner’s cost) have barely improved despite its significant impact

  • Soft costs are not a typical target in R&D programs
  • Other approaches beyond cost reduction

(synergies, alternative applications) can improve CSP’s competitiveness

  • Monetizing CSP energy’s desirable properties

would help it compete in equal terms with PV, wind

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 64

slide-39
SLIDE 39

CSP’S FUTURE

  • Hybridization can be a key to the future of CSP:
  • Hybridizing CSP with fuels can ease the path, reducing

emissions while providing track record to CSP, and time to amortize plants in operation

  • CSP integration costs are as low as conventional,

especially if hybridized

  • Risk is concentrated on investment in CSP, and on
  • peration in conventional; hybrids can have a better

balance between both, diluting them

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 65

slide-40
SLIDE 40

CSP IN

IN MENA COUNTRIE IES

  • The experience in MENA countries has followed the

same technology implementation pattern: first CSP power plants used PT technology in the Solar Field (ISCCs, Shams), but are already considering the development of solar tower projects.

  • MENA Countries can profit from the availability of

CTF funds to minimize financing costs, reducing the final energy prices. Risk allocation will be crucial as well as reducing the uncertainty in countries accessing concessional financing.

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 66

slide-41
SLIDE 41

CSP IN

IN MENA COUNTRIE IES

  • CSP can be the backbone of a highly renewable energy

system in the MENA countries, providing advantages when compared with intermittent renewable energies with chemical back-up or conventional back-up capacity

  • MENA Countries may gain relevance in CSP industry

through the development of concepts as DESERTEC, contributing to support the future development of CSP

  • High electricity interconnection and the option of a

transnational market opens possibilities for developers and off takers, adding flexibility and increasing competition

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 67

slide-42
SLIDE 42

CSP IN

IN MENA COUNTRIE IES

  • MENA countries can benefit from the lessons

learned during the development of CSP technology and become relevant players of the industry.

  • CSP deployment on the selected MENA countries

can become a reality if several key conditions are fulfilled:

  • uncertainty (perceived risks in the region ) is reduced,
  • realistic targets are set up to supply local market, and
  • an appropriate frame is defined to provide energy to

Europe

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 68

slide-43
SLIDE 43

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 69

New CSP Market Segments Assessment

slide-44
SLIDE 44

CONTENTS

Technology – Process Integration CSP CSP vs Business as Usual (BAU). Today Future Trends CSP Deployment Investment required and cost savings Emission Savings (COP21)

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Solar Field (SF) Thermal Energy Storage (TES) Heat Transfer Fluid (HTF) System Power Block (PB)

HOT COLD

PROCESS INTEGRATIO

ION CSP

Depending on the application, TES or hybrid configurations may be needed, due to economic and security of supply reasons.

slide-46
SLIDE 46

PROCESS INTEGRATIO

ION CSP

Depending on the application, TES or hybrid configurations may be needed, due to economic and security of supply reasons.

Solar Field (SF) Thermal Energy Storage (TES) Heat Transfer Fluid (HTF) System

HOT COLD

Oil Production Oil Refineries Chemicals Manufacturing Water Heating Agriculture Mining

slide-47
SLIDE 47

PROCESS INTEGRATIO

ION CSP -

REQUIR

IREMENTS

  • Minimum thermal power: 10 MWth
  • Land availability
  • Technical feasibility
  • Stable energy demand
  • Project lifetime: 15-20 years
  • High investment
  • Consumer commitment
slide-48
SLIDE 48

NATURAL GAS

AS AND AND OIL IL HIS ISTORY PRIC ICES:

Data obtained as a mean value of Fuel Prices included in “BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2016”. Available on-line at: http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review-2016/bp-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2016-full-report.pdf

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Dimensionless evolution of fuel costs (Ref 2015 prices)

Natural Gas Oil

slide-49
SLIDE 49

OIL

IL CONSUMPTIO ION IN IN OIL IL PRODUCTIO ION

  • Source: US International Revenue Service & California Energy Commission.

4 Oil Barrel 1 Oil Barrel

slide-50
SLIDE 50

THERMAL APPLICATIONS: CSP LCOE VS

VS BAU LCOE (2

(2017-2030)

Fuel cost uncertainty ranges defined according to the Mean Cost Variance of the fuel during the 2000-2015 period, defined as: 𝑊𝑏𝑠 ത 𝑌 = 1 𝑜 · 𝑇𝑌 ത 𝑌 CSP cost uncertainty defined as Max CSP LCOE value +20% and Min CSP LCOE value – 20% LCOE cost for auxiliary fuels only considers fuel costs (96% of total costs)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

LCOE (USD/MWh_th)

Uncertainty range MEAN LCOE CSP Lower uncertainty limit CSP LCOE Upper uncertainty limit CSP LCOE NATURAL GAS MAX NATURAL GAS MEAN NATURAL GAS MIN FUELOIL MAX FUELOIL MEAN FUELOIL MIN

FUEL-OIL CSP NATURAL GAS

slide-51
SLIDE 51

CONSUMPTIO

ION VS VS TEMPERATURE AND AND

LCOE GAP

AP (M

(MENA COUNTRIE

IES)

Water Heating (Natural Gas); 86 Water Tratment and Conditioning; 5

Agriculture; 11

Biogas Production; 6 Natural Gas Transport Grid; 4

Mining; 6

Drying; 12 Solar Heating and cooling; 10

Solar Ice; 4 Oil Extraction (EOR); 316 Oil Refining; 102 Chemicals Manufacturing (Natural Gas); 22

Solar Cooking ; 4 Desalination MED; 12

Water Heating (Fuel); 43 Chemicals Manufacturing (Fuel); 2

  • 40
  • 35
  • 30
  • 25
  • 20
  • 15
  • 10
  • 5

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

100 200 300 400 500 600 Difference between BAU and CSP LCOE in 2016 (USD/MWh-th) Temperature (ºC)

slide-52
SLIDE 52

PREVIO

IOUS EXPERIENCES

  • CSP Ready Technologies are the ones that present a possitive LCOE value compared to BAU with significant market potential
  • CSP Potential Technologies are the ones that present a possitive LCOE value compared to BAU or have a significant market potential.

Application Country Project Installed Capacity

Agriculture Australia Port Augusta Greenhouse 39 MW_th Oil Extraction (EOR) USA Coalinga 29 MW_th Oil Extraction (EOR) Oman PDO Pilot 7 MW_th Oil Extraction (EOR) Oman Miraah 1 GW_th Mining Chile El Tesoro 10 MW_th

slide-53
SLIDE 53

CLA

LASSIF IFICATIO ION OF OF CSP THERMAL

APPLICATIO

IONS

  • Classification of CSP thermal applications:

CSP Ready CSP Potential

  • Oil Extraction
  • Mining
  • Agriculture

(Greenhouses)

  • Fuel-oil substitution
  • Oil Refining
  • Water Heating (Large)
  • Chemicals

Manufacturing (Saturated Steam)

  • CSP Ready Technologies present cost-competitive values (LCOE) compared to BAU and previous experiences
  • CSP Potential Technologies present cost-competitive values (LCOE) compared to BAU or significant market potential.
slide-54
SLIDE 54

INVESTMENT AND POWER IN

INSTALLED PER YE YEAR

(2 (2017-2030)

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Annual Investment (Billion USD/year) Thermal Power Installed (GW_th/year)

Solar Ice Agriculture Mining (MW_th/year) Chemicals Manufacturing (MW_th/year) Water Heating (MW_th/year) Oil Refining (MW_th/year) Oil Extraction (MW_th/year) ANNUAL INVESTMENT (Billion USD/year)

slide-55
SLIDE 55

EMIS

ISSIO ION SAVINGS (2

(2017-2030)

Only 2017-2030 period is reflected. 2030-2050 period present constant emmission savings as 2030, and decreasing during the last 13 years due to the end of the lifetime of the CSP plants.

2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000 17,500 20,000 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Aggregated Emission Savings (Mill Tonnes CO2) Annual Emission Savings (Mill Tonnes CO2/year) Oil Extraction (Annual) Oil Refining (Annual) Water Heating (Annual) Mining (Annual) Chemicals Manufacturing (Annual) Solar Ice (Annual) Agriculture (Annual) Aggregated Emission Savings (Total)

slide-56
SLIDE 56

2017-Mar-07 jservert@sta-solar.com 13

谢谢

THANK YOU Merci Gracias

Any comments or ideas jservert@sta-solar.com