Tompkins County E Energy Plan Pl EAS 4010/5010 Combined Final - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Tompkins County E Pl Energy Plan

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

Long term plan: Phase out natural gas for

nuclear continue expanding renewables

25% of AES Cayuga s 350 MW 87.5 MW

nuclear, continue expanding renewables

Wind Costs 175 t rbines Wind Costs – 175 turbines

Financial Land Financial

Startup - $280 million Yearly Revenue -

Land

35km2 = 8700 acres Temporary - 280 acres Yearly Revenue

$38.4 million

NPV - $78 million Temporary 280 acres Permanent - 130 acres

Embedded CO2

Steel - 35 000 tons Steel 35,000 tons Coal - 2.3 million tons

AES Cayuga per year

Energy Storage - Feasibility Comparison

Not Feasible

Energy Storage - Feasibility Comparison

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

NYSEG (2009) Capital cost range for 87.5 MW of power delivery: $35 million to $44 million 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/m2)(2%) = 21 W/m2 (21W/m2)(50m2/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

L

l it t h d t it

Local sites appear to have adequate capacity 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 Combined Cycle Unit (NGCC) Economic Analysis Operating NGCC Plants to Deliver Energy in the Most Cost Efficient Way

Typically nuclear, coal and geothermal plants are the base

load generators (assisted by any renewables that are

• nline)

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

CO2 Savings of NGCC Plant:

Burning gas reduces CO2 emissions by 50%

compared to coal burning

Fossil Fuel Emission Levels

compared to coal burning

NGCC can run at 60% efficiency to reduce

CO2 emissions even further, estimates project a reduction by 78%

‐ Pounds per Billion Btu of Energy Input Pollutant Natural Gas Oil

Coal

Carbon Dioxide 117,000 164,000 208,000

p j y

CO2 Emissions due to Transportation CO2 emissions by trucks used in

transportation for the 2100 wells in k ( / )

Carbon Monoxide 40 33 208 Nitrogen Oxides 92 448 457 S lf Di id 1 1 122 2 591

Tompkins County (18,043 tons/yr) are 0.76% of the CO2 emissions by the Millikan Coal Plant (2,370,486 tons/yr) for a single year

Sulfur Dioxide 1 1,122 2,591 Particulates 7 84 2,744 Mercury 0.000 0.007 0.016

g y

Negligible emissions from compressor

stations during regular operation, and close to zero emissions from the pipelines used in the transportation of

<http://www.naturalgas.org/environment/naturalgas.sp>

pipelines used in the transportation of natural gas

NGCC Construction Budget

C it l C t $950 kW f

Capital Cost: $950 per kW of

capacity

263 MW are to be generated

using CCGT

This amounts to $250,000,000

for Installation

Operation and maintenance is

$8/kW-yr

NGCC

Total maintanence cost:

$2,100,000/year

NGCC Ti li NGCC Timeline

Initial installation takes 2

years

15 000

NPV-Natural Gas

The average NGCC unit

lasts 25 years

0 000 5.000 10.000 15.000

c/kWh)

Assume 10% discount

rate

• 15 000
• 10.000
• 5.000

0.000

NPV (c

Operating at 0.85

capacity factor, selling at 8 cents/kwh

15.000 5 10 15 20 25 30

Year

8 cents/kwh

G ld b li d l ll Gas could be supplied locally

AES Cayuga Coal Burning Facility:

300-350 MW of energy generated Power density of Marcellus:1 6 W/m2

Power density of Marcellus:1.6 W/m2 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

• ur energy needs, an area between

25-100 sq miles overlaying the Marcellus could maintain current Marcellus could maintain current energy output for the next 125 years Picture from “Energy Alternatives for Ithaca Area”, L.M. Cathles, 2011

L t N l AP 1000 Long term: Nuclear AP 1000

Westinghouse Generation

III+ reactor

Many simplified passive

safety measures in place safety measures in place

1154 MW 12 units are scheduled for

• peration in China by 2015
• peration 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 Commission

Cost ~$2 bn Cost electricity generated < gas or coal Extra power to sell

N l S f t Nuclear Safety

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

Carbon Emissions Cayuga Lake

• Temp. high

Heat

• Temp. low

Autumn e p g Density low

• Temp. low

Density

• Temp. low

Density high

• Temp. low

MIXED

• Nuclear power plant
• Excess heat from

Density high Density high

p p

• peration emits no or

negligible amounts of carbon dioxide waste water will delay nutrients from mixing with the lower layers carbon dioxide. with the lower layers to later in the season.

C i i th P bli Convincing the Public

A l f ilit ld id

A nuclear facility would provide more

energy than Tompkins County consumes gy p y

Financial incentive - sell back excess energy to

grid

P titi i t dditi l

Petitioning represents an additional means

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