Projected Costs of Generating Electricity - OECD Nuclear Energy ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

e calculated in case that the machine would only produce electricity (by giving T 4 the value of ambient temperature T 5 ). For this case it turns out that: W 34,max ={ 1–(T 5 /T 2 ) ϕ 34 } Q 3 = { 1 – ( 283 / 800 ) 0.287 } 52 = 13.4 MW As a consequence without the heat production, the maximum electricity producing power of the plant is equal to 43.4 MWe. This means that 92.2% (40/43.4) of total costs (investment, O&M and fuel) has to be attributed to electricity production and 7.8% to heat production. Or F el,x = 0.922 and F h,x = 0.078. Because of the methodology, the electricity production costs of the modified plant are equal to the ones of the unmodified plant. Assuming that, calculation shows that they would be 0.05 €/kWh. Then the production costs of the heat from the (unmodified) plant would be 1.12 €/GJ, viz. 0.078 x 43.4 x 0.05 / 42 / 0.0036. A reason that in this example the value for η 34 is so low may be that steam equipment is large and expensive. From an economical point of view it may be desirable to have suboptimal steam equipment. Assuming that ϕ 34 = 0.5, which means that it has the Curzon-Ahlborn value, without heat production the maximum electricity producing power would be 51.1 MWe. With heat production it would be 46.2 MWe, because W 34 is 16.2 MWe. For this case, F el,x and F h,x are respectively 0.904 and 0.096. Q 4 , the amount of heat available for industry, is 365.8 MW. Calculation shows that the electricity production costs of the modified plant would be 0.05 €/kWh. This means that the additional income from power production fully bears the additional costs of the steam equipment. However in this case the production costs of the heat from the unmodified plant would become 1.90 €/GJ, viz. 0.096 x 51.1 x 0.05 / 35.8 / 0.0036. The reason for the higher heat price is mainly that although the electricity generating costs are not up, the total costs are while the heat production is down because of the higher efficiency for power generation. As a consequence, the former case is the more economical one. For a system with two real engines, a similar relation as equation (31) can be derived as for a system with one engine. Let χ be a help variable. χ = (W 34 +Q 4 ) / ( W 12 +W 34 +Q 4 ) (32) F el,x = (T 2 ϕ 34 – χ T 4 ϕ 34 ) / ( T 2 ϕ 34 χ T 5 ϕ 34 ) (33) With equation (28) a value for F h,x can be calculated. This means that based on equations (28), (32) and (33), a division of the total yearly costs can be made over the electricity as well as the heat output of the plant. This division is fully based on exergy analyses. Although this division is in theory defendable it can be deduced from the examples above that the economical benefit fully goes to the heat component. Instead of a division based on exergy analyses also a division based on energy analyses can be made. That is normal practise for emissions as well as for the fuel costs, because the fuel costs are the dominant factor both in the electricity and the heat generating costs. Let C f be the total yearly fuel costs of the CCGT plant, C el,f the fuel costs to be attributed to the electricity and C elh the ones to the heat. Further the factor F el,en relates C el,f to C f and a similar factor F h,en for the heat is assumed. (F el,x Q 1 ) is the amount of energy which is needed for electricity production and Q 4 the amount of heat for the industrial application. By applying equation (33), the following relations can be derived: F el,en = F h,en = 1 (34) C el,f = F el,en C f (35) C h,f = F h,en C f (36) F el,en = F el,x Q 1 / ( F el,x Q 1 +Q 4 ) (37) 200
It is emphasised that depending on the number of engines present either equation (31) or (33) in combination with equations (34) and (37) is suitable to allocate emissions to the power as well as to the heat generation of a CHP plant. Finally, a couple of assumptions can be made. They are: 1. The allocation of the yearly investment costs as well as the costs for operation and maintenance of the plant to the electricity and the heat component is based on energy analysis. The reason for this assumption is that electricity generating equipment is expensive and heat producing boilers are inexpensive. This allocation reflects the findings in the examples above that the largest part of the costs goes to the electricity component. 2. The allocation of the fuel costs is based on energy analysis. Let C i be the yearly costs component of the investment and C om the yearly costs for operation and maintenance of the CCGT plant. A fair division of the costs towards the electricity production as well as to the heat production is then found by applying the following relations: C el = F el,x (C i +C om ) + F el,en C f (38) C h = F h,x (C i +C om ) + F h,en C f (39) There exist different types of CHP plants. Some have a cycle with a steam turbine while others do not. An example of such a plant is a gas turbine with waste heat recuperation. The waste heat may for instance be used as industrial process heat. To make the division between the worth of the heat compared to the one of the electricity, an assumption has to be made for the amount of electricity which could be generated from this heat as well as of the investment costs of the extra equipment concerned. This means that a reasonable value for the efficiency has to be set. For instance, one based on the Curzon-Ahlborn relation, viz. equation (16). An alternative is the use of equation (18). References D.L. Curzon and B. Ahlborn (1975), “Efficiency of a Carnot engine at maximum power output”, American Journal of Physics, Vol. 43, pp. 22-24. A. De Vos (1992), Endoreversible thermodynamics of solar energy conversion, Oxford University Press, United Kingdom. G. De Mey and A. De Vos (1994), “On the optimum efficiency of endoreversible thermodynamic processes”, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, Vol. 27, pp. 736-739. M.H. Rubin (1979), “Optimal configuration of a class of irreversible heat engines. I”, Physical Review A, Vol. 19, Issue 3, pp. 1 272-1 276. E.I. Yantovskii (1995), Energy and Exergy Currents: An Introduction to Exergonomics, Nova Science Publishers, United States. 201
Page 1:
NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY INTERNATIONAL
Page 4:
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERAT
Page 9 and 10:
Table of Contents Table of Contents
Page 11:
Figures Figure 3.1 Specific overnig
Page 14 and 15:
The introduction of liberalisation
Page 16 and 17:
150 USD/MWh at a 5% discount rate a
Page 18 and 19:
The technologies and plant types co
Page 20 and 21:
locations and/or very favourable co
Page 22 and 23:
conclusions of the study were used
Page 25 and 26:
Chapter 2 Input Data and Cost Calcu
Page 27 and 28:
equipped with emission control devi
Page 29 and 30:
Table 2.2 - Exchange rates (as of 1
Page 31 and 32:
Table 2.4 - Coal plant specificatio
Page 33 and 34:
Table 2.7 - Wind and solar power pl
Page 35:
Table 2.10 - Other plant specificat
Page 38 and 39:
Figure 3.1 - Specific overnight con
Page 40 and 41:
exchange rates, the coal prices var
Page 42 and 43:
Construction time Gas-fired power p
Page 44 and 45:
USD/MWh 70 60 Figure 3.5 - Levelise
Page 46 and 47:
O&M costs The specific annual O&M c
Page 48 and 49:
Cost ranges for coal, gas and nucle
Page 50 and 51:
Ratio 1.9 Figure 3.12 - Cost ratios
Page 52 and 53:
Table 3.11 - Overnight construction
Page 54 and 55:
Table 3.14 - Projected generation c
Page 56 and 57:
Except for the offshore plant in th
Page 58 and 59:
At 10% discount rate, the levelised
Page 60 and 61:
At 5% discount rate, hydroelectrici
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Table 4.6 - Projected generation co
Page 66 and 67:
A CHP plant typically supplies heat
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Figure 5.2 - Levelised costs of ele
Page 72 and 73:
lower unit capital and operating co
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
cost calculation for some 130 power
Page 78 and 79:
It should be stressed that the plan
Page 80 and 81:
Concluding remarks The lowest level
Page 82 and 83:
Portugal Mr. António B. Gomes EDP
Page 84 and 85:
Table A2.1 - Nuclear plant investme
Page 86 and 87:
Overnight Capital Costs: Constructi
Page 88 and 89:
Table A2.7 - Gas-fired (including C
Page 90 and 91:
Table A2.10 - Wind plant investment
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Cost structure of supported green e
Page 98 and 99:
The highest investment cost arises
Page 100 and 101:
The expected development of the per
Page 102 and 103:
● ● Autoproducers. These firms
Page 104 and 105:
Canada The electricity market situa
Page 106 and 107:
Natural gas - combined cycle gas tu
Page 108 and 109:
Denmark Basic data Denmark has abou
Page 110 and 111:
In the future, both an increase in
Page 112 and 113:
nuclear operator Teollisuuden Voima
Page 114 and 115:
these power generation methods. Two
Page 116 and 117:
Figure 5 - Competitiveness of vario
Page 118 and 119:
2004. It envisages the gradual incr
Page 120 and 121:
Table 4 - Gross electricity supply
Page 122 and 123:
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Page 124 and 125:
Electricity generation costs The to
Page 126 and 127:
photovoltaic device. Finally the su
Page 128 and 129:
Table 1 - Installed electric power
Page 130 and 131:
Japan Consumers in Japan are suppli
Page 132 and 133:
BPE will be established not as a bi
Page 134 and 135:
Coal Coal fired power plants have b
Page 136 and 137:
A new sewage treatment plant with a
Page 138 and 139:
The interconnections between Portug
Page 140 and 141:
In order to respond to these basic
Page 142 and 143:
efficient energies and is reducing
Page 144 and 145:
Liberalisation Basic restructuring
Page 146 and 147:
External costs for electricity prod
Page 148 and 149:
At the beginning of plant operation
Page 150 and 151:
and high ash, moisture and sulphur
Page 152 and 153: The White Paper did not contain pro
Page 154 and 155: Table 7 shows the projected load fa
Page 156 and 157: other investment options available
Page 158 and 159: The impurities contained in coal ar
Page 160 and 161: “ultra-supercritical” condition
Page 162 and 163: unmineable coal seams. All three pr
Page 164 and 165: Light water reactors require enrich
Page 166 and 167: concerns. Consequently, the natural
Page 168 and 169: generators and power electronics el
Page 170 and 171: conventional fossil-fired plants. B
Page 172 and 173: ● ● very effective and is used
Page 175 and 176: Appendix 5 Cost Estimation Methodol
Page 177: into account in the real price of g
Page 180 and 181: ● ● ● ● Factors under the c
Page 182 and 183: and small power plants. Although th
Page 184 and 185: The general approach remains useful
Page 186 and 187: Two US economic analyses of nuclear
Page 188 and 189: assume future prices follow a rando
Page 190 and 191: The effects of price risk on techno
Page 192 and 193: The option to delay is embedded in
Page 195 and 196: Appendix 7 Allocating the Costs and
Page 197 and 198: Further Fourier’s law for heat tr
Page 199 and 200: Figure A7.4 - The energy conversion
Page 201: This yields: β = 0.153 α. If α e
Page 206 and 207: 1 st oil shock 2 nd oil shock Saudi
Page 208 and 209: Table A8.2 - Expected lower and upp
Page 210 and 211: Reliability in electricity systems
Page 212 and 213: is also highly dependent on the typ
Page 214 and 215: In the ILEX study 5 and in another
Page 216 and 217: an increasing share of wind is the
Page 218 and 219: able to work out the optimal operat
Page 221 and 222: Appendix 10 Impact of Carbon Emissi
Page 223 and 224: costs of generation. The introducti
Page 225 and 226: price at 3.5 €/GJ are the next fa
Page 227 and 228: Figure A10.5 - Steam coal price var
Page 229 and 230: The longer term impact on investmen
Page 231 and 232: Appendix 11 List of Main Abbreviati
Page 233: OECD PUBLICATIONS, 2 rue André-Pas
show all

Projected Costs of Generating Electricity - OECD Nuclear Energy ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?