Evolution Overview

1997 Technology: The 1997 baseline technology is the Solar Two project with a 43 MWtmolten nitrate salt central receiver with three hours of thermal storage and 81,000 m2 of heliostats. The solar input is converted in the existin g 10 MW net Rankine steam cycle power plant. The plant is described in detail in Section 1.0 and is expected to hav e a 20% annual capacity factor following its start-up period.

Table 3. Performance and cost indicators.

Solar Two

Small Hybrid

Large Hybrid

Solar Only

Advanced

Advanced

Prototype

Booster

Booster

Solar Only

Solar Only

INDICATOR

1997

2000

2005

2010

2020

2030

NAME

UNITS

+/-%

+/-%

+/-%

+/-%

+/-%

+/-%

Plant Size

MW

10

30

100

200

200

200

Receiver Thermal Rating

MWt

43

145

470

1,400

1,400

1,400

Heliostat Size

m2

40

95

150

150

150

150

Solar Field Area

m2

81,000

275,000

883,000

2,477,000

2,477,000

2,477,000

Thermal Storage

Hours

3

7

6

13

13

13

MWht

114

550

1,600

6,760

6,760

6,760

Performance

Capacity Factor

%

20

43

44

65

77

77

Solar Fraction

1.00

0.22

0.22

1.00

1.00

1.00

Direct Normal Insolation

kWh/m2/yr

2,700

2,700

2,700

2,700

2,700

2,700

Annual Solar to Elec. Eff.

%

8.5

+5/-20*

15.0

+5/-20

16.2

+5/-20

17.0

+5/-20

20.0

+5/-20

20.0

+5/-20

Annual Energy Production

GWh/yr

17.5

113.0

385.4

1,138.8

1,349.0

1,349.0

Capital Cost

Structures & Improvements

$/kWnameplate

I

116

15

60

15

50

15

50

15

50

15

Heliostat System

+

1,666

25

870

25

930

25

865

25

865

25

Tower/Receiver System

1

600

25

260

25

250

25

250

25

250

25

Thermal Storage System

370

420

15

240

15

300

15

300

15

300

15

Steam Gen System

276

177

15

110

15

85

15

85

15

85

15

EPGS/Balance of Plant

417

15

270

15

400

15

400

15

400

15

Master Control System

+

33

15

10

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

Directs SubTotal (A)

1

3,429

1,820

2,030

1,965

1,965

Indirect Engineering/Other

A * 0.1

343

182

203

197

197

SubTotal (B)

3,772

2,002

2,233

2,162

2,162

Project/Process Contingency

B * 0.15

566

300

335

325

325

Total Plant Cost1

4,338

2,302

2,568

2,487

2,487

Land (@ $4,942/hectare)

27

27

37

37

37

Total Capital Requirements

$/kWnameplate

4,365

2,329

2,605

2,523

2,523

$/kWpeak #

2,425

1,294

965

934

934

S/m2

476

264

210

204

204

Operation and Maintenance Cost

Fixed Labor & Materials

S/kW-yr

Total O&M Costs

300

67

25

23

25

30

25

25

25

25

1. The columns for "+/-%" refer to the uncertainty associated with a given estimate.

2. The construction period is assumed to be 2 years.

* Design specification for Solar Two. This efficiency is predicted for a mature operating year.

t Cost of these items at Solar Two are not characteristic of a commercial plant and have, therefore, not been listed.

i Total plant cost for Solar Two are the actuals incurred to convert the plant from Solar One to Solar Two. The indirect factors listed do not apply to Solar Two.

* To convert to peak values, the effect of thermal storage must be removed. A first-order estimate can be obtained by dividing installed costs by the solar multiple (i.e., SM = {peak collected solar thermal power} + {power block thermal power}). For example, as discussed in the text, in 2010 the peak receiver absorbed power is 1400 MW t. If this is attached to a 220 MWe turbine (gross) with a gross efficiency of 42%, thermal demand of the turbine i s 520 MW t. Thus, SM is 2.7 (i.e., 1400/520) and peak installed cost is 2605/2.7 = $965/kWpeak. Solar multiples for years 1997, 2000, and 2005 are 1.2, 1.8, and 1.8, respectively.

2000 Technology: The first commercial scale power tower project following the Solar Two project is assumed to be a 145 MWt molten nitrate salt central receiver with seven hours of thermal storage and 275,000 m2 of heliostats. The solar plant may be integrated with either a 30 MWe solar-only Rankine cycle plant or with a combined cycle hybri d system like the power booster system described in Section 2.0. A hybrid plant with a 30 MWe solar-power-boost, and a 43% annual capacity factor from solar input, is assumed in the case study presented here.

2005 Technology: The system is scaled-up to the original Utility Study [14] size: a 470 MWt receiver and 883,000 m2 heliostat field. Again, the solar plant could be integrated into a 100 MW e solar-only Rankine power plant or a hybri d combined cycle power-boost system. A hybrid plant with a 100 MWe solar-power-boost, and a 44% annual capacity factor from solar input, is assumed in the case study presented here.

2010 Technology: In 2010, solar-only nitrate-salt power tower plants are assumed to be competitive. The receiver i s scaled up to 1,400 MWt with thirteen hours of thermal storage and 2,477,000 m2 of heliostats. The solar plant is attached to a 200 MW Rankine cycle steam turbine and would achieve an annual capacity factor of about 65%.

2020 Technology: The 2020 technology continues to be a 200 MW Rankine solar-only nitrate-salt power plant. Technology development, manufacturing advances, and increased production volumes are assumed to reduce solar plant cost to mature cost targets. Minor technology advances are assumed to continue to fine-tune overall plant performance.

Solar Power Sensation V2

Solar Power Sensation V2

This is a product all about solar power. Within this product you will get 24 videos, 5 guides, reviews and much more. This product is great for affiliate marketers who is trying to market products all about alternative energy.

Get My Free Ebook


Post a comment