DOCSLIB.ORG

Capacity Factor Risk at Nuclear Power Plants

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Capacity Factor Risk at Nuclear Power Plants CAPACITY FACTOR RISK AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS Yangbo Du* and John E. Parsons** first draft November 2010 this revision January 2012 We develop a model of the dynamic structure of capacity factor risk. It incorporates the risk that the capacity factor may vary widely from year-to-year, and also the risk that the reactor may be permanently shutdown prior to the end of its anticipated useful life. We then fit the parameters of the model to the IAEA’s PRIS dataset of historical capacity factors on reactors across the globe from 1969 to 2010 (i.e., before the Fukushima disaster). The estimated capacity factor risk is greatest in the first year of operation and quickly declines until it is approximately constant through the life of the reactor. We also obtain a relatively low estimate for the mean capacity factor, approximately 73%. We discuss variations on these estimates and emphasize the importance of judgment in making these estimates. * Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, MIT, E19-411, 77 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139 USA, E-mail: [email protected] ** Corresponding author: MIT Sloan School of Management, MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, and the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, MIT, E19-411, 77 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139 USA, E-mail: [email protected] 1. INTRODUCTION One of the critical risks facing an investor in a nuclear power plant is uncertainty about the plant’s realized capacity factor. Realized capacity factors show great variation. Although the typical investor’s cash flow model of a proposed plant shows a projected capacity factor of 85% or more, many reactors have problems achieving this target. Oftentimes the shortfall is quite large. According to the Power Reactor Information System (PRIS) database maintained by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the realized capacity factor is less than 50% in more than 10% of all reactor years. In one of the countries with the largest nuclear power programs, Japan, the average capacity factor for the three years before the Fukushima disaster, 2008-2010, was only 63%. In the US, performance was extremely poor in the 1970s and 1980s. For example, in 1985 the overall capacity factor for nuclear power plants in the US was 58%. Individual reactor performance varied widely. Subsequently, capacity factors in the US have climbed markedly, so that the average is now slightly above 90%. How should capacity factor risk impact the valuation of a prospective new build power plant? Few economic analyses address this question explicitly. The standard discounted cash flow model simply applies a single risk-adjusted discount rate to the aggregate cash flow line, discounting successive year’s cash flows by the compounded discount rate. Although not widely appreciated, this simple model embodies a very restrictive implicit assumption about the dynamic structure of risk at the level of the aggregate cash flow: that is, the risk or variance of the cash flow grows linearly with time. This structure is consistent with the risk being well described as a geometric Brownian motion, but is not consistent with many other dynamic risk structures. Capacity Page 2 factor risk is unlikely to be well described by a geometric Brownian motion. Uncertainty on the capacity factor parameter will almost certainly not grow linearly with time. But what is the dynamic structure of capacity factor risk? Answering this question is a prerequisite to turning to more advanced valuation techniques, such as a real options model or similar tools.1 In this paper we provide a fully specified model of the dynamic structure of capacity factor risk. We then fit the parameters of the model to the IAEA’s PRIS dataset of historical capacity factors on reactors across the globe from 1969 to 2010 (i.e., before the Fukushima disaster). We find that capacity factor risk is greatest in the first year of operation and quickly declines until it is approximately constant. Whether risk is constant or increasing in later years depends significantly on the probability of a premature permanent shutdown of the reactor. Because these should be rare events, the small historical sample may not provide a reliable estimate, and estimates can vary significantly depending upon how the data is used. Our base case is parameterized with a conservatively low probability of a premature permanent shutdown which yields the approximately constant variance after the initial years of a reactor’s life. We show how the dynamic structure of risk may change as this estimate changes. In the course of fitting our model, we also obtain a relatively low estimate for the mean capacity factor, approximately 73%. This is very low relative to the 85% or higher figures commonly employed in investor cash flow models. We examine various subsets 1 For example, Rothwell (2006) values a nuclear new build using the real option technique. However, he continues to rely upon the Brownian motion assumption. Another example is Samis (2009), who uses a mean reverting process to model the electricity price risk. Page 3 of the data to account for possible factors that could bias our numbers to a low level. These do argue for an upward adjustment in the expected level of the capacity factor through the life of the plant, but the adjustments are small and the final estimate remains well short of the 85% mark, unless the sample chosen is restricted to selected countries over select years. There is a large literature analyzing the determinants of the capacity factor. Joskow and Rozanski (1979) estimate a significant learning curve for the operator, with the expected capacity factor increasing significantly in the first years of operation. They also document some learning by the manufacturer as successive plants of the same design are produced. They document some difference in the learning curve by reactor design, but essentially no difference across countries. Finally, they noted that the larger reactor designs had lower capacity factors. Easterling (1982) estimates that the learning effect on capacity factors is greatest during the first five years of operation. The variability of capacity factors is highest in the first year. He notes that different designs have different mean capacity factors, and that there are persistent differences in the individual unit capacity factors that could possibly represent any number of other factors. Krautmann and Solow (1988) find that the age of the unit, its vintage, the size of the unit, and the past year’s capacity factor are all significant determinants of the expected capacity factor. Rothwell (1990) refines the observation of the capacity factor by organizing the data according to the frequency for refueling, which need not be annual, the frequency used in most analyses. He also decomposes the capacity factor into the service factor—i.e., whether the unit is available or has been taken down for refueling or for repair—and the capacity utilization when operating. Finally, he segments the dataset by manufacturer. Page 4 The results for age are very mixed across manufacturers, and so he argues it should not be used to estimate the expected capacity factor. Similarly, the results for size seem to relate to specific designs and not to size generally.2 Krautmann and Solow (1992) show that improvements in the expected capacity factor with the age of the unit appear to have exhausted themselves in the period following the Three Mile Island accident, and that the units of at least one design were on the declining side of the age-performance curve. Lester and McCabe (1993) find a learning curve effect in the first three years of a units operation, and then document the differential learning curves for units operated at the same site, as well as the role of experience by design, by company and for the industry as a whole. Sturm (1993) identifies declining performance with age for countries in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, especially attributable to the years immediately following the political transformations of the late 1980s and early 1990s. This is in contrast to the improving performance with age in the West at the same time, and even with identical reactor designs. Noting the significant improvements in the capacity factors among US nuclear power plants, Rothwell (2000) provides an updated estimate of the expected capacity factors by design type, manufacturer and size of the unit. Rothwell (2006) updates this for one cohort. Koomey and Hultman (2007) also note the significant improvement in the mean capacity factor at US units. 2 There is related work on factors that one might expect to enter as a determinant of the capacity factor. For example, Roberts and Burwell (1981) estimate the learning curve in licensee events reports and how this is impacted by placing new reactors at the same site as existing reactors. A lower number of events may lead to an increased capacity factor, although the authors did not report on capacity factors. David Maude-Griffin and Rothwell (1996) document how the hazard rate for an unplanned outage declined after the Three-Mile-Island reactor incident and the ensuing regulatory policy changes. Sturm (1994) also evaluates the time between forced outages, and finds significant country differences. Within country no differences by design generation or date of construction are identifiable. Page 5 Our contribution to this literature is our focus on the variability in the capacity factor and the risk structure through time. A portion of the previous literature touches on the variability in the capacity factor, including the random process of unplanned shutdowns and the decision to permanently shutdown a reactor. Rothwell (2007) incorporates a measure of the volatility in the capacity factor into his valuation model.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Science Based Coal Phase-Out Timeline for Japan Implications for Policymakers and Investors May 2018
    a SCIENCE BASED COAL PHASE-OUT TIMELINE FOR JAPAN IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICYMAKERS AND INVESTORS MAY 2018 In collaboration with AUTHORS Paola Yanguas Parra Climate Analytics Yuri Okubo Renewable Energy Institute Niklas Roming Climate Analytics Fabio Sferra Climate Analytics Dr. Ursula Fuentes Climate Analytics Dr. Michiel Schaeffer Climate Analytics Dr. Bill Hare Climate Analytics GRAPHIC DESIGN Matt Beer Climate Analytics This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit services without special permission from Climate Analytics, provided acknowledgement and/or proper referencing of the source is made. No use of this publication may be made for resale or any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from Climate Analytics. We regret any errors or omissions that may have been unwittingly made. This document may be cited as: Climate Analytics, Renewable Energy Institute (2018). Science Based Coal Phase-out Timeline for Japan: Implications for policymakers and investors A digital copy of this report along with supporting appendices is available at: www.climateanalytics.org/publications www.renewable-ei.org/activities/reports/20180529.html Cover photo: © xpixel In collaboration with SCIENCE BASED COAL PHASE-OUT TIMELINE FOR JAPAN IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICYMAKERS AND INVESTORS Photo © ImagineStock TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive summary 1 Introduction 5 1 Coal emissions in line with the Paris Agreement 7 2 Coal emissions in Japan 9 2.1 Emissions from current and planned
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Power - Conventional
    NUCLEAR POWER - CONVENTIONAL DESCRIPTION Nuclear fission—the process in which a nucleus absorbs a neutron and splits into two lighter nuclei—releases tremendous amounts of energy. In a nuclear power plant, this fission process is controlled in a reactor to generate heat. The heat from the reactor creates steam, which runs through turbines to power electrical generators. The most common nuclear power plant design uses a Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR). Water is used as both neutron moderator and reactor coolant. That water is kept separate from the water used to generate steam and drive the turbine. In essence there are three water systems: one for converting the nuclear heat to steam and cooling the reactor; one for the steam system to spin the turbine; and one to convert the turbine steam back into water. The other common nuclear power plant design uses a Boiling Water Reactor (BWR). The BWR uses water as moderator and coolant, like the PWR, but has no separate secondary steam cycle. So the water from the reactor is converted into steam and used to directly drive the generator turbine. COST Conventional nuclear power plants are quite expensive to construct but have fairly low operating costs. Of the four new plants currently under construction, construction costs reportedly range from $4.7 million to $6.3 million per MW. Production costs for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station are reported to be less than $15/MWh. CAPACITY FACTOR Typical capacity factor for a nuclear power plant is over 90%. TIME TO PERMIT AND CONSTRUCT Design, permitting and construction of a new conventional nuclear power plant will likely require a minimum of 10 years and perhaps significantly longer.
    [Show full text]
  • Bioenergy's Role in Balancing the Electricity Grid and Providing Storage Options – an EU Perspective
    Bioenergy's role in balancing the electricity grid and providing storage options – an EU perspective Front cover information panel IEA Bioenergy: Task 41P6: 2017: 01 Bioenergy's role in balancing the electricity grid and providing storage options – an EU perspective Antti Arasto, David Chiaramonti, Juha Kiviluoma, Eric van den Heuvel, Lars Waldheim, Kyriakos Maniatis, Kai Sipilä Copyright © 2017 IEA Bioenergy. All rights Reserved Published by IEA Bioenergy IEA Bioenergy, also known as the Technology Collaboration Programme (TCP) for a Programme of Research, Development and Demonstration on Bioenergy, functions within a Framework created by the International Energy Agency (IEA). Views, findings and publications of IEA Bioenergy do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the IEA Secretariat or of its individual Member countries. Foreword The global energy supply system is currently in transition from one that relies on polluting and depleting inputs to a system that relies on non-polluting and non-depleting inputs that are dominantly abundant and intermittent. Optimising the stability and cost-effectiveness of such a future system requires seamless integration and control of various energy inputs. The role of energy supply management is therefore expected to increase in the future to ensure that customers will continue to receive the desired quality of energy at the required time. The COP21 Paris Agreement gives momentum to renewables. The IPCC has reported that with current GHG emissions it will take 5 years before the carbon budget is used for +1,5C and 20 years for +2C. The IEA has recently published the Medium- Term Renewable Energy Market Report 2016, launched on 25.10.2016 in Singapore.
    [Show full text]
  • Renewable Energy Generator Output – Sample Calculations
    Net Metering Program Highlights Net metering will be available to new customers until the size of the program reaches 1% of the electric provider’s previous year system peak in MW. The 1% will be measured against the total of the generator nameplate capacities for all participating customer’s generators and is split into the following tiers: (1) 0.5% for ≤ 20 kW True Net Metering This tier will include almost all residential customers. • Billing is based on net usage. • Customer receives the full retail rate for all excess kWh. • Utility shall use the customer’s existing meter if it is capable of reverse registration (spinning backwards) or install an upgraded meter at no additional cost to the net metering customer. • Utilities with fewer than 1,000,000 customers shall charge net metering customers at cost for an upgraded meter if the customer’s existing meter is not capable of reverse registration (spinning backwards). • A generator meter shall be provided at cost, if requested by the customer. (The generator meter is for the customer’s benefit. Utilities are not obligated to read a customer’s generator meter.) • No interconnection costs (beyond the combined $100 interconnection/net metering application fees), study fees, testing or inspection charges. • Net metering credits carry forward indefinitely. (2) 0.25% for >20 kW up to 150 kW Modified Net Metering • Customers pay full retail rate for electricity deliveries from the utility and receive the generation portion of the retail rate or a wholesale rate for deliveries to the grid. • No charge for the engineering review. • Customers pay all interconnection costs, distribution study fees and any network upgrade costs.
    [Show full text]
  • Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2019: Latest Trends and Drivers
    WEBINAR SERIES Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2019: Latest Trends and Drivers • Michael Taylor, Renewable Cost Status and Outlook team, IRENA TUESDAY, 9 JUNE 2020 • 15:00 – 15:30 CEST WEBINAR SERIES TechTips • Share it with others or listen to it again ➢ Webinars are recorded and will be available together with the presentation slides on #IRENAinsights website https://irena.org/renewables/Knowledge- Gateway/webinars/2020/Jan/IRENA-insights WEBINAR SERIES TechTips • Ask the Question ➢ Select “Question” feature on the webinar panel and type in your question • Technical difficulties ➢ Contact the GoToWebinar Help Desk: 888.259.3826 or select your country at https://support.goto.com/webinar Renewable Power: The True Costs Michael Taylor Senior Analyst, IITC IRENA Costing Analysis Products 2012 2013 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 5 Costs continuing to fall for RE, solar & wind power in particular In most parts of world RE least-cost source of new electricity: ► 56% of utility-scale capacity added in 2019 cost less than cheapest new coal option Will increasingly undercut even operating costs of existing coal Cost reductions for solar wind are coming from: ► improved technology, economies of scale, more competitive supply chains and developer experience Power generation and PPA/tender databases PPA/Auction database ~11k projects 496 GW Project cost database ~18k projects 7 1775 GW Recent cost evolution • AverageCost reductions LCOE ofcontinue all renewable to 2021/23 power generation technologies, except CSP fall • inUtility fossil-scale
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Renewable Energy Data Book Acknowledgments
    2015 Renewable Energy Data Book Acknowledgments This report was produced by Philipp Beiter and Tian Tian, edited by Mike Meshek, and designed by Alfred Hicks of the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). We greatly appreciate the input, review, and support of Assistant Secretary David Friedman, Ookie Ma, Steve Capanna, Paul Basore, Hoyt Battey, Charlie Gay, Susan Hamm, Ian Hamos, Fred Joseck, Benjamin King, Tien Nguyen, Sunita Satyapal, Paul Spitsen, Rich Tusing, Timothy Welch, and Jeff Winick of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), as well as Chad Augustine, Jerry Davis, Judi Deitchel, David Feldman, Ran Fu, Bryan Hannegan, Caley Johnson, Henry Johnston, Eric Lantz, Al LiVecchi, Jeff Logan, David Mooney, Robin Newmark, Gian Porro, and Paul Schwabe of NREL. Notes Capacity data are reported in watts of alternating current (AC) unless indicated otherwise. The primary data represented and synthesized in the 2015 Renewable Energy Data Book come from the publicly available data sources identified on page 122. Front page inset photos (left to right): iStock/754519; iStock/4393369; iStock/354309; iStock/2101722; iStock/2574180; iStock/5080552; Leslie Eudy, NREL 17854; iStock/11265066 Page 2: iStock/721000; page 6: iStock/5751076; page 17: photo from Invenergy LLC, NREL 14369; page 41: iStock/750178; page 53: iStock/ 754519; page 63: iStock/4393369; page 71: iStock/354309; page 77: iStock/2101722; page 83: iStock/2574180; page 87: iStock/5080552; page 91: photo by Leslie Eudy, NREL 17854; page 99: iStock/11265066; page 109: iStock/330791; page 119: iStock/3459287 Key Findings • The overall U.S. energy consumption decreased to 97.7 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) in 2015—a 0.6% decline from 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Renewable Energy Data Book
    2018 Renewable Energy Data Book Acknowledgments This data book was produced by Sam Koebrich, Thomas Bowen, and Austen Sharpe; edited by Mike Meshek and Gian Porro; and designed by Al Hicks and Besiki Kazaishvili of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). We greatly appreciate the input, review, and support of Jenny Heeter (NREL); Yan (Joann) Zhou (Argonne National Laboratory); and Paul Spitsen (U.S. Department of Energy). Notes Capacity data are reported in watts (typically megawatts and gigawatts) of alternating current (AC) unless indicated otherwise. The primary data represented and synthesized in the 2018 Renewable Energy Data Book come from the publicly available data sources identified on page 142. Solar photovoltaic generation data include all grid-connected utility-scale and distributed photovoltaics. Total U.S. power generation numbers in this data book may difer from those reported by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) in the Electric Power Monthly and Monthly Energy Review. Reported U.S. wind capacity and generation data do not include smaller, customer-sited wind turbines (i.e., distributed wind). Front page photo: iStock 880915412; inset photos (left to right): iStock 754519; iStock 4393369; iStock 354309; iStock 2101722; iStock 2574180; iStock 5080552; iStock 964450922, Leslie Eudy, NREL 17854; iStock 627013054 Page 2: iStock 721000; page 8: iStock 5751076; page 19: photo from Invenergy LLC, NREL 14369; page 43: iStock 750178; page 54: iStock 754519; page 63: iStock 4393369; page 71: iStock 354309; page 76: iStock 2101722; page 81: iStock 2574180; page 85: iStock 5080552; page 88: iStock 964450922; page 98: photo by Leslie Eudy, NREL 17854; page 103: iStock 955015444; page 108: iStock 11265066; page 118: iStock 330791; page 128: iStock 183287196; and page 136, iStock 501095406.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Assessment of Cogeneration Systems in Operation
    energies Article Economic Assessment of Cogeneration Systems in Operation Aikaterini Papadimitriou 1,2,*, Vassilios Vassiliou 2, Kalliopi Tataraki 1, Eugenia Giannini 1 and Zacharias Maroulis 1 1 Laboratory of Process Analysis and Design, National Technical University of Athens, 15780 Athens, Greece; [email protected] (K.T.); [email protected] (E.G.); [email protected] (Z.M.) 2 Attiki Natural Gas Distribution Company SA, 14123 Likovrisi, Greece; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +30-6972322509 Received: 29 March 2020; Accepted: 29 April 2020; Published: 2 May 2020 Abstract: A systematic method to evaluate the economic operating performance of existing combined heat and power (CHP) or combined cooling heat and power (CCHP) generation systems is applied. Two key performance indicators are selected to evaluate both the technical and the economic performance, based on operating recording data; the capacity factor and the capital recovery. The case study for eight projects in Athens is presented with the purpose to reveal the current situation of CHP in Greece and identify reasons that are hindering its penetration. Interesting conclusions were reached from the analysis. Only two out of the eight projects managed to achieve the break-even point in less than four years since the beginning of their operation, while oversizing phenomena were noticed in many cases leading in extremely low capacity factors. Keywords: CHP; CCHP; capacity factor; capital recovery; performance evaluation; key performance indicators 1. Introduction As energy demand is growing along with the concerns for climate change, the need to turn towards more sustainable and environmentally friendly energy systems is imperative.
    [Show full text]
  • Combined Heat and Power Evaluation Protocol
    Chapter 23: Combined Heat and Power Evaluation Protocol The Uniform Methods Project: Methods for Determining Energy Efficiency Savings for Specific Measures Created as part of subcontract with period of performance September 2011 – September 2016 This document was republished in August 2017 after a thorough review; no substantive changes were made. This supersedes the version originally published in November 2016. George Simons and Stephan Barsun Itron Davis, California NREL Technical Monitor: Charles Kurnik NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications. Subcontract Report NREL/SR-7A40-68579 October 2017 Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 Chapter 23: Combined Heat and Power Evaluation Protocol The Uniform Methods Project: Methods for Determining Energy Efficiency Savings for Specific Measures Created as part of subcontract with period of performance September 2011 – September 2016 This document was republished in August 2017 after a thorough review; no substantive changes were made. This supersedes the version originally published in November 2016. George Simons and Stephan Barsun Itron Davis, California NREL Technical Monitor: Charles Kurnik Prepared under Subcontract No. LGJ-1-11965-01 NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Subcontract Report 15013 Denver West Parkway NREL/SR-7A40-68579 Golden, CO 80401 October 2017 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov Contract No.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Storage in Grids with High Penetration of Variable Generation
    Energy Storage in Grids with High Penetration of Variable Generation Grid-level energy storage is likely to dominate the conversation in the power industry in the coming years, just like renewable energy did in the past 2 decades. This report targets investors, developers, utility planners, power sector policy makers, and readers who wish to understand the role energy storage is likely to play in the smart grid of the future. For developing countries, the report provides an introduction to the necessary technical background on energy storage, the role it is likely to play as penetration of renewable energy increases in the grid, and the policy prescriptions to realize the wide range of benefits of energy storage. About the Asian Development Bank ADB’s vision is an Asia and Pacific region free of poverty. Its mission is to help its developing member countries reduce poverty and improve the quality of life of their people. Despite the region’s many successes, it remains home to a large share of the world’s poor. ADB is committed to reducing poverty through inclusive economic growth, environmentally sustainable growth, and regional integration. Based in Manila, ADB is owned by 67 members, including 48 from the region. Its main instruments for helping its developing member countries are policy dialogue, loans, equity investments, guarantees, grants, and technical assistance. ENERGY STORAGE IN GRIDS WITH HIGH PENETRATION OF VARIABLE GENERATION ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK 6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City 1550 Metro Manila. Philippines ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK www.adb.org ENERGY STORAGE IN GRIDS WITH HIGH PENETRATION OF VARIABLE GENERATION FEBRUARY 2017 Pramod Jain ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license (CC BY 3.0 IGO) © 2017 Asian Development Bank 6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City, 1550 Metro Manila, Philippines Tel +63 2 632 4444; Fax +63 2 636 2444 www.adb.org Some rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Solar Energy and Capacity Value (Fact Sheet), NREL (National
    Proposed NREL logo, June 15, 2009 Blue White Black Solar Energy and Capacity Value 14,000 700 Solar Energy Can Provide Valuable Capacity 12,000 600 to Utilities and Power System Operators 10,000 500 Solar photovoltaic (PV) systems and concentrating solar 8,000 400 power (CSP) systems without integrated thermal energy 6,000 300 Net Load (MW) storage (TES) are variable, renewable energy resources 4,000 200 with output that depends on the time of day, season, and Solar Generation (MW) 2,000 100 weather patterns. These resources are unlike traditional 0 0 dispatchable generators that can be controlled to respond 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 to variations in demand. An important benefit of all Hour Base Case Net Load Net Load with PV PV generators is capacity value—their ability to reliably meet demand. Generator outages—caused by mechani- Figure 1. Coincidence of solar energy with peak demand cal failures, planned maintenance, or lack of real-time generating resources (especially for renewables)—may and solar generation can provide some indication of the leave a power system with insufficient capacity to meet ability of solar energy to contribute to meeting peak load. Because variable energy sources are not as control- demand. Figure 1 shows the demand for electricity on a lable as conventional power plants, analysis is needed to hot summer day in Colorado in 2006. It also shows simu- evaluate their capacity-related benefits, which are not lated solar output for a scenario in which solar satisfies 1% always readily apparent. of total demand and the corresponding solar generation Calculating Capacity Value during that time.
    [Show full text]
  • Thermal Efficiency of Natural Gas-Fired Generation in California 2018 Document Title: Update - Staff Paper Staff Paper - October 2018; CEC-200-2018-011 Description
    DOCKETED Docket Number: 19-IEPR-02 Project Title: Electricity Resource Plans TN #: 225562 Thermal Efficiency of Natural Gas-Fired Generation in California 2018 Document Title: Update - Staff Paper Staff Paper - October 2018; CEC-200-2018-011 Description: Filer: Harinder Kaur Organization: California Energy Commission Submitter Role: Commission Staff Submission Date: 10/30/2018 1:29:12 PM Docketed Date: 10/30/2018 STAFF PAPER Thermal Efficiency of Natural Gas-Fired Generation in California: 2018 Update Michael Nyberg Supply Analysis Office Energy Assessments Division California Energy Commission California Energy Commission Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor October 2018 | CEC-200-2018-011 DISCLAIMER Staff members of the California Energy Commission prepared this report. As such, it does not necessarily represent the views of the Energy Commission, its employees, or the State of California. The Energy Commission, the State of California, its employees, contractors and subcontractors make no warrant, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report; nor does any party represent that the uses of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This report has not been approved or disapproved by the Energy Commission nor has the Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in this report. ABSTRACT Senate Bill 1389 (Bowen and Sher, Chapter 568, Statutes of 2002) directed the California Energy Commission to adopt an Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) every two years. This staff paper supports the IEPR technical analyses by describing general trends in the average thermal efficiency of natural gas-fired generation in California from 2001 through 2017.
    [Show full text]