Reducing Cost of Wind Energy: Opportunities to Reduce the ... - NREL
Reducing Cost of Wind Energy
Opportunities to reduce the cost of wind energy 2nd NREL Wind Energy Systems Engineering Workshop Denver, Colorado, 29-30 January 2013 Henk-Jan Kooijman GE Power & Water, Wind Farm Engineering
Reducing cost of wind energy • Levelized cost of energy to study the feasibility of subsidy-free wind energy • LCOE reduction scenarios for onshore and offshore wind energy • Topical aspects for turbine load design, site assessment, and farm design
• Summary and conclusions
Fantanele-Cogealac, Romania 240 GE 2.5 MW wind turbines; 600 MW farm power Installation was completed in November 2012 2 NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013 Henk-Jan Kooijman
Progress ratio vs. economies of scale Progress ratio: cost reduction with doubling in cumulative volume Learning rate = 1 – PR Ex. 1: Unit #100 = 1500 $/kW, turbine PR = 90%
=> Unit #200 = 1350 $/kW Progress ratio refers to cost reduction over time Economies of scale: lower unit cost for a larger wind farm or turbine
Ex.: 10MW farm = 2000 $/kW, EOS = 90% for doubling in size => 20MW farm = 1900 $/kW Economies of scale refers to cost reduction with size 3 NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013 Henk-Jan Kooijman
Progress ratio - turbine availability • Upward trending improvement in turbine availability for consecutive model year introductions. • Improved design. Improved services. Continuously resolving top issues. GE 1.5/1.6 MW availability trends
model year introduction 2011 2010 2009 2008
2007 2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013 4 NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013 Henk-Jan Kooijman
LCOE = levelized cost of energy + • LCOE reduction is importantly driven by economies of scale for BOP and O&M • Turbine economies of scale doesn’t work well because of square-cube law. New technologies and relative share of electrical cost can compensate this.
Relative LCOE vs. nominal power
(constant cap. factor)
[relative LCOE ] turbine economies of scale, i.e. relative 120% price per MW with doubling in turbine 110% 130% 100% 120% 90% 110% 80% 100% (baseline) 70% 90% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% relative turbine name plate rating (P / Pref) [-] 5 NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013 Henk-Jan Kooijman
New technologies to drive down LCOE Individual new technologies can importantly bring down LCOE, like more use of condition monitoring to reduce OPEX, distributed turbine control to improve farm AEP and design loads, or advanced aero to grow rotor size. Cumulative effort (risk, time, and investment)
0.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5 -2.0
-2.5 -3.0 LCOE benefit [$ct/kWh]
1+ years
2+ years
3+ years
6 NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013 Henk-Jan Kooijman
Onshore LCOE reduction scenario 30% reduction in onshore LCOE can be realized through a combination of: • a 20% reduction in CAPEX, e.g. due to new technologies and economies of scale;
• a 10% higher capacity factor for the same CAPEX per kW; • and 1pt lower real interest rate. LCOE reduction entitlement onshore wind relative change O&M 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
interest rate turbine DM CAPEX
-3.0
-2.0 -1.0 LCOE change [$ct/kWh]
0.0 7 NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013 Henk-Jan Kooijman
The offshore case •
Diverse site characteristics (water depth, facilities, distance to harbour and grid)
•
Realization cost ($/kW) roughly twice as high as onshore.
•
No visual impact.
•
Important levers to reduce LCOE are:
– Economies of scale (go bigger)
Substation, Install. 7%
Installation turbines, 5% Other, 5%
foundations and substation, 8%
Wind turbines, 30%
– Progress ratio (do better) – Reduce DM cost (smarter design) • Still, additional success criteria are:
Cables including installation, 8%
Foundations, 14%
O&M, 25%
– Long-term government committment – Continuing research funds
– Adequate service hubs and grid infrastructure • Possible game changing concepts: VAWT or Kites. Courtesy www.skysails.de
8 NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013 Henk-Jan Kooijman
Offshore LCOE reduction entitlements Maximum of ~50% reduction in offshore LCOE when grouping all entitlements.
LCOE impact for assumed entitlement 20%
20%
relative entitlement
10%
impact on LCOE
5%
0% -10%
-10%
-20% -30% -40%
-24% -30%
-17% -28% -80%
-8%
-5%
-5%
-25%
GE 4.1MW in Gothenburg, Sweden 9 NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013 Henk-Jan Kooijman
Offshore LCOE reduction scenario More realistically, 35% reduction in offshore LCOE is realized through a combination of:
• 20% reduction in CAPEX, e.g. through new technologies and economies of scale; • No change in logistics cost per kW, improved turbine reliability: Availability up 3 pts; • Net cap factor up by 7 pts, e.g. bigger rotor and less wake losses;
• 50% reduction in contingency and 15% reduction in O&M. [turbine / BOP cost] 200%
Change in offshore wind cost breakdown with growth in turbine size
Arklow: 7 x GE 3.6 MW World’s first 3+ MW offshore turbines Since 2002
Economies of scale: high indicative
150% 100% 50% 0%
100%
200%
300% 400% Relative turbine rating [-]
10 NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013 Henk-Jan Kooijman
Topical aspects: turbine design loads • There are many projects in Europe in area-constrained, complex terrains with a high design turbulence and challenging design load assessment. Wind turbine class and TI effective TI @ 15 m/s 24% m = 12 (blade) 22% m = 4 (tower) 20% 18% TC-A 16% TC-B 14% 12% TC-C 10% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Turbine spacing (rectangular array) [Diameters]
Example: Power density [MW/km2] for a TC-A design relative to TC-B is equal to: (7D / 5D) 2 factor 2
• The global installed wind power, e.g. GE’s 20,000+ unit fleet, offers valuable potential for experience-based loads analysis. 11 NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013 Henk-Jan Kooijman
Topical aspects: site assessment Accurate site design wind conditions are key for accurate load assessment. For example, GE newly determines Vref based on meso-scale data combined with site measurements combined with using Bayesian analysis. Benchmark Method of Independent Storms Gumbel, least squares V ref [m/s] Method of Independent Storms Bayesian LL 29 m/s, UL 34 m/s 39 37 35 33 31 29 27 25 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 year Source: EWEA 2013 poster #490, author Joerg Winterfeldt et al., GE Power & Water. Data by courtesy of Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) 12 NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013 Henk-Jan Kooijman
Topical aspects: farms • Curtailment losses on a regional scale can be significant, e.g. strong growth of installed wind base or delayed expansion of the grid. • Industry is taken on a more wind power plant-centred perspective. Because only the OEM knows the turbine design limits and aero-elastic model, it has an essential role in minimizing the project-specific LCOE. Turbine-centered view Designed as stand alone unit
Holistic farm-level view Accurate wind farm
Operated as single units in a wind farm
flow models
Better site lay out with diverse turbine options in a farm Co-operative, ‘distributed’ farm control for max AEP 13 NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013 Henk-Jan Kooijman
Summary • Offshore wind energy LCOE will remain ~twice the value of onshore wind. • Economic growth, investors, and green policy agenda like Europe’s ‘Horizon 2020’ are essential for the expansion of wind energy. • LCOE reduction is importantly driven by: – Up-scaling turbine and farm size to drive down BOP and O&M over AEP – Better design modelling to understand and deploy margins for more AEP
– New technologies and operating methods for turbines and farms to: o Increase AEP and limit turbine cost per MW o Reach the goal of a purely fatigue-driven turbine:
mitigate extreme loads and reduce blade static moment. 14 NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013 Henk-Jan Kooijman
Thank You
GE 2.5-100
Opportunities to reduce the cost of wind energy 2nd NREL Wind Energy Systems Engineering Workshop Denver, Colorado, 29-30 January 2013 Henk-Jan Kooijman GE Power & Water, Wind Farm Engineering
Reducing cost of wind energy • Levelized cost of energy to study the feasibility of subsidy-free wind energy • LCOE reduction scenarios for onshore and offshore wind energy • Topical aspects for turbine load design, site assessment, and farm design
• Summary and conclusions
Fantanele-Cogealac, Romania 240 GE 2.5 MW wind turbines; 600 MW farm power Installation was completed in November 2012 2 NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013 Henk-Jan Kooijman
Progress ratio vs. economies of scale Progress ratio: cost reduction with doubling in cumulative volume Learning rate = 1 – PR Ex. 1: Unit #100 = 1500 $/kW, turbine PR = 90%
=> Unit #200 = 1350 $/kW Progress ratio refers to cost reduction over time Economies of scale: lower unit cost for a larger wind farm or turbine
Ex.: 10MW farm = 2000 $/kW, EOS = 90% for doubling in size => 20MW farm = 1900 $/kW Economies of scale refers to cost reduction with size 3 NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013 Henk-Jan Kooijman
Progress ratio - turbine availability • Upward trending improvement in turbine availability for consecutive model year introductions. • Improved design. Improved services. Continuously resolving top issues. GE 1.5/1.6 MW availability trends
model year introduction 2011 2010 2009 2008
2007 2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013 4 NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013 Henk-Jan Kooijman
LCOE = levelized cost of energy + • LCOE reduction is importantly driven by economies of scale for BOP and O&M • Turbine economies of scale doesn’t work well because of square-cube law. New technologies and relative share of electrical cost can compensate this.
Relative LCOE vs. nominal power
(constant cap. factor)
[relative LCOE ] turbine economies of scale, i.e. relative 120% price per MW with doubling in turbine 110% 130% 100% 120% 90% 110% 80% 100% (baseline) 70% 90% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% relative turbine name plate rating (P / Pref) [-] 5 NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013 Henk-Jan Kooijman
New technologies to drive down LCOE Individual new technologies can importantly bring down LCOE, like more use of condition monitoring to reduce OPEX, distributed turbine control to improve farm AEP and design loads, or advanced aero to grow rotor size. Cumulative effort (risk, time, and investment)
0.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5 -2.0
-2.5 -3.0 LCOE benefit [$ct/kWh]
1+ years
2+ years
3+ years
6 NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013 Henk-Jan Kooijman
Onshore LCOE reduction scenario 30% reduction in onshore LCOE can be realized through a combination of: • a 20% reduction in CAPEX, e.g. due to new technologies and economies of scale;
• a 10% higher capacity factor for the same CAPEX per kW; • and 1pt lower real interest rate. LCOE reduction entitlement onshore wind relative change O&M 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
interest rate turbine DM CAPEX
-3.0
-2.0 -1.0 LCOE change [$ct/kWh]
0.0 7 NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013 Henk-Jan Kooijman
The offshore case •
Diverse site characteristics (water depth, facilities, distance to harbour and grid)
•
Realization cost ($/kW) roughly twice as high as onshore.
•
No visual impact.
•
Important levers to reduce LCOE are:
– Economies of scale (go bigger)
Substation, Install. 7%
Installation turbines, 5% Other, 5%
foundations and substation, 8%
Wind turbines, 30%
– Progress ratio (do better) – Reduce DM cost (smarter design) • Still, additional success criteria are:
Cables including installation, 8%
Foundations, 14%
O&M, 25%
– Long-term government committment – Continuing research funds
– Adequate service hubs and grid infrastructure • Possible game changing concepts: VAWT or Kites. Courtesy www.skysails.de
8 NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013 Henk-Jan Kooijman
Offshore LCOE reduction entitlements Maximum of ~50% reduction in offshore LCOE when grouping all entitlements.
LCOE impact for assumed entitlement 20%
20%
relative entitlement
10%
impact on LCOE
5%
0% -10%
-10%
-20% -30% -40%
-24% -30%
-17% -28% -80%
-8%
-5%
-5%
-25%
GE 4.1MW in Gothenburg, Sweden 9 NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013 Henk-Jan Kooijman
Offshore LCOE reduction scenario More realistically, 35% reduction in offshore LCOE is realized through a combination of:
• 20% reduction in CAPEX, e.g. through new technologies and economies of scale; • No change in logistics cost per kW, improved turbine reliability: Availability up 3 pts; • Net cap factor up by 7 pts, e.g. bigger rotor and less wake losses;
• 50% reduction in contingency and 15% reduction in O&M. [turbine / BOP cost] 200%
Change in offshore wind cost breakdown with growth in turbine size
Arklow: 7 x GE 3.6 MW World’s first 3+ MW offshore turbines Since 2002
Economies of scale: high indicative
150% 100% 50% 0%
100%
200%
300% 400% Relative turbine rating [-]
10 NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013 Henk-Jan Kooijman
Topical aspects: turbine design loads • There are many projects in Europe in area-constrained, complex terrains with a high design turbulence and challenging design load assessment. Wind turbine class and TI effective TI @ 15 m/s 24% m = 12 (blade) 22% m = 4 (tower) 20% 18% TC-A 16% TC-B 14% 12% TC-C 10% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Turbine spacing (rectangular array) [Diameters]
Example: Power density [MW/km2] for a TC-A design relative to TC-B is equal to: (7D / 5D) 2 factor 2
• The global installed wind power, e.g. GE’s 20,000+ unit fleet, offers valuable potential for experience-based loads analysis. 11 NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013 Henk-Jan Kooijman
Topical aspects: site assessment Accurate site design wind conditions are key for accurate load assessment. For example, GE newly determines Vref based on meso-scale data combined with site measurements combined with using Bayesian analysis. Benchmark Method of Independent Storms Gumbel, least squares V ref [m/s] Method of Independent Storms Bayesian LL 29 m/s, UL 34 m/s 39 37 35 33 31 29 27 25 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 year Source: EWEA 2013 poster #490, author Joerg Winterfeldt et al., GE Power & Water. Data by courtesy of Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) 12 NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013 Henk-Jan Kooijman
Topical aspects: farms • Curtailment losses on a regional scale can be significant, e.g. strong growth of installed wind base or delayed expansion of the grid. • Industry is taken on a more wind power plant-centred perspective. Because only the OEM knows the turbine design limits and aero-elastic model, it has an essential role in minimizing the project-specific LCOE. Turbine-centered view Designed as stand alone unit
Holistic farm-level view Accurate wind farm
Operated as single units in a wind farm
flow models
Better site lay out with diverse turbine options in a farm Co-operative, ‘distributed’ farm control for max AEP 13 NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013 Henk-Jan Kooijman
Summary • Offshore wind energy LCOE will remain ~twice the value of onshore wind. • Economic growth, investors, and green policy agenda like Europe’s ‘Horizon 2020’ are essential for the expansion of wind energy. • LCOE reduction is importantly driven by: – Up-scaling turbine and farm size to drive down BOP and O&M over AEP – Better design modelling to understand and deploy margins for more AEP
– New technologies and operating methods for turbines and farms to: o Increase AEP and limit turbine cost per MW o Reach the goal of a purely fatigue-driven turbine:
mitigate extreme loads and reduce blade static moment. 14 NREL 2nd workshop Jan 2013 Henk-Jan Kooijman
Thank You
GE 2.5-100
