Upload
dinhthien
View
219
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Assessing economic viability and potential of energy storage
Louis-Marie Jacquelin – Development Director – New market activities
+33 1 82 83 83 87
25 people independent consulting company
Core business: Energy transition for industry
Ethical model: Pro Bono Energy Access in Developing Countries
Our clients
Identity
Energy consumers Energy players
Our offer Technology: benchmark, roadmaps
Strategy: markets, R&D positioning
Projects: PFS, Performance, Impact
ENEA Consulting
Technology & Engineering
Startups Public Sector
Our fields of operation
Industrial energy efficiency
Biogas, biomass and biofuels
Wind, sun, sea energy
Energy storage
CO2 capture and storage
Industrial missions
Volunteering missions
Both
Other studies
ENEA worldwide
1.Storage value assessment method
2.Technology cost forecast
3.French case : main results
4.Exportable findings
New study release: English executive summary
http://www.enea-consulting.com/en/?p=4917
Content of the presentation
Assessing value: complex modeling
France
ZNI
Perimeters
Detailed simulation
Energy Mix Scenarios : 2030
Energy storage system
multi-value assessment
Na-SZn-Br
Electrolyse
ZEBRANickel-Zinc
Zinc-Air
Volants d’inertie
Lithium-Ion
VRB
Stockage thermique d’électricité
Temps de décharge
Puissance
Secondes
Minutes
Heures
1 kW 10 kW 100 MW100 kW 1 MW 10 MW 1GW
Système de transfert par lest maritime
10 Heures
Plomb-Acide
Super condensateurs
Energie
Puissance
STEP
STEP souterraine
STEP Marines
AA-CAES
Technology forecast
Energy Storage
value is local !
2013 LCOS comparison
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1 000
[€/M
Wh
]
2010 2030
Cost breakdown Volume effect Cost reduction
Cost reduction evaluation
Common metric for cost comparison : LCOS
Results: 2030 LCOS reduction
PHS
AA-CAES
Na-S
H2 alcalin
Li-ion H2 PEM
Zn-Br Pb-A
2013
2030
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
[€/M
Wh
]
2013
20300
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
[€/M
Wh
]
2013
2030
€/MWh
French case – Main results
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Coûts Revenus Coûts Revenus Coûts Revenus
MDN NMX ADM
Garantie capacitaire
Arbitrage
Réglage de la fréquence
CSPE
Taxes
Réseau (TURPE)
Maintenance
Coût du capital
Investissement initial0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Coûts Revenus Coûts Revenus Coûts Revenus
MDN NMX ADM
Garantie capacitaire
Arbitrage
Réglage de la fréquence
CSPE
Taxes
Réseau (TURPE)
Maintenance
Coût du capital
Investissement initialRevenue
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Coûts Revenus Coûts Revenus Coûts Revenus
MDN NMX ADM
Garantie capacitaire
Arbitrage
Réglage de la fréquence
CSPE
Taxes
Réseau (TURPE)
Maintenance
Coût du capital
Investissement initial
Grid access
Capital cost
Initial investment
Maintenance
Costs
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Coûts Revenus Coûts Revenus Coûts Revenus
MDN NMX ADM
Garantie capacitaire
Arbitrage
Réglage de la fréquence
CSPE
Taxes
Réseau (TURPE)
Maintenance
Coût du capital
Investissement initial
Capacity guarantee
Frequency regulation
CSPE
Taxes
Arbitrage
€/MWh Mainland current situation
Mainland potential:
1 to 2 GW PHS
Value : 60 to 150 k€/MW/yr
600 MW reserve
Large existing flexible capacity:
13 GW installed hydropower
Large existing storage capacity:
4 GW PHS
Good international connection
Sensitivity analysis
Discharge duration
Efficiency
Reserve contribution
PV deployment
CO2 price
Gas price
Scenario mix
New flexible demand
Other storage installation
Climate variations
€/yr
Value of the 1st MW of storage (5h, 80% efficiency)
20 000 € 40 000 € 60 000 € 80 000 € 100 000 € 120 000 €
French case – Main results
Island current situation
Island potential:
200 to 400 MW
Value: 200 to 350 k€/MW/yr
=> All Technologies !
Small electric systems (about
500 MW)
High production costs
Non flexible capacity
installed (coal)
No storage
Value for 1MW storage 5h, 70% efficiency
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
segment ZNI
k€/M
W/a
n
Rémunération réserve
Réduction des arrêts-démarrages
Rémunération capacité ZNI
Valorisation des arbitrages économiques
Reserve
Stop & start reduction
Capacity
Arbitrages
Daily flexibility needs With 20 GW of PV
Demand
PV
Demand minus PV production
More PV does not necessarily means more needs for flexibility
(up to some point)
PV production peaks during
high demand periods
Weekly flexibility needs
Wind production time constant:
several days at France level
Wind developments increase long term flexibility needs
and lower investment risks for storage projects with longer time constant
Energy storage decentralization
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Coûts Revenus Coûts Revenus Coûts Revenus
MDN NMX ADM
Garantie capacitaire
Traitement des congestions
Arbitrage
Réglage de la fréquence
CSPE
Taxes
Réseau (TURPE)
Maintenance
Coût du capital
Investissement initial
Li-Ion battery 4h, 5 MW (85% efficiency), in €/MWh destocked (LCOS), for 350 h/yr congestion
Capacity mechanism
Congestion management
Arbitrage
Frequency regulation
CSPE
Taxes
Grid costs (TURPE)
Maintenance
Capital costs
Initial investments Costs Incomes Costs Incomes Costs Incomes
MDN NMX ADM
Decentralizing energy storage may not always create more value
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
€/M
Wh
Heures d'écrêtement (h/an)
Prime à l'écrêtement évité rentabilisant le dispositif de stockage
Coûts de renforcement réseau rapportés au MWh d'écrêtement évité - Borne min
Coûts de renforcement réseau rapportés au MWh d'écrêtement évité - Borne max
Energy storage decentralization
Bonus for avoiding peak-shaving, calculated to finance storage system
Nb of hours shaved per year
Min cost of grid reinforcement (per MWh saved)
Max cost of grid reinforcement (per MWh saved)
Demand side storage
Up to 90 m€ savings compared to actual situation
6 GW flexibility potential
Domestic hot water
Good candidate for demand
side management
In France, system already in
place for fixed hour starts
2 optimization options have
been considered :
Optimized fixed hour starts
Flexible starts
Average consumption (GW)
Daily hours
Demand side storage
100 to 300 m€ savings
Home charging at night could be counter-productive !
Electric vehicles
Good candidate for demand
side management
Depends on EV deployment
Up to 25 TWh flexibility
potential
Charge at home (not smart)
Charge at home (smart)
Charge at work (smart)
• At state & EU levels: we can perform
similar detailed studies
• At corporate level, we now have up-to-date tools to:
– Compare technologies with competition
– Evaluate a complete business case
What now ?
ENVIRONMENTAL & SOCIAL
PERFORMANCE EFFICIENCY & PROCESS
INNOVATION
► Stakeholder Management
► Social Acceptance
► Global Performance
► Business model optimization
► Go to Market
► Competitive positioning
► Project financing
► Energy storage integration in infrastructure and processes
► Energy Efficiency
► AMO, Project management
Partner with ENEA Consulting