Anda di halaman 1dari 272

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Governor

Prepared For:

California Energy Commission


Public Interest Energy Research Program

PIER INTERIM PROJECT REPORT

RENEWABLE ENERGY
COST OF GENERATION UPDATE

Prepared By:
KEMA, Inc.

August 2009
CEC-500-2009-084


Prepared By:
KEMA, Inc.
Charles ODonnell, Pete Baumstark, Valerie Nibler, Karin Corfee, and
Kevin Sullivan
Oakland, CA 94612
Commission Contract No. 500-06-014
Commission Work Authorization No: KEMA-06-020-P-R

Prepared For:

Public Interest Energy Research (PIER)

California Energy Commission


Cathy Turner
Contract Manager
John Hingtgen, M.S.
Project Manager
Energy Generation Research Office
Kenneth Koyama
Office Manager
Energy Generation Research Office
Thom Kelly
Deputy Director
ENERGY RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
Deputy Director
Melissa Jones
Executive Director

DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared as the result of work sponsored by the California Energy Commission. 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 California
Energy Commission nor has the California Energy Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in this report.

Preface
TheCaliforniaEnergyCommissionsPublicInterestEnergyResearch(PIER)Programsupports
publicinterestenergyresearchanddevelopmentthatwillhelpimprovethequalityoflifein
Californiabybringingenvironmentallysafe,affordable,andreliableenergyservicesand
productstothemarketplace.
ThePIERProgramconductspublicinterestresearch,development,anddemonstration(RD&D)
projectstobenefitCalifornia.
ThePIERProgramstrivestoconductthemostpromisingpublicinterestenergyresearchby
partneringwithRD&Dentities,includingindividuals,businesses,utilities,andpublicor
privateresearchinstitutions.
PIERfundingeffortsarefocusedonthefollowingRD&Dprogramareas:

BuildingsEndUseEnergyEfficiency

EnergyInnovationsSmallGrants

EnergyRelatedEnvironmentalResearch

EnergySystemsIntegration

EnvironmentallyPreferredAdvancedGeneration

Industrial/Agricultural/WaterEndUseEnergyEfficiency

RenewableEnergyTechnologies

Transportation

RenewableEnergyCostofGenerationUpdateistheinterimreportfortheRenewableEnergyCost
ofGenerationUpdateproject(ContractNumber50006014,workauthorizationnumber
KEMA06020PR)conductedbyKEMA,Inc.Theinformationfromthisprojectcontributesto
PIERsRenewableEnergyTechnologiesProgram.
FormoreinformationaboutthePIERProgram,pleasevisittheEnergyCommissionswebsiteat
www.energy.ca.gov/research/orcontacttheEnergyCommissionat9166544878.

Acknowledgement
GerryBraun,PIERtechnicalconsultant,isacknowledgedforhisinvaluabletechnicalguidance
andreviewofthisproject.
Pleaseusethefollowingcitationforthisreport:
ODonnell,Charles,PeteBaumstark,ValerieNibler,KarinCorfee,andKevinSullivan(KEMA).
2009.RenewableEnergyCostofGenerationUpdate,PIERInterimProjectReport.CaliforniaEnergy
Commission.CEC5002009084.

ii

Table of Contents
ExecutiveSummary...........................................................................................................................1
1.0

Introduction..........................................................................................................................3

2.0

ProjectApproach.................................................................................................................5

2.1.

Task1:Technologies.....................................................................................................5

2.2.

Task2:CostDrivers......................................................................................................6

2.3.

Task3:CurrentCosts....................................................................................................6

2.4.

Task4:ExpectedCostTrajectories..............................................................................7

2.4.1.

Method.......................................................................................................................9

2.5.

Task5:Price/CostReconciliation.................................................................................10

2.6.

Task6:CommunityandBuildingScaleRenewableEnergyCosts........................11

3.0

ProjectOutcomes.................................................................................................................13

3.1.

Technologies...................................................................................................................13

3.1.1.

TechnicalandAnalyticalCritiqueofReferenceDocuments..............................13

3.1.2.

MethodforSelectingTechnologies........................................................................22

3.1.3.

UtilityScaleTechnologies.......................................................................................23

3.1.4.

CommunityScaleTechnologies.............................................................................24

3.1.5.

BuildingScaleTechnologies....................................................................................24

3.2.

Biomass............................................................................................................................24

3.2.1.

TechnologyOverview..............................................................................................24

3.2.2.

BiomassCombustionFluidizedBedBoiler........................................................27

3.2.3.

BiomassCombustionStokerBoiler.....................................................................35

3.2.4.

BiomassCofiring.......................................................................................................42

3.2.5.

BiomassCoGasificationIGCC...............................................................................47

3.3.

Geothermal......................................................................................................................52

3.3.1.

TechnologyOverview..............................................................................................52

3.3.2.

GeothermalBinary.................................................................................................59

3.3.3.

GeothermalFlash...................................................................................................68

3.4.

Hydropower....................................................................................................................72

3.4.1.

TechnologyOverview..............................................................................................72

3.4.2.

HydroDevelopedSitesWithoutPower.............................................................75

3.4.3.

HydroCapacityUpgradeforDevelopedSitesWithPower............................80

3.5.

Solar..................................................................................................................................84

iii


3.5.1.

TechnologyOverview..............................................................................................84

3.5.2.

SolarParabolicTrough..........................................................................................86

3.5.3.

SolarPhotovoltaic(SingleAxis)..........................................................................96

3.6.

Wind.................................................................................................................................102

3.6.1.

TechnologyOverview..............................................................................................102

3.6.2.

OnshoreWindClass5...........................................................................................106

3.6.3.

OnshoreWindClass3/4........................................................................................117

3.6.4.

OffshoreWindClass5...........................................................................................117

3.7.

Wave................................................................................................................................123

3.7.1.

TechnologyOverview..............................................................................................123

3.7.2.

OceanWave...............................................................................................................125

3.8.

IntegratedGasificationCombinedCycle...................................................................127

3.8.1.

TechnologyOverview..............................................................................................127

3.8.2.

IGCCWithoutCarbonCapture(SingleorMultiple300MWTrains)...............130

3.8.3.

CarbonCaptureandSequestration........................................................................136

3.9.

AdvancedNuclear.........................................................................................................138

3.9.1.

TechnologyOverview..............................................................................................138

3.9.2.

WESTINGHOUSEAP1000...................................................................................143

4.0

ConclusionsandRecommendations.................................................................................157

5.0

References.............................................................................................................................159

6.0

Glossary................................................................................................................................167

AppendixA

CostData

AppendixB

ResponsestoWorkshopComments

List of Figures
Figure1.Utilityscalefluidizedbedgasifier........................................................................................25
Figure2.BiomassIGCCplantrepresentation......................................................................................26
Figure3.SchematicdiagramofbiomassIGCCprocess.....................................................................26
Figure4.Utilityscalebiomassfluidizedbedgasifier.........................................................................27
Figure5.Circulatingfluidizedbedschematicdiagram.....................................................................28
Figure6.Bubblingfluidizedbedboiler................................................................................................30

iv


Figure7.Stokerboilerschematicdiagram...........................................................................................35
Figure8.Flowschematicforastokerboilerconfiguration................................................................37
Figure9.Biomasscofiringschematicforapulverizedcoalboilersystem......................................42
Figure10.Primarybiomasscofiringlocations.....................................................................................44
Figure11.ProcessflowdiagramforbiomassgasificationandconditioningforIGCCapplication
............................................................................................................................................................49
Figure12.Binarypowerplant................................................................................................................58
Figure13.Flashpowerplant..................................................................................................................58
Figure14.Financialimpactofdelayonexplorationcosts.................................................................62
Figure15.Specificcostofpowerplantequipmentvs.resourcetemperature.................................61
Figure16.Economiesofscale.................................................................................................................63
Figure17.Impoundmenthydropower.................................................................................................73
Figure18.Diversionhydropowerfacility............................................................................................74
Figure19.Runofriverhydropowerfacility........................................................................................75
Figure20.Hydropowercostsfordevelopedsiteswithoutpower....................................................78
Figure21.Hydropowercostsforincreasingcapacity.........................................................................82
Figure22.Solarparabolictroughelectricgeneratingsystem............................................................84
Figure23.Simplifiedmoltensaltstorageprocessdiagram...............................................................85
Figure24.NellisAirForceBasePVinstallation..................................................................................86
Figure25.Majorcostcategoriesforparabolictroughplant..............................................................91
Figure26Capitalcostcomparison........................................................................................................94
Figure27.LevelizedO&Mcostcomparison........................................................................................95
Figure28.Solarmoduleretail/priceindex,125wattsandhigher.....................................................99
Figure29.Solarpowergenerationplantsince2006over20%cheaper..........................................100
Figure30.Typicalturnkeysystemprice.............................................................................................101
Figure31.Amodern1.5MWwindturbineinstalledinawindpowerplant...............................102
Figure32.Californiawindresourcemap...........................................................................................103
Figure33.WindresourcemapofNorthernCalifornia.....................................................................104
Figure34.WindresourcemapofSouthernCalifornia.....................................................................105
v


Figure35.CapacityfactortrendsofCaliforniautilitywindsites...................................................106
Figure36.Installedwindprojectcostsovertime..............................................................................109
Figure37.MetalpricesJan.2002Sept.2007(LondonMetalExchange).....................................111
Figure38.U.S.dollarvs.euro,Jan.1999throughApril2009(EuropeanCentralBank).............112
Figure39.2007Projectcapacityfactorsbycommercialoperationdate.........................................112
Figure40.Onshorecapacityfactorbyinstalledyearandclass.......................................................113
Figure41.AnnualandcumulativegrowthinU.S.windpowercapacity.....................................114
Figure42.Averagecumulativewindandwholesalepowerpricesovertime..............................114
Figure43.Installedwindprojectcostsasafunctionofprojectsize:20062007projects.............115
Figure44.Europeanoffshorewindinstallations...............................................................................118
Figure45.Europeanoffshorewindgrowthandprojections...........................................................120
Figure46.Offshorecapacityfactorbyinstalledyear........................................................................122
Figure47.Pointabsorber......................................................................................................................124
Figure48.Oscillatingwatercolumn...................................................................................................124
Figure49.Overtopping.........................................................................................................................124
Figure50.Attenuator.............................................................................................................................125
Figure51.TypicaloxygenblownIGCCprocess...............................................................................128
Figure 52. Actual installation (Buggenum, The Netherlands) with typical technological
componentsindicated...................................................................................................................129
Figure53.BureauofReclamationconstructioncosttrends.............................................................134
Figure54.Actualvs.PredictedNuclearReactorCapitalCosts......................................................139
Figure55:PowerCapitalCostIndexNuclearandNonNuclearConstruction.........................141
Figure56.Generationsofnuclearenergy...........................................................................................149

List of Tables
Table1.RecentCalifornialegislationthatmayaffectcostofgeneration..........................................1
Table2.Costdriveranalysisworksheetexample.................................................................................9
Table3.Comparisonbetween2009KEMAanalysisand2007IEPR................................................16
vi


Table4.Comparisonof2009analysiswiththeCPUCGHGmodeldata........................................18
Table5.Comparisonbetween2009analysiswiththeRETI1AData...............................................20
Table6.CentralplanttechnologylistforCOGmodelingproject.....................................................23
Table7.InstalledCFBboilercapacitybycountry...............................................................................29
Table8.Recentcarbonsteelpricing......................................................................................................31
Table9.Recentcarbonsteelpricing......................................................................................................38
Table10.Biomassstokerinstalledcostranges2009dollarsperkWinstalled.............................41
Table11.Coalfiredgenerationplantswithbiomasscofiring...........................................................43
Table12.PotentialbinarygeothermalplantdevelopmentinCalifornia(mostlikelysources)....64
Table13.CaliforniaandNevadaexistingbinaryplantswithcapacityfactor................................65
Table14.FixedandvariableO&Mforbinarygeothermalpowerplants........................................66
Table15.PotentialflashgeothermalplantdevelopmentinCalifornia(mostlikelysources).......69
Table16.CaliforniaandNevadaexistingflashplantswithcapacityfactor...................................70
Table17.FixedandvariableO&Mforflashgeothermalpowerplants...........................................71
Table18.Parabolictroughcostcomparison.........................................................................................89
Table19.Assessmentofparabolictroughandpowertowersolartechnology..............................91
Table20.Comparisonoftotalinvestmentcostestimates($/kWe):SunLabvs.S&L.....................94
Table21.CSPplantcapitalcostbreakdowns,2005.............................................................................95
Table22.AnnualCSPO&Mcostbreakdowns,2005..........................................................................96
Table23.Californiautilitywindplantinstallationssince2003.......................................................108
Table24.Sizedistributionandnumberofturbinesovertime........................................................113
Table25.Oceanwaveenergycostdata..............................................................................................127
Table26.GasificationbasedpowerplantprojectsunderconsiderationintheU.S.beyond2010
..........................................................................................................................................................131
Table27.Expectednewnuclearpowerplantapplications..............................................................145
Table28.OperatorsofU.S.reactors....................................................................................................147
Table29.Nucleardecommissioningcosts..........................................................................................154
Table30.Nuclearplantconstructionspendingprofile(%oftotalinstantcostperyear)...........156

vii

viii

Abstract
This2009reportupdatesthecostofgeneratingelectricityfortechnologiesifbuiltinCalifornia.
CaliforniaEnergyCommissionstaffprovidesfactorsthataffectcosts,includingcost
assumptions,for15renewabletechnologies,coalintegratedgasification,combinedcycle,and
nuclearpowergenerationalternativesforutilityscalegenerationtechnologies.Thesecostsare
usefulinevaluatingthefinancialfeasibilityofagenerationtechnologyandforcomparingthe
costsofbuildingandoperatingoneparticularenergytechnologywithanother.Theseestimates
updatethe2007costofgeneration,basedonempiricaldatacollectedfromoperatingfacilities,
researchfromprimarysources,actualcostsandsurveysofexpectedcostsfromexpertsinthe
field,andreferencedocuments.Thisreportdetailsarangeofinstantandinstalledcostswith
projectedcostsbasedontwoyearsofsignificantgrowthinrenewabletechnologies,changesin
materialcosts,andinflation.

Keywords:Renewableenergy,costofgeneration,biomass,geothermal,hydropower,solar,
parabolictrough,photovoltaic,PV,thermalsolar,windenergy,oceanwave,integrated
gasificationcombinedcycle,IGCC,nuclear

ix

Executive Summary
ThisstudyexaminesthecostsofrenewableelectricitygenerationinCaliforniatosupportthe
costofgenerationmodelingworkoftheElectricityAnalysisOffice.Inadditiontorenewable
electricitycostofgenerationassessment,nuclearandintegratedgasificationcombinedcycle
generationarealsoexamined.TheCaliforniaEnergyCommissionistaskedwithdeveloping
robustcostofgenerationestimates,backedbysolidresearchleveragingthefullassessmentof
previousresearchonthecostofgeneration,costdriversandtrends,andexpectedcost
trajectoriesforfuturecosts.AllofthesedataarethenusedbytheEnergyCommissionto
estimatethelevelizedcostofgenerationbytechnology.1
Inthelastseveralyears,Californiahasexperiencedtremendousactivityintherenewable
energymarket,largelydrivenbyseveralkeypiecesoflegislation.Thefollowingtableoutlines
somerecentlegislationthathasbeenadoptedthatislikelytohaveasignificantimpactonthe
costofgenerationforrenewablesaswellasconventionalgeneration.
Table 1. Recent California Legislation That May Affect Cost of Generation
Bill

Author

Year
Passed

Summary

SB1

Murray
(Chapter
132)

2006

SB 107

Simitian
(Chapter
464)

2006

SB
1250

Perata
(Chapter
512)

2006

AB
2189

Blakeslee
(Chapter
747)

2006

SB 1 establishes in statute the California Solar Initiative with a


goal of 3,000 megawatts of new solar produced electricity by
the end of 2016. The California Solar Initiative Program has a
$3.35 billion budget that will be administered by the California
Public Utilities Commission, Energy Commission, and publicly
owned utilities.
SB 107 accelerates Californias Renewables Portfolio
Standard targets by requiring Californias retail sellers of
electricity to increase renewable energy purchases by at least
1 percent per year with a target of 20 percent renewable
energy by 2010. It also requires the publicly owned utilities to
file reports with the Energy Commission that outline their
specific Renewables Portfolio Standard goals and progress
towards the goals.
SB 1250, combined with SB 107, continues the authorization
of the Energy Commissions ongoing use of public goods
charge funds for the period of 2007-2012 for the continued
operation of the Energy Commissions Renewable Energy
Program.
AB 2189 modifies the Renewables Portfolio Standard
eligibility requirements for small hydroelectric generation
facilities regarding efficiency improvements that result in
increased capacity.

1Levelizedcostistheconstantannualcostthatisequivalentonapresentvaluebasistotheactualannual

costs,whicharethemselvesvariable.


Bill

Author

Year
Passed

Summary

AB 32

Nez

2006

Global Warming Solutions Act sets mandatory targets for


greenhouse gas emission reductions. Commits to reducing
greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2010 (11 percent
below business as usual), to 1990 levels by 2020 (25 percent
below business as usual), and 80 percent below 1990 levels
by 2050. Requires the California Air Resources Board and
the Energy Commission to determine baselines and create
systems to track greenhouse gas emissions.

Source: California Energy Commission

TheambitiousgoalsaRenewablesPortfolioStandardof20percentby2010and33percentby
2020,3,000megawatts(MW)ofphotovoltaicsinstalledwithinadecade,andan11percent
reductioningreenhousegasemissionsby2010areambitiousbutachievable.
TheEnergyCommissionsworkinthepreviousintegratedenergypolicyreportsconfirmthat
thetechnicalpotentialforrenewablesinCaliforniaandtheWesternElectricityCoordinating
Councilregiondwarfsthesegoals.Inaddition,developersofrenewableenergypowerplants
andthesolarphotovoltaicindustryhaverespondedtoincreaseddemandforrenewableenergy
withenthusiasm.TheEnergyCommissionintendstobridgetheestablishedpolicybackdrop
andthesurgingrenewablemarkettoconverttechnicalpotentialintoreality.
KEMA,Inc.(KEMA)performedadetailedassessmentofthegenerationtechnologiesthatmight
beavailableinthenext20years.Foreachtechnology,KEMAassessedcostdriversandtrends
todevelopinputvariablesfortheEnergyCommissionslevelizedcostmodel.Toprovidethis
information,researchersperformedthefollowing:

Literaturereviewandidentificationofrenewableenergyandtwononrenewableenergy
technologieslikelytobedeployedinCaliforniaoverthenext20years,alongwith
identificationofthescaleatwhichtheyarelikelytobedeployed.

Costdriversandtrendanalysisforeachlikelycontributingtechnologyandanalysisof
factorsthatdeterminetherange(high,average,andlow)ofexpectedcosts.

Costmodelinputforutilityscaletechnologies,includingcurrentnominalcostsand
plausibleminimumandmaximumcostsforeachutilityscaletechnology,brokendown
intoinputvariablesthatareusedintheEnergyCommissionslevelizedcostanalysis.

Expectedpathsforfuturecostsforutilityscalegenerationtechnologies,plusa
discussionoffactorsthatdeterminethesecosts,asthebasisforcalculatinglevelized
energycosts.

Thefourtopicslistedaboveareaddressedforutilityscaletechnologiesintheinterimproject
report.Thefinalprojectreportwillalsoaddresscommunityandbuildingscaletechnologiesas
wellassummarizekeyfindingsandrecommendations.

1.0 Introduction

RenewableenergydeploymentinCaliforniaisexpectedtoaccelerateintheneartermin
responsetolegislationidentifyingsupplyportfoliotargetsandclimatemitigationtargets.
Relatedpolicydevelopmentmustbebasedonthebestpossibleeconomicinformation,
especiallythecostofbulkrenewableenergyelectricitygeneration.Inaddition,twonon
renewableenergytechnologiesareexaminedinsupportofthecostofgenerationmodeling
workoftheElectricityAnalysisOfficeandascomparisonstotherenewableenergy
technologies.Thetwononrenewableenergytechnologiesincludedinthisreportarenuclear
andintegratedgasificationcombinedcycle(IGCC).Toprovidethisinformation,four
fundamentaltopicswereaddressed:

Literaturereviewandidentificationofrenewableenergyandtwononrenewableenergy
technologieslikelytobedeployedinCaliforniaoverthenext20years,alongwith
identificationoftheinfrastructurescalesatwhichtheyarelikelytobedeployed.

Costdriversandtrendanalysisforeachlikelycontributingtechnologyandquantitative
analysisoffactorsthatdeterminetherangeofexpectedcosts.

Costmodelinputforutilityscaletechnologies,includingcurrentnominalcostsand
plausibleminimumandmaximumcostsforeachutilityscaletechnology,brokendown
intocategoriesthatareusedinCaliforniaEnergyCommission(EnergyCommission)
levelizedcostanalysis.

Expectedpathsforfuturecostsforutilityscalegenerationtechnologies,plus
quantitativediscussionoffactorsthatdeterminethesecosts,asthebasisforcalculating
levelizedenergycosts.

Thefourtopicslistedaboveareaddressedforutilityscaletechnologiesintheinterimproject
report.Thefinalprojectreportwillalsoaddresscommunityandbuildingscaletechnologies
andthefollowingtwotopics:

Reconciliationofcurrentlyquotedforwardenergypricesandcurrentlyestimated
levelizedcosts,discussingtherelativeimpactofvariousfactorsotherthanovernight
constructioncostthatdeterminepricing.Reconciliationherereferstoexplainingthe
differencesbetweenpricesandcosts,identifyingthefactorsthataccountforthe
differences,andprovidingestimatesofthesizesofthesefactors.

Costsandcosttrajectoriesforcommunityandbuildingscalerenewableenergy
technologies,alongwithminimumandmaximumcostsandtrajectoriesforthesescales.

Theprojectwasundertakentoachievethefollowingobjectives:

Criticallyreview,adjustandaugmentthecontentofAppendixBofEnergyCommission
Report#CEC2002007011SF,December2007(ComparativeCostsofCaliforniaCentral


StationElectricityGenerationTechnologies,KleinandRednam)inordertocreate
comparableinformationforthe2009IntegratedEnergyPolicyReport(IEPR).

UpdaterenewableenergyandnonrenewableenergyinputsforuseintheEnergy
CommissionsCostofGenerationModel,usedinpreparingthe2009IEPR.

Reconcilepriceandcostinformationforrepresentativeutilityscalepowerpurchases.

Estimatecostsandtrajectoriesforcommunityandbuildingscaletechnologies.

Thefollowingsectiondescribestheprojectapproachfollowedbyasectiononprojectoutcomes.
TheProjectOutcomessectionofthereportincludesanintroductiontothetechnologiesthat
wereselectedwiththesectionsfollowingorganizedbytechnology.

2.0 Project Approach

Thissectiondiscussesthetaskstheresearchteamundertookandwhattheteamdidto
accomplishtheprojectobjectives.

2.1. Task 1: Technologies


Theresearchteamundertookthefollowingactivities:

Conductedatechnicalandanalyticalcritiqueofreferencedocuments,including:

ComparativeCostsofCaliforniaCentralStationElectricityGeneration
Technologies2publishedbytheCaliforniaEnergyCommissioninDecember
2007.

CostsandsupplycurvesgeneratedinsupportofCaliforniaPublicUtilities
Commission(CPUC)GreenhouseGas(GHG)ModelingProject.Finalresultsand
GHGCalculatorv2bfromE3.3

CostsestimatesfoundandusedintheRETIPhase1Aand1BreportsbyBlack&
VeatchinRenewableEnergyTransmissionInitiativePhase1A.4

RecommendedutilityscaleREtechnologiesforcostanalysiswithtechnicalandmarket
justification.UtilityscaleREtechnologiesaregenerallydefinedasthoseover20MW.

Identifiedtheprimaryexistingcommercialembodimentofeachutilityscaletechnology
inCalifornia.Thetermcommercialembodimentisintendedtodescribethemost
prevalentcommerciallyavailableapplicationofatechnology.Asanexample,inthecase
ofsolarthermalpower,theprimaryexistingapplicationisconcentratingparabolic
troughcollectors,augmentedbynaturalgasfiredboilersandsupplyingheattosteam
Rankinepowerplantsinthe50MWto80MWsizerange.

Identifiedtheexpectedprimarycommercialembodimentin2018.

TheresearchteamwillrevisitTask1forthecommunityandbuildingscaletechnologiesinthe
secondphaseoftheprojectandincludefindingsinthefinalprojectreport.

2Klein,JoelandAnithaRednam.ComparativeCostsofCaliforniaCentralStationElectricityGeneration
Technologies.CaliforniaEnergyCommission,ElectricitySupplyAnalysisDivision,CEC2002007011,
December2007.http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC2002007011/CEC2002007011
SF.PDF.
3GHGCalculatorv2b,updatedon5/13/08.http://www.ethree.com/CPUC_GHG_Model.html.
4Black&Veatch.RenewableEnergyTransmissionInitiativePhase1A(DraftReport).Black&Veatch,RETI
StakeholderSteeringCommittee,ProjectNumber149148.0010,March2008.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/RETI10002008001/RETI10002008001D.PDF.


Pleasealsonotethatthisstudyprovidesestimatesforcostofgenerationtechnologiesbutdoes
notprovidelevelizedlifecyclecostestimatesforthevariousenergytechnologies.5

2.2. Task 2: Cost Drivers


ForeachoftheutilityscaletechnologiesidentifiedinTask1,theresearchteamidentified:

MarketandindustrychangessinceAugust2007thathavemateriallyaffectedcosts.

Currenttrendsthatwillmateriallyaffectfuturecosts.

PrimarygeneralandCaliforniaspecificcostdrivers(e.g.,plantscale,globalindustry
manufacturingscale,resourcequality,plantlocation,capacityfactorincaseofstorage
coupledplants,overnightcost).

2.3. Task 3: Current Costs


ForeachoftheutilityscaletechnologiesidentifiedinTask1,theresearchteamidentified:

Nominal2009costsintheformatrequiredfortheEnergyCommissionslevelizedCost
ofGenerationmodel.

Plausibleminimum,average,andmaximumcostswithtechnicaljustification.Tothe
extentpossible,plausiblemaximumisdefinedasacostmorethanonecompetitive
playerwouldbewillingtopay,andplausibleminimumisdefinedasistheleastcost
recordedabsenthiddensubsidies.Insomecases,uniquesitecharacteristicswerealso
considered.

Theprocessforcompilingdataoftheplausibleminimum,average,andmaximumcostcases
wasdiscussedbetweentheresearchteamandEnergyCommissionstaff.Establishingranges
betweenminimum,average,andmaximumcostscircumscribestherangeofmarketcoststhat
wouldreasonablybeencounteredintheactualdevelopment,construction,andoperation
withineachtechnology.
Foreachtechnology,sizerangeswereidentifiedfortotalplantcapacitytodetermineminimum,
average,andmaximumplantcapacitiesinmegawatts(MW).Plantcapacityfactorsandforced
outagerateswerealsodefinedusingminimum,average,andmaximumvalues,reflectingthe
rangesidentifiedthroughresearchedvalues.NorthAmericanEnergyReliabilityCorporation
(NERC)/GeneratingAvailabilityDataSystem(GADS)fleetreliabilitydatawereusedfor
technologieswheredatawasavailable,andinthecaseofwind,solar,andbiomasstechnologies,
otherresearchsourceswereidentified.Plantheatratesandfuelusagedataweresimilarly
modeledforlow/average/highcases,basedonactualoperatingplantcharacteristics;datawas
compiledforeachfossiltechnologyfuelusagereflectinginservicevaluesforgeneratingplants.

5Levelizedlifecyclecostestimatesincludethetotalcostofaprojectfromconstructiontoretirementand
decommissioning.Theresearchteamscostestimatesfornuclearenergydonotincludenuclearplant
decommissioningandwastedisposalcosts.


Fuelcostestimateswerederivedwithrangesforeachfueltypebasedonpublishedstudiesand
datafromcoal,naturalgas,uranium,andbiomass.
Overnightandinstalledcapitalcostvaluesforminimum,average,andmaximumcostswere
definedthroughtwoapproaches.Forovernightcosts,capitalcostrangesweredeveloped
throughdocumentedplantcosthistoriesandadjustedforcapacityscalingeffects,notingthat
theovernightcostperkilowattdependsonthetotalcapacityoftheplant.Furtheradjustments
toovernightcostweremadetoreflectthecostdriveranalysis,showinglearningeffectsof
cumulativegeneration.Theseexperiencecurveeffectswerereflectedontheyeartoyear
overnightcostswithinthegenerationtechnologydataset.
Forinstalledcapitalcostvalues,thelow/average/highcasesweredevelopedprimarilythrough
theuseofdifferingconstructiontimedurationswheresuchdatacouldbeverifiedbythe
researchteam.Thisdatareflectstheuncertaintyinconcepttocompletiontimeforeach
technologyandresultsincostimpactduetoadditionalinterestcostsandallowanceforfunds
usedduringconstructioncharges(AFUDC).
Theuseandapplicationofrenewableenergyandothertaxincentiveswerealsoconsideredand
modeledwiththeinputdatasettodeveloplow/average/highcostdatavalues.Thesetax
incentiveswereappliedforeachtechnology,basedontheircurrentvalidityandspecific
applicationforeachtechnology.
Thedatasetcontainscellsforlow/average/highvaluesforeachinputtothecostofgeneration
model,andeachspecificinputismodeledwithitsownlow/average/highcostrange.Onemay
notdrawtheconclusionthatthesecostsarespecifictoaparticularsizeprojectforexample,
thelowplantcapacityautomaticallygeneratesthehighestoperatingcost.Instead,thedatasets
werecompiledsothateachtechnologydimension(e.g.,capacity,forcedoutagerate,heatrate,
overnightcost)hasitsownlow/average/highrangeandisnotassociatedwitharelative
capacityorsizeproject.Inthatway,thedataismodeledsuchthattherangeofinputsdefining
low/average/highcostsreflectboundariesforeachtechnology;andtheminimumcost
representsthelowestplausiblerangeofcost,andthemaximumcostrepresentsthehighest
plausiblerangeofcostforeachtechnology.

2.4. Task 4: Expected Cost Trajectories


Theresearchteamdevelopedaspreadsheetmodelusingcostdriverinformationtoestimate
futurecosttrajectories(costsexpectedineachyearfrom20092029)oftherecommendedutility
scaletechnologiesidentifiedinTask1.
Thespreadsheetmodeltodevelopexpectedcosttrajectoriesforeachtechnologywasdeveloped
usingtheconceptoflearningeffectsandtheexperiencecurve.Experiencecurvesareusedin
developingtechnologypolicybecausetheyshowthemarketeffectsofincreasedcumulative
production.Asthemarketadoptsanewenergytechnology,manufacturersgaineconomiesof
scaleduetoincreasedproduction,andtheylearnhowtoimprovethetechnology.Bothofthese
factorsovertimecanlowerunitcostsofproduction.


Theprimarydefinitionofexperiencecurveeffectsiscapturedinwhatistermedtheprogress
ratioforatechnology.Simplyput,theprogressratioistheexpectedpercentagedecreasein
unitcost,basedonadoublingofcumulativeoutputofthattechnology.Asanexample,a
technologythathasaprogressratioof0.90wouldindicatethatadoublingofinstalledunitsfor
thattechnologychoicewouldresultina10%unitcostreduction.6
Energytechnologiesgenerallyhavetechnologyprogressratiosintherangefrom0.70to1.00,
withthelowernumberindicatingarapidlearningrateandloweringofunitcostsovertime
(newtechnologydeployment)andprogressratiosclosetounityreflectingextremelymature
technologieswithonlysmall,incrementallearningeffects.
Theresearchteamnotedthatitispossiblefortechnologiestoexhibitchangesinprogressratios
overtime,duetoseveralfactors:

DisruptiveTechnologyAdvancesbreakthroughdevelopmentsinatechnologythat
significantlyaffectunitcostand/orpaceoflearningforamanufacturer.

PriceSubsidiesArtificialpricesubsidiescanalterthebalancebetweenexperienceand
learning,andmitigatelearningeffects,sincethepricesignalisnotatruecompetitive
marketsignal.

ChangesinMacroeconomicFundamentalsTheycanaffectsupply/demandbalance
andadoptionratesoftechnologies,enhancingorinhibitinglearningeffectsofadditional
production.

Thesechangesovertimedemonstratethatonevalueforprogressratioandexperienceeffectsis
generallynotsuitableformodelingtheexperiencecurveovertime,especiallyforthose
technologieswithhighlearningeffects.Theresearchteamthusmodeledarangeoflearning
effects,withdocumentedprogressratiosforeachtechnologymodifiedthroughtheuseofkey
costdriversthatwereidentifiedforeachtechnologychoice.
Inthemodelingoftheselearningeffects,thetechnologyprogressratioandexperienceeffects,
whichtypicallyrangefrom0.70to1.00,weremodifiedthroughtheuseofcostdriverratesof
changeratios.Thesecostdriverratiosbeginatunity(1.00)asabasecase,whichreflectsthe
normal,expectedexperiencecurve,andtheratioscanbeweightedasgreaterthanunity,which
implyalesserlearningeffect,orlessthanunity,whichimplyagreater,acceleratedlearning
effectthanthenormalexperiencecurve.
Costdriversweresubjectivelyevaluatedbasedontwofactors:importanceweighting(how
importantthedriveristothetechnologycostimprovement)andlow/highrangestoreflectthe
subjectivevariationinlearningeffect.Foreachtechnologyandtheresearchedtechnology

6InternationalEnergyAgency.ExperienceCurvesforEnergyTechnologyPolicy.OrganizationofEconomic
CooperationandDevelopment(OECD),2000.


progressratio,eachcostdriverwasmodeledatunityfortheaveragecaseandthenmodifiedfor
thelow/highcasesbasedontheresearchteamtechnicalfindingsandjudgment.
Amodifiedprogressratio,calculatedastheproductoftheexpectedtechnologyexperience
curve(shownasTechnologyProgressRatiointheexamplebelow)andtheweightedaverage
costdrivereffect,combinestheeffectsofthebaselinetechnologyexperiencecurveand
identifiedcostdriversthatmighteitheraccelerateordeceleratethecostimprovements
associatedwithanincreaseinthecumulativeinstalledbaseforeachtechnology.Thismodified
progressratioisusedforfinalcostmodelingforeachtechnology.
Theweightedaveragecasesforlow/average/highcostdrivereffectsusingthemodified
progressratiowerethenmodeledusingthestandardexperiencecurveequationandyearover
yearpricechangesidentified.Thesepricechangeswereusedtodeveloptheforecasted
overnightcostsforeachtechnology.

2.4.1. Method
Theexperiencecurveeffectsandcostdriversweredevelopedforeachtechnologybycombining
theexpectedvariabilityinidentifiedcostdriverswiththepublisheddatareflectingtheexpected
learningcurveeffectsforeachrenewableenergytechnology,aspublishedbytheU.S.
DepartmentofEnergy(DOE)andotherindustrysources.Theresearchteammodifiedthe
experiencecurveeffectsbytheweightedimpacteachcostdrivercouldhaveonthetechnology
anditscosttrajectory.
AmodelwasdevelopedtocalculatetheseimpactsandisshownbelowinTable2:
Table 2. Cost Driver Analysis Worksheet Example
Cost Driver Analysis

Technology:
Onshore Wind
Technology Progress Ratio:
0.900

7
Rate of Change

1
2
3
4
5

Cost Driver
Turbine Costs
Reliability
Permitting/Site Selection
Land Acquisition
Transmission Costs
Total and Averages:
Modified Progress Ratio:

Percentage
75.0%
10.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
100.0%

Low
Average
0.95
1.00
0.97
1.00
0.98
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.97
1.00
0.96
1.00
0.86
0.90

High
1.10
1.04
1.02
1.01
1.10
1.09
0.98

Source: KEMA

Forexample,theabovesheetshowsthecalculationsmadefortheonshorewindrenewable
technology.Thetechnologyprogressratioforonshorewindisidentifiedas0.90asabaseline


fromindustrypublisheddata.7Thisbaselinevalueforexperiencecurveeffectsisthen
subjectivelyadjustedbyeachcostdriverratio,andthenaweightedaverageistakenthattakes
thesubjectiveeffectsofthesecostdriversintoaccount.
Thecalculatedweightedaverageisthenshownasthemodifiedprogressratio,ortheexpected
rangeinlearningcurveeffectswithadditionalcumulativecapacityovertime.Inthecase
above,theexpectedrangeinmodifiedprogressratioisfromalowvalueof0.86toahighvalue
of0.98,whichimpliesthatwithadoublingofoverallinstalledcapacity,theexpecteddecrease
incostswouldbebetween2%and14%,withanaverageexpecteddecreaseof10%.
Thenextstepincomputingexperiencecurveeffectsandoverallcosttrajectoriesisdeveloping
reliableestimatesforcumulativeinstalledcapacityforeachtechnology.Thiswasdonethrough
twoprimaryresearchsources:theEnergyInformationAdministrations(EIA)AnnualEnergy
Outlookfor20098andEuropeanWindEnergyAssociations(EWEA)PurePowerreport,9
whichprovidesglobaldataforoffshorewindtechnologyadoption.Cumulativeinstalled
capacityforecastswerecompiledforeachtechnologyusingthisreferencesourcedata.
Theoverallcosttrajectorydevelopedinayearoveryearfashionwascomputedusingthe
standardexperiencecurveformula:

Cumulative _ GenerationY
Modified _ Pr ogress _ Ratio
Cost _ Ratio

^ln
2

Cumulative _ GenerationY 1
Thiscostratiowasdevelopedinthecostdriverdataworksheetsforeachtechnologyandthen
usedtoadjusttheforecastedyearlycostsforeachtechnology.

2.5. Task 5: Price/Cost Reconciliation


Inalaterphaseoftheproject,theresearchteamwill:

AnalyzepubliclyavailablepricinginformationforrepresentativeutilityscaleREpower
purchasesinCalifornia.

Reconcilerepresentativepricesandestimatedlevelizedlifecyclecosts,includingthe
relativeimpactoffactorsotherthancostthatdeterminepricing,e.g.,stateandfederal
incentivesandtaxpolicies,financingassumptions,andthecostofcredit.

TheprojectoutcomesfromtheresearchteamsanalysisforTask5willbepresentedinthefinal
projectreport.

7U.S.DOE.EnergyInformationAdministration.LearningCurveEffectsforNewTechnologies.
8U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.EnergyInformationAdministration.AnnualEnergyOutlook2009
(AEO2009).DOE/EIA0383(2009),March2009.
9Zervos,Arthourous,ChristianKjaer,.PurePower:WindEnergyScenariosupto2030.EuropeanWind
EnergyAssociation,March2008.

10

2.6. Task 6: Community and Building Scale Renewable Energy


Costs
Inalaterphaseoftheproject,theresearchteamwill:

IdentifysourcesofrelevantU.S.costinformationforrenewableenergyheatingand
coolingtechnologies.

Estimatenominalcostsandexpectedcosttrajectoriesforrecommendedcommunityand
buildingscaleREtechnologies.

Presentplausibleminimumandmaximumcostsandcosttrajectoriesforsame,with
explanationoffactorsthatvaryandcausecoststovary.

TheprojectoutcomesfromtheresearchteamsanalysisforTask6willbepresentedinthefinal
projectreport.

11

12

3.0 Project Outcomes

Thissectionpresentstheresearchresults.ThetechnologiesselectedinTask1arepresentedin
Section3.1alongwithadescriptionofthemethodforselectingthetechnologies.Notethatthe
communityandbuildingscaletechnologieswillbeincludedinthefinalprojectreport.The
sectionsfollowing3.1areorganizedbytechnologyandincludeoutcomesfromTasks2,3,and4.

3.1. Technologies
Theresearchteamconductedatechnicalandanalyticalcritiqueofreferencedocumentsinorder
torecommendtechnologiesforcostanalysis.Theinterimprojectreportincludestheresearch
teamsrecommendationsforutilityscaletechnologies(i.e.,>20MW).Thefinalprojectreport
willincluderecommendedcommunityscaleREtechnologies(i.e.,120MW)andbuilding
scaleREtechnologies(i.e.,<1MW).

3.1.1. Technical and Analytical Critique of Reference Documents


Tosetthefoundationfortheresearchefforts,KEMAperformedatechnicalandanalytical
critiqueofthefollowingkeyreferencedocuments:

ComparativeCostsofCaliforniaCentralStationElectricityGenerationTechnologies10
publishedbytheCaliforniaEnergyCommissioninDecember2007.

CostsandsupplycurvesgeneratedinsupportofCaliforniaPublicUtilitiesCommission
(CPUC)GreenhouseGas(GHG)ModelingProject.FinalresultsandGHGCalculator
v2bfromE3.11

CostsestimatesfoundandusedintheRETIPhase1Aand1BreportsbyBlack&Veatch
inRenewableEnergyTransmissionInitiativePhase1A.12

Allofthesestudieshavepublishedassumptionsaboutthecostofgenerationforrenewable
technologies,nuclear,andIGCC.KEMAsreviewofthestudiesindicatesthatfourbroad
categoriesofbenefitsandcostsareassessed,including:

Generationcosts

10Klein,JoelandAnithaRednam.ComparativeCostsofCaliforniaCentralStationElectricityGeneration
Technologies.CaliforniaEnergyCommission,ElectricitySupplyAnalysisDivision,CEC2002007011,
December2007.http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC2002007011/CEC2002007011
SF.PDF.
11GHGCalculatorv2b,updated5/13/08.http://www.ethree.com/CPUC_GHG_Model.html.
12Black&Veatch.RenewableEnergyTransmissionInitiativePhase1A(DraftReport).Black&Veatch,RETI
StakeholderSteeringCommittee,ProjectNumber149148.0010,March2008.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/RETI10002008001/RETI10002008001D.PDF.

13

Transmissioncosts

Integrationcosts

Environmentalbenefitsandotherexternalities

Generationcostsarealwaysconsideredsincetheygenerallyformthebasisofcostestimation.
Treatmentoftransmissioncosts,integrationcosts,andenvironmentalbenefitsisnotconsistent
andtreatmentofexternalitiesisevenlesscommon.
Thethreestudiesarebrieflydescribedbelowfollowedbycomparisontablesofkeyinput
assumptions.
2007 Cost of Generation Report
TheEnergyCommissionsCostofGenerationReport(COG)provideslevelizedcostestimates
forvariouscentralstationgenerationtechnologiesinCalifornia.Thelevelizedcostestimates
weredevelopedusingtheEnergyCommissionsCostofGenerationModelwhichwasinitially
developedtosupportthe2003IntegratedEnergyPolicyReport(IEPR).The2007Costof
GenerationReportusedanewlyrefinedCostofGenerationModeltoestimatethelevelized
costsofenergyforthreeclassesofdevelopers:investorownedutilities,publiclyownedutilities,
andmerchantplants.Thereportsummarizesthelevelizedcostestimatesinaclearandconcise
mannerforeightconventionaltechnologiesandtwentyrenewabletechnologiesforthethree
classesofdevelopers.Italsodocumentskeyinputassumptionsandcomparesthe2007input
assumptionstothoseusedinthe2003IEPRforecastandEIAestimates.Ageneraldescription
oftheEnergyCommissionsModelandmethodisprovidedaswellasuserinstructionsand
explanationofthescreeningandsensitivityanalysiscomponentsoftheModel.
CPUC 2008 GHG Modeling Project
ThecostandsupplycurvesgeneratedbytheCaliforniaPublicUtilitiesCommission(CPUC)
GHGModelingProjectin2008provideabenchmarkforwhichtocomparethekeyassumptions
andlevelizedcostestimatesprovidedinthisstudy.TheanalysisusedaGHGcalculator
developedbyE3andreviewedthroughthestakeholderprocessundertheCPUCGHGdocket
R.0604009.
TheCPUCisscheduledtocompletethefirstphaseoftheimplementationanalysisinearly2009.
Theintentistoconductarenewablepenetrationbarrieranalysisandtodevelopplausible
resourceportfoliosforCaliforniaIndependentSystemOperator(CaliforniaISO)toanalyze
further.13Inaddition,theanalysiswillestimatenetcostandrateimpacts,lookingatcostand
rateimpactsofthe33%RenewablesPortfolioStandard(RPS)portfoliorelativetoa20%RPS
referencecasebaseline.ThoughtheresultsoftheCPUC2009analysisarenotyetavailable,
KEMAassessedthestudybasedonpubliclyavailablepresentations.14AccordingtoaCPUC

13Thestudydoesnotrecommendoptimalrenewableresourceportfolios.
14CPUC,Aspen,E3,andPlexos.33%ImplementationAnalysisWorkingGroupMeeting.CPUC,2008.

14


presentation,RETIprovidedusefulinputsforthe2008CPUCGHGModelingProjectandthe
pendingCPUC33%ImplementationAnalysis.
TheE3calculatorconsidersfactorssuchasintegrationcostsandrenewableimpactonwholesale
prices.Thestudyperformedasensitivityanalysisthatdeterminedfourkeydriversofresultsin
theelectricitysector:

Loadgrowthassumptions.

Fuelprices.

EEachievements.

Carbondioxide(CO2)marketcosts.

InclusionofCO2marketcostshasbecomeincreasinglyimportantforplanningpurposesin
California.AccordingtoE3,CO2costsaretreatedasanexogenousinputtothemodel.The
analystusingtheGHGcalculatorinputsaCO2price,aswellasanyassumptionsaboutoffset
prices,andwhetherCO2permitsareauctionedorallocated,amongotherCO2marketdesign
questions.CO2costsarethencalculatedandallocatedtoloadservingentitiesdifferentlybased
ontheselectedscenario.CO2costsaretrackedonlyforretailprovidersandCO2coststo
existinggeneratorsarenottracked.
RETI 1A 2008 and IB 2009 Studies
AccordingtotheRETIReport,RETIsgoalistoidentifytransmissionfacilitieslikelytobe
requiredtomeeta33%RPSrequirementbytheyear2020.TheRETIIB2009studydeveloped
informationforrankingpotentialrenewableresourcesgroupedbygeographicproximity,
developmenttimeframe,sharedtransmissionconstraints,andeconomicbenefits.Italso
estimatedthevalueofenergybyconsideringtimeofdayandcapacityvalueofresource
(contributiontosystemreliability).Itthenconductedahighlevelscreeninganalysisranking
therenewablezonesbycosteffectiveness,environmentalconcerns,developmentandschedule
uncertainty,andotherfactors.Therenewablesresourcesrankingbygroupingisintendedto
assistintransmissionplanning.
TheRETIanalysishasnotyetincludedintegratedcostsinitsmethod.However,itappearsthat
thereisaplantoincludethesecostsmaybeincludedinfutureRETIanalysesshouldthe
informationbedevelopedinanappropriatemannerthatitwarrantsinclusioninthecost
estimates.Forinstance,furtherinformationonintegrationcostsareneededtosupport
estimatesonthecosttointegrateintermittentwindandsolarresources.
TransmissioncostscalculatedbyBlack&VeatchandusedinthePhase1economicranking
assumesimultaneousdeliveryofthefullnameplategeneratingcapacityofeverycompetitive
renewableenergyzone(CREZ).Thisconservativeapproachisappropriateforahighlevel
screeninganalysisyetwithoutdoubtoverstatestheamountandcostofthetransmission
facilitiesnecessarytomeetcurrentstateGHGandrenewableenergygoals.

15


ThemethodemployedbytheRETIteamincludesscenarioanalysistoanalyzetheeffectsof
differentpolicyscenarios,resourceportfoliosandtechnologyoptionsandcosts.Thismethod
allowedtheRETIanalysistoassesstheimpactsofuncertaintyontherankingprocess.TheRETI
analysisalsoappearstoincludecarboncostsbasedonaGHGadder.
Comparison of 2009 Analysis With the 2007 IEPR Data
Thefollowingtableprovidesacomparisonofthekeyassumptionspresentedinthe2007IEPR
andKEMAs2009analysis.

Table 3. Comparison between 2009 KEMA analysis and 2007 IEPR


Technology

Gross
Capacity
(MW)

Capacity
Factor (%)

Instant Cost
($/KW)

Fixed O&M
($/kW-Yr)

Variable O&M
($/MWh)

2009

2007

2009

2007

2009

2007

2009

2007

2009

2007

KEMA

IEPR

KEMA

IEPR

KEMA

IEPR

KEMA

IEPR

KEMA

IEPR

28

25

85%

85%

$3,200

$3,156

$99.50

$150.26

$4.47

$3.11

38

25

85%

85%

$2,600

$2,899

$160.00

$134.72

$6.98

$3.11

Biomass Cofiring

20

N/A

90%

N/A

$500

N/A

$15.00

N/A

$1.27

N/A

Biomass - IGCC

30

21.25

75%

85%

$2,950

$3,121

$150.00

155.44

$4.00

3.11

Geothermal - Binary

15

50

90%

95%

$4,046

$3,093

$47.44

$72.54

$4.55

$4.66

Geothermal - Flash

30

50

94%

93%

$3,676

$2,866

$58.38

$82.90

$5.06

$4.58

15

10

30%

52%

$1,730

$4,125

$17.57

$13.47

$3.48

$3.11

80

N/A

30%

N/A

$771

N/A

$12.59

N/A

$2.39

N/A

250

63.5

27%

27%

$3,687

$4,021

$68.00

$62.18

$0.00

$0.00

250

N/A

65%

N/A

$5,406

N/A

$68.00

N/A

$10.30

N/A

25

27%

22%

$4,550

$9,611

$68.00

$24.87

$0.00

$0.00

100

N/A

42%

N/A

$1,990

N/A

$13.70

N/A

$5.50

N/A

50

50

37%

34%

$1,990

$1,959

$13.70

$31.09

$5.50

$0.00

100

N/A

45%

N/A

$5,588

N/A

$27.40

N/A

$11.00

N/A

40

0.75

26%

15%

$2,587

$7,203

$36.00

$31.09

$12.00

$25.91

300

575

80%

60%

$2,250

$2,198

$41.70

$36.27

$6.67

$3.11

960

1000

86%

85%

$4,000

$2,950

$147.70

$140.00

$5.27

$5.00

Biomass Combustion Fluidized Bed Boiler


Biomass Combustion Stoker Boiler

Hydro Small Scale or


Developed Sites
Hydro Capacity
Upgrade
Solar - Parabolic Trough
Solar - Parabolic Trough
with Storage
Solar - Photovoltaic
(Single Axis)
Onshore Wind - Class 5
Onshore Wind
Class 3/4
Offshore Wind - Class 5
(2018 start date)
Ocean Wave (2018 start
date)
Coal - IGCC
Nuclear: WestinghouseAP1000

Source: KEMA and 2007 Integrated Energy Policy Report

16


NotestoTable:IfN/Aislisted,nodatawasavailable.Thehydrodevelopedsitescategoryisanalogoustothe
hydrosmallscalecategoryusedinthe2007IEPR.Grosscapacityreferstothegrosselectricalgenerationoutput,
Capacityfactorreferstothefullloadequivalentoperationalpercentageforaunit,andinstantcostreferstothe
costtobuildaunitimmediately(withoutconstructioninterestorescalationeffects).Theinstantcostfornuclear
energydoesnotincludedecommissioningornuclearwastedisposalcosts.

Keyobservationsinclude:

Thehydroelectricfordevelopedsiteswithoutpowerdiscrepancyininstantcostsis
primarilyduetoestimatedlicensingandmitigationcosts.KEMAexaminedtheIdaho
NationalLaboratory(INL)databaseofpotentialsitesandfoundthattheaverage
mitigationcostsweresubstantiallylessthanwhatwasestimatedin2007.

Thecapacityfactorforthehydrowasdeterminedthroughananalysisofexisting
hydroelectricplantsinCalifornia.Throughthisanalysis,theaveragecapacityfactorwas
foundtobemuchlowerthanthe2007IEPRestimate.

Solarphotovoltaic(PV)singleaxisinstantcostshavedecreasedsubstantiallysincethe
2007IEPR.Thesedecreasingcosttrendsareconsistentwithseveralresearchand
financialsourcesaswellassignificanteconomiesofscaleassociatedwiththechange
froma1megawatt(MW)unittoa25MWinstallation.Section3.5.3providesfurther
documentationofKEMAsassumptionsandsourcedocuments.

Oceanwaveisanewtechnologyresourcecategoryatthecentralscaleprojectlevelthat
isscheduledtobecomeaviableresourceinthe2018timeframe.Theinstantcostsarenot
directlycomparablebetweena40MWsystemandthe0.75MWpilotprojectthatwas
includedinthe2007IEPRanalysis.

The2007IEPRanalysisdidnotcoverClass5windspecifically.Rather,theyincluded
onebroadwindcategorythatalignscloselywithClass3and4.Thedataalignsquite
nicelybetweenthetwostudies.Costsperunitofcapacityandenergyareexpectedto
declineasmachinesizeandoutputperunitincreases.

Offshorewindisanewcategoryinthe2009analysisandisscheduledtocomeonlineinthe
2018timeframe.Offshorewindinstantcostsareestimatedtobeapproximatelytwicethatof
onshorewind.
ThecoalIGCCcapacityfactorissubstantiallyhigherintheKEMA2009analysis.Thischangeis
basedonactualplantdataandwarrantedbecauseastechnologiesmaturecapacityfactorstend
toincrease.
Theinstantcostofnuclearishigherinthe2009analysisversusthe2007IEPRestimate.The
KEMAdataisbasedontheWestinghouseAP1000system,and,asdiscussedinSection3.8of
thisreport,thenucleardataiswellsubstantiatedbyseveralresearchandfinancialsources.In
addition,theinformationisconsistentwithdataavailablefrommajoroperatorssuchasFlorida
PowerandLight,GeorgiaPower,andSouthCarolinaElectricandGasCompany.
The2009IEPRcostofgenerationreportwilladdtothepreviousanalysesofrenewable
resourcesinthefollowingmanner:

17

Thecostestimateswillbepresentedasarange(high,mid,low)ofestimatestoreflectthe
uncertaintyandotherfactorsthataffectprojectcosts.

Installedcostshavebeenaddedthatincludethecarryingcostofcapitalduringthe
averageconstructionperiods.

Includeexplicitlycosttrajectoriesaffectedbyspecificinfluencesintothefuture.

Clearlyincludingfinancingandotherconstructionrelatedcostsbeyondengineering
estimates.

Providingexplicitreferencedocumentationforrenewabletechnologies.

Assessingofcostsforcommunityorbuildingscaletechnologies.

Comparison of 2009 Analysis With the CPUC GHG Modeling Project


KEMAs2009analysisiscomparedtothedatathatwaspresentedintheCPUCGHGmodeling
projectinthefollowingtable.

Table 4. Comparison of 2009 analysis with the CPUC GHG model data

Technology

Gross Capacity
(MW)*

2009
KEMA
Biomass1

CPUC
E3 Data
2008$

Capacity
Factor (%)

2009
KEMA

CPUC
E3
Data
2008$

Instant Cost
($/KW)

2009
KEMA

85%

CPUC
E3
Data
2008$

Fixed O&M
($/kW-Yr)

2009
KEMA

$3,737

CPUC
E3 Data
2008$

Variable O&M
($/MWh)

2009
KEMA

$107.50

$0.01

Biomass
Combustion Fluidized Bed Boiler

28

85%

$3,200

$ 99.50

$ 4.47

Biomass
Combustion - Stoker
Boiler

38

85%

$2,600

$160.00

$ 6.98

Biomass Cofiring

20

90%

$500

$ 15.00

$ 1.27

Biomass - IGCC

30

75%

$2,950

$150.00

$ 4.00

Geothermal

90%

$3,011

CPUC
E3
Data
2008$

$154.92

Geothermal - Binary

15

90%

$4,046

$47.44

$ 4.55

Geothermal - Flash

30

94%

$3,676

$58.38

$ 5.06

Hydro - Small Scale


or Developed Sites

15

30%

50%

$1,730

$2,402

$17.57

$13.40

$ 3.48

$3.30

Hydro Capacity
Upgrade

80

N/A

30%

N/A

$771

N/A

$12.59

N/A

$2.39

N/A

Solar - Parabolic
Trough

250

27%

40%

$3,687

$2,696

$68.00

$49.63

Solar - Parabolic
Trough with Storage

250

N/A

65%

N/A

$5,406

N/A

$68.00

N/A

18

$10.30

N/A

Technology
Solar - Photovoltaic
(Single Axis)

Gross Capacity
(MW)*
25

Capacity
Factor (%)
27%

Wind3

Instant Cost
($/KW)
$4,550

37%

Fixed O&M
($/kW-Yr)
$68.00

$1,931

Variable O&M
($/MWh)
$

$ 28.51

Onshore Wind Class 5

100

42%

$1,990

$13.70

$ 5.50

Onshore Wind Class 3/4

50

37%

$1,990

$13.70

$ 5.50

Offshore Wind Class 5 (2018 start


date)

100

N/A

45%

N/A

$5,588

N/A

$27.40

N/A

$11.00

N/A

Ocean Wave (2018


start date)

40

N/A

26%

N/A

$2,587

N/A

$36.00

N/A

$12.00

N/A

Coal - IGCC

300

80%

85%

$2,250

$2,388

$41.70

$ 36.36

$ 6.67

$2.75

Nuclear:
Westinghouse AP1000

960

86%

85%

$4,000

$3,333

$147.70

$ 63.88

$ 5.27

$0.47

Notes: Source for CPUC E3 data is GHG Calculator v2b (May 2008).15
1) Biomass is listed as generic category in the CPUC GHG Model
2) Geothermal is listed as generic category in the CPUC GHG Model
3) Wind is listed as a generic category (no Class is listed)
* Capacity MW was listed as 1 MW in all cases
Source: KEMA and CPUC

Keyobservationsinclude:

CostcharacterizationsandheatratesintheGHGmodelcomeprimarilyfromtheEIA
2007AnnualEnergyOutlookReport.16

Directcomparisonofdataisdifficultduetolackofdataonunitsizeassumptions.

TheCPUCdatadoesnotincludesolarsingleaxisPVsystems,despiterecent
announcementsinCaliforniaforlargerscalecentralizedPVsystemapplications.

TheCPUCsolarthermalinstantcostestimatesaresubstantiallylowerthanthe2007
IEPR,a2006NationalRenewableEnergyLaboratory(NREL)studyandKEMAs2009
estimateforreasonsthatarenoteasytoidentify.KEMAscostdataisbasedona2006
NREL/Black&Veatchstudyandindependentresearchoncapitalcostsofprojectsin
SpainandtheUnitedStates.Costestimatesanddiscussionofmajormarketdriversare
includedinSection3.5.2.

15http://www.ethree.com/CPUC_GHG_Model.html.E3GHGCalculatorv2b,May2008.
16U.S.DOE.EnergyInformationAdministration.AssumptionstotheAnnualEnergyOutlook.2007.

19

KEMAsClass3and4winddataalignscloselywiththeCPUCdata.E3benchmarked
windcoststoarecentAmericanWindEnergyAssociation(AWEA)study.

AllcostsintheGHGmodelwereinflatedby25%peryearfortwoyearstoreflectthe
recentrapidinflationinconstructioncosts.Giventherecentdownturnintheeconomy,
thisassumptionmaynolongerbeappropriate.

TheCPUCGHGmodelincludessitespecifictransmissioninterconnectiondistancesfor
geothermal,solarthermal,windandhydro.Conversely,KEMAs2009assessment
includestransmissioncostsandvoltageconversionfromthegenerationplanttothe
localfirstpointofinterconnectiontothetransmissionordistributionnetwork.

TheCPUCdataincludeswindandsmallhydroincludefirmingresourcecostsbasedon
costofCTsneededtoreach90%availabilityonpeak.KEMAsassessmentdoesnot
includefirmingresourcecosts.

Comparison of 2009 Analysis With the RETI Project (Phase 1A and 1B)
The2009analysisiscomparedtothedatathatwaspresentedinRETI1Areportinthefollowing
table.
Table 5. Comparison between 2009 Analysis with the RETI 1A Data
Technology

Gross
Capacity
(MW)
2009

Solid Biomass1
Biomass Combustion Fluidized Bed Boiler*
Biomass Combustion Stoker Boiler*

RETI

Capacity
Factor (%)
2009

RETI

Instant Cost
($/KW)
2009

RETI

Fixed O&M
($/kW-Yr)
2009

RETI

Variable O&M
($/MWh)
2009

RETI

1A

1A

1A

1A

1A

35

80%

$4,000

$83

$11.00

28

85%

$3,200

$99.50

$4.47

38

85%

$2,600

$160.00

$6.98

Biomass Cofiring

20

35

90%

85%

$500

$400

$15.00

$10

$1.27

$0.00

Biomass - IGCC

30

N/A

75%

N/A

$2,950

N/A

$150.00

N/A

$4.00

N/A

Geothermal2

30

80%

$4,000

$0

$27.50

Geothermal Binary

15

90%

$4,046

$47.44

$4.55

Geothermal - Flash

30

94%

$3,676

$58.38

$5.06

Hydro - Developed Sites


or New as listed in RETI
Hydro Capacity Upgrade
or Incremental in RETI
Solar - Parabolic Trough

15

<50

30%

50%

$1,730

$3,250

$17.57

$15

$3.48

$6.00

80

300

30%

50%

$771

$1800

$12.59

$15

$2.39

$4.75

250

200

27%

28%

$3,687

$3,900

$68.00

$66

$0.00

$0.00

20


Technology

Solar - Parabolic Trough


with Storage
Solar - Photovoltaic
(Single Axis)

Gross
Capacity
(MW)

Capacity
Factor (%)

Instant Cost
($/KW)

Fixed O&M
($/kW-Yr)

Variable O&M
($/MWh)

250

N/A

65%

N/A

$5,406

N/A

$68.00

N/A

$10.30

N/A

25

20

27%

28%

$4,550

$7,000

$68.00

$35

$0.00

$0.00

Wind3

100

32%

$2,150

$50

$0.00

Onshore Wind - Class 5**

100

42%

$1,990

$13.70

$5.50

Onshore Wind - Class 3/4

50

37%

$1,990

$13.70

$5.50

Offshore Wind - Class 5

100

200

45%

40%

$5,588

$5,500

$27.40

$88.00

$11.00

$0

Ocean Wave

40

100

26%

35%

$2,587

$4,000

$36.00

$210

$12.00

$11.00

Coal IGCC

300

N/A

80%

N/A

$2,250

N/A

$41.70

N/A

$6.67

N/A

N/A

$147.70

N/A

$5.27

N/A

Nuclear: Westinghouse -

960
N/A
86%
N/A
$4,000
AP1000
Notes:
1) RETI 1A Solid Biomass.
2) Only one category of geothermal is listed in the RETI 1A Report.
3) Only one category of onshore wind is listed in the RETI 1A Report.
If ranges were presented in RETI 1A data, midpoints are listed in the table
Source: KEMA, Black & Veatch RETI 1A Report, 2008

Keyobservationsincludethefollowing:

Forthemostpart,theKEMAanalysisisfairlyconsistentwiththeRETIdata.

InformationonunderlyingassumptionsinRETIreportonthetwohydrocategoriesis
limited.Therefore,itisdifficulttoassesswhycostestimatesvarybetweenKEMA2009
dataandtheRETIIAdata.

TheRETIIAinstantcostdataforsolarparabolictroughappearstoalignnicelywith
KEMAsdata.

TheinstantcostforsolarPVsingleaxissystemsissignificantlylowerintheKEMA
studythantheRETIanalysis.TheKEMAdataisstronglysupportedbyrecentdeclining
pricetrendsasdiscussedinSection3.5.3.

21


Summary
MoreandmorestudiesthatassesscostofachievingRPSgoalsaretakingmacroeconomicand
externalitybenefitsintoaccount.Forinstance,somestudiesarenowassessingmacroeconomic
benefitsofrenewablegenerationincludingbenefitsassociatedwithgrowthintheclean
technologyindustryandemployment.Externalitiesshouldalsopotentiallybeexaminedeither
onaqualitativeorquantitativebasis.Forinstance,thebenefitassociatedwithrenewablesin
helpingtoserveasahedgeagainstthepriceoffossilfuelcouldpotentiallybequantified.
Futurestudiesshouldconsiderincluding:

CO2abatementcosts.

Qualitativeorquantitativeassessmentofotherkeyissuesthatmayinfluencecostsof
generationincluding:

Environmentalsensitivity.

Landuseconstraints.

Permittingrisk.

Transmissionconstraintsandequityissuesrelatedtowhobearsthecostofnew
transmission.

Systemintegrationcosts.

Systemdiversity.

Taxcreditavailabilityandstructure.

Financingavailability.

Macroeconomicbenefits(jobscreation,security,fueldiversity,etc.).

Naturalgaspriceandwholesalepriceeffectsassociatedwithincreased
penetrationofrenewables.

Otherriskfactors.

3.1.2. Method for Selecting Technologies


Theresearchteamusedthefollowingscreeningcriteriatoselectthemajorityoftechnologiesfor
costanalysis:

Isthetechnologycommerciallyavailableandinuseonanylevelotherthana
demonstrationphase?

ArethereanumberofprojectsinuseintheUnitedStatesorabroadthatusethis
technology?

IsthisaviabletechnologyforuseinCaliforniaorinneighboringstates?Ifso,whatis
theproductionpotential?

ArethereanyregulatoryissuesorotherrestrictionsforuseinCalifornia?

22

Isthereanyactualcostdataavailablefortheexistinginstallationsthatcanbeusedinthe
study?

Costanalysisforthetechnologiesthatpassedthesescreeningtechnologieswasconductedto
providedatastartingin2009(i.e.,currentstartdata).Inseveralcases,technologiesthatarenot
currentlycommerciallyavailablewereselectedforcostanalysis.Thesetechnologieswere
includedbecausethereissubstantialdemonstrationprojectactivityorsufficientinterestinthese
technologiestoexpectthatthesetechnologiescouldbecommerciallyavailableanddominantin
10yearstime.Sincenocostdatafromcommercialinstallationsisreadilyavailableforthese
technologies,theauthorsexpectgreateruncertaintyaroundthecosts.Theauthorshave
identifiedthesetechnologiesinthetablebelowwithadatastartdateof2018.Theutilityscale
technologiesfallingintothiscategoryareBiomassCoGasificationIGCC,OffshoreWind(Class
5),andOceanWave.

3.1.3. Utility-Scale Technologies


TheutilityscaletechnologiesrecommendedforcostanalysisareshowninTable6below.
Table 6. Central plant technology list for COG modeling project
Technology List
Biomass
Biomass Combustion - Fluidized Bed Boiler
Biomass Combustion - Stoker Boiler
Biomass Cofiring
Biomass Co-Gasification IGCC
Geothermal
Geothermal - Binary
Geothermal - Flash
Hydropower
Hydro - Small Scale (developed sites without power)
Hydro - Capacity upgrade for developed sites with
power
Solar
Solar - Parabolic Trough
Solar - Photovoltaic (Single Axis)
Wind
Onshore Wind - Class 5
Onshore Wind - Class 3/4
Offshore Wind - Class 5
Wave
Ocean Wave
Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle
IGCC without carbon capture
Nuclear

23

Gross Capacity
(MW)

Data Start Date

28
38
20
30

Current
Current
Current
2018

15
30

Current
Current

15
80

Current
Current

250
25

Current
Current

100
50
100

Current
Current
2018

40

2018

300

Current


Technology List

Gross Capacity
(MW)
960

Westinghouse - AP1000

Data Start Date


Current

Source: KEMA

3.1.4. Community-Scale Technologies


Communityscaletechnologieswillbediscussedinthefinalprojectreport.

3.1.5. Building-Scale Technologies


Buildingscaletechnologieswillbediscussedinthefinalprojectreport.

3.2. Biomass
3.2.1. Technology Overview
Theuseofbiomasstechnologyhasbeenapartoftheenergylandscapeforcenturiesandhas
becomeatechnologyofincreasingimportanceinthecurrentenergymix,bothinCalifornia,the
UnitedStates,andtherestoftheworld.
Biomass,ortheuseofplantbasedhemicellulosematerial,agriculturalvegetation,or
agriculturalwastesasfuel,hasthreeprimarytechnologypathways:

Pyrolysistransformationofbiomassfeedstockmaterialsintofuel(oftenliquidbiofuel)
byapplyingheatinthepresenceofacatalyst.

Combustiontransformationofbiomassfeedstockmaterialsintoenergythroughthe
directburningofthosefeedstocksusingavarietyofburner/boilertechnologiesalsoused
toburnmaterialssuchascoal,oilandnaturalgas.

Gasificationtransformationofbiomassfeedstockmaterialsintosyntheticgasthrough
thepartialoxidationanddecompositionofthosefeedstocksinareactorvesseland
oxidationprocess.

Ofthesetechnologypathways,thetwoprimaryembodimentsofelectricityproduction
technologyarefoundinthedirectcombustionandgasificationapproachestobiomass
combustionintoelectricityandenergy.Activeresearchintopyrolysisforbiofuelproductionis
activeandongoingbutisnotyetatcommercialscale.
Combustiontechnologiesarewidespread,andincludethefollowinggeneralapproaches:

StokerBoilerCombustionusessimilartechnologyforcoalfiredstokerboilersto
combustbiomassmaterials,eitherusingatravelinggrateoravibratingbed.Whilea
verymature,centuryoldtechnology,stokerboilerdesignshaveseentechnology
improvementsrecentlytoimprovebiomasscombustion,particularlyemissions
reductionsandincreasedcombustionefficiencies.

24

BiomassCofiringusesbiomassfuelburnedwithcoalproductsincurrenttechnology
pulverizedcoalboilersusedinutilityscaleelectricityproduction.Biomasscofiringisa
maturetechnologyinEuropeandisincreasinglybeingadoptedintheUnitedStates,
sinceitcansignificantlyenhancetheuseofbiomass,reducenetcarbonemissionsin
powergeneration,andhasshowngoodreliabilityinservice.

FluidizedBed(FB)Combustionusesaspecialformofcombustionwherethebiomass
fuelissuspendedinamixofsilicaandlimestonethroughtheapplicationofairthrough
thesilica/limestonebed.Fluidizedbedcombustionboilersareclassifiedeitheras
bubblingbed(FB)orcirculatingfluidizedbed(CFB)units.

Figure 1. Utility-scale fluidized bed gasifier


Source: Energy Products of Idaho

Gasificationtechnologies,whilerelativelyrecentintheirevolution,aregrowinginscopeand
scaleastheyareincreasinglybeingdevelopedandusedthroughouttheworld.Several
differentformsofgasificationtechnologiesexisttoday:

BiomassIntegratedGasificationCombinedCycle(IGCC)similartothecoalbased
IGCCprocess,exceptthebiomassfuelisgasifiedinareactorvesselpriortoits

25


introductionandcombustioninagasturbinegeneratorset.Gasturbinesdevelopedfor
coalbasedIGCCarewellsuitedforbiomassIGCCbecausebothgasifiedfuelsareof
sufficientBTUheatingvaluecontent.BiomassIGCCplantsarenowbeingintroducedas
technologydemonstrationunits.

Figure 2. Biomass IGCC plant representation


Source: KEMA

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of biomass IGCC process


Source: U.S. Department of Energy
(www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/howgasificationworks.html)

26

BiomassfluidizedbedgasificationusingaFBorCFBgasificationreactortoconvert
biomassfeedstocksintosyntheticfuelgas,whichisthenburnedinaconventionalcoal
ornaturalgasfiredutilityboiler.Thistechnologyisnotbeingadoptedforthecostof
generationstudybecausethecurrentcommercialembodimentisdirectfluidizedbed
combustionofbiomassforelectricalpowergeneration.

Figure 4. Utility-scale biomass fluidized bed gasifier


Source : Foster Wheeler

3.2.2. Biomass Combustion Fluidized Bed Boiler


Technical and Market Justification
Forbiomassfuels,fluidizedbedcombustionisrapidlyemergingasasystemofchoiceformany
powergenerationapplications.Theinherentfuelversatilityoffluidizedbedsystemsprovidesa
plantoperatortheabilitytoburnmanydifferentbiomassresourcetypes,includingthose
feedstockswithsignificantmoisturevariations.Themajorreasonforthisisthatthefluidized
bedcarryingmedium(typicallyamixofsilicasandand/oralumina)providesathermalflywheel

27


effectthatmaintainsconstantheatoutputandfluegasqualityevenwhenburningfuelsof
varyingmoisturecontent.17
Fluidizedbedboilersarecharacterizedaseitherbubblingbed(FB)orcirculatingfluidizedbed
(CFB),andthisisbasedonhowthebedmaterialisusedwithintheboiler.Inabubblingbed
(FB)unit,thebedmaterialstayswithinafixedzoneintheboiler,whileinacirculatingfluidized
bed(CFB)unit,thematerialissuspendedaboveanairzoneandiscirculatedthroughareturn
loopbacktothecombustionzonebymeansofamassorcyclonicseparator.

Figure 5. Circulating fluidized bed schematic diagram


Source: Babcock & Wilcox Image (www.babcock.com/products/boilers/images/cfb.gif)

ForbothFBandCFBunits,duetothehighqualitycombustionandnearcompletecarbon
burnout(99100%)ofbiomassfuelsources,ashiscarriedoverintothefluegasstream,requiring
theadditionofpostcombustionashremovalequipmentsuchascyclonesandbaghouses.The

17Overend,R.P.BiomassConversionTechnologies.Golden,CO:NationalRenewableEnergyLaboratory,
2002.

28


postcombustioncontrolsallowparticulateremovaltoNewSourcePerformanceStandards
(NSPS)forPM10.
Fluidizedbedboilertechnologyhaslongbeenincommercialuse,withmuchmorewidespread
adoptioninEuropethanintheUnitedStates,duetoseveralreasons.18First,fuelresourcesin
Europecanvarywidelyinqualityandprocessing,andtheabilityoffluidizedbedboilersto
handlewidelyvaryingfuelsisofadvantage.Second,fluidizedbedboilersexhibitsuperior
emissionsperformance,especiallynitrogenoxide(NOx)emissions,duetotheinherentlylow
firingtemperatureoftheboiler.Third,forcoalbasedfuels,theabilitytodirectlyinject
limestoneasasorbentprovidesexcellentsulfurandsulfurdioxide(SOx)reductionswithoutthe
needforexpensivepostcombustionscrubbingequipmentandsystems.
Marketadoptionoffluidizedbedboilertechnologyforbiomasshaslongbeenacommercial
reality,withbothbubblingbedandCFBunitsbeingusedforbiomasscogenerationthroughout
theUnitedStates,particularlyintheforestproductsandpaperindustry.AdoptionofCFB
technologyforutilityscalecoalandbiomasspowergenerationhasreachedworldwidegeneral
industryadoption,asshownbelow:
Table 7. Installed CFB boiler capacity by country19
Country

Installed Capacity (MW)


10,000
1,400
1,800
3,310
1,200
8,800

China
Czech Republic
Germany
Poland
India
United States

Source: Tavoulareas, Stratos. Advanced Power Generation Technologies An Overview

TechnologySelectionCriteria
Fluidizedbedcombustiontechnologyforgeneratingelectricpowerusingbiomassfuelwas
selectedforthecostofgenerationstudybytheresearchteambecauseofthefollowingfactors:

CommercialscaleBothbubblingbedandcirculatingfluidizedbedtechnologieshave
beendevelopedtoutilityscale,andcurrentcommercializedunitsfitwellwithinthe
overallsupplycurveconstraintsforbiomassthatcanlimitoverallgeneratingunitsize
potential.

18U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.CombinedHeatandPowerPartnership.BiomassCombined
HeatandPowerCatalogofTechnologies,September2007.
19Tavoulareas,Stratos.AdvancedPowerGenerationTechnologiesAnOverview.U.S.Agencyfor
InternationalDevelopment.ECOAsiaCleanDevelopmentProgram,August2008.

29

FuelflexibilityBiomasscombustioninfluidizedbedboilershasbeenwelldocumented
foravarietyofbiomassfuelfeedstocks.Theinherentstabilityinfluidizedbedboilers
whileburningfuelsofvaryingqualityisakeyadvantagewhenevaluatingchanging
biomassfuelsourcesoverthelifeofthegeneratingplant.

ReliabilityFluidizedbedcombustionisreliableandprovenoverdecadesofservice.
Whilerelativelynewintechnologywhencomparedtostokerortraditionalfired
boilers,thereisrapidandgrowingadoptionoffluidizedbedboilertechnologyformid
sizedunits.

EmissionsperformanceFluidizedbedcombustionperformswellinreducingNOx
emissionsbecauseofthelowcombustiontemperaturesusedintheprocess.Inaddition,
thenearcompleteconversionofavailablecarbonresultsinlowercarbonmonoxide(CO)
emissions.Particulateemissionsaremanagedthroughpostcombustioncontrols,as
withtraditionalfiredunitsburningsolidfuels.

Figure 6. Bubbling fluidized bed boiler


Source: Energy Products of Idaho

30


Primary Commercial Embodiment
Today,theprimarycommercialembodimentofcirculatingfluidizedbedboilertechnologyisin
EuropeandChinaandgainingmomentumintheUnitedStatesForover20years,the
developmentofcirculatingandbubblingfluidizedbedtechnologyhasprogressedinEuropeto
thepointwherecirculatingfluidizedbedboilersareastandard,utilityscaletechnologytoday.
IntheUnitedStates,severalcompanieshaveprogressedwithstandardizeddesignsof
circulatingfluidizedbedboilerscombustingavarietyoffuels,frombiomasstocoaland
petroleumcoke.
InCalifornia,currentcommercialembodimentislimited,mainlybecauseofthelimitedability
topermitsolidfuelcombustionfacilities.However,thereiscurrentinterestinthecogeneration
andforestproductsindustrialbasetoexaminefluidizedbedcombustiontechnologyfor
repoweringexistingsolidfuelcombustionfacilitiestobiomassfuelconversion.20
Theresearchteambelievesthatfluidizedbedtechnologywillbecomecommerciallyembodied
inCaliforniatoenablethestatetoachieveitsbiomassenergygoalsby2018.Theinherentlyfuel
flexiblenatureoffluidizedbedcombustion,theintegrationofprimarypollutioncontrolsinto
thecombustionprocess,andthesmallfootprintareenablersofthistechnologyinCalifornia,as
beingdemonstratednowinEuropeandChina.
Cost Drivers
MarketandIndustryChanges
MarketandindustrychangessinceAugust2007havenotsignificantlyaffectedcostsfor
circulatingfluidizedbedboilertechnology.Materialcostincreaseshaveabatedduetothe
currenteconomicrecession,especiallyincarbonsteelandstainlesssteelcosts,whicharethe
primarycostcomponentsofcirculatingfluidizedbedboilermanufacturing.
CarbonsteelcostshavechangedsignificantlysinceAugust2007,butthenetchangeisnot
significant.Theattachedtablehighlightstherapidriseandthenfallofcarbonsteelpricing:21
Table 8. Recent carbon steel pricing
Year
2007
2008
2009 (April 2009 average annual price)

Average Carbon Steel Price ($/Ton)


$717
$1,004
$736

Source: Purchasing Magazine

20KEMASources:PersonalCommunicationwithEPI,FosterWheeler,March2009.
21PurchasingStaff.Steelplatepriceshaveplunged50%frommid2008peak.PurchasingMagazine.
April2009.www.purchasing.com/article/CA6654110.html?industryid=48389.

31


CurrentTrends
Currenttrendsthatwillmateriallyaffectfuturecostsare:

GlobaleconomicdownturnThebreadthanddepthofthecurrentrecessionhascaused
asignificantreductioninthenumberofnewboilerordersforbothpowergeneration
andindustrialmanufacturingcapacity.Thelengthofthecurrentrecessionandthepace
ofrecoverywilldeterminetheescalationrateinrawmaterials,theuseofboiler
manufacturingcapacity,andthusfuturecosts.

SteelpriceabatementCurrentameliorationofworldwidesteelprices,bothforcarbon
andstainlesssteel,willhaveapricemoderatingeffectonstokerboilerpricesbothnow
andinthenearfuture.Longtermsteelcommoditypricesarecurrentlydifficultto
predict.

IndustrialproductionandeconomicgrowthinChinaByNovember2008,Chinalost
over30millionmanufacturingjobsinGuangzhouProvinceduetotheglobalrecession,
significantlycurtailingChineseeconomicgrossdomesticproduct(GDP)growth.
Enoughoftheglobaloutputforsteelandotherrawmaterials,usedincirculating
fluidizedbedboilerproduction,werebeingusedinChinathatsignificantescalationof
pricesresulted.ThepaceoftheeconomicrecoveryandstimulusinChinawill
determinerawmaterialpriceescalationandthuswillimpactcirculatingfluidizedbed
boilercosts.

EconomicstimulusBecausestimuluspackagesaredesignedtosupportenergy
technologies,suchascombinedheatandpower,cogeneration,andbiomass,stimulus
supportintheUnitedStatescouldhaveanescalatingeffectonbothmaterialsand
demandforcirculatingfluidizedbedboilers.

CostDrivers
Costdriversforbiomasscirculatingfluidizedbedboilertechnologiesareasfollows:

BiomassfueltypeanduniformityThetypeanduniformityofdeliveredbiomassfuel
supplyisaprimarycostdriverforanybiomasstechnology.Becauseofthevaried
natureofbiomassfuelfeedstocks,theirdeliveredmoisturecontentandheatingvalue
variations,andfuelprocessingissues,thehandlingandprocessingcostsofbiomass
fuelscanvarygreatly.Asaresult,thetypeandnatureofbiomassfuelscombustedcan
haveamaterialimpactonthecapitalcostoftheboilerislanddesign,aswellasthe
overallfuelhandlingandoperationscost.

Supplycurveforbiomassfuel,fueltransportandhandlingcostsTheavailabilityof
adequateandsufficientbiomassfuelresourceswithina100mileradiusoftheplant
locationisacriticaldriverforoperatingcost.Mostbiomassfuelistransportedbytruck
transporttoaplantsite,whichlimitstheeffectiveeconomicradiusfromtheplant
locationtoaggregatefuelsupplyatcommerciallyreasonableprices.Thevariednature
ofbiomassfuelfeedstocksalsonecessitatesspecialhandlingequipmentandlarger

32


numbersofdedicatedstaffthanforcoalfiredcombustionpowerplantsofequivalent
size.

BoilerislandcostCapitalcostoftheboilerislandisacriticalcostdriverthatcanentail
approximately4060%oftheoverallplantcost,dependingonthetypeofbiomass
combustedandtheneedforpostcombustionpollutioncontrols.22Thedesignbasisfor
thetypeoffuelstobecombustedisanimportantcostdriver.Inaddition,theescalation
trendsforrawmaterialsusedinmanufactureoftheboilerisland,primarilysteelcost,
arefactorsthatcaninfluencedeliveredboilerislandcost.

LongtermfuelsupplycontractavailabilityMostcurrentbiomassfuelsupplycontracts
areofshorttermdurationandforfuelofsometimesvaryingquality.Akeycostdriver
topromotingbiomasscirculatingbedcombustioninCaliforniaistheabilitytodevelop
andachieveperformanceonlongterm(e.g.,fiveyearsdurationandlonger)fuelsupply
contractsforavailablefuelsources.

PlantscaleCurrentCFBtechnologyhasbeenproventoutilityscaleapplicationsofup
to300MW,withtheprimarycommercialembodimentinsizesfrom30100MW.
Developmentof800MWclasssupercriticalCFBcyclesisnowbeingstudiedfor
applicationsinChina,andtheoutcomeofthatresearcheffortwouldmateriallyaffectthe
capitalcostprofileandscaleofCFBtechnologyapplicationsforbiomass.23

EmissionscontrolcostsCostsespeciallyofpostcombustionemissionscontrol
technologies,suchasSCR/SNCRtechnologiesforNOxcontrol,andadditional
particulatemattercontrols,areimportantcostdriversthatcansignificantlyincreasethe
capitalandoperatingcostsofacommercialfluidizedbedboilercombustingbiomass.

Retrofitversusgreenfield/newsiteFormanybiomassfluidizedbedapplications,
repoweringisacommerciallyviableoptionthatcansave2040%ofthecapitalcostofa
newgreenfieldsitewhereallbalanceofplantsystemswouldneedtobeconstructed.

O&McapitalizationTheextenttowhichthelongtermoperationsandmaintenanceof
abiomassfluidizedbedfacilityiscapitalizedthroughalongtermmaintenancecontract
withanOEMsupplierisacostdriver.Theselongtermmaintenancecontractstraderisk
formaintenancecostpredictabilityandcanslightlychangetheoperatingcostprofileofa
commercialbiomassfluidizedbedboilerplant.

22KEMASources:PersonalCommunicationwithEnergyProductsofIdaho,CoeurdAlene,ID,March
2009.
23Tavoulareas,Stratos.AdvancedPowerGenerationTechnologiesAnOverview.U.S.Agencyfor
InternationalDevelopment.ECOAsiaCleanDevelopmentProgram,August2008.

33


Current Costs
Currentcostsforbiomasscirculatingfluidizedbedboilerplantswereprimarilyderivedfrom
threesources:

Primarywrittenresearch,reviewingthecommercialembodimentofthetechnologies,
andtheirinstantandinstalledcostprofiles.

Researchteamdirectcommunicationwithcurrenttechnologymanufacturersand
developersofbiomassCFBandbubblingbedplants.

ResearchteamdirectexperienceinbiomassandCFBplantdevelopment,construction,
andoperations,bothintheUnitedStatesandEurope.

Thecostdatagainedthroughthesethreemethodsallowedforthecomparisonandcontrastof
capitalandoperatingplantdataandprovidedadetailedcostcomparisonforlow/average/high
costcasedevelopment.
Plantcapacitiesforbiomassfluidizedbedboilerswereestablishedinarangeof1570MW,with
28MWbeingtheaverageplantcapacity.Thecapacityrangeisprimarilysetbytheeffective
biomassfuelsupplyrange,alongwiththecommercialembodimentofmostbiomassCFB
designstoday.
Capacityfactorsweremodeledintherangeof7590%,with85%beingtheaveragevalue.These
capacityfactorsareconsistentwithoperationalCFBboilersincommercialservice.
InstantcostrangesforbiomassCFBplantsrangedfromalowcaseof$1,600perkilowatt(kW)
toahighcaseof$4,800/kW,withanaverageCFBplantcostof$3,200/kW.Theseinstantcosts
canvarywidelyduetoanumberoffactors:typeoffuelandfuelmixburned,size/scaleofthe
plant,whetherthesiteisabrownfieldredevelopmentoragreenfieldsite,andtheamountof
postcombustionpollutioncontrolsneededtosatisfyairqualityandpermittingrequirements.
Typically,theboilerislandcomprises4060%ofthetotalinstantplantcost.
Heatratesaresimilartothoseofothersolidfueltechnologies,rangingfrom9,800British
thermalunits(Btu)perkilowatthour(kWh)to11,000Btu/kWh,with11,500Btu/kWhbeingused
astheaverage.HeatratescanvaryforbiomassCFBsystemsduetofuelmoisturecontentand
heatingvalue.
Expected Cost Trajectories
Costtrajectoriesforbiomassfluidizedbedboilertechnologyweredevelopedthrough
examinationofseveralfactors.
Capitalcostandinstallationdurationforafluidizedbedplantprovidethelargesttrajectory
difference.Inallcases,theresearchteamassumedabiomassfluidizedbedplantisdeveloped
byamerchantgenerator,astherearefewapplicationsworldwidethathavebeendevelopedfor
cogenerationpurposes,eitherintheforest/paperindustries,theMSWindustries,orfor

34


enhancedoil/gasrecovery.24Constructionperiodsweresetforeitheratwoorthreeyear
constructioncycle,mostlydependentonpermittingapprovalsandreceiptofairquality
approvals.
Determinationofinstalledcostswerederivedfromexamininginterestcostsduring
construction,plustherangeinexpectedconstructioncostsforthelow,average,andhighcases.
Nosignificantexperiencecurveeffectsorlearningeffectsaretakenintoconsiderationinthe
analysis,asCFBtechnologyisconsideredamaturetechnology.Costdriversshouldnothavea
significantimpactonthelongtermlevelizedcostvalues,absentadisruptiveshiftinthecurrent
technologyandapproachtobiomassCFBcombustion.

3.2.3. Biomass Combustion Stoker Boiler


Technical and Market Justification
Stokerboilershavebeenusedforsolidfuelcombustionandpowergenerationforovera
century.Generallyusedforsmallscalepowergenerationunder100MWinsize,theprimary
stokerboilertechnologytypesforbiomassaremovinggrateandencompasstravelinggrate,
vibratinggrate,andspreaderstokervariantsofthetechnology.

Figure 7. Stoker boiler schematic diagram


Source: Boilermech, (www.boilermech.com)

24CaliforniaBiomassCollaborative.CaliforniaBiomassFacilitiesReportingSystem,March2009.
http://biomass.ucdavis.edu/tools.html.

35


Biomassfiredstokerboilertechnologyhasevolvedtoprovidereliable,efficientcombustionand
energygeneration.Today,modernbiomassstokercombustionsystemsprovideanefficient,
stablecombustionprocesswhilesupplyingthedesiredboilerheatinputwithlowemissions:

EfficientcombustionProducesefficientuseofthebiomassfeedstockfuelsupply
throughburningwithlowcarbonmonoxide(CO)emissionsandlowunburnedcarbon
(UBC),whichisanindicatorofcombustionefficiency.

StablecombustionProducesstableandconsistentcombustiontomaintainconsistent
designparametersandboilerperformance,evenwithchangingbiomassfuelsupply
mix.

HeatinputGeneratestheheatinputtosupportthepowergenerationcycle.

LowemissionsProduceslowcarbonmonoxide,lowunburnedcarbon(UBC),andlow
nitrogenoxides(NOx).25

Modernstokerdesignshaveimprovedsignificantlyovervintageboilersinstalledpre1965,
whenthemajorityofcommercialstokerboilerswereinstalled.26Todaysbiomassstokerboilers
haveimprovementsthatenhancetheirabilitytoburnbiomassfeedstocksofvaryingqualityand
type:

ImprovedfuelfeedcontrolsanddistributionofbiomassacrossthegrateProvidemore
uniformheatreleaseintheboiler,improvingconsistencyandreliabilityofoperation.

ImprovedcombustionairdistributionImprovesefficiencyandemissionsperformance,
particularlyNOxandCOemissions.

AdvancedoverfireairsystemsCompletecombustion,improvingefficiencyand
emissionsperformanceandreducesunburnedcarbonandcharwhenburningbiomass
fuels.

ReducedexcessairrequirementsImprovecombustionefficiency.

Improvedfuel/airmixingthroughbetterfurnacegaspathdesignanduseofgrate
oscillationImprovesefficiencyandreliabilityoffurnaceparts.25

25Abrams,RichardF.andKevinToupin.EfficientandLowEmissionStokerFiredBiomassBoiler
TechnologyinTodaysMarketplace.POWERGENRenewableConferenceTechnicalPublication,
March2007.
26GasResearchInstitute(GRI).AnalysisoftheIndustrialBoilerPopulation.EnergyandEnvironmental
Analysis,Inc.,June1996.

36

Figure 8. Flow schematic for a stoker boiler configuration


Source: DeFusco, McKenzie and Fick, Bubbling Fluidized Bed or Stoker.

27

Primary Commercial Embodiment


Currently,Californiahasapproximately30solidfuelbiomassfacilitiesinthestate,totaling640
MWofgeneration.Thevastmajorityoftheseplantsarestokerboilers,installedinthe1970s
and1980safterthePublicUtilityRegulatoryPoliciesAct(PURPA)cameintoeffect,andserve
primarilytheforestproducts,pulpandpaper,andwastetoenergycogenerationmarkets.
Theseplantsoperatereliablyandeffectively,althoughCaliforniahasseenadeclineinthe
numberofsolidfuelbiomassplantsduetotworeasons:costofbiomassfuelsuppliesandmore
stringentemissionslegislationinthestate.
Theprimarycommercialembodimentofthestokerboilertechnologyisnotexpectedtochange
significantlyby2018,buttheresearchteamexpectscontinuingimprovementsinfuel
combustiontechnologytoreduceemissionsandincreasefuelflexibility.Inaddition,the
researchteamfoundimprovedpostcombustionemissionscontrols,suchasselectivecatalytic
reduction(SCR),andRileysselectivecatalyticreduction(RSCR)acombinationofa
regenerativethermaloxidizerandSCR.RSCRtechnologyissignificantlymorethermally
efficientthanstandardSCRtechnologies,providingNOxremovalatmuchlowerannualfuel
costs.28

27DeFusco,John,PhillipMcKenzie,andMichaelFick.BubblingFluidizedBedorStokerWhichisthe
RightChoiceforYourRenewableEnergyProject.CIBOFluidBedCombustionXXConference,May
2007.
28Abrams,RichardF.andKevinToupin.EfficientandLowEmissionStokerFiredBiomassBoiler
TechnologyinTodaysMarketplace.POWERGENRenewableConferenceTechnicalPublication,
March2007.

37


Cost Drivers
MarketandIndustryChanges
MarketandindustrychangessinceAugust2007havenotsignificantlyaffectedcostsforstoker
boilertechnology.Materialcostincreaseshaveabatedduetothecurrenteconomicrecession,
especiallyincarbonsteelandstainlesssteelcosts,whicharetheprimarycostcomponentsof
stokerboilermanufacturing.
CarbonsteelcostshavechangedsignificantlysinceAugust2007,butthenetchangeisnot
significant.Theattachedtablehighlightstherapidriseandthenfallofcarbonsteelpricing:29
Table 9. Recent carbon steel pricing
Year
2007
2008
2009 (April 2009 average annual price)

Average Carbon Steel Price ($/Ton)


$717
$1,004
$736

Source: Purchasing Magazine

CurrentTrends
Currenttrendsthatwillmateriallyaffectfuturecostsare:

GlobaleconomicdownturnThebreadthanddepthofthecurrentrecessionhascaused
asignificantreductioninthenumberofnewboilerordersforbothpowergeneration
andindustrialmanufacturingcapacity.Thelengthofthecurrentrecessionandthepace
ofrecoverywilldeterminetheescalationrateinrawmaterials,theuseofboiler
manufacturingcapacity,andthusfuturecosts.

SteelpriceabatementCurrentameliorationofworldwidesteelprices,bothforcarbon
andstainlesssteel,willhaveapricemoderatingeffectonstokerboilerpricesbothnow
andinthenearfuture.Longtermsteelcommoditypricesarecurrentlydifficultto
predict.

IndustrialproductionandeconomicgrowthinChinaByNovember2008,Chinalost
over30millionmanufacturingjobsinGuangzhouProvinceduetotheglobalrecession,
significantlycurtailingChineseeconomicgrossdomesticproduct(GDP)growth.
Enoughoftheglobaloutputforsteelandotherrawmaterialsusedinstokerboiler
productionwasbeingusedinChinathatsignificantescalationofpricesresulted.The
paceoftheeconomicrecoveryandstimulusinChinawilldeterminerawmaterialprice
escalationandthuswillimpactstokerboilercosts.

EconomicstimulusBecausestimuluspackagesaredesignedtosupportenergy
technologiessuchascombinedheatandpower,cogeneration,andbiomass,stimulus

29PurchasingMagazineStaff.SteelPlatePricesHavePlunged50%FromMid2008Peak.Purchasing
Magazine,April2009.www.purchasing.com/article/CA6654110.html?industryid=48389.

38


supportintheUnitedStatescouldhaveanescalatingeffectonbothmaterialsand
demandforstokerboilers.

CostDrivers
Costdriversforstokerfiredbiomasscombustionboilerplantsareasfollows:

BiomassfueltypeanduniformityThetypeanduniformityofdeliveredbiomassfuel
supplyisaprimarycostdriverforanybiomasstechnology.Becauseofthevaried
natureofbiomassfuelfeedstocks,theirdeliveredmoisturecontentandheatingvalue
variations,andfuelprocessingissues,thehandlingandprocessingcostsofbiomass
fuelscanvarygreatly.Asaresult,thetypeandnatureofbiomassfuelscombustedcan
haveamaterialimpactonthecapitalcostoftheboilerislanddesign,aswellasthe
overallfuelhandlingandoperationscost.

Supplycurveforbiomassfuel,fueltransport,andhandlingcostsTheavailabilityof
adequateandsufficientbiomassfuelresourceswithina100mileradiusoftheplant
locationisacriticaldriverforoperatingcost.Mostbiomassfuelistransportedbytruck
transporttoaplantsite,whichlimitstheeffectiveeconomicradiusfromtheplant
locationtoaggregatefuelsupplyatcommerciallyreasonableprices.Thevariednature
ofbiomassfuelfeedstocksalsonecessitatesspecialhandlingequipmentandlarger
numbersofdedicatedstaffthanforcoalfiredcombustionpowerplantsofequivalent
size.

BoilerislandcostCapitalcostoftheboilerislandisacriticalcostdriverthatcanentail
approximately4060%oftheoverallplantcost,dependingonthetypeofbiomass
combustedandtheneedforpostcombustionpollutioncontrols.30Thedesignbasisfor
thetypeoffuelstobecombustedisanimportantcostdriver.Inaddition,theescalation
trendsforrawmaterialsusedinmanufactureoftheboilerisland,primarilysteelcost,
arefactorsthatcaninfluencedeliveredboilerislandcost.

LongtermfuelsupplycontractavailabilityMostcurrentbiomassfuelsupplycontracts
areofshorttermdurationandforfuelofsometimesvaryingquality.Akeycostdriver
topromotingbiomasscombustioninCaliforniaistheabilitytodevelopandachieve
performanceonlongterm(e.g.,fiveyearsdurationandlonger)fuelsupplycontractsfor
availablefuelsources.

EmissionscontrolcostsCostsespeciallyofemissionscontroltechnologies,suchas
advancedoverfireairorSCR/SNCRtechnologiesforNOxcontrolandadditional

30KEMASources:PersonalCommunicationwithEnergyProductsofIdaho,CoeurdAlene,ID,March
2009.

39


particulatemattercontrols,areimportantcostdriversthatcansignificantlychangethe
capitalandoperatingcostsofacommercialstokerboilercombustingbiomass.31

Retrofitversusgreenfield/newsiteFormanybiomassfluidizedbedapplications,
repoweringisacommerciallyviableoptionthatcansave2040%ofthecapitalcostofa
newgreenfieldsitewhereallbalanceofplantsystemswouldneedtobeconstructed.

Current Costs
Currentcostprofilesforstokerboilerbiomasscombustiontechnologyweredevelopedusing
threeprimaryresearchmethods:

Primarywrittenresearch,reviewingthecommercialembodimentofthetechnologies
andtheirinstantandinstalledcostprofiles.

Researchteamdirectcommunicationwithcurrenttechnologymanufacturersand
developersofbiomassfiredstokerboilerplants.

Researchteamdirectexperienceinbiomassstokercombustionplantdevelopment,
construction,andoperations,specificallyreferencingastokerboilerbiomassplantinSt.
Paul,Minnesota.

Stokerboilertechnologyisconsideredamaturetechnology,withstokerdesignshaving
changedlittleinbasicdesignorcostprofileoveraperiodof40years.Mostofthedesign
innovationbeingperformedtodayinstokertechnologyistoupgradetheperformanceofstoker
boilerstocombustawiderangeofbiomassfuels(formerly,biomassfuelsbeingcombustedina
stokerboilerhadtoberelativelyuniformintypeandheat/moisturecontent),andtoimprove
emissionscontrolperformance.32
Capitalcostsandsizesforstokerboilersweredevelopedthroughdirectcommunicationwith
manufacturers,includingRileyandEnergyProductsofIdaho.Inaddition,thesecostswere
verifiedandcontrastedwiththeBiomassCombinedHeatandPowerCatalogofTechnologies
referencedocument,compiledbytheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)Combined
HeatandPowerPartnership.33
Netcapacityfactorsforstokerboilerscanvarydependingonthetypeoffuelsourceused,the
variationinthefuel,andoperatingrequirementsoftheplant.Ingeneral,stokerboilersburning

31Abrams,RichardF.andKevinToupin.EfficientandLowEmissionStokerFiredBiomassBoiler
TechnologyinTodaysMarketplace.POWERGENRenewableConferenceTechnicalPublication,
March2007.
32PowerEngineering,EfficientandLowEmissionStokerFiredBiomassBoilerTechnologyinTodays
Marketplace.PowerEngineering,March2007.
33U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.CombinedHeatandPowerPartnership.BiomassCombined
HeatandPowerCatalogofTechnologies,September2007.

40


biomasshavefewercapacityfactorsthaniftheboilerswereusingcoalasfuel,withtheprimary
reasonbeingthelargervariationinbiomassfuelpropertiesgoingtothestokergrateandthe
variationofthebiomassfuelsourceovertime.Capacityfactorsof75%,85%,and90%were
usedbasedonfleetexperienceforthehighcost,averagecost,andlowcostcases,respectively.
Plantcapitalcostdatawasexaminedthroughtheconstructionofanaveragesized38MWplant,
andscaledaccordinglyforthehighandlowcostcases,basedonexperienceandactualplant
data.Forthelowcostcase,referencedatafromapriorretrofitsitewasused,andforthehigh
costcase,scalingfactorsfrommanufacturersdetailingtherangeincostestimateswereused.34
Plantheatratesweremodeledusinganaverage4050%moisturewoodybiomassfuelfeedstock
andcurrentstokertechnology.Heatraterangesarefrom10,25013,000Btu/kWh,withan
averageheatrateof11,000Btu/kWhmodeled.Theresearchteamnotesthatperformance,
ultimatecapacity,andheatratearestronglydependentonthebiomassfueltypeselected,its
variationincombustionandmoisturepropertiesovertime,andthemixingofbiomassfuel
sources.Moisture,forinstance,isakeyvariableindeterminingbiomassstokerperformance
becausetheenergyusedinheatingandvaporizingthemoisturecontentinthefuelisnot
recoveredfullyandthusnegativelyimpactsoverallperformance.
Expected Cost Trajectories
Costtrajectoriesforbiomassstokerboilertechnologyweredevelopedthroughexaminationof
severalfactors.
Capitalcostandinstallationdurationforastokerplantprovidesthefirstandlargesttrajectory
difference.Inallcases,theresearchteamassumedabiomassstokerplant,developedbya
merchantgenerator,asthevastmajorityofstokerapplicationsaredevelopedforcogeneration
purposesinCalifornia,eitherintheforest/paperindustries,theMSWindustries,orfor
enhancedoil/gasrecovery.35Constructionperiodsweresetforeitheratwoorthreeyear
constructioncycle,mostlydependentonpermittingapprovalsandreceiptofairquality
approvals.
Determinationofinstalledcostswerefoundthroughtheinterestcostsduringconstruction,plus
therangeinexpectedconstructioncostsforthelow,average,andhighcases.Expectedinstalled
costsfor2009forthelow,average,andhighcasesare:
Table 10. Biomass stoker installed cost ranges 2009 dollars per kW installed
Low Case
$ 1,914 /kW

Average Case
$ 2,909 /kW

High Case
$4,050/kW

Source: KEMA

34KEMACommunicationwithEnergyProductsofIdaho,anddirectexperiencewithMarketStreet
Energyproject,St.Paul,MN,March2009.
35CaliforniaBiomassCollaborative.CaliforniaBiomassFacilitiesReportingSystem,March2009
(http://biomass.ucdavis.edu/tools.html).

41


Verylittleexperiencecurvelearningeffectsweremodeledintheexpectedcosttrajectories.The
U.S.DepartmentofEnergyshowsstokercombustiontechnologyasaverymaturetechnology
andwithlittleincrementalimprovementforeseenthrough2030.36Amaximumlearningrateof
5%through2030wasmodeled,alongwithalowcaseratereflectingnolearningthrough2030
wasmodeledforthehighcase.

3.2.4. Biomass Cofiring


Technical and Market Justification
Oneofthemostattractiveandeasilyimplementedrenewableenergysourcesisderivedfrom
cofiringofbiomassinexistingcoalfiredboilers.Inbiomasscofiring,upto20%30%ofthecoal
canbedisplacedbybiomass.Thebiomassandcoalarecombustedsimultaneously.Theterm
biomassreferstomaterialsderivedfromplantmattersuchastrees,grasses,andagricultural
crops.Thesematerials,grownusingenergyfromsunlight,canberenewableenergysourcesfor
fuelingmanyoftodaysenergyneeds.Cofiringprojectsreplaceaportionofthenonrenewable
fuelcoalwitharenewablefuelbiomass.

Figure 9. Biomass cofiring schematic for a pulverized coal boiler system


Source: U. S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

36U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.EnergyInformationAdministration.OfficeofIntegratedAnalysisand
Forecasting.LearningParametersforNewGenerationTechnologyComponents.

42


Whenitisusedasasupplementalfuelinanexistingcoalboiler,biomasscanprovidethe
followingbenefits:lowerfuelcosts,morefuelflexibility,avoidanceofwastetolandfillsand
theirassociatedcosts,andreductionsinsulfuroxide,nitrogenoxide,andgreenhousegas
emissions.Otherbenefitssuchasdecreasesinfluegasopacityhavealsobeendocumented.
Cofiringisaproventechnology.Overthepast15years,theresearchteamhasfoundextensive
experiencewithdirectandindirectcofiringofseveraltypesofbiomassfuels.KEMAhastested
cofiringmixturesofcoalandseveralbiomassfuelsuptoabout25%(onanenergybasis)in
KEMAs1MWtestboilerandhasbeeninvolvedinover50fullscalecommercialand
demonstrationprojectsincoalfiredpowerplants.Inaddition,manyutilitieshavecofiring
biomassincoalfiredgenerationplants,asnotedinthefollowingtable:37
Table 11. Coal-fired generation plants with biomass cofiring
Facility Name

6th Street
Bay Front
Colbert
Gadsden 2
Greenridge
C.D. Mcintosh, Jr.
Tacoma Steam
Plant
Willow Island 2
Yates 6 and 7

Company

City/County

State

Capacity
(MW)

Alliant Energy
Xcel Energy
TVA
Alabama
Power
AES
City of
Lakeland
Tacoma Public
Utilities
Allegheny
Power
Georgia Power

Cedar Rapids
Ashland
Tuscumbia
Gadsden

IA
WI
AL
AL

85
76
190
70

Heat Input from


Biomass (Percent of
Total)
7.7
40.3
1.5
<1.0

Dresden
Polk

NY
FL

161
350

6.8
<1.0

Tacoma

WA

35

44.0

Pleasants

WV

188

1.2

Newnan

GA

150

<1.0

Source: Haq, Zia. Biomass for Electricity Generation

TheElectricPowerResearchInstitute(EPRI)beganresearchandtestingofbiomasscofiringin
utilityboilersin1992,andwithsuccesscofiringbiomasspercentagesofupto40%offuel
requirements.InEurope,theNetherlandshasundertakenextensivestudiesofbiomasscofiring
ofupto30%ofboilerfuelrequirements.Biomasscofiringiscurrentlyavalidcommercial
technologyforcoalfiredutilityscalepowerplants,havingbeentestedinawiderangeofboiler
types,includingcyclone,stoker,pulverizedcoal,andfluidizedbedboilers.38

37Haq,Zia,BiomassforElectricityGeneration.U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.EnergyInformation
Administration,2002.
38U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.CombinedHeatandPowerPartnership.BiomassCombined
HeatandPowerCatalogofTechnologies,September2007.

43


Biomasscofiringtechnologyisversatileandcanbeaccomplishedinseveralways,depending
onthepercentageofbiomasstobecofiredwithcoal,andthedesignofthespecificboiler
system.Ingeneral,therearefourmainroutestosuccessfullyaccomplishcofiring,asshownin
thediagrambelow:

Comillingofbiomasswithcoal.

Separatemilling,injectioninpflines,combustionincoalburners.

Separatemilling,combustionindedicatedbiomassburners.

Biomassgasification,syngascombustedinfurnaceboiler.

Coal

Mills

Burners

Boiler

Flue Gas
Treatment

Pretreatment

Biomass

Stack

Gasifier

Steam
Turbine

Mills

Figure 10. Primary biomass cofiring locations


Source: KEMA, Inc.

Comillingofbiomasswithcoal,andseparatemillingandinjection/combustionintothecoal
burnersarethemostcommonrouteforbiomasscofiringwhentheoverallpercentageof
biomasstocoalisrelativelysmall(<15%).Intheseapplications,thebiomassblendswellwitha
predominantlycoalmixture,andiscombustedintheboilerwithlittleoperationalimpact.
Forlargerpercentagesofcofiringwithbiomass,typicalapplicationswillrequiretheadditionof
separatefeedstreamsofthebiomass,alongwiththeadditionofdedicatedbiomassburners.
Theseboilermodificationsareneededbecauseofthedifferingcharacteristicsandheating
valuesofthefuel(biomass9000Btu/lb,versuscoal12,000Btu/lb),andthevaryingfeedstock
qualitythatcanoftenbefoundinbiomassfuelsupply.
Inaddition,afourthroutetocofiringbiomassistogasifyit,usuallyinafluidizedbedgasifier,
andthencombustthesyntheticgasinthefurnacewithdedicatedgasburners.Thisapproachis
increasinglygainingmarketacceptance,particularlywiththesuccessfulcommercialoperation

44


offluidizedbedgasifiers,andisadrivingtechnologybehindtheretrofitofoldertechnology
biomassstokerplants.39
Primary Commercial Embodiment
TheprimarycommercialembodimentofbiomasscofiringtechnologyinCaliforniaisfoundin
twoforms:

Additionofbiomasscofiringtothesmallnumberofremainingutilityscalecoalboilers
inCalifornia,typicallyupto30%cofiring.Inaddition,biomasscofiringisfeasibleinthe
WECCregioncoalfiredplantsthatcurrentlyexportgenerationandenergyto
California.

Additionofbiomasscofiringtotheexistingsmallutilityscalecoalboilersinoperation
(2050MW),ofwhichthereareapproximately30plantsthatcurrentlyexist,and
approximately66plantsfeasibleifcurrentlyclosedbiomassfacilitiesarerepowered.

By2018,theprimarycommercialembodimentispredictedbytheresearchteamtobesimilarto
thecurrentstate,withincrementaloperatingimprovementsgainedbyadditionalcofiring
experience.Theresearchteamnotesthatseveralcompaniesarelookingattheircurrentbiomass
cofiringexperiencetobeaninterimsteptowardscompletefuelswitchingfromcoalto100%
biomassfuel,asclimatechangelegislationappearsmorelikelybefore2018.
Cost Drivers
MarketandIndustryChanges
SinceAugust,2007,therehasbeenadditionalindustryexperiencewithcofiringbiomassdueto
emissionslegislationintheUnitedStates,pluscontinuedemphasisonbiomasscofiring
implementationintheEuropeanUnion.Theseindustrychangeshavehelpedcofiringgain
additionalmomentumasausefulgenerationtechnologyadditionforcarbonreductionand
climatechangemitigationstrategies.Asofthisreport,theseindustrychangeshavenothada
discernableimpactonmarketpricesforcofiringadoption.
CurrentTrends
Currently,biomasscofiringisoneofthemostinexpensivewaystoincreaseuseofbiomass
feedstocksandfuelsources.Requiringonlyafractionoftheinvestmentcapitalfornewplant,
theresearchteambelievesitisatechnologywithsignificantpotentialtohelpbiomassbecome
competitiveintheenergylandscape.
CostDrivers
Costdriversforbiomasscirculatingfluidizedbedboilertechnologiesareasfollows:

39EnergyProductsofIdaho,CurdAlene,ID.

45

BiomassfueltypeanduniformityThetypeanduniformityofdeliveredbiomassfuel
supplyisaprimarycostdriverforanybiomasstechnology.Becauseofthevaried
natureofbiomassfuelfeedstocks,theirdeliveredmoisturecontentandheatingvalue
variations,andfuelprocessingissues,thehandlingandprocessingcostsofbiomass
fuelscanvarygreatly.Asaresult,thetypeandnatureofbiomassfuelscombustedcan
haveamaterialimpactonthecapitalcostoftheboilercofiringupgrades,aswellasthe
overallfuelhandlingandoperationscost.Forbiomasscofiring,theamountofbiomass
cofiringanduniformityofthefuelcanaffecttheoperatingcombustionandtemperature
profilesintheboiler,andthustheoverallcostofboilerimprovements.40

Supplycurveforbiomassfuel,fueltransport,andhandlingcostsTheavailabilityof
adequateandsufficientbiomassfuelresourceswithina100mileradiusoftheplant
locationisacriticaldriverforoperatingcost.Mostbiomassfuelistransportedbytruck
toaplantsite,whichlimitstheeffectiveeconomicradiusfromtheplantlocationto
aggregatefuelsupplyatcommerciallyreasonableprices.Thevariednatureofbiomass
fuelfeedstocksalsonecessitatesspecialhandlingequipmentandlargernumbersoffuel
handlingpersonnelthanforasimilarlysizedcoalfiredplant.

BoilerislandcapitalupgradecostCapitalcostofnecessaryboilermodifications,
dependingonthecofiringfuelinjectionpointisacriticalcostdriverthatcanentail
approximately50%oftheoverallcapitalupgradecost,dependingonthetypeof
biomasscombustedandthelocationofthebiomasscofiringinjectionpoint.41In
addition,theescalationtrendsforrawmaterialsusedinmanufactureoftheboilerfuel
feedandpressureparts,primarilysteelcost,arefactorsthatcaninfluencethefinal
installedcostofcofiringupgradestotheboiler.

LongtermfuelsupplycontractavailabilityMostcurrentbiomassfuelsupplycontracts
areofshorttermdurationandforfuelofsometimesvaryingquality.Theabilityto
writeandachieveperformanceonlongterm(e.g.,fiveyearsdurationandlonger)fuel
supplycontractsforavailablefuelsourcesisakeycostdrivertosecuringadditional
biomasscofiringgeneration.

O&McapitalizationTheextenttowhichthelongtermoperationsandmaintenanceof
boilerupgradesrequiredtosupportahigh(>10%biomasscofiring)levelofbiomass
cofiringiscapitalizedthroughalongtermmaintenancecontractwithanOEMsupplier
isacostdriver.Theselongtermmaintenancecontractstraderiskformaintenancecost
predictability,andcanslightlychangetheoperatingcostprofileofacommercialboiler
plantcofiringbothcoalandbiomassfuels.

40DaytonDavid,ASummaryofNOxEmissionsReductionFromBiomassCofiring.NationalRenewable
EnergyLaboratory,May2002.
41KEMASources:PersonalCommunicationwithEnergyProductsofIdaho,CoeurdAlene,ID,March
2009.

46


Current Costs
Currentcostsweredevelopedbyexaminingthebiomasscofiringtechnologywithinthecontext
ofoperationofcurrentcoalfiredutilityscaleboilertechnology,coupledwiththeexperience
baseofcofiringbiomassbothinEuropeandintheUnitedStates.Plantscalewasdevelopedby
usingthe530%generalcofiringrangesseenincurrentapplications,andespeciallythose
successfullydemonstratedintheUnitedStates.42Capacitiesusedinthemodelrangedfrom10
40MWgrosscapacityduetobiomasscofiring,andincrementaltothenominalcoalfiredoutput
oftheboilerplant.
Capacityfactorsmodeledwerefrom8595%,reflectingcurrenttestburnandoperational
experienceshowingthatthereisnotadetrimentalavailabilityimpactcausedbycofiring
biomasswithinthenominal530%ranges.
Efficiencyandheatraterangeswerealsochosenbasedonnominalincreasestoheatratedueto
moisturecontentofthefuel,butotherwisetrackedcurrentcoalplantindustryheatrates.Heat
raterangedfrom9,800Btu/kWhto12,000Btu/kWh,withanaverageheatratemodeledat10,500
Btu/kWh.
Capitalrequirementsforthecofiringtechnologywerebasedonbothcurrentindustry
experiencecombinedwiththeresearchteamexperiencebaseincofiringbiomassinthe
Netherlands.Instant(overnight)capitalcostrangesweremodeledbetween400700$/kW,
withanaverageof$500/kW.Allboilermodificationsforcofiringtechnologyareassumedtobe
constructedwithinoneyear.
Expected Cost Trajectories
Thetypeofboilermodificationsandtechnologiesinvolvedinbiomasscofiringareextremely
maturetechnologiesinvolvingburnermodifications,injectionpointrework,andfuelhandling
systems.Basedonthematurityofthesetechnologies,verylittleexperiencecurveeffectsare
anticipated,andonlysmallincrementalimprovementsincostperformanceareforeseenbythe
researchteam.Atechnologyprogressratioforbiomasscofiringof0.990wasassignedtothis
technologybasedonthesimilaritiesofcofiringtechnologiestoestablishedsolidfuelcofiring
andtestburntechnologyapplications.Theprogressratioindicatesthat,withadoublingofthe
installedbiomasscofiringcapacity,onewouldexpecta1%improvementincostperformance
overtime.
Theoverallcostperformanceofbiomasscofiringtechnologiesisexpectedtotracktherateof
inflationoverthelongrun.

3.2.5. Biomass Co-Gasification IGCC


Technical and Market Justification
BiomasscogasificationIGCCisauniquetechnologythathasmanycommercialutilityscale
applications.BiomassIGCCdrawsuponthetechnologybaseusedtodevelopand

42Blume,Grant,RonaldMeijer,andKevinSullivan,CofiringofBiomassintheUS.RenewableEnergy
WorldConferencePresentation,March2009.

47


commercializecoalbasedIGCCplantsbeginningwiththefirstcommercialscaleutilityunitat
DukeEnergysWabashRiverGeneratingStationin1995.Sincethattime,bothcoaland
biomassbasedIGCChasbeencommercializedasaviablegeneratingtechnology,withkey
advantages:

FeedstockflexibilityBecausethecombinedcycleunitisfiredwithsyntheticgasfrom
thegasifierunits,avarietyoffuelfeedstocks,fromcoaltopetroleumcokeandbiomass,
canbeused.

LowemissionsSimilartoanaturalgasfiredcombinedcycleunitandmuchlowerthan
solidfueledcoalunits.

CarboncaptureIGCCcyclesareparticularlysuitableforcarboncaptureand
sequestration,sincecarbondioxideisemittedinseparatestreamsthatmaybecaptured
anddisposedinanormalprocesscycle.

ThekeyapproachtotheIGCCcycleapplicationforbiomassfuelsistheabilityofcurrent
generationgasturbinestoacceptandburnlowBTUcontentgasstreams.Thistechnologyshift
hashappenedoverthelast15years,andnowmostmoderngasturbineengineswillcombust
biomassbasedsyngasinturbinesizerangessuitableformostbiomassdevelopmentplant
scales.43
ThefirstsuccessfuldemonstrationprojectforbiomasscogasificationIGCCwasinVarnamo,
Sweden,andranfrom1992through2000at18MWcombinedheatandpoweroutput.44
Asof2007,thebiomassgasificationmarketcounted13activebiomassgasifiersfromcompanies
worldwide,encompassingfourmajortechnologytypes:45

AtmosphericpressurecirculatingfluidizedbedgasifierIncommercialoperationat
Lahti,Finland,producing42MWesince1998,andusingbiofuels,RDF(refusederived
fuel),andwoodwasteasbiomassfeedstocks.

Pressurizedcirculatingfluidizedbedgasifier(PCFB)DemonstratedatVarnamo,
Sweden,through2000,andproducing6MWeusingwood,RDFandstrawasbiomass
feedstocks.

PlasmagasifierDemonstratedatUtashinai,Japan,in2003,producing8MWein
commercialoperation,usingadownwardmovingbedandplasmabottomtorch.

43Overend,RalphP.BiomassConversionTechnologies.Golden,CO:NationalRenewableEnergy
Laboratory,March2002.
44Stahl,Krister,LarsWaldheim,MichaelMorris,UlfJohnsson,andLennartGrdmark.BiomassIGCC
atVarnamo,SwedenPastandFuture.GCEPEnergyWorkshop,April2004.
45Cobb,JamesT.SurveyofCommercialBiomassGasifiers.UniversityofPittsburgh,AIChEAnnual
Meeting,November2007.

48

Drafttypeoriginaltechnology,andnotgenerallysuitableforgasturbineapplications
becauseoftarcarryover.

Figure 11. Process flow diagram for biomass gasification and conditioning for IGCC
application
Source: Rhodes and Keith, Engineering economic analysis of biomass IGCC.

46

Primary Commercial Embodiment


Currently,thereisnoprimarycommercialembodimentinCalifornia,astheuseofbiomass
IGCChasnotyetbeencommercialized.However,thebasicpremiseofcoalbasedIGCCisa
commercialtechnology,andintheUnitedStates,utilityscalecoalbasedIGCCplantsarebeing
developedwiththecapabilitytocofirebiomassfeedstocksinlimitedpercentages(<15%).
By2018,theresearchteamexpectsthebiomassIGCCtechnologytobecomecommercialized,
withCFBgasifiertechnologyastheleadingapproachforbiomassIGCCdevelopment.

46Rhodes,JamesS.andDavidW.Keith.EngineeringEconomicAnalysisofBiomassIGCCWithCarbon
CaptureandStorage.BiomassandBioenergy29(2005):440450.

49


Cost Drivers
MarketandIndustryChanges
MarketandindustrychangessinceAugust2007havefavoredtherapiddevelopmentofutility
scalebiomassIGCCplants.Thefirstchangeinthemarketispendingclimatechangelegislation
thatwillimposeacapandtradesystemforcarbondioxideandotherGHGemissions.This
changewilldrivetechnologydevelopmenttothoseapproachesthatcancaptureandsequester
carbon,aswellascarbonneutralapproachestopowergeneration.BiomassIGCC,becauseof
thenearzerocarbonemissionprofileofbiomassfuels,coupledwiththeabilitytocapture
carbondioxide,isanidealtechnologyforacarbonconstrainedpowergenerationmarket.
Second,theincreaseddeploymentofcoalfiredIGCCunits,suchastherecentlyannounced
repoweringprojectatDukeEnergysEdwardsportstationinIndiana,willfurtherthe
developmentofgasificationreactortechnology.Gasifiertrainswillbetestedandtechnology
developedtoreliablygasifybiomassfeedstocksalongwithcoal.
Third,activeresearchinbiomassgasificationandcogasificationwithcoalisbeingconductedin
Europe,particularlyintheNetherlands,wherebiomasscogasificationexperimentsofupto
50%biomassbyweightarebeingconductedattwopowerstations.47
CurrentTrends
Futurecostsforbiomasscogasificationwillbedrivenbythedevelopmentofcommercial
gasifiertrainsthatareabletohandlewidevariationsinbiomassfeedstockmaterials.Asthese
technologiesbecomemoremature,experienceeffectswilldrivedowntheoverallcapitalcostof
theseplants.
Costdriversforbiomassintegratedgasificationcombinedcycleplanttechnologiesareas
follows:

BiomassfueltypeanduniformityThetypeanduniformityofdeliveredbiomassfuel
supplyareprimarycostdriversforanybiomasstechnology.Becauseofthevaried
natureofbiomassfuelfeedstocks,theirdeliveredmoisturecontentandheatingvalue
variations,andfuelprocessingissues,thehandlingandprocessingcostsofbiomass
fuelscanvarygreatly.Asaresult,thetypeandnatureofbiomassfuelscombustedcan
haveamaterialimpactonthecapitalcostofthefuelhandlingsystemsandthegasifier
processtrains.Fuelvariabilityinthegasificationprocesscanalterprocessproperties,
andresultinchangestotherequiredgasifiersize.48

Supplycurveforbiomassfuel,fueltransportandhandlingcostsTheavailabilityof
adequateandsufficientbiomassfuelresourceswithina100mileradiusoftheplant
locationisacriticaldriverforoperatingcost.Mostbiomassfuelistransportedbytruck

47KEMAsourcesandresearch.
48MurphyMichael,RepoweringOptions:RetrofitofCoalFiredBoilersWithFluidizedBedBiomass
Gasification.EnergyProductsofIdaho,2001.

50


toaplantsite,whichlimitstheeffectiveeconomicradiusfromtheplantlocationto
aggregatefuelsupplyatcommerciallyreasonableprices.Thevariednatureofbiomass
fuelfeedstocksalsonecessitatesspecialhandlingequipmentandlargernumbersoffuel
handlingpersonnelthanforasimilarlysizedcoalfiredplant.

Boiler/gasifiercapitalcostsandtrajectoryTheprimarydriverindeterminingoverall
costsisthecapitalcostsandlongruncosttrajectoriesforthegasifiertrainsrequiredto
gasifybiomassfuelfeedstocks.Afterseveraldecadesofcommercialdevelopmentand
embodimentofthetechnologyincoalgasificationapplications,thetechnologyis
consideredrelativelymature,andfewscaleeffectsareanticipated.Inaddition,the
escalationtrendsforrawmaterialsusedinmanufactureofthegasifierplant,primarily
steelandalloysteelcost,arefactorsthatcaninfluencethefinalinstalledcostofinstalling
biomassgasificationtechnology.

LongtermfuelsupplycontractavailabilityMostcurrentbiomassfuelsupplycontracts
areofshorttermdurationandforfuelofsometimesvaryingquality.Theabilityto
writeandachieveperformanceonlongterm(e.g.fiveyearsdurationandlonger)fuel
supplycontractsforavailablefuelsourcesisakeycostdrivertosecuringfinancingfor
moreexpensivebiomassgasificationprojects.

Current Costs
Grosscapacityrangesbetween2540MWweremodeledforbiomassgasificationcombined
cycleunits,primarilyreflectingtheeffectivesizerangeandfuelsupplyradiusforsourcing
biomassfuelfeedstocks.Theserangesalsoembodycurrentprojectsizesnowunder
developmentinCalifornia,thoughnotyetbuilt,andtheyalsofallreadilywithincurrently
availablefluidizedbedgasificationtechnologies.
Netcapacityfactorsaremodeledasbetween6580%,reflectingtheonstreamexpectedtimesof
gasifiertrainunitsprocessingbiomassfuel,coupledwiththeexpectedavailabilityofthegas
turbinecombinedcyclegenerationunits.
Instantcostsweremodeledbasedondirectconversationswithactivedevelopersreviewing
projectsinCalifornia,combinedwithindustrycostsforfluidizedbedgasifiertrainssupporting
between2540MWclassplants,andexistingindustrycombustionturbinecombinedcycledata.
Thesecostsintotalaverage$2,950/kW,withahighrangeof$3,688/kWandalowrangeof
$2,655/kWmodeled.Highcasecostsreflectadditionalcapitalcostforbiomassfuelvariation
characteristics,andlowcasecostsreflectsimplerfuelprocessingandhandlingcosts.
Constructiondurationsfortotalinstalledcostcalculationsrangefromonetothreeyears
duration,withtheaverageplantconstructedwithinatwoyeartimehorizon.
Plantefficiencyandheatrateweremodeledbasedontheoverallexpectedperformanceofthe
gasturbinecombinedcyclecoupledwiththegasifiertrainoperatingasafluidizedbedunit.
Overallheatratesbetween10,00011,000Btu/kWhweremodeledbytheresearchteam,with
anaverageexpectedheatrateof10,500Btu/kWh.

51


Expected Cost Trajectories
ExpectedcosttrajectoriesforbiomassIGCCdevelopmentwilltrackcloselythetechnology
progressforcoalbasedintegratedgasificationtechnologies.Thosetechnologiesareconsidered
matureafterovertwodecadesofcommercialdevelopmentandembodiment,andsignificant
experiencecurveeffectsarenotanticipatedtoreduceoverallinstalledcostbase.
Theresearchteamusedamodifiedtechnologyprogressratiorangeof0.98to1.00tomodel
biomassintegratedgasificationcombinedcycleexperiencecurvetrajectories,asthistechnology
hasmaturedinthecoalbasedenvironmentinwhichithasdeveloped.Somesources
characterizeadditionallearningcurveeffectswiththegasifiertraindevelopment,ofuptoa10%
learningcurveimprovementintheperiodafter2020,buttheresearchteamdidnotincorporate
thisviewintotheanalysisforcosttrajectorydevelopment.49Therationaleisthattheexpected
embodimentofthistechnologyinCaliforniawillbeprimarilybubblingandcirculating
fluidizedbedgasifiertrains,andthistechnologyiswellestablishedforgasifyingbiomassfuels.
Othertechnologiescurrentlyunderdevelopmentforcoalfuelfeedstockswouldneedadditional
developmenttohandlethewidelyvaryingcharacteristicscommontobiomass,andthisresulted
inaselectionofamoreconservativelearningrateforthistechnologybytheresearchteam.

3.3. Geothermal
3.3.1. Technology Overview
GeothermalenergyisderivedfromheatfrombeneaththeEarthssurfacethatflowstothe
surfacethroughavarietyofpathwaysfromhotwater,steamreservoirs,orheatedrock
formations.HeatiscarriedcontinuouslyupwardtotheEarthssurfaceassteamorhotwater
whenwaterflowsthroughpermeablerock.Californiahasthelargestgeothermalmegawatt
productionandpotentialofanystate.Currently,onlyafractionofCaliforniasenormous
geothermalresourcesareused.Approximately94%ofallknownUnitedStateshydrothermal
resourcesarelocatedinCalifornia.
CurrentlyintheUnitedStates,geothermalenergyaccountsforapproximately2,850megawatts
ofelectricpower,enoughelectricityfor3.7millionpeople.Thecostofproducingthispower
rangesfrom4to8centsperkWh.Thenationselectricalpowergenerationwasestimatedat80
quadrillionBtu(quads)in1990.Ofthisamount,renewableenergyproduced6.4quadsin1990
or8%ofthenationstotalenergyconsumption.Itisestimatedthatrenewableenergysources
havethepotentialtosupplyasmuchas36.6quadsby2030.Geothermalresourcesarepredicted
tobethelargestshorttermsupplierofrenewableelectricpower,withmorethanatenfold
increaseor3.3quadsprojectedby2010.Thisisapproximately35%ofthecalculatedrenewable
energycontribution.

49U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.EnergyInformationAdministration.LearningCurveEffectsforNew
Technologies.

52


Types of Geothermal Resources
Mostgeothermalresourcesfallintooneofthefollowingcategories:vapordominated,liquid
dominated,geopressure,hotdryrock,andmagma.Geothermalresourcesresultfroma
concentrationoftheEarthsthermalenergywithinregionsofthefoursubsurfacetypes.Ofthese
resources,onlyvaporandliquiddominatedresourceshavebeendevelopedcommerciallyfor
powergeneration.
Vapor-Dominated Resources
Vapordominatedresourcescontainsuperheatedsteamabove200C(382F)andarerarein
nature.Theresourceshavebeenproventobeeconomicaltoexploitforelectricitygeneration.In
Californiatheonlyvapordominatedresource,knownasTheGeysers,islocatedinNorthern
California.TheGeysersisalowpressure,singlephasesystem.
Liquid-Dominated Resources
InCalifornialiquiddominatedgeothermalfieldsaremorecommonthanvapordominated
resources.Ingeneral,inliquiddominatedreservoirsliquidwaterathightemperatureandhigh
pressurefillsfracturedandporousgeologyandmayformasmallsteamcapwithinthe
reservoir.Inthesegeothermalsystems,watermigratesintoawellfromthereservoirbyapath
ofleastresistance.InCalifornia,liquiddominatedresourcesarequiteabundantandfarmore
widespreadthanvapordominatedresources.Over90%ofknowngeothermalresourcesare
liquiddominated.Liquiddominatedresourcesarecharacterizedbythepresenceofeitherhot
waterorsaturatedsteam(amixtureofsteamandhotwater)withreservoirtemperatures
rangingfrom25C(77F)toover315C(599F).
Hightemperatureresources(reservoirswithtemperaturesgreaterthan176C[349F])generally
useflashedsteamortotalflowpowergenerationsystems.Atresourcetemperatureslowerthan
176C,thesetechnologiesbecomeinefficientandeconomicallyunattractive,inwhichcase,the
binarycyclesystemismoreappropriate.Abinarycycleplantcanusemoderatetemperature
resources(reservoirswithtemperaturesbetween104C[219F]and176C)40%to60%more
efficientlythanaflashedsteamfacility.
Earth Energy (Geothermal Heat Pumps and Direct Use)
Earthenergyistheheatcontainedinsoilandrocksatshallowdepths.Thisresourceistapped
bygeothermalheatpumps.Thesoilandnearsurfacerocks,from5to50feetdeep,havea
nearlyconstanttemperature(10C[50F]to70C[10F]dependingonlatitude)fromgeothermal
heating.AccordingtotheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,geothermalheatpumpsare
oneofthenationsmostefficientheating,cooling,andwaterheatingsystemsavailable.In
winter,thesesystemsdrawonearthheattowarmthehouse,andinsummertheytransfer
heatfromthehousetotheearth.Undergroundreservoirsarealsotappedfordirectuse
applications.Intheseinstances,hotwaterischanneledtogreenhouses,spas,fishfarms,and
homesforspaceheatingandhotwater.
Vapor-Dominated Resource Development
Thedevelopmentofvapordominatedgeothermalwasinitiatedin1960atTheGeysersthrough
apartnershipofUnionOilCompanyofCalifornia(Unocal)andMagmaEnergyCompany.

53


ThermalPowerCompanyproducedsteamtothePacificGasandElectricCompany(PG&E)
electricalpowergenerationgrid.Since1960,TheGeysershasdevelopedintotheworldslargest
drysteamresourcewithover2700MWofinstalledelectricalgeneratingcapacity.
TheGeysersisthelargestdevelopedvapordominatedsystemintheworldandtheonlyknown
drysteamresourceintheUnitedStatesInadrysteamsystem,thereservoircontainsdry,
superheatedsteamwithaveragetemperaturesgenerallyexceeding200C(392F).These
resourcesareusedexclusivelyforelectricitygenerationandhaveproventobeeconomical.
PowerplantsoperatinginTheGeysersusedrysteamproducedfromnumerouswells.The
steamispipedtotheturbinegeneratorthroughextensivecollectionsystems.Thesteamexiting
theturbineiscondensedwithcoolingwaterandpumpedtoevaporativecoolingtowers.The
temperatureofthecondensateisfurtherreduced,producingthecooledwaterusedinthe
turbineexhaustcondenser.Theremainingcondensateisinjectedbackintotheground.During
thisprocess,however,80%to85%ofthegeothermalfluidislostthroughevaporation.
Since1960,whencommercialelectricitygenerationfirstbegan,TheGeysershasbecomethe
premiergeothermaldevelopmentintheworld.Sincethemid1980s,TheGeysersreservoirhas
beguntoexhibittheeffectsofheavysteamwithdrawal.Steampressure,particularlyinthe
centralpartofthereservoir,hasdroppedmuchfasterthanwasoriginallyexpected.Inmany
existingwells,steampressurehasdeclinedfromtheinitial500poundspersquareinch(psi)in
1960tolessthan200psi,shorteningtheirusefullifeandhasteningtheneedformakeupwells.
But,inmanyinstances,theadditionalsupplyofsteamprovidedbynewmakeupwellshas
proventobeinsufficienttomaintaintheoriginalsteamoutput.Also,manyofthesteam
developersareencounteringproductioninterference.Thatis,steamthatwouldotherwisebe
producedfromanexistingwellisdivertedtoanewwell.
ThedramaticdeclineinoutputfrommanyoftheplantsatTheGeysersisveryserious.Since
1986,electricityproductionhasfallenbyasmuchas40%.Theproductionforecastsareprojected
tobe11,000MW,nearlyonehalfofthecurrentcapacity.Thissituationmightbereversedif
sufficientwaterisfoundtorechargethereservoirbyinjection.Thisconditionisdueto
cumulativeoverproduction.Currentestimatessuggestthatlessthan5%ofthereservoirheat
hasbeenextractedfromTheGeysers.
TheGeysersistheonlydrysteamfieldthatiscommerciallydevelopedinthenationandhas
successfullyproducedpowersincetheearly1960s.Today,TheGeysersretainsapeakcapability
ofnearly1,100MW,enoughelectricitytosupplyacityofoveramillionCalifornians.
AsTheGeysersresourcewasexpanded,resourceexplorationandresearchinareasoutsideThe
Geysersaccelerated.AtTheGeysers,additionalgeneratingcapacitywasinstalled.Additional
drysteamplantshadconsiderablelargercapacityincreasesandlargerturbines,whichrequired
moreproductionandinjectionwellsthatresultedinmoreexpensivesteamproductionlinesand
greateroperationandmaintenancecosts.
TheGeysersgeothermalfieldreachedmaximumsteamproductionof1,866MWin1988.Since
then,pressureandproductionrateshavedeclined.Steamproductiondeclinehasdemonstrated

54


theimportanceofincreasedwaterinjectiontomaintainreservoirpressure.Whilethereis
continuingresearchtowarddeterminingthebestmethodsforwaterinjection,mitigation
effortssuchastheconstructionoftheSantaRosaandsoutheastGeyserspipelineprojectsto
augmentfluidinjectiontooffsetproductiondeclinesareunderway.Otheractivitiesthathave
beenimplementedincludemodificationstoplantoperationsforincreasingefficiency.In
addition,operationofolder,lessefficientpowerplantshasbeensuspendedandsteamrerouted
tonewerandmoreefficientplants.Plantoperatorshaveinstallednewturbinesdesignedat
lowerturbineinletpressures.Operatorshavealsomodifiedthedesignandoperationsof
existingturbines,condensers,andgashandlingsystemsforlowloadandcycling.These
changesmayextendthelifeoftheresourcebutatahigherprice.
TheGeysersisaresourcethatisnowintensivelymanagedforsteamproduction.Sincethe
steamdeclinebecamenoticeablein1985,approximately200MWofproductionhavebeentaken
offlineorsuspended.Thegeothermalelectricitygenerationindustryhaswatchedthe
unfoldingofeventsatTheGeysersandhasrespondedbyconstructingclosedcyclesystemsthat
reinjectvirtuallyeverythingextractedoutoftheground.Reinjectionofspentsteamhasbeen
successfulinslowingreservoirsteamdeclinesbuthasnotproventoincreasesteamproduction.
Geothermalresourcesdevelopmentsarenowbeingplannedwithmorecautionthanbefore,to
avoidascenariosimilartotheoneatTheGeysers.Theeliminationofcompetitionbetween
steamproducersandplantoperatorshaseasedasaresultofownershipconsolidationand
changingauctionstrategies.Reservoirmanagementactivitiessuchasfurtherspacingof
productionandinjectionwells,aswellasmonitoringwaterresourcesforflow,quantity,
chemistry,andtendenciestowardbrineandscalingarealsobeingimplemented.Asaresult,
binaryandliquiddominatedflashextractionsystemsaretheonlyonesbeinginstalledtoday.
Liquid-dominated Resource Development
GeothermalexplorationofliquiddominatedresourcesinCaliforniabeganin1967,whenboth
UnocalandMortonSaltCompanydeployedsmall,experimentalgeothermalturbinesoperating
attheSaltonSeafield.However,problemswithsilicascalingandhighsaltconcentrations
preventedcommercialdevelopmentoftheresourceatthattime.Indevelopingliquid
dominatedresourcesduringthe1970s,developershadtoconsiderthedegreeofrisk,greater
capitalcosts,anadverseregulatoryclimate,andrelativeimmaturityoftheexploration,drilling,
andproductiontechnology,whichimpededthedevelopmentofliquiddominatedresources.
Theseimpedimentsweremitigatedsignificantlywhenthefederalandstategovernment
respondedtotheoilcrisisof1973.Toencourageexploitationofgeothermalresourcesand
associatedtechnologies,theEnergyCommissionandtheDOEprovidedfinancialassistance
programstosupportR&Dintheseareas.
Developmentofliquiddominatedresourceswasfurtherfacilitatedin1975,whentheU.S.
GeologicalSurvey(USGS)concludedanationwidegeothermalresourceassessment.TheUSGS
assessmentdocumentwasinstrumentalinexpandinginterestindevelopingliquiddominated
resourcesintheSouthwesternstates.

55


Severalyearslater,theFederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission(FERC)encouraged
developmentofgeothermalresourcesbyprovidingenergytaxcreditsandloanguaranties
whileestablishingamoreprogressiveregulatoryprocessthroughpassageofthePublicUtility
RegulatoryPolicyAct(PURPA)of1978.By1979,FERChadformulatedregulationsfor
implementationofPURPA.Inessence,FERCdirectedstateregulatorstorequirethatutilities
purchasepowerfromindependentpowerproducers(IPPs)attheutilitysfullavoidedcostand
tomaketheutilitystransmissionsystemavailabletodeliverthepowertomarket.TheFERC
decisionthatutilitiescouldberequiredtopaythequalityfactor,acapacitychargeaswellasan
energychargewassignificanttothegeothermalindustry.Thelogicforthecapacitychargewas
that,becauseofthebaseloadnatureofgeothermalpower,itssaletotheutilitydirectly
displacedcapacitythatutilitieswouldotherwisehavetobuildinthefuture.
ThisactionledtotheEnergyCommissionrequiringutilitiestoissueStandardOfferNumber
Four(SO4)contractsforpurchaseofpowerfromIPPs.Thisresultedinthesigningoflongterm
contracts,settingpricesattheutilitysfullavoidedcostfornewbaseloadcapacity.Theresultof
theseregulatoryandfinancialincentivesresultedinashiftfromutilitydevelopmentofadry
steamresourcetoindependentdevelopmentofliquiddominatedresourcesatmultiple
locationsthroughoutthestate.ThistrendestablishedtheIPPsegmentoftheindustryand
increaseditspowergeneratingcapacityfromzerotoapproximatelyonethirdofthetotalMW
production.Productionfromliquiddominatedresourcesisalsoapproximatelyonethirdof
totalproduction.
Theinitialelectricalpowerdevelopmentofaliquiddominatedgeothermalresourceoccurredin
November1979attheEastMesafieldinImperialCounty.Theelectricalgenerationplant
consistedofabinaryapplicationusingisobutaneasthesecondaryworkingfluidtoturnout
13.4MWofelectricalpower.
InJune1980,SouthernCaliforniaEdison(SCE)beganoperationofa10MWexperimental
powerplantattheBrawleygeothermalfieldwithsteamproducedbyUnocal.However,SCE
andUnocalceasedfurtherdevelopmentofthefieldafterafewyearsofoperationdueto
corrosion,reservoiruncertainties,andthehighsalinitybrinesthattypicallyproducedsaltsby
massthatrangedbetween5%and25%.
Inthemid1970s,Unocal,inconjunctionwiththeDOE,spearheadedresearchanddevelopment
andplantoperationactivitiesattheGeothermalLoopExperimentalFacilityattheSaltonSea
geothermalfield.Unocaltooktheleadroleindevelopingandresolvingproblemsthatwere
encounteredinprocessingthehighsalinitybrines,whichweretypicallyover20%saltbymass.
TheGeothermalLoopFacilitywascompletedin1976andwasdesignedtodeterminethe
technicalfeasibilityofremovingsaltsthatformedwhensteamwasflashedfromthebrine.Asa
resultofthiscooperativeindustry/governmenteffort,acrystallizerclarifier,abrinetreatment
process,wasdevelopedanddemonstrated.Thisprocesswascriticalinprovingthatcommercial
powergenerationwastechnicallyandeconomicallyfeasiblefromtheSaltonSeageothermal
field.

56


UnocalinitiatedelectricalpowergenerationfromtheSaltonSeageothermalresourceinJune
1982fromits12MWplant.In1982,Unocaladdedtwoadditionalgenerationunitsforatotal
grosselectricalgenerationof83MW.
Inlate1985,MagmaPowerCompanycommencedcontinuousproductionfromitsfirst40MW
powerplantattheSaltonSeafield.Withinacoupleyears,Magmaaddedthreemoregenerating
unitsthatbroughtitstotalto145MW.Today,theentireSaltonSeafieldoperationofeight
powerplantswith288MWcapacityisoperatedbyCalEnergyCorporation,whichboughtout
UnocalsandMagmasoperations.InJanuary1999,CalEnergyOperatingCorporationunveiled
a$400millionexpansionoftheirgeothermalpowercomplexattheSaltonSea.
Togenerateelectricityeconomicallyusingliquiddominatedresources,reservoirtemperatures
generallymustexceed104.4C(220F).ThereareseveralareaswithinCaliforniawhereliquid
dominatedresourcesabovethistemperaturearebeingdeveloped.TheseincludetheImperial
Valley,CosoHotSprings,MonoLongValley,andWendelAmadee.Otherareasthatexhibit
temperaturesabovethisminimumandwhereexplorationhasbegunincludeGlassMountain,
Lassen,andSurpriseValley.Sincethetemperatureandqualityoftheseresourcesvary
significantlyfromsitetosite,differenttypesofgeneratingsystemsareneeded,dependingon
thespecificcircumstances.IntheImperialValley,thereare16plantsoperatingwithacombined
capacityof527.3MW.AttheCosoHotSpringsresourcethereareninedualflashoperating
plantswithacombinedgrossratingcapacityof229.5MW.
Inaflashedsteamsystems,geothermalbrine,typicallybetween104Cand176C,isbroughtto
thesurfaceandpipedtoaseparationtankwherethepressureisreduced,causingthefluidto
flashintosteam.Inasingleflashsystem,fluidisallowedtoboilatthesurfaceinonestage
productionseparation.Afractionofthehotwaterflashestosteamwhenexposedtothelower
pressurewithintheseparator.Thesteamisthenpassedthroughaturbinetogeneratepower.
Typically,theliquidfractionistheninjectedbackintothereservoir.Duringthisprocessas
muchas60%oftheusableheatextractedfromthereservoirmaybelost.Toimproveefficiency,
dualflashsystemsareusedinwhichthegeothermalfluidisflashedtwice,increasingthe
amountofsteamtotheturbine.Dualflashtechnologyimposesasecondstageseparatorontoa
singleflashsystem.Thissecondstagesteamhasalowerpressureandiseitherputintoalater
stageofahighpressureturbineorasecondlowerpressureturbine.Thesteamexitingthe
turbineiscondensedinmuchthesamemanneraswithdrysteamplants.However,lessofthe
resourceislostduringevaporativecoolingsincelessthanhalfofthegeothermalwaterthatis
producedactuallyflashestosteam.Doubleflashtechnologyisintherangeof10%to20%more
efficientthansingleflashtechnology.
Thisstudyincludestwotypesofgeothermalpowerplants:

BinaryPowerPlants(Figure12).

FlashPowerPlants(Figure13).

57


Drysteamplantsarenotincludedinthiscostofgenerationstudysincetheyareonlyapplicable
tooneresourceinthewesternUnitedStates(TheGeysers).Forthepurposesofcostsmodeling,
resourcesapplicabletoawidergeographywerechosen.

Figure 12. Binary power plant


Source: Idaho National Laboratory

Figure 13. Flash power plant


Source: Idaho National Laboratory

58

3.3.2. Geothermal Binary


Technical and Market Justification
CurrentCaliforniabinarygeothermalinstallationstotal140MW.50Anadditional240MW
potentialdevelopment51islikelyusingbinarytechnology.
Primary Commercial Embodiment
Binarycyclegeothermalpowerplantspassmoderatelyhotgeothermalwater(calledbrine)bya
secondaryfluidwithamuchlowerboilingpointthanwater.Thiscausesthesecondaryfluidto
flashtovapor,whichthendrivestheturbines.Californiabinaryplantsrangeinsizefrom0.7to
47.8MWwithmostbetween20and30MW.Eachoftheseplantscanhaveseveralgenerators.
TheaveragegeneratorsizeinuseinCaliforniaisapproximately4MW.
Thetypicalbinarygeothermalpowerplantin2018isforeseentobesimilarinfunctionandsize
tothecurrentinstallations.
Cost Drivers
Muchoftheinformationoncostdriversiscommontobothbinaryandflashgeothermalplants.
Commoninformationbetweenthetwotechnologiesisnotrepeatedintheflashgeothermal
section.
MarketandIndustryChanges
TherehavebeennomarketandindustrychangessinceAugust2007thathavematerially
affectedgeothermaltechnologies.
CurrentTrends
BinarygeothermalisamaturetechnologywithplantsinCaliforniasincethemid1980s.A
numberofspecificsiteshavebeenidentifiedinCaliforniasuitableforbinaryplant
development.Shouldthesesitesbedeveloped,thelessexpensivesites(greatestreturnon
investment)wouldbefirst,withthemoreexpensivesitestofollow.Anylearningcurvein
developmentwouldmostlikelybeacostavoidanceratherthanacostsaving.Thereforeany
costreductiontrendsareunlikelytobeseen.
CostDrivers
Geothermalplantsincludethefollowingkeycostdrivers:52

50Source:http://geoheat.oit.edu/directuse/power.htm
51SisonLebrilla,Elaine,ValentinoTiangco.GeothermalStrategicValueAnalysis.CEC5002005105SD,
June2005.
52Kagel,Alyssa.AHandbookontheExternalities,Employment,andEconomicsofGeothermalEnergy.
GeothermalEnergyAssociation,October2006.

59

ExplorationIncludesdefiningthegeothermalresource.

ConfirmationSeekstoconfirmtheenergypotentialofaresourcebydrilling
productionwellsandtestingtheirflowratesuntilabout25%oftheresourcecapacity
neededbytheprojectisconfirmed.

SitedevelopmentCoversallremainingactivitiesthatbringapowerplantonline.

DrillingThesuccessratefordrillingproductionwellsduringsitedevelopment
average70%to80%.Thesizeofthewellandthedepthtothegeothermal
reservoirarethemostimportantfactorsindeterminingthedrillingcost.

ProjectleasingandpermittingLikeallpowerprojects,geothermalmustcomply
withaseriesoflegislatedrequirementsrelatedtoenvironmentalconcernsand
constructioncriteria.

PipingnetworkThenetworkofpipesconnectingthepowerplantwith
productionandinjectionwells.Productionwellsbringthegeothermalfluid(or
brine)tothesurfacetobeusedforpowergeneration,whileinjectionwellsreturn
theusedfluidbacktothegeothermalsystemtobeusedagain.

PowerplantdesignandconstructionIndesigningapowerplant,developers
mustbalancesizeandtechnologyofplantmaterialswithefficiencyandcost
effectiveness.Thepowerplantdesignandconstructiondependontypeofplant
(binaryorflash)aswellasthetypeofcoolingcycleused(wateroraircooling).

TransmissionIncludesthecoststoincludetheconstructionofnewlines,
upgradestoexistinglines,ornewtransformersandsubstations.

Anotherimportantfactorisoperationandmaintenance(O&M),whichconsistofallcosts
incurredduringtheoperationalphaseofthepowerplant.Belowisabriefdescription:53

Operationcostsconsistoflabor,spendingforconsumablegoods,taxesandroyalties,
andothermiscellaneouscharges.

Maintenancecostsconsistofkeepingequipmentingoodworkingstatusandsteamfield
maintenance.Besidesmaintainingtheproductioninjectionwells(pipelines,roads,etc.),
expensesrelatedtosteamfieldmaintenancemainlyinvolvemakeupdrillingactivities.
Makeupdrillingaimstocompensateforthenaturalproductivitydeclineoftheproject
startupwellsbydrillingadditionalproductionwells.

Costdriversarenotconstantforeverysinglegeothermalsitedevelopment.Eachoftheabove
driverscanvarysignificantlybasedonspecificsitecharacteristics.Otherkeyvariablefactors
thatdrivecostsforgeothermalplants(notmentioneddirectlyabovesincetheyarehighly
projectspecific)areprojectdelays,temperatureoftheresource,andplantsize.

53Hance,CedricFactorsAffectingCostsofGeothermalPowerDevelopment.GeothermalEnergyAssociation,
August2005.

60


Projectdelayscansignificantlyimpacttheexplorationcostofgeothermaldevelopment.Figure
14showsanestimationofthiscostimpact.53

Figure 14. Specific cost of power plant equipment vs. resource temperature
Source: Hance, Factors Affecting Costs of Geothermal Power Development.

Thetemperatureoftheresourceisanessentialparameterinfluencingthecostofthepower
plantequipment.Eachpowerplantisdesignedtooptimizetheuseoftheheatsuppliedbythe
geothermalfluid.Thesizeandthuscostofvariouscomponents(e.g.,heatexchangers)are
determinedbytheresourcestemperature.Asthetemperatureoftheresourcegoesup,the
efficiencyofthepowersystemincreases,andthespecificcostofequipmentdecreases(more
energybeingproducedwithsimilarequipment).Sincebinarysystemsuselowerresource
operatingtemperaturesthanflashsteamsystems,binarycostscanbeexpectedtobehigher.
Figure15givesestimatesforcostvarianceduetoresourcetemperature.

61

Figure 15. Financial impact of delay on exploration costs


Source: Hance, Factors Affecting Costs of Geothermal Power Development.

Economiesofscalemightsignificantlydecreasethespecificcostofsomecomponents.One
source(Hance2005)givesanestimationforcapitalcostsofgeothermalprojectswithcapacity
rangesof5to150MWdecliningexponentiallywiththeircapacityaccordingtothefollowing
relationship:CC=2500e^0.0025(P5),whereCCrepresentscapitalcostsandPtheprojects
powercapacityasshowninFigure16.

62

Figure 16. Economies of scale


Source: Hance, Factors Affecting Costs of Geothermal Power Development.

Current Costs
Severalsourcesprovideestimatedcostsforgeothermaldevelopment.Basedonananalysisof
thecostdriversgivenabove,itisdifficulttousegeneralaveragecostswithoutexamining
specificpotentialprojectsites.
InJuly2002,theEnergyCommissionexecutedaPIERcontractwiththeHetchHetchyWater
andPowerDivisionoftheSanFranciscoPublicUtilitiesCommission(HetchHetchy/SFPUC)to
fundstudiesandprojectsrelatingtorenewableenergy.GeothermEx,Inc.(GeothermEx)was
retainedbyHetchHetchy/SFPUCtoprovideageothermalresourceassessmentforCalifornia
andwesternNevada.ThissectionsummarizesthefindingsofGeothermExontheresource
assessmentforCalifornia.
GeothermExusedpriorresearch,exploration,anddevelopmentresultsavailableinthepublic
domain.Italsouseddataandinformationreleasedbysomedevelopersintothepublicdomain
forthisstudy.Threebaselineconditionswereusedtodeterminethegeothermalresourceareas
includedinthisassessment:geographiclocation,resourcetemperature,andevidenceofa
discreteresource.InCalifornia,22geothermalresourceareaswereincludedintheassessment.
Amongthevariousgeothermalresourceareas,theamountandqualityoftechnicaldataare
extremelyvariable.Auniformsetofrequiredresourcecriteriathereforeneededtobequantified
todeterminecommercialfeasibilityforeachresourcearea.Foreachselectedreservoirvaluesfor
thefollowingcriteriawereobtainedorreasonablyestimated:temperature,area,thickness,
porosity,andresourcerecoveryfactor.
Tobettercapturetheuncertaintyofeachresource,theminimum,mostlikelyandmaximum
values,wereusedforeachcriterion.Thesevalueswerethenusedinprobabilisticsimulation,
(basedonMonteCarlorandomnumbersampling,)tocalculateestimatedgenerationcapacity
basedonaccessibleheatattheresourcearea.Becausethegenerationcapacityisestimatedbased
oncalculatedheatinplace,thereisnoguaranteethatsufficientpermeabilityexiststoallow
commercialproductionforthoseresourceswherelittleornotestdrillinghasoccurred.

63


Asummaryofthisanalysis,withdevelopmentcostsforspecificsitessuitableforbinaryplant
development,isshowninTable12.54

Table 12. Potential binary geothermal plant development in California (most likely sources)
Geothermal Resource Area

County

Resource
Type

Potential
Development
(MW)

Estimated
Cost
($2004/kW)

Estimated
Cost
($2009/kW)

Dunes

Imperial

Binary

11

$4,085

$4,726

East Mesa

Imperial

Binary

74.8

$5,141

$5,948

Glamis

Imperial

Binary

6.4

$4,953

$5,731

Heber

Imperial

Binary

42

$2,706

$3,131

Mount signal

Imperial

Binary

19

$2,746

$3,177

Superstition Mountain

Imperial

Binary

9.5

$3,211

$3,715

Honey Lake (Wendel-Amedee)

Lassen

Binary

1.9

$2,484

$2,874

Mono

Binary

71

$2,034

$2,353

Ventura

Binary

5.3

$4,112

$4,758

High

$5,141

$5,948

Low

$2,034

$2,353

Average

$3,497

$4,046

Long Valley (Mono- Long Valley)


Mammoth Pacific Plants
Sespe Hot Springs
Total

241

Source: Sison-Lebrilla, Elaine and ValentinoTiangco, Geothermal Strategic Value Analysis

Astraightaverageisusedtoestimateaveragecosts.Aweightedaveragewouldyielda
differenceofapproximately2%,whichisconsideredsmallforthepurposesofthecost
modeling.
Anothersource(Kagel2006)providesgeneralcostdataforgeothermalplantsbutdoesnot
separatebetweenbinaryorflashtechnologies.Thatsourceestimates$2,770/kW($2004)astotal
developmentcosts,whichis79%oftheaveragecostsderivedforCaliforniaresourcesinthis
study.Sincebinaryplantsaretypicallymoreexpensivethanflashgeothermalplants,andsince
thevaluespresentedabovearebasedonactualsiteevaluations,the21%discrepancyis
consideredacceptablewhenevaluatingcorroboratingsourcesforcostestimates.
Operationandmaintenancecostscanbeseparatedintofixed($/kWyr)andvariable($/MWh
yr)costs.Whenconsideringvariablecosts,onemustdeterminefacilitycapacityfactor.Actual
installationsinCaliforniaandNevadawereusedinestimatingcapacityfactor.

54SisonLebrilla,Elaine,ValentinoTiangcoGeothermalStrategicValueAnalysis.CEC5002005105SD,
June2005.

64


Table 13. California and Nevada existing binary plants with capacity factor55
Owner

Plant

Wineagle

Wineagle

Location

California

Type

Binary

Year

No. Of

Rating

Capacity

Annual

Units

MW

Factor

Energy

GWh

0.7

80

1985

Development
TG/USEC

Amedee

California

Binary

1988

1.6

80

11

ORMAT

Mammoth/Pacific

California

Binary

1984

10

90

79

ORMAT

ORMESA IE

California

Binary

1988

10

10

90

79

ORMAT

ORMESA IH

California

Binary

1989

12

12

90

95

ORMAT

ORMESA I

California

Binary

1987

26

20

90

158

ORMAT

ORMESA II

California

Binary

1988

20

20

90

158

ORMAT

Mammoth/Pacific

California

Binary

1990

30

90

236

ORMAT

Second Imperial

California

Binary

1993

12

33

80

231

90

38

Project
ORMAT

GEM 1

California

Binary

1979

Retired

SDG&E

Binary Demo.

California

Binary

1985

Retired

Empire Energy

Empire

Nevada

Binary

1987

4.8

Constellation

Soda Lake 1

Nevada

Binary

1987

26.1

90

206

ORMAT

Steamboat I

Nevada

Binary

1986

10.8

95

90

ORMAT

Steamboat 2

Nevada

Binary

1992

47.8

95

398

OESI/CON

SWI

Nevada

Binary

1989

14

21

90

166

Home Stretch

Wabuska I

Nevada

Binary

1984

2.2

90

17

Geothermal
Source: Oregon Institute of Technology: http://geoheat.oit.edu/directuse/power.htm

Actualcapacityfactorsrangefrom80%to95%withmostbeingat90%.
Anotherthingtonoteabouttheexistinginstallationsisthenumberofgenerationunitsforeach
site.Fromthedata,plantsizesrangefrom0.7to47.8MW.Nearlyeveryplantusesmultiple
generators,withgeneratorsizesranginginsizefrom0.35to10MW.
BasedonanevaluationoftheactualinstallationsgiveninTable13,ageneralrangeofplant
sizesisasfollows:

Average:

15MW

High:

50MW

Low:

2MW

Thesevaluesareusedforthecostmodeling.

55Source:OregonInstituteofTechnology:http://geoheat.oit.edu/directuse/power.htm.

65


O&Mvaluesforbinarygeothermalweredeterminedwiththevaluesgivenin$2004/kWyr.56
ThoseapplicabletovariableO&Mwerethenconvertedto$/MWhbasedonhigh,low,and
averagecapacityfactorsusing9.
Equation1:ConversionFactortoVariableO&M

$/MWh=$/kWyr/8.76/CapacityFactor
Allvalueswereadjustedfrom$2004to$2009inproportiontoinflation.Theresultsofthe
analysisareincludedinTable14.
Table 14. Fixed and variable O&M for binary geothermal power plants
Fixed
Variable
Variable
Variable
Average
High
Low
Cost
O&M
O&M
O&M
O&M
Capacity
Capacity
Capacity
($2004 /
($2009 /
($2009 /
($2009 /
($2009 /
Factor
Factor
Factor
kw-yr)
kW-yr)
MWh)
MWh)
MWh)
$24
0.9
$3.52
0.95
$3.34
0.8
$3.96
$6
0.9
$0.88
0.95
$0.83
0.8
$0.99
$1
0.9
$0.15
0.95
$0.14
0.8
$0.17
$41 $47.44
$72 $47.44
$4.55
$4.31
$5.12

Binary Geothermal O&M


Field, General O&M and Rework
Makeup Wells
Relocation Injection Wells
Power Plant O&M
Total
Source: KEMA

ThereisalsosomevariabilityinfixedO&M.Thereferencedreportprovidesonlyaverage
values.Ingeneral,valuesvaryapproximately15%,57whichisusedtoestimatehighandlow
fixedO&Mvalues.

FixedO&MAverage:

$47.44

FixedO&MHigh:

$54.56

FixedO&MLow:

$40.32

Expected Cost Trajectories


Binarygeothermalpowerisaverymaturetechnologywithalimitednumberofsitesavailable
forgeneration.Whilethetechnologycouldhavealearningeffectofupto20%,implyingthat
foradoublingofinstalledcapacitycostswouldbereducedby20%,thesmallnumberofsites
availablefordevelopmentmakesitdifficulttoobtainthoselearningeffects.Basedon
cumulativegeothermalinstalledgenerationin2009at2.4GWto2029expectedcapacityof3
GW,theresearchteamexpectsalearningeffectofnomorethan7%overthatperiod.
Whilecompletingtheinterimprojectreport,theresearchteamwasprovidedwithearlier
researchongeothermalcosttrajectoriesthatpotentiallyconflictswiththeassessmentofthe

56SisonLebrilla,Elaine,ValentinoTiangco.GeothermalStrategicValueAnalysis.CEC5002005105SD,
June2005.
57Lovekin,James,SubirSanyal,AdilC.Sener,ValentinoTiangco,andPabloGutierrezSantana.
PotentialImprovementstoExistingGeothermalFacilitiesinCalifornia.GRCTransactions30,2006.

66


learningeffectsforgeothermal.58ThepremiseofthisresearchisthatgivenenoughR&D
investment,geothermalprojectscanbecomecostequivalentto,orbetterthan,similarsized
fossilfueledprojects.TheauthorsciteintheirresearchanScurvetechnologyexperiencemodel
thatisessentiallysimilartootherlogarithmicbasedexperiencecurvemodels,includingthe
basicpremisesthattheresearchteamusedinthecomputationoflongruncosttrajectoriesfor
costofgenerationdata.
SchillingandEsmundociteintheirresearchthefactthatgeothermalcostshavesteadily
declinedsince1980,from13.8cents/kWhto2005valuesof4.3cents/kWh.Theirfundamental
conclusionregardinggeothermalcosttrajectoriesisthatwithaR&Dinvestmentof
approximately$7.5billion,geothermalenergyshouldbecomemorecostcompetitivethanthe
fossilfuelpriceofenergy.
TheresearchteamevaluatedtheSchillingandEsmundoconclusionregardinggeothermal
technologycosttrajectory.First,theresearchteamnotesthatSchillingandEsmundocitein
theirpaperthatGeothermalskeydisadvantageisthatgiventhestateoftechnology,itis
currentlyverygeographicallyconstrainedwithonlylimitedareasenablingcostefficientuseof
geothermalenergy.Theprimarydriversinexperiencecurvecosttrajectoryeffectsarethe
learningratesinvolvedinatechnologyandthecumulativeinvestment(installedcapacity)over
time.Ifonecannotobtainsufficientgrowthexpansionsincumulativecapacity,thenexperience
curvecosttrajectoriesaremoderatedandoverallcosttrajectoriesflattened.
TheresearchteamusedthecumulativecapacityadditionestimatesprovidedbytheDOEfor
geothermaltechnologies,thesamedatausedbytheresearchteamtoestimatethecosttrajectory
effectsforalltechnologytypes.Thisdatasetshowsageothermalcurrentcumulativeinstalled
baseof2.4GWin2009,andrisingto3.0GWin2030,orayearoveryearaveragegrowthrateof
1.07%peryear.
Next,takingthepremisefromSchillingandEsmundoofanincrementalR&Dinvestmentof
$7.5billiondollars,assumingthatR&Dgoesintocapacityadditionsattheaverageinstalled
plantcostof$4.6millionperMWinstalledgeneration,theresearchteamcalculatedtheamount
ofcumulativegenerationas16,300MWtoberequiredtoreachthefossilfuelequivalency
projectedbySchillingandEsmundo.That16GWcalculatedrequirementismorethanfive
timestheprojectedincreaseincumulativeinstalledbaseprojectedbyDOE.
Theresearchteamconcludesthatwhilethisresearchprovidedhasvaluableinsights,the
fundamentalissuesregardinggeothermalpowerdevelopmentremainastheystatedintheir
ownresearchthattheavailabilityofsuitablesitesultimatelyprovidesaconstraintinthe
amountofcumulativeinstalledcapacitythatcanbeinstalledinareasonabletimeframe.Also
notedisthatthecosttrajectoryimprovementsforeseeninthiscostofgenerationstudy,onthe
orderof10%overthestudyperiodthrough2030,correspondwelltoDOEsownestimates,

58Schilling,MelissaA.andMelissaEsmundo.TechnologySCurvesinRenewableEnergyAlternatives:
AnalysisandImplicationsforIndustryandGovernment.EnergyPolicy(2009),
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.01.004.

67


whichprojecta10%costimprovementthrough2025.Theresearchteamsjudgmentisthat
geothermalenergydevelopmentisarelativelymaturetechnology,andweanticipatereasonable
learningeffects,butnotthosethatwouldenablefossilfuelcostparity,overthestudyduration.

3.3.3. Geothermal Flash


Technical and Market Justification
CurrentCaliforniaflashgeothermalinstallationstotal700MW.59Anadditional2,220MW
potentialdevelopmentislikelyusingflashtechnology.60
Primary Commercial Embodiment
Flashsteamplantspulldeep,highpressurehotwaterintolowerpressuretanksandusethe
resultingflashedsteamtodriveturbines.Thisisthemostcommontypeofplantinoperation
today.MostCaliforniaplantsuseonegenerator,butsomeusetwoorthree.Totalplant
capacitiesrangefrom10to52MW,withmostatapproximately30MW.
Thetypicalflashgeothermalpowerplantin2018isforeseentobesimilarinfunctionandsizeto
thecurrentinstallations.
Cost Drivers
Muchoftheinformationoncostdriversiscommontobothbinaryandflashgeothermalplants.
Commoninformationbetweenthetwotechnologiesthatisgiveninthebinarysectionisnot
repeatedinthissection.
MarketandIndustryChanges
TherehavebeennomarketandindustrychangessinceAugust2007thathavematerially
affectedflashgeothermaltechnologies.
CurrentTrends
FlashgeothermalisamaturetechnologywithalimitednumberofsitesinCaliforniasuitablefor
itsdevelopment.Theprimarycostdriverisdevelopmentofthesite.Shouldthesesitesbe
developed,thelessexpensivesites(greatestreturnoninvestment)wouldbefirst,withthemore
expensivesitestofollow.Anylearningcurveindevelopmentwouldmostlikelybeacost
avoidanceratherthanacostsaving.Thereforeanycostreductiontrendsareunlikelytobeseen.
CostDrivers
Inadditiontothecostdriverslistedinthebinarysection,forsomeflashplants,acorrosive
geothermalfluidmayrequiretheuseofresistivepipesandcement.Addingatitaniumlinerto
protectthecasingmaysignificantlyincreasethecostofthewell.Thiskindofrequirementis
rare,andintheUnitedStates,limitedtotheSaltonSearesource(Hance2005).

59Source:http://geoheat.oit.edu/directuse/power.htm
60SisonLebrilla,Elaine,ValentinoTiangco.GeothermalStrategicValueAnalysis.CEC5002005105SD,
June2005.

68


Current Costs
Thesourcedocumentationandmethodsforestimatingcurrentcostsofflashgeothermalplants
areincludedinthebinarysection.Theresultsspecifictoflashtechnologiesaregivenbelow.
Asummaryoftheresourceanalysis,withdevelopmentcosts,forspecificsitessuitableforflash
plantdevelopment,isshowninTable15.61
Table 15. Potential flash geothermal plant development in California (most likely sources)
Geothermal Resource Area

Salton Sea (including

County

Resource

Potential

Estimated

Estimated

Type

Development

Cost

Cost

(MW)

($2004/kW)

($2009/kW)

Imperial

Flash

1400

$2,250*

$2,603

Imperial

Flash

1400

$4,500*

$5,207

Brawley (North)

Imperial

Flash

135

$2,638

$3,052

Brawley (East)

Imperial

Flash

129

$4,195

$4,854

Brawley (South)

Imperial

Flash

62

$4,606

$5,329

Niland

Imperial

Flash

76

$3,249

$3,759

Coso Hot Springs

Inyo

Flash

55

$3,405

$3,940

Sulfur Bank Field, Clear Lake

Lake

Flash

43

$2,347

$2,715

Napa

Flash

25

$3,403

$3,937

Modoc

Flash

37

$3,146

$3,640

San

Flash

48

$2,615

$3,026

Westmoreland) - Low
Salton Sea (including
Westmoreland) - High

Area
Calistoga
Lake City/Surprise Valley
Randsburg

Bernardi
no/ Kern
Medicine Lake (Fourmile Hill)

Siskiyou

Flash

36

$2,674

$3,094

Medicine Lake (Telephone

Siskiyou

Flash

175

$2,275

$2,632

Flat)
Total

2221

High

175

$4,606

$5,329

Low

25

$2,250

$2,603

Average

75

$3,177

$3,676

* The Salton Sea resource includes high and low cost estimates.
Source: Sison-Lebrilla, Elaine and Valentino Tiangco. Geothermal Strategic Value Analysis.

Anothersource(Kagel2006)providesgeneralcostdataforgeothermalplantsbutdoesnot
separatebetweenbinaryorflashtechnologies.Thatsourceestimates$2,770/kW($2004)astotal
developmentcosts,whichis88%ofthecostsrecommendedinthisstudy.Sincethevalues

61SisonLebrilla,Elaine,ValentinoTiangco.GeothermalStrategicValueAnalysis.CEC5002005105SD,
June2005.

69


presentedabovearebasedonactualsiteevaluations,the12%discrepancyisconsidered
acceptablewhenevaluatingcorroboratingsourcesforcostestimates.
O&Mcostscanbeseparatedintofixed($/kWyr)andvariable($/MWhyr)costs.When
consideringvariablecosts,onemustdeterminefacilitycapacityfactor.Existinginstallationsin
CaliforniaandNevadawereusedinestimatingcapacityfactor.
Table 16. California and Nevada existing flash plants with capacity factor62
Owner

ORMAT

Plant

Location

Type

Year

No. Of

Rating

Capacity

Annual

Units

MW

Factor

Energy

GWh

92.5

146

GEM 3

California

Double Flash

1989

18.5

ORMAT

Dual-Flash

California

Double Flash

1985

52

90

410

CalEnergy

J.M. Leathers

California

Double Flash

2000

10

104

91

ORMAT

GEM 2

California

Double Flash

1989

18.5

92.5

146

CalEnergy

S. S. 2

California

Double Flash

1990

20

104

182

CECI

Navy 1: Unit 2

California

Double Flash

1988

30

116

305

CECI

Navy 1: Unit 3

California

Double Flash

1988

30

116

305

CECI

Navy 2: Unit 4

California

Double Flash

1989

30

116

305

CECI

Navy 2: Unit 5

California

Double Flash

1989

30

116

305

CECI

Navy 2: Unit 6

California

Double Flash

1989

30

116

305

CECI

BLM 1: Unit 7

California

Double Flash

1988

30

116

305

CECI

BLM 1: Unit 8

California

Double Flash

1988

30

116

305

CECI

BLM 1: Unit 9

California

Double Flash

1989

30

116

305

CECI

Navy 1: Unit 1

California

Double Flash

1987

34

116

345

CalEnergy

Vulcan

California

Double Flash

1985

38

104

346

CalEnergy

J.J. Elmore

California

Double Flash

1989

38

104

346

CalEnergy

J.M. Leathers

California

Double Flash

1989

38

104

346

CalEnergy

S. S. 4

California

Double Flash

1996

40

104

403

Calenergy

A.W. Hoch (Del

California

Double Flash

1989

42

104

383

Ranch)
CalEnergy

S. S. 3

California

Double Flash

1989

50

104

455

CalEnergy

S. S. 5

California

Double Flash

2000

50

104

503

CalEnergy

S. S. 1

California

Single Flash

1982

10

104

91

Caithness

Beowawe

Nevada

Double Flash

1985

16.6

90

131

ORMAT

Brady Hot

Nevada

Double Flash

1992

21.1

98

181

Springs
ORMAT

Desert Peak

Nevada

Double Flash

1985

12.5

98

107

Caithness

Dixie Valley

Nevada

Double Flash

1988

62

90

489

ORMAT

Steamboat

Nevada

Single Flash

1988

14.4

95

120

Hills
Source: http://geoheat.oit.edu/directuse/power.htm

62Source:http://geoheat.oit.edu/directuse/power.htm

70

ActualcapacityfactorsinCaliforniarangefrom90%to116%andinNevadarangefrom90%to
98%.Forthepurposesofcostmodeling,itsunreasonabletoassumecapacityfactorsator
aboveunity.Arangeof90%to98%wasselectedwiththeaveragebeing94%.
Anotherthingtonoteisthatmostflashgeothermalplantsuseasinglegenerator.Plant
capacitiesrangefrom10to62MW.Generatorcapacitiesrangefrom7to62MW.
BasedonanevaluationoftheactualinstallationsgiveninTable16,ageneralrangeofplant
sizesisasfollows:

Average:

30MW

High:

50MW

Low:

7MW

Thesevaluesareusedforthecostmodeling.
O&Mvaluesforflashgeothermalweredeterminedwiththevaluesgivenin$2004/kWyr.63
ThoseapplicabletovariableO&Mwerethenconvertedto$/MWhbasedonhigh,lowand
averagecapacityfactorsusingEquation2.
Equation2:ConversionFactortoVariableO&M

$/MWh=$/kWyr/8.76/CapacityFactor
Allvalueswereadjustedfrom$2004to$2009inproportiontoinflation.Theresultsofthe
analysisareincludedinTable17.
Table 17. Fixed and variable O&M for flash geothermal power plants
Flash Geothermal O&M
Field, General O&M and Rework
Makeup Wells
Relocation Injection Wells
Power Plant O&M
Total

Fixed
Variable
Variable
Variable
Average
High
Low
Cost
O&M
O&M
O&M
O&M
Capacity
Capacity
Capacity
($2004 /
($2009 /
($2009 /
($2009 /
($2009 /
Factor
Factor
Factor
kw-yr)
kW-yr)
MWh)
MWh)
MWh)
$27
0.94
$3.79
0.98
$3.64
0.9
$3.96
$7
0.94
$0.98
0.98
$0.94
0.9
$1.03
$2
0.94
$0.28
0.98
$0.27
0.9
$0.29
$47 $54.38
$83 $54.38
$5.06
$4.85
$5.28

Source: KEMA

63SisonLebrilla,Elaine,ValentinoTiangco.GeothermalStrategicValueAnalysis.CEC5002005105SD,
June2005.

71


ThereisalsosomevariabilityinfixedO&M.Thereferencedreportprovidesonlyaverage
values.Ingeneral,valuesvaryapproximately15%,64whichisusedtoestimatehighandlow
fixedO&Mvalues.

FixedO&MAverage:

$58.38

FixedO&MHigh:

$67.14

FixedO&MLow:

$49.62

Expected Cost Trajectories


SeetheBinaryGeothermalsectionforananalysisofexpectedcosttrajectories.
FlashGeothermalEmissions
Unlikemanyrenewabletechnologies,flashgeothermalplantsproduceemissions.Alistingof
emissionsisprovidedbelow(unitsareinlbs/MWh):65,66

CO:

0.058

NOx:

0.191

SO2:

0.026

VOC:

0.011

H2S:

0.092

CO2:

60

3.4. Hydropower
3.4.1. Technology Overview
Hydroelectricpowerisgeneratedbycapturingthekineticenergyofwaterasitmovesfroma
higherelevationtoalowerelevationbypassingitthroughaturbine.Theamountofkinetic
energycapturedbyaturbinedependsonthehead(verticalheightthewaterisfalling)andthe
flowrateofthewater.Often,thewaterisraisedtoahigherpotentialenergybyblockingits
naturalflowwithadam.Ifadamisnotfeasible,itispossibletodivertwateroutofthenatural
waterway,throughapenstock,andbacktothewaterway.Suchapplicationsallowfor

64Lovekin,James,SubirSanyal,AdilC.Sener,ValentinoTiangco,andPabloGutierrezSantana.
PotentialImprovementstoExistingGeothermalFacilitiesinCalifornia.GRCTransactions30,2006.
65SisonLebrilla,Elaine,ValentinoTiangco.GeothermalStrategicValueAnalysis.CEC5002005105SD,
June2005.
66Singleton,Will,WesternGovernorsAssociation,CleanandDiversifiedEnergyInitiative,GeothermalTask
ForceReport.January2006.

72


hydroelectricgenerationwithouttheimpactofdammingthewaterway.Therearethreemain
typesofhydropowerfacilities:

Impoundmenthydropowerusesadamtostorewaterinareservoir.Watercanbe
releasedfromthereservoirtogenerateelectricity.

Runofriverusestheflowofwaterwithinariver,requiringverylittleorno
impoundment.Runofriverhydropoweristypicallydesignedforlargeflowswithlow
headorsmallflowswithhighhead.

Diversionhydropowerdivertsaportionofriverflowsthroughacanalorpenstockto
generateelectricity.

Seetablesforillustrationsofthevarioustypesofhydropowerfacilities.

Figure 17. Impoundment hydropower


Source: U.S. DOE, EERE

73

Figure 18. Diversion hydropower facility


The Tazimina project in Alaska is an example of a diversion hydropower plant. No dam was required.
Source: U.S. DOE, EERE

74

Figure 19. Run-of-river hydropower facility


Chief Joseph Dam near Bridgeport, Washington, is a major run-of-river station without a sizeable reservoir.
Photo Credit: Wikipedia

Twocategorieswereselectedforthisstudyasdefinedbelow:

HydroDevelopedsiteswithoutpower:TherearemanysitesinCaliforniawithdams
orwithdiversionsystemsinplace,butwithouthydroelectricpower.Thiscategory
focusesonthepotentialhydroelectricpotentialofthesesites.

HydroCapacityupgradefordevelopedsiteswithpower:Someexistinghydroelectric
facilitiesinCaliforniaandthesurroundingstatesaredevelopedwithpowergeneration
inplacebutwithpotentialtoincreasegenerationoutput.Thiscanbeaccomplished
throughincreasingreservoirsize,upgradingtotalturbinecapacity,increasingthe
numberofturbines,oranycombinationthereof.

3.4.2. Hydro Developed Sites Without Power


Technical and Market Justification
Hydroelectricpowerisawellestablishedtechnology.TheUnitedStateshydroelectricplant
populationiscomposedof2,388licensedplants(notincludingpumpedstorageplants),
accordingtothe1998versionFederalEnergyRegulatoryCommissionsHydroelectricResource
Assessment(HPRA)database(FERC1998).Theseplantsrangeincapacityfromlessthan100

75


kWtoover6,000MWandhaveatotalcapacityof74,872MW.Theplantsareownedby1,134
owners,includingownersinthepublicandprivatesectors.67
DevelopedwaterwayswithoutpowerinCaliforniainclude274siteswithatotalnameplate
potentialof4,812MW.68Capacityestimatesrangefrom1.5MWto300MWwiththeaverage
beingapproximately15MW.
Primary Commercial Embodiment
HydroelectricpowerisamajorsourceofCaliforniaselectricity.In2007,hydroelectricpower
plantsproduced43,625gigawatthours(GWh)ofelectricity,or14.5%ofthetotal.Hydro
facilitiesarebrokendownintotwocategories.Largerthan30MWcapacityarecalledlarge
hydro.Smallerthan30MWcapacityisconsideredsmallhydroandaretotaledintothe
renewableenergyportfoliostandards.Theamountofhydroelectricityproducedvarieseach
year.Itislargelydependentonrainfall(source:CaliforniaEnergyCommission).
Californiahasnearly400hydroplants,whicharemostlylocatedintheeasternmountainranges
andhaveatotaldependablecapacityofabout14,000MWofcapacity.Thestatealsoimports
hydrogeneratedelectricityfromthePacificNorthwest(source:CaliforniaEnergyCommission).
ThenumberofhydroelectricplantsinCaliforniaisexpectedtoincreaseby2018.Itisuncertain
whatthenumberofplantsandtotalinstalledcapacitywillbe.
Cost Drivers
Sincehydroelectricisaverymature,wellestablishedtechnology,therehavebeennoindustry
changessinceAugustof2007thathavemateriallyaffectedcosts.Alsonotrendsareforeseen
thatwouldmateriallyaffectfuturecosts.
Theprimarycostdriversforthistechnologyareasfollows.69
InitialCosts:

Licensing

Construction

Environmentalmitigation

Fishandwildlifemitigation

Recreationmitigation

67Hall,DouglasG.andKellyS.Reeves.AStudyofUnitedStatesHydroelectricPlanOwnership.U.S.
DepartmentofEnergy.IdahoNationalLaboratory.INL/EXT0611519,June2006.
68Conner,AlisonM.,BenN.Rinehart,andJamesE.Francfort.U.S.HydropowerResourceAssessmentfor
California.U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.IdahoNationalLaboratory.DOE/ID10430(CA),October1998.
69Hall,DouglasG.,RichardT.Hunt,KellyS.Reeves,andGregR.Carroll.EstimationofEconomic
ParametersofU.S.HydropowerResources.U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.IdahoNationalLaboratory.Bechtel
BWXTIdahoLLCandINLHydropowerResourceEconomicsDatabase,June2003.

76

Historicalandarcheologicalmitigation

Waterqualitymonitoring

Fishpassage

Thevarioustypesofenvironmentalmitigationaresitespecific(allarenotrequiredforeach
site).
AnnualCosts

FixedO&M

Operationsupervisionandengineering

Maintenancesupervisionandengineering

Maintenanceofstructures

Maintenanceofreservoirs,dams,andwaterways

Maintenanceofelectricplant

Maintenanceofmiscellaneoushydraulicplant

VariableO&M

Waterforpower

Hydraulicexpenses

Electricexpenses

Miscellaneoushydraulicpowerexpenses

Rents

FERCannualcharge

Current Costs
CostsweredevelopedthroughtheIdahoNationalLaboratory(INL)HydropowerResource
EconomicsDatabase.70Thisdatabasewasdevelopedfromsurveysofexistinghydroelectric
facilities.Indevelopingthisdatabase,regressionmodelswerebuiltrelativetoeachcostdriver
andappliedtopotentialsitesthroughouttheUnitedStates.Thedatabaseispresentedin2002
UnitedStatesdollars.Thesecostswereconvertedto2009UnitedStatesdollarsforthisstudy.
Amanipulationofthedatawasrequiredtoconvertthecoststotheunitsnecessaryforusein
theCOGmodel.OnlydataforpotentialsitesinCaliforniawereused.Withthedatabaseinthe
requiredunits,relationshipsweredevelopedbetweenunitratedcapacityandcosts:

70http://hydropower.inel.gov/resourceassessment/index.shtml.

77

-0.2091

Total Development

y = 2737.5x
2
R = 0.8779

4000
3500

Costs ($/kW)

3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Capacity (MW)

Figure 20. Hydropower costs for developed sites without power


Source: Idaho National Laboratory Hydropower Resource Economics Database

Figure20showstherelationshipbetweenunitcapacityandcostwithacurvefittingthedata
points88%ofthetime,whichisassumedacceptableforcostestimations.Thedataisprovided
in2002UnitedStatesdollars,sotheresultmustbeconvertedto2009UnitedStatesdollarsper
inflation.Somecostdatapointsarenoticeablyhigherthanothers,whichdenotesiteswherea
higherdegreeofmitigationisrequired.Inadditiontotheoverallcostcurve,relationshipswere
developedforotherparameters,basedonthedatasetsforCaliforniasitesonly,whereXisthe
capacityoftheplantinMWandYisthetotalcostin$/kWor$/MWhasshown:
Equation3:TotalDevelopmentCosts($/kW)
y=2737.5x^0.2091
Equation4:LicensingCost($/kW)
y=306.53x^0.3027
Equation5:ConstructionCost($/kW)
y=2180x^0.1928
Equation6:InstantCost($/kW)
InstantCost=LicensingCost+ConstructionCost
Equation7:InstalledCost($/kW)
InstalledCost=TotalDevelopmentCost(includeslicensing,constructionandaverage
mitigationcosts)

78


Equation8:FixedO&MCosts($/kW)
y=23.707x^0.2469
Equation9:VariableO&MCosts($/MWh)
y=4.9659x^0.2024
Theaboveequationswereusedtoestimatecostsbasedoninstalledcapacity(x=capacity,y=
cost)foreachparameter.

Overnightcosts($/kW):

Average:

$1,882

High :

$3,046

Low:

$1,006

FixedO&M($/kWyr):

Average:

$17.57

High:

$28.83

Low:

$9.88

VariableO&M($/MWh):

Average:

$3.48

High:

$5.54

Low:

$1.90

Capacityfactorscanvarydramatically.TheINLResourceDatabaselistsaveragehydroelectric
capacityfactorsforCaliforniatobe54.87%.Whenevaluatingactualcapacityfactorsfor
hydroelectricpowerplantsinCalifornia,capacityfactorswerefoundtobemuchdifferent.The
evaluationwasperformedasfollows:

Actualoutput(MWh)for2007andnameplateratings(MW)wereobtainedforall
hydroelectricfacilitiesinCaliforniafromtheEnergyInformationAdministration(EIA).

Allunitswithacapacitybelow1.5MWwereremoved.

Allpumpedstoragefacilitieswereremoved.

Capacityfactorswerecalculatedforallremainingsites.

Someofthedatawasfoundtobeinerrorwithcapacityfactorsatorbelowzeroorabove
100%.Soallfacilitieswithcapacityfactorsreportedshowingbelow10%andabove90%
wereremoved(approximately10%ofthesites).

79

Fromthisdataset,itwasconsideredunrealistictochoosetheextremehighandlow
values.Amorerealisticapproachformodelingwastoremovethetopandbottom5%.
Thisresultedin178facilitiesremaining,whichwereusedtoestimatecapacityfactor.

Average:

30.4%(weightedaverageofallsitesonthelisting)

High:

61.5%

Low:

12.5%

Expected Cost Trajectories


Hydroelectricpowerisaverymaturetechnologywithalimitednumberofsitesavailablefor
generation.Costsarenotforeseentodecreasewithincreasedgenerationprojectsandno
learningeffectsweremodeled.Costtrajectoriesweredeterminedsolelybyprojectedinflation
from2009to2029.

3.4.3. Hydro Capacity Upgrade for Developed Sites With Power


Technical and Market Justification
DevelopedwaterwayswithoutpowerinCaliforniainclude26siteswithatotalnameplate
potentialof1,744MW.71Potentialupgradesrangeinnameplatecapacityfrom2MWto600
MWwiththeaveragebeingapproximately80MW.
Primary Commercial Embodiment
Californiasnearly400hydroplants,withatotaldependablecapacityofabout14,000MW,are
mostlylocatedintheeasternmountainranges.Californiastatealsoimportshydrogenerated
electricityfromthePacificNorthwest(source:CaliforniaEnergyCommission).
ThenumberofhydroelectricplantsinCaliforniaisexpectedtoincreaseby2018.Itisuncertain
whatthenumberofplantsandtotalinstalledcapacitywillbe.
Cost Drivers
Sincehydroelectricisaverymature,wellestablishedtechnology,therehavebeennoindustry
changessinceAugust2007thathavemateriallyaffectedcosts.Alsonotrendsareforeseenthat
wouldmateriallyaffectfuturecosts.
Theprimarycostdriversforthistechnologyareasfollows:72
InitialCosts:

Licensing

71Conner,AlisonM.,BenN.Rinehart,andJamesE.Francfort.U.S.HydropowerResourceAssessmentfor
California.U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.IdahoNationalLaboratory.DOE/ID10430(CA),October1998.
72Hall,DouglasG.,RichardT.Hunt,KellyS.Reeves,andGregR.Carroll.EstimationofEconomic
ParametersofU.S.HydropowerResources.U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.IdahoNationalLaboratory.Bechtel
BWXTIdahoLLCandINLHydropowerResourceEconomicsDatabase,June2003.

80

Construction

Environmentalmitigation

Fishandwildlifemitigation

Recreationmitigation

Historicalandarcheologicalmitigation

Waterqualitymonitoring

Fishpassage

Thevarioustypesofenvironmentalmitigationaresitespecific(allarenotrequiredforeach
site).
AnnualCosts:

FixedO&M

Operationsupervisionandengineering

Maintenancesupervisionandengineering

Maintenanceofstructures

Maintenanceofreservoirs,dams,andwaterways

Maintenanceofelectricplant

Maintenanceofmiscellaneoushydraulicplant

VariableO&M

Waterforpower

Hydraulicexpenses

Electricexpenses

Miscellaneoushydraulicpowerexpenses

Rents

FERCannualcharge

Current Costs
CostsweredevelopedthroughtheINLHydropowerResourceEconomicsDatabase.This
databasewasdevelopedfromsurveysofexistinghydroelectricfacilities.Indevelopingthis
database,regressionmodelswerebuiltrelativetoeachcostdriverandappliedtopotentialsites
throughouttheUnitedStates.Thecostswereconvertedto2009UnitedStatesdollarsforthis
study.
Amanipulationofthedatawasrequiredtoconvertthecoststotheunitsnecessaryforusein
theCOGmodel.OnlydataforpotentialsitesinCaliforniawereused.Withthedatabaseinthe
requiredunits,relationshipsweredevelopedbetweenunitratedcapacityandcosts.

81

-0.1889

y = 1761.2x
2
R = 0.8141

Total Development Cost


2,500

Cost ($/kW)

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Capacity (MW)

Figure 21. Hydropower costs for increasing capacity


Source: Idaho National Laboratory Hydropower Resource Economics Database

Figure21showstherelationshipbetweenunitcapacityandcostwiththedatapointsfittingthe
curve81%ofthetime,whichisassumedacceptableforcostestimations.Thedataisprovided
in2002UnitedStatesdollars,sotheresultmustbeconvertedto2009UnitedStatesdollarsper
inflation.Somecostdatapointsarenoticeablyhigherthanothers,whichdenotesiteswherea
higherdegreeofmitigationisrequired.Inadditiontotheoverallcostcurve,relationshipswere
developedforotherparameters,basedonthedatasetsforCaliforniasitesonly,whereXisthe
CapacityoftheplantinMWandYisthetotalcostin$/kWor$/MWhasshown:
Equation10:TotalDevelopmentCosts($/kW)
y=1761.2x^0.1889
Equation11:LicensingCost($/kW)
y=209.95x^0.3027
Equation12:ConstructionCost($/kW)
y=1351.6x^0.1928
Equation13:InstantCost($/kW)
InstantCost=LicensingCost+ConstructionCost
Equation14:InstalledCost($/kW)
InstalledCost=TotalDevelopmentCost(includeslicensing,constructionandaverage
mitigationcosts)

82


Equation15:FixedO&MCosts($/kW)
y=23.707x^0.2469
Equation16:VariableO&MCosts($/MWh)
y=4.7411x^0.1998
Theaboveequationswereusedtoestimatecostsbasedoninstalledcapacity(x=capacity,y=
cost)foreachparameter.

Overnightcosts($/kW):

Average:

$932

High:

$1,871

Low:

$637

FixedO&M($/kWyr):

Average:

$12.59

High:

$27.05

Low:

$8.77

VariableO&M($/MWh):

Average:

$2.39

High:

$5.00

Low:

$1.60

Thecapacityfactoraverage,high,andlowareassumedtobethesameasforhydrodeveloped
siteswithoutpower.
Expected Cost Trajectories
Hydroelectricpowerisaverymaturetechnologywithalimitednumberofsitesavailablefor
generation.Costsarenotforeseentodecreasewithincreasedgenerationprojectsandno
learningeffectsweremodeled.Costtrajectoriesweredeterminedsolelybyprojectedinflation
from2009to2029.

83

3.5. Solar
3.5.1. Technology Overview
Therearethreetypesofsolarelectricgeneratingtechnologiesconsideredforcostmodeling:
solarparabolictrough(withoutenergystorage),solarparabolictrough(withenergystorage),
andsolarphotovoltaic(SingleAxis).
Solar Parabolic Trough General:
Thisisalsoknownasconcentratingsolarpower(CSP)whichusesmirrorstoreflectand
concentratesunlightontoreceiversthatcollectthesolarenergyandconvertittoheat.This
thermalenergycanthenbeusedtoproduceelectricityviaasteamturbineorheatengine
drivingagenerator.
ThepredominantCSPsystemsinoperationintheUnitedStatesarelinearconcentratorsusing
parabolictroughcollectors.Insuchasystem,thereceivertubeispositionedalongthefocalline
ofeachparabolashapedreflector.Thetubeisfixedtothemirrorstructure,andtheheated
fluideitheraheattransferfluidorwater/steamflowsthroughandoutofthefieldofsolar
mirrorstowhereitisusedtocreatesteam(or,forthecaseofawater/steamreceiver,itissent
directlytotheturbine),showninFigure22.

Figure 22. Solar parabolic trough electric generating system


Source: U.S. DOE, EERE

Solar Parabolic Trough Energy Storage Technology Considerations:


Theuseofthermalenergystoragetechnologyenablesthewideruseofsolarrenewableenergy
asdispatchablepowerandprovidesgridflexibilityforpeakdemandtimes.Currently,thereare
threecommercializedtechnologiesavailableforstoringthermalenergyfromsolarparabolic
andpowertowerplants73:

73Konrad,Tom.INDEPTH:HotDebateoverThermalStorage.CSPToday,April20,2009.

84

SteamTheleastsuitablemethodforthermalenergystorage,asitlendsitselftoonly
shorttermbufferstorage,andusedprimarilytoaddressshorttermtransientneedssuch
asintermittentcloudcover.

MineraloilandsyntheticheattransferfluidsAnapproachcurrentlyusedwithexisting
technologysolarparabolictroughsystems,asthefluiddoesnotsolidifyatnightas
moltensaltsystemscan(attemperaturesbelow221deg.C).Mineraloilsystemsare
approximatelythreetimesmoreexpensivetooperatethanmoltensaltsystems,dueto
theoilcost,andsoarechieflyusedforshortertermdurationstorageof3060minutes.

MoltensaltTypicalmoltensaltsystemsuseamixtureofsodiumnitrateandpotassium
nitrate(60%sodiumnitrate40%potassiumnitrate)heatedabovethemeltingpointof
221deg.C.Moltensaltsystemsarecurrentlyusedinpowertowerdesigns,andare
beingexaminedforimplementationinparabolictroughsystems.Thecostofmoltensalt
storageforaparabolictroughsystem,whichisestimatedat$90160/kW,isroughly
threetimesthecostofstorageforapowertowersystem,duetotheamountofmolten
saltneeded,widerfieldarraysandtransportdistancesforthetroughsystem.

Figure 23. Simplified molten salt storage process diagram


Source: Concentrating Solar Power From Research to Implementation, European Commission, 2007

Theresearchteamchoseamoltensaltthermalstoragesystemforthebestcommercial
embodimentofthisstoragetechnologybecauseoftheengineeringandtechnicalaspectsofthe
moltensaltapproach.ThemoltensaltstoragetechnologycurrentlyinoperationinSpains
AndaSolprojectwasfirstsuccessfullydemonstratedinatestloopattheparabolictrough

85


systemoperatinginKramerJunction,California.TheAndaSolprojectprovides50MWof
generationcapacity,withamoltensaltstoragesystemof7.5hoursduration.74
Forpurposesofanalysis,amoltensaltstoragesystemcomprisingsixhoursdurationofenergy
storagewasmodeledandcostedintothethermalstoragecase.
Solar Photovoltaic (Single Axis):
Photovoltaic(PV)systemsincludethePVmodulesthemselvesandthebalanceofsystems
(BOS).TheBOSincludesmountingstructures,wiring,overcurrentprotection,andinverters
(theelectronicdevicethatconvertsDCtoACelectricity).Themountingstructurescaninclude
trackersthatfollowthesunspaththroughouttheday.Asingleaxistrackersimplytiltsfrom
easttowest,followingthesunspaththroughouttheday.AnexampleofasingleaxisPV
systemisthe14.2MWfacilityatNellisAirForceBase(Figure24).

Figure 24. Nellis Air Force Base PV installation


Source: SunPower Corporation

3.5.2. Solar Parabolic Trough


Technical and Market Justification
Theresearchteamselectedparabolictroughtechnologybecauseitiscommerciallyavailable.
CSPinstallationsareproducingelectricitywithacapacityof354MWsince1990(source:
NREL).WithAndaSol13oneparabolictroughsystemwith50MWiscommerciallyrunningin
Spain,andtwoadditional50MWplantsareunderconstruction.Storagetechnology(molten
salt)forsevenfullloadhoursisincludedintheAndaSolproject.Storageorcombinedoperation

74ConcentratingSolarPowerFromResearchtoImplementation.EuropeanCommission,2007.

86


withgasleadstoextendedoperationhoursperday.AdditionalprojectsinGreeceandSpainare
beingplanned.
Primary Commercial Embodiment
CaliforniahasnineparabolictroughCSPfacilitiesinoperation.TheyareallintheMojave
Desertandwerebuiltbetween1985and1991.Oneisratedat13.8MW,sixat30MW,andtwo
at80MW.Thereasonforthesesizesisthe13.8MWplantwasthefirstonebuiltasa
demonstration,the30MWplantsweresizedperPURPArestrictionsinplaceatthetime,and
the80MWplantswerebuiltwhenPURPArestrictionswereraisedto80MWplantsin1989.
TherearecurrentlynosuchPURPArestrictionsinplaceforplantsize(source:EIA).
Intheseplants,solartroughtechnologyisusedtoproducesteaminaconventionalsteam
turbinegenerator.Naturalgaswasusedasasupplementaryfuelforupto25%oftheheat
input.
In2018,theresearchteamexpectsthattheprimarycommercialembodimentwilltendtoward
largersystems.ThecurrentprimaryworldwidecommercialembodimenttodayisinSpain,
wherefeedintariffshaveencouragedsolardevelopment,butsystemsizesarelessthan50MW
duetorestrictionsinthefeedintariffsystem.SolarMillenniumhasannounceda250MW
parabolictroughpowerstationinNevada.75AnengineeratSolarMillenniumtoldtheresearch
teamthatthesystemwillconsistofone250MWsteamturbine(not50MWmodules).
AccordingtotheengineeratSolarMillennium,thecompanybelieves250MWandexpectstobe
theoptimalsizeforparabolictroughsystemsandexpectsfuturesystemstorangefrom200to
300MW.Forsmallersystemstheturbineistoosmall(andthereforetooexpensive),andfor
biggersystemsthelossesinthesolarcollectorfieldwouldbetoohigh.
Cost Drivers
MarketandIndustryChanges
SpainhasoneofthemostfavorablefeedintariffsforCSPplantspayingatleastUnitedStates
$0.39perkWh.Thatisonereasonwhyattheendof2007morethan50CSPprojectswithabout
2,150MWhavebeenregisteredbySpainsMinistryofIndustry,makingSpaintheleading
countryinCSPdevelopmentworldwide.
ThefirstpowerstationAndaSol1(50MW)wascommissionedinNovember2008.AndaSol2
(50MW)isunderconstruction,andAndaSol3(50MW)willfollowin2009.Allplantsare
equippedwithsixhoursofmoltensaltstorage.Duetotherestrictionsofthefeedintarifflaw
inSpainthecapacityoftheunitsislimitedto50MWatmaximum.

75SolarMillenium.NevadaEnergy,SolarMillenniumandMANFerrostaalCooperateintheDevelopmentof
Projects.SolarMilleniumCorporateNews,April3,2009.
http://www.solarmillennium.de/Press/Press_Releases/Nevada_Energy__Solar_Millennium_and_MAN_F
errostaal_cooperate_in_the_development_of_projects,lang2,50,1532.html.

87


CurrentTrends
For2009,theSpanishgovernmenthasannouncedachangeinthefeedintariff.Thiswillreduce
theamountofnewregisteredprojectsinSpain.NevadaEnergy,SolarMillenium,andMAN
Ferrostaalhaveannouncedasolarthermalpowerplantwithacapacityof250MWandthermal
storagecapacity.AbengoaSolarhassignedanagreementwithArizonaPublicService(APS)to
buildandoperatewhatwillbethelargestsolarpowerplantintheworld.Theplantwillbe
installedabout100kilometerssouthwestofPhoenix,nearGilaBend.Solana,with280MWeof
poweroutputcapacity,isbasedonparabolictroughtechnologyandthermalstorageusing
moltensalts.Itusesasinglesteamturbine.
CostDrivers
Theprimarygeneralcostdriversforparabolictroughsystemsare:

Siteworkinfrastructure.

SolarfieldMirrorsandsolarreceiversarethecostdriversofthesystem.Assumptions:
Massproductionofbothelementscouldreducecosts.

SteelpriceSteeldoubledinpricebetweenJanuary2008andSeptember2008andagain
betweenSeptember2008andJanuary2009.

Heattransferfluidsystem.

ThermalenergystorageIncludingthermalstoragecausesincreasesincostduetothe
additionofthethermalenergystoragesystemandadditionalsolarfieldarearequiredto
chargethethermalstoragesystem.

PowerblockOptimumsizecouldreducepriceofturbineandgenerator.

Balanceofsystems.

Contingency.

Indirectcosts.

Current Costs
Fromthethreebasicstudiesthefollowingactualcostdatawereextracted:

88


Table 18. Parabolic trough cost comparison
CEG-Study 2007

NREL-Study 2006

RETI 2008

Navigant

Black & Veatch

Black & Veatch

$
Gross Plant
Capacity (kW)
Net Plant Capacity
(kW)
Annual
Degradation (%/y)
Project lifetime (y)
Overnight Cost
($/kW)
Site Work &
Infrastructure
Solar Field
Heat Transfer Fluid
System
Thermal Energy
Storage (6 hrs.)
Power Block
Balance of Plant
Contingency
Indirect Costs
Fixed O&M
($/kW/y)
Variable O&M
($/MWh)
Development Time
(months)
Construction time
Forced Outage
Rate (%)
Typical Net
Capacity Factor
(%)

63,500
50,000

100,000

200,000

0.2%
30
3,900

3,120

4,944

3,955

39

31

25

20

1,755
78

1,404
62

2,309
100

1,847
80

507

406

580

464

312
195
234
780
60

250
156
187
624
48

388
225
307
1,011
67

310
180
246
809
54

3,900

3,120

66

53

20

20

20

12
6%

12
6%

12
6%

27%

27%

27%

Source: CEG-Study: Klein and Rednam. Comparative Costs of California Central Station Electricity Generation Technologies.
NREL-Study: Stoddard, Abrecunus, and OConnell. Economic, Energy, and Environmental Benefits RETI: Black & Veatch.
Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative Phase 1A.

TherearenoactualpublishedcostdataavailablefortheinstallationsinSpain.Inapublication
downloadedfromthehomepageofSolarMillenniumanumberof300millioneuro()is
mentioned.Thiswouldleadtospecificcostsof7,500$/kW.
89


FromthesamehomepageapressreleaseconcerningthecooperationofNevadaEnergy,Solar
Millennium,andMANFerrostaalaCSPstationwithacapacityof250MWisannouncedwith
aninvestmentvolumeofover1billionUnitedStatesdollars.Thiswouldleadtoinvestment
costsofover4,000$/kW.76
Pressreleasesconcerningthe64MWACCIONACSPprojectintheNevadadesertreport
investmentcostsbetween220millionand266millionUnitedStatesdollars.Thiswouldleadto
specificinvestmentcostsof3,438and4,156$/kW.77
Technologyassumptions:520,000mparabolictroughsolarfield(SKALET),casesincludeboth
nonstoragesystems,a6hourreservemoltensaltthermalstoragesystem,anda250MW
capacitysteamcycle.Thetechnologycasethatincludessixhourmoltensaltthermalstorage
alsoaccountsfora57%solarfieldareaincrease,usedtochargethestoragesystemandto
improvecapacityfactor.78
Expected Cost Trajectories
Thedirectcostsofaparabolicsolarplantcanbesummarizedintothefollowingfivemajor
categories:

Siteworksandinfrastructure

Solarfield

HeatCollectionElement(HCE)

Mirror

Supportstructure

Drive

Piping

Civilwork

Powerblock

Steamturbineandgenerator

Electricauxiliaries

Thermalstorage/heattransferfluidsystem

BalanceofPlant(BOP)

Coolingsystem

Watertreatment

Electrical

76http://www.solarmillennium.de/index,lang2.html.
77http://www.accionaenergia.com/default.asp?x=0002020401&lang=En.
78NationalRenewableEnergyLaboratory,OverviewonuseofaMoltenSaltHTFinaTroughSolar
Field,NREL/PR550,February2003.

90

Instrumentationandcontrol

Miscellaneouscivilwork

Thesolarfield,thermalstorage,andpowerblockcostsencompassapproximately95%ofthe
totaldirectcosts,asillustratedinFigure25.Ofthesethreehighestcostcategories,thesolarfield
costcomprises58%ofthetotaldirectcost.Figure25showsthesolarfieldcomponentcost
breakdown.Thecomponentcostbreakdownofthesolarfieldrevealsthesupportstructuresare
29%,theheatcollectionelements19%,andthemirrors18%ofthesolarfielddirectcosts,fora
totalof68%ofthesolarfielddirectcosts.
2%

14%
3%

Structures and Improvements


Solar Collections System
Thermal Storage System
23%
58%

Steam Gen. or HX System


Power Block (EPGS, BOP)

Figure 25. Major cost categories for parabolic trough plant


Source: NREL, Assessment of Parabolic Trough and Power Tower Solar Technology

Table19providesasummaryofSunLabsdesign,deployment,andcostprojectionsfortrough
plantswiththeSEGSVIplantasthebasecase.
Table 19. Assessment of parabolic trough and power tower solar technology

Plant size, net


electric, MWe
Plant size, gross
thermal input, MWt
Thermal Storage,
hr
Annual Plant
Capacity Factor
Annual Solar-toElectric Efficiency
Solar Field Design:

SEGS VI

Trough 100

Trough 100

Trough 150

Trough 200

Trough 400

1999

2004

2007

2010

2015

2020

30

100

100

150

200

400

88

294

279

408

544

1,087

12

12

12

12

12

22.2%

53.5%

56.2%

56.2%

56.2%

56.5%

10.6%

14.2%

16.1%

17.0%

17.1%

17.2%

91

Number of
Collectors
Receivers per
SCA
Number HCE
Number HCE
Accumulative
Collector Size,
m2
Field Aperture
Area, m2
Heat Transfer Fluid
System
HTF Type
Fluid Volume,
gallons
Direct Capital Cost:
Structures &
Improvements
Collector
System
Thermal
Storage System
Steam Gen. or
HX System
EPGS
Balance of
Plant
Total Direct
Costs
Solar Collection
System, $/m2 field
Receivers, $/m2
field
$/unit
Mirrors, $/ m2 field
Concentrator
Structure, m2 field
Concentrator
Erection, m2 field
Drive, m2 field

SEGS VI

Trough 100

Trough 100

Trough 150

Trough 200

Trough 400

1999

2004

2007

2010

2015

2020

800

4,768

1,269

1,808

2,392

4,783

12

12

36

36

36

36

9,600
9,600

57,216
66,816

45,700
112,516

65,072
177,588

86,101
263,688

172,201
435,889

235

235

817.5

817.5

817.5

817.5

188,000

1,120,480

1,037,760

1,477,680

1,955,200

3,910,400

VP-1
115,500

VP-1
688,380

Hitec XL
637,560

Hitec XL
907,830

Hitec XL
1,201,200

Hitec XL
2,402,400

2,526

7,279

6,538

8,097

9,596

16,284

44,793

249,654

181,533

226,753

259,852

452,825

95,807

42,475

57,426

76,567

153,135

4,304

9,964

9,227

11,161

12,772

19,394

15,805
9,190

36,713
21,346

34,877
20,279

44,008
25,588

51,134
29,732

78,915
45,884

76,619

420,763

294,929

373,033

439,654

766,438

250

234

184

161

140

122

43

43

34

28

22

18

847
40
50

847
40
47

762
36
44

635
28
42

508
20
39

400
16
36

17

14

13

12

11

10

14

13

92

Interconnection
Piping, m2 field
Electronics &
control, m2 field
Header piping, m2
field
Foundations/Other
Civil, m2 field
Other (spares,
HTF, freight), m2
field
Contingency, m2
field
Direct Capital Cost,
$/kWe
Structures and
Improvements,
$/kWe
Solar Collection
System, $/kWe
Thermal Storage
System, $/kWe
System Generator
of HX System,
$/kWe
EPGS, $/kWe
Balance of Plant,
$/kWe
Total Direct Cost,
$/kWe

SEGS VI

Trough 100

Trough 100

Trough 150

Trough 200

Trough 400

1999

2004

2007

2010

2015

2020

11

10

16

14

21

18

17

15

14

12

17

17

11

10

12

11

84

73

65

54

48

41

1,493

2,497

1,815

1,512

1,299

1,132

958

425

383

383

383

143

100

92

74

64

48

527
306

367
213

349
203

293
171

256
149

197
115

2,554

4,208

2,949

2,487

2,198

1,916

Source: NREL, Assessment of Parabolic Trough and Power Tower Solar Technology

Table20andFigures26and27illustratetheSunLabprojectedtotalinstalledcapitalcost
($/kWe)comparedtothemoreconservative(Sargent&Lundy)S&Lvalues.Table20alsoshows
thetotalinstalledcapitalcostbasedonachievingtheannualnetefficienciesprojectedby
SunLabbutnottheprojectedcostreductions.Thecurveshighlighttheimpactoftheannualnet
efficienciesonthecapitalcost.Thecurvesalsoindicatethatadditionalcostreductionsabovethe
moreconservativeS&Lvalues,duetotechnologyimprovementsandincreaseddeployment
rates,willresultinconvergenceofthecapitalcoststowardtheSunLabvalues.

93


Table 20. Comparison of total investment cost estimates ($/kWe): SunLab vs. S&L

Sunlab
S&L S&L Efficiencies
S&L - SunLab
Efficiencies
S&L No Storage

2004

2007

2010

2015

2020

$4,859
$4,816
$4,791

$3,408
$3,854
$3,687

$2,876
$3,562
$3,331

$2,546
$3,389
$3,165

$2,221
$3,220
$2,725

$2,453

$2,265

$2,115

$1,990

$1,846

Source: NREL, Assessment of Parabolic Trough and Power Tower Solar Technology

Figure 26 Capital cost comparison


Source: NREL, Assessment of Parabolic Trough and Power Tower Solar Technology

94

Figure 27. Levelized O&M cost comparison


Source: NREL, Assessment of Parabolic Trough and Power Tower Solar Technology

Table 21. CSP plant capital cost breakdowns, 2005


($1,000s)
Site Work and
Infrastructure
Solar Field
HTF System
Thermal Energy Storage
Power Block
Balance of Plant
Contingency
Total Direct Costs
Indirects
Total Installed Cost
*With 6 hours storage.

2007
100 MW*
2,455

2009
100 MW*
2,433

2011
150 MW*
2,566

2015
200 MW*
2,681

230,865
10,009
57,957
38,754
22,533
30,707
393,280
101,106
494,386

205,109
9,895
57,937
38,754
22,533
28,116
364,776
92,814
457,590

243,059
11,896
71,320
48,899
28,432
33,742
439,915
113,469
553,384

268,441
13,542
89,390
56,818
33,036
37,720
501,627
129,746
631,373

Source: Klein and Rednam, Comparative Costs of California Central Station Electricity Generation Technologies.

95


Table 22. Annual CSP O&M cost breakdowns, 2005
($1,000s)
Labor
Administration
Operations
Maintenance
Total Labor
Miscellaneous
Service Contracts
Water Treatment
Spares and Equipment
Solar Field Parts and
Materials
Annual Capital Equipment
Subtotal
Total

2007
100 MW

2009
100 MW

2011
150 MW

2015
200 MW

528
979
633
3,018
419
263
260
669
1,859

528
973
633
2,984
415
259
265
651
1,311

554
1,088
664
3,517
516
352
413
870
1,457

554
1,158
664
3,926
599
435
556
1,040
1,904

226
3,695
6,713

218
3,119
6,104

320
3,928
7,445

418
4,953
8,879

Source: Klein and Rednam, Comparative Costs of California Central Station Electricity Generation Technologies.

3.5.3. Solar Photovoltaic (Single Axis)


Technical and Market Justification
Flatplatephotovoltaic(FPV)modulesarecommerciallyavailableworldwide.Thesolar
electricitymarketisbooming.Bytheendof2007,thecumulativeinstalledcapacityofsolarPV
systemsaroundtheworldhadreachedmorethan9,200MW.Thiscompareswithafigureof
1,200MWattheendof2000.InstallationsofPVcellsandmodulesaroundtheworldhavebeen
growingatanaverageannualrateofmorethan35%since1998(source:EPIA).
Onpvresources.comswebsitealmost880photovoltaicpowerplants(putintoservicein2007or
earlier),eachwithpeakpowerof200kWpormore,arelisted.Cumulativepowerofallthese
photovoltaicpowerplantsisabout955MWp,andaverageplantpoweroutputisslightlymore
than1.24MWp.Morethan390largescalephotovoltaicplantsarelocatedinGermany,225in
theUnitedStates,andmorethan130inSpain(source:pvresources).
ThePVmodulescanbemountedonfixedtiltstrucuresorononeortwoaxistrackingdevices.
AsofDecember2007,themarketshareoffixedarrayswas73%ofthetotalinstalledcapacityin
largescalePVinstallations,only27%weretrackingsystems(source:pvresources).Howeverin
situationswithahighproportionofdirectnormalinsolation,suchasinCalifornia,theoneaxis
trackingsystemcouldincreasethesunlightcapturebyupto25%overtraditionalfixedtilt
systems,whilesignificantlyreducinglanduserequirements(source:Sunpower).

96


Primary Commercial Embodiment
TherearecurrentlynosingleaxistrackingutilityscalePVinstallationsinCalifornia.The
largestFPV(singleaxis)projectintheUnitedStatesis14MWpatNellisAirForceBasein
Nevada.79Theactualconstructionandinstallationrequiredeightmonthstocomplete(although
itwasintheplanningstageforthreeyears)andwascompleteinDecember2007.Theprojectis
apublicprivatepartnershipbetweentheAirForce,SunpowerCorporation,NevadaPower
Company,andMMARenewableVentures,asubsidiaryofMunicipalMortgageandEquity.
ThelargestFPV(fixedtilt)projectintheworldis60MWpinOlmedilla,CastillaLaMancha,
Spain.80GermanyalsohasautilityscaleinstallationofFPV(fixedtilt)or40MWpin
Waldpolenz,Brandis,Saxony,Germany.81
ThereiscurrentlyoneutilityscalesingleaxistrackingPVsystemsplannedforCaliforniaandis
plannedtobeinoperationbefore2018.PG&EhassignedacontractwithHighPlainsRanchII,
LLC,asubsidiaryofSunPowerCorporation,for250MWofhighefficiencyPVsolarpower.
TheplantwouldbelocatedinSanLuisObispoCountysCaliforniaValley.Theprojectis
expectedtobeginpowerdeliveryin2010andbefullyoperationalin2012.
Cost Drivers
MarketandIndustryChanges
WorldsolarPVmarketinstallationsreachedarecordhighof5,750MWin2008,representing
growthof117%overthepreviousyear.
SpainsPVmarketreached2,600MWin2008(annualgrowthrateofmorethan400%)andnow
accountsfor44%oftheworldmarket.Germanyreachedamoderateincreaseto1,500MW,
whiletheUnitedStatesincreasedby220%to500MW.Itbecametheworldsthirdlargest
marketeveninfrontofJapan(oncetheworldleader)whichstayedstableatalevelof230MW.
(source:BSWSolar/EPIA/NNPVA)
Globalsolarcellproductiondoubledincomparisonto2007(3,436MW).Chinesemanufacturers
raisedtheirsharein2008.Meanwhile,thinfilmproductionreachedaremarkablemarketshare
(2007:12%).
In2008,aninterestingtrendcouldbeobservedinSpain.ManylargescaledPVinstallations
havecomeintooperationwithcapacitiesintherangeof20to60MW(source:Photon).
CurrentTrends
In2009marketexpertsandanalystsexpectthesamerateofnewinstallationsasin2008.The
reasonsforareductionofthetremendousincreaseofthelasttwoyearsarethefinancialcrisis
andthereductionsofincentivesespeciallyinSpainandGermany.

79www.sunpowercorp.com
80www.nobesol.com
81www.juwi.de

97


Thedynamicextensionsoftheproductionfacilitiesinallstepsoftheproductionchainresultin
anincreasingofferofsolarmodules.Asaresultthiscouldleadtoreducedpricesandachange
fromsellersmarkettobuyersmarket.
Thesuppliersofsiliconbasicmaterialforsolarcellshaveannouncedplanstoincreasetheir
productioncapacityto150,000tonsperyear,equivalentto15GWofsolarcells(source:Photon).
ThedownwardmoveinretailpricesoflastmonthhasacceleratedinMarch2009.Itisnowthree
monthsinarowwherethenumberofdecreaseshasoutpacedincreases,andthesameoutcome
hasbeentrueforfouroutofthelastsixmonths.
ThelasttimetheEuropeanpriceindexdroppedbackinJanuary,themovewasdrivenmainly
byexchangeratemovementswithinEurope.Thistimeitisafunctionofactualpricereductions,
whichwerewidespreadacrossseveralretailers.ThiscausedtheEuropeanindextofall7cents
perwatt.ThelasttimetherewasadropofthismagnitudewasinNovember2001.
WhileEuropeanpricesreactedtomarketconditions,UnitedStatesretailersalsoreducedprices.
ThemovementintheUnitedStatesindexmatchedthedropseeninFebruary.
Thesepricedropsare,inpart,anoutcomeofthebillionsofdollarsofinvestmentmadearound
theworldinnewmanufacturingcapacityforsolarmodulesoverrecentyears.Asconsumers
demandthisnewenergysource,somarketsizeandproductionvolumesallowtheindustryto
bringdowncosts.
CostDrivers
TheprimarygeneralcostdriversforFPVsingleaxissystemsare:

SolarmodulesCostofbasicmaterialsilicon,wafers,andsolarcells.Assumption:
producershaveincreasedtheircapabilitiestoproducesilicondramatically.
Overcapacitiesareexpectedforthenextthreeyears.

InvertersMassproductionofinverterscutscosts.

InstallationEfficienciesofsolarmodules:Highefficiencysolarmodules(mono
crystalline)reducecostofinstallation.Cheaperamorphoussiliconmodulesincrease
cost.

SteelpriceSteeldoubledinpricebetweenJanuary2008andSeptember2008andagain
betweenSeptember2008andJanuary2009.

Balanceofsystems.

Marketingsalestaxes.

Grossmargin.

98


Current Costs
TheSolarbuzzconsultancyreportanalyzedthepriceofasinglephotovoltaicmoduleby
observingthepricesofapproximately1.500solarmodules:

Figure 28. Solar module retail/price index, 125 watts and higher
Source: http://www.solarbuzz.com/Moduleprices.htm

AsofMarch2009,therearecurrently293solarmodulespricedbelow$4.75perwatt(3.75per
watt)or20.1%ofthetotalsurvey.Thiscompareswith250pricedbelow$4.75perwattin
February.Thelowestretailpriceforamulticrystallinesiliconsolarmoduleis$3.29perwatt
(2.60perwatt)fromaGermanretailer.Thelowestretailpriceforamonocrystallinesilicon
moduleis$3.48perwatt(2.75perwatt),alsofromaGermanretailer.
Thelowestthinfilmmodulepriceisat$2.47perwatt(1.95perwatt)fromaGermanybased
retailer.Asageneralrule,itistypicaltoexpectthinfilmmodulestobeatapricediscountto
crystallinesilicon(forlikemodulepowers).Thisthinfilmpriceisrepresentedbya44watt
module.
Theresultsofayearlyindependentinterviewwith100leadingPVinstallationcompaniesin
Germanyshowthatsystempricesfor100kWroofmountedPVinstallationbeenreducedtoa
levelof$4.96perwatt(3.92perwatt)(withoutsalestax)inthefirstquarterof2009.

99

Figure 29. Solar power generation plant since 2006 over 20% cheaper
Source: http://www.solarwirtschaft.de/medienvertreter/infografiken.html

ForaGermaninstallationofaPVpowerstation(Waldpolenz/RoteJahne)withacapacityof30
MWp,totalinvestmentcostswerereportedat$4.49perwatt(3.55perwatt).
ForasecondGermaninstallationofaPVpowerstation(Knigsbrck)withacapacityof
4.4MWp,totalinvestmentcostswerereportedat$4.81perwatt(3.80perwatt).
Bothinstallationsarefixedtilt.
Technologyassumptions:Theprimarycommercialembodimentofthetechnologyforthecost
modelis100,000solarmodules,multicrystalinesilicon,area:app.145,000m,moduleefficiency:
14%,singleaxistracking,200DC/ACinverters.
Expected Cost Trajectories
TheoveralltargetoftheshorttermresearchdescribedintheStrategicResearchAgenda(SRA)
issuedbytheEuropeanCommunityisforPVelectricitytobecompetitivewithconsumer
electricity(gridparity)insouthernEuropeby2015.Specifically,thismeansreachingPV
generationcostsof0.15perkWh($0.19perkWh),oraturnkeysystempriceof2.5perwatt
($3.16perwatt).Thissystempricearisesfromtypicalmanufacturingandinstallationcostsof
<2.0perwatt($2.5perWatt).Allcostandpricefiguresareinconstant2007values.

100

Figure 30. Typical turnkey system price


Source: cordis.europa.eu/technology-platforms/pdf/photovoltaics.pdf

Basedonadetailedanalysisofcostreductionpotentials,theworkinggroupoftheSRAdecided
thatthesamecosttargetsshallbeusedforallflatplatePVmoduletechnologiesconsidered:
0.81.0perwatt($1.011.26perwatt)fortechnologyreadyby2013andimplementedinlarge
scaleproductionin2015,0.600.75perwatt($0.760.95perwatt)in2020,and0.30.4perwatt
($0.380.51perwatt)in2030.Thetargetsareexpressedasarangetoreflecttheefficienciesof
differenttypesofmodules.Tomeettheoverall,crosstechnologycosttargets,lowerefficiency
modulesneedtobecheaperthanhigherefficiencymodulesduetothearearelatedcomponent
oftheBOScosts.Thesetargetsshouldnotbeinterpretedaspredictions.Itispossiblethatsome
technologieswillevenexceedthem.TheefficiencytargetsquotedlaterintheSRAforeach
technologyareconsideredasperformancetargetsthatshouldbemettomeetthecosttarget.
Systemcostsandprices,itshouldbenoted,dependonthespecificapplicationthatthesystemis
putto.ThereforethecostsandpricesmentionedintheSRAareonlyapproximate.

101

3.6. Wind
3.6.1. Technology Overview
Awindenergysystemtransformsthekineticenergyofthewindintoelectricalenergythatcan
beharnessedforpracticaluse.Themaincomponentsofawindturbineareasfollows:

Arotor,orblades,whichconvertthewindsenergyintorotationalshaftenergy.

Anacelle(enclosure)containingadrivetrain,usuallyincludingagearboxanda
generator.

Atowertosupporttherotoranddrivetrain.

Electronicequipment,suchascontrols,electricalcables,groundsupportequipment,and
interconnectionequipment.

Somewindturbinesusedirectdrivegeneratorsanddonotneedagearbox(beingacritical
componentfromamaintenanceperspective).
Typicalfacilitiestodayconsistof1.5to2.5MWturbinesatop80mtowers.

Figure 31. A modern 1.5 MW wind turbine installed in a wind power plant
Source: U.S. DOE, EERE, 20% Wind Energy by 2030.

82

82U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.EnergyEfficiencyandRenewableEnergy(EERE).20%WindEnergyby
2030,IncreasingWindEnergysContributiontoU.S.ElectricSupply.DOE/GO1020082567,July2008.

102


WindplantscanrangeinsizefromafewmegawattstohundredsofMWincapacity.Wind
powerplantsaremodular,whichmeanstheyconsistofsmallindividualmodules(theturbines)
andcaneasilybemadelargerorsmallerasneeded.Turbinescanbeaddedaselectricity
demandgrows.Today,a50MWwindfarmcanbecompletedin18monthstotwoyears.Most
ofthattimeisneededformeasuringthewindandobtainingconstructionpermitsthewind
farmitselfcanbebuiltinlessthansixmonths.
SomeareasofCaliforniahavegood(Class3/4)toexcellent(Class6/7)windresourcesasseenin
Figure32.

Figure 32. California wind resource map


Source: California Energy Commission PIER web site

103


Californiaalsohasseveralwindpowerplantsinoperation.Thespecificlocationsofthose
plantsareshowninFigures33and34.

Figure 33. Wind resource map of Northern California


Source: California Energy Commission. Wind Power Generation Trends at Multiple California Sites. PIER Interim Project Report,
CEC-500-2005-185.

104

Figure 34. Wind resource map of Southern California


Source: California Energy Commission. Wind Power Generation Trends at Multiple California Sites. PIER Interim Project Report,
CEC-500-2005-185.

FromFigures33and34,windclassesweredeterminedforthefiveCaliforniautilityscalewind
facilities.Alsoaveragecapacityfactorsfrom1995to2005weredetermined.83
Altamont:

Class34 18.4

SanGorgonio:

Class7

29.2

Tehachapi:

Class7

26.6

Pacheco:

Class24 16.6

Solano:

Class45 17.7

Capacityfactorcanvaryfromyeartoyear.Alsowindturbinesarebecomingmoreefficient,
withgreatercapacityratingsandhighertowers,thusproducinghighercapacityfactors.Trends
incapacityfactorforthesesites,from1995to2005areshowninFigure35.

83ElectronicWindPerformanceReportingSystem(eWPRS),http://wprs.ucdavis.edu/

105

Figure 35. Capacity factor trends of California utility wind sites


Source: eWPRS web site

Thesecapacityfactorsincludebotholderandnewerinstalledturbines,soisnotnecessarily
representativeofcapacityfactorsthatcanbeexpectedfromnewinstallations.

3.6.2. Onshore Wind Class 5


Technical and Market Justification
AccordingtotheAmericanWindEnergyAssociation(AWEA),in2008,withover8,500MW
installed,windpowerprovided42%ofallthenewgeneratingcapacityaddedintheUnited
States,upfromlessthan2%ofnewcapacityaddedin2004.Withatotalof25,369MWin
operationattheendof2008,theUnitedStatespulledaheadofthepreviousleaderGermany
(23,902MW)bothinwindenergyproductionandincumulativewindpowergenerating
capacity.TheUnitedStatesisalsotheworldslargestmarketintermsofnewinstallations(8,545
MW)addedin2008,aheadofChina(6,300MW).
Primary Commercial Embodiment
AsofSeptember2008,Californiahad2517MWofinstalledwindturbinecapacity(source:
AWEA).Windplantinstallationsaremodularwiththecapabilitytoaddnewturbineswithin

106


eachdevelopment,thusincreasingoverallplantsize.Recentwindturbineinstallations(since
2006)rangeinsizefrom1MWto3MW(source:AWEA84).
WindplantsizeinCaliforniavariesdramatically.Asanillustration,windplantinstallations
since2003areshowninTable23.Plantsizesvaryfromlessthan1MWto150MW,andmany
oftheseinstallationsarewithinthesamegeneralareaaspreexistinginstallations,which
illustratethemodularnatureofthistechnology.CaliforniainstallationslistedbyAWEAtotal
116windplants.
UtilityscalewindturbineinstallationswillcontinuetoincreaseinCaliforniathrough2018and
beyond.Agrowingtrendistowardlargerturbines.Therearecurrentlyseveral5MWwind
turbinesintheprototypestage.85Itisuncertainwhethersuchlargeturbineswillberoutinely
installedforonshoreapplicationsorwillberelegatedonlytotheoffshoremarket.

84http://www.awea.org/projects/Projects.aspx?s=California
85Musial,Walt,SandyButterfield,andBonnieRam.EnergyfromOffshoreWind.NationalRenewable
EnergyLaboratory,NREL/CP50039450,February2006.

107


Table 23. California utility wind plant installations since 2003
Name

Location

Power
Turbine
Capacity Units
Size
(MW)

Turbine Mfr.

Shiloh II

Northern California

150

75

Edom Hills repower

Southern California

20

2.5 Clipper

Alite Wind Farm

Southern California

24

3 Vestas

Allco/Oak Creek Energy

Dillon

Southern California

45

45

1 Mitsubishi

Iberdrola Renewables

Solano Wind Project

Solano

63

21

3 Vestas

Buena Vista

Altamont Pass

38

38

Shiloh Wind Power Project

Solano County

150

100

Solano IIA

Solano County

24

Coram Energy (Aeroman repower)

Tehachapi

Kumeyaay Wind Power Project

East of San Diego

10.5

50

25

2 REPower

Developer

1 Mitsubishi
1.5 GE Energy

3 Vestas
1.5 GE Energy
2 Gamesa

Owner

Power Purchaser

Year
Online

enXco

enXco

PG&E

2009

BP Alternative Energy

BP Alternative Energy

SCE

2008

California Portland Cement

2008

Iberdrola Renewables

Southern California Edison

2008

Sacramento Municipal
Utility District
Babcock & Brown

Sacramento Municipal
Utility District
Babcock & Brown

Sacramento Municipal Utility


District
Pacific Gas & Electric

2007

PPM Energy

PPM Energy

2006

Sacramento Municipal
Utility District
Coram Energy

Sacramento Municipal
Utility District
Coram Energy

PG&E, Modesto Irrigation


District & City of Palo Alto
Utilities
Sacramento Municipal Utility
District
Southern California Edison
San Diego Gas & Electric

2005
2005

Superior Renewable Energy Babcock & Brown

2006

2006
2005

Victorville Wind Project

Victorville prison

0.75

0.75 Vestas

NORESCO

NORESCO

Victorville Prison

Victory Garden

Tehachapi

0.66

0.66 Vestas

Caithness

Caithness

Southern California Edison

2005

Victory Garden

Tehachapi

0.75 Zond

Caithness

Caithness

Southern California Edison

2005
2004

Coram Energy (Aeroman repower)

Tehachapi

Diablo winds

Altamont Pass

Lake Palmdale

Palmdale

4.5

Coram Energy

Coram Energy

Southern California Edison

20.46

31

0.66 Vestas

1.5 GE Energy

FPL Energy

FPL Energy

Pacific Gas & Electric

2004

0.95

0.95 Vestas

Palmdale Water District

Palmdale Water District

Palmdale Water District

2004

60

60

4.62

Oasis Power Partners

Tehachapi

Solano Wind Project, phase II

Solano County

1 Mitsubishi

Aeroman repower (2003)

Tehachapi

CalWind II CEC

Tehachapi

8.58

13

0.66 Vestas

High Winds

Solano

162

90

1.8 Vestas

FPL Energy

Karen Avenue II (San Gorgonio Farms)

San Gorgonio

4.5

1.5 GE Energy

San Gorgonio Farms

Mountain View Power Partners III

San Gorgonio

22.44

34

0.66 Vestas

Solano Wind Project, phase I

Solano County

10.56

16

0.66 Vestas

Whitewater Hill

San Gorgonio

4.5

0.66 Vestas
1.5 GE Energy

1.5 GE Energy

Source: AWEA Project Database

108

enXco

enXco

San Diego Gas & Electric

2004

FPL Energy

Sacramento Municipal
Utility District
Coram Energy

Sacramento Municipal Utility


District
Southern California Edison

2004

Southern California Edison

2003

FPL Energy

PPM Energy

2003

San Gorgonio Farms

Southern California Edison

2003

PPM Energy

PPM Energy

San Diego Gas & Electric

2003

Sacramento Municipal
Utility District
Cannon Power Corp.

Sacramento Municipal
Utility District
Cannon Power Corp.

Sacramento Municipal Utility


District

2003

Coram Energy
CalWind Resources

2003

2003


Cost Drivers
MarketandIndustryChanges
Thereareseveralkeymarketandindustrychangessince2007thathavemateriallyaffected
windturbineinstallationcosts.

ThevalueoftheUnitedStatesdollarrelativetotheEurohasshownanincreasesince
mid2008.

UnitedStatesmanufacturingofturbinepartshasbeenincreasing.

Thesechangesandtheirsignificancearefurtherdiscussedbelow.
CurrentTrends
Thecostofwindpowerinstallationsshowedasteadydeclinefromtheearly1980suntil2002.
Sincethencostshaveincreasedsteadily.ThistrendisfromaLawrenceBerkeleyNational
Laboratory(LBNL)studyofactualinstallationsovertimeandshowninFigure36.86

Figure 36. Installed wind project costs over time


Source: Wiser and Bollinger, Annual Report on U.S. Wind Power Installation, Cost, and Performance Trends: 2007.

Thesecostincreasesaredrivenbyseveralmarketfactorsasdiscussedbelow(Wiser2007):

Increasedcostforcommodities(affectingturbineprices).

DropinvalueoftheUnitedStatesdollarrelativetotheeuro.

Improvedsophisticationofturbinedesign.

86Wiser,RyanandMarkBolinger.AnnualReportonU.S.WindPowerInstallation,Cost,andPerformance
Trends:2007.U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.EERE,May2008.

109

Upscalingofturbinesize(andhubheight).

Shortagesincertainturbinecomponents.

Ageneralmovebymanufacturerstoimprovetheirprofitability.

Thesefactorsarecitedasreasonsforwindturbinepriceincreasesof9%from2006to2007.But
someofthesefactorshaveactuallyshownareversalsince2007.

ThevalueoftheUnitedStatesdollarrelativetotheeurohasshownanincreasefrom
mid2008throughApril2009(Figure38).

UnitedStatesmanufacturingofturbinepartshaveincreasedfrom30%in2005to50%in
2008,87thusreducingthevalueoftheUnitedStatesdollarrelativetotheeuroasacost
driver.

TheincreaseinUnitedStatesmanufacturingcapacityalsoresultsinareductionon
shortagesofcertainturbinecomponents.

Thereisspeculationthatdirectdrive88ormultiplegeneratordrivetrain89windturbine
configurationswillultimatelyreducecosts.Currentlythesetechnologiesareinthe
development/demonstrationstages.

IncreasedCostforCommodities:
Awindturbineismadeprimarilyofsteel(approximately90%)andothermaterials.Costtrends
fortheserawmaterialsareshowninFigure37.

87Cheeseman,G.M.U.SWindTurbineManufacturingWillIncrease.www.Clesias.com
http://www.celsias.com/article/uswindturbinemanufacturingwillincrease/
88deVries,Eize.REWExclusive:SiemensNew3.6MWDirectDriveConceptWindTurbine.
RenewableEnergyWorld,July4,2008.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2008/07/rewexclusivesiemensnew36mw
directdriveconceptwindturbine52963
89Cotrell,J.A.APreliminaryEvaluationofaMultipleGeneratorDrivetrainConfigurationforWindTurbines.
PresentedatAmericanSocietyofMechanicalEngineersWindEnergySymposium,NREL/CP50031178,
January2002.
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/15000704XNgzBn/native/15000704.PDF.

110

Figure 37. Metal prices Jan. 2002 Sept. 2007 (London Metal Exchange)
Source: OConnell and Pletka, 20 Percent Wind Energy Penetration in the United States.

90

DropinValueoftheUnitedStatesDollarRelativetotheEuro:
Onefactorinthecostincreaseforthewindindustrysince2002hasbeenthedropinvalueofthe
dollaragainsttheeuro.Priorto2008,themajorityofwindturbinecomponentshavebeen
manufacturedinEurope,butthistrendhasstartedtoreverseduetomoreUnitedStates
manufacturing.AsthevalueoftheUnitedStatescurrencydroppedagainsttheeuro,turbine
priceshaveincreasedinUnitedStatesdollarterms(Black&Veatch2007).Butthistrendin
valueoftheUnitedStatesdollaragainsttheeurohasshownareversaloverthepastyear.This
isillustratedinFigure38.

90OConnell,RicandRyanPletka,etal.20PercentWindEnergyPenetrationintheUnitedStates:ATechnical
AnalysisoftheEnergyResource.Black&VeatchProject:144864,October2007.

111

Figure 38. U.S. dollar vs. euro, Jan. 1999 through April 2009 (European Central Bank)
Source: European Central Bank.

ImprovedSophisticationofTurbineDesign
Suchimprovementswillincludeimprovedefficienciesresultinginincreasedcapacityfactors.
Figure39showscapacityfactortrendsfromwindturbineinstallationsovertime.Thisupward
trendcannotbeattributedonlytoturbinedesign.Increasedhubheightsandincreasedcarein
selectingturbinelocationforhigherwindsitescanincreasecapacityfactor.Theincreaseinhub
heightandcareinsiteselectioncanalsocontributetoincreasedinstalledcosts.

Figure 39. 2007 Project capacity factors by commercial operation date


Source: Wiser and Bollinger, Annual Report on U.S. Wind Power Installation, Cost, and Performance Trends: 2007.

Projectionsoffuturecapacityfactorhavebeenperformed(Black&Veatch2007)byanalyzing
monthlydatafromover5,000MWofwindplantsinstalledintheMidwestfrom2000to2005.
TheresearchteambelievestheMidwestinstallationanalysisistransferabletoCaliforniaeven
thoughthetopographyisquitedifferent,sincecapacityfactorsweredeterminedbywind
powerclass.Oneregion,theMidwest,waschosenfortheanalysiswiththepurposeof
performingarelativecomparison.Aregressioncurvewasdevelopedforthevariouswind
classesandisshowninFigure40.

112

Figure 40. Onshore capacity factor by installed year and class


Source: OConnell and Pletka, 20 Percent Wind Energy Penetration in the United States.

UpScalingofTurbineSize(andHubHeight):
Windturbinesize(ratingsinMW),whichdrivesrotordiameterandhubheight,hasincreased
overtime.Theincreasedequipmentcostswillbeatleastpartiallyoffsetbyincreasedcapacity
factor.

Table 24. Size distribution and number of turbines over time

Source: Wiser and Bollinger, Annual Report on U.S. Wind Power Installation, Cost, and Performance Trends: 2007.

ShortagesinCertainTurbineComponents
UnitedStateswindpowercapacitysurgedby46%in2007,with5,329MWaddedand$9billion
invested(Wiser2007).AnnualgrowthofthewindturbineindustryintheUnitedStatesis

113


showninFigure41,whichhascontributedtoshortagesintheindustry.ButasUnitedStates
manufacturingcapacityincreases,turbinecomponentshortagesshouldbelessofanissue.

Figure 41. Annual and cumulative growth in U.S. wind power capacity
Source: Wiser and Bollinger, Annual Report on U.S. Wind Power Installation, Cost, and Performance Trends: 2007.

AGeneralMovebyManufacturerstoImproveWindProfitability
Since2003,windpowergenerationcostshavebeencostcompetitivewithotherformsof
generationbuthavebeengenerallyincreasingaswholesalepowerpricesincrease.

Figure 42. Average cumulative wind and wholesale power prices over time
Source: Wiser and Bollinger, Annual Report on U.S. Wind Power Installation, Cost, and Performance Trends:
2007.

Sincewindproducedelectricityisbecomingmorevaluablewithincreasedelectricprices,
increaseddevelopmentofthetechnologycanoccur(resultinginhighercapacityfactors,hub
heights,andturbineefficiencies),andmoreeffortcanbeputintolocatingtheturbinesinthe
bestwindsites.Windturbinemanufacturersandwindsitedevelopersarethenabletocharge
morefortheirproducts.

114


CostDrivers
Eachofthecurrenttrendslistedabovecanalsobeconsideredcostdrivers.Eachofthosetrends
primarilyaffectsturbineprices,whicharetypically75%ofoverallprojectinstallationcosts
(Black&Veatch2007).Generalprojectcostdriversarelistedbelow:

Turbinecost

Reliability

Permittingandsiteselection

Landacquisition

Transmissioncosts

Alsowhenusingnationalaveragecostdata,adjustmentsmustbemadefordifferencesin
California.A9%increasefromnationalcostdatashouldbeappliedtowindturbineproject
installationsinCalifornia(Black&Veatch2007).
Someconsidereconomiesofscaletobeacostdriverforloweringcosts.Sincewindpower
plantsareamodulartechnology,veryfeweconomiesofscalehavebeenseenfromlarger
installations(Wiser2008),asshowninFigure43.

Figure 43. Installed wind project costs as a function of project size: 2006-2007 projects
Source: Wiser and Bollinger, Annual Report on U.S. Wind Power Installation, Cost, and Performance Trends: 2007.

Current Costs
Thecurrentcostsweredeterminedthroughthefollowingsteps:

Useinstalledcostsfromthe2008DOEstudy91($2007).

91Wiser,RyanandMarkBolinger.AnnualReportonU.S.WindPowerInstallation,Cost,andPerformance
Trends:2007.U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.EERE,May2008.

115

Projectcoststo$2009adjustingfrom$2007perinflation(adjusted6.75%perMoodys
priceinflatorsfrom2007to2009).

AdjustnationalaveragecoststoCaliforniavalues(multiplyingby1.09).

Average2007installedcost:$1,710/kW

Average2009installedcost:$1825/kW

California2009installedcost:$1,990/kW

Also,reportedinstalledUnitedStatescostsfor2007rangesfrom$1,240/kWto$2,600/kW
(Wiser2008).Adjustingto$2009forCalifornia,thehighandlowcostsareasfollows:

High2009installedcostforCalifornia:$3,025/kW

Low2009installedcostinCalifornia:$1,440/kW

FixedO&Misestimatedtohaveanationalaveragecostof$11.50/kW(Black&Veatch$2006),
basedonreviewofrecentprojects.ThisisincreasedforCaliforniaby9%.FixedO&Mcosts
consistofpropertytaxes,insurance,sitemaintenance,legalfees,labor,andmiscellaneousitems.
Itisassumedthesefactorscanvarybyapproximately25%toobtainthehighandlowfixed
O&Mcosts.The25%valuewasdeterminedthroughinspectionofO&Mvariability(Wiser
2008).
Adjustingto$2009,fixedO&Mcost:$13.70/kW:

Average:$13.70/kW

High:

$17.13/kW

Low:

$10.28/kW

VariableO&Mcostsareestimatedtohaveanationalaveragecostof$7.00/MWh(Black&
Veatch$2006),basedonreviewofrecentprojects.VariableO&Misdrivenbynumberof
turbinesandwilldeclineasturbinereliabilityimproves.Sincethetrendistowardlargerwind
turbines,resultinginfewerturbinespersite,andhigherqualityproducts,variableO&Mis
expectedtodeclineovertime.Basedonthesefactors,Black&Veatchestimatescurrentvariable
O&Mcostsat$7.00/MWhand2030costsat$4.40/MWh,withanaverageof$5.00/MWh(allin
$2006).
Adjustingto$2009,variableO&Mcost:

Average:$5.50/MWh

High:

$7.66/MWh

Low:

$4.82/MWh

116


Expected Cost Trajectories
Recentcosttrajectoriesshowasteepincreaseinwindturbineinstalledcostsoverthepast
severalyears.Thisreportexplainsthevariouscausesbehindtheincrease.Itisunreasonableto
believethecostswillcontinuetoclimb.Manyofthefactorsthathavecontributedtocost
increasessince2002haveshownareversaloverthepasttwoyears.Thesefactorsinclude:

ValueofUnitedStatesdollarversustheeurodeclinedfrom2002tomid2008,buthas
shownareversalsincethen.

IncreasesinglobalandUnitedStatesbasedmanufacturingcapacityforwindturbines.

Basiccommodityprices(e.g.,steel,copper)havesteadiedandinsomecasesdeclined.

Theresearchteamhasconcludedalearningeffectinwindturbineinstallationswillberealized,
butitisexpectedtobemodest.Themaindriverbeingthatwindgenerationinconjunctionwith
theproductiontaxcredit(PTC)andinvestmenttaxcredit(ITC)iscurrentlycostcompetitive
withotherformsofgeneration.Thelearningeffectisestimatedbetween0.33%to0.5%peryear.

3.6.3. Onshore Wind Class 3/4


TheentirediscussiononClass5winddirectlyappliestoClass3/4wind.Theonlydifferenceis
inthecapacityfactor,whichcanbedeterminedfromFigure40.CapacityfactorrangesforClass
3/4windturbineinstallationsaregivenbelow:

Average:37%

High:

41%

Low:

34%

3.6.4. Offshore Wind Class 5


Technical and Market Justification
OffshorewindisanemergingtechnologyintheUnitedStatesandanoperationalonein
Europe.TherearenoinstallationsintheUnitedStates,butbytheendof2008atotalofover
1,400MWofoffshorewindfarmshavebeeninoperationaroundEurope;inthecoastalwaters
ofDenmark,Ireland,Netherlands,Sweden,theUnitedKingdom,Germany,Belgium,and
Finland.Thisrepresentsaround2%ofthecumulativeinstalledcapacityofwindpowerinthe
EuropeanUnion(EU)(source:EWEA).Abreakdownofoffshorewindinstallationsbycountry
isprovidedinFigure44.

117

Figure 44. European offshore wind installations


Source: EWEA, Seas of Change: Offshore Wind Energy.

SeveraloffshorewindpowerinstallationshavebeenproposedintheUnitedStates,butmany
havebeenpostponedorcancelledpurportedlyduetohighprojectcosts.92Otherissues
fosteringoppositionhavebeentheperceivedimpacttosceneryfromvaluablecoastal
properties,birdmigrationpatterns,andhazardstomarineandairnavigation.93Offshorewind
hasbeenseeingaslowstartintheUnitedStatesbutshouldonedaybecomearealityinmany
partsofthecountry.OfftheDelawareshore,thefirstoffshorewindfarmtobedevelopedinthe
UnitedStateshasalreadysoldonethirdofthepowerthatwillbegeneratedduringitsfirst25
***yearsofoperationbeforeaturbineisevenplacedinthewater.94

92OConnell,RicandRyanPletka,etal.20PercentWindEnergyPenetrationintheUnitedStates:ATechnical
AnalysisoftheEnergyResource.Black&VeatchProject:144864,October2007.510.
93Snyder,JohnDespiteOpposition,OffshoreWindFarmsSeemPoisedtoMakeTheirMark.
ProfessionalMarinerMagazine,September2007.
94EnvironmentalNewsService.FirstU.S.SaleofOffshoreWindPowerSigned.January2008.

118


Primary Commercial Embodiment
TherearecurrentlynooffshorewindinstallationsinCalifornia.
TheprimaryfocusofoffshorewindfarmsintheUnitedStateshasbeenofftheAtlanticcoast.
StrongwindresourcesalsoexistoffthePacificcoast,buttheseareprimarilyindeepwaters,
whichpresenttechnicalchallenges.95Untilthesechallengesassociatedwithdeepwaterwind
platformsareresolved,offshorewinddevelopmentinCaliforniawillbelimited.
Cost Drivers
MarketandIndustryChanges
MarketandindustrychangeshavebeenpresentedintheOnshoreWindsection,whichalso
applytooffshorewind.Thereareadditionalchangesthatapplytooffshore.
DuetoDelawaresmandatetoguaranteestablepricesforelectricity(HouseBill6)anditsRPS
requirementsof20%renewableenergyby2019(SenateBill74),BluewaterWindnegotiateda
PowerPurchaseAgreement(PPA)withDelmarvaPowerforpowerfromoffshorewind.
Bluewaterisproposinga450MWplant.96
NewUnitedStatespolicyframework,includingcommitmentsfromtheDepartmentofthe
Interior,theMineralsManagementService,andtheFERCencouragethedevelopmentof
offshorewindenergygenerationcapacity.97
Another30statelegislatorshavesignedontoalettertoKennethL.Salazar,U.S.Secretaryofthe
Interior,toquicklyapprovetheCapeCodWindFarmprojectofftheMassachusettscoast.98
InEurope,theoffshorewindindustryisflourishing.TheEWEAsstatisticsshowthatatotalof
1,471MWwasinstalledworldwidebytheendof2008,allofitinEuropeanUnion(EU)waters.
SinceDecember2007,thenumberofcountriesthathostoffshorewindturbineshasincreased
fromfivetoninethatis,onethirdofEUMemberStates.
In2008,Europeinstalled357MW,equivalenttoalmost1MWofoffshorecapacitybeingadded
everyday(source:EWEA).99

95U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior.SurveyofAvailableDataonOCSResourcesandIdentificationofDataGaps.
OCSReport.MMS2009015,2009.
96http://www.bluewaterwind.com/de_overview.htm.
97Jesmer,Graham,StageSetforOffshoreWindEnergyintheU.S.RenewableEnergyWorld,April8,
2009.
98http://www.capewind.org/news973.htm.
99EWEA.SeasofChange:OffshoreWindEnergy,February2009,
http://www.ewec2009.info/fileadmin/ewec2009_files/documents/Media_room/EWEA_FS_Offshore_FINA
L_lr.PDF.

119


CurrentTrends
Onshorewindenergytrendsalsoaffecttheoffshoreindustry.Sometrendsparticulartothe
offshoreindustryarenoted:

Onshorewindturbinesizeshaveshownasteadyincreaseoverthepastseveralyears
(seediscussioninOnshoreWindsection).Thisissignificantsincethetrendforoffshore
windhasbeenforlargersizeturbines.

TheEUpotentialforoffshorewinddevelopmentisforeseentobe20to40GWthrough
2020.Backin2003,EWEApublishedprojectionsof70GWofoffshorewindby2020.
Thisprojectionwasforeseenasunrealisticandwasrevisedin2007to20GWto40
GW.100

DuetotheEUtargetof20%renewablesby2020,offshorewindisforeseentoplaya
significantfactor.Trendsofpastinstallationswithprojectionsforfuturegrowthare
providedbyEWEAandshowninFigure45.

Figure 45. European offshore wind growth and projections


Source: EWEA, Seas of Change: Offshore Wind Energy.

100EWEA.DeliveringOffshoreWindPowerinEurope.December2007.

120


Withincreasedinternationalgrowthoftheoffshorewindindustry,someinstallationsoffthe
Californiacoastshouldberealizedwithinthenext20years.
CostDrivers
Primarycostdriversforoffshorewindinstallationsareasfollows:

Turbinecost.

Reliabilityandmaintenance.

Permittingandsiteselection.

Supportstructure.

Gridconnectionandtransmissioncosts.

Developmentoftechnologyoffoundationsorfloatation.

Thesecostdriversareverysimilartothoseforonshorewind.Onekeydifferenceisforonshore,
theturbineisapproximately75%ofprojectcosts,whereforoffshoretheturbineis
approximately33%ofprojectcosts.
Current Costs
BothovernightandO&Mcostsofoffshorewindinstallationshavebeenestimatedtobe
approximatelytwicethatofonshoreinstallations101(alsofromBlack&Veatch,page510).
Boththe2009and2018OnshoreClass5dollarshavebeendoubledtoobtainthenecessary
offshorewindprojectcosts.Formodelingpurposes,itisestimatedwindturbineinstallations
willbeginofftheCaliforniacoastin2018.
OvernightCosts($/kW):

$2009

$2018

Average:

$3,980

$4,581

High:

$6,050

$6,964

Low:

$2,880

$3,315

101Beurskens,L.W.M.,M.deNoord,andH.J.deVries.PotentialsandCostsforRenewableElectricity
Generation.EnergyResearchCentreoftheNetherlands.ECNC03006,February2004.

121


FixedO&MCosts($/kWyr):

$2009

$2018

Average:

$27.40

$31.54

High:

$34.25

$39.42

Low:

$20.55

$23.65

VariableO&M($/MWh):

$2009

$2018

Average:

$11.00

$12.66

High:

$15.32

$17.63

Low:

$9.64

$11.10

Oneotherthingtonoteisthecapacityfactor.Duetolargerwindturbinesforoffshore
applications(meaninghighertowers)andlowerwindturbulence,capacityfactorswillincrease
by15%overonshoreturbineestimates(Black&Veatch2007).Capacityfactorestimationsare
includedinFigure46.

Figure 46. Offshore capacity factor by installed year


Source: OConnell and Pletka, 20 Percent Wind Energy Penetration in the United States.

122


CapacityfactorsforClass5offshorewindareestimatedtovarybetween42%and48%withthe
averagebeing45%.
Expected Cost Trajectories
Primarycosttrajectoriesaretoincludelearningeffectsasmoreoffshorewindprojectsare
installed.Period1&2LearningRates(20%and10%respectively),definedinEIAsElectricity
MarketModule,wereusedtoestimatecostreductionsovertime.Itisestimatedeachlearning
ratewilllastfiveyears.Thereforeatotalof15%costimprovementwillberealizedbetween
2018and2029,basedonincreasesincumulativeinstalledgenerationfrom23GWto110GW.
Thisisaconservativeestimatesinceonshorewindinstallationsdecreasedincostby50%from
1982to1992.

3.7. Wave
3.7.1. Technology Overview
Waveenergyextractioniscomplex,andmanydevicedesignshavebeenproposed.For
understandingthedevicetechnology,itishelpfulintroducetheseintermsoftheirphysical
arrangementsandenergyconversionmechanisms.

DistancefromshoreWaveenergydevicesmayconvertwavepowerattheshoreline,
neartotheshore(definedasshallowwaterwherethedepthislessthanonehalfofthe
wavelength)oroffshore.

BottommountedorfloatingWaveenergydevicesmaybeeitherbottommountedor
floating.

Waveenergydevicescanbeclassifiedbymeansofthetypeofdisplacementandreaction
systememployed.Varioushydraulicorpneumaticpowertakeoffsystemsareusedandinsome
casesthemechanicalmotionofthedisplacerisconverteddirectlytoelectricalpower(direct
drive)Fourofthemostwellknowndeviceconceptsareintroducedbelowandtheirprincipleof
operationillustrated.

SymmetricalpointabsorberAbottommountedorfloatingstructurethatabsorbs
energy.Thepowertakeoffsystemmaytakeanumberofforms,dependingonthe
configurationofdisplacers/reactors.Thekeycharacteristicofapointabsorberisthatit
canabsorbmoreenergythanavailablewithinthedeviceswidthifthedeviceistuned
(i.e.,itisnaturalresonancefrequencymatchestheincidentwavefrequency).

OscillatingWaterColumn(OWC)Nearshoreoroffshore,thisisapartiallysubmerged
chamberwithairtrappedaboveacolumnofwater.Aswavesenterandexitthe
chamber,thewatercolumnmovesupanddownandactslikeapistonontheair,
pushingitbackandforth.Theairisforcedthroughaturbine/generatortoproduce
electricity.

OvertoppingterminatorAfloatingreservoirstructurewitharampoverwhichthe
wavestoppleandhydroturbines/generatorsthroughwhichthewaterreturnstothesea.

123

AttenuatorOneformoftheattenuatorprincipleisalongfloatingstructurethatis
orientatedparalleltothedirectionofthewaves.Thestructureiscomposedofmultiple
sectionsthatrotateinpitchandyawrelativetoeachother.Thatmotionisthen
convertedtoelectricityusinganelectrohydraulicpowerconversionmachine.

Conceptualdiagramsofthesedevicesanincludedinthefollowingfigures(source:EPRI).

Figure 47. Point absorber


Source: EPRI, Ocean Tidal and Wave Energy

Figure 48. Oscillating water column


Source: EPRI, Ocean Tidal and Wave Energy

Figure 49. Overtopping


Source: EPRI, Ocean Tidal and Wave Energy

124

Figure 50. Attenuator


Source: EPRI, Ocean Tidal and Wave Energy

3.7.2. Ocean Wave


Technical and Market Justification
Waveenergyhasbeeninexistenceformanyyears,althoughveryfewcommercial
developmentsareinplace.Currently,worldwideinstallationstotalonly4MWrated
nameplate.Therehasrecentlybeensubstantialinterest,withover25countriesinvolvedin
developingrelevantconversiontechnologiesforharnessingoceanrenewableresourcesfor
electricitygenerationand/orotherpurposes.Alsooverthepasttwoyearstherehavebeen
severalcompaniessubmittingfilingswiththeFERCforpermitstoinstalloceanwaveenergy
systemsinvariouslocationsalongtheCaliforniacoast.Thesepermitsareforsystemsranging
insizefrom1to5MWto100MW.
Primary Commercial Embodiment
TherearecurrentlynocommercialwaveenergysystemsinstalledofftheCaliforniacoast.
BasedontherecentFERCfilings,itishypothesizedthatby2018therewillbesomecommercial
waveenergysystemsinstalledofftheWestCoastoftheUnitedStates.TheFERCfilingshave
beenforsystemsfromupto5MWtoupto100MW.Inreality,eachofthesecompaniesthat
havesubmittedfilingsandwillperformsomeinstallationswillperformmoredetailed
evaluationsofthesite,begininstallingoceanwaveunits,evaluatetheirperformance,andthen
addmoreunitstotheplantsbasedontheirevaluationsofperformanceandprojected
costs/benefits.A40MWtypicalplantsizeisforeseenasaveragebasedontherangeofFERC
filings.
Cost Drivers
MarketandIndustryChanges
TherehavebeennomarketandindustrychangessinceAugust2007thathavematerially
affectedthecostsofwaveenergysystems.

125


CurrentTrends
BasedonareviewofseveralFERCfilings,itisforeseenthatafewwaveenergymanufacturers
willinstalldemonstrationprojectstoproveouttheirsystemandthenaddtothecapacitybased
ontheirsuccess.Thefilingsshowmodularitywiththesystems,whichallowaddingonto
capacitywithmultipleunits.
CostDrivers
Primarycostdriversforthistechnologyareasfollows:102

DevicestructureRequiredtohousethewaveenergyturbineandgenerator.

MechanicalandelectricalplantShorebasedpowerstationfortheunit.

TransportationandinstallationMovingequipmenttotheshoreandshippingtothe
offshoredevicestructure.

ConstructionmanagementandpermittingAdministrativecosts.

ElectricaltransmissionUnderseacables.

VariableO&MCostofsparesandrepaircosts(replacementpartsandremoval,
replacementandrefurbishmentofparts).

FixedO&MOperationalcosts(maintenancecrewsandvesselstoenablerepairs).

Current Costs
ThebestcostinformationwasfoundfromareportpublishedbytheEnergyTechnology
SupportUnit(ETSU)oftheAssociationforEducationalAssessment(AEA)Europe.102The
reportoutlinestheresultofaEuropeancostmodeldevelopedintheearly1990sandrefinedin
thelate1990s.Itgivescostdataandcapacityfactorsforseveralcompetingwaveenergy
technologiesin1999Britishpounds.
Britishpounds(1999)wereconvertedto1999UnitedStatesdollarsthroughhistoricalexchange
rates.
Equation17:1999Britishpoundto1999U.S.dollarConversion
1999U.S.dollar=1.61x1999Britishpound
UnitedStatesdollars(1999)wereconvertedtopresentandfuturedollarsstrictlythrough
inflationestimates.Asummaryofthecostsobtainedandthecostscalculatedareincludedin
Table25.

102Thorpe,Tom.ABriefReviewofWaveEnergy.AEATechnology.ETSUR120,May1999.

126


Table 25. Ocean wave energy cost data
Device
Limpet
Limpet II
Ospray
Duck

Rated Capacity Estimated Cost


Capacity Factor
()
1 MW
1 MW
20 MW
2 GW

0.206
0.26
0.26
0.3

Averages

0.26

Low

0.21

High

0.30

1,160,000
1,400,000
26,300,000
2,400,000,000

Fixed
Variable Variable
Fixed
Estimated Estimated
O&M per O&M per O&M per O&M per
Cost per
Cost per
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit (/kW) Unit ($/kW)
(/kW)
($/kW)
(/MWh) ($/MWh)
1,160
$1,868
13
$21
4
$7
1,400
$2,254
17
$27
6
$9
1,315
$2,117
19
$31
7
$11
1,200
$1,932
21
$34
7
$11
1999 cost
$2,043
$28
$9
2018 cost
$2,978
$41
$14
2009 cost
$2,587
$36
$12
1999 cost
$1,868
$21
$7
2018 cost
$2,723
$31
$10
2009 cost
$2,365
$27
$9
1999 cost
$2,254
$34
$11
2018 cost
$3,286
$50
$17
2009 cost
$2,855
$43
$14

Source: Thorpe, T.W.

Expected Cost Trajectories


Learningeffectsfromoceanwavetechnologyareexpectedbemodestsincecumulative
generationisnotexpectedtobeatahighenoughleveltotakeadvantageofeconomiesofscale.

3.8. Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle


3.8.1. Technology Overview
ThereareseveralmajorIGCCprocesstechnologiesavailableforpowergeneration.Themain
suppliersofgasifiertechnologyareShell,GE,Siemens,andConocoPhillips.Theresearchteam
didnotfocusononeoftheseprocesstechnologiestoavoidexcludingpossibleviableoptionsfor
thefuture.ThereforetheselectedIGCCtechnologyforthisstudyisbasedonthecurrent
worldwidepracticeforcoalfueledIGCCtechnologyatascaleof300MW.Thisresultsinthe
selectionoftheoxygenblownentrainedflowgasifierprocesstechnology.
Airblowngasificationtechnologyisavailable,butsinceithasnotbeenappliedoutsideof
Japan,itisnotconsideredasaprimarycommercialembodimentoftheIGCCtechnology.This
processdoesnotrequireanairseparationunit;however,thesyngascontainsalotofnitrogen
resultinginmuchlargerdimensionsofequipmentthanoxygenblowngasification.
Figure51showsatypicaloxygenblownIGCCprocessschematic,andFigure52showsanaerial
photoofanactualinstallation.

127

Treated water
Waste water
treatment unit

Residue

Stack gas

Sulpur
Steam/Feedwater
Steam cy
Condensate
Tailgas

Waste water

Flyash
Slag

Gasification
island

Raw
Syngas

Gas cleanup

Cleaned
Syngas

Humidification

Humidified
Syngas

Heated
Syngas

Coal

Suppletion water

Oxygen
Heated Nitrogen

Nitrogen

Diluted
Syngas

Ambient air

ASU

Cooled
compressed air

Compressed air

GT
exh

Ambient air
Gas turbine

Figure 51. Typical oxygen blown IGCC process


Source: KEMA

128

Gas cleanup

Combined cycle
(Steam+Gas)

Waste water
treatment unit
Humidification

Gasification
island

Air Separation
Unit (ASU)

Figure 52. Actual installation (Buggenum, The Netherlands) with typical technological
components indicated
Source: Google Earth, modified by KEMA

ThebasicprincipleofIGCCisthegasification(partialoxidation)ofpulverizedcoalwithoxygen
andsteamtoproduceasyngas,whichiscombustedinagasturbine.Theoxygenissuppliedby
anairseparationunitwhichseparatesambientairintooxygenandnitrogen.Theaircanbe
deliveredbythecompressorofthegasturbine(fullairsideintegration)orbyaseparate
compressor(noairsideintegration).Airsideintegrationwillleadtohigherplantefficiencybut
alsotomorecomplexpowerplantoperations.Currentstateoftheartispartialairside
integration.

129


Inthegasificationisland,coal(eithersuppliedinslurryorinpowderform)isgasifiedinthe
reactorintorawgas.Apartfromtherawgasalsoflyashandslagareformed.Therawgas
contains:

CombustiblecomponentsCOandH2.

IncombustibleharmlesscomponentsH2O,N2,Ar.

GreenhousegasCO2.

Tracesofenvironmentallyand/ortechnicallyharmfulgaseouscomponents:

Sulphur:H2SandCOS.

Halogens:HClandHF.

Nitrogen:NH3,HCN.

Tracesofalkaliandheavymetals(suchasmercury).

Therawgasispurifiedinthegascleanup,thatisremovalofflyash(viacyclone,filter,and/or
wetscrubbing),heavymetals,halogen,nitrouscompounds,alkali(wetscrubbing),andsulphur
(absorption).Duringthisprocesswastewaterandsometailgasareproduced.Thetailgasis
recycledbackintothegasificationislandwhilethewastewateriscleanedinthewastewater
treatmentplant.Duringthisprocesscleandistillateandresidueareproduced.Thedistillateis
reusedinthepowerplant.
Thecleanedsyngasismoisturizedanddilutedwithnitrogentoachievealowerheatingvalue.
ThiscontributestolowerNOxemissions.Alsotheheatrateisimprovedmarginally.To
improvetheheatratefurtherthehumidsyngasisheatedbyfeedwaterfromthesteamcircuit
betweengasificationislandandsteamcycle.
Thedilutedsyngasiscombustedunderpressureinthegasturbineusingambientair
pressurizedbythegasturbinescompressor.Thehotcombustiongasesdrivethegasturbines
expander,providingelectricpowertodrivecompressorandgenerator.Theexhaustgasesare
leadintothesteamcyclewheresteamisproducedinthewasteheatboilerandisexpandedin
thesteamturbineinstallation,producingelectricity.

3.8.2. IGCC Without Carbon Capture (Single or Multiple 300 MW Trains)


Technical and Market Justification
CoalIGCCisaverypromisingnewcleancoaltechnology,especiallybecauseitiswellsuited
forCO2capture.AsillustratedbyanincreasingtrendinannouncementsofnewUnitedStates
gasificationprojects,theUnitedStatesmarketisawareofthispotentialapplicabilityofcoal
IGCCforfuturepowergeneration.TheentitiesthatareconsideringimplementingIGCC
projectsincludesomemajorenergyindustryplayerssuchasAEPandDukeEnergy(formerly
Cinergy).Inaddition,numeroussmallercompaniesarepursuinggasificationprojectsusing
stateandfederalgrants.Themoreadvanced,publiclydiscussedIGCCprojectsareshownin
Table26.Intotal,basedoninformationfrompublicannouncements,50projectshavebeen
identifiedforUnitedStatesoperationbeyond2010.

130


Table 26. Gasification-based power plant projects under consideration in the United States
beyond 2010
Project Name/Lead

Location

Feedstock

CT Fuel

Net (MWe)

Orlando, FL

coal

syngas

285

Lima, O

coal/ petcoke

syngas

540 SNG H2

Henderson
County, KY

coal

syngas

630

Sugar Land, TX

petcoke

syngas

1200

Mesaba/Excelsior Energy

Holman, MN

coal/ petcoke

syngas

600

Carson H2 Power Project/BP, Edison Mission


Group

Carson, CA

petcoke

H2

500

FutureGen/FutureGen Alliance

Illinois or Texas

coal

H2

275

Mountaineer Plant/AEP

New Haven, WV

coal

syngas

630

Pacific Mountain Energy Center/Energy


Northwest

Port Kalama, WA

coal/ petcoke

syngas

680

Taylorville, IL

coal

syngas

630

Huntley IGCC Project/NRG Energy

Tonawanda, NY

coal

syngas

680

Tampa Electric, Unit 2

Polk County, FL

coal

syngas

630

Wallula, WA

coal

syngas

600-700

Colorado

coal

syngas

300-350

TXU Corp.

Colorado City, TX

coal

syngas

630

TXU Corp.

Henderson, TX

coal

syngas

630

California

coal

H2

600

Orlando Gasification Project*/Southern Co.,


OUC
Lima Energy IGCC/Global Energy
Cash Creek IGCC Plant/GE, MDL Holdings
Lockwood IGCC Plant/Hunton Energy,
Cogentrix Energy Inc.

Taylorville Energy Center IGCC/CCG LLC

Wallula Energy Resource Center/Wallula


Resource Recovery LLC
Xcel Energy

Clean Hydrogen Power Generation


Project/Southern California Edison
Indian River IGCC Project/NRG Energy

Millsboro, DE

coal

syngas

630

Edwardsport IGCC Project/Duke Energy

Edwardsport, IN

coal

syngas

630

Meigs County, OH

coal

syngas

630

Wyoming

coal

syngas

TBD

Lower Columbia Clean Energy Center/


Summit Power Group

Clatskanie, OR

petcoke/ coal

syngas

520

Mississippi Power

Kemper County,
MS

coal

syngas

600

Texas

coal

syngas

630

Williamson County,
IL

coal

syngas

620 SNG

Great Bend/AEP
IGCC Demonstration Plant/Wyoming
Infrastructure Authority, Pacific Corp

NRG Energy
Steelhead Energy/Madison Power

Source: U.S. DOE, NETL, Gasification World Database 2007.

Primary Commercial Embodiment


Currently,nonewgasificationplantsareprojectedtocomeonlineintheNorthAmerican
regionfrom2008to2010.Thiscontinuesthetrendfrom2005to2007wherenonewplantswere
startedintheUnitedStatesandonlyoneplant,theLongLakePlant,beganoperationsin
131


Alberta,Canada.ThisabsenceofnewUnitedStatescapacityadditionsfrom2005to2010is
understandablegiventhattheseplantswouldhavehadtobecommittedtoduringthelate
1990sandearly2000s.Inthoseyearsthenaturalgaspriceswerelow,resourcesforindustrial
needsandtransportationfuelswereseeminglyabundant,andtheresultsfromdemonstrations
ofnewgenerationgasificationtechnologies(e.g.,thePolkandWabashIGCCplants)werenot
yetfullyknown.However,withexpandeddemandforpowerplants,concernsoverthe
availabilityandpricesofoilandgas,andincreasedconsensusregardingtheneedsfor
deploymentoftechnologiesprovidingforenvironmentalprotection,gasificationbasedprojects
areincreasinglyviewedasatechnologyoptionforfutureprogress.103
ThecommercialapplicabilityofcoalfueledIGCCisdemonstratedbyapproximately18IGCC
projectsthroughouttheworld.Oneoftheseprojectswasthecoal/petcokebasedCoolWater
IGCCplant,whichhasbeendecommissioned.OfthesixcurrentlyoperatingcoalIGCCplants,
fourarecommercialscale,entrainedflowgasificationdemonstrationprojects(rangingin
capacityfrom250to300MW)andarelocatedinFlorida,Indiana,TheNetherlands,and
Spain.104Thisinformationshowsthatentrainedflowgasificationtechnologyhasbeenselected
byallsixcompanies.Asfeedstock,bituminouscoalisthemainchoice,followedbyablendof
petcoke.TheSouthernCompany/OUCprojectisbasedupon100%PowerRiverBasincoalbutis
acommercialdemonstrationprojectforanewgasificationtechnologyandthedemonstration
willnotbecompleteuntil2015.NRGEnergyreportsusingafuelsupplyofprimarilycoalbut
couldincludeupto20%petcokeand5%biomass.
CurrenttrendssuggestthattheIGCCofthefuturewillcontainmuchofwhatisseennow,with
entrainedgasificationretainingitspositionasthemostcommonsystem.Thegasturbineswill
bebasedonthenaturalgasfiredversionsthatwillhavebeendeployedafewyearsearlier.
Hydrogentechnologywillprobablybethesafeoptionatthattime.ThelargercapacityoftheH
classgasturbineswillprovideaneconomyofscale,helpingtoreducethespecificcapitalcostof
IGCC.If,additionally,gasifierunitsizeshavebeensuccessfullyincreased,anditbecomes
possibleforaoneononegasifier/gasturbinecombinationtobeused,thiswillprovidefurther
costsavingsduetoscale.Steamconditionsinthesteamcyclecouldthenberaisedtoultra
supercritical,whichwillgivefurther(modest)efficiencybenefit.
AlthoughtheCoolwaterIGCCdemonstrationplantbuiltinCaliforniainthe1980swasthe
worldsfirstcommercialscaleIGCCdemonstrationplant,onlyonegasificationprojectis
currentlyunderconsiderationinthestate,aCleanHydrogenprojectasshowninTable26.

103U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.OfficeofFossilEnergy.NationalEnergyTechnologyLaboratory.
GasificationWorldDatabase2007,October2007.
<http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/gasification/database/database.html>.
104Black&Veatch.CleanCoalTechnologySelectionStudyFinalReportJanuary2007.Black&Veatch,2007.

132


Cost Drivers
MarketandIndustryChanges
Constructioncostsforpowerplantshaveescalatedatanextraordinaryratesincethebeginning
ofthisdecade.Mostrecentchangeisthecurrentcreditcrunchthatwillaffectthedemandand
supplyequilibriuminmarket.TheeffectsonthecostpricedevelopmentforcoalfueledIGCC
powerplantswereanalyzed.
CurrentTrends
Theresearchteamincludedthefollowingtrendsinthecostanalysis:

Constructionmaterialcosts.

Equipmentcosts.

Laborcosts.

Learningeffects.

DatafromtheU.S.BureauofReclamationwereusedtoassesstrendsinconstructioncosts.
Thesegeneralconstructioncosttrendsweredevelopedtotrackconstructionrelevanttopower
generationprojectcosts.ThisdatawasalsocomparedwiththeGasificationWorldDatabase2007
report,whichshowsthatcostoforiginalequipmentandinstallationhasincreasedasmuchas
20%to30%since1998.105Figure53showspowerplantconstructioncostsandmaincomponents.
Thevariouscostindexesinthefigureallconsistoftwoelements:contractorlaborand
equipmentcostsandcontractorsuppliedmaterialsandequipment.Adramaticincreaseincosts
isevidentattheendof2008,correspondingtothebeginningofthecreditcrunch.

105U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.OfficeofFossilEnergy.NationalEnergyTechnologyLaboratory.
GasificationWorldDatabase2007,October2007.
<http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/gasification/database/database.html>.

133

Bureau of Reclamation Construction Cost Trends


340
320
300
280
260
240
220

Powerplants

Structures and improvements

Equipment

Turbines and accessories

Accessory elect. & misc. equip.

Machinery and equipment (BLS)

ja
n09

ja
n08

ja
n07

ja
n06

ja
n05

ja
n04

ja
n03

ja
n02

ja
n01

ja
n00

200

Figure 53. Bureau of Reclamation construction cost trends


Source: KEMA, based on U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation data, website
http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/estimate/cost_trend.htm

CostDrivers
TheprimarycostdriversforthecostofelectricityfromIGCCplantsare:

GovernmentincentivesManygovernmentincentivesinfluencethecostofgenerating
electricity.Someincentiveshaveadirectandclearinfluenceonthecostofbuildingor
operatingapowerplant,suchasaninvestmenttaxcredit.Othershavelessdirecteffects
thataredifficulttomeasure,suchaspartsofthetaxcodethatinfluencethecostof
producingfossilfuel.106

CapitalandfinancingcostsFocusingonconstructioncostcomponentsandtrends.The
costcomponentsthatwereanalyzedwereEPCcosts,ownerscosts,andcapitalized
financingchargesfortheCalifornia/UnitedStatessituation.107

Operatingcosts(e.g.,fuelcosts)BrokendownintofuelcostsandnonfuelO&Mcosts.
Coaltypicallyaccountsfor20%to25%ofthecostofenergyfromanIGCCorPCpower
plant.O&Mcostsincludelabor,maintenancematerial,administrativesupport,

106Kaplan,Stan,PowerPlants:CharacteristicsandCosts.CongressionalResearchService.National
CouncilonScienceandtheEnvironment,WashingtonDC,2008.
107Black&Veatch.CleanCoalTechnologySelectionStudyFinalReportJanuary2007.Black&Veatch,2007.

134


consumables,andwastedisposalandtypicallyaccountfor20%ofthecostofenergy
fromanIGCCpowerplant.108

AiremissionscontrolsforcoalandnaturalgasplantsRegulationsthatlimitair
emissionsfromfossilfueledpowerplantscanimposetwotypesofcosts:costsof
installingandoperatingcontrolequipment,andcostsofallowancesthatpermitplantsto
emitpollutants.109

Redundancy/availabilityToachievea+85%netcapacityfactorwithcurrent
gasificationtechnologies,itisgenerallybelievedthatredundantgasifiercapacityis
required,whichincreasesthecostofIGCCfacilities.However,itistheresearchteams
assessmentthatthiscanbereachedwithonetrain,thusnotrequiringasparegasifier.

Current Costs
GrosscapacitiesforcoalfiredIGCCplantsrangedfrom300MWlowandaveragecasestoa600
MWhighcase,bothcasesduetothecommercialembodimentofthetechnology,withthe600
MWcasebeingdevelopedwithmultiplegasifiertrainsandturbines,andthe300MWcase
beingdevelopedasasingletraingasifiersetup.
Netcapacityfactorsweremodeledbetweenarangeof7090%,with80%beingtheaveragecase,
primarilyduetotheexpectedonstreamperformanceofthegasifierunit.Currently,thelongest
continuousgasifieroperatingdurationisapproximately2,700hours.Currentgasification
technologyperformancetrendsindicatecapacityfactorsof7090%tobecurrentstateoftheart.
Instantcostsweremodeledbetweenarangeof$1,700/kWand$2,800/kW,withanaverage
instantcostof$2,250/kW.Therangeextremesonthelowcostsideareduetooptionsfor
repoweringexistinggasturbineunitstoagasificationcombinedcycleconfiguration,whilethe
highcostscenariorepresentsahigherlevelofdesignstandardtopromoteadditionalinservice
reliability.
Heatratesandfixed/variableO&Mcostsreflectthecurrenttechnologybase,usinganFclass
turbineheatratecoupledwiththegasifierparasiticpowerload,andtheoperationalprocessing
costofthesyngasfromthegasifiertrains.
Overallfuelcosts,inthiscasetherawcoalfeedstockinput,weremodeledusing11,700Btu/lb
UiintaBasincoalsourcesinColoradoandUtah,aprimarysourceofwesterncoalsupplyfor
California,andplantsthatfeedelectricityintoCalifornia.

108Breeze,Paul,TheCostofPowerGeneration:TheCurrentandFutureCompetitivenessofRenewable
andTraditionalTechnologies.BusinessInsightsLtd.,2008.
http://www.globalbusinessinsights.com/content/rben0202m.PDF.
109Rosenberg,WilliamG.,DwightC.Alpern,andMichaelR.Walker.DeployingIGCCTechnologyin
ThisDecadeWith3PartyCovenantFinancing:VolumeII.ENRPDiscussionPaper200407:Belfer
CenterforScienceandInternationalAffairs,KennedySchoolofGovernment,HarvardUniversity,
Cambridge,MA,July2004.

135


Expected Cost Trajectories
Experiencecurvesforadvancedfossilfueltechnologiesarelimited.Thoseavailable,someof
themold,indicatebothcostincreasesandcostreductions.Inthisstudy,theresearchteam
assumedalearningrateof5%.Thisimpliesa5%costreductionpercumulativedoublingof
installedcapacity.

3.8.3. Carbon Capture and Sequestration


Asclimatechangepolicyandcarbonbasedregulationbecomemoreprevalentinboththe
UnitedStatesandCalifornia,solidfuelcombustiontechnologieswillbedriventoward
integratedgasificationtechnologies.Gasificationtechnologiesprovidetheabilitythroughthe
chemicalprocessesofgasificationtoseparatecarbondioxideasaseparateoffgasstreamfor
potentialcaptureandsequestration.110
Manufacturersinvolvedinintegratedgasificationcombinedcycletechnologiesarepursuing
precombustionremovalofcarbondioxidethroughthegasifier,withatleasta90%effective
carbondioxidecapturerate,withresearcheffortsongoing.111
Currently,researchintocarboncaptureandsequestration(CCS)projectsarebeingspearheaded
byoilandgascompanies,suchasShell,Total,andChevron,wherethetechnologybaseusedis
similartothatusedforcarbondioxideinjectionforenhancedoilandgasrecoverytechniques.
However,anumberofobstaclesforutilityscaleadoptionofthesetechnologiesremain,
includingthespecificapplicationofoil/gascarbondioxidesequestrationtechnologiesto
reliablyandsecurelysequestercarbondioxideemissionsforcenturies.Commercialscale
researchdemonstrationprojectshavebegun,totalinganestimated$20billioninworldwide
spending.
ArecentMcKinseystudyshowsthatcarbonpricesbetween$45and$64permetrictonare
neededtomakeCCSprojectsviable,comparedtoacurrentEuropeanUnionpriceof$1012per
metricton.112
Marketforcesforcarbonemissionsreductionsandcarbonpriceswillplayakeyrolein
determiningthecosttrajectoryandcommercialdevelopmentpotentialforCCSoverthenext20
years.Currently,thetechnologybaseforutilityscaleCCSapplicationsisintheearly
demonstrationphase.Forexample,ChinaisproceedingwithitsGreenGenproject,a200MW
integratedgasificationcombinedcycleunitlocatedinthecityofTianjin,butcarboninjection
andsequestrationisnotanticipateduntilapproximately2020.113

110U.S.DepartmentofEnergy,NationalEnergyTechnologyLaboratory.GasificationWorldDatabase2007.
111SiemensWestinghouse,ImprovingIGCCFlexibilityThroughGasTurbineEnhancements.
GasificationTechnologiesConference2004,October2004.
112Scott,Mark,Is2009theYearforCarbon,Capture,Storage?BusinessWeek,GreenBusiness,February
16,2009.
113Forbes,Sarah,HearingbeforetheU.S.HouseofRepresentativesScienceandTechnologyCommittee
onEnergyandtheEnvironment:FutureGenandtheDepartmentofEnergysAdvancedCoal
136


TheFutureGenproject,consideredaleadingprojectforUnitedStatesbasedCCStechnology
demonstration,wasscrappedin2008afterthecostoftheprojectballoonedto$1.8billion.
Alstomestimatestodaythatsuchacarboncaptureplantwouldcost$1billiontoproduce.
McKinseyalsopresentsthatCCStechnologywillnotbecomematureuntilsometimenear2030,
citingnumerousconcernsfromcostcompetitivenesswithcarbonpricestominimallearning
curvesforapplyingthetechnology.114Inaddition,questionsregardingtheefficacyofstorage
andtheimplementationofprojectsaftertheinitialcommercialdemonstrationphasearekey
unresolvedissues.115
BasedonthelackofcommerciallydemonstratedutilityscaleCCSprojectscurrentlyin
operation,theanticipatedstartofthosedemonstrationprojectsonornear2015,andthe
expected1015yeartimehorizontoscalethetechnologyfromdemonstrationtofullcommercial
embodiment,theresearchteamdidnotincludeCCStechnologyinthecostofgeneration
analysis.Theresearchteamnotesthatseveralfactorsmaychangethisdeterminationoverthe
nextfewyears,namely:

Government/policymandatesSupportinginvestment,development,andrapid
commercializationofCCStechnologiesonanacceleratedbasis.

IncreasesincarbonmarketpricevalueTotheextentthatacurrentlyanticipated$40
65/metrictonmarketvalueisneededtosupportbreakevenfinancialperformanceof
todaysCCStechnologies

GlobalchangesinCCStechnologybaseCurrentinterestintheUnitedStatesandinthe
EuropeanUnionissignificantandmayproducebreakthroughsinCCStechnology,
whichcouldalterthecosttrajectoriesofCCSenoughtowarrantinclusionina
commerciallyviablecostofgenerationanalysis.

TheresearchteamrecommendsthattheCCStechnologiesbeevaluatedforinclusioninfuture
costofgenerationstudiesoncedemonstrationprojectsprovideenoughdataforcommercial
estimatestobereliable.

Programs.U.SHouseofRepresentatives.CommitteeonScienceandTechnology.Subcommitteeon
Energy&Environment,March11,2009.
114TheEconomist.TroubleinStore.Economist.com,March5,2009.
115McKinsey&Company.CarbonCapture&Storage:AssessingtheEconomics,McKinsey&
Company,September2008.

137

3.9. Advanced Nuclear


3.9.1. Technology Overview
ThenuclearpowerindustryintheUnitedStatesisattemptingtostageacomeback.With
naturalgaspricesvolatileandpeopleanxiousaboutclimatechange,thenuclearpowerindustry
ismarketingitstechnologyasawaytomeetthenationsgrowingenergyneedswithout
emittingmoregreenhousegases.Overthenexttwoyears,theU.S.NuclearRegulatory
Commission(NRC)expectsapplicationstobuildasmanyas27newnuclearreactors.Hereare
sometechnologystatistics:

Approximately435commercialnuclearpowerreactorscurrentlyoperatein30countries,
supplying370,000MWeoftotalcapacityand16%oftheworldsbaseloadelectric
power.116

TheUnitedStateshas104nuclearreactorsoperatingin31statesandprovidingalmost
20%ofitselectricity.

IntheUnitedStates,therehavebeen17licenseapplicationstobuild26newnuclear
reactorssincemid2007,followingseveralregulatoryinitiativespreparingthewayfor
neworders.

Lifeextensionofnuclearreactorsisprogressingto60yearlifespansacrossthenuclear
operatingfleet.

Ownershipandoperationofnuclearreactorshavebecomemoreconcentratedoverthe
lastdecade.

Incontrasttothe20%ofelectricitysuppliedbynuclearplantsintheUnitedStates,75%of
Franceselectricityissuppliedbynuclearplants.Therehasbeennoneworderforanuclear
powerplantintheUnitedStatessincethe1970s,andnonewplanthasbeencompletedinthe
UnitedStatessince1996.Californiahashadamoratoriumonissuinglandusepermitsfornew
nuclearplantsuntiltheEnergyCommissionfindsthatthereisanapprovedmeansforthe
permanentdisposalofhighlevelradioactivewaste.UnitedStatesnuclearfacilitieshave
successfullyboostedoutputinrecentyearsbyincreasingusageratesfromhistoricalvaluesof
70%toover90%.Still,proponentsofnuclearenergyestimatethattheUnitedStateswillneed30
newnuclearplantsby2025tokeeppacewithincreasingelectricityuse.117However,opponents
ofnuclearpowerpointtothehighconstructioncostsofthenextgenerationreactorsand
difficultyinfinancingthemintodayscreditconstrainedmarkets.
Anumberofmajorriskfactorsarepresentinthequestforanuclearcomeback,includingthe
largestriskofall,nuclearplantconstructioncosts.Theabilitytoestimatenewplant

116http://www.aboutnuclear.net/English/Nuclear_Power_in_the_World.html.
117Mufson,Steven.NuclearPowerPrimedforComebackDemand,SubsidiesSpurU.S.Utilities.The
WashingtonPost,October8,2007;A01.

138


constructioncostswhenveryfewnuclearplantshavebeenbuiltsincetheThreeMileIslandand
Chernobylaccidentshavewidenedthespreadofestimatednuclearconstructioncostsoverthe
pastdecadeandcreatedagreatdealofuncertaintyinboththeutilityindustryandthefinancing
markets.ArecentupdatetoaMITstudyfoundin2008thatthecostspreadofinstantcostsfor
recent,similarnuclearplantprojectsintheUnitedStatesrangedfrom$3,500$4,800/kW(2007
dollars),whichisaverylargespreadincosts.118Difficultyinestimatingnuclearplantcosts
withprecisionandcertaintyisduetothesefactors:

LackofavailablereferenceplantdataVeryfewreactorshavebeenbuiltintheworld
recentlyandnoneintheUnitedStates.

HistoricalexperiencePastestimatesofnuclearplantinstalledcostshavenotalways
beenfoundtruewhenactualconstructioniscompleted.Arecentevaluationof
predictedversusactualcostsfoundthatcostsestimateshaveseverelyunderpredicted
actualcosts.

Figure 54. Actual vs. Predicted Nuclear Reactor Capital Costs


Source: Mark Cooper. The Economics of Nuclear Reactors: Renaissance or Relapse. Institute for Energy and the
Environment, Vermont Law School, June 2009.

SupplyChainIssuesConsiderableuncertaintystillexistsaroundthecapabilityofthe
nuclearsupplychaintodeliverthehighlyengineered,ultrahighqualityvessels,
fabrications,andmaterialsneededtosupportanuclearconstructionrevival.For

118Du,YangboandJohnE.Parsons.UpdateontheCostofNuclearPower.MITCenterforEnergyand
EnvironmentalPolicyResearch,May2009

139


instance,thenumberofASMENstampnuclearfabricatorshasdroppedfrom400
suppliers20yearsagoto80today.Inaddition,currentlyonlytwoworldwidesuppliers
existtosupplyreactorvesselsJapanSteelWorksandCreusotForge.119TheU.S.
DepartmentofEnergy,throughitsNP2010program,performedadetailed
manufacturingresourceassessmentin2005andfoundthatoutof22majormaterial
categories,fivewouldrequireextraleadtime,withthetwolargestimpactsupplychain
issuesbeingmanufactureofthereactorvessellargeringforgings(twoworldwide
suppliers)andmainplantdigitalcontrolsystemsandsimulators,bothrequiringan
extra23yearleadtimefromprocurementtodelivery.120

SpecializedNuclearLaborCostsandAvailabilityTheNP2010programassessment
statedthatthespecializedtradesneededfornuclearconstruction,especially
boilermakers,pipefitters,electricians,andironworkers,areexpectedtobeinshort
supplyandwillrequiremitigationstepstoavoidconstructiondelaysduetolabor.121
Theshortageofskilledtradeconstructionlaborhasbeenanationalproblemforthepast
decade,andwithoutmitigatingstepsforflexibilityinattractingorretainingworkers,
delaysinconstructionand/orcostincreasescouldresult.Inaddition,theneedfor
nuclearcertifiedqualitycontrolprogramsandproperlytrainedstafftoNRCquality
requirementsisessential.

MaterialCostEscalationOverthepastdecade,materialcostsusedforallelectricity
generationconstructionhaveescalatedfarinexcessoftheinflationrate,andevenmore
soformaterialsusedinnuclearconstruction.Whiletherecenteconomicrecessionhas
significantlydampenedtheincreases,uncertaintyexistsastowhetherthecostescalation
trendsofthelastdecadewillcontinue.

119Harding,James.OvernightCostsofNewNuclearReactors.GreenEnergyCoalition,EB20070707,
August2008.
120DOlier,Robert.,et.al..DOENP2010ConstructionInfrastructureAssessment.U.S.Departmentof
Energy,October2005.
121Ibid.

140

Figure 55: Power Capital Cost Index Nuclear and Non-Nuclear Construction
Source: IHS CERA. IHS CERA Power Capital Costs Index Shows Construction Costs Falling for All Types
of New Power Plants. June 23, 2009.

Becausesomuchoftheoverallcostandriskofnuclearpoweristiedupintheinitial
constructioncostoftheplant,financialriskanduncertaintyloomassignificantriskstothe
widespreadadoptionofnuclearpower.Manyutilitiesarereluctanttocommittonuclear
constructionprogramsbecauseofthefinancialrisktoautilitiesbalancesheetandfinancial
stability.Today,ratingsagenciessuchasStandard&PoorsandMoodyshaveissuedcautions
toutilitiesseekingtoembarkonnuclearconstructionprograms,statingthatutilitiesneedto
planforadditionalliquidityintheirbalancesheetstocovertheuncertaintiesofultimatebuilt
plantcostandthepotentialforunderestimationofregulatorytreatmentandraterecoveryfrom
publicutilitycommissions.122

122MoodysCorporateFinance.NewNuclearGeneratingCapacity:PotentialCreditImplicationsforU.S.
InvestorOwnedUtilities.MoodysCorporateFinance,May2008.

141


New Commercial Reactor Designs
Thestandardizationinthedesignofnuclearpowerreactorsevolvedoverthepastseveral
decades.Theoriginaltypesofreactorsconsistingoftheboilingwaterreactors(BWR)andthe
pressurizedwaterreactors(PWR)technologiesgavewaytothelatestdesignsintroducedbythe
majorUnitedStatesmanufacturerssuchastheWestinghouseandtheGeneralElectricHitachi
jointventureconsortium.TheWestinghouseAP1000designisbasedonthePWRreactortype,
anditisthemostpopularintheUnitedStatesandChina.GeneralElectricsAdvancedBoiling
WaterReactor(ABWR)designisbasedontheoriginalBWRtechnologyandisgainingthe
momentumintheUnitedStatesandabroad,withunitshavingbeenbuiltinJapan.
Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors
Neweradvancedreactorshave:123

Simplerdesigns,whichreducecapitalcost.Safetysystemsareadvancedandreducethe
potentialforreactorscrams(adefinednuclearemergencywherethenuclearreactoris
scrambledorgoesthroughanemergencyshutdown).

Astandardized,modulardesignforeachtypetoexpeditelicensing,reducecapitalcost,
andreduceconstructiontime.

Fuelcycledesignstoreducenuclearproliferationrisks.

AhigheravailabilityandlongeroperatinglifeOEMshavetypicallyquoted60years.

TypicalreactordesignsconsistofthePWR,BWR,PHWR(pressurizedheavywaterreactor),
HGTR(hightemperaturegascooledreactor),PBMR(pebblebedmodularreactor)andanew4S
technologyemphasizingthesupersafe,small,andsimplereactordesign.
The Economics of Nuclear Power

Nuclearplantslargestcostsareassociatedwiththeirupfrontcapitalcostsformaterials
andconstruction.Theupfrontcapitalcostsofnuclearpowerarethehighestcostdriver
behindcurrentnuclearcosteconomicsandthecurrentimbalancebetweennuclear
powerandfossilfueltechnologies.

Fuelcostsfornuclearplantsaccountonlyforapproximately10%oftotalgenerating
costs,makingnuclearpowerplantsrelativelyimmunefromuraniumfuelprice
variations.124

Truelifecyclecostsofnuclearpowermusttakeintoaccountthecostsofsite
decommissioningandnuclearspentfuelwastedisposal.Sitedecommissioningandthe

123WorldNuclearAssociation.AdvancedNuclearPowerReactors.http://www.world
nuclear.org/info/inf08.html.Retrieved5/15/2009.
124Tolley,George,et.al.,TheEconomicFutureofNuclearPower,UniversityofChicago,August2004.

142


issueofnuclearwastedisposalaretwoofthemajorbarrierstodevelopingadditional
nuclearpowerfacilitiesintheUnitedStates.125

Nuclearreactormanufacturershavestatedthattheycouldcutcostsandreducelicensingdelays
byusingstandarddesigns,similartoFrancesstandardizedreactorapproach,ratherthan
tailoringplantstoeachcustomer.Thenewdesignsthatareintheprecertificationprocessatthe
NRCreflectthisnewapproachbytheWestinghouseandothermajormanufacturersinthe
UnitedStatesandtheworld.

3.9.2. WESTINGHOUSE - AP1000


Technical and Market Justification
TheWestinghouseAP1000wasselectedforcostanalysisduetoitsworldwideacceptance.
WestinghouseCorporationwasselectedtosupplynewnuclearplantsinChinaandother
countries.ThemostrecentannouncementsfromChinaregardingtheplanstopurchase100
AP1000plantsoverthenext25yearsareanindicationofaninternationalacceptanceofthis
design.Furthermore,theAP1000hasbeenidentifiedasthetechnologyofchoicefornoless
than12newprojectedplantsintheUnitedStates.
ItisthejudgmentoftheresearchteamthattheAP1000isthebestbalancedchoiceformodeling
GenIIInuclearreactortechnology.Thisjudgmentisbasedseveralfactors,thefirstbeingthe
designcompetitiontosupplytheChinesegovernmentwithadvancednuclearpower
technology.TheChinesecompetition,begunin2003againstaglobalarrayofnuclearindustry
companies,resultedintheselectionoftheAP1000inthelargestenergycooperationproject
betweenChinaandtheUnitedStates.Thefirstreactor,SanmenNuclearPowerStation,began
constructioninearly2009andisexpectedtoachievecommercialoperationin2013.126The
secondfactoristhecurrentcertificationoftheAP1000bytheNRC,allowingconstructioninthe
UnitedStatesandCalifornia.Athirdfactoristhegenerationaldifferencesintechnologyand
safetysystemsincludedintheAP1000,whiletheToshibaGEABWRtechnologyisofearlier
development,havingbeencertifiedin1997.
TheDOEinitsNP2010studyshowedthatthreeprimaryembodimentsofGenIIInuclear
technologyare:127

GeneralElectric(GE):EconomicSimplifiedBoilingWaterReactor(ESBWR)

ToshibaVersionGEDesign:AdvancedBoilingWaterReactor(ABWR)

WestinghouseDesign:AdvancedPressurizedWaterReactor(AP1000)

125Beckjord,Eric,et.al.TheFutureofNuclearPower.MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology,2003
126http://www.chinaview.cn,Chinastartsbuilding3rdgenerationnuclearpowerreactorsusing
Westinghousetechnologies,April19,2009.
127DOlier,Robert,et.al.DOENP2010NuclearPowerPlantConstructionInfrastructureAssessment.Report
MPR2776,U.S.DOE,October2005.

143

Ofthesetechnologies,theWestinghouseAP1000andtheGEESBWRreactorsarethemost
technologicallyadvanced.However,theGEESBWRreactorisstillundergoingregulatory
certificationsthroughtheNRCdesigncertificationprocess.128TheWestinghouseAP1000
reactorreceiveditsNRCcertificationin2006.129
WestinghousestatesthattheAP1000designis:130

Currentlyavailableintheworldwidemarketplace.

BasedonstandardWestinghousepressurizedwaterreactor(PWR).

Technologythathasachievedmorethan2,500reactoryearsofhighlysuccessful
operation.

An1100MWedesignthatisidealforprovidingbaseloadgeneratingcapacity.

Modularindesign,promotingreadystandardizationandhighconstructionquality.

Economicaltoconstructandmaintain(lessconcreteandsteelandfewercomponents
andsystemsmeanthereislesstoinstall,inspectandmaintain).

Designedtopromoteeaseofoperation(featuresmostadvancedinstrumentationand
controlintheindustry).

Primary Commercial Embodiment


CaliforniahastwooperatingnuclearplantsatDiabloCanyonUnit1&2(putintooperationin
1985and1986,respectively)andSanOnofreUnits2&3(putintooperationin1981and1983,
respectively).NoneofthecurrentnuclearplantlicenseapplicationsbeingreviewedbytheNRC
areintendedforplantsinCalifornia,althoughplantownersforDiabloCanyonandSanOnofre
havebegunlicenserenewalfeasibilitystudies.PacificGasandElectric(PG&E)planstosubmit
itslicenserenewalfeasibilitystudytotheCaliforniaPublicUtilitiesCommissionin2011,and
SouthernCaliforniaEdison(SCE)planstosubmititslicenseapplicationtotheNRCin2012.
Givenlongapprovalprocessesandconstructionleadtimes,theprimarycommercial
embodimentintheUnitedStatesin2018willbedrivenlargelybytheapplicationsthatare
beingfiledcurrently.TheNRChasreceived17applicationsforacombinedlicensefor
constructionandoperation(COL)andestimatesthatthelicensingprocessforaCOLwilltake

128http://www.gepower.com/about/press/en/2009_press/051909b.htm,GEHitachiNuclearEnergy
AnnouncesecomaginationApprovalEarnedforAdvancedBoilingWaterReactor,May19,2009.
129http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/newreactors/designcert/ap1000.html,IssuedDesignCertification
AdvancedPassive1000(AP1000),Rev.15
130http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com.

144


approximately36to48monthstocomplete.131TheCOLisvalidfor40yearsandcanbe
renewedforanadditional20years.AccordingtotheEnergyInformationAdministration,there
isnoassurancethatanyoftheplantsforwhichCOLhavebeenreceivedwillultimatelybebuilt
oroperate.TheclearestindicatoroftheextentofthenuclearrevivalintheUnitedStateswillbe
thenumberandcapacityofnewreactorsthatactuallygoonline.SubmittingaCOLapplication
doesnotensureareactorwillbebuiltorevenstartedandmayreflectagoaltokeepthenuclear
optionopenratherthanafullcommitment.

Table 27. Expected New Nuclear Power Plant Applications.132


Existing
Date of
Company*
NRG Energy (52012/013)***
NuStart Energy (52014/015)***

Date

Application

Design

Accepted

9/20/2007

ABWR

11/29/2007

10/30/2007

AP1000

1/18/2008

Site Under
Consideration

Operating
State

Plant

TX

Bellefonte (2 units)

AL

Calvert Cliffs (1 unit)

MD

North Anna (1 unit)

VA

SC

South Texas Project


(2 units)

07/13/2007
UNISTAR (52-016)***

(Envir.)
03/13/2008

EPR

01/25/2008
06/03/2008

(Safety)
Dominion (52-017)***

11/27/2007

ESBWR

1/28/2008

Duke (52-018/019)***

12/13/2007

AP1000

2/25/2008

2/19/2008

AP1000

4/17/2008

Harris (2 units)

NC

2/27/2008

ESBWR

4/17/2008

Grand Gulf (1 units)

MS

3/31/2008

AP1000

5/30/2008

Vogtle (2 units)

GA

3/31/2008

AP1000

7/31/2008

Summer (2 units)

SC

7/30/2008

AP1000

10/6/2008

Levy County (2 units)

FL

9/3/2008

ESWBR

10/30/2008

TX

Progress Energy (52022/023)***


NuStart Energy (52024)***

William Lee Nuclear


Station (2 units)

Southern Nuclear
Operating Co. (52025/026)***
South Carolina Electric &
Gas (52-027/028)***
Progress Energy (52029/030) ***
Exelon (52-031/032)***

Victoria County (2
units)

131U.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommission.CombinedLicenseApplicationsforNewReactors.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/newreactors/col.html.Retrieved5/15/2009.
132U.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommission.ExpectedNewNuclearPowerPlantApplications,UpdatedJuly2,
2009.http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/newreactors.html.Retrieved7/15/2009.

145


Existing
Date of
Company*

Date

Site Under

Application

Design

Accepted

Consideration

9/18/2008

ESBWR

11/25/2008

Fermi (1 unit)

9/19/2008

USAPWR

12/2/2008

Entergy (52-036)***

9/25/2008

ESBWR

12/4/2008

AmerenUE (52-037)***

7/24/2008

EPR

12/12/2008

UNISTAR (52-038)***

9/30/2008

EPR

12/12/2008

10/10/2008

EPR

12/19/2008

6/30/2009

AP1000

Detroit Edison (52033)***


Luminant Power (52034/035)***

PPL Generation (52039)***


Florida Power and Light
(763)

Operating
State

Plant

MI

TX

River Bend (1 unit)

LA

Callaway (1 unit)

MO

NY

Bell Bend (1 unit)

PA

Turkey Point (2 units)

FL

UNK

Comanche Peak (2
units)

Nine Mile Point (1


unit)

Vicinity of Amarillo (2
Amarillo Power (752)

CY 2009

EPR

units)

TX

CY 2009

EPR

Hammett (1 unit)

ID

Alternate Energy
Holdings (765)

Blue Castle Project


CY 2010
TBD
Utah
UT
2007 2011 Total Number of Applications = 22; Total Number of Units = 33
*Project Numbers/Docket Numbers; **Yellow Acceptance Review Ongoing; ***Blue Accepted/Docketed

N
N

Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Expected New Nuclear Power Plant Applications, Updated July 2, 2009.

Cost Drivers
MarketandIndustryChanges
TheU.S.EnergyInformationAdministration(EIA)recentlyprojectedadditionsofabout12GW
ofnuclearcapacitycomingonlinethrough2030intheUnitedStates.Thisassumes3.4GWof
expansionatexistingplants,licenseextensionsforcurrentreactors,13.4GWofnewcapacity
(about10newplants),and4.4GWlostfromplantsbeingretired.Electricitygenerationfrom
nuclearpowerisprojectedtoincreasefrom806billionkWhin2007to907billionkWhin2030,
asconcernsaboutrisingfossilfuelprices,energysecurity,andgreenhousegasemissions
supportthedevelopmentofnewnucleargeneration.133
Thedevelopmentofnewnuclearpowerreactorscouldbehinderedbypublicconcernsover
plantsafety,radioactivewastedisposal,andnuclearmaterialproliferation.Somenationsmay
bedeterredfromexpandingtheirnuclearprogramsbyhighcapitalandmaintenancecosts.
AccordingtotheEIA,theestimatedcostfornewnuclearplantshasbeengreatlyincreasedby
risingcostsforconstructionmaterials,andwhencombinedwithunstablefinancialmarkets,
newinvestmentsinnuclearpowerareuncertain.Despitethesedifficulties,theInternational

133EIA,AnnualEnergyOutlook,2009.AppendixA.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/appendixes.PDF.

146


EnergyOutlook2008(IEO2008)caseincorporatesimprovedprospectsforworldnuclear
power.134TheIEO2008projectionfornuclearelectricitygenerationin2025is31%higherthan
theprojectionpublishedinIEO2003onlyfiveyearsago.
CurrentTrends
EconomicandOperatingTrends
Theindustryisconcernedabouttheadequacyoftheskilledlaborpoolandlossofskilled
laborersandengineersduetoretirementandlackofnewgraduatesseekingcareersinnuclear
engineering.Thelackofskillednuclearengineers,constructionmanagerswithnuclear
experience,andskilledtradespeople(boilermakers,pipefitters,electricians,andironworkers)
areasignificantbottleneckinnuclearplantconstruction.Largescalerevivalofnuclearpower
intheUnitedStateswilldependontheindustrysapproachtothesecriticallaborissues.
Already,theNP2010recommendationscontendthatnuclearplantdesignsshouldbeata
completestagepriortoissuanceofEPC(engineerprocureconstruct)contracts,sothatlabor
supplycanbeproperlyestimatedandmanaged.135Thisrecommendationisdifferentthanmany
ofthefasttrackconstructionmethodsusedtoday.
OnerecenttrendintheUnitedStatesnuclearpowerindustrythatmightinfluencefuture
performancehasbeenanincreasedconcentrationofoperationsintofewerowneroperators.
Concentratedownershipofnuclearreactorsbeganinthe1990sasinvestorownedutilities
soughttoeithereliminatetheirnuclearrisksandtherisksofnuclearoperatinglicense
extensions,ortoconcentratethoserisksintoalarger,nuclearconcentratedbusiness.Theeffects
ofindustryconsolidationintofewer,morespecializednuclearoperatingcompaniesare
illustratedinthetablebelow:
Table 28. Operators of U.S. reactors136
Organization
Exelon-AmerGen
Entergy
Duke
TVA
Southern
2nd Five Firms
Others (3+ Reactors)
Others (<3 Reactors)

Capacity (MWe)
16,850
9,033
6,996
6,658
5,698
22,680
7,164
22,588

Share of Capacity
17.3%
9.2%
7.2%
6.8%
5.8%
23.2%
7.3%
23.1%

Source: www.eia.gov

134http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/electricity.html.
135DOlier,Robert,et.al.DOENP2010ConstructionInfrastructureAssessment.U.S.DepartmentofEnergy,
October2005.
136http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nuclearpower.html.

147


Ownershippercentagesaresmallerthantheoperatingpercentagesabovebecausemany
reactorsoperateundertwosetsofagreements:ownershipagreementsandoperating
agreements.EntergyandExelon,bothinvestorownedutilitiesthatarepursuingnuclearbased
generationstrategies,havebothpurchasedmanagementrightsatnuclearplants.Overall,
outsideofExelon,thereisaroughly510%sharerangeofcapacityexposurethatnuclear
operatorsarewillingtoholdasonbalancesheetexposure,andthishasledtosomelevelingout
ofthetopnuclearoperatorsovertime.
ThedatainthetabledonotincludetheStarsgroup,whichsharessomeresponsibilitiesamong
themanagersofmanyofthesmallermanagerialgroupings.
Capacityuprating,oraddingadditionalgeneratingcapacityduetoadvancesintechnologyin
eitherthepowercycleortheturbinegeneratorset,hasbeenacontinuingtrendinnuclear
power,asithasalsobeeninother,fossilfiredtechnologies.Continuingadvancesintechnology
canbeusedbynuclearplantoperatorstogainadditionalmegawattcapacityandenergy
productionfromthesameplantsite,asbettermaterialsandbladeapplicationscometomarket.
Typicalcapacityupratescanincreasecapacityofexistingnuclearreactorsapproximately5
20%.137EIAestimatestheneartermpotentialoftheseupratesaround4GWe,basedonutility
andregulatorypublicannouncements.Theseupratesgenerallyfollowthesamejustificationas
isdoneinfossilfiredgenerationplant,wheretheincrementalbenefitoftheuprateexceedsthe
incrementalcostofretrofitandoperation,viewedonalifecyclebasis.
TechnologyTrends
With443nuclearpowerreactorsinuseworldwide,nucleargenerationprovidesapproximately
16%ofglobalelectricitygeneration.Severalindustrializedcountriesusenuclearpowerasa
primarysourceofelectricity(Japan,Germany,andFrancewhichproduces78%ofits
electricityfromnuclearpower).138Finland,Japan,KoreaandChinahaveactivenuclear
generationexpansionprogramsunderway.Today,theprimaryreactorembodimentsare
earliergenerationtechnologiesknownasGenerationIIreactors,whichcameonlineinthe
1960sand1970s.SomelimitedconstructionofGenerationIIIreactorshasgoneintoservice,
primarilyinAsia.Mostoftodaysnuclearrebirthhastakenplaceasaresultofthedesign
evolutionintoadvancedreactorsknownasGenerationIII+,andthefuturedesignsforthcoming
asGenerationIVreactortechnologies.

137Ibid.[130].
138IEA/OECD,IEAEnergyTechnologyEssentialsNuclearPower.March2007.

148

Figure 56. Generations of nuclear energy


Source: U.S. DOE and GIF, A Technology Roadmap for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems.

Withthenuclearindustryrecoveringfromvirtualstagnationoverthelasttwodecades,new
factorsintheenergylandscapehaveimpliedapotentiallylargerrolefornuclearpowerin
supplyingdomesticenergyneeds.Issuessuchasglobalclimatechangeandairqualitysuggest
afutureforcarbonfree,emissionfreenucleartechnologies,whilediscussionoverenergy
independenceandsecurityalsoreinforcesthehypothesisthatgrowingnuclearpower
generationintheUnitedStatescouldenhancetheenergyinfrastructureandalleviatesecurity
concerns.However,itisclearthatwithoutacontinuedadvancingofnucleartechnologyto
reduceoverallinstalledcostrelativetofossilfueledandothertechnologies,nuclearpowerwill
notenjoytherenaissancemanyadvocatesenvision.139
Toanswertheseissuesandquestions,theU.S.DepartmentofEnergyhasledthedevelopment
ofnew,nextgenerationnuclearsteamsupplysystems,knownasGenerationIV,GenerationV,
andnuclearfusionreactors.(Fusionreactorsasdescribedbelowarebeyondthetimeframeof
thisstudy.)
GenerationIVReactors(notfeasiblebefore2030)
GenerationIVreactorsareasetoftheoreticalnuclearreactordesignsbeingresearchedbya
consortiumof10countriesaroundtheworld.Thesedesignsaregenerallynotexpectedtobe
availableforcommercialconstructionbefore2030,whichisbeyondthehorizonforthisstudy.

139TheFutureofNuclearPower.MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology,2003.

149


TodayscommercialreactorsaretypicallyofeitherGenerationIIorGenerationIII/III+
technologies,withmostGenerationIreactorshavingbeenretiredfromservice.
In1999,thisconsortiumofinternationalcountriescreatedtheGenerationIVInternational
Forum(GIF)toresearchnewreactortechnologiesbasedoneightfundamentalobjectives.The
primarygoalsareto:improvenuclearsafety,improveproliferationresistance,minimizewaste
andnaturalresourceuse,andtodecreasethecosttobuildandrunsuchplants.140
Severaladvancedreactortechnologiesarebeingevaluatedforstudy,including:141

Gascooledfastreactor

Leadcooledfastreactor

Moltensaltreactor

Sodiumcooledfastreactor

Supercriticalwaterreactor

Veryhightemperaturereactor

GenerationV+Reactors(notfeasiblebefore2030)
GenerationV+reactorsaredesignsthatmaybetheoreticallypossiblebutarenotbeingactively
consideredforcommercialdevelopment,eitherbecauseofcurrenttechnologyapplication
potential,oreconomics,orsafety.Thesetechnologiesinclude,butarenotlimitedto:

Liquidcorereactor

Gascorereactor

GascoreEMreactor

Fissionfragmentreactor

FusionReactors(notfeasiblebefore2050)
Thecontrolledpowerofnuclearfusioncontinuestobeanareaofactiveresearchinnuclear
powertechnology,withtheinternationalITERTokamakfusionreactornowoperationalin
Europeandscientificresearchcontinuingoverthenextseveraldecades.Fusionofhydrogen
isotopesinanultrahightemperatureplasmacarrieswithitthepromiseofvirtuallyunlimited
fuelsupplyandminimalradioactivewasteproducts,butsignificantscientificandtechnical
obstaclesremain.AstudydonebytheSwissFederalInstituteofTechnologyfortheIEA

140http://www.gen4.org/PDFs/annual_report2007.PDF.
141U.S.DOEandNuclearResearchAdvisoryCommitteeandtheGenerationIVInternationalForumA
TechnologyRoadmapforGenerationIVNuclearEnergySystems.ReportGIF00200,December2002.

150


concludedthatfusionreactorscouldbecomepartofthetechnologylandscapeby2050,butthat
widescaleadoptionwouldnottakeplaceuntil20502100.142
CostDrivers
Itisdifficulttotakeintoaccountallaspectsthatdrivecostswithinaparticularnuclearpower
plantastheaginginfrastructurehasresultedinnumerousonetimeevents.Toaccurately
comparethecostofnuclearagainstotherenergysources,thisreporthasconsideredthe
followingkeycostdrivers:
1.Capitalcosts
TheCongressionalBudgetOffice(CBO)hasidentifiedfinancingcostsasanimportantcost
driverintheirreporttitledNuclearPowersRoleinGeneratingElectricity(May2008).143Costs
associatedwithinitialconstructionoftheplantareheavilyinfluencedbyfactorssuchas
constructiononpreviouslyundevelopedland(knownasgreenfields),refurbishment,and
replacementsatexistingsitesandnewunitadditionsatcurrentsites.
Foranuclearplanttheconstructioncostsaregenerallyhigherthanthatforotherfossilfueledor
renewabletechnologiesbecausethebuildingsmustbeconstructedespeciallyforradiation
containment.Redundantsafetysystemsandadvancedplantcontrolsarepresent,adding
additionalcosts.Andallequipment,whetherpiping,valves,electricalequipment,andcontrols
mustallbecertifiedtohigherdesignspecificationsandstandardsforuseinanuclearpower
facility.However,nuclearplantsdonotrequirethetypesofpostcombustionscrubbersandair
emissionscontroltechnologiescommonlyfoundinfossilgenerationtoremovesulfurdioxide,
nitrogenoxides,andparticulatematter.
Instantconstructioncostswereobtainedfromavarietyofresearchsources,includingtwoMIT
studies,researchfromtheOECDNuclearEnergyAgency,theIEA,andseveralother
metastudies.TheresearchteamalsoevaluatedseveralrecentfilingsbyFloridaPower&Light
forconstructionofanAP1000reactor,andratingagencyandinvestmentbankcostestimates.
DirectestimateswerealsoobtainedbytheresearchteamfromWestinghouseandGeneral
Electric.Nottakenintoconsiderationwerecostestimatesfromindustrytradegroups,asthe
capitalcostsoutlinedbythoseorganizationsdidnotmatchwellwiththelargerbodyof
knowledgeinreportedcostdata.Inanyevent,theresearchteamnotesthatthecostspreadfor
nuclearpoweriswideandsomewhatuncertainandwillremainsountilnewreactorsare
constructedintheUnitedStates.
Forcostofcapitalandinstalledcostcalculationsaconstructionperiodofnineyearswasusedas
anaverage.Thisperiodincludessiting,environmentalimpactstudies,andlicensingapplication

142Gnansounou,EdgardandDenisBedniaguine.PotentialRoleofFusionPowerGenerationinaVery
LongTermElectricitySupplyPerspective:CaseofWesternEurope.SESEV
143CongressoftheUnitedStates,CongressionalBudgetOffice.NuclearPowersRoleinGenerating
Electricity.May2008.Retrievedfrom:http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/0502Nuclear.PDF.

151


phasesandisbasedoncurrentFrenchdatafornuclearplantlicensingandconstructionperiods.
ThenineyearperiodisthreetofouryearslongerthanthetimelinerecommendedbytheU.S.
NuclearRegulatoryCommissionandisbasedontheresearchteamsviewthatthenextwaveof
nuclearplantsbuiltinCaliforniawillbesubjecttorigorousscrutinyandreview.Thetime
estimatesofnineyearconstructionperiodsmatchupwellwithexperienceinboththehistorical
contextofactualbuiltplantpluscurrentbuildcyclesinEurope.
Thenineyearconstructionperiodestimatefornuclearplantconstruction,combinedwithutility
financingofthenuclearpowerinvestmentcoststhroughouttheplantsusefullife,meansthat
utilitiesthatconstructnuclearpowerplantsmustaccountandplanforthesignificantincreases
infinancialliquiditytomeetthedemandsoffinancinganuclearprogram.Severalfinancial
ratingagencieshavestatedthatutilitieswithnuclearprogramsshouldtakeadequatestepsto
insureliquiditytoavoidratingdowngrades.144
2.Fuelcosts
Costsassociatedwiththefuelusedintheproductionofenergy.
Foranuclearplant,thesetendtobelowereventhoughthefollowingstepsoccurinthe
productionofthefuelassembliesusedinthereactor:
1. Miningoftheuraniumore145
2. ConversiontoU3O8(uraniumoxideyellowcakeform)andthentouranium
hexafluoride
3. Enrichmentfrom0.7%U235to25%U235
4. Pelletizationintousableuraniumdioxidepellets(UO2)
5. Fabricationofpelletsintorods,andthenfuelassemblies146
Transportationcostscomprisingcompleteduraniumfuelassembliesarecomparablewithcoal
transportationcostsbecauseofthevastamountsofuraniumorerequiredforprocessing.
3.Operationandmaintenancecosts
Operationandmaintenancecostsforanuclearpowerstationaregenerallyconsistentwiththat
ofotherfossilfueledstations,includingthecostsof:
a) Laborandoverheads(e.g.,medicalandpensionbenefits).
b) Consumablematerials.
c) NRCandstatelicensefees(e.g.,licensechanges,onsiteandregionalinspectors,and
headquartersstaff).

144 MoodysInvestorServices,NewNuclearGeneratingCapacity:PotentialCreditImplicationsforU.S.
Utilities,May2008.
145http://www.stockinterview.com/News/01092007/UraniumPriceForecast.html.
146Tolley,George,et.al.TheEconomicFutureofNuclearPower.UniversityofChicago,August2004.

152


d) Propertytaxesandinsurance,whichvarybystateandlocality.
e) Costsassociatedwithplantoutagesandreplacement/repairofmajorcomponents.

AdditionalcostscanbeleviedbytheNRCforoperatinglicensereviews,orwhenplantsrequire
enhancedinspectionsfollowingasignificantdeteriorationinplantperformanceandsafety.
Also,additionalcostscanoccurforenhancedsecurityneedsinthepost9/11environment,
whicharedifficulttoquantifyandarenotincludedintheO&Mcosttabulation.
Propertytaxescanresultinaplantpayingupto$1520millionperyearinpropertytaxes.
4.Wasterelatedcosts
Foranuclearplant,thesecostsincludethesurchargeleviedbytheDepartmentofEnergyfora
nuclearwastefundtopayforthetransportationandultimatedisposalofthespentnuclearfuel
fromreactorsaswellascostsassociatedwithtransportationanddisposaloflowlevel
radioactivewastes.TheDOEchargeforspentfueldisposalisaflatfeebasedonenergyuse.
Lowlevelwastedisposalcostsarerelativelymodestduringongoingplantoperations.
However,asubstantialquantityoflowlevelwastewillneedtobedisposedofwhentheplants
aredecommissioned.
5.Decommissioningcosts
Thecostsassociatedwithdismantlingashutdownreactor,decontamination,andrestorationof
theplantsitebacktogreenfieldstatus.Usuallyrestorationwouldoccuroveralongperiod,e.g.
20years.Partsoftheplant(e.g.,nonnuclearplantcomponents)couldbeusedforenergy
generationbyothersources.
InCalifornia,PG&E,SCE,andSanDiegoGas&Electric(SDG&E)collectabout0.03cents/kWh
fromretailratestofunddecommissioning.TheymustthenreportregularlytotheNRConthe
statusoftheirdecommissioningfunds.Asof2001,$23.7billionofthetotalestimatedcostof
decommissioningallUnitedStatesnuclearpowerplantshadbeencollected,leavingaliability
ofabout$11.6billiontobecoveredovertheoperatinglivesof104reactors(onbasisofaverage
$320millionperunit).
TheprojectedUnitedStatesindustryaveragecostfordecommissioningapowerplantis$300
million.Thefundsforthisactivityareaccumulatedintheoperatingcostoftheplant.The
FrenchandSwedishNuclearIndustriesexpectdecommissioningcoststobe1015%ofthe
constructioncostsandbudgetthisintothepricechargedforelectricity.Ontheotherhandthe
Britishdecommissioningcostshavebeenprojectedtobearound1billionpoundsperreactor.147
InCalifornia,accordingtoSCE,forSONGS2and3,estimateddecommissioningcostsare$3.659

147http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower

153


billionin2008dollars,andforSONGS1,theestimateis$769.2million.RanchoSecos
decommissioningcostswereestimatedtobe$518million(2002dollars).148
ExamplesofseveralnuclearreactorsdismantledinAmerica,type,power,and
decommissioningcost(oftenismentionedonlytheprobablecostperkilowattofpower):
Table 29. Nuclear decommissioning costs149
Country

U.S.

Location

Reactor type

Operative
Life

Decommissioning
Phase

Dismantling
Costs:

Fort St. Vrain

High
temperature,
gas-cooled
reactor
(HTGR)
[heliumgraphite]
380 MWe

12 years
(1977-1989)

Immediate Decon

$ 195 Million

U.S.

Maine Yankee

PWR
860 MWe

24 years
(closed in
1996)

U.S.

Connecticut
Yankee

PWR
590 MWe

28 years
(closed in
1996)

DECON
COMPLETED Demolished in
2004
(greenfield open to
visitors)
Decon demolished in
2007
(greenfield open to
visitors)

$ 635 Million

$ 820 Million

Source: http://nuclearinfo.net

Current Costs
InstallationCosts
Thesummarizedlow/average/highcostsarebasedonseveralresearchandfinancialsources
(KeystoneCenterandMoodysInvestorService)aswellasonthedataprovidedbythemajor
operatorsofthenuclearpowerplants(FloridaPower&Light,GeorgiaPowerandSouth
CarolinaElectricandGasCompany).Thesemajorownersand27othernuclearpower
companies/contractorshaveconcludedinJune2007thatthecostforbuildingnewreactors
wouldbebetween$3,600and$4,000perinstalledkW(withinterest).Theyalsoprojectedthat
theoperatingcostsfortheseplantswouldberemarkablyexpensive:$0.30/kWhforthefirst13
yearsuntilconstructioncostsarepaidfollowedby$0.18/kWhovertheremaininglifetimeofthe

148Byron,Barbara,ResearchTeamCommunicationwithCaliforniaEnergyCommissionStaff
149http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower

154


plant.Justafewmonthslater,inOctober2007,MoodysInvestorServiceprojectedevenhigher
costsduetothequicklyescalatingpriceofmetals,forgings,othermaterials,andlaborneededto
constructreactors.Theyestimatedtotalcostsfornewplants,includinginterest,atbetween
$5,000and$6,000perinstalledkW.FloridaPower&LightinformedtheFloridaPublicService
CommissioninDecember2007thatitsestimatedcostforbuildingtwonewnuclearunitsat
TurkeyPointinSouthFloridawas$8,000perinstalledkW.Basedontherapidlychanging
natureofthesecostestimates,andtheirresultantuncertainty,additionaldatasourceswere
locatedbecauseoftherecentchangesininstalledcostestimatessince2007,whichincreased
overallcostestimatesusedinthisstudy.MoodysInvestorServicerecentlyupdatedits
estimatesfornuclearconstructioncosts,indicatingthatconstructioncostsarenowprojectedat
$7,000perinstalledkW.150ArecentstudybyCooperdetailstherisingtrendinnuclearpower
constructioncostsandthewidespreadbetweenestimatesoverrecentyears.151
Includedintheinstallation/constructioncostsare:coolingtowers,siteworks,transmission
costsandriskmanagement,plantcomponents,projectfinancingcosts,licenseapplication,
regulatoryfees,initialfuel,insuranceandtaxes,escalation,andcontingencies.
FinancialCostofConstruction
TheresearchteamincludedcostsforAllowanceforFundsUsedDuringConstruction(AFUDC)
inthepreliminaryanalysis.Theallowanceforfundsusedduringconstructioncalculation,
especiallyfornuclearplantconstruction,canbehighlyvariableandisbasedonthetotal
durationfromplantinceptiontodeclarationofcommercialoperation.152Whilemostsources,
includingtheNRC,assumeaconstructionspendingprofileoffiveyears(60months)duration,
withpreconstructionperiodsof18months,actualplantconstructionof36months,andstart
upoperationscommissioningof6months,theresearchteamlengthenedtheconstruction
durationstoreflectconditionsandconcernsincurrentreactorlicensingefforts.
Theresearchteamconcludedthatreasonablebasisforlicensingandconstructionplanning
wouldbetheexperienceseeninFrance,wherethereisconsiderabletimespentinpre
constructionphaseplantlicensing,permittingandstudyevaluations.Thisadditionaltime
lengthenstheoverallconstructionperiodto810years,andtheresearchteamuseda
constructionperiodofnineyearsduration,andaconstructionspendingprofileasshowninthe
followingtable:

150Ibid.144:
151MarkCooper,TheEconomicsofNuclearReactors:RenaissanceorRelapse,VermontLawSchool,
June2009.
152OrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment.ProjectedCostsofGeneratingElectricity:
2005Update.OECDNuclearEnergyAgency,InternationalEnergyAgency,2005.

155


Table 30. Nuclear plant construction spending profile (% of total instant cost per year)
Year
% total
instant cost

1
2.5

2
2

3
7

4
15.5

5
22

6
21

7
18

8
10

9
2

Source: OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, International Energy Agency, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Projected Costs of Generating Electricity: 2005 Update. OECD Publishing, 2005

Thefirstthreeyearsarethecashflowspendingprojectionsusedforpreconstruction
permitting,licensing,andenvironmentalstudiesandapprovals.Followingapprovals,thenext
sixyearsisaspendingprofileconsistentwiththeactualconstruction,startup,commissioning,
andtestingofthenuclearplant.
Becauseoftheminimalrecentexperienceinnuclearplantlicensingandapprovals,theresearch
teambelievesthatautilitywilldevotesignificanttimeandeffortsintothepreconstruction
licensingprocess.Threeyearsdurationisreasonableforadditionalsitelicensing,studies,and
environmentalimpactfindingsleadingtoplanningandregulatoryapprovalsneededtobegin
actualconstruction.Whiletheresearchteamnotesthattheprocurementmethodfornuclear
powerinFranceconcentratesauthorityinatriumviratebetweengovernment,agovernment
sponsoredutility,andastandarddesign,thechoiceofanineyearconstructiondurationis
transferabletotheUnitedStatesandtoCaliforniabecauseofthehistoricaltrackrecordof
constructiondurationsinthiscountry,theconcentrationofthenuclearindustryintoan
oligopolyoffewcommercialproviders,andtheincreasingdemandofthefinancialandutility
industriesforfederalloanguaranteesfornuclearplant.Allofthesecoincidentforcescreatean
environmentsimilartocurrentFrenchexperience.
NotableinthederivationofAFUDCforthenuclearcase,theresearchteamassumedthatthe
interestrate,andthusthecostoffunds,wouldbethatofaninvestorownedutility,andnotthat
ofamerchantgeneratororapublicownedutility.
Expected Cost Trajectories
Expectedcosttrajectoriesfornuclearpoweroptionsareexpectedtorisenominallywith
inflation,andonlylittleexperiencecurveeffects,evenbasedonthenewGenerationIVreactor
designs.Thelackofsufficientmomentuminincreasingthecumulativegenerationcapacity
representedbynuclearplantsandthematureexperiencecurveofthenuclearpowerindustry
causedtheresearchteamtomodelexperiencecurveeffectsata95%rate(doublingofthe
installedcapacityrepresentsa5%costdecreaseduetoexperience).
Nominally,theresearchteamexpectsthatnuclearcosttrajectorieswillriseatarategreaterthan
inflationasthenewGenerationIVreactorsarebegun.AsnewGenerationIVreactorsarebuilt
overthenextseveralyearsandinstant/installedcostrangestighten,theresearchteamexpects
nuclearescalationrateshigherthannormalcostinflation,butmoderatinginthe20182030time
periodasfollows:

HighCase:Additional7%escalationthrough2018,thenadditional5%through2030:

AverageCase:Additional5%escalationthrough2018,thenadditional3%through2030:

LowCase:Additional3%escalationthrough2018,thennominalinflationthrough2030.
156

4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

KEMAperformedadetailedassessmentofthetechnologiesthatarelikelytobedeployedinthe
next20years.Foreachtechnology,KEMAconductedaquantitativeandqualitativeassessment
ofcostdriversandtrendstodevelopinputvariablesfortheCaliforniaEnergyCommissions
levelizedcostmodel.KEMAperformedadetailedliteraturereviewtosupportthisstudyand
identifiedutilityscalerenewableenergyandtwononrenewableenergytechnologiesthatmay
likelybedeployedinCaliforniaoverthenext20years,alongwithidentificationofthe
infrastructurescalesatwhichtheyarelikelytobedeployed.
Foreachtechnology,KEMAidentifiedcostdrivedriversandtrendscontributingtotechnology
deploymentandperformedaquantitativeassessmentoffactorstodeterminehigh,average,and
lowestimatesofexpectedcosts.Inaddition,KEMAhasdevelopedadetailedassessmentofthe
expectedtrajectoriesforfuturecostsforutilityscalegeneration.KEMAsresearchledtothe
developmentofdetailedcostsheetsthatprovidetheinputvariablesfortheCommissions
levelizedcostanalysis.Thefinalprojectreportwillalsoaddresscommunityandbuildingscale
technologiesaswellassummarizekeyfindingsandrecommendations.
Futurecostofgenerationstudiesshouldconsiderincluding:

Qualitativeorquantitativeassessmentofotherkeyissuesthatmayinfluencecostsof
generationincluding:

CO2abatementcosts
Environmentalsensitivity
Landuseconstraints
Permittingrisk
Transmissionconstraintsandequityissuesrelatedtowhobearsthecostofnew
transmission
Systemintegrationcosts
Systemdiversity
Taxcreditavailabilityandstructure
Financingavailability
Macroeconomicbenefits(jobscreation,security,fueldiversity,etc.)
Naturalgaspriceandwholesalepriceeffectsassociatedwithincreased
penetrationofrenewables
Carboncaptureandstorage
Storage(CAES,Battery,PumpedHydro)
Dispatchabilityanalysis
Otherriskfactors

MoretimeforastakeholderinputsimilartotheRETIprocessorCPUCGHGModeling
Initiatives.

157

158

5.0 References

Abrams,RichardF.andKevinToupin.EfficientandLowEmissionStokerFiredBiomassBoiler
TechnologyinTodaysMarketplace.POWERGENRenewableConferenceTechnical
Publication,March2007.
Beurskens,L.W.M.,M.deNoord,andH.J.deVries.PotentialsandCostsforRenewableElectricity
Generation.EnergyResearchCentreoftheNetherlands.ECNC03006,February2004.
Black&Veatch.CleanCoalTechnologySelectionStudyFinalReportJanuary2007.Black&Veatch,
2007.
Black&Veatch.RenewableEnergyTransmissionInitiativePhase1A(DraftReport).Black&Veatch,
RETIStakeholderSteeringCommittee,ProjectNumber149148.0010,March2008.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/RETI10002008001/RETI10002008001
D.PDF.
Black&Veatch.TechnicalAnalysisoftheEnergyResource.Black&VeatchProject:144864,October
2007.
Breeze,Paul.TheCostofPowerGeneration:TheCurrentandFutureCompetitivenessofRenewableand
TraditionalTechnologies.BusinessInsightsLtd.,2008.
http://www.globalbusinessinsights.com/content/rben0202m.PDF.
CaliforniaPublicUtilityCommission.GenerationCosts2008,CPUC,2007.
http://www.ethree.com/GHG/Generation%20costs.doc
Christoua,Costas,IoannisHadjipaschalisaandAndreasPoullikkas.AssessmentofIntegrated
GasificationCombinedCycleTechnologyCompetitiveness.RenewableandSustainable
EnergyReviews12,Issue9,(December2008):24592471.
Chupka,MarcW.andGregoryBasheda. RisingUtilityConstructionCosts:SourcesandImpacts.
TheEdisonFoundation,September2007.
Cobb,JamesT.SurveyofCommercialBiomassGasifiers.UniversityofPittsburgh,AIChE
AnnualMeeting,November2007.
Conner,AlisonM.,BenN.Rinehart,andJamesE.Francfort.SeeU.S.DepartmentofEnergy.
IdahoNationalLaboratory.
CPUC,Aspen,E3,andPlexos.33%ImplementationAnalysisWorkingGroupMeeting.2009.
DeFusco,John,PhillipMcKenzie,andMichaelFick.BubblingFluidizedBedorStokerWhich
istheRightChoiceforYourRenewableEnergyProject.CIBOFluidBedCombustion
XXConference,May2007.

159


EuropeanPhotovoltaicTechnologyPlatform.AStrategicResearchAgendaforPhotovoltaicSolar
EnergyTechnology.EuropeanPhotovoltaicTechnologyPlatform,2007.
http://cordis.europa.eu/technologyplatforms/pdf/photovoltaics.PDF.
Gray,David.SeeU.S.DepartmentofEnergy.OfficeofCoalandEnvironmentalSystems
GasificationTechnologiesProgram.
Hall,DouglasG.andKellyS.Reeves.SeeU.S.DepartmentofEnergy.IdahoNational
Laboratory.
Hall,DouglasG.,RichardT.Hunt,KellyS.Reeves,andGregR.Carroll.SeeU.S.Departmentof
Energy.IdahoNationalLaboratory.
Hance,Cedric.FactorsAffectingCostsofGeothermalPowerDevelopment.GeothermalEnergy
Association,August2005.
Haq,Zia.SeeBiomassforElectricityGeneration.U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.EnergyInformation
Administration,2002.
InternationalEnergyAgency.ExperienceCurvesforEnergyTechnologyPolicy.Organizationof
EconomicCooperationandDevelopment(OECD),2000.
Kagel,Alyssa.AHandbookontheExternalities,Employment,andEconomicsofGeothermalEnergy.
GeothermalEnergyAssociation,October2006.
Kaplan,Stan.PowerPlants:CharacteristicsandCosts.CongressionalResearchService.National
CouncilonScienceandtheEnvironment,WashingtonDC,2008.
Klein,JoelandAnithaRednam.ComparativeCostsofCaliforniaCentralStationElectricity
GenerationTechnologies.CaliforniaEnergyCommission,ElectricitySupplyAnalysis
Division,CEC2002007011,December2007.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC2002007011/CEC2002007011
SF.PDF.
Koetzier,H,FJJMvanAart,PJPloumen,PHWakker,andHCWels.Updatetechnischereview
grootschaligeelektriciteitsopwekking.KEMA,2007.
Lenardic,Denis.LargeScalePhotovoltaicPowerPlants:CumulativeandAnnualInstalledPower
OutputCapacity,AnnualReport2007.pvresources.com,RevisedEdition,April2008.
http://www.pvresources.com/download/AnnualReport2007.PDF.
Minchener,AJ.CoalGasificationforAdvancedPowerGeneration.Fuel47,Issue3,May2006:
171.
NationalEnergyRenewableEnergyLaboratory.AssessmentofParabolicTroughandPowerTower
SolarTechnologyCostandPerformanceForecasts.NREL/SR35034440,October2003.
OConnell,Ric,andRyanPletka,etal.20PercentWindEnergyPenetrationintheUnitedStates:A
TechnicalAnalysisoftheEnergyResource.Black&VeatchProject:144864,October2007.5
10.
160


Overend,RalphP.BiomassConversionTechnologies.Golden,CO:NationalRenewableEnergy
Laboratory,March2007.
PurchasingMagazine.SteelPlatePricesHavePlunged50%FromMid2008Peak.Purchasing
Magazine.April2009.www.purchasing.com/article/CA6654110.html?industryid=48389.
Rhodes,JamesS.andDavidW.Keith.EngineeringEconomicAnalysisofBiomassIGCCWith
CarbonCaptureandStorage.BiomassandBioenergy29(2005):440450.
Rosenberg,WilliamG.,DwightC.Alpern,andMichaelR.Walker.DeployingIGCC
TechnologyinthisDecadewith3PartyCovenantFinancing:VolumeII.ENRP
DiscussionPaper200407:BelferCenterforScienceandInternationalAffairs,Kennedy
SchoolofGovernment,HarvardUniversity,Cambridge,MA,July2004.
SisonLebrilla,Elaine,ValentinoTiangco.GeothermalStrategicValueAnalysis.CEC5002005105
SD,June2005.
SolarMillenium.NevadaEnergy,SolarMillenniumandMANFerrostaalcooperateinthedevelopment
ofprojects.SolarMilleniumCorporateNews,April3,2009.
http://www.solarmillennium.de/Press/Press_Releases/Nevada_Energy__Solar_Millenni
um_and_MAN_Ferrostaal_cooperate_in_the_development_of_projects,lang2,50,1532.ht
ml.
Stahl,Krister,LarsWaldheim,MichaelMorris,UlfJohnsson,andLennartGrdmark.Biomass
IGCCatVarnamo,SwedenPastandFuture.GCEPEnergyWorkshop,April2004.
Stoddard,L.,J.Abrecunas,andR.OConnell.Economic,Energy,andEnvironmentalBenefitsof
ConcentratingSolarPowerinCalifornia.NationalRenewableEnergyLab,NREL/Sr550
39291,April2006.
Tavoulareas,Stratos.AdvancedPowerGenerationTechnologiesAnOverview.U.S.Agencyfor
InternationalDevelopment.ECOAsiaCleanDevelopmentProgram,August2008.
Thorpe,Tom.ABriefReviewofWaveEnergy.AEATechnology.ETSUR120,May1999.
U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.EnergyEfficiencyandRenewableEnergy(EERE).20%WindEnergy
by2030,IncreasingWindEnergysContributiontoU.S.ElectricSupply.DOE/GO102008
2567,July2008.
U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.EnergyInformationAdministration,BiomassforElectricity
Generation,byZiaHaq,2002.
U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.EnergyInformationAdministration.AnnualEnergyOutlook2009
(AEO2009).DOE/EIA0383(2009),March2009.
U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.EnergyInformationAdministration.ElectricPowerAnnual2007.
DOE/EIA0348(2007),January2009.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html.

161


U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.EnergyInformationAdministration.AssumptionstotheAnnual
EnergyOutlook2008,WithProjectionsfor2030.DOE/EIA0554(2008),June2008.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo08/assumption/pdf/0554(2008).PDF.
U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.EnergyInformationAdministration.ElectricityMarketModule
(EMM).DOE/EIA0554(2009),March2009.
U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.IdahoNationalLaboratory.AStudyofUnitedStatesHydroelectric
PlanOwnership,byDouglasG.Hall,andKellyS.Reeves.INL/EXT0611519,June2006.
U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.IdahoNationalLaboratory.EstimationofEconomicParametersofU.S.
HydropowerResources,byDouglasG.,Hall,RichardT.Hunt,KellyS.Reeves,andGregR.
Carroll.BechtelBWXTIdahoLLCandINLHydropowerResourceEconomicsDatabase,
June2003.
U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.IdahoNationalLaboratory.U.S.HydropowerResourceAssessmentfor
California,byA.M.Conner,B.N.Rinehart,andJ.E.Francfort.DOE/ID10430(CA),
October1998.
U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.NationalEnergyTechnologyLaboratory.CostandPerformance
BaselineforFossilEnergyPlants.DOE/NETL2007/1281,August2007.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy
analyses/pubs/Bituminous%20Baseline_Final%20Report.PDF.
U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.OfficeofCoalandEnvironmentalSystemsGasification
TechnologiesProgram.CurrentandFutureIGCCTechnologies:BituminousCoaltoPower,
byDavid,Gray,SalvatoreSalerno,andGlenTomlinson,2004.
U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.OfficeofFossilEnergy.NationalEnergyTechnologyLaboratory.
GasificationWorldDatabase2007,October2007.
<http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/gasification/database/database.html>.
U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.CombinedHeatandPowerPartnership.Biomass
CombinedHeatandPowerCatalogofTechnologies,September2007.
U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.EnvironmentalFootprintsandCostsofCoalBased
IntegratedGasificationCombinedCycleandPulverizedCoalTechnologies.EPA430/R06/006,
July2006.http://www.epa.gov/air/caaac/coaltech/2007_01_epaigcc.PDF.
VanDam,CaseP.WindPowerGenerationTrendsatMultipleCaliforniaSites.CaliforniaEnergy
Commission.PublicationNumber:CEC5002005185,December2005.
Wiser,RyanandMarkBolinger.AnnualReportonU.S.WindPowerInstallation,Cost,and
PerformanceTrends:2007.U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.EERE,May2008.

162

URLsCited:
AbengoaSolar:http://www.abengoasolar.com
CaliforniaEnergyCommission:http://www.energy.ca.gov/(CaliforniaEnergyCommission)
CRUSteelPriceIndex(CRUspi):
http://cruonline.crugroup.com/SteelFerroalloys/CRUSteelPrices/CRUspi/tabid/143/Default.aspx
DLR(GermanAerospaceCenter):http://www.dlr.de
DutchAssociationofCostEngineers:http://www.dace.nl/
EnergyInformationAdministration:http://www.eia.doe.gov/
EnergyProductsofIdaho:http://www.energyproducts.com/
EuropeanPhotoVoltaicIndustryAssociation:http://www.epia.org/
juwi(sustainableenergywebsiteinGerman):www.juwi.de
NationalRenewableEnergyLaboratory:http://www.nrel.gov/
NetworkofNationalPVAssociations:http://nnpva.net/
NOBESOL(PVserviceswebsiteinSpanish):www.nobesol.com
NuclearPowerEducation:
http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower
OregonInstituteofTechnology:http://geoheat.oit.edu/directuse/power.htm
Photon:dasSolarstromMagazin:http://www.photon.de/
SolarMillenniumAG:http://www.solarmillennium.de
SolarBuzzPortaltotheWorldofSolarEnergy:http://www.solarbuzz.com/
SolarwirtschaftOfficialHomepageoftheGermanSolarIndustryAssociation:
http://www.solarwirtschaft.de/SolarwirtschaftOfficialHomepageoftheGermanSolar
IndustryAssociation.
SunPower:www.sunpowercorp.com
TechnicalServiceCenter:http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/estimate/cost_trend.html.
U.S.DOEEnergyEfficiencyandRenewableEnergy:http://www.eere.energy.gov/(U.S.DOE
EnergyEfficiencyandRenewableEnergy)
Westinghouse:http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com.

163


Nuclearcostreferences:
ComparisonofFuel,OperationsandMaintenance,andCapitalCostsasafunctionofUnit
CapacityFactor.http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costcomparison.htm
Corradini,Mike.NuclearPower:Prospectsinthe21stCenturyWisconsinInstituteofNuclear
Systems.http://www.energy.wisc.edu/presentations/
King,Jeff.SixthNorthwestConservation&ElectricPowerPlan,ProposedNuclearPower
PlantPlanningAssumptions.NorthwestPowerandConservationCouncil,Generating
ResourcesAdvisoryCommittee,Portland,OR,October23,2008.
http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/grac/meetings/2008/10/Nuclear%20planning%20assu
mptions%20%206P%20Draft%20102208.ppt
Klein,JoelandAnithaRednam.ComparativeCostsofCaliforniaCentralStationElectricity
GenerationTechnologies.CaliforniaEnergyCommission,ElectricitySupplyAnalysis
Division,CEC2002007011,December2007.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC2002007011/CEC2002007011
SF.PDF.
Lacruz,Jeffrey.Discussionofvariousplanttypesandcostcomparison.TechnicalBackground
Report(partialreport).http://www.io.com/~hcexres/textbook/finrepx7c.html.
NewYork&WashingtonNuclearComporations.NuclearFuelPrices.
http://www.nynco.com/html/nuclear_fuel_prices.html
NRCCostComparison(noteNRCcostsdonotreflectdecommissioning,capital,wastecosts).
http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/NUREGS/SR1350/V9/part07.html
NuclearEnergyInstitute.CostandPerformance.http://www.nei.org/library/infob1.htm
Paulson,Keith.FutureCommercialNuclearPowerExpansionintheUS.WorldNuclear
AssociationAnnualSymposium.London,46September2002.http://www.world
nuclear.org/sym/2002/pdf/paulson.PDF.
SmithKevern,Rebecca.AdvancedReactorsandGovernmentSupportforNewNuclear
Plants.PresentationtotheNationalAssociationofRegulatedUtilityCommissioners.
February2008.www.narucmeetings.org/Presentations/SmithKevern.ppt
UraniumExchange(Ux)Company.Prices.http://www.uxc.com/top_review.html
WestinghouseAP1000DesignControlDocumentRev.16(PublicVersion).
http://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/idmws/ViewDocByAccession.asp?AccessionNumber=
ML071580939

164


LevelizedCostEstimates:
BusinessEnergyTaxCredit(BETC).
http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/CONS/BUS/docs/Rule_summary.PDF.
EnergyandEnvironmentalAnalysis,Inc.UpdateonEEAActivitiesforORNL/DOEDG/CHP
Program.October2004.
http://www.intermountainchp.org/initiative/support/eea041013.PDF.
EnergyInformationAdministration.FederalEnergyMarketInterventions1999:Primary
Energy.http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy/pdf/appendix_b.PDF.
Ford,F.Peter.TechnicalandManagementChallengesAssociatedwithStructuralMaterials
DegradationinNuclearReactorsintheFuture.Abstract.http://www.cns
snc.ca/CNS_Conferences/Deg2007/13thPlenaryPaperFinalAug15th.PDF.
Kittler,Ronny.RenewableEnergyintheUSA:FederalandStateActivitiestoPromote
AlternativeElectricityGeneration.HeinrichBllFoundation.PolicyPaperNo.21,April
2003.http://www.boell.org/docs/Renewable_Energy_Final.pdf,REPTCprograms
Klein,JoelandAnithaRednam.ComparativeCostsofCaliforniaCentralStationElectricity
GenerationTechnologies.CaliforniaEnergyCommission,ElectricitySupplyAnalysis
Division,CEC2002007011,December2007.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC2002007011/CEC2002007011
SF.PDF.
Parker,LarryandMarkHolt.NuclearPower:OutlookforNewU.S.Reactors.CRSReportfor
Congress.OrderCodeRL33442,March2007.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33442.PDF.
Paul,Anthony.ElectricityPolicyInteractions:Climate,Renewables,&DemandEfficiency.
36thAnnualPURCConference,UniversityofFlorida,Gainesville,FL,February5,2009.
http://www.cba.ufl.edu/purc/docs/presentation_2009Paul.PDF.
PublicServiceCompanyofColorado.2007ColoradoResourcePlan.CPUCDocketNo.07A
447E,December2008.
http://www.xcelenergy.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/docs/CRPGenericCostTables.PDF.
WestinghouseElectricCompanyTechnologyFactSheet:WestinghouseAP1000.
http://www.energetics.com/pdfs/nuclear/ap1000.PDF.

165

166

6.0 Glossary

ABWR

Advancedboilingwaterreactor

AC

Alternatingcurrent

AEA

AssociationforEducationalAssessment(Europe)

AEO

AnnualEnergyOutlook

AFUDC

Allowanceforfundsusedduringconstruction

APS

ArizonaPublicService

ASU

Airseparationunit

AWEA

AmericanWindEnergyAssociation

BOP

Balanceofplant

BOS

Balanceofsystems

Btu

Britishthermalunit

BWR

Boilingwaterreactors

CaliforniaISO

CaliforniaIndependentSystemOperator

CBO

CongressionalBudgetOffice

CCS

Carboncaptureandsequestration

CFB

Circulatingfluidizedbed

CIBO

CouncilofIndustrialBoilerOwners

CO

Carbonmonoxide

CO2

Carbondioxide

COG

Costofgeneration

COL

Constructionandoperation

CPUC

CaliforniaPublicUtilitiesCommission

CREZ

CompetitiveRenewableEnergyZone

CSP

ConcentratingSolarpower

DC

Directcurrent

DOE

DepartmentofEnergy

167


EAO

Electricityanalysisoffice

EERE

EnergyEfficiencyandRenewableEnergy

EIA

EnergyInformationAdministration

EM

Environmentalmanagement

EPRI

ElectricPowerResearchInstitute

ETSU

EnergyTechnologySupportunit

EU

EuropeanUnion

EWEA

EuropeanWindEnergyAssociation

FB

Fluidizedbed

FERC

FederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission

FPV

Flatplatephotovoltaic

GADS

GeneratingAvailabilityDataSystem

GDP

Grossdomesticproduct

GE

Generalelectric

GeothermEx

GeothermEx,Inc.

GHG

Greenhousegas

GIF

GENIVInternationalForum

GIF

GenerationInternationalForum

GW

Gigawatt

GWe

Gigawattelectric

GWh

Gigawatthour

HCE

Heatcollectionelement

HetchHetchy

HetchHetchyWaterandPowerDivision

HGTR

Hightemperaturegascooledreactor

HPRA

HydroelectricResourceAssessment

IEPR

IntegratedEnergyPolicyReport

IGCC

Integratedgasificationcombinedcycle

INEEL

IdahoNationalEngineeringandEnvironmentalLaboratory

168


INL

IdahoNationalLaboratory

IPP

Independentpowerprovide

ITC

Investmenttaxcredit

kW

kilowatt

kWe

Kilowattelectric

kWp

Kilowattpeak

LBNL

LawrenceBerkeleyNationalLaboratory

meter

MW

Megawatt

MWe

Megawattelectric

MWh

Megawatthour

MWp

Megawattpeak

NERC

NorthAmericanEnergyReliabilityCorporation

NOx

Nitrogenoxide

NRC

NuclearRegulatoryCommission

NRE

Nonrenewableenergy

NREL

NationalRenewableEnergyLaboratory

NSPS

NewSourcePerformanceStandards

O&M

Operationandmaintenance

OECD

OrganizationofEconomicCooperationandDevelopment

OWC

Oscillatingwatercolumn

PBMR

Pebblebedmodularreactor

PCFB

Pressurizedcirculatingfluidizedbed

PG&E

PacificGasandElectric

PGC

Publicgoodscharge

PHWR

Pressurizedheavywaterreactor

PIER

PublicInterestEnergyResearch

PPA

Powerpurchaseagreement

169


PTC

Productiontaxcredit

PURPA

PublicUtilityRegulatoryPoliciesAct

PV

Photovoltaic

PWR

Pressurizedwaterreactors

RDF

Refusederivedfuel

RE

Renewableenergy

REP

Renewableenergyprogram

RETI

RenewableEnergyTransmissionInitiative

RPS

RenewablesPortfolioStandard

RSCR

Rileyselectivecatalyticreduction

S&L

SargentandLundy

SCE

SouthernCaliforniaEdison

SCR

Selectivecatalyticreduction

SDG&E

SanDiegoGas&Electric

SFPUC

SanFranciscoPublicUtilitiesCommission

SOx

Sulfurdioxide

SRA

Strategicresearchagenda

U.S.

UnitedStates

UBC

Unburnedcarbon

Unocal

UnionOilCompanyofCalifornia

USGS

UnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey

Ux

Uraniumexchange

WECC

WesternElectricityCoordinatingCouncil

170

APPENDIX A
Cost Data

Technology Name:

Biomass Combustion - Fluidized Bed Boiler

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Year=2009, Value & Dollars
PLANT DATA
Gross Capacity (MW)
Station Service (%)
Net Capacity (MW)
Net Energy (GWh)
Transformer Losses
Tranmission losses
Load Center Delivered Capacity (MW)
Net Capacity Factor (NCF)
Planned Percent of Year Operational
Average Percent Output
Net Energy Delivered to Load Center (GWh)
Forced Outage Rate (FOR)
Scheduled Outage Factor (SOF)
Curtailment (Hours)
Degradation Factors
Capacity Degradation (%/Year)
Heat Rate Degradation (%/Year)
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
CO (Lbs/MWh)
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
SOX (lbs/MWh)
PM10 (lbs/MWh)

Average
28
6.00%
26.32
196
0.50%
5.00%
24.88
85.00%
92.39%
100.0%
185.25
8.00%
3.00%
60

High
15
7.00%
13.95
92
0.50%
5.00%
13.19
75.00%
88.65%
100.0%
86.63
10.00%
6.00%
120

Low
70
5.00%
66.50
524
0.50%
5.00%
62.86
90.00%
97.70%
100.0%
495.58
6.00%
2.00%
0

0.10%
0.15%

0.20%
0.20%

0.00%
0.10%

0.074
0.009
0.079
0.000
0.020
0.100

0.074
0.009
0.079
0.000
0.020
0.200

0.074
0.009
0.079
0.000
0.020
0.025

Technology Name:

Biomass Combustion - Fluidized Bed Boiler

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost of last year of construction
% Cost next to last year of construction
% Cost of previous year of construction
High
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Low
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost of last year of construction
% Cost next to last year of construction
% Cost of previous year of construction
High
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Low
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

1
$3,200,000
$3,580,264
80%
20%

1
$3,260,838
$3,648,331
80%
20%

1
$3,322,833
$3,717,693
80%
20%

1
$3,386,006
$3,788,373
80%
20%

1
$3,450,380
$3,860,397
80%
20%

1
$3,515,978
$3,933,790
80%
20%

1
$3,582,823
$4,008,579
80%
20%

0.998957181
$3,647,132
$4,084,790
80%
20%

0.994689784
$3,700,595
$4,162,449
80%
20%

0.993153861
$3,765,127
$4,241,585
80%
20%

0.991454788
$3,830,145
$4,322,225
80%
20%

1
$4,800,000
$5,810,868
60%
40%
0%
1
$1,600,000
$1,677,000
100%

1
$4,891,257
$5,921,344
60%
40%
0%
1
$1,630,419
$1,708,883
100%

1
$4,984,249
$6,033,919
60%
40%
0%
1
$1,661,416
$1,741,372
100%

1
$5,079,009
$6,148,635
60%
40%
0%
1
$1,693,003
$1,774,479
100%

1
$5,175,570
$6,265,532
60%
40%
0%
1
$1,725,190
$1,808,215
100%

1
$5,273,967
$6,384,652
60%
40%
0%
1
$1,757,989
$1,842,592
100%

1
$5,374,235
$6,506,036
60%
40%
0%
1
$1,791,412
$1,877,623
100%

1.000502406
$5,479,161
$6,629,728
60%
40%
0%
0.997391042
$1,820,707
$1,913,320
100%

1.002566461
$5,594,848
$6,755,771
60%
40%
0%
0.98675735
$1,835,542
$1,949,696
100%

1.00331257
$5,705,459
$6,884,211
60%
40%
0%
0.982946811
$1,863,216
$1,986,764
100%

1.004139926
$5,818,725
$7,015,092
60%
40%
0%
0.978741818
$1,890,517
$2,024,536
100%

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

0.990617574
$3,899,668
$4,404,399
80%
20%

0.990357064
$3,972,763
$4,488,135
80%
20%

0.989558753
$4,045,029
$4,573,462
80%
20%

0.989219936
$4,120,521
$4,660,412
80%
20%

0.988245127
$4,194,722
$4,749,016
80%
20%

0.987627424
$4,271,800
$4,839,303
80%
20%

0.986618608
$4,348,568
$4,931,307
80%
20%

0.98506456
$4,424,263
$5,025,061
80%
20%

0.983981645
$4,503,420
$5,120,596
80%
20%

0.982000994
$4,579,801
$5,217,948
80%
20%

1.004548377
$5,931,762
$7,148,462
60%
40%
0%
0.976673797
$1,922,388
$2,063,026
100%

1.004675576
$6,045,301
$7,284,368
60%
40%
0%
0.976030843
$1,957,647
$2,102,248
100%

1.005065676
$6,162,625
$7,422,857
60%
40%
0%
0.974062145
$1,990,842
$2,142,215
100%

1.005231382
$6,280,824
$7,563,979
60%
40%
0%
0.973227317
$2,026,953
$2,182,943
100%

1.005708603
$6,403,272
$7,707,785
60%
40%
0%
0.970827833
$2,060,396
$2,224,445
100%

1.006011363
$6,526,975
$7,854,324
60%
40%
0%
0.969309203
$2,096,284
$2,266,736
100%

1.006506426
$6,654,337
$8,003,649
60%
40%
0%
0.966832089
$2,130,679
$2,309,830
100%

1.007270524
$6,785,996
$8,155,814
60%
40%
0%
0.963023621
$2,162,635
$2,353,745
100%

1.007804031
$6,918,673
$8,310,871
60%
40%
0%
0.960375082
$2,197,690
$2,398,494
100%

1.008782067
$7,057,052
$8,468,876
60%
40%
0%
0.955542238
$2,228,202
$2,444,093
100%

Technology Name:

Biomass Combustion - Fluidized Bed Boiler

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.

Fixed Cost ($/kW-Year)


Variable Cost ($/MWh)
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Nominal
High
Low

High
$150.00
$10.00

Low
$70.00
$3.00

2009

2010

2011

2,189,124

Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Nominal
High
Low

Average
$99.50
$4.47

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2,187,039

2,184,954

2,182,869

2,180,784

2,178,700

2,176,615

2,174,530

2,172,445

2,170,360

2,168,275

$2.00
$3.00
$1.75

$2.04
$2.55
$1.53

$2.08
$2.60
$1.56

$2.12
$2.65
$1.59

$2.16
$2.70
$1.62

$2.20
$2.75
$1.65

$2.24
$2.80
$1.68

$2.28
$2.85
$1.71

$2.33
$2.91
$1.74

$2.37
$2.96
$1.78

$2.41
$3.02
$1.81

10500
11000
9800

10490
10990
9790

10480
10980
9780

10470
10970
9770

10460
10960
9760

10450
10950
9750

10440
10940
9740

10430
10930
9730

10420
10920
9720

10410
10910
9710

10400
10900
9700

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2,166,190

2,164,105

2,162,021

2,159,936

2,157,851

2,155,766

2,153,681

2,151,596

2,149,511

2,147,426

$2.46
$3.08
$1.85

$2.51
$3.13
$1.88

$2.55
$3.19
$1.92

$2.60
$3.25
$1.95

$2.65
$3.32
$1.99

$2.70
$3.38
$2.03

$2.75
$3.44
$2.07

$2.81
$3.51
$2.11

$2.86
$3.58
$2.15

$2.91
$3.64
$2.19

10390
10890
9690

10380
10880
9680

10370
10870
9670

10360
10860
9660

10350
10850
9650

10340
10840
9640

10330
10830
9630

10320
10820
9620

10310
10810
9610

10300
10800
9600

Technology Name:

Biomass Combustion - Fluidized Bed Boiler

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)

Loan/Debt Term (Years)


Equipment Life (Years):
Economic/Book Life (Years)

Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.2%
60.0%
6.7%
9.7%

IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.7%
50.0%
5.9%
8.6%

POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
4.3%
4.3%

60.0%
40.0%
14.4%

18.0%
10.0%

55.0%
45.0%
11.9%

15.0%
9.0%

0.0%
100.0%
7.0%

0.0%
7.0%

35.0%
65.0%
8.5%

14.0%
6.0%

50.0%
50.0%
7.7%

10.0%
5.9%

0.0%
100.0%
4.0%

0.0%
4.0%

Average
12
20
20

High
20
20
20

Low
10
20
20

Technology Name:

Biomass Combustion - Fluidized Bed Boiler

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


TAX INFORMATION/BENEFITS
Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Avg. Ad Valorem Tax
CA Sales Tax

35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%

Federal Tax Life (Years)


State Tax Life (Years)

Average
5
20

High
5
20

Low
5
20

Renewable Tax Benefits


Eligible For BETC
Eligible For Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI
TDMA

Merchant
Y
N
Y
Y
Y

Average
IOU
Y
N
Y
Y
Y

POU
N
N
N
Y
N

Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC)


BETC Limit ($)
BETC Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
BETC Calculation
Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Percentage Depletion
Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
Amount ($/kWh)
Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (REPTC)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Tier Proportion Paid
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
REPI In Start Year ($/kWh)

Merchant
Y
N
Y
Y
Y

High
IOU
Y
N
Y
Y
Y

POU
N
N
N
Y
N

Merchant
Y
N
Y
Y
Y

Low
IOU
Y
N
Y
Y
Y

POU
N
N
N
Y
N

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

10
2009
0.010

10
2009
0.010

10
2009
0.010

10
2009
0.010

10
2009
0.010

10
2009
0.010

10
2009
0.010

10
2009
0.010

10
2009
0.010

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Technology Name:

Biomass - Stoker Boiler

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Year=2009, Value & Dollars
PLANT DATA
Gross Capacity (MW)
Station Service (%)
Net Capacity (MW)
Net Energy (GWh)
Transformer Losses
Tranmission losses
Load Center Delivered Capacity (MW)
Net Capacity Factor (NCF)
Planned Percent of Year Operational
Average Percent Output
Net Energy Delivered to Load Center (GWh)
Forced Outage Rate (FOR)
Scheduled Outage Factor (SOF)
Curtailment (Hours)
Degradation Factors
Capacity Degradation (%/Year)
Heat Rate Degradation (%/Year)
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
CO (Lbs/MWh)
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
SOX (lbs/MWh)
PM10 (lbs/MWh)

Average
38
4.00%
36.48
272
0.50%
5.00%
34.48
85.00%
92.39%
100.0%
256.76
8.00%
3.00%
60

High
25
7.00%
23.25
153
0.50%
5.00%
21.98
75.00%
88.65%
100.0%
144.39
10.00%
6.00%
120

Low
50
2.40%
48.80
385
0.50%
5.00%
46.13
90.00%
97.70%
100.0%
363.67
6.00%
2.00%
0

0.10%
0.15%

0.20%
0.20%

0.00%
0.10%

0.075
0.012
0.105
0.000
0.034
0.100

0.075
0.012
0.105
0.000
0.034
0.200

0.075
0.012
0.105
0.000
0.034
0.025

Technology Name:

Biomass - Stoker Boiler

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost of last year of construction
% Cost next to last year of construction
% Cost of previous year of construction
High
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Low
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost of last year of construction
% Cost next to last year of construction
% Cost of previous year of construction
High
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Low
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

$2,600,000
$2,908,964
80%
20%

$2,649,431
$2,964,269
80%
20%

$2,699,801
$3,020,625
80%
20%

$2,751,130
$3,078,053
80%
20%

$2,803,434
$3,136,573
80%
20%

$2,856,732
$3,196,205
80%
20%

$2,911,044
$3,256,970
80%
20%

$2,966,388
$3,318,892
80%
20%

$3,022,785
$3,381,990
80%
20%

$3,080,254
$3,446,288
80%
20%

$3,138,815
$3,511,808
80%
20%

$3,250,000
$4,049,672
50%
40%
10%

$3,311,789
$4,126,663
50%
40%
10%

$3,374,752
$4,205,119
50%
40%
10%

$3,438,912
$4,285,066
50%
40%
10%

$3,504,292
$4,366,533
50%
40%
10%

$3,570,915
$4,449,549
50%
40%
10%

$3,638,805
$4,534,143
50%
40%
10%

$3,707,985
$4,620,346
50%
40%
10%

$3,778,481
$4,708,187
50%
40%
10%

$3,850,317
$4,797,698
50%
40%
10%

$3,923,519
$4,888,911
50%
40%
10%

$1,749,800
$1,913,796
90%
10%

$1,783,067
$1,950,181
90%
10%

$1,816,966
$1,987,257
90%
10%

$1,851,510
$2,025,039
90%
10%

$1,886,711
$2,063,538
90%
10%

$1,922,581
$2,102,770
90%
10%

$1,959,133
$2,142,748
90%
10%

$1,996,379
$2,183,485
90%
10%

$2,034,334
$2,224,997
90%
10%

$2,073,011
$2,267,299
90%
10%

$2,112,422
$2,310,404
90%
10%

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

$3,198,490
$3,578,574
80%
20%

$3,259,299
$3,646,609
80%
20%

$3,321,264
$3,715,938
80%
20%

$3,384,408
$3,786,585
80%
20%

$3,448,752
$3,858,575
80%
20%

$3,514,319
$3,931,934
80%
20%

$3,581,132
$4,006,687
80%
20%

$3,649,216
$4,082,862
80%
20%

$3,718,595
$4,160,484
80%
20%

$3,789,292
$4,239,583
80%
20%

$3,998,112
$4,981,859
50%
40%
10%

$4,074,124
$5,076,573
50%
40%
10%

$4,151,580
$5,173,088
50%
40%
10%

$4,230,510
$5,271,438
50%
40%
10%

$4,310,939
$5,371,658
50%
40%
10%

$4,392,898
$5,473,783
50%
40%
10%

$4,476,415
$5,577,850
50%
40%
10%

$4,561,520
$5,683,895
50%
40%
10%

$4,648,243
$5,791,957
50%
40%
10%

$4,736,615
$5,902,073
50%
40%
10%

$2,152,584
$2,354,329
90%
10%

$2,193,508
$2,399,089
90%
10%

$2,235,211
$2,444,700
90%
10%

$2,277,706
$2,491,179
90%
10%

$2,321,010
$2,538,541
90%
10%

$2,365,136
$2,586,803
90%
10%

$2,410,102
$2,635,983
90%
10%

$2,455,923
$2,686,098
90%
10%

$2,502,614
$2,737,166
90%
10%

$2,550,194
$2,789,204
90%
10%

Technology Name:

Biomass - Stoker Boiler

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.

Fixed Cost ($/kW-Year)


Variable Cost ($/MWh)
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Nominal
High
Low

High
$200.00
$8.73

Low
$107.80
$4.70

2009

2010

2011

3,112,428

Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Nominal
High
Low

Average
$160.10
$6.98

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

3,109,599

3,106,769

3,103,940

3,101,110

3,098,281

3,095,451

3,092,622

3,089,792

3,086,963

3,084,133

$2.00
$3.00
$1.75

$2.04
$2.55
$1.53

$2.08
$2.60
$1.56

$2.12
$2.65
$1.59

$2.16
$2.70
$1.62

$2.20
$2.75
$1.65

$2.24
$2.80
$1.68

$2.28
$2.85
$1.71

$2.33
$2.91
$1.74

$2.37
$2.96
$1.78

$2.41
$3.02
$1.81

11000
13500
10250

10990
13490
10240

10980
13480
10230

10970
13470
10220

10960
13460
10210

10950
13450
10200

10940
13440
10190

10930
13430
10180

10920
13420
10170

10910
13410
10160

10900
13400
10150

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

3,081,304

3,078,474

3,075,645

3,072,815

3,069,986

3,067,156

3,064,327

3,061,497

3,058,668

3,055,838

$2.46
$3.08
$1.85

$2.51
$3.13
$1.88

$2.55
$3.19
$1.92

$2.60
$3.25
$1.95

$2.65
$3.32
$1.99

$2.70
$3.38
$2.03

$2.75
$3.44
$2.07

$2.81
$3.51
$2.11

$2.86
$3.58
$2.15

$2.91
$3.64
$2.19

10890
13390
10140

10880
13380
10130

10870
13370
10120

10860
13360
10110

10850
13350
10100

10840
13340
10090

10830
13330
10080

10820
13320
10070

10810
13310
10060

10800
13300
10050

Technology Name:

Biomass - Stoker Boiler

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)

Loan/Debt Term (Years)


Equipment Life (Years):
Economic/Book Life (Years)

Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.2%
60.0%
6.7%
9.7%

IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.7%
50.0%
5.9%
8.6%

POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
4.3%
4.3%

60.0%
40.0%
14.4%

18.0%
10.0%

55.0%
45.0%
11.9%

15.0%
9.0%

0.0%
100.0%
7.0%

0.0%
7.0%

35.0%
65.0%
8.5%

14.0%
6.0%

50.0%
50.0%
7.7%

10.0%
5.9%

0.0%
100.0%
4.0%

0.0%
4.0%

Average
12
20
20

High
20
20
20

Low
10
20
20

Technology Name:

Biomass - Stoker Boiler

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


TAX INFORMATION/BENEFITS
Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Avg. Ad Valorem Tax
CA Sales Tax

35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%

Federal Tax Life (Years)


State Tax Life (Years)

Average
5
20

High
5
20

Low
5
20

Renewable Tax Benefits


Eligible For BETC
Eligible For Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI
TDMA

Merchant
Y
N
Y
Y
Y

Average
IOU
Y
N
Y
Y
Y

POU
N
N
N
Y
N

Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC)


BETC Limit ($)
BETC Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
BETC Calculation
Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Percentage Depletion
Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
Amount ($/kWh)
Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (REPTC)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Tier Proportion Paid
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
REPI In Start Year ($/kWh)

Merchant
Y
N
Y
Y
Y

High
IOU
Y
N
Y
Y
Y

POU
N
N
N
Y
N

Merchant
Y
N
Y
Y
Y

Low
IOU
Y
N
Y
Y
Y

POU
N
N
N
Y
N

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

10
2009
0.010

10
2009
0.010

10
2009
0.010

10
2009
0.010

10
2009
0.010

10
2009
0.010

10
2009
0.010

10
2009
0.010

10
2009
0.010

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Technology Name:

Biomass - Cofiring

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Year=2009, Value & Dollars
PLANT DATA
Gross Capacity (MW)
Station Service (%)
Net Capacity (MW)
Net Energy (GWh)
Transformer Losses
Tranmission losses
Load Center Delivered Capacity (MW)
Net Capacity Factor (NCF)
Planned Percent of Year Operational
Average Percent Output
Net Energy Delivered to Load Center (GWh)
Forced Outage Rate (FOR)
Scheduled Outage Factor (SOF)
Curtailment (Hours)
Degradation Factors
Capacity Degradation (%/Year)
Heat Rate Degradation (%/Year)
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
CO (Lbs/MWh)
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
SOX (lbs/MWh)
PM10 (lbs/MWh)

Average
20
2.40%
19.52
154
0.50%
1.49%
19.13
90.00%
90.45%
100.0%
150.84
0.50%
0.77%
0

High
10
2.40%
9.76
81
0.50%
1.49%
9.57
95.00%
97.08%
100.0%
79.61
1.00%
1.15%
0

Low
40
2.40%
39.04
291
0.50%
1.49%
38.27
85.00%
85.41%
100.0%
284.93
0.10%
0.38%
0

0.00%
0.00%

0.00%
0.00%

0.00%
0.00%

0.093
0.023
0.093
1083.844
0.009
0.065

0.064
0.018
0.050
828.140
0.007
0.028

0.064
0.018
0.050
828.140
0.007
0.028

Technology Name:

Biomass - Cofiring

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost of last year of construction
% Cost next to last year of construction
% Cost of previous year of construction
High
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Low
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost of last year of construction
% Cost next to last year of construction
% Cost of previous year of construction
High
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Low
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

$500,000
$524,250
100%

$509,506
$534,217
100%

$519,193
$544,373
100%

$529,063
$554,723
100%

$539,122
$565,269
100%

$549,372
$576,016
100%

$559,816
$586,967
100%

$570,459
$598,127
100%

$581,305
$609,498
100%

$592,356
$621,086
100%

$603,618
$632,894
100%

$700,000
$750,400
100%

$636,882
$764,666
100%

$648,991
$779,204
100%

$661,329
$794,018
100%

$673,902
$809,114
100%

$686,714
$824,497
100%

$699,770
$840,172
100%

$713,074
$856,145
100%

$726,631
$872,422
100%

$740,446
$889,009
100%

$754,523
$905,910
100%

$400,000
$417,000
100%

$407,605
$424,928
100%

$415,354
$433,007
100%

$423,251
$441,239
100%

$431,297
$449,628
100%

$439,497
$458,176
100%

$447,853
$466,887
100%

$456,367
$475,763
100%

$465,044
$484,808
100%

$473,885
$494,025
100%

$482,895
$503,418
100%

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

$615,094
$644,926
100%

$626,788
$657,187
100%

$638,705
$669,682
100%

$650,848
$682,414
100%

$663,221
$695,388
100%

$675,831
$708,608
100%

$688,679
$722,080
100%

$701,772
$735,808
100%

$715,114
$749,797
100%

$728,710
$764,052
100%

$768,868
$923,133
100%

$783,485
$940,684
100%

$798,381
$958,568
100%

$813,560
$976,792
100%

$829,027
$995,363
100%

$844,788
$1,014,286
100%

$860,849
$1,033,570
100%

$877,215
$1,053,220
100%

$893,893
$1,073,244
100%

$910,888
$1,093,648
100%

$492,075
$512,989
100%

$501,431
$522,741
100%

$510,964
$532,680
100%

$520,678
$542,807
100%

$530,577
$553,127
100%

$540,664
$563,643
100%

$550,943
$574,359
100%

$561,418
$585,278
100%

$572,092
$596,405
100%

$582,968
$607,744
100%

Technology Name:

Biomass - Cofiring

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.

Fixed Cost ($/kW-Year)


Variable Cost ($/MWh)
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Nominal
High
Low

High
$21.00
$1.78

Low
$12.00
$1.02

2009

2010

2011

1,655,640

Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Nominal
High
Low

Average
$15.0
$1.27

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

1,654,063

1,652,486

1,650,910

1,649,333

1,647,756

1,646,179

1,644,602

1,643,026

1,641,449

1,639,872

$2.00
$3.00
$1.75

$2.04
$2.55
$1.53

$2.08
$2.60
$1.56

$2.12
$2.65
$1.59

$2.16
$2.70
$1.62

$2.20
$2.75
$1.65

$2.24
$2.80
$1.68

$2.28
$2.85
$1.71

$2.33
$2.91
$1.74

$2.37
$2.96
$1.78

$2.41
$3.02
$1.81

10500
12000
9800

10490
11990
9790

10480
11980
9780

10470
11970
9770

10460
11960
9760

10450
11950
9750

10440
11940
9740

10430
11930
9730

10420
11920
9720

10410
11910
9710

10400
11900
9700

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

1,638,295

1,636,718

1,635,142

1,633,565

1,631,988

1,630,411

1,628,834

1,627,258

1,625,681

1,624,104

$2.46
$3.08
$1.85

$2.51
$3.13
$1.88

$2.55
$3.19
$1.92

$2.60
$3.25
$1.95

$2.65
$3.32
$1.99

$2.70
$3.38
$2.03

$2.75
$3.44
$2.07

$2.81
$3.51
$2.11

$2.86
$3.58
$2.15

$2.91
$3.64
$2.19

10390
11890
9690

10380
11880
9680

10370
11870
9670

10360
11860
9660

10350
11850
9650

10340
11840
9640

10330
11830
9630

10320
11820
9620

10310
11810
9610

10300
11800
9600

Technology Name:

Biomass - Cofiring

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)

Loan/Debt Term (Years)


Equipment Life (Years):
Economic/Book Life (Years)

Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.2%
60.0%
6.7%
9.7%

IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.7%
50.0%
5.9%
8.6%

POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
4.3%
4.3%

60.0%
40.0%
14.4%

18.0%
10.0%

55.0%
45.0%
11.9%

15.0%
9.0%

0.0%
100.0%
7.0%

0.0%
7.0%

35.0%
65.0%
8.5%

14.0%
6.0%

50.0%
50.0%
7.7%

10.0%
5.9%

0.0%
100.0%
4.0%

0.0%
4.0%

Average
12
20
20

High
20
20
20

Low
10
20
20

Technology Name:

Biomass - Cofiring

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


TAX INFORMATION/BENEFITS
Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Avg. Ad Valorem Tax
CA Sales Tax

35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%

Federal Tax Life (Years)


State Tax Life (Years)

Average
20
20

High
20
20

Low
20
20

Renewable Tax Benefits


Eligible For BETC
Eligible For Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI
TDMA

Merchant
Y
N
Y
Y
Y

Average
IOU
Y
N
Y
Y
Y

POU
N
N
N
Y
N

Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC)


BETC Limit ($)
BETC Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
BETC Calculation
Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Percentage Depletion
Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
Amount ($/kWh)
Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (REPTC)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Tier Proportion Paid
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
REPI In Start Year ($/kWh)

Merchant
Y
N
Y
Y
Y

High
IOU
Y
N
Y
Y
Y

POU
N
N
N
Y
N

Merchant
Y
N
Y
Y
Y

Low
IOU
Y
N
Y
Y
Y

POU
N
N
N
Y
N

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

10
2009
0.010

10
2009
0.010

10
2009
0.010

10
2009
0.010

10
2009
0.010

10
2009
0.010

10
2009
0.010

10
2009
0.010

10
2009
0.010

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Technology Name:

Biomass - Cogasification IGCC

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Year=2009, Value & Dollars
PLANT DATA
Gross Capacity (MW)
Station Service (%)
Net Capacity (MW)
Net Energy (GWh)
Transformer Losses
Tranmission losses
Load Center Delivered Capacity (MW)
Net Capacity Factor (NCF)
Planned Percent of Year Operational
Average Percent Output
Net Energy Delivered to Load Center (GWh)
Forced Outage Rate (FOR)
Scheduled Outage Factor (SOF)
Curtailment (Hours)
Degradation Factors
Capacity Degradation (%/Year)
Heat Rate Degradation (%/Year)
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
CO (Lbs/MWh)
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
SOX (lbs/MWh)
PM10 (lbs/MWh)

Average
30
3.50%
28.95
190
0.50%
5.00%
27.36
75.00%
81.52%
100.0%
179.79
8.00%
3.00%
0

High
25
4.50%
23.88
125
0.50%
5.00%
22.57
60.00%
70.92%
100.0%
118.62
10.00%
6.00%
0

Low
40
2.50%
39.00
290
0.50%
5.00%
36.86
85.00%
92.27%
100.0%
274.49
6.00%
2.00%
0

0.05%
0.20%

0.10%
0.25%

0.00%
0.15%

0.074
0.009
0.029
0.000
0.020
0.100

0.074
0.009
0.029
0.000
0.020
0.200

0.074
0.009
0.029
0.000
0.020
0.025

Technology Name:

Biomass - Cogasification IGCC

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost of last year of construction
% Cost next to last year of construction
% Cost of previous year of construction
High
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Low
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost of last year of construction
% Cost next to last year of construction
% Cost of previous year of construction
High
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Low
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

$2,950,000
$3,316,329
75%
25%

$3,006,085
$3,379,379
75%
25%

$3,063,236
$3,443,627
75%
25%

$3,121,474
$3,509,097
75%
25%

$3,180,819
$3,575,811
75%
25%

$3,241,292
$3,643,794
75%
25%

$3,302,915
$3,713,070
75%
25%

$3,365,710
$3,783,662
75%
25%

$3,429,698
$3,855,596
75%
25%

$3,494,903
$3,928,898
75%
25%

$3,561,348
$4,003,594
75%
25%

$3,687,500
$4,594,820
50%
40%
10%

$3,757,606
$4,682,176
50%
40%
10%

$3,829,045
$4,771,193
50%
40%
10%

$3,901,843
$4,861,902
50%
40%
10%

$3,976,024
$4,954,336
50%
40%
10%

$4,051,615
$5,048,527
50%
40%
10%

$4,128,644
$5,144,509
50%
40%
10%

$4,207,137
$5,242,315
50%
40%
10%

$4,287,123
$5,341,981
50%
40%
10%

$4,368,629
$5,443,542
50%
40%
10%

$4,451,685
$5,547,034
50%
40%
10%

$2,655,000
$2,767,243
100%

$2,254,564
$2,819,854
100%

$2,297,427
$2,873,464
100%

$2,341,106
$2,928,094
100%

$2,385,614
$2,983,763
100%

$2,430,969
$3,040,490
100%

$2,477,186
$3,098,295
100%

$2,524,282
$3,157,199
100%

$2,572,274
$3,217,224
100%

$2,621,177
$3,278,389
100%

$2,671,011
$3,340,717
100%

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

$3,629,056
$4,079,710
75%
25%

$3,698,051
$4,157,273
75%
25%

$3,768,358
$4,236,310
75%
25%

$3,840,001
$4,316,850
75%
25%

$3,913,007
$4,398,922
75%
25%

$3,987,400
$4,482,553
75%
25%

$4,063,208
$4,567,775
75%
25%

$4,140,457
$4,654,617
75%
25%

$4,219,175
$4,743,110
75%
25%

$4,299,389
$4,833,285
75%
25%

$4,536,320
$5,652,494
50%
40%
10%

$4,622,563
$5,759,958
50%
40%
10%

$4,710,447
$5,869,465
50%
40%
10%

$4,800,001
$5,981,055
50%
40%
10%

$4,891,258
$6,094,766
50%
40%
10%

$4,984,250
$6,210,639
50%
40%
10%

$5,079,010
$6,328,714
50%
40%
10%

$5,175,571
$6,449,035
50%
40%
10%

$5,273,969
$6,571,643
50%
40%
10%

$5,374,236
$6,696,582
50%
40%
10%

$2,721,792
$3,404,230
100%

$2,773,538
$3,468,951
100%

$2,826,268
$3,534,902
100%

$2,880,001
$3,602,107
100%

$2,934,755
$3,670,590
100%

$2,990,550
$3,740,375
100%

$3,047,406
$3,811,486
100%

$3,105,343
$3,883,950
100%

$3,164,381
$3,957,791
100%

$3,224,542
$4,033,036
100%

Technology Name:

Biomass - Cogasification IGCC

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.

Fixed Cost ($/kW-Year)


Variable Cost ($/MWh)
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Nominal
High
Low

High
$175.00
$4.50

Low
$125.00
$3.00

2009

2010

2011

2,069,550

Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Nominal
High
Low

Average
$150.0
$4.00

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2,067,579

2,065,608

2,063,637

2,061,666

2,059,695

2,057,724

2,055,753

2,053,782

2,051,811

2,049,840

$2.00
$3.00
$1.75

$2.04
$2.55
$1.53

$2.08
$2.60
$1.56

$2.12
$2.65
$1.59

$2.16
$2.70
$1.62

$2.20
$2.75
$1.65

$2.24
$2.80
$1.68

$2.28
$2.85
$1.71

$2.33
$2.91
$1.74

$2.37
$2.96
$1.78

$2.41
$3.02
$1.81

10500
11000
10000

10490
10990
9990

10480
10980
9980

10470
10970
9970

10460
10960
9960

10450
10950
9950

10440
10940
9940

10430
10930
9930

10420
10920
9920

10410
10910
9910

10400
10900
9900

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2,047,869

2,045,898

2,043,927

2,041,956

2,039,985

2,038,014

2,036,043

2,034,072

2,032,101

2,030,130

$2.46
$3.08
$1.85

$2.51
$3.13
$1.88

$2.55
$3.19
$1.92

$2.60
$3.25
$1.95

$2.65
$3.32
$1.99

$2.70
$3.38
$2.03

$2.75
$3.44
$2.07

$2.81
$3.51
$2.11

$2.86
$3.58
$2.15

$2.91
$3.64
$2.19

10390
10890
9890

10380
10880
9880

10370
10870
9870

10360
10860
9860

10350
10850
9850

10340
10840
9840

10330
10830
9830

10320
10820
9820

10310
10810
9810

10300
10800
9800

Technology Name:

Biomass - Cogasification IGCC

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)

Loan/Debt Term (Years)


Equipment Life (Years):
Economic/Book Life (Years)

Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.2%
60.0%
6.7%
9.7%

IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.7%
50.0%
5.9%
8.6%

POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
4.3%
4.3%

60.0%
40.0%
14.4%

18.0%
10.0%

55.0%
45.0%
11.9%

15.0%
9.0%

0.0%
100.0%
7.0%

0.0%
7.0%

35.0%
65.0%
8.5%

14.0%
6.0%

50.0%
50.0%
7.7%

10.0%
5.9%

0.0%
100.0%
4.0%

0.0%
4.0%

Average
15
20
20

High
20
20
20

Low
10
20
20

Technology Name:

Biomass - Cogasification IGCC

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


TAX INFORMATION/BENEFITS
Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Avg. Ad Valorem Tax
CA Sales Tax

35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%

Federal Tax Life (Years)


State Tax Life (Years)

Average
5
20

High
5
20

Low
5
20

Renewable Tax Benefits


Eligible For BETC
Eligible For Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI
TDMA

Merchant
Y
N
Y
Y
Y

Average
IOU
Y
N
Y
Y
Y

POU
N
N
N
Y
N

Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC)


BETC Limit ($)
BETC Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
BETC Calculation
Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Percentage Depletion
Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
Amount ($/kWh)
Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (REPTC)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Tier Proportion Paid
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
REPI In Start Year ($/kWh)

Merchant
Y
N
Y
Y
Y

High
IOU
Y
N
Y
Y
Y

POU
N
N
N
Y
N

Merchant
Y
N
Y
Y
Y

Low
IOU
Y
N
Y
Y
Y

POU
N
N
N
Y
N

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

10
2009
0.010

10
2009
0.010

10
2009
0.010

10
2009
0.010

10
2009
0.010

10
2009
0.010

10
2009
0.010

10
2009
0.010

10
2009
0.010

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Technology Name:

Geothermal - Binary

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Year=2009, Value & Dollars
PLANT DATA
Gross Capacity (MW)
Station Service (%)
Net Capacity (MW)
Net Energy (GWh)
Transformer Losses
Tranmission losses
Load Center Delivered Capacity (MW)
Net Capacity Factor (NCF)
Planned Percent of Year Operational
Average Percent Output
Net Energy Delivered to Load Center (GWh)
Forced Outage Rate (FOR)
Scheduled Outage Factor (SOF)
Curtailment (Hours)
Degradation Factors
Capacity Degradation (%/Year)
Heat Rate Degradation (%/Year)
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
CO (Lbs/MWh)
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
SOX (lbs/MWh)
PM10 (lbs/MWh)

Average
15
5.00%
14.25
112
0.50%
5.00%
13.47
90%
100.0%
96.15%
106
2.5%
4.00%
0.0

High
2
10.00%
1.80
13
0.50%
5.00%
1.70
80%
100.0%
93.53%
12
2.8%
12.00%
0.0

Low
50
5.00%
47.50
395
0.50%
5.00%
44.90
95%
100.0%
99.12%
374
2.2%
2.00%
0.0

4.00%
0

4.00%
0

4.00%
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

Technology Name:

Geothermal - Binary

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
High
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Low
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction

2010

2011

1 0.982755954 0.973551831
$4,046,000
$4,050,101
$4,157,032
$4,846,345
$4,851,257
$4,979,341
20%
20%
20%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
1 0.987823163 0.981297861
$5,948,000
$5,984,729
$6,128,253
$7,980,719
$8,030,000
$8,222,573
10%
10%
10%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
1 0.978866461 0.967620759
$2,353,000
$2,346,063
$2,412,391
$2,746,209
$2,738,112
$2,815,525
20%
20%
20%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
Start Year

PLANT COST DATA


Average
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
High
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Low
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction

2009

2020

2021

2022

0.966437265 0.966437265 0.966437265


$4,858,063
$4,948,000
$5,023,167
$5,819,043
$5,926,771
$6,016,806
20%
20%
20%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
0.976241455 0.976241455 0.976241455
$7,148,221
$7,274,025
$7,384,527
$9,591,114
$9,759,910
$9,908,176
10%
10%
10%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
0.958944685 0.958944685 0.958944685
$2,823,310
$2,877,569
$2,921,283
$3,295,112
$3,358,438
$3,409,457
20%
20%
20%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%

2012
0.973551831
$4,271,500
$5,116,452
20%
40%
40%
0.981297861
$6,279,506
$8,425,517
10%
45%
45%
0.967620759
$2,484,142
$2,899,266
20%
40%
40%

2013
0.973551831
$4,346,667
$5,206,487
20%
40%
40%
0.981297861
$6,390,008
$8,573,783
10%
45%
45%
0.967620759
$2,527,856
$2,950,285
20%
40%
40%

2014
0.973551831
$4,421,833
$5,296,523
20%
40%
40%
0.981297861
$6,500,510
$8,722,049
10%
45%
45%
0.967620759
$2,571,570
$3,001,304
20%
40%
40%

2015
0.973551831
$4,497,000
$5,386,558
20%
40%
40%
0.981297861
$6,611,012
$8,870,314
10%
45%
45%
0.967620759
$2,615,284
$3,052,323
20%
40%
40%

2016
0.973551831
$4,572,167
$5,476,594
20%
40%
40%
0.981297861
$6,721,514
$9,018,580
10%
45%
45%
0.967620759
$2,658,999
$3,103,342
20%
40%
40%

2017
0.969375668
$4,627,398
$5,542,750
20%
40%
40%
0.978331142
$6,811,361
$9,139,133
10%
45%
45%
0.962526251
$2,688,483
$3,137,754
20%
40%
40%

2018

2019

0.969375668 0.969375668
$4,722,500
$4,797,667
$5,656,665
$5,746,700
20%
20%
40%
40%
40%
40%
0.978331142 0.978331142
$6,942,518
$7,053,020
$9,315,112
$9,463,378
10%
10%
45%
45%
45%
45%
0.962526251 0.962526251
$2,746,427
$2,790,141
$3,205,381
$3,256,400
20%
20%
40%
40%
40%
40%

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

0.966437265
$5,098,333
$6,106,842
20%
40%
40%
0.976241455
$7,495,029
$10,056,442
10%
45%
45%
0.958944685
$2,964,997
$3,460,476
20%
40%
40%

0.962958958
$5,154,880
$6,174,574
20%
40%
40%
0.973765377
$7,586,240
$10,178,825
10%
45%
45%
0.954708246
$2,995,419
$3,495,982
20%
40%
40%

0.958985286
$5,227,008
$6,260,970
20%
40%
40%
0.970933429
$7,693,593
$10,322,865
10%
45%
45%
0.949872742
$3,036,965
$3,544,470
20%
40%
40%

0.951730924
$5,283,560
$6,328,709
20%
40%
40%
0.96575444
$7,784,788
$10,445,226
10%
45%
45%
0.941056801
$3,067,403
$3,579,996
20%
40%
40%

0.944761448
$5,359,463
$6,419,626
20%
40%
40%
0.96076783
$7,896,054
$10,594,518
10%
45%
45%
0.932601485
$3,111,642
$3,631,627
20%
40%
40%

0.941492513
$5,455,225
$6,534,332
20%
40%
40%
0.958425186
$8,027,916
$10,771,443
10%
45%
45%
0.928640528
$3,170,046
$3,699,791
20%
40%
40%

0.929936956
$5,481,222
$6,565,471
20%
40%
40%
0.950124671
$8,087,388
$10,851,238
10%
45%
45%
0.914663879
$3,178,709
$3,709,901
20%
40%
40%

Technology Name:

Geothermal - Binary

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.

Fixed Cost ($/kW-Year)


Variable Cost ($/MWh)
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low

Average
$47.44
$4.55

High
$54.56
$5.12

Low
$40.32
$4.31

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

Technology Name:

Geothermal - Binary

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)

Loan/Debt Term (Years)


Equipment Life (Years):
Economic/Book Life (Years)

Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.19%
60.0%
6.71%
8.46%

IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.74%
50.0%
5.94%
7.63%

POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.00%
100.0%
4.35%
4.35%

60.0%
40.0%
13.17%

18.00%
10.00%

55.0%
45.0%
10.65%

15.00%
9.00%

0.0%
100.0%
7.00%

0.00%
7.00%

35.0%
65.0%
7.21%

14.00%
6.00%

50.0%
50.0%
6.76%

10.00%
5.94%

0.0%
100.0%
4.00%

0.00%
4.00%

Average
20
30
30

High
20
30
30

Low
20
30
30

Technology Name:

Geothermal - Binary

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


TAX INFORMATION/BENEFITS
Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Avg. Ad Valorem Tax
CA Sales Tax

35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%

Federal Tax Life (Years)


State Tax Life (Years)

Average
5
20

High
5
20

Low
5
20

Renewable Tax Benefits


Eligible For BETC
Eligible For Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI

Merchant
N
N
Y
N

Average
IOU
N
N
Y
N

POU
N
N
N
Y

Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC)


BETC Limit ($)
BETC Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
BETC Calculation
Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Percentage Depletion
Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
Amount ($/kWh)
Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (REPTC)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Tier Proportion Paid
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
REPI In Start Year ($/kWh)

Merchant
N
N
Y
N

High
IOU
N
N
Y
N

POU
N
N
N
Y

Merchant
N
N
Y
N

Low
IOU
N
N
Y
N

POU
N
N
N
Y

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Technology Name:

Geothermal - Flash

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Year=2009, Value & Dollars
PLANT DATA
Gross Capacity (MW)
Station Service (%)
Net Capacity (MW)
Net Energy (GWh)
Transformer Losses
Tranmission losses
Load Center Delivered Capacity (MW)
Net Capacity Factor (NCF)
Planned Percent of Year Operational
Average Percent Output
Net Energy Delivered to Load Center (GWh)
Forced Outage Rate (FOR)
Scheduled Outage Factor (SOF)
Curtailment (Hours)
Degradation Factors
Capacity Degradation (%/Year)
Heat Rate Degradation (%/Year)
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
CO (Lbs/MWh)
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
SOX (lbs/MWh)
PM10 (lbs/MWh)

Average
30
5.00%
28.50
235
0.50%
5.00%
26.94
94%
100.0%
100.43%
222
2.5%
4.00%
0.0

High
7
5.00%
6.65
52
0.50%
5.00%
6.29
90%
100.0%
105.22%
50
2.8%
12.00%
0.0

Low
50
5.00%
47.50
408
0.50%
5.00%
44.90
98%
100.0%
102.25%
385
2.2%
2.00%
0.0

4.00%
0

4.00%
0

4.00%
0

0.191
0.011
0.058
60
0.026
0

0.191
0.011
0.058
60
0.026
0

0.191
0.011
0.058
60
0.026
0

Technology Name:

Geothermal - Flash

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
High
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Low
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

1 0.982755954 0.973551831 0.973551831 0.973551831 0.973551831 0.973551831 0.973551831 0.969375668 0.969375668 0.969375668
$3,676,000
$3,679,726
$3,776,878
$3,880,878
$3,949,171
$4,017,464
$4,085,757
$4,154,050
$4,204,230
$4,290,635
$4,358,928
$4,403,155
$4,407,618
$4,523,988
$4,648,561
$4,730,362
$4,812,164
$4,893,966
$4,975,768
$5,035,875
$5,139,372
$5,221,174
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
1 0.987823163 0.981297861 0.981297861 0.981297861 0.981297861 0.981297861 0.981297861 0.978331142 0.978331142 0.978331142
$5,329,000
$5,361,906
$5,490,495
$5,626,007
$5,725,009
$5,824,011
$5,923,014
$6,022,016
$6,102,513
$6,220,020
$6,319,023
$7,150,177
$7,194,329
$7,366,862
$7,548,685
$7,681,521
$7,814,357
$7,947,193
$8,080,029
$8,188,036
$8,345,702
$8,478,538
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
1 0.978866461 0.967620759 0.967620759 0.967620759 0.967620759 0.967620759 0.967620759 0.962526251 0.962526251 0.962526251
$2,603,000
$2,595,326
$2,668,701
$2,748,076
$2,796,434
$2,844,793
$2,893,151
$2,941,510
$2,974,127
$3,038,227
$3,086,586
$3,007,075
$2,998,210
$3,082,976
$3,174,672
$3,230,537
$3,286,403
$3,342,268
$3,398,134
$3,435,814
$3,509,865
$3,565,730
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
Start Year

PLANT COST DATA


Average
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
High
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Low
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction

2009

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

0.966437265 0.966437265 0.966437265 0.966437265 0.962958958 0.958985286 0.951730924 0.944761448 0.941492513 0.929936956
$4,413,801
$4,495,513
$4,563,806
$4,632,099
$4,683,475
$4,749,007
$4,800,388
$4,869,349
$4,956,354
$4,979,974
$5,286,901
$5,384,778
$5,466,579
$5,548,381
$5,609,920
$5,688,414
$5,749,959
$5,832,562
$5,936,778
$5,965,070
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
0.976241455 0.976241455 0.976241455 0.976241455 0.973765377 0.970933429 0.96575444 0.96076783 0.958425186 0.950124671
$6,404,316
$6,517,027
$6,616,029
$6,715,032
$6,796,751
$6,892,931
$6,974,636
$7,074,323
$7,192,462
$7,245,744
$8,592,980
$8,744,210
$8,877,046
$9,009,882
$9,119,529
$9,248,579
$9,358,206
$9,491,961
$9,650,474
$9,721,965
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
0.958944685 0.958944685 0.958944685 0.958944685 0.954708246 0.949872742 0.941056801 0.932601485 0.928640528 0.914663879
$3,123,279
$3,183,303
$3,231,662
$3,280,020
$3,313,675
$3,359,634
$3,393,307
$3,442,246
$3,506,855
$3,516,438
$3,608,120
$3,677,461
$3,733,327
$3,789,192
$3,828,071
$3,881,165
$3,920,065
$3,976,601
$4,051,240
$4,062,310
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%

Technology Name:

Geothermal - Flash

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.

Fixed Cost ($/kW-Year)


Variable Cost ($/MWh)
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low

Average
$58.38
$5.06

High
$67.14
$5.28

Low
$49.62
$4.85

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

Technology Name:

Geothermal - Flash

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)

Loan/Debt Term (Years)


Equipment Life (Years):
Economic/Book Life (Years)

Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.19%
60.0%
6.71%
8.46%

IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.74%
50.0%
5.94%
7.63%

POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.00%
100.0%
4.35%
4.35%

60.0%
40.0%
13.17%

18.00%
10.00%

55.0%
45.0%
10.65%

15.00%
9.00%

0.0%
100.0%
7.00%

0.00%
7.00%

35.0%
65.0%
7.21%

14.00%
6.00%

50.0%
50.0%
6.76%

10.00%
5.94%

0.0%
100.0%
4.00%

0.00%
4.00%

Average
20
30
30

High
20
30
30

Low
20
30
30

Technology Name:

Geothermal - Flash

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


TAX INFORMATION/BENEFITS
Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Avg. Ad Valorem Tax
CA Sales Tax

35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%

Federal Tax Life (Years)


State Tax Life (Years)

Average
5
20

High
5
20

Low
5
20

Renewable Tax Benefits


Eligible For BETC
Eligible For Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI

Merchant
Y
Y
Y
Y

Average
IOU
Y
Y
Y
Y

POU
N
N
N
Y

Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC)


BETC Limit ($)
BETC Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
BETC Calculation
Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Percentage Depletion
Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
Amount ($/kWh)
Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (REPTC)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Tier Proportion Paid
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
REPI In Start Year ($/kWh)

Merchant
Y
Y
Y
Y

High
IOU
Y
Y
Y
Y

POU
N
N
N
Y

Merchant
Y
Y
Y
Y

Low
IOU
Y
Y
Y
Y

POU
N
N
N
Y

$25,000
10%
$0

$25,000
10%
$0

$25,000
10%
$0

$25,000
10%
$0

$25,000
10%
$0

$25,000
10%
$0

$25,000
10%
$0

$25,000
10%
$0

$25,000
10%
$0

15%
50%
0.021

15%
50%
0.021

15%
50%
0.021

15%
50%
0.021

15%
50%
0.021

15%
50%
0.021

15%
50%
0.021

15%
50%
0.021

15%
50%
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Technology Name:

Hydro - Developed sites without power

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Year=2009, Value & Dollars
PLANT DATA
Gross Capacity (MW)
Station Service (%)
Net Capacity (MW)
Net Energy (GWh)
Transformer Losses
Tranmission losses
Load Center Delivered Capacity (MW)
Net Capacity Factor (NCF)
Planned Percent of Year Operational
Average Percent Output
Net Energy Delivered to Load Center (GWh)
Forced Outage Rate (FOR)
Scheduled Outage Factor (SOF)
Curtailment (Hours)
Degradation Factors
Capacity Degradation (%/Year)
Heat Rate Degradation (%/Year)
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
CO (Lbs/MWh)
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
SOX (lbs/MWh)
PM10 (lbs/MWh)

Average
15
10.00%
13.50
36
0.50%
7.50%
12.43
30.40%
100.0%
35.35%
33
5.1%
9.40%
0.0

High
1.5
13.00%
1.31
1
0.50%
7.50%
1.20
12.50%
100.0%
14.81%
1
6.7%
9.56%
0.0

Low
300
9.20%
272.40
1468
0.50%
7.50%
250.71
61.50%
100.0%
70.39%
1351
3.8%
9.20%
0.0

2.00%
0

2.25%
0

1.75%
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

Technology Name:

Hydro - Developed sites without power

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
High
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Low
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
High
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Low
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction

2009

2010

2011

2012

1
$2,083,540
$2,266,602
100%

1
$2,115,680
$2,301,566
100%

1
$2,147,820
$2,336,530
100%

1
$2,179,960
$2,371,494
100%

1
$2,212,100
$2,406,457
100%

1
$2,244,239
$2,441,421
100%

2026
1
$2,276,379
$2,476,385
100%

2027
1
$2,308,519
$2,511,349
100%

2028
1
$2,340,659
$2,546,313
100%

1
$2,019,260
$2,196,674
100%

2019

1 1.000098277 1.000098277 1.000098277 1.000098277 1.000123552 1.00017586 1.00017586 1.00017586


$2,872,922
$2,924,671
$2,976,137
$3,027,603
$3,079,069
$3,130,614
$3,182,248
$3,233,719
$3,285,189
$3,742,049
$3,809,453
$3,876,489
$3,943,524
$4,010,560
$4,077,699
$4,144,954
$4,211,995
$4,279,036
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
1 0.999926841 0.999926841 0.999926841 0.999926841 0.999908027 0.999869095 0.999869095 0.999869095
$980,112
$997,596
$1,015,151
$1,032,706
$1,050,261
$1,067,795
$1,085,308
$1,102,862
$1,120,416
$1,043,379
$1,061,991
$1,080,679
$1,099,367
$1,118,055
$1,136,722
$1,155,365
$1,174,052
$1,192,739
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

2025

1
$1,987,120
$2,161,711
100%

2018

1
$2,821,461
$3,675,020
25%
40%
35%
1
$962,556
$1,024,689
100%

2024

1
$1,954,980
$2,126,747
100%

2017

1
$2,770,000
$3,607,990
25%
40%
35%
1
$945,000
$1,006,000
100%

2023

1
$1,922,840
$2,091,783
100%

2016

1
$1,794,280
$1,951,928
100%

2022

1
$1,890,700
$2,056,819
100%

2015

1
$1,762,140
$1,916,964
100%

2021

1
$1,858,560
$2,021,855
100%

2014

1
$1,730,000
$1,882,000
100%

2020

1
$1,826,420
$1,986,891
100%

2013

2029
1
$2,372,799
$2,581,277
100%

1.00017586 1.00024788 1.00024788 1.00024788 1.000277873 1.000346996 1.000346996 1.000346996 1.000346996 1.000490929
$3,336,659
$3,388,373
$3,439,847
$3,491,321
$3,542,901
$3,594,625
$3,646,104
$3,697,583
$3,749,061
$3,801,087
$4,346,077
$4,413,436
$4,480,482
$4,547,528
$4,614,712
$4,682,083
$4,749,136
$4,816,188
$4,883,241
$4,951,006
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
0.999869095 0.999815497 0.999815497 0.999815497 0.999793179 0.999741746 0.999741746 0.999741746 0.999741746 0.999634668
$1,137,969
$1,155,461
$1,173,014
$1,190,567
$1,208,093
$1,225,583
$1,243,135
$1,260,686
$1,278,238
$1,295,651
$1,211,426
$1,230,047
$1,248,733
$1,267,419
$1,286,076
$1,304,695
$1,323,379
$1,342,064
$1,360,749
$1,379,286
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

1
$2,051,400
$2,231,638
100%

Technology Name:

Hydro - Developed sites without power

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.

Fixed Cost ($/kW-Year)


Variable Cost ($/MWh)
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low

Average
$17.57
$3.48

High
$28.83
$5.54

Low
$9.88
$1.90

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

Technology Name:

Hydro - Developed sites without power

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)

Loan/Debt Term (Years)


Equipment Life (Years):
Economic/Book Life (Years)

Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.19%
60.0%
6.71%
8.46%

IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.74%
50.0%
5.94%
7.63%

POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.00%
100.0%
4.35%
4.35%

60.0%
40.0%
13.17%

18.00%
10.00%

55.0%
45.0%
10.65%

15.00%
9.00%

0.0%
100.0%
7.00%

0.00%
7.00%

35.0%
65.0%
7.21%

14.00%
6.00%

50.0%
50.0%
6.76%

10.00%
5.94%

0.0%
100.0%
4.00%

0.00%
4.00%

Average
20
30
30

High
20
30
30

Low
20
30
30

Technology Name:

Hydro - Developed sites without power

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


TAX INFORMATION/BENEFITS
Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Avg. Ad Valorem Tax
CA Sales Tax

35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%

Federal Tax Life (Years)


State Tax Life (Years)

Average
5
30

High
5
30

Low
5
30

Renewable Tax Benefits


Eligible For BETC
Eligible For Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI

Merchant
N
N
Y
N

Average
IOU
N
N
Y
N

POU
N
N
N
N

Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC)


BETC Limit ($)
BETC Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
BETC Calculation
Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Percentage Depletion
Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
Amount ($/kWh)
Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (REPTC)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Tier Proportion Paid
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
REPI In Start Year ($/kWh)

Merchant
N
N
Y
N

High
IOU
N
N
Y
N

POU
N
N
N
N

Merchant
N
N
Y
N

Low
IOU
N
N
Y
N

POU
N
N
N
N

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Technology Name:

Hydro - Capacity upgrade for developed sites with power

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Year=2009, Value & Dollars
PLANT DATA
Gross Capacity (MW)
Station Service (%)
Net Capacity (MW)
Net Energy (GWh)
Transformer Losses
Tranmission losses
Load Center Delivered Capacity (MW)
Net Capacity Factor (NCF)
Planned Percent of Year Operational
Average Percent Output
Net Energy Delivered to Load Center (GWh)
Forced Outage Rate (FOR)
Scheduled Outage Factor (SOF)
Curtailment (Hours)
Degradation Factors
Capacity Degradation (%/Year)
Heat Rate Degradation (%/Year)
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
CO (Lbs/MWh)
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
SOX (lbs/MWh)
PM10 (lbs/MWh)

Average
80
5.00%
76.00
202
0.50%
7.50%
69.95
30.40%
100.0%
35.35%
186
5.1%
9.40%
0.0

High
2
15.00%
1.70
2
0.50%
7.50%
1.56
12.50%
100.0%
14.81%
2
6.7%
9.56%
0.0

Low
600
5.00%
570.00
3071
0.50%
7.50%
524.61
61.50%
100.0%
70.39%
2826
3.8%
9.20%
0.0

2.00%
0

2.25%
0

1.75%
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

Technology Name:

Hydro - Capacity upgrade for developed sites with power

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
High
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Low
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
High
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Low
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction

2009

2010

2011

2012

1
$771,000
$932,000
100%

1
$785,324
$949,315
100%

1
$799,647
$966,629
100%

1
$813,971
$983,944
100%

1
$514,000
$669,497
25%
40%
35%
1
$1,638,000
$1,871,000
100%

1
$523,549
$681,935
25%
40%
35%
1
$1,668,431
$1,905,759
100%

2020
1
$928,560
$1,122,462
100%

2021
1
$942,884
$1,139,777
100%

2013
1
$828,295
$1,001,259
100%

2014
1
$842,618
$1,018,574
100%

2015
1
$856,942
$1,035,888
100%

2016
1
$871,266
$1,053,203
100%

2017
1
$885,589
$1,070,518
100%

2018
1
$899,913
$1,087,832
100%

2019
1
$914,237
$1,105,147
100%

1 1.000098277 1.000098277 1.000098277 1.000098277 1.000123552 1.00017586 1.00017586 1.00017586


$533,098
$542,701
$552,251
$561,801
$571,351
$580,915
$590,497
$600,047
$609,598
$694,373
$706,880
$719,320
$731,759
$744,198
$756,656
$769,136
$781,576
$794,016
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
1 0.999926841 0.999926841 0.999926841 0.999926841 0.999908027 0.999869095 0.999869095 0.999869095
$1,698,862
$1,729,166
$1,759,594
$1,790,023
$1,820,452
$1,850,845
$1,881,200
$1,911,627
$1,942,054
$1,940,519
$1,975,134
$2,009,891
$2,044,648
$2,079,405
$2,114,122
$2,148,794
$2,183,549
$2,218,304
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

2022
1
$957,207
$1,157,091
100%

2023
1
$971,531
$1,174,406
100%

2024
1
$985,855
$1,191,721
100%

2025
1
$1,000,178
$1,209,035
100%

2026
1
$1,014,502
$1,226,350
100%

2027
1
$1,028,826
$1,243,665
100%

2028
1
$1,043,149
$1,260,980
100%

2029
1
$1,057,473
$1,278,294
100%

1.00017586 1.00024788 1.00024788 1.00024788 1.000277873 1.000346996 1.000346996 1.000346996 1.000346996 1.000490929
$619,149
$628,745
$638,296
$647,848
$657,419
$667,017
$676,569
$686,122
$695,674
$705,328
$806,456
$818,955
$831,396
$843,837
$856,304
$868,805
$881,248
$893,690
$906,132
$918,707
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
35%
0.999869095 0.999815497 0.999815497 0.999815497 0.999793179 0.999741746 0.999741746 0.999741746 0.999741746 0.999634668
$1,972,480
$2,002,800
$2,033,225
$2,063,650
$2,094,029
$2,124,344
$2,154,767
$2,185,190
$2,215,613
$2,245,795
$2,253,059
$2,287,691
$2,322,445
$2,357,198
$2,391,897
$2,426,525
$2,461,275
$2,496,026
$2,530,776
$2,565,252
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

Technology Name:

Hydro - Capacity upgrade for developed sites with power

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.

Fixed Cost ($/kW-Year)


Variable Cost ($/MWh)
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low

Average
$12.59
$2.39

High
$27.05
$5.00

Low
$8.77
$1.60

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

Technology Name:

Hydro - Capacity upgrade for developed sites with power

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)

Loan/Debt Term (Years)


Equipment Life (Years):
Economic/Book Life (Years)

Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.19%
60.0%
6.71%
8.46%

IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.74%
50.0%
5.94%
7.63%

POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.00%
100.0%
4.35%
4.35%

60.0%
40.0%
13.17%

18.00%
10.00%

55.0%
45.0%
10.65%

15.00%
9.00%

0.0%
100.0%
7.00%

0.00%
7.00%

35.0%
65.0%
7.21%

14.00%
6.00%

50.0%
50.0%
6.76%

10.00%
5.94%

0.0%
100.0%
4.00%

0.00%
4.00%

Average
20
30
30

High
20
30
30

Low
20
30
30

Technology Name:

Hydro - Capacity upgrade for developed sites with power

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


TAX INFORMATION/BENEFITS
Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Avg. Ad Valorem Tax
CA Sales Tax

35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%

Federal Tax Life (Years)


State Tax Life (Years)

Average
5
30

High
5
30

Low
5
30

Renewable Tax Benefits


Eligible For BETC
Eligible For Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI

Merchant
N
N
Y
N

Average
IOU
N
N
Y
N

POU
N
N
N
N

Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC)


BETC Limit ($)
BETC Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
BETC Calculation
Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Percentage Depletion
Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
Amount ($/kWh)
Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (REPTC)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Tier Proportion Paid
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
REPI In Start Year ($/kWh)

Merchant
N
N
Y
N

High
IOU
N
N
Y
N

POU
N
N
N
N

Merchant
N
N
Y
N

Low
IOU
N
N
Y
N

POU
N
N
N
N

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Technology Name:

Solar - Parabolic Trough (no storage)

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Year=2009, Value & Dollars
PLANT DATA
Gross Capacity (MW)
Station Service (%)
Net Capacity (MW)
Net Energy (GWh)
Transformer Losses
Tranmission losses
Load Center Delivered Capacity (MW)
Net Capacity Factor (NCF)
Planned Percent of Year Operational
Average Percent Output
Net Energy Delivered to Load Center (GWh)
Forced Outage Rate (FOR)
Scheduled Outage Factor (SOF)
Curtailment (Hours)
Degradation Factors
Capacity Degradation (%/Year)
Heat Rate Degradation (%/Year)
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
CO (Lbs/MWh)
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
SOX (lbs/MWh)
PM10 (lbs/MWh)

Average
250
22.40%
194.00
459
0.50%
5.00%
183.38
27.00%
27.44%
90.0%
433.73
1.60%
2.20%
0

High
50
24.00%
38.00
87
0.50%
5.00%
35.92
26.00%
27.58%
100.0%
81.81
1.60%
4.20%
0

Low
300
20.40%
238.80
586
0.50%
5.00%
225.73
28.00%
29.10%
80.0%
553.66
1.60%
2.20%
0

0.50%
0.00%

1.00%
0.00%

0.25%
0.00%

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

Technology Name:

Solar - Parabolic Trough (no storage)

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost of last year of construction
% Cost next to last year of construction
% Cost of previous year of construction
High
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Low
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost of last year of construction
% Cost next to last year of construction
% Cost of previous year of construction
High
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Low
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

$3,687,000
$4,018,830
100%
0%

$3,331,000
$3,630,790
100%
0%

$3,298,000
$3,594,820
100%
0%

$3,265,000
$3,558,850
100%
0%

$3,232,000
$3,522,880
100%
0%

$3,199,000
$3,486,910
100%
0%

$3,165,000
$3,449,850
100%
0%

$3,077,000
$3,353,930
100%
0%

$2,989,000
$3,258,010
100%
0%

$2,901,000
$3,162,090
100%
0%

$2,813,000
$3,066,170
100%
0%

$3,900,000
$4,251,000
100%
0%

$3,562,000
$3,882,580
100%
0%

$3,527,000
$3,844,430
100%
0%

$3,492,000
$3,806,280
100%
0%

$3,457,000
$3,768,130
100%
0%

$3,422,000
$3,729,980
100%
0%

$3,389,000
$3,694,010
100%
0%

$3,355,000
$3,656,950
100%
0%

$3,321,000
$3,619,890
100%
0%

$3,287,000
$3,582,830
100%
0%

$3,253,000
$3,545,770
100%
0%

$3,408,000
$3,714,720
100%

$2,876,000
$3,134,840
100%

$2,810,000
$3,062,900
100%

$2,744,000
$2,990,960
100%

$2,678,000
$2,919,020
100%

$2,612,000
$2,847,080
100%

$2,546,000
$2,775,140
100%

$2,481,000
$2,704,290
100%

$2,416,000
$2,633,440
100%

$2,351,000
$2,562,590
100%

$2,286,000
$2,491,740
100%

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

$2,725,000
$2,970,250
100%
0%

$2,692,000
$2,934,280
100%
0%

$2,659,000
$2,898,310
100%
0%

$2,626,000
$2,862,340
100%
0%

$2,593,000
$2,826,370
100%
0%

$2,560,000
$2,790,400
100%
0%

$2,527,000
$2,754,430
100%
0%

$2,494,000
$2,718,460
100%
0%

$2,461,000
$2,682,490
100%
0%

$2,428,000
$2,646,520
100%
0%

$3,220,000
$3,509,800
100%
0%

$3,190,000
$3,477,100
100%
0%

$3,160,000
$3,444,400
100%
0%

$3,130,000
$3,411,700
100%
0%

$3,100,000
$3,379,000
100%
0%

$3,070,000
$3,346,300
100%
0%

$3,040,000
$3,313,600
100%
0%

$3,010,000
$3,280,900
100%
0%

$2,980,000
$3,248,200
100%
0%

$2,950,000
$3,215,500
100%
0%

$2,221,000
$2,420,890
100%

$2,188,000
$2,384,920
100%

$2,155,000
$2,348,950
100%

$2,122,000
$2,312,980
100%

$2,089,000
$2,277,010
100%

$2,056,000
$2,241,040
100%

$2,023,000
$2,205,070
100%

$1,990,000
$2,169,100
100%

$1,957,000
$2,133,130
100%

$1,924,000
$2,097,160
100%

Technology Name:

Solar - Parabolic Trough (no storage)

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.

Fixed Cost ($/kW-Year)


Variable Cost ($/MWh)
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Nominal
High
Low
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Nominal
High
Low

Average
$68.0
$0.00

High
$92.00
$0.00

Low
$60.00
$0.00

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

Technology Name:

Solar - Parabolic Trough (no storage)

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)

Loan/Debt Term (Years)


Equipment Life (Years):
Economic/Book Life (Years)

Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.2%
60.0%
6.7%
9.7%

IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.7%
50.0%
5.9%
8.6%

POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
4.3%
4.3%

60.0%
40.0%
14.4%

18.0%
10.0%

55.0%
45.0%
11.9%

15.0%
9.0%

0.0%
100.0%
7.0%

0.0%
7.0%

35.0%
65.0%
8.5%

14.0%
6.0%

50.0%
50.0%
7.7%

10.0%
5.9%

0.0%
100.0%
4.0%

0.0%
4.0%

Average
15
20
20

High
20
20
20

Low
10
20
20

Technology Name:

Solar - Parabolic Trough (no storage)

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


TAX INFORMATION/BENEFITS
Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Avg. Ad Valorem Tax
CA Sales Tax

35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%

Federal Tax Life (Years)


State Tax Life (Years)

Average
5
20

High
5
20

Low
5
20

Renewable Tax Benefits


Eligible For BETC
Eligible For Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI
TDMA

Merchant
Y
N
N
Y
Y

Average
IOU
Y
N
N
Y
Y

POU
N
N
N
Y
N

Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC)


BETC Limit ($)
BETC Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
BETC Calculation
Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Percentage Depletion
Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
Amount ($/kWh)
Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (REPTC)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Tier Proportion Paid
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
REPI In Start Year ($/kWh)

Merchant
Y
N
N
Y
Y

High
IOU
Y
N
N
Y
Y

POU
N
N
N
Y
N

Merchant
Y
N
N
Y
Y

Low
IOU
Y
N
N
Y
Y

POU
N
N
N
Y
N

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Technology Name:

Solar - Parabolic Trough (Storage Case - 6 hour molten salt)

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Year=2009, Value & Dollars
PLANT DATA
Gross Capacity (MW)
Station Service (%)
Net Capacity (MW)
Net Energy (GWh)
Transformer Losses
Tranmission losses
Load Center Delivered Capacity (MW)
Net Capacity Factor (NCF)
Planned Percent of Year Operational
Average Percent Output
Net Energy Delivered to Load Center (GWh)
Forced Outage Rate (FOR)
Scheduled Outage Factor (SOF)
Curtailment (Hours)
Degradation Factors
Capacity Degradation (%/Year)
Heat Rate Degradation (%/Year)
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
CO (Lbs/MWh)
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
SOX (lbs/MWh)
PM10 (lbs/MWh)

Average
250
29.40%
176.50
1005
0.50%
5.00%
166.84
65.00%
66.06%
90.0%
949.97
1.60%
2.20%
0

High
50
31.00%
34.50
181
0.50%
5.00%
32.61
60.00%
63.65%
100.0%
171.40
1.60%
4.20%
0

Low
300
27.40%
217.80
1336
0.50%
5.00%
205.88
70.00%
72.74%
80.0%
1262.43
1.60%
2.20%
0

0.50%
0.00%

1.00%
0.00%

0.25%
0.00%

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

Note: Parabolic Trough with Storage assumes 57% greater solar area
due to recharge of thermal storage system per NREL, 2/2003
Also assumes that the solar field direct cost is 58% of the total instant cost.
$
500,000

Technology Name:

Solar - Parabolic Trough (Storage Case - 6 hour molten salt)

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost of last year of construction
% Cost next to last year of construction
% Cost of previous year of construction
High
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Low
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost of last year of construction
% Cost next to last year of construction
% Cost of previous year of construction
High
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Low
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

$5,406,000 $ 4,932,000 $ 4,899,000 $ 4,866,000 $ 4,833,000 $ 4,800,000


$5,892,540
$5,375,880
$5,339,910
$5,303,940
$5,267,970
$5,232,000
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

$4,711,350
$5,135,372
100%
0%

$4,623,350
$5,039,452
100%
0%

$4,535,350
$4,943,532
100%
0%

$4,447,350
$4,847,612
100%
0%

$4,359,350
$4,751,692
100%
0%

$5,789,300
$6,310,337
100%
0%

$5,340,000
$5,820,600
100%
0%

$5,305,000
$5,782,450
100%
0%

$5,270,000
$5,744,300
100%
0%

$5,235,000
$5,706,150
100%
0%

$5,200,000
$5,668,000
100%
0%

$5,109,400
$5,569,246
100%
0%

$5,075,400
$5,532,186
100%
0%

$5,041,400
$5,495,126
100%
0%

$5,007,400
$5,458,066
100%
0%

$4,973,400
$5,421,006
100%
0%

$5,034,700
$5,487,823
100%

$4,327,000
$4,716,430
100%

$4,261,000
$4,644,490
100%

$4,195,000
$4,572,550
100%

$4,129,000
$4,500,610
100%

$4,063,000
$4,428,670
100%

$3,888,000
$4,237,920
100%

$3,823,000
$4,167,070
100%

$3,758,000
$4,096,220
100%

$3,693,000
$4,025,370
100%

$3,628,000
$3,954,520
100%

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

$4,126,000
$4,497,340
100%
0%

$4,093,000
$4,461,370
100%
0%

$4,060,000
$4,425,400
100%
0%

$4,027,000
$4,389,430
100%
0%

$3,994,000
$4,353,460
100%
0%

$3,961,000
$4,317,490
100%
0%

$3,928,000
$4,281,520
100%
0%

$3,895,000
$4,245,550
100%
0%

$3,862,000
$4,209,580
100%
0%

$3,829,000
$4,173,610
100%
0%

$4,885,000
$5,324,650
100%
0%

$4,855,000
$5,291,950
100%
0%

$4,825,000
$5,259,250
100%
0%

$4,795,000
$5,226,550
100%
0%

$4,765,000
$5,193,850
100%
0%

$4,735,000
$5,161,150
100%
0%

$4,705,000
$5,128,450
100%
0%

$4,675,000
$5,095,750
100%
0%

$4,645,000
$5,063,050
100%
0%

$4,615,000
$5,030,350
100%
0%

$3,455,000
$3,765,950
100%

$3,422,000
$3,729,980
100%

$3,389,000
$3,694,010
100%

$3,356,000
$3,658,040
100%

$3,323,000
$3,622,070
100%

$3,290,000
$3,586,100
100%

$3,257,000
$3,550,130
100%

$3,224,000
$3,514,160
100%

$3,191,000
$3,478,190
100%

$3,158,000
$3,442,220
100%

Technology Name:

Solar - Parabolic Trough (Storage Case - 6 hour molten salt)

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.

Fixed Cost ($/kW-Year)


Variable Cost ($/MWh)
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Nominal
High
Low
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Nominal
High
Low

Average
$68.0
$10.30

High
$92.00
$23.30

Low
$60.00
$5.70

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

Technology Name:

Solar - Parabolic Trough (Storage Case - 6 hour molten salt)

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)

Loan/Debt Term (Years)


Equipment Life (Years):
Economic/Book Life (Years)

Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.2%
60.0%
6.7%
9.7%

IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.7%
50.0%
5.9%
8.6%

POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
4.3%
4.3%

60.0%
40.0%
14.4%

18.0%
10.0%

55.0%
45.0%
11.9%

15.0%
9.0%

0.0%
100.0%
7.0%

0.0%
7.0%

35.0%
65.0%
8.5%

14.0%
6.0%

50.0%
50.0%
7.7%

10.0%
5.9%

0.0%
100.0%
4.0%

0.0%
4.0%

Average
15
20
20

High
20
20
20

Low
10
20
20

Technology Name:

Solar - Parabolic Trough (Storage Case - 6 hour molten salt)

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


TAX INFORMATION/BENEFITS
Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Avg. Ad Valorem Tax
CA Sales Tax

35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%

Federal Tax Life (Years)


State Tax Life (Years)

Average
5
20

High
5
20

Low
5
20

Renewable Tax Benefits


Eligible For BETC
Eligible For Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI
TDMA

Merchant
Y
N
N
Y
Y

Average
IOU
Y
N
N
Y
Y

POU
N
N
N
Y
N

Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC)


BETC Limit ($)
BETC Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
BETC Calculation
Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Percentage Depletion
Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
Amount ($/kWh)
Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (REPTC)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Tier Proportion Paid
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
REPI In Start Year ($/kWh)

Merchant
Y
N
N
Y
Y

High
IOU
Y
N
N
Y
Y

POU
N
N
N
Y
N

Merchant
Y
N
N
Y
Y

Low
IOU
Y
N
N
Y
Y

POU
N
N
N
Y
N

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Technology Name:
Solar - Photovoltaic (1-axis)
All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.
Year=2009, Value & Dollars
PLANT DATA
Gross Capacity (MW)
Station Service (%)
Net Capacity (MW)
Net Energy (GWh)
Transformer Losses
Tranmission losses
Load Center Delivered Capacity (MW)
Net Capacity Factor (NCF)
Planned Percent of Year Operational
Average Percent Output
Net Energy Delivered to Load Center (GWh)
Forced Outage Rate (FOR)
Scheduled Outage Factor (SOF)
Curtailment (Hours)
Degradation Factors
Capacity Degradation (%/Year)
Heat Rate Degradation (%/Year)
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
CO (Lbs/MWh)
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
SOX (lbs/MWh)
PM10 (lbs/MWh)

Average
25
22.40%
19.40
46
0.50%
5.00%
18.34
27.00%
27.55%
90.0%
43.37
2.00%
0.00%
0

High
50
24.00%
38.00
87
0.50%
5.00%
35.92
26.00%
28.26%
100.0%
81.81
8.00%
0.00%
0

Low
15
20.00%
12.00
29
0.50%
5.00%
11.34
28.00%
28.28%
80.0%
27.82
1.00%
0.00%
0

0.50%
0.00%

1.00%
0.00%

0.25%
0.00%

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

Technology Name:
Solar - Photovoltaic (1-axis)
All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.
Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost of last year of construction
% Cost next to last year of construction
% Cost of previous year of construction
High
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Low
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost of last year of construction
% Cost next to last year of construction
% Cost of previous year of construction
High
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Low
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

1
$4,550,000
$4,959,500
100%
0%

0.955246582
$4,550,000
$4,959,500
100%
0%

0.919362587
$4,355,000
$4,746,950
100%
0%

0.889603159
$4,160,000
$4,534,400
100%
0%

0.860093106
$3,965,000
$4,321,850
100%
0%

0.832455091
$3,770,000
$4,109,300
100%
0%

0.808933193
$3,575,000
$3,896,750
100%
0%

0.787880134
$3,380,000
$3,684,200
100%
0%

0.769425285
$3,185,000
$3,471,650
100%
0%

0.753040763
$2,990,000
$3,259,100
100%
0%

0.736033428
$2,795,000
$3,046,550
100%
0%

1
$5,005,000
$5,455,450
100%
0%

0.965860094
$5,005,000
$5,455,450
100%
0%

0.938206754
$4,790,500
$5,221,645
100%
0%

0.91507518
$4,576,000
$4,987,840
100%
0%

0.891952274
$4,361,500
$4,754,035
100%
0%

0.870121997
$4,147,000
$4,520,230
100%
0%

0.851404823
$3,932,500
$4,286,425
100%
0%

0.834540533
$3,718,000
$4,052,620
100%
0%

0.819667882
$3,503,500
$3,818,815
100%
0%

0.806391416
$3,289,000
$3,585,010
100%
0%

0.792536317
$3,074,500
$3,351,205
100%
0%

1
$4,095,000
$4,463,550
100%

0.941541914
$4,095,000
$4,463,550
100%

0.895287967
$3,919,500
$4,272,255
100%

0.857357495
$3,744,000
$4,080,960
100%

0.820138277
$3,568,500
$3,889,665
100%

0.78564355
$3,393,000
$3,698,370
100%

0.756569058
$3,217,500
$3,507,075
100%

0.730771321
$3,042,000
$3,315,780
100%

0.708335425
$2,866,500
$3,124,485
100%

0.688558179
$2,691,000
$2,933,190
100%

0.668172354
$2,515,500
$2,741,895
100%

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

0.720871631
$2,600,000
$2,834,000
100%
0%

0.707222058
$2,470,000
$2,692,300
100%
0%

0.694832011
$2,340,000
$2,550,600
100%
0%

0.683505687
$2,210,000
$2,408,900
100%
0%

0.673088501
$2,080,000
$2,267,200
100%
0%

0.663456374
$1,950,000
$2,125,500
100%
0%

0.654508386
$1,820,000
$1,983,800
100%
0%

0.646161325
$1,690,000
$1,842,100
100%
0%

0.638345911
$1,560,000
$1,700,400
100%
0%

0.631003863
$1,430,000
$1,558,700
100%
0%

0.780119434
$2,860,000
$3,117,400
100%
0%

0.768886996
$2,717,000
$2,961,530
100%
0%

0.758645666
$2,574,000
$2,805,660
100%
0%

0.749244966
$2,431,000
$2,649,790
100%
0%

0.7405656
$2,288,000
$2,493,920
100%
0%

0.732511443
$2,145,000
$2,338,050
100%
0%

0.725004028
$2,002,000
$2,182,180
100%
0%

0.717978434
$1,859,000
$2,026,310
100%
0%

0.711380442
$1,716,000
$1,870,440
100%
0%

0.705164297
$1,573,000
$1,714,570
100%
0%

0.650123508
$2,340,000
$2,550,600
100%

0.633976938
$2,223,000
$2,423,070
100%

0.619405178
$2,106,000
$2,295,540
100%

0.606155975
$1,989,000
$2,168,010
100%

0.594031252
$1,872,000
$2,040,480
100%

0.582872829
$1,755,000
$1,912,950
100%

0.572552651
$1,638,000
$1,785,420
100%

0.562965602
$1,521,000
$1,657,890
100%

0.554024534
$1,404,000
$1,530,360
100%

0.545656418
$1,287,000
$1,402,830
100%

Technology Name:
Solar - Photovoltaic (1-axis)
All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.
Fixed Cost ($/kW-Year)
Variable Cost ($/MWh)
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Nominal
High
Low
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Nominal
High
Low

Average
$68.0
$0.00

High
$92.00
$0.00

Low
$60.00
$0.00

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

Technology Name:
Solar - Photovoltaic (1-axis)
All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.
FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)

Loan/Debt Term (Years)


Equipment Life (Years):
Economic/Book Life (Years)

Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.2%
60.0%
6.7%
9.7%

IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.7%
50.0%
5.9%
8.6%

POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
4.3%
4.3%

60.0%
40.0%
14.4%

18.0%
10.0%

55.0%
45.0%
11.9%

15.0%
9.0%

0.0%
100.0%
7.0%

0.0%
7.0%

35.0%
65.0%
8.5%

14.0%
6.0%

50.0%
50.0%
7.7%

10.0%
5.9%

0.0%
100.0%
4.0%

0.0%
4.0%

Average
15
20
20

High
20
20
20

Low
10
20
20

Technology Name:
Solar - Photovoltaic (1-axis)
All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.
TAX INFORMATION/BENEFITS
Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Avg. Ad Valorem Tax
CA Sales Tax

35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%

Federal Tax Life (Years)


State Tax Life (Years)

Average
5
20

High
5
20

Low
5
20

Renewable Tax Benefits


Eligible For BETC
Eligible For Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI
TDMA

Merchant
Y
N
N
Y
Y

Average
IOU
Y
N
N
Y
Y

POU
N
N
N
Y
N

Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC)


BETC Limit ($)
BETC Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
BETC Calculation
Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Percentage Depletion
Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
Amount ($/kWh)
Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (REPTC)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Tier Proportion Paid
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
REPI In Start Year ($/kWh)

Merchant
Y
N
N
Y
Y

High
IOU
Y
N
N
Y
Y

POU
N
N
N
Y
N

Merchant
Y
N
N
Y
Y

Low
IOU
Y
N
N
Y
Y

POU
N
N
N
Y
N

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

$25,000
30%
$0

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

10
2009
0.000

10
2009
0.000

10
2009
0.000

10
2009
0.000

10
2009
0.000

10
2009
0.000

10
2009
0.000

10
2009
0.000

10
2009
0.000

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Technology Name:

Onshore Wind - Class 5

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Year=2009, Value & Dollars
PLANT DATA
Gross Capacity (MW)
Station Service (%)
Net Capacity (MW)
Net Energy (GWh)
Transformer Losses
Tranmission losses
Load Center Delivered Capacity (MW)
Net Capacity Factor (NCF)
Planned Percent of Year Operational
Average Percent Output
Net Energy Delivered to Load Center (GWh)
Forced Outage Rate (FOR)
Scheduled Outage Factor (SOF)
Curtailment (Hours)
Degradation Factors
Capacity Degradation (%/Year)
Heat Rate Degradation (%/Year)
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
CO (Lbs/MWh)
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
SOX (lbs/MWh)
PM10 (lbs/MWh)

Average
100
0.10%
99.90
368
0.50%
5.00%
94.43
42%
100.0%
43.46%
347
2.0%
1.39%
0.0

High
50
0.10%
49.95
175
0.50%
5.00%
47.22
40%
100.0%
41.88%
165
2.7%
1.83%
0.0

Low
200
0.10%
199.80
770
0.50%
5.00%
188.86
44%
100.0%
45.01%
728
1.3%
0.96%
0.0

1.00%
0

1.00%
0

1.00%
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

Technology Name:

Onshore Wind - Class 5

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
High
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Low
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction

1
$1,990,000
$2,331,817
5%
95%

2010
0.99855948
$2,042,773
$2,393,655
5%
95%

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

0.99855948 0.992858959 0.992858959 0.992858959 0.992426353


$2,099,971
$2,146,446
$2,206,547
$2,268,330
$2,330,827
$2,460,677
$2,515,136
$2,585,559
$2,657,955
$2,731,187
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%

2016
0.98644194
$2,381,642
$2,790,730
5%
95%

2017
0.98644194
$2,448,328
$2,868,871
5%
95%

2018

2019

0.98644194 0.986325258
$2,516,881
$2,587,047
$2,949,199
$3,031,418
5%
5%
95%
95%

1 0.999680986 0.999680986 0.998415036 0.998415036 0.998415036 0.998318733 0.996983179 0.996983179 0.996983179 0.996957076
$3,025,000
$3,108,708
$3,195,752
$3,281,073
$3,372,943
$3,467,385
$3,564,128
$3,659,022
$3,761,475
$3,866,796
$3,974,962
$3,784,917
$3,889,653
$3,998,564
$4,105,318
$4,220,267
$4,338,434
$4,459,480
$4,578,213
$4,706,403
$4,838,182
$4,973,521
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
1 0.997952035 0.997952035 0.98985993 0.98985993 0.98985993 0.989246628 0.980774168 0.980774168 0.980774168 0.98060919
$1,440,000
$1,477,288
$1,518,652
$1,548,516
$1,591,874
$1,636,446
$1,681,225
$1,713,497
$1,761,475
$1,810,796
$1,861,185
$1,644,029
$1,686,601
$1,733,826
$1,767,920
$1,817,422
$1,868,310
$1,919,432
$1,956,277
$2,011,053
$2,067,362
$2,124,891
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%

Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
High
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Low
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction

2009

2020

2021

2022

0.981196149 0.974971867 0.971135258


$2,614,772
$2,639,756
$2,671,438
$3,063,904
$3,093,180
$3,130,304
5%
5%
5%
95%
95%
95%

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

0.96493117 0.962109094 0.956894598 0.950522181 0.949490099 0.942596731 0.940398379


$2,696,841
$2,731,977
$2,760,645
$2,786,137
$2,827,641
$2,852,026
$2,890,901
$3,160,071
$3,201,242
$3,234,834
$3,264,704
$3,313,338
$3,341,912
$3,387,463
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%

0.995807266 0.994405643 0.993538217 0.99212986 0.991486901 0.990294999 0.98883154 0.988593799 0.98700072 0.986490767
$4,033,904
$4,092,677
$4,154,533
$4,215,022
$4,279,687
$4,342,935
$4,405,902
$4,475,320
$4,539,598
$4,609,848
$5,047,269
$5,120,808
$5,198,202
$5,273,887
$5,354,797
$5,433,934
$5,512,718
$5,599,575
$5,680,000
$5,767,898
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
0.973365236 0.964595993 0.959202437 0.950499672 0.946548815 0.939261478 0.930378667 0.92894236 0.919366048 0.916318284
$1,876,995
$1,889,846
$1,909,348
$1,922,297
$1,944,935
$1,960,841
$1,973,374
$2,001,852
$2,012,915
$2,038,342
$2,142,941
$2,157,613
$2,179,877
$2,194,661
$2,220,507
$2,238,667
$2,252,975
$2,285,489
$2,298,119
$2,327,149
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%

Technology Name:

Onshore Wind - Class 5

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.

Fixed Cost ($/kW-Year)


Variable Cost ($/MWh)
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low

Average
$13.70
$5.50

High
$17.13
$7.66

Low
$10.28
$4.82

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

Technology Name:

Onshore Wind - Class 5

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)

Loan/Debt Term (Years)


Equipment Life (Years):
Economic/Book Life (Years)

Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.19%
60.0%
6.71%
8.46%

IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.74%
50.0%
5.94%
7.63%

POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.00%
100.0%
4.35%
4.35%

60.0%
40.0%
13.17%

18.00%
10.00%

55.0%
45.0%
10.65%

15.00%
9.00%

0.0%
100.0%
7.00%

0.00%
7.00%

35.0%
65.0%
7.21%

14.00%
6.00%

50.0%
50.0%
6.76%

10.00%
5.94%

0.0%
100.0%
4.00%

0.00%
4.00%

Average
20
30
30

High
20
30
30

Low
20
30
30

Technology Name:

Onshore Wind - Class 5

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


TAX INFORMATION/BENEFITS
Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Avg. Ad Valorem Tax
CA Sales Tax

35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%

Federal Tax Life (Years)


State Tax Life (Years)

Average
5
30

High
5
30

Low
5
30

Renewable Tax Benefits


Eligible For BETC
Eligible For Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI

Merchant
N
N
Y
Y

Average
IOU
N
N
Y
Y

POU
N
N
N
Y

Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC)


BETC Limit ($)
BETC Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
BETC Calculation
Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Percentage Depletion
Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
Amount ($/kWh)
Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (REPTC)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Tier Proportion Paid
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
REPI In Start Year ($/kWh)

Merchant
N
N
Y
Y

High
IOU
N
N
Y
Y

POU
N
N
N
Y

Merchant
N
N
Y
Y

Low
IOU
N
N
Y
Y

POU
N
N
N
Y

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Technology Name:

Onshore Wind - Class 3/4

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Year=2009, Value & Dollars
PLANT DATA
Gross Capacity (MW)
Station Service (%)
Net Capacity (MW)
Net Energy (GWh)
Transformer Losses
Tranmission losses
Load Center Delivered Capacity (MW)
Net Capacity Factor (NCF)
Planned Percent of Year Operational
Average Percent Output
Net Energy Delivered to Load Center (GWh)
Forced Outage Rate (FOR)
Scheduled Outage Factor (SOF)
Curtailment (Hours)
Degradation Factors
Capacity Degradation (%/Year)
Heat Rate Degradation (%/Year)
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
CO (Lbs/MWh)
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
SOX (lbs/MWh)
PM10 (lbs/MWh)

Average
50
0.10%
49.95
162
0.50%
5.00%
47.22
37%
100.0%
38.29%
153
2.0%
1.39%
0.0

High
30
0.10%
29.97
108
0.50%
5.00%
28.33
41%
100.0%
42.92%
102
2.7%
1.83%
0.0

Low
100
0.10%
99.90
298
0.50%
5.00%
94.43
34%
100.0%
34.78%
281
1.3%
0.96%
0.0

1.00%
0

1.00%
0

1.00%
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

Technology Name:

Onshore Wind - Class 3/4

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
High
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Low
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction

1
$1,990,000
$2,331,817
5%
95%

2010
0.99855948
$2,042,773
$2,393,655
5%
95%

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

0.99855948 0.992858959 0.992858959 0.992858959 0.992426353


$2,099,971
$2,146,446
$2,206,547
$2,268,330
$2,330,827
$2,460,677
$2,515,136
$2,585,559
$2,657,955
$2,731,187
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%

2016
0.98644194
$2,381,642
$2,790,730
5%
95%

2017
0.98644194
$2,448,328
$2,868,871
5%
95%

2018

2019

0.98644194 0.986325258
$2,516,881
$2,587,047
$2,949,199
$3,031,418
5%
5%
95%
95%

1 0.999680986 0.999680986 0.998415036 0.998415036 0.998415036 0.998318733 0.996983179 0.996983179 0.996983179 0.996957076
$3,025,000
$3,108,708
$3,195,752
$3,281,073
$3,372,943
$3,467,385
$3,564,128
$3,659,022
$3,761,475
$3,866,796
$3,974,962
$3,784,917
$3,889,653
$3,998,564
$4,105,318
$4,220,267
$4,338,434
$4,459,480
$4,578,213
$4,706,403
$4,838,182
$4,973,521
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
1 0.997952035 0.997952035 0.98985993 0.98985993 0.98985993 0.989246628 0.980774168 0.980774168 0.980774168 0.98060919
$1,440,000
$1,477,288
$1,518,652
$1,548,516
$1,591,874
$1,636,446
$1,681,225
$1,713,497
$1,761,475
$1,810,796
$1,861,185
$1,644,029
$1,686,601
$1,733,826
$1,767,920
$1,817,422
$1,868,310
$1,919,432
$1,956,277
$2,011,053
$2,067,362
$2,124,891
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%

Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
High
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Low
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction

2009

2020

2021

2022

0.981196149 0.974971867 0.971135258


$2,614,772
$2,639,756
$2,671,438
$3,063,904
$3,093,180
$3,130,304
5%
5%
5%
95%
95%
95%

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

0.96493117 0.962109094 0.956894598 0.950522181 0.949490099 0.942596731 0.940398379


$2,696,841
$2,731,977
$2,760,645
$2,786,137
$2,827,641
$2,852,026
$2,890,901
$3,160,071
$3,201,242
$3,234,834
$3,264,704
$3,313,338
$3,341,912
$3,387,463
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%

0.995807266 0.994405643 0.993538217 0.99212986 0.991486901 0.990294999 0.98883154 0.988593799 0.98700072 0.986490767
$4,033,904
$4,092,677
$4,154,533
$4,215,022
$4,279,687
$4,342,935
$4,405,902
$4,475,320
$4,539,598
$4,609,848
$5,047,269
$5,120,808
$5,198,202
$5,273,887
$5,354,797
$5,433,934
$5,512,718
$5,599,575
$5,680,000
$5,767,898
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
0.973365236 0.964595993 0.959202437 0.950499672 0.946548815 0.939261478 0.930378667 0.92894236 0.919366048 0.916318284
$1,876,995
$1,889,846
$1,909,348
$1,922,297
$1,944,935
$1,960,841
$1,973,374
$2,001,852
$2,012,915
$2,038,342
$2,142,941
$2,157,613
$2,179,877
$2,194,661
$2,220,507
$2,238,667
$2,252,975
$2,285,489
$2,298,119
$2,327,149
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%

Technology Name:

Onshore Wind - Class 3/4

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.

Fixed Cost ($/kW-Year)


Variable Cost ($/MWh)
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low

Average
$13.70
$5.50

High
$17.13
$7.66

Low
$10.28
$4.82

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

Technology Name:

Onshore Wind - Class 3/4

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)

Loan/Debt Term (Years)


Equipment Life (Years):
Economic/Book Life (Years)

Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.19%
60.0%
6.71%
8.46%

IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.74%
50.0%
5.94%
7.63%

POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.00%
100.0%
4.35%
4.35%

60.0%
40.0%
13.17%

18.00%
10.00%

55.0%
45.0%
10.65%

15.00%
9.00%

0.0%
100.0%
7.00%

0.00%
7.00%

35.0%
65.0%
7.21%

14.00%
6.00%

50.0%
50.0%
6.76%

10.00%
5.94%

0.0%
100.0%
4.00%

0.00%
4.00%

Average
20
30
30

High
20
30
30

Low
20
30
30

Technology Name:

Onshore Wind - Class 3/4

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


TAX INFORMATION/BENEFITS
Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Avg. Ad Valorem Tax
CA Sales Tax

35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%

Federal Tax Life (Years)


State Tax Life (Years)

Average
5
30

High
5
30

Low
5
30

Renewable Tax Benefits


Eligible For BETC
Eligible For Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI

Merchant
N
N
Y
Y

Average
IOU
N
N
Y
Y

POU
N
N
N
Y

Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC)


BETC Limit ($)
BETC Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
BETC Calculation
Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Percentage Depletion
Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
Amount ($/kWh)
Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (REPTC)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Tier Proportion Paid
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
REPI In Start Year ($/kWh)

Merchant
N
N
Y
Y

High
IOU
N
N
Y
Y

POU
N
N
N
Y

Merchant
N
N
Y
Y

Low
IOU
N
N
Y
Y

POU
N
N
N
Y

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

15%
50%
0.021

15%
50%
0.021

15%
50%
0.021

15%
50%
0.021

15%
50%
0.021

15%
50%
0.021

15%
50%
0.021

15%
50%
0.021

15%
50%
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2009
0.021

Technology Name:

Offshore Wind - Class 5

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Year=2009, Value & Dollars
PLANT DATA
Gross Capacity (MW)
Station Service (%)
Net Capacity (MW)
Net Energy (GWh)
Transformer Losses
Tranmission losses
Load Center Delivered Capacity (MW)
Net Capacity Factor (NCF)
Planned Percent of Year Operational
Average Percent Output
Net Energy Delivered to Load Center (GWh)
Forced Outage Rate (FOR)
Scheduled Outage Factor (SOF)
Curtailment (Hours)
Degradation Factors
Capacity Degradation (%/Year)
Heat Rate Degradation (%/Year)
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
CO (Lbs/MWh)
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
SOX (lbs/MWh)
PM10 (lbs/MWh)

Average
100
0.10%
99.90
394
0.50%
5.00%
94.43
45%
100.0%
47.15%
372
2.0%
2.62%
0.0

High
50
0.10%
49.95
184
0.50%
5.00%
47.22
42%
100.0%
44.63%
174
2.7%
3.29%
0.0

Low
350
0.10%
349.65
1470
0.50%
5.00%
330.51
48%
100.0%
49.60%
1390
1.3%
1.96%
0.0

1.00%
0

1.00%
0

1.00%
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

Technology Name:

Offshore Wind - Class 5

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
High
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Low
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction

2010

2011

1 0.931857019 0.891021848
$5,587,937
$5,284,651
$5,134,323
$6,547,763
$6,192,382
$6,016,232
5%
5%
5%
95%
95%
95%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

0.85855458 0.826608704 0.798099338 0.772699122 0.748455365


$5,022,499
$4,912,766
$4,816,651
$4,737,886
$4,663,611
$5,885,201
$5,756,620
$5,643,994
$5,551,701
$5,464,668
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%

2017
0.72529479
$4,592,277
$5,381,081
5%
95%

2018
0.70181175
$4,515,023
$5,290,557
5%
95%

2019
0.67858922
$4,435,474
$5,197,344
5%
95%

1.00000
0.97506
0.95955
0.94689
0.93413
0.92247
0.91186
0.90151
0.89143
0.88099
0.87045
$5,587,937
$5,529,669
$5,529,209
$5,539,259
$5,551,790
$5,567,248
$5,591,138
$5,617,310
$5,644,175
$5,667,760
$5,689,522
$6,991,695
$6,918,789
$6,918,214
$6,930,788
$6,946,467
$6,965,809
$6,995,700
$7,028,447
$7,062,061
$7,091,570
$7,118,800
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
1 0.920587662 0.873472411 0.836275958 0.799912775 0.767664996 0.739100692 0.711987429 0.686226537 0.660251412 0.634711382
$5,587,937
$5,220,742
$5,033,198
$4,892,170
$4,754,105
$4,632,975
$4,531,874
$4,436,380
$4,344,912
$4,247,649
$4,148,674
$6,379,675
$5,960,453
$5,746,336
$5,585,327
$5,427,700
$5,289,407
$5,173,981
$5,064,958
$4,960,530
$4,849,486
$4,736,487
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%

Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
High
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Low
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction

2009

2020

2021

0.656668505 0.638029178
$4,360,868
$4,304,879
$5,109,923
$5,044,318
5%
5%
95%
95%

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

0.62220396 0.608458307 0.596311246 0.585431062 0.575684613


$4,265,274
$4,237,783
$4,219,632
$4,208,924
$4,205,074
$4,997,909
$4,965,696
$4,944,427
$4,931,880
$4,927,369
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%

2027

2028

2029

0.56685994 0.558799059 0.551381156


$4,206,864
$4,213,394
$4,223,982
$4,929,466
$4,937,118
$4,949,524
5%
5%
5%
95%
95%
95%

0.86028
0.85146
0.84384
0.83712
0.83111
0.82565
0.82070
0.81618
0.81201
0.80813
$5,713,030
$5,744,936
$5,784,632
$5,830,392
$5,881,086
$5,935,941
$5,994,794
$6,057,135
$6,122,590
$6,190,876
$7,148,213
$7,188,134
$7,237,802
$7,295,057
$7,358,487
$7,427,121
$7,500,759
$7,578,761
$7,660,659
$7,746,100
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
0.610740874 0.590466668 0.573333261 0.558512108 0.545462544 0.533812803 0.523408613 0.514014553 0.505455562 0.497598059
$4,055,867
$3,983,968
$3,930,260
$3,889,918
$3,859,815
$3,837,817
$3,823,225
$3,814,680
$3,811,179
$3,811,964
$4,630,531
$4,548,444
$4,487,127
$4,441,069
$4,406,701
$4,381,586
$4,364,926
$4,355,170
$4,351,174
$4,352,070
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%

Technology Name:

Offshore Wind - Class 5

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.

Fixed Cost ($/kW-Year)


Variable Cost ($/MWh)
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low

Average
$27.40
$11.00

High
$34.25
$15.32

Low
$20.55
$9.64

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

Technology Name:

Offshore Wind - Class 5

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)

Loan/Debt Term (Years)


Equipment Life (Years):
Economic/Book Life (Years)

Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.19%
60.0%
6.71%
8.46%

IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.74%
50.0%
5.94%
7.63%

POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.00%
100.0%
4.35%
4.35%

60.0%
40.0%
13.17%

18.00%
10.00%

55.0%
45.0%
10.65%

15.00%
9.00%

0.0%
100.0%
7.00%

0.00%
7.00%

35.0%
65.0%
7.21%

14.00%
6.00%

50.0%
50.0%
6.76%

10.00%
5.94%

0.0%
100.0%
4.00%

0.00%
4.00%

Average
20
30
30

High
20
30
30

Low
20
30
30

Technology Name:

Offshore Wind - Class 5

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


TAX INFORMATION/BENEFITS
Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Avg. Ad Valorem Tax
CA Sales Tax

35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%

Federal Tax Life (Years)


State Tax Life (Years)

Average
5
30

High
5
30

Low
5
30

Renewable Tax Benefits


Eligible For BETC
Eligible For Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI

Merchant
N
N
Y
Y

Average
IOU
N
N
Y
Y

POU
N
N
N
Y

Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC)


BETC Limit ($)
BETC Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
BETC Calculation
Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Percentage Depletion
Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
Amount ($/kWh)
Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (REPTC)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Tier Proportion Paid
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
REPI In Start Year ($/kWh)

Merchant
N
N
Y
Y

High
IOU
N
N
Y
Y

POU
N
N
N
Y

Merchant
N
N
Y
Y

Low
IOU
N
N
Y
Y

POU
N
N
N
Y

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

10
2009
0.021

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Technology Name:

Ocean Wave

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Year=2009, Value & Dollars
PLANT DATA
Gross Capacity (MW)
Station Service (%)
Net Capacity (MW)
Net Energy (GWh)
Transformer Losses
Tranmission losses
Load Center Delivered Capacity (MW)
Net Capacity Factor (NCF)
Planned Percent of Year Operational
Average Percent Output
Net Energy Delivered to Load Center (GWh)
Forced Outage Rate (FOR)
Scheduled Outage Factor (SOF)
Curtailment (Hours)
Degradation Factors
Capacity Degradation (%/Year)
Heat Rate Degradation (%/Year)
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
CO (Lbs/MWh)
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
SOX (lbs/MWh)
PM10 (lbs/MWh)

Average
40
1.00%
39.60
90
0.50%
5.00%
37.43
26.00%
100.0%
30.24%
85
5.1%
9.40%
0.0

High
5
1.00%
4.95
9
0.50%
5.00%
4.68
21.00%
100.0%
24.87%
9
6.7%
9.56%
0.0

Low
100
1.00%
99.00
260
0.50%
5.00%
93.58
30.00%
100.0%
34.34%
246
3.8%
9.20%
0.0

1.00%
0

1.00%
0

1.00%
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

Technology Name:

Ocean Wave

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
High
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Low
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
High
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Low
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

$2,586,645
$2,696,059
100%

$2,625,140
$2,736,182
100%

$2,667,351
$2,780,179
100%

$2,707,929
$2,822,473
100%

$2,751,132
$2,867,504
100%

$2,793,660
$2,911,831
100%

$2,838,308
$2,958,367
100%

$2,884,309
$3,006,314
100%

$2,930,886
$3,054,861
100%

$2,978,000
$3,103,968
100%

$3,029,989
$3,158,157
100%

$2,854,169
$3,485,311
40%
60%

$2,896,645
$3,537,179
40%
60%

$2,943,222
$3,594,056
40%
60%

$2,987,997
$3,648,732
40%
60%

$3,035,669
$3,706,945
40%
60%

$3,082,595
$3,764,248
40%
60%

$3,131,861
$3,824,408
40%
60%

$3,182,619
$3,886,391
40%
60%

$3,234,013
$3,949,149
40%
60%

$3,286,000
$4,012,632
40%
60%

$3,029,989
$3,700,010
40%
60%

$2,365,156
$2,450,431
100%

$2,400,354
$2,486,898
100%

$2,438,951
$2,526,886
100%

$2,476,055
$2,565,328
100%

$2,515,559
$2,606,256
100%

$2,554,445
$2,646,544
100%

$2,595,270
$2,688,841
100%

$2,637,332
$2,732,419
100%

$2,679,920
$2,776,543
100%

$2,723,000
$2,821,176
100%

$3,029,989
$3,139,234
100%

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

$3,081,979
$3,212,345
100%

$3,133,968
$3,266,534
100%

$3,185,958
$3,320,722
100%

$3,237,947
$3,374,911
100%

$3,289,936
$3,429,099
100%

$3,341,926
$3,483,288
100%

$3,393,915
$3,537,476
100%

$3,445,904
$3,591,665
100%

$3,497,894
$3,645,853
100%

$3,549,883
$3,700,042
100%

$3,081,979
$3,763,496
40%
60%

$3,133,968
$3,826,982
40%
60%

$3,185,958
$3,890,468
40%
60%

$3,237,947
$3,953,953
40%
60%

$3,289,936
$4,017,439
40%
60%

$3,341,926
$4,080,925
40%
60%

$3,393,915
$4,144,411
40%
60%

$3,445,904
$4,207,896
40%
60%

$3,497,894
$4,271,382
40%
60%

$3,549,883
$4,334,868
40%
60%

$3,081,979
$3,193,098
100%

$3,133,968
$3,246,962
100%

$3,185,958
$3,300,826
100%

$3,237,947
$3,354,690
100%

$3,289,936
$3,408,553
100%

$3,341,926
$3,462,417
100%

$3,393,915
$3,516,281
100%

$3,445,904
$3,570,145
100%

$3,497,894
$3,624,009
100%

$3,549,883
$3,677,873
100%

Technology Name:

Ocean Wave

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.

Fixed Cost ($/kW-Year)


Variable Cost ($/MWh)
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low

Average
$36.00
$12.00

High
$43.00
$14.00

Low
$27.00
$9.00

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

Technology Name:

Ocean Wave

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)

Loan/Debt Term (Years)


Equipment Life (Years):
Economic/Book Life (Years)

Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.19%
60.0%
6.71%
8.46%

IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.74%
50.0%
5.94%
7.63%

POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.00%
100.0%
4.35%
4.35%

60.0%
40.0%
13.17%

18.00%
10.00%

55.0%
45.0%
10.65%

15.00%
9.00%

0.0%
100.0%
7.00%

0.00%
7.00%

35.0%
65.0%
7.21%

14.00%
6.00%

50.0%
50.0%
6.76%

10.00%
5.94%

0.0%
100.0%
4.00%

0.00%
4.00%

Average
20
30
30

High
20
30
30

Low
20
30
30

Technology Name:

Ocean Wave

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


TAX INFORMATION/BENEFITS
Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Avg. Ad Valorem Tax
CA Sales Tax

35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%

Federal Tax Life (Years)


State Tax Life (Years)

Average
5
30

High
5
30

Low
5
30

Renewable Tax Benefits


Eligible For BETC
Eligible For Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI

Merchant
N
N
Y
N

Average
IOU
N
N
Y
N

POU
N
N
N
Y

Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC)


BETC Limit ($)
BETC Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
BETC Calculation
Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Percentage Depletion
Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
Amount ($/kWh)
Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (REPTC)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Tier Proportion Paid
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
REPI In Start Year ($/kWh)

Merchant
N
N
Y
N

High
IOU
N
N
Y
N

POU
N
N
N
Y

Merchant
N
N
Y
N

Low
IOU
N
N
Y
N

POU
N
N
N
Y

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Technology Name:

Coal - IGCC

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Year=2009, Value & Dollars
PLANT DATA
Gross Capacity (MW)
Station Service (%)
Net Capacity (MW)
Net Energy (GWh)
Transformer Losses
Tranmission losses
Load Center Delivered Capacity (MW)
Net Capacity Factor (NCF)
Planned Percent of Year Operational
Average Percent Output
Net Energy Delivered to Load Center (GWh)
Forced Outage Rate (FOR)
Scheduled Outage Factor (SOF)
Curtailment (Hours)
Degradation Factors
Capacity Degradation (%/Year)
Heat Rate Degradation (%/Year)
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
CO (Lbs/MWh)
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
SOX (lbs/MWh)
PM10 (lbs/MWh)

Average
300
6.00%
282.00
1976
0.50%
5.00%
266.56
80.00%
84.21%
100.0%
1868.06
5.00%
15.00%
0

High
300
7.00%
279.00
1711
0.50%
5.00%
263.72
70.00%
97.65%
100.0%
1617.16
7.50%
22.50%
0

Low
600
5.00%
570.00
4494
0.50%
5.00%
538.79
90.00%
99.79%
100.0%
4247.84
2.50%
7.50%
0

0.05%
0.10%

0.10%
0.20%

0.00%
0.10%

0.220
0.009
0.079
1532.000
0.063
0.031

0.314
0.009
0.079
1631.000
0.094
0.031

0.126
0.009
0.079
1433.000
0.031
0.031

Technology Name:

Coal - IGCC

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost of last year of construction
% Cost next to last year of construction
% Cost of previous year of construction
High
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Low
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Start Year
PLANT COST DATA
Average
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost of last year of construction
% Cost next to last year of construction
% Cost of previous year of construction
High
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction
Low
Instant Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
Installed Cost (Nominal $/Gross MW)
% Cost first year of construction
% Cost second year of construction
% Cost third year of construction

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

1
$2,250,000
$2,517,373
80%
20%

0.996056451
$2,283,735
$2,565,233
80%
20%

0.992128453
$2,317,976
$2,614,003
80%
20%

0.988215946
$2,352,730
$2,663,700
80%
20%

0.984318868
$2,388,005
$2,714,342
80%
20%

0.980437158
$2,423,809
$2,765,946
80%
20%

0.976570756
$2,460,150
$2,818,532
80%
20%

0.972719601
$2,497,036
$2,872,118
80%
20%

0.968883633
$2,534,475
$2,926,722
80%
20%

0.965062793
$2,572,475
$2,982,364
80%
20%

0.96125702
$2,611,045
$3,039,065
80%
20%

1
$2,800,000
$3,389,673
60%
40%
0%
1
$1,700,000
$1,874,918
80%
20%

1.00217739
$2,859,446
$3,454,117
60%
40%
0%
0.989942125
$1,714,897
$1,910,563
80%

1.004359521
$2,920,154
$3,519,786
60%
40%
0%
0.979985411
$1,729,924
$1,946,887
80%

1.006546404
$2,982,150
$3,586,704
60%
40%
0%
0.970128841
$1,745,083
$1,983,901
80%

1.008738048
$3,045,463
$3,654,894
60%
40%
0%
0.960371406
$1,760,375
$2,021,618
80%

1.010934464
$3,110,121
$3,724,380
60%
40%
0%
0.950712111
$1,775,800
$2,060,053
80%

1.013135663
$3,176,150
$3,795,188
60%
40%
0%
0.941149968
$1,791,361
$2,099,218
80%

1.015341655
$3,243,582
$3,867,341
60%
40%
0%
0.931683999
$1,807,059
$2,139,128
80%

1.01755245
$3,312,445
$3,940,866
60%
40%
0%
0.922313238
$1,822,893
$2,179,797
80%

1.019768058
$3,382,771
$4,015,790
60%
40%
0%
0.913036727
$1,838,867
$2,221,239
80%

1.021988491
$3,454,589
$4,092,137
60%
40%
0%
0.903853518
$1,854,980
$2,263,469
80%

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

0.957466256
$2,650,194
$3,096,843
80%
20%

0.953690441
$2,689,929
$3,155,720
80%
20%

0.949929516
$2,730,260
$3,215,716
80%
20%

0.946183422
$2,771,196
$3,276,852
80%
20%

0.942452101
$2,812,745
$3,339,152
80%
20%

0.938735495
$2,854,917
$3,402,635
80%
20%

0.935033545
$2,897,722
$3,467,325
80%
20%

0.931346194
$2,941,169
$3,533,246
80%
20%

0.927673385
$2,985,267
$3,600,419
80%
20%

0.924015059
$3,030,026
$3,668,870
80%
20%

1.024213759
$3,527,932
$4,169,936
60%
40%
0%
0.894762672
$1,871,235
$2,306,502
80%

1.026443872
$3,602,833
$4,249,215
60%
40%
0%
0.885763261
$1,887,632
$2,350,353
80%

1.028678841
$3,679,323
$4,330,000
60%
40%
0%
0.876854365
$1,904,173
$2,395,037
80%

1.030918676
$3,757,437
$4,412,321
60%
40%
0%
0.868035074
$1,920,859
$2,440,571
80%

1.033163388
$3,837,210
$4,496,208
60%
40%
0%
0.859304486
$1,937,691
$2,486,971
80%

1.035412988
$3,918,677
$4,581,689
60%
40%
0%
0.850661709
$1,954,671
$2,534,253
80%

1.037667486
$4,001,873
$4,668,795
60%
40%
0%
0.84210586
$1,971,799
$2,582,434
80%

1.039926893
$4,086,835
$4,757,558
60%
40%
0%
0.833636065
$1,989,077
$2,631,531
80%

1.042191219
$4,173,601
$4,848,008
60%
40%
0%
0.825251458
$2,006,507
$2,681,561
80%

1.044460476
$4,262,209
$4,940,178
60%
40%
0%
0.816951182
$2,024,090
$2,732,542
80%

Technology Name:

Coal - IGCC

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.

Fixed Cost ($/kW-Year)


Variable Cost ($/MWh)
Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Nominal
High
Low

High
$52.00
$8.33

Low
$31.67
$5.00

2009

2010

2011

15,936,192

Start Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Nominal
High
Low

Average
$41.7
$6.67

15,915,168

15,894,144

2012
15,873,120

2013
15,852,096

2014
15,831,072

2015
15,810,048

2016
15,789,024

2017
15,768,000

2018
15,746,976

2019
15,725,952

$1.80
$3.13
$1.31

$2.10
$3.65
$1.53

$2.15
$3.74
$1.57

$2.20
$3.82
$1.60

$2.24
$3.90
$1.64

$2.29
$3.99
$1.67

$2.34
$4.07
$1.71

$2.39
$4.15
$1.74

$2.43
$4.23
$1.78

$2.48
$4.31
$1.81

$2.52
$4.39
$1.84

7580
8025
7100

7570
8015
7090

7560
8005
7080

7550
7995
7070

7540
7985
7060

7530
7975
7050

7520
7965
7040

7510
7955
7030

7500
7945
7020

7490
7935
7010

7480
7925
7000

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

15,704,928

15,683,904

15,662,880

15,641,856

15,620,832

15,599,808

15,578,784

15,557,760

15,536,736

15,515,712

$2.57
$4.47
$1.88

$2.61
$4.55
$1.91

$2.66
$4.62
$1.94

$2.70
$4.70
$1.97

$2.75
$4.78
$2.00

$2.79
$4.85
$2.04

$2.84
$4.95
$2.08

$2.90
$5.04
$2.11

$2.95
$5.14
$2.16

$3.01
$5.23
$2.20

7470
7915
6990

7460
7905
6980

7450
7895
6970

7440
7885
6960

7430
7875
6950

7420
7865
6940

7410
7855
6930

7400
7845
6920

7390
7835
6910

7380
7825
6900

Technology Name:

Coal - IGCC

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)

Loan/Debt Term (Years)


Equipment Life (Years):
Economic/Book Life (Years)

Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.2%
60.0%
6.7%
9.7%

IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.7%
50.0%
5.9%
8.6%

POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
4.3%
4.3%

60.0%
40.0%
14.4%

18.0%
10.0%

55.0%
45.0%
11.9%

15.0%
9.0%

0.0%
100.0%
7.0%

0.0%
7.0%

35.0%
65.0%
8.5%

14.0%
6.0%

50.0%
50.0%
7.7%

10.0%
5.9%

0.0%
100.0%
4.0%

0.0%
4.0%

Average
15
40
20

High
20
40
20

Low
10
40
20

Technology Name:

Coal - IGCC

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


TAX INFORMATION/BENEFITS
Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Avg. Ad Valorem Tax
CA Sales Tax

35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%

Federal Tax Life (Years)


State Tax Life (Years)

Average
15
20

High
15
20

Low
15
20

Renewable Tax Benefits


Eligible For BETC
Eligible For Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI
TDMA

Merchant
N
N
N
N
Y

Average
IOU
N
N
N
N
Y

POU
N
N
N
N
N

Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC)


BETC Limit ($)
BETC Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
BETC Calculation
Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Percentage Depletion
Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
Amount ($/kWh)
Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (REPTC)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Tier Proportion Paid
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
REPI In Start Year ($/kWh)

Merchant
N
N
N
N
Y

High
IOU
N
N
N
N
Y

POU
N
N
N
N
N

Merchant
N
N
N
N
Y

Low
IOU
N
N
N
N
Y

POU
N
N
N
N
N

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

10
2005
0.019

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Technology Name:

Nuclear Reactor - WESTINGHOUSE AP 1000

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Year=2009
PLANT DATA
Average
Gross Capacity (MW)
960
Station Service (%)
2.20%
Net Capacity (MW)
938.88
Net Energy (GWh)
7081
Transformer Losses
0.60%
Tranmission losses
1.70%
Load Center Delivered Capacity (MW)
917.38
Net Capacity Factor (NCF)
86.10%
Planned Percent of Year Operational
88.51%
Average Percent Output
91.0%
Net Energy Delivered to Load Center (GWh)
6919.22
Forced Outage Rate (FOR)
2.72%
Scheduled Outage Factor (SOF)
11.12%
Curtailment (% or Hours)
Degradation Factors
Capacity Degradation (%/Year)
0.20%
Heat Rate Degradation (%/Year)
0.20%
Emission Factors
NOX (lbs/MWh)
0.000
VOC/ROG (Lbs/MWh)
0.000
CO (Lbs/MWh)
0.000
CO2 (lbs/MWh)
0.000
SOX (lbs/MWh)
0.000
PM10 (lbs/MWh)
0.000

High
900
3.00%
873.00
6202
0.70%
2.00%
849.55
81.10%
99.46%
95.0%
6035.52
2.93%
16.00%
-

Low
1117
1.50%
1100.25
8906
0.50%
1.40%
1,079.42
92.40%
99.82%
87.0%
8737.06
2.59%
4.97%
-

0.20%
0.20%

0.20%
0.20%

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

Technology Name:

Nuclear Reactor - WESTINGHOUSE AP 1000

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Start Year
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
PLANT COST DATA
THESE ARE START YEAR VALUES. THE COSTS CHANGE EACH YEAR DUE TO CHANGES IN TECHNOLOGY COSTS.
Average
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 0.996023857 0.979874265
Capital Cost per KW US
$4,000,000
$4,259,528
$4,540,996
$4,837,128
$5,156,157
$5,493,670
$5,856,153
$6,219,046
$6,522,919
Installed Cost US$/KW) Projected
$6,039,075
$6,430,902
$6,855,854
$7,302,944
$7,784,605
$8,294,172
$8,841,437
$9,389,322
$9,848,099
% Year0 (Last Year of Contruction)
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
% Year1 (Next to Last Year of Contruction)
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
% Year2 (2 years Before Last Year)
7.0%
7.0%
7.0%
7.0%
7.0%
7.0%
7.0%
7.0%
7.0%
% Year3 (3rd years Before Last Year)
15.5%
15.5%
15.5%
15.5%
15.5%
15.5%
15.5%
15.5%
15.5%
% Year4 (4th Year before Last Year)
22.0%
22.0%
22.0%
22.0%
22.0%
22.0%
22.0%
22.0%
22.0%
% Year5 (5th Year before Last Year)
21.0%
21.0%
21.0%
21.0%
21.0%
21.0%
21.0%
21.0%
21.0%
% Year6 (6th Year before Last Year)
18.0%
18.0%
18.0%
18.0%
18.0%
18.0%
18.0%
18.0%
18.0%
% Year7 (7th Year before Last Year)
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
% Year8 (8th Year before Last Year)
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%

2018

2019

0.974109281
$6,913,009
$10,437,045
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.967761131
$7,183,374
$10,845,233
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

High
Capital Cost per KW US
Installed Cost US$/KW) Projected
% Year0 (Last Year of Contruction)
% Year1 (Next to Last Year of Contruction)
% Year2 (2 years Before Last Year)
% Year3 (3rd years Before Last Year)
% Year4 (4th Year before Last Year)
% Year5 (5th Year before Last Year)
% Year6 (6th Year before Last Year)
% Year7 (7th Year before Last Year)
% Year8 (8th Year before Last Year)

1
$5,000,000
$8,847,984
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

1
$5,424,410
$9,599,018
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

1
$5,891,341
$10,425,299
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

1
$6,393,360
$11,313,669
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

1
$6,942,897
$12,286,128
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

1
$7,536,225
$13,336,079
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

1
$8,184,204
$14,482,740
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.996786884
$8,861,177
$15,680,710
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.983710945
$9,498,296
$16,808,154
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.979033168
$10,266,809
$18,168,111
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.973876043
$10,886,009
$19,263,846
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

Low
Capital Cost per KW US
Installed Cost US$/KW) Projected
% Year0 (Last Year of Contruction)
% Year1 (Next to Last Year of Contruction)
% Year2 (2 years Before Last Year)
% Year3 (3rd years Before Last Year)
% Year4 (4th Year before Last Year)
% Year5 (5th Year before Last Year)
% Year6 (6th Year before Last Year)
% Year7 (7th Year before Last Year)
% Year8 (8th Year before Last Year)

1
$3,000,000
$4,324,384
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

1
$3,134,646
$4,518,471
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

1
$3,279,089
$4,726,680
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

1
$3,427,347
$4,940,388
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

1
$3,584,848
$5,167,420
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

1
$3,747,809
$5,402,322
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

1
$3,920,140
$5,650,731
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.995255749
$4,081,822
$5,883,788
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.976024204
$4,187,677
$6,036,374
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.969173843
$4,349,878
$6,270,181
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.961639602
$4,384,799
$6,320,518
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

Technology Name:

Nuclear Reactor - WESTINGHOUSE AP 1000

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Start Year
2020
PLANT COST DATA
Average
0.964644349
Capital Cost per KW US
$7,488,175
Installed Cost US$/KW) Projected
$11,305,412
% Year0 (Last Year of Contruction)
2.5%
% Year1 (Next to Last Year of Contruction)
2.0%
% Year2 (2 years Before Last Year)
7.0%
% Year3 (3rd years Before Last Year)
15.5%
% Year4 (4th Year before Last Year)
22.0%
% Year5 (5th Year before Last Year)
21.0%
% Year6 (6th Year before Last Year)
18.0%
% Year7 (7th Year before Last Year)
10.0%
% Year8 (8th Year before Last Year)
2.0%

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

0.963676037
$7,973,430
$12,038,035
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.960713192
$8,471,698
$12,790,304
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.959457743
$9,016,143
$13,612,290
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.955852449
$9,572,496
$14,452,255
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.953573079
$10,174,249
$15,360,763
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.949859107
$10,796,543
$16,300,283
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.944158759
$11,430,101
$17,256,809
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.940201511
$12,121,367
$18,300,460
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.932995402
$12,809,145
$19,338,847
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

High
Capital Cost per KW US
Installed Cost US$/KW) Projected
% Year0 (Last Year of Contruction)
% Year1 (Next to Last Year of Contruction)
% Year2 (2 years Before Last Year)
% Year3 (3rd years Before Last Year)
% Year4 (4th Year before Last Year)
% Year5 (5th Year before Last Year)
% Year6 (6th Year before Last Year)
% Year7 (7th Year before Last Year)
% Year8 (8th Year before Last Year)

0.971341646
$11,572,110
$20,477,968
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.970553946
$12,324,394
$21,809,208
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.968142796
$13,102,311
$23,185,807
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.967120687
$13,947,854
$24,682,078
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.964184047
$14,819,245
$26,224,087
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.962326321
$15,758,052
$27,885,398
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.959297539
$16,734,420
$29,613,175
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.954644414
$17,736,931
$31,387,215
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.951410986
$18,824,811
$33,312,323
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.945516215
$19,922,390
$35,254,596
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

Low
Capital Cost per KW US
Installed Cost US$/KW) Projected
% Year0 (Last Year of Contruction)
% Year1 (Next to Last Year of Contruction)
% Year2 (2 years Before Last Year)
% Year3 (3rd years Before Last Year)
% Year4 (4th Year before Last Year)
% Year5 (5th Year before Last Year)
% Year6 (6th Year before Last Year)
% Year7 (7th Year before Last Year)
% Year8 (8th Year before Last Year)

0.957943976
$4,436,960
$6,395,706
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.9567963
$4,501,987
$6,489,439
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.953286026
$4,556,196
$6,567,580
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.951799247
$4,620,324
$6,660,018
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.947531733
$4,671,872
$6,734,322
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.944835296
$4,730,334
$6,818,594
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.940444434
$4,780,450
$6,890,833
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.933711637
$4,817,767
$6,944,625
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.929042276
$4,865,297
$7,013,137
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

0.920549195
$4,892,664
$7,052,585
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
15.5%
22.0%
21.0%
18.0%
10.0%
2.0%

Technology Name:

Nuclear Reactor - WESTINGHOUSE AP 1000

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


Year=2009
Average
Fixed Cost ($/kW-Year)
$147.7
Variable Cost ($/MWh)
$5.27
Costs this Year
FUEL COST DATA
Fuel Use - Delete this item
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low

Low
$147.7
$5.27

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.75
$0.87
$0.64

$0.79
$0.92
$0.67

$0.82
$0.94
$0.69

$0.85
$0.96
$0.73

$0.88
$0.99
$0.76

$0.91
$1.01
$0.80

$0.94
$1.04
$0.84

10,400
10,400
10,400

10,400
10,400
10,400

10,400
10,400
10,400

10,400
10,400
10,400

10,400
10,400
10,400

10,400
10,400
10,400

10,400
10,400
10,400

$0.63
$0.65
$0.68
$0.72
$0.74
$0.74
$0.78
$0.83
$0.53
$0.57
$0.59
$0.62
NEEDS TO ACCOUNT FOR EFFEICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
Costs this Year

FUEL COST DATA


Fuel Use - Delete this item
Fuel Cost $/mmBtu)
Average
High
Low
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Average
High
Low

High
$147.7
$5.27

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

$0.97
$1.06
$0.88

$1.00
$1.10
$0.89

$1.02
$1.14
$0.90

$1.05
$1.17
$0.91

$1.07
$1.21
$0.93

$1.10
$1.25
$0.94

$1.12
$1.29
$0.95

$1.15
$1.33
$0.96

$1.17
$1.36
$0.98

$1.20
$1.40
$0.99

10,400
10,400
10,400

10,400
10,400
10,400

10,400
10,400
10,400

10,400
10,400
10,400

10,400
10,400
10,400

10,400
10,400
10,400

10,400
10,400
10,400

10,400
10,400
10,400

10,400
10,400
10,400

10,400
10,400
10,400

Technology Name:

Nuclear Reactor - WESTINGHOUSE AP 1000

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Average
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
High
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)
Low
Equity
Debt Financed:
Discount Rate (WACC)

Loan/Debt Term (Years)


Equipment Life (Years):
Economic/Book Life (Years)

Merchant
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
40.0%
15.19%
60.0%
6.71%
8.46%

IOU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
50.0%
11.74%
50.0%
5.94%
7.63%

POU
Capital
Cost of
Structure
Capital
0.0%
0.00%
100.0%
4.35%
4.35%

60.0%
40.0%
13.17%

18.00%
10.00%

55.0%
45.0%
10.65%

15.00%
9.00%

0.0%
100.0%
7.00%

0.00%
7.00%

35.0%
65.0%
7.21%

14.00%
6.00%

50.0%
50.0%
6.76%

10.00%
5.94%

0.0%
100.0%
4.00%

0.00%
4.00%

Average
20
40
40

High
20
30
40

Low
20
60
40

Technology Name:

Nuclear Reactor - WESTINGHOUSE AP 1000

All costs are in 2009 nominal dollars unless otherwise noted.


TAX INFORMATION/BENEFITS
Federal Tax
CA State Tax
Total Tax Rate
CA Avg. Ad Valorem Tax
CA Sales Tax

35.00%
8.84%
40.7%
1.07%
7.00%

Federal Tax Life (Years)


State Tax Life (Years)

Average
20
30

High
20
30

Low
20
30

Renewable Tax Benefits


Eligible For BETC
Eligible For Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Eligible For REPTC
Eligible For REPI
TDMA

Merchant
N
N
N
N
N

Average
IOU
N
N
N
N
N

POU
N
N
N
N
N

Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC)


BETC Limit ($)
BETC Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
BETC Calculation
Geothermal Depletion Allowance
Percentage Depletion
Limit (% Of Remaining Taxes)
Amount ($/kWh)
Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (REPTC)
Duration (Years)
REPTC Base Year
REPTC In Start Year
REPI Tier
REPI Tier Proportion Paid
REPI Duration
REPI Base Year
REPI In Start Year ($/kWh)
Installed Cost US$/KW) Projected
Westinghouse
Nuclear Energy Institute
Earth Track
Keystone Center
Moody's Investors Service
Florida P&L
KEMA (average $5,000)
including escalation and financing costs

Merchant
N
N
N
N
N

High
IOU
N
N
N
N
N

POU
N
N
N
N
N

Merchant
N
N
N
N
N

Low
IOU
N
N
N
N
N

POU
N
N
N
N
N

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

$25,000
25%
$0

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

15%
50%
0.019

8
2006
0.0108

8
2006
0.0108

8
2006
0.0108

8
2006
0.0108

8
2006
0.0108

8
2006
0.0108

8
2006
0.0108

8
2006
0.0108

8
2006
0.0108

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Tier 1
10
2006
0.000

Low
$3,200
$3,500
$3,100
$3,600
$5,000
$5,500
$4,000

High
$3,600
$4,500
$8,200
$4,000
$6,000
$8,100
$6,000

Appendix B
Responses to Workshop Comments
InAppendixBoftheFinalProjectReport,wewillincludeasummaryofcommentsreceivedat
theApril16workshopandcommentsreceivedinresponsetotheInterimProjectReport.The
summarywillincludeadescriptionofhowtheresearchteamrespondedtoeachcomment(e.g.,
whetherchangeswereincorporated,whetherthecommentwasdeemedoutofscope,or
whetheraresponsetothecommentwasdeferredduetotheneedforadditionalresearch).

APB1