Baseload wind energy: modeling the competition between gas turbines and compressed air energy storage for supplemental generation |
| |
Authors: | Jeffery B. Greenblatt Samir Succar David C. Denkenberger Robert H. Williams Robert H. Socolow |
| |
Affiliation: | 1. Environmental Defense, Oakland, CA, USA;2. Princeton Environmental Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA;3. Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA;4. Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA |
| |
Abstract: | The economic viability of producing baseload wind energy was explored using a cost-optimization model to simulate two competing systems: wind energy supplemented by simple- and combined cycle natural gas turbines (“wind+gas”), and wind energy supplemented by compressed air energy storage (“wind+CAES”). Pure combined cycle natural gas turbines (“gas”) were used as a proxy for conventional baseload generation. Long-distance electric transmission was integral to the analysis. Given the future uncertainty in both natural gas price and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions price, we introduced an effective fuel price, pNGeff, being the sum of the real natural gas price and the GHG price. Under the assumption of pNGeff=$5/GJ (lower heating value), 650 W/m2 wind resource, 750 km transmission line, and a fixed 90% capacity factor, wind+CAES was the most expensive system at ¢6.0/kWh, and did not break even with the next most expensive wind+gas system until pNGeff=$9.0/GJ. However, under real market conditions, the system with the least dispatch cost (short-run marginal cost) is dispatched first, attaining the highest capacity factor and diminishing the capacity factors of competitors, raising their total cost. We estimate that the wind+CAES system, with a greenhouse gas (GHG) emission rate that is one-fourth of that for natural gas combined cycle plants and about one-tenth of that for pulverized coal plants, has the lowest dispatch cost of the alternatives considered (lower even than for coal power plants) above a GHG emissions price of $35/tCequiv., with good prospects for realizing a higher capacity factor and a lower total cost of energy than all the competing technologies over a wide range of effective fuel costs. This ability to compete in economic dispatch greatly boosts the market penetration potential of wind energy and suggests a substantial growth opportunity for natural gas in providing baseload power via wind+CAES, even at high natural gas prices. |
| |
Keywords: | Wind energy Compressed air energy storage (CAES) Greenhouse gas emissions |
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录! |
|