Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Power Purchasing Agreements”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2017

2016 Wind Technologies Market Report

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)’s Wind Technologies Market Report provides an annual overview of trends in the U.S. wind power market. You can find the report, a presentation, and a data file on the Files tab, below. Additionally, several data visualizations are available in the Data Visualizations tab. Highlights of this year’s report include: -Wind power additions continued at a rapid clip in 2016: $13 billion was invested in new wind power plants in 2016. In 2016, wind energy contributed 5.6% of the nation’s electricity supply, more than 10% of total electricity generation in fourteen states, and 29% to 37% in three of those states—Iowa, South Dakota, and Kansas. -Bigger turbines are enhancing wind project performance: Increased blade lengths, in particular, have dramatically increased wind project capacity factors, one measure of project performance. For example, the average 2016 capacity factor among projects built in 2014 and 2015 was 42.6%, compared to an average of 32.1% among projects built from 2004 to 2011 and 25.4% among projects built from 1998 to 2001. -Low wind turbine pricing continues to push down installed project costs: Wind turbine prices have fallen from their highs in 2008, to $800–$1,100/kW. Overall, the average installed cost of wind projects in 2016 was $1,590/kW, down $780/kW from the peak in 2009 and 2010. -Wind energy prices remain low: After topping out at nearly 7¢/kWh for power purchase agreements (PPAs) executed in 2009, the national average price of wind PPAs has dropped to around 2¢/kWh—though this nationwide average is dominated by projects that hail from the lowest-priced Interior region of the country (such as Texas, Iowa, Oklahoma). These prices, which are possible in part due to federal tax support, compare favorably to the projected future fuel costs of gas-fired generation. -The supply chain continued to adjust to swings in domestic demand for wind equipment: Wind sector employment reached a new high of more than 101,000 full-time workers at the end of 2016. For wind projects recently installed in the U.S., domestically manufactured content is highest for nacelle assembly (>90%), towers (65-80%), and blades and hubs (50-70%), but is much lower (<20%) for most components internal to the turbine. -Continued strong growth in wind capacity is anticipated in the near term: With federal tax incentives still available, though declining, various forecasts for the domestic market show expected wind power capacity additions averaging more than 9,000 MW/year from 2017 to 2020.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2016

Brownfields to Brightfields: A Sustainability Initiative at DOE'S East Tennessee Technology Park Cleanup - 16120

As DOE works toward completing their cleanup mission at the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP), the ultimate goal is to return property no longer needed for government use to the community for beneficial re-use. The vision for ETTP is to transform the former gaseous diffusion facility into a commercial industrial park, leveraging the site's infrastructure to attract businesses to the site. While hundreds of acres at ETTP have been transferred for re-use, areas within the former production footprint of the site have future use restricted due to the presence of residual contamination, underground structures and utilities and/or physical features that limit their reuse potential. Brownfield redevelopment with solar energy generation has proven to be an excellent option for beneficial reuse and sustainability thanks to the flexible nature of solar photovoltaic technology and design that can address the restrictions and limitations of the site. Developing a solar project on a cleanup site can be challenging due to a large number of stakeholders and regulatory compliance issues of the environmental legacy at DOE cleanup sites; however, the challenges can be offset by the available infrastructure and low cost property. The requirement for large amounts of land or surface area is a major constraint to the growth of photovoltaic solar systems. An average solar generating facility requires 2 or more hectares (5 acres) for each megawatt (MW) of power generated. Re-using land that is otherwise un-developable provides a cost effective site for renewable energy generation to innovative solar developers. At ETTP, DOE's Oak Ridge Office of Environmental Management and the community reuse organization (Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee - CROET) supported a local small business (Restoration Services, Inc. - RSI) familiar with the site and environmental regulations to secure a power purchase agreement with the regional electric provider (Tennessee Valley Authority - TVA) for a 1 MW utility-scale photovoltaic solar facility. The solar facility, Powerhouse Six, was developed through a commercial partnership (RSI and Vis Solis, Inc.) that worked closely with the lead ETTP site cleanup contractor (URS-CH2M Oak Ridge LLC - UCOR) and the local government. The selected site at ETTP had limitations on subsurface disturbance to 10 feet below ground surface because of utility ducts and residual contamination. Near surface relics (facility foundation remnants) were also found to prohibit ground penetration. A photovoltaic solar design using a ballasted ground mount system was developed to conform to the restrictions. The ballasted system could follow existing land contours, eliminating the need for any extensive site preparation and avoiding the risk of ground penetration. The lead cleanup contractor's role in facilitating the completion of this project included making the necessary environmental assessment documentation available to obtain the construction notice to proceed from the regional electric provider. They accelerated the transfer of ETTP power lines and electric demand to the city electric department to accommodate connection to the electric grid and supplied the communication connection required for metering the electric power generation. DOE's support along with their cleanup contractor's re-industrialization program and power integration group provided regular communication with the project stakeholders for more than six months to facilitate the early transfer of the utility infrastructure. Powerhouse Six sustainability benefits: - Generates enough clean energy to power more than 100 homes or prevents pollution equivalent to removing 240 cars from the road annually (1,141 metric tons of carbon dioxide); - Provides Brownfield reuse/redevelopment at ETTP; - Eliminates the generation of wastes through excavation and saves money to cleanup other areas for re-use; - Supports regional electric provider's renewable energy initiative; - Offers community economic development/ jobs and property tax income to the City of Oak Ridge; - Demonstrates benefit of ETTP re-industrialization; - Provides long-term lease payments to the community reuse organization; - Supports DOE renewable energy goals; - Demonstrates collaboration between DOE and a public utility for renewable energy development. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2011

Procuring Stationary Fuel Cells For CHP: A Guide for Federal Facility Decision Makers

Federal agency leaders are expressing growing interest in using innovative fuel cell combined heat and power (CHP) technology at their sites, motivated by both executive branch sustainability targets and a desire to lead by example in the transition to a clean energy economy. Fuel cell CHP can deliver reliable electricity and heat with 70% to 85% efficiency. Implementing this technology can be a high efficiency, clean energy solution for agencies striving to meet ambitious sustainability requirements with limited budgets. Fuel cell CHP systems can use natural gas or renewable fuels, such as biogas. Procuring Stationary Fuel Cells for CHP: A Guide for Federal Facility Decision Makers presents an overview of the process for planning and implementing a fuel cell CHP project in a concise, step-by-step format. This guide is designed to help agency leaders turn their interest in fuel cell technology into successful installations. This guide concentrates on larger (100 kW and greater) fuel cell CHP systems and does not consider other fuel cell applications such as cars, forklifts, backup power supplies or small generators (<100 kW). Because fuel cell technologies are rapidly evolving and have high up front costs, their deployment poses unique challenges. The electrical and thermal output of the CHP system must be integrated with the building s energy systems. Innovative financing mechanisms allow agencies to make a make versus buy decision to maximize savings. This guide outlines methods that federal agencies may use to procure fuel cell CHP systems with little or no capital investment. Each agency and division, however, has its own set of procurement procedures. This guide was written as a starting point, and it defers to the reader s set of rules if differences exist. The fuel cell industry is maturing, and project developers are gaining experience in working with federal agencies. Technology improvements, cost reductions, and experienced project developers are making fuel cell projects easier to put into service. In this environment, federal decision makers can focus on being smart buyers of fuel cell energy instead of attempting to become experts in fuel cell technology. For agencies that want to pursue a fuel cell CHP this guide presents a four step process for a successful project. 1. Perform a preliminary screening of the energy needs energy costs and incentives. 2. Compare a detailed project plan. 3. Make a financing and contracting decision. 4. Execute the project plan including financing, installation, and operation. The simplest procurement method is designated funding for the outright purchase of the fuel cell CHP system, although this is usually not the most cost-effective option. This guide describes the following financing options: Power purchase agreement Energy savings performance contract Utility energy services contract Enhanced use lease Fuel cell CHP technology can help federal facility managers comply with agency objectives for reducing energy consumption and air pollution emissions. Fuel cells do not generate particulate pollutants, unburned hydrocarbons or the gases that produce acid rain. Fuel cells emit less carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) than other, less efficient technologies and use of renewable fuels can make them carbon neutral. Fuel cell CHP technology can deliver reliable electricity and heat with high efficiency (70% to 85%) in a small physical footprint with little noise, making it a cost-effective option for federal facilities.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Concentrating solar thermal power in the U.S.: lessons from setbacks at Ivanpah, light for the future

Concentrating solar thermal power (CSP) exhibits promise as a source of firm electricity. The proposed termination of Ivanpah’s power purchase agreement hinders confidence in the country’s CSP future. This work highlights how the lack of thermal energy storage (TES) undermined the first-of-a-kind plant’s economics as California’s grid transformed. Then, possible futures of the Ivanpah facility are analyzed; results show retrofitting with state-of-the-art TES systems could provide better returns.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Decision support for United States—Canada energy integration is impaired by fragmentary environmental and electricity system modeling capacity

The renewable energy transition is leading to increased electricity trade between the United States and Canada, with Canadian hydropower providing firm lower-carbon power and buffering variability of wind and solar generation in the U.S. However, long-term power purchase agreements and transborder transmission projects are controversial, with two of four proposed transmission lines between Quebec, Canada and the northeast U.S. cancelled since 2018. Here, we argue that controversies are exacerbated by a lack of open-source data and tools to understand tradeoffs of new hydropower generation and transmission infrastructure in comparison to alternatives. This gap includes impacts that incremental transmission and generation projects have on the economics of the entire system, for example, how new transmission projects affect exports to existing markets or incentivize new generation. We identify priority areas for data synthesis and model development, such as integrating linked hydropower and hydrologic interactions in energy system models and openly releasing (by utilities) or back-calculating (by researchers) hydropower generation and operational parameters. Publicly available environmental (e.g. streamflow, precipitation) and techno-economic (e.g. costs, reservoir size,) data can be used to parameterize freely usable and extensible models. Existing models have been calibrated with operational data from Canadian utilities that are not publicly available, limiting the range of scientific and commercial questions these tools have been used to answer and the range of parties that have been involved. Studies conducted using highly resolved, national-scale public data exist in other countries, notably, the United States, and demonstrate how greater transparency and extensibility can drive industry action. Improved data availability in Canada could facilitate approaches that (1) increase participation in decarbonization planning by a broader range of actors; (2) allow independent characterizations of environmental, health, and economic outcomes of interest to the public; and (3) identify decarbonization pathways consistent with community values.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2017

Utility-Scale Solar 2016: An Empirical Analysis of Project Cost, Performance, and Pricing Trends in the United States

The utility-scale solar sector has led the overall U.S. solar market in terms of installed capacity since 2012. In 2016, the utility-scale sector installed more than 2.5 times as much new capacity as did the residential and commercial sectors combined, and is expected to maintain its dominant position for at least another five years. This report—the fifth edition in an ongoing annual series—provides data-driven analysis of the utility-scale solar project fleet in the United States. We analyze not just installed project prices, but also operating costs, capacity factors, and power purchase agreement ("PPA") prices from a large sample of utility-scale PV and CSP projects throughout the United States. Highlights from this year's edition include the following: Installation Trends: The use of solar tracking devices dominated 2016 installations, at nearly 80% of all new capacity. In a reflection of the ongoing geographic expansion of the market beyond California and the Southwest, the median long-term average insolation level at newly built project sites declined again in 2016. While new fixed-tilt projects are now seen predominantly in less-sunny regions, tracking projects are increasingly pushing into these same regions. The median inverter loading ratio has stabilized in 2016 at 1.3 for both tracking and fixed-tilt projects. Installed Prices: Median installed PV project prices within a sizable sample have fallen by two-thirds since the 2007-2009 period, to $2.2/WAC (or $1.7/WDC) for projects completed in 2016. The lowest 20th percentile of projects within our 2016 sample were priced at or below $2.0/WAC, with the lowest-priced projects around $1.5/WAC. Overall price dispersion across the entire sample and across geographic regions decreased significantly in 2016. Operation and Maintenance (“O&M”) Costs: What limited empirical O&M cost data are publicly available suggest that PV O&M costs were in the neighborhood of $18/kWAC-year, or $8/MWh, in 2016. These numbers include only those costs incurred to directly operate and maintain the generating plant. Capacity Factors: The cumulative net AC capacity factors of individual PV projects range widely, from 15.4% to 35.5%, with a sample median of 26.3%. This project-level variation is based on a number of factors, including the strength of the solar resource at the project site, whether the array is mounted at a fixed-tilt or on a tracking mechanism, the inverter loading ratio, degradation, and curtailment. Changes in at least the first three of these factors drove mean capacity factors higher from 2010- to 2013-vintage projects, where they’ve remained fairly steady among both 2014- and 2015-vintage projects as an ongoing increase in the prevalence of tracking has been offset by a build-out of lower resource sites. Meanwhile, several of the newer CSP projects in the United States are struggling to match long-term performance expectations. PPA Prices: Driven by lower installed project prices and improving capacity factors, levelized PPA prices for utility-scale PV have fallen dramatically over time. Most recent PPAs in our sample are priced at or below $50/MWh levelized, with a few priced as aggressively as ~$30/MWh. Though impressive in pace and scale, these falling PPA prices have been offset to some degree by declining wholesale market value within high penetration markets like California, where in 2016 a MWh of solar generation was worth just 83% of a MWh of flat, round-the-clock generation. At the end of 2016, there were at least 121.4 GW of utility-scale solar power capacity within the interconnection queues across the nation. The growth within these queues is widely distributed across all regions of the country: California and the Southeast each account for 23% of the 83.3 GW of solar that first entered the queues in 2016, followed by the Northeast (17%), the Southwest (16%), the Central region (12%), Texas (6%) and the Northwest (3%). The widening geographic distribution of solar projects is a clear sign that the utility-scale market is maturing and expanding outside of its traditional high-insolation comfort zones.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Hybrid Power Plants: Status of Operating and Proposed Plants, 2022 Edition [Slides]

Falling battery prices and the growth of variable renewable generation are driving a surge of interest in “hybrid” power plants that combine, for example, wind or solar generating capacity with co-located batteries. While most of the current interest involves pairing photovoltaic (PV) plants with batteries, other types of hybrid or co-located plants with wide-ranging configurations have been part of the U.S. electricity mix for decades. This annually updated briefing tracks and maps existing hybrid or co-located plants across the United States while also synthesizing data mined from power purchase agreements (PPAs) and generation interconnection queues to shed light on near- and long-term development pipelines. The scope includes co-located hybrid plants that pair two or more generators and/or that pair generation with storage at a single point of interconnection, and full hybrids that feature co-location and co-control. The focus is on plants with one megawatt (MW) or more of capacity; smaller (often behind-the-meter) projects are also increasingly common, but are not included in this data synthesis. Key findings from the latest briefing include: -At the end of 2021, there were nearly 300 hybrid plants (>1 MW) operating across the United States, totaling nearly 36 gigawatts (GW) of generating capacity and 3.2 GW/8.1 GWh of energy storage. PV+storage plants are by far the most common, dominating in terms of plant number (140), storage capacity (2.2 GW/7.0 GWh), storage:generator ratio (53%), and storage duration (3.2 hours). But there are nearly twenty other hybrid plant configurations as well, including several different fossil hybrid categories (each dominated by the fossil component) as well as wind+storage, wind+PV, wind+PV+storage, geothermal+PV, and others. -Last year was a breakout year for PV+storage hybrids in particular: 67 of the 74 hybrids added in 2021 were PV+storage. By the end of 2021, there were more GW of battery capacity installed in PV+storage hybrids (2.2 GW) than as standalone storage plants (1.8 GW). The difference is even starker in energy terms, with PV+storage plants hosting twice as much battery capacity as standalone storage plants (7 GWh vs. 3.5 GWh, respectively). Much of the battery capacity added in hybrid form in 2021 was a battery retrofit to a pre-existing PV plant. -Data on plants under development from the interconnection queues of all seven ISOs/RTOs plus 35 individual utilities suggest that these hybridization trends are likely to continue. At the close of 2021, there were more than 670 GW of solar plants in the nation’s queues; 285 GW (~42%) of this capacity was proposed as a hybrid, most typically pairing PV with battery storage (PV+storage represented nearly 90% of all hybrid capacity in the queues). For wind, 247 GW of capacity sat in the queues, with 19 GW (~8%) proposed as a hybrid, again most-often pairing wind with storage (wind+storage represented ~4% of all hybrid capacity in the queues). Meanwhile, nearly half of all storage in the queues is estimated to be part of a hybrid plant. While many of these proposed plants will not ultimately reach commercial operations, the depth of interest in hybrid plants—especially PV+storage—is notable.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2018

Utility-Scale Solar: Empirical Trends in Project Technology, Cost, Performance, and PPA Pricing in the United States – 2018 Edition

The utility-scale solar sector has led the overall U.S. solar market in terms of installed capacity since 2012. In 2017, the utility-scale sector accounted for nearly 60% of all new solar capacity, and is expected to maintain its market-leading position for at least another six years. Two-thirds of all states, representing all regions of the country, are now home to one or more utility-scale solar projects. This report—the sixth in an ongoing annual series—provides in-depth data-driven analysis of the utility-scale solar project fleet in the United States. Drawing on empirical project-level data from a wide range of sources, this report analyzes technology trends, installed project prices, operating costs, capacity factors, power purchase agreement ("PPA") prices, the levelized cost of solar energy (LCOE), and the market value of solar. Given its current preeminence in the market, utility-scale PV also dominates much of this report, though data from CPV and CSP projects are also presented where appropriate. Highlights from this year's edition include: -Installation and Technology Trends: The use of solar trackers dominated 2017 installations with nearly 80% of all new capacity. In a reflection of the ongoing geographic expansion of the market beyond California and the high-insolation Southwest, the median insolation level at newly built project sites declined again in 2017. While new fixed-tilt projects are now seen predominantly in less-sunny regions, tracking projects are increasingly pushing into these same regions. The median inverter loading ratio grew to 1.32 in 2017, allowing the inverters to operate closer to full capacity for a greater percentage of the day. -Installed Prices: Median installed PV project prices have steadily fallen by two-thirds since the 2007-2009 period, to $2.0/WAC (or $1.6/WDC) for projects completed in 2017. The lowest 20th percentile of projects within our 2017 sample were priced at or below $1.8/WAC, with the lowest-priced projects around $0.9/WAC. Overall price dispersion across the entire sample has decreased steadily every year since 2013; similarly, price variation across regions decreased in 2017. -Operation and Maintenance ("O&M") Costs: PV O&M costs were in the neighborhood of $16/kWAC-year, or $8/MWh, in 2017. These numbers include only those costs incurred to directly operate and maintain the generating plant. -Capacity Factors: The cumulative net AC capacity factors of individual projects vary widely, from 14.3% to 35.2%, with a sample median of 26.3%. This project-level variation is based on a number of factors, including the strength of the solar resource at the project site, whether the array is mounted at a fixed tilt or on a tracking mechanism, the inverter loading ratio, degradation, and curtailment. Changes in at least the first three of these factors drove mean capacity factors higher from 2010-vintage to 2013-vintage projects, where they've remained fairly steady among more-recent project vintages as an ongoing increase in the prevalence of tracking has been offset by a build-out of lower resource sites. -PPA Prices and LCOE: Driven by lower installed project prices and improving capacity factors, levelized PPA prices for utility-scale PV have fallen dramatically over time, by $20-$30/MWh per year on average from 2006 through 2012, with a smaller price decline of ~$10/MWh per year evident from 2013 through 2016. Most recent PPAs in our sample—including many outside of California and the Southwest—are priced at or below $40/MWh levelized (in real 2017 dollars), with a few priced as aggressively as ~$20/MWh. The median LCOE among operational PV projects in our sample has followed PPA prices lower, suggesting a relatively competitive market for PPAs. -Solar's Wholesale Energy Market Value: Falling PPA prices have been offset to some degree by a decline in the wholesale energy market value of solar within higher-penetration markets like California, where solar earned just 79% of the average price across all hours within CAISO's real-time wholesale energy market in 2017 (down from 125% back in 2012). In other markets with less solar penetration, however, solar's hourly generation profile still earns more than the average wholesale price (e.g., 127% in ERCOT, 112% in PJM). -Solar+Storage: Adding battery storage is one way to at least partially restore the value of solar, and three recent PV+storage PPAs in Nevada (each using 4-hour batteries sized at 25% of PV nameplate capacity) suggest that the incremental PPA price adder for storage has fallen to ~$5/MWh, down from ~$15/MWh just a year ago for a similarly configured project. As PV plus battery storage becomes more cost-effective, a number of developers are regularly offering it as a viable upgrade to standalone PV. At the end of 2017, there were at least 188.5 GW of utility-scale solar power capacity within the interconnection queues across the nation. The 2017 growth within these queues is widely distributed across all regions of the country, but is most pronounced in the up-and-coming Midwest region, which accounts for 27% of the 99.2 GW of new queue capacity. The widening geographic distribution is as clear of a sign as any that the utility-scale market is maturing and expanding outside of its traditional high-insolation comfort zones.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Using waste CO 2 from corn ethanol biorefineries for additional ethanol production: life‐cycle analysis

Abstract Corn ethanol plants generate high‐purity carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) while producing ethanol. If that CO 2 could be converted into ethanol by carbon capture and utilization technologies it would be possible to increase ethanol production more than 37% without additional corn grain inputs. Gas fermentation processes use microbes to convert carbon‐containing gases into ethanol and so have the potential to be used with the CO 2 from biorefineries for this purpose. However, as CO 2 utilization technologies for converting thermodynamically stable CO 2 are typically energy intensive, it is necessary to evaluate the related life‐cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (carbon intensities or CIs) to see whether there are actual emission reduction benefits. In this study, we evaluate the CIs of ethanol produced from high‐purity CO 2 in corn ethanol plants by gas fermentation plus electrochemical reduction. Our analysis shows that the sources of electricity and hydrogen are key drivers of CO 2 ‐based ethanol's GHG emissions. With wind electricity, the design cases show the potential of near‐zero CI ethanol (1.1 g CO 2 e/MJ), but that can increase to up to 331–531 g CO 2 e/MJ when today's U.S. Midwest electricity mix is used. To avoid the renewable electricity intermittency issue, we considered a power purchase agreement option using wind electricity 40% of the time and using the regional mix for the rest, which provides a 42% GHG emission reduction from the CI of gasoline. © 2020 The Authors and UChicago Argonne, LLC, Operator of Argonne National Laboratory. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining published by Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Policy choices and outcomes for offshore wind auctions globally

Offshore wind energy is rapidly expanding, facilitated largely through auctions run by governments. We provide a detailed quantified overview of utilised auction schemes, including geographical spread, volumes, results, and design specifications. Our comprehensive global dataset reveals heterogeneous designs. Although most auction designs provide some form of revenue stabilisation, their specific instrument choices vary and include feed-in tariffs, one-sided and two-sided contracts for difference, mandated power purchase agreements, and mandated renewable energy certificates. We review the schemes used in all eight major offshore wind jurisdictions across Europe, Asia, and North America and evaluate bids in their jurisdictional context. We analyse cost competitiveness, likelihood of timely construction, occurrence of strategic bidding, and identify jurisdictional aspects that might have influenced auction results. We find that auctions are embedded within their respective regulatory and market design context, and are remarkably diverse, though with regional similarities. Auctions in each jurisdiction have evolved and tend to become more exposed to market price risks over time. Less mature markets are more prone to make use of lower-risk designs. Still, some form of revenue stabilisation is employed for all auctioned offshore wind energy farms analysed here, regardless of the specific policy choices. Our data confirm a coincidence of declining costs and growing diffusion of auction regimes.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2012

Multnomah County Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study: Final Feasibility Study Report

HDR has completed a study of the technical, regulatory, and economic feasibility of installing hydrokinetic turbines under the Morrison, Broadway, and Sellwood bridges. The primary objective of installing hydrokinetic turbines is a demonstration of in-stream hydrokinetic technologies for public education and outreach. Due to the low gradient of the Lower Willamette and the effects of the tide, velocities in the area in consideration are simply not high enough to economically support a commercial installation. While the velocities in the river may at times provide enough energy for a commercial turbine to reach capacity, the frequency and duration of high flow events which provide suitable velocities is not sufficient to support a commercial hydrokinetic installation. We have observed that over an 11 year period, daily average velocities in the Lower Willamette exceeded a nominal cut-in speed of 0.75 m/s only 20% of the time, leaving net zero power production for the remaining 80% of days. The Sellwood Bridge site was estimated to have the best hydrokinetic resource, with an estimated average annual production of about 9,000 kWh. The estimated production could range from 2,500 kWh to 15,000 kWh. Based on these energy estimates, the amount of revenue generated through either a power purchase agreement (PPA) or recovered through net metering is not sufficient to repay the project costs within the life of the turbine. The hydrokinetic resource at the Morrison and Broadway Bridges is slightly smaller than at the Sellwood Bridge. While the Broadway and Morrison Bridges have existing infrastructure that could be utilized, the project is not expected to generate enough revenue to repay the investment. Despite low velocities and energy production, the sites themselves are favorable for installation of a demonstration or experimental project. With high public interest in renewable energy, the possibility exists to develop a hydrokinetic test site which could provide developers and scientists a location to temporarily deploy and test hydrokinetic devices, and also function as an educational tool for the general public. Bridge piers provide an excellent pre-existing anchor point for hydrokinetic devices, and existing infrastructure at the Morrison and Broadway Bridges may reduce installation costs. Opportunity exists to partner with local universities with engineering and environmental interest in renewable energy. A partnership with Portland State University's engineering school could provide students with an opportunity to learn about hydrokinetics through senior design projects. Oregon State University and University of Washington, which are partnered through the Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center (NNMREC) to study and test hydrokinetic technology, are also relatively local to the site. In addition to providing an opportunity for both public and private entities to learn technically about in-stream kinetics, this approach will encourage grant funding for outreach, education, and product development, while also serving as a positive community relations opportunity for the County and its partners.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2013

Feasibility Study of Economics and Performance of Solar Photovoltaics at the Vincent Mullins Landfill in Tucson, Arizona

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in accordance with the RE-Powering America's Land initiative, selected the Vincent Mullins Landfill in Tucson, Arizona, for a feasibility study of renewable energy production. Under the RE-Powering America's Land initiative, the EPA provided funding to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to support the study. NREL provided technical assistance for this project but did not assess environmental conditions at the site beyond those related to the performance of a photovoltaic (PV) system. The purpose of this report is to assess the site for a possible PV installation and estimate the cost and performance of different PV configurations, as well as to recommend financing options that could assist in the implementation of a PV system. In addition to the Vincent Mullins site, four similar landfills in Tucson are included as part of this study. The feasibility of a PV system depends greatly on both site-specific and economic factors. Site specific factors include the available area for an array, solar resource, distance to transmission lines, and distance to major roads. In addition, the operating status, ground conditions, and restrictions associated with redevelopment of contaminated sites impact the feasibility of a PV system. Economic factors include purchase price of the electricity produced, power purchase agreement (PPA) price, and retail electric rates along with federal, state, and utility incentives for PV systems. Based on an assessment of these factors, the Vincent Mullins Landfill and other closed landfills in Tucson were found to be suitable sites for deployment of utility-scale PV systems. This study evaluated two development scenarios for implementing large-scale PV systems on Tucson’s landfills—one in which the city owns and operates the system, and one where a private entity is allowed to develop the site using a PPA. Table ES-1 summarizes the predicted economics of the two scenarios along with the system size, energy production, and cost.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2013

Cayuga County Regional Digester: Vision Becomes Reality. Final Report

With an average herd size of 113 mature cows, Cayuga County is home to 280 dairy farms and 31,500 dairy milking cows producing approximately 855 million gallons of milk per year. The Cayuga Dairy industry is a major contributor to the countys economy, employing nearly 1200 people, while generating $140,000,000 of revenue from sale of milk alone. At the same time, the Cayuga County dairy industry also produces 5.7 million gallons of manure daily: (a) Nearly 34% of this manure is produced on smaller farms. (b) Digesters are expensive pieces of equipment and require attention and care. ( c) The on-farm digester systems have fairly long payback (>10 years) even for larger CAFO farms (>1000 milking cows). In 2005, Cayuga County Soil and Water Conservation District (The District), a Public Agency under Cayuga County, decided to undertake a centralized community digester project. The primary goal of the project was to develop an economically sustainable model, under the auspices of The District to address manure management issues facing the smaller dairies, improve the water quality and improve the quality of life for Cayuga County residents. It is believed that the District has accomplished this goal by completing construction of Cayuga County Regional Digester on a parcel of land behind the Cayuga County Natural Resource Center located at 7413 County House Road in the Town of Sennett in Cayuga County, New York. The digester facility consists of the following major components. 1. Transfer Station: This an indoor truck bay, where 35,000 gallons of manure from three local farms, 8,500 gallons of liquid organic food-processor waste, and 1,200 gallons of brown grease are unloaded from tanker trucks and the digested slurry is loaded onto the tanker trucks for delivery back to the participating farms. 2. Anaerobic Digester: The project utilizes a hydraulic mix anaerobic digester, a unique design that has no internal moving parts for mixing. The digester, which operates at mesophilic temperatures, is designed to process the daily feedstock and produce 220,000 SCF2 of biogas per day. The digester also produces 44,000 gallons of digested slurry per day. 3. Biogas Conditioning System: The plant employs a biological biogas conditioning system to remove the H2S and moisture contents of the biogas and prepare it to be used by the plant generation system. 4. Combined Heat and Power System (CHP): This is a 633kW high efficiency biogas-fired GE-Jenbacher model JMS-312 GS-NL reciprocating engine cogeneration system. The heat recovery system incorporated into the package is designed to capture the waste heat from the engine exhaust, the jacket cooling water and the engine oil circuit. 5. Electrical Substation and Power Distribution Systems: An electrical distribution system has been constructed on-site that aggregates the electrical service of the different county buildings on the District campus into a county owned electric distribution system that is interconnected with the CHP and the local electric grid. The electrical system is designed, in accordance with the utility guidelines, to allow grid-parallel operation of CHP and provide for import and export of electric power. 6. Thermal Energy Distribution System: The heat recovery system has been integrated into a high temperature water distribution system that distributes the heat to the thermal circuits for the anaerobic digester facility. Additional piping has also been installed to transfer the remaining thermal energy to other county buildings on the campus. On a daily basis, the plant will co-process 35,000 gallons of manure from local dairy farms, 8,500 gallons of food-processor waste and 1,200 gallons of brown grease to produce 200,000 ft3/d of biogas and 44,000 gallons of pathogen-free nutrient-rich digested slurry for agricultural use by farms and in the local area.The biogas fueled CHP produces 5,157,000 kWh of electricity and 19,506 dekatherms of thermal energy per year. Electrical power generated by the cogeneration system powers all the buildings on the Cayuga County campus and any surplus power is exported to the grid under a power purchase agreement. Heat recovered from the cogeneration system will be used to maintain the temperature of the process equipment and the excess will be transported to the Cayuga County Public Safety Building to offset purchase of fossil fuel to fuel the boilers. The majority of plant operations are unmanned and automated. However, the plant will have a small staff of well-trained personnel to coordinate the feedstock deliveries and shipments, supervise the day-to-day operation, monitor the systems and perform maintenance, maintain a safe and reliable operation and to respond to emergencies.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2013

2012 Market Report on U.S. Wind Technologies in Distributed Applications

At the end of 2012, U.S. wind turbines in distributed applications reached a 10-year cumulative installed capacity of more than 812 MW from more than 69,000 units across all 50 states. In 2012 alone, nearly 3,800 wind turbines totaling 175 MW of distributed wind capacity were documented in 40 states and in the U.S. Virgin Islands, with 138 MW using utility-scale turbines (i.e., greater than 1 MW in size), 19 MW using mid-size turbines (i.e., 101 kW to 1 MW in size), and 18.4 MW using small turbines (i.e., up to 100 kW in size). Distributed wind is defined in terms of technology application based on a wind project’s location relative to end-use and power-distribution infrastructure, rather than on technology size or project size. Distributed wind systems are either connected on the customer side of the meter (to meet the onsite load) or directly to distribution or micro grids (to support grid operations or offset large loads nearby). Estimated capacity-weighted average costs for 2012 U.S. distributed wind installations was $\$$2,540/kW for utility-scale wind turbines, $\$$2,810/kW for mid-sized wind turbines, and $\$$6,960/kW for newly manufactured (domestic and imported) small wind turbines. An emerging trend observed in 2012 was an increased use of refurbished turbines. The estimated capacity-weighted average cost of refurbished small wind turbines installed in 2012 was $\$$4,080/kW. As a result of multiple projects using utility-scale turbines, Iowa deployed the most new overall distributed wind capacity, 37 MW, in 2012. Nevada deployed the most small wind capacity in 2012, with nearly 8 MW of small wind turbines installed in distributed applications. In the case of mid-size turbines, Ohio led all states in 2012 with 4.9 MW installed in distributed applications. State and federal policies and incentives continued to play a substantial role in the development of distributed wind projects. In 2012, U.S. Treasury Section 1603 payments and grants and loans from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Energy for America Program were the main sources of federal funding for distributed wind projects. State and local funding varied across the country, from rebates to loans, tax credits, and other incentives. Reducing utility bills and hedging against potentially rising electricity rates remain drivers of distributed wind installations. In 2012, other drivers included taking advantage of the expiring U.S. Treasury Section 1603 program and a prosperous year for farmers. While 2012 saw a large addition of distributed wind capacity, considerable barriers and challenges remain, such as a weak domestic economy, inconsistent state incentives, and very competitive solar photovoltaic and natural gas prices. The industry remains committed to improving the distributed wind marketplace by advancing the third-party certification process and introducing alternative financing models, such as third-party power purchase agreements and lease-to-own agreements more typical in the solar photovoltaic market. Continued growth is expected in 2013.

distributed wind↗
DOE OSTI2014

System Advisor Model, SAM 2014.1.14: General Description

This document describes the capabilities of the U.S. Department of Energy and National Renewable Energy Laboratory's System Advisor Model (SAM), Version 2013.9.20, released on September 9, 2013. SAM is a computer model that calculates performance and financial metrics of renewable energy systems. Project developers, policy makers, equipment manufacturers, and researchers use graphs and tables of SAM results in the process of evaluating financial, technology, and incentive options for renewable energy projects. SAM simulates the performance of photovoltaic, concentrating solar power, solar water heating, wind, geothermal, biomass, and conventional power systems. The financial model can represent financial structures for projects that either buy and sell electricity at retail rates (residential and commercial) or sell electricity at a price determined in a power purchase agreement (utility). SAM's advanced simulation options facilitate parametric and sensitivity analyses, and statistical analysis capabilities are available for Monte Carlo simulation and weather variability (P50/P90) studies. SAM can also read input variables from Microsoft Excel worksheets. For software developers, the SAM software development kit (SDK) makes it possible to use SAM simulation modules in their applications written in C/C++, C#, Java, Python, and MATLAB. NREL provides both SAM and the SDK as free downloads at http://sam.nrel.gov. Technical support and more information about the software are available on the website.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2014

To Own or Lease Solar: Understanding Commercial Retailers' Decisions to Use Alternative Financing Models

This report examines the tradeoffs among financing methods for businesses installing onsite photovoltaics (PV). We present case studies of PV financing strategies used by two large commercial retailers that have deployed substantial U.S. PV capacity: IKEA, which owns its PV, and Staples, which purchases power generated from onsite PV systems through power purchase agreements (PPAs). We also analyze the financial considerations that influence any company's choice of PV financing strategy. Our goal in this report is to clarify the financial and institutional costs and benefits of financing strategies and to inform other companies that are considering launching or expanding similar PV programs.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Better Buildings NW Ohio

When the Toledo Lucas County Port Authority (TLCPA) filed for the Department of Energy EECBG grant in late 2009, it was part of a strategic and Board backed objective to expand the organization’s economic development and financing programs into alternative energy and energy efficiency. This plan was filed with the knowledge and support of the areas key economic development agencies. The City of Toledo was also a key partner with the Mayor designating a committee to develop a Strategic Energy Policy for the City. This would later give rise to a Community Sustainability Strategic Plan for Toledo, Lucas County and the surrounding region with energy efficiency as a key pillar. When the TLCPA signed the grant documents with the DOE in June of 2010, the geographic area was severely distressed economically, in the early stages of a recovery from over a 30% drop in business activity and high unemployment. The TLCPA and its partners began identifying potential project areas well before the filing of the application, continuing to work diligently before the formal award and signing of the grant documents. Strong implementation and actions plans and business and financing models were developed and revised throughout the 3 year grant period with the long term goal of creating a sustainable program. The TLCPA and the City of Toledo demonstrated early leadership by forming the energy improvement district and evaluating buildings under their control including transportation infrastructure and logistics, government services buildings and buildings which housed several for profit and not for profit tenants while completing significant energy efficiency projects that created public awareness and confidence and solid examples of various technologies and energy savings. As was stated in the DOE Award Summary, the undertaking was focused as a commercial program delving into Alternative Energy Utility Districts; what are referred to in Ohio Statute as Energy Special Improvement Districts or ESIDs and what is nationally known as Property Assessed Clean Energy or PACE districts and PACE financing. The project methodology followed the identify, develop, implement, monitor and measure format. These districts began in Toledo and adjoining areas and are expanding to TLCPA’s 28 county financing agency geographic footprint. What began as the Toledo Ohio Advanced Energy Improvement Corporation is now doing business as the Northwest Ohio Advanced Energy Improvement District recognizing it expansion into creating and financing other districts in NW Ohio. The program has been sought out as an advisor by major communities and states in the process of developing similar legislation and programs and has become one of the largest most successful PACE energy improvement and financing districts in the US. The program and the energy district focused on transforming energy use, delivery, conservation and renewable energy as “options of first choice”. The significant energy savings paid for many of the improvements and created a financially viable program well beyond the grant period. The program has become a model within the State of Ohio and Nationally on how to implement and finance projects in broad energy districts including how to evolve and integrate several financing methodologies. It is a unique utilization of revolving loan funds and energy bond pooling with revenue backing primarily from energy improvement special assessments on commercial properties along with some power purchase agreement (PPA) and loan agreement revenue. The program has also incorporated Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds, State of Ohio Energy Loans (SEP), utility rebates, solar and renewable energy certificates, renewable tax incentives and grants, and owner funded equity as additional program leverage and funding. Other keys to this success have been a continual simplification and refinement of the application and documentation process to make funding available easily and quickly to building owners when they are prepared to commit to the project as well as act as a trusted facilitator and advisor to both building owners and other stakeholders. Taking a flexible and pragmatic approach to project evaluation and implementation that matches time and expense to the complexity of the project has been another key learning. To date the program has closed 3 energy bond issues through the TLCPA sponsored and managed NW Ohio Bond Fund totaling $16.54 million (of which $3.34 million were QECB qualified). The program has turned over its $3.0 million revolving loan fund twice as construction financing in advance of bond issuance and currently has issued $1.25 million in revolving term loans. The program has $1.66 million of remaining capacity for QECB qualified bonds. The program can issue an additional $13.46 million in energy bonds continuing to utilize its DOE EECBG loan loss reserves. In addition, the program has available $3.6 million of loan loss reserves from the State of Ohio, as an eligible Port Authority, that can back the issuance of an additional $7.2 to $14.4 million of energy bonds. This does not include additional bond capacity is available from the NW Ohio Bond Fund. The program is the master escrow agent for $18 million of loan loss reserves from the State of Ohio for eligible Port Authorities that can be utilized to assist the formation of energy districts and financing programs in major metropolitan areas and regions around the State of Ohio. Other leveraged funds now total $10 million; placing the total project value completed and financed at over $30 million. In addition that program has generated an active pipeline of projects in various stages that total $25 – $30 million.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗