Techno-Economic Analysis of Utility-Scale Solar Photovoltaic Plus Battery Power Plant
<p>The analytical framework for this study.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Long-term average PV output of the island of Mauritius, 1999–2018 [<a href="#B32-energies-14-08145" class="html-bibr">32</a>].</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Site location and northern part of Mauritius island [<a href="#B33-energies-14-08145" class="html-bibr">33</a>].</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Daily GHI, DNI, DHI at Solitude, Mauritius.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Variation of LCOE with ILR for fixed-tilt system.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Variation of AC capacity factor with ILR for fixed-tilt systems.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Variation of annual AC inverter average and marginal clipping loss for fixed-tilt systems.</p> "> Figure 8
<p>Power generation profile for fixed-tilt system with storage of 3 h and ILR = 1.6.</p> "> Figure 9
<p>Comparison of % marginal clipping loss between fixed and single axis tracking.</p> "> Figure 10
<p>Percentage increase in generation of single over fixed tilt.</p> "> Figure 11
<p>Percentage decrease in LCOE brought by single axis tracking over fixed tilt.</p> "> Figure 12
<p>Relationship between percentage increase in LCOE versus percentage increase in curtailment for fixed-tilt systems.</p> "> Figure 13
<p>Variation of curtailment rate with ILR for different battery capacities for Scenario IV (fixed tilt).</p> "> Figure 14
<p>Sensitivity analyses results.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Assess the impacts of design parameters such as ILR, battery size, and type of tracking on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of the PVB system.
- Determine whether the PVB installation can provide an adequate capacity factor for the evening peak.
- Quantify the impacts of curtailment on the LCOE of the PVB. This is an important aspect because many power grids, having already integrated relatively large amounts of VRE, are finding it challenging to accept further increases. Thus, in some cases, operators are resorting to curtailment when the integration limits are reached.
- Compare the LCOE of selected configurations of PVB with that of conventional generation used for peaking in the case of Mauritius and determine whether PVB is a viable candidate generation technology for generation planning in the island.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Site Selection
2.2. Meteorological Data
2.3. Technical Parameters
2.4. System Costs and Financial Parameters
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Base Case
3.2. Effect of Single Axis Tracking on Performance of the PV Plus Battery System
3.3. Capacity to Serve the Peak Demand
3.4. Effect of Curtailment
- Scenario I:
- Curtailment on Sundays from 10:00 to 14:00 during the winter season (mid-May to mid-October)
- Scenario II:
- Same as Scenario I plus Saturdays from 10:00 to 14:00 during the winter season.
- Scenario III:
- Same as scenario II plus Sundays from 10:00 to 14:00 during summer.
- Scenario IV:
- Saturdays and Sundays from 10:00 to 14:00 during the whole year.
3.5. Sensitivity Analysis
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- The United Nations. Paris Agreement; The United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- IEA. The Role of CCUS in Low-Carbon Power Systems 2020; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- IRENA. Renewable Power Generation Costs 2020; International Renewable Energy Agency: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- IRENA. Electricity Storage and Renewables: Costs and Market to 2030; International Renewable Energy Agency: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- IEEFA. Solar-Plus-Storage Projects Spreading across the U.S. n.d. Available online: https://ieefa.org/solar-plus-storage-projects-spreading-across-the-u-s/ (accessed on 15 April 2021).
- PV Magazine. Chinese 202 MW/MWh Solar-Plus-Storage Project. 2020. Available online: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/05/20/chinese-202-mw-mwh-solar-plus-storage-project/ (accessed on 15 April 2021).
- Energy Storage News. France’s Island Territories Get Solar-Plus-Storage At Average Price below € 100/Mwh in Latest Auction. 2021. Available online: https://www.energy-storage.news/news/frances-island-territories-get-solar-plus-storage-at-average-price-below-10 (accessed on 15 April 2021).
- Denholm, P.L.; Margolis, R.M.; Eichman, J.D. Evaluating the Technical and Economic Performance of PV Plus Storage Power Plants; National Renewable Energy Laboratoty (NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2017. [CrossRef]
- DiOrio, N.; Denholm, P.; Hobbs, W.B. A model for evaluating the configuration and dispatch of PV plus battery power plants. Appl. Energy 2020, 262, 114465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roy, S.; Sinha, P.; Ismat Shah, S. Assessing the Techno-Economics and Environmental Attributes of Utility-Scale PV with Battery Energy Storage Systems (PVS) Compared to Conventional Gas Peakers for Providing Firm Capacity in California. Energies 2020, 13, 488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Agyekum, E.B. Techno-economic comparative analysis of solar photovoltaic power systems with and without storage systems in three different climatic regions, Ghana. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2021, 43, 100906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perkins, G. Techno-economic comparison of the levelised cost of electricity generation from solar PV and battery storage with solar PV and combustion of bio-crude using fast pyrolysis of biomass. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 171, 1573–1588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gordon, J.M.; Fasquelle, T.; Nadal, E.; Vossier, A. Providing large-scale electricity demand with photovoltaics and molten-salt storage. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 135, 110261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laajimi, M.; Go, Y.I. Energy storage system design for large-scale solar PV in Malaysia: Techno-economic analysis. Renewables 2021, 8, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kosmadakis, I.E.; Elmasides, C.; Koulinas, G.; Tsagarakis, K.P. Energy unit cost assessment of six photovoltaic-battery configurations. Renew. Energy 2021, 173, 24–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luerssen, C.; Gandhi, O.; Reindl, T.; Sekhar, C.; Cheong, D. Levelised Cost of Storage (LCOS) for solar-PV-powered cooling in the tropics. Appl. Energy 2019, 242, 640–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Khori, K.; Bicer, Y.; Koç, M. Comparative techno-economic assessment of integrated PV-SOFC and PV-Battery hybrid system for natural gas processing plants. Energy 2021, 222, 119923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schleifer, A.H.; Murphy, C.A.; Cole, W.J.; Denholm, P.L. The evolving energy and capacity values of utility-scale PV-plus-battery hybrid system architectures. Adv. Appl. Energy 2021, 2, 100015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bullich-Massagué, E.; Cifuentes-García, F.-J.; Glenny-Crende, I.; Cheah-Mañé, M.; Aragüés-Peñalba, M.; Díaz-González, F.; Gomis-Bellmunt, O. A review of energy storage technologies for large scale photovoltaic power plants. Appl. Energy 2020, 274, 115213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lo Franco, F.; Morandi, A.; Raboni, P.; Grandi, G. Efficiency Comparison of DC and AC Coupling Solutions for Large-Scale PV+BESS Power Plants. Energies 2021, 14, 4823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edoo, M.N.; Ah King, R.T.F. New insights into the technical challenges of the Mauritius long term energy strategy. Energy 2020, 195, 116975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- NREL. System Advisor Model 2021. Available online: https://sam.nrel.gov/ (accessed on 17 March 2021).
- Heine, K.; Thatte, A.; Tabares-Velasco, P.C. A simulation approach to sizing batteries for integration with net-zero energy residential buildings. Renew. Energy 2019, 139, 176–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aly, A.; Bernardos, A.; Fernandez-Peruchena, C.M.; Jensen, S.S.; Pedersen, A.B. Is Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) a feasible option for Sub-Saharan Africa?: Investigating the techno-economic feasibility of CSP in Tanzania. Renew. Energy 2019, 135, 1224–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hirbodi, K.; Enjavi-Arsanjani, M.; Yaghoubi, M. Techno-economic assessment and environmental impact of concentrating solar power plants in Iran. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 120, 109642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kassem, A.; Al-Haddad, K.; Komljenovic, D. Concentrated solar thermal power in Saudi Arabia: Definition and simulation of alternative scenarios. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 80, 75–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- San Miguel, G.; Corona, B. Economic viability of concentrated solar power under different regulatory frameworks in Spain. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 91, 205–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wikipedia. Mauritius. 2021. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauritius (accessed on 17 March 2021).
- The Commonwealth n.d. Available online: https://thecommonwealth.org/our-member-countries/mauritius (accessed on 13 October 2019).
- Ministry of Energy and Public Utilities. Mauritius Renewable Energy Roadmap 2030; Ministry of Energy and Public Utilities: Port Louis, Mauritius, 2019.
- World Bank. ESMAP. In Global Photovoltaic Power Potential by Country; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Global Solar Atlas 2.0, A Free, Web-Based Application Developed and Operated by the Company Solargis S.R.O. On Behalf of the World Bank Group, Utilizing Solargis Data, With Funding Provided by the Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP). n.d. Available online: https://globalsolaratlas.info/download/mauritius (accessed on 17 March 2021).
- Google Earth Pro. Mauritius n.d. Available online: https://www.google.com/earth/versions/#earth-pro (accessed on 17 March 2021).
- European Commission. European Commission PV GIS. 2021. Available online: https://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvg_tools/en/tools.html#TMY (accessed on 9 October 2020).
- IRENA. Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2019; International Renewable Energy Agency: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Shea, R.P.; Ramgolam, Y.K. Applied levelized cost of electricity for energy technologies in a small island developing state: A case study in Mauritius. Renew. Energy 2019, 132, 1415–1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayward, J.A.; Graham, P.W. Electricity Generation Technology Cost Projections n.d:36; CSIRO: Victoria, Australia, 2017.
- Cole, W.; Frazier, A. Cost Projections for Utility-Scale Battery Storage: 2020 Update; National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2020. [CrossRef]
- WorleyParsons RSA (Pty) Ltd. Assessing the Potential of Using Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) for Electricity Generation in Mauritius; WorleyParsons: Bellville, South Africa, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Seme, S.; Štumberger, B.; Hadžiselimović, M.; Sredenšek, K. Solar Photovoltaic Tracking Systems for Electricity Generation: A Review. Energies 2020, 13, 4224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- High Efficiency Real-Time 200 kw 500 kw 1 MW 2 MW Tracking Solar Tracker n.d. Available online: https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/High-Efficiency-Real-time-200kw-500kw_62535878914.html?spm=a2700.pc_countrysearch.main07.122.5c1b1fadm9wTuw (accessed on 22 March 2021).
- Mini Mechanical Ground And Roof Mounting 0.08 Kwh/D Solar Photovoltaic Tracker. 2021. Available online: https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Mini-Mechanical-Ground-And-Roof-Mounting_1600118203119.html?spm=a2700.details.0.0.6382433eUVWLUh (accessed on 22 March 2021).
- Carnegie Clean Energy. High Penetration Renewable Energy Roadmap for the Republic of Mauritius; Mauritius Research Council: Quatre Bornes, Mauritius, 2017. [Google Scholar]
Type of Coupling | Co-Located | Point of Common Coupling | Energy Stored |
---|---|---|---|
Independent | No | None | Grid (could include PV via market) |
AC-coupled | Yes | Transmission/feeder | Grid or PV |
DC-coupled | Yes | DC side of inverter | Grid or PV |
DC tightly coupled | Yes | DC side of inverter | Only PV |
Parameter | Value | Parameter | Value |
---|---|---|---|
Location | −20.076, 57.538 | Backtracking | Enable |
Resource data | European Commission PV GIS | Self-shading | Standard (non-linear) |
PV Capacity | Depends on ILR | Module orientation | Portrait |
PV Module | YL310D-30b | Average annual soiling loss | 5% (default value) |
Inverter | SC750CP-US | Total DC power loss | 4.40% (default value) |
DC to AC Ratio (ILR) | 1 to 3 | AC Wiring loss | 1% (default value) |
Tracking | Fixed and 1 axis | Transformer no load and load losses | 0.0367% and 0.343%, respectively |
Tilt | 0° for 1 axis and equal to location’s latitude for fixed tilt | Transmission loss | 0.02% |
Azimuth | 0° | System availability (AC) loss | 1% |
Ground coverage ratio | 0.35 for 1 axis and 0.40 for fixed | Annual DC degradation rate | 0.5%/year (default) |
Tracker rotation limit | 45° |
Parameter | Value | Parameter | Value |
---|---|---|---|
Module cost | 0.38 $/Wdc | Engineering and developer overhead | 0.08 $/Wdc |
Inverter cost | 0.06 $/Wdc | Grid interconnection | 0.03 $/Wdc |
BOS equipment cost | 0.20 $/Wdc (fixed axis) 0.27 $/Wdc (single axis) | Land costs | USD 14,164.15/acre (for a lease period of 20 years) |
Installation labor | 0.13 $/Wdc (single axis) | Land prep. & transmission cost | 0.02 $/Wdc |
Installer margin and overhead | 0.06 $/Wdc | Battery DC capacity cost | 440.6 $/kWh and 85.2 $/kW |
Contingency | 3% | Battery replacement cost (after 10 years) | 224.1 $/kWh |
Permitting and environmental studies cost | 0.01 $/Wdc |
Battery Duration (h) | ILR at Minimum LCOE | Annual Generation—Year 1 (GWh) | LCOE Cents USD/kWh |
---|---|---|---|
0 | 1.0 | 25.6 | 7.9 |
1 | 1.4 | 34.5 | 11.6 |
2 | 1.6 | 37.7 | 14.5 |
3 | 2.0 | 44.3 | 16.6 |
4 | 2.3 | 51.0 | 17.9 |
5 | 2.6 | 58.6 | 18.6 |
Battery Duration (h) | Selected ILR | Annual Generation—Year 1 (GWh) | LCOE Cents USD/kWh |
---|---|---|---|
0 | 1.0 | 25.6 | 7.9 |
1 | 1.4 | 34.5 | 11.6 |
2 | 1.4 | 34.5 | 14.8 |
3 | 1.6 | 38.5 | 17.1 |
4 | 1.8 | 43.1 | 18.8 |
5 | 2.3 | 54.2 | 19.0 |
Battery Duration (h) | Selected ILR | Annual Generation—Year 1 (GWh) | LCOE Cents USD/kWh |
---|---|---|---|
0 | 1.0 | 31.1 | 7.0 |
1 | 1.3 | 39.3 | 10.3 |
2 | 1.4 | 41.4 | 12.8 |
3 | 1.4 | 41.6 | 15.4 |
4 | 1.5 | 44.1 | 17.4 |
5 | 1.7 | 49.1 | 18.8 |
Equivalent Availability Factor | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Battery Size | 1-h Battery | 2-h Battery | 3-h Battery | 4-h Battery | 5-h Battery |
Fixed tilt system | 96.3% | 96.6% | 96.5% | 96.3% | 96.4% |
Single axis system | 96.2% | 96.6% | 96.3% | 96.0% | 95.7% |
Storage Duration | ILR | Metric | Base Case | Scenario I | Scenario II | Scenario III | Scenario IV |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 1.0 | Curtailed energy | 0.0% | 3.0% | 6.2% | 10.6% | 14.7% |
LCOE (cents USD) | 7.9 | 8.1 | 8.4 | 8.8 | 9.2 | ||
LCOE as % of base | 100% | 103.0% | 106.6% | 111.8% | 117.1% | ||
1-h | 1.4 | Curtailed energy | 0.0% | 2.1% | 4.4% | 7.5% | 10.3% |
LCOE (cents USD) | 11.6 | 11.9 | 12.2 | 12.6 | 13.0 | ||
LCOE as % of base | 100% | 102.1% | 104.5% | 108.1% | 111.6% | ||
2-h | 1.4 | Curtailed energy | 0.0% | 1.2% | 2.6% | 4.7% | 6.4% |
LCOE (cents USD) | 14.8 | 14.9 | 15.1 | 15.5 | 15.8 | ||
LCOE as % of base | 100% | 100.7% | 102.0% | 104.7% | 106.8% | ||
3-h | 1.6 | Curtailed energy | 0.0% | 0.7% | 1.6% | 3.0% | 4.1% |
LCOE (cents USD) | 17.1 | 17.1 | 17.2 | 17.5 | 17.7 | ||
LCOE as % of base | 100% | 99.9% | 100.8% | 102.3% | 103.6% | ||
4-h | 1.8 | Curtailed energy | 0.0% | 0.6% | 1.4% | 2.6% | 3.6% |
LCOE (cents USD) | 18.8 | 18.7 | 18.8 | 19.1 | 19.2 | ||
LCOE as % of base | 100% | 99.5% | 100.3% | 101.4% | 102.4% | ||
5-h | 2.3 | Curtailed energy | 0.0% | 1.1% | 2.4% | 4.4% | 6.0% |
LCOE (cents USD) | 19.0 | 19.0 | 19.2 | 19.6 | 19.9 | ||
LCOE as % of base | 100% | 99.9% | 101.2% | 103.2% | 104.8% |
Storage Duration | ILR | Metric | Base Case | Scenario I | Scenario II | Scenario III | Scenario IV |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 1.0 | Curtailed energy | 0.0% | 2.3% | 4.7% | 8.5% | 12.0% |
LCOE (cents USD) | 7.0 | 7.2 | 7.4 | 7.7 | 8.0 | ||
LCOE as % of base | 100% | 102.3% | 105.0% | 109.3% | 113.6% | ||
1-h | 1.3 | Curtailed energy | 0.0% | 1.5% | 3.1% | 5.8% | 8.1% |
LCOE (cents USD) | 10.3 | 10.4 | 10.6 | 10.9 | 11.2 | ||
LCOE as % of base | 100% | 101.5% | 103.2% | 106.2% | 109.0% | ||
2-h | 1.4 | Curtailed energy | 0.0% | 0.8% | 1.8% | 3.6% | 5.0% |
LCOE (cents USD) | 12.8 | 12.9 | 13.0 | 13.3 | 13.5 | ||
LCOE as % of base | 100% | 100.7% | 101.7% | 103.7% | 105.4% | ||
3-h | 1.4 | Curtailed energy | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.5% | 1.5% | 2.1% |
LCOE (cents USD) | 15.4 | 15.4 | 15.4 | 15.6 | 15.7 | ||
LCOE as % of base | 100% | 100.1% | 100.5% | 101.5% | 102.3% | ||
4-h | 1.5 | Curtailed energy | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.3% | 0.9% | 1.4% |
LCOE (cents USD) | 17.4 | 17.4 | 17.4 | 17.5 | 17.6 | ||
LCOE as % of base | 100% | 99.7% | 99.8% | 100.5% | 100.9% | ||
5-h | 1.7 | Curtailed energy | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.6% | 1.6% | 2.4% |
LCOE (cents USD) | 18.8 | 18.7 | 18.8 | 19.0 | 19.1 | ||
LCOE as % of base | 100% | 99.8% | 100% | 100.9% | 101.7% |
PV Only | PV Plus 1 h | PV Plus 2 h | PV Plus 3 h | PV Plus 4 h | PV Plus 5 h | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fixed axis | LCOE of base case (cents USD) | 7.9 | 11.6 | 14.8 | 17.1 | 18.8 | 19.0 |
% variation LCOE from base case | +11% | +9% | +9% | +8% | +8% | +8% | |
Energy generated (GWh of year 1) in base case | 25.6 | 34.5 | 34.5 | 38.5 | 43.1 | 54.2 | |
% variation energy generated from base case | −10% | −8% | −8% | −7% | −8% | −8% | |
Single axis | LCOE of base case (cents USD) | 7.0 | 10.3 | 12.8 | 15.4 | 17.4 | 18.8 |
% variation LCOE from base case | +10% | +10% | +8% | +9% | +8% | +8% | |
Energy generated (GWh of year 1) in base case | 31.1 | 39.3 | 41.4 | 41.6 | 44.1 | 49.1 | |
% variation energy generated from base case | −10% | −8% | −7% | −8% | −8% | −8% |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Edoo, N.; Ah King, R.T.F. Techno-Economic Analysis of Utility-Scale Solar Photovoltaic Plus Battery Power Plant. Energies 2021, 14, 8145. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14238145
Edoo N, Ah King RTF. Techno-Economic Analysis of Utility-Scale Solar Photovoltaic Plus Battery Power Plant. Energies. 2021; 14(23):8145. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14238145
Chicago/Turabian StyleEdoo, Nawaz, and Robert T. F. Ah King. 2021. "Techno-Economic Analysis of Utility-Scale Solar Photovoltaic Plus Battery Power Plant" Energies 14, no. 23: 8145. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14238145