search

quintel / etsource

Data source for the Energy Transition Model
https://energytransitionmodel.com/
MIT License
12 stars 8 forks source link

Costs for CHPs are unsatisfactory after update based on Energy Matters numbers #272

Closed AlexanderWirtz closed 10 years ago

AlexanderWirtz commented 11 years ago

I belatedly noticed that the EnergyMatters report has made some strange assumptions in assigning O&M costs to fixed and variable O&M, meaning marginal costs for CHPs vary between 0 and way too high. To do:

This issue cannot be left open if we want to deploy the CHP numbers

AlexanderWirtz commented 11 years ago

Correspondence with EnergyMatters got the following reply from Peter Goudswaard:

De O&M kosten van gasgestookte WKK zijn voor een groot deel variabel, maar dit verschilt wel per type. Je kunt uitgaan van:

  • Gasmotoren: 100% variabel
  • Gasturbine & STEG:2/3 variabel; 1/3 vast
  • Voor biowkk’s hebben we dit in de tabel al opgesplitst
  • Voor kolencentrales en AVI’s is het grootste deel van de O&M-kosten juist weer vast.

N.B.: this says nothing about biogas engines, which have only fixed O&M costs in EM analysis. Awaiting their response on this matter.

ChaelKruip commented 11 years ago

To do

ChaelKruip commented 11 years ago

part of https://github.com/quintel/inputexcel/issues/135

AlexanderWirtz commented 11 years ago

I have spoken to Peter Goudswaard and we agreed on the following:

AlexanderWirtz commented 11 years ago

industry_chp_turbine_gas_power_fuelmix

I have played around with the O&M costs for industry_chp_turbine_gas_power_fuelmix. I have tried to make the O&M costs comparable to the energy_power_turbine_network_gas and to see if this gives an approximate 2/3, 1/3 variable / fixed ratio, as was recommended by Peter Goudswaard in an email.

I suggest using the following:

O&M fixed: 6 EUR/kWe = 270,000 EUR/year
O&M variable: 2.75 EUR/MWh = 123.75 EUR/LFH

This is based on the following numbers for energy_power_turbine_network_gas:

O&M fixed: 6.18 EUR/kWe 
O&M variable: 2.8 EUR/MWh

The Fixed O&M are slightly lower for the CHP than for the power plant option. The Variable O&M are almost the same for the CHP as for the power plant option. 

N.B.: It is not obvious that the power plant and CHP should have the same EUR/MWh, as they have different FLH and different capacities. These numbers worked, however, and are consistent with Peter Goudswaard's recommendation above.

AlexanderWirtz commented 11 years ago

This commit results in the corrected costs for industry_chp_turbine_gas_power_fuelmix: 68b2a3db5ca583c7b52411f4bb7927e8e563f895

AlexanderWirtz commented 11 years ago

energy_chp_combined_cycle_network_gas

I have played around with the O&M costs for energy_chp_combined_cycle_network_gas. I have tried to make the O&M costs comparable to the energy_power_combined_cycle_network_gas and to see if this gives an approximate 2/3, 1/3 variable / fixed ratio, as was recommended by Peter Goudswaard in an email.

I suggest using the following:

O&M fixed:  11.333  EUR/kWe =  1,356,000  EUR/year
O&M variable:  1.62 EUR/MWh =  194.4 EUR/FLH =  1,166,400 EUR/year

This is based on the following numbers for energy_power_combined_cycle_network_gas:

O&M fixed:  11.3333 EUR/kWe  
O&M variable:  1.609 EUR/MWh

I have kept the fixed O&M costs (EUR/kWe) the same and simply allocated the rest of the annual O&M costs listed in the EnergyMatters report to variable costs. As long as they are slightly higher than for the power plant, this does not seem terribly wrong, but may need to be revisited in the future. N.B.

  1. It is not obvious that the power plant and CHP should have the same EUR/MWh, as they have different FLH and different capacities. I have opted for slightly higher CHP variable O&M costs in EUR/MWh
  2. Note that we did not achieve the 2/3 variable, 1/3 fixed ratio for CCGT
AlexanderWirtz commented 11 years ago

industry_chp_combined_cycle_gas_power_fuelmix

I have played around with the O&M costs for industry_chp_combined_cycle_gas_power_fuelmix. I have tried to make the O&M costs comparable to the energy_power_combined_cycle_network_gas and to see if this gives an approximate 2/3, 1/3 variable / fixed ratio, as was recommended by Peter Goudswaard in an email.

I suggest using the following:

O&M fixed: 11.3333  EUR/kWe = 1,133,333 EUR/year
O&M variable: 2.1 EUR/MWh = 210.0 EUR/FLH = 1,680,000 EUR/year

This is based on the following numbers for energy_power_combined_cycle_network_gas:

O&M fixed:  11.3333 EUR/kWe  
O&M variable:  1.609 EUR/MWh

I have kept the fixed O&M costs (EUR/kWe) the same and simply allocated the rest of the annual O&M costs listed in the EnergyMatters report to variable costs. As long as they are slightly higher than for the power plant, this does not seem terribly wrong, but may need to be revisited in the future.

N.B.

  1. It is not obvious that the power plant and CHP should have similar EUR/MWh, as they have different FLH and different capacities. I have opted for slightly CHP variable O&M higher costs in EUR/MWh
  2. Note that we did not achieve the 2/3 variable, 1/3 fixed ratio for CCGT
AlexanderWirtz commented 11 years ago

energy_chp_supercritical_waste_mix

I have no idea how to split O&M costs for the energy_chp_supercritical_waste_mix. The power plant turns out to have weird and obsolete cost numbers, so that is no source of inspiration.

Instead I suggest we make all O&M fixed. This plant will NEVER take part in the merit order, as it has to keep running to dispose of waste and if it is not running, there is no available waste or it is broken.

Therefore I suggest using the following:

O&M fixed: 80  EUR/kWe = 4,800,000 EUR/year
O&M variable: 0 EUR/MWh = 0 EUR/FLH = 0 EUR/year

N.B. We will need to research costs for energy_power_supercritical_waste_mix to get some proper values here. Maybe after that we will be able to make a better split.

AlexanderWirtz commented 11 years ago

energy_chp_ultra_supercritical_coal

I have played around with the O&M costs for energy_chp_ultra_supercritical_coal. The energy_power_ultra_supercritical_coal power plant really only provided inspiration for this split and it is not well-researched. I noticed that variable O&M for energy_power_ultra_supercritical_coal are slightly higher than for energy_power_combined_cycle_network_gas plants. I used this to set the O&M variable costs for energy_chp_ultra_supercritical_coal slightly higher than for energy_chp_combined_cycle_network_gas. I allocated the rest of the costs to fixed O&M.

I suggest using the following:

O&M fixed: 46.4 EUR/kWe = 27,840,000 EUR/year
O&M variable: 2.2 EUR/MWh =  1,320.0 EUR/FLH = 10,560,000 EUR/year

This is based on the following numbers for energy_power_ultra_supercritical_coal:

O&M fixed: 20.0 EUR/kWe  
O&M variable: 1.728 EUR/MWh

N.B.

  1. Note that I used pretty much the opposite procedure as for gas-fired plants. There is no real justification for this.
AlexanderWirtz commented 11 years ago

Assigned to @ChaelKruip for sanity checks. See checkboxes in comment somewhere above.

AlexanderWirtz commented 11 years ago

I believe the industry_chp_ultra_supercritical_coal still needs to be done (see: https://github.com/quintel/inputexcel/issues/284)

AlexanderWirtz commented 11 years ago

The costs used in the deploys above have not been compensated for the average_effective_output_of_nominal_capacity_over_lifetime. This means they are not correct (they apply to slightly different converters).

As we were looking at this issue, it became apparent that something goes wrong in the costs calculation for variable O&M costs. Input values for EUR/FLH do not result in the expected annual variable O&M costs per plant in EUR/year. A separate issue has been created to deal with this. #286

Putting this issue on hold until #286 has been closed.

AlexanderWirtz commented 11 years ago

Removing CHPs milestone. Adding CHP cleanup II milestone, but would like to resolve this before then

ChaelKruip commented 11 years ago

Removing label 'priority'

ChaelKruip commented 10 years ago

Putting this on hold until quintel/etsource#571 is closed.

ChaelKruip commented 10 years ago

@AlexanderWirtz what's the status / planning?

AlexanderWirtz commented 10 years ago

The following CHPs may need their costs, re-defined. Several things are wrong with them, probably related to this issue here and to the move from InputExcel and phasing out the average_output_of_etc attribute (see https://github.com/quintel/etsource/issues/571)

AlexanderWirtz commented 10 years ago

energy_chp_ultra_supercritical_coal

I have once again played around with the costs for this CHP and note that the power plant does not provide adequate numbers to go on. Nothing close to those numbers relates in the same O&M total costs as listed in the EnergyMatters source (38,400,000 EUR/yr for a 600 MWe CHP plant). These cost I used below mean the total O&M costs for this plant would have been the same as in the EnergyMatters source, if we had used a 600 MWe and 8000 FLH plant, which we didn't.

Fixed O&M

I chose to use the 46.4 EUR/kWe from the description above. For an 695.7 MWe plant this means: 32,278,261 EUR/yr

Variable O&M

I chose to keep the 2.2 EUR/MWhe = 1,530.43 EUR/FLH for the 695.7 MWe, 4500 FLH plant

Investment costs

I also increased the investment costs in the .ad file wrt to the EnergyMatters specifications. Note that I made them higher than the energy_power_ultra_supercritical_coal costs, WHICH I ALSO UPDATED TO FIX A ROUNDING ERROR The CHP plant investment cost according to the strict EUR/kWe definition should be lower, but the CHP with the same size outputs less power. Still the CHP shouldn't be cheaper, but more expensive than the coal plant, since it is a CHP and requires more hardware. For that reason I increased investment coasts to: 1700 EUR/kWe or 1,182,608,696 EUR/plant for the 695.7 MWe plant

AlexanderWirtz commented 10 years ago

energy_chp_ultra_supercritical_cofiring_coal

I have played around with the costs for this CHP by assuming both fixed and variable O&M costs are going to be a bit higher than its non-cofiring cousin. Note that the co-firing power plant has lower output capacity than the non-cofiring coal plant of 800 MWe, due to the efficiency drop (from 46 % to 42%, so from 800 MWe to 730.43... MWe. It is the latter capacity that is used to calculate the drop in output capacity due to heat delivery by the CHP version.

Fixed O&M

I chose to use the 48.0 EUR/kWe vs 46.4 EUR/kWe for the non-cofiring CHP For a 643.5 MWe plant this means: 30,886,957 EUR/yr

Variable O&M

I chose to use 2.4 EUR/MWhe = 1,544.35 EUR/FLH for the 643.5 MWe, 4500 FLH plant, which is slightly higher than the 2.2 EUR/MWhe for the non-cofiring CHP

Investment costs

I also increased the investment costs in the .ad file wrt to the EnergyMatters specifications. Note that I made them higher than the energy_power_ultra_supercritical_cofiring_coal costs, WHICH I ALSO UPDATED TO MAKE SUYRE THEY WERE HIGHER THAN A PLAIN COAL PLANT The CHP plant investment cost according to the strict EUR/kWe definition should be lower, but the CHP with the same size outputs less power. Still the CHP shouldn't be cheaper, but more expensive than the coal plant, since it is a CHP and requires more hardware. For that reason I increased investment coasts to: 2050 EUR/kWe or 1,319,130,435 EUR/plant for the 643.5 MWe plant

AlexanderWirtz commented 10 years ago

energy_chp_ultra_supercritical_lignite

I have played around with the costs for this CHP by assuming both fixed and variable O&M costs are going to be the same as for the coal-fired CHP plant, since I have nothing else to go on. I adjusted the output efficiencies and capacities by taking the 40% electrical efficiency for lignite as basis and then lowering this by the same proportion as happens for coal. This leads to:

Fixed O&M

I chose to use the 46.4 EUR/kWe. For a 700 MWe plant this means: 32,480,000 EUR/yr

Variable O&M

I chose to use 2.2 EUR/MWhe = 1,540 EUR/FLH for the 700 MWe, 5000 FLH plant

Investment costs

I also implemented the investment costs in the .ad file to be higher than the lignite power plant. The CHP plant investment cost according to the strict EUR/kWe definition should be lower, but the CHP with the same size outputs less power. Still the CHP shouldn't be cheaper, but more expensive than the coal plant, since it is a CHP and requires more hardware. For that reason I increased investment coasts to: 1550 EUR/kWe or 1,085,000,000 EUR/plant for the 700 MWe plant. It remains to be seen if this is correct.

ChaelKruip commented 10 years ago

How is this ticket actionable for me @AlexanderWirtz ?

AlexanderWirtz commented 10 years ago

energy_chp_supercritical_waste_mix

Some changes wrt costs etc in etsource. Fixed rounding of output capacity.

O&M costs

See description above

Investment costs

Fixed investment costs mis-type (126,000,000 --> 162,000,000)

AlexanderWirtz commented 10 years ago

buildings_collective_chp_wood_pellets and households_collective_chp_wood_pellets

Adjusted the heat output capacity and heat efficiency now that the CHP is 'CHP only' and the FLH correspond to the heat and power operation mode ( https://github.com/quintel/etdataset/issues/275 ) The employment numbers for these CHPs are not consistent, but will create a separate issue for that. Changed the Energy_Balance_Group to local CHPs for buildings.

Fixed O&M

For some reason this CHP was missing the fixed costs that EnergyMatters assigned them. I assigned exactly those costs.

Variable O&M

The variable O&M costs were almost correct (they needed correction due to the phasing out of average_effective_output_of_nominal_capacity_over_lifetime.

Investments

These were correct

AlexanderWirtz commented 10 years ago

industry_chp_turbine_gas_power_fuelmix

I only tweaked the output capacities to get rid of rounding errors.

AlexanderWirtz commented 10 years ago

Also updated:

The following CHPs I made small corrections to rounded output capacities and to variable O&M which were slightly off. I made them consistent with: /Dropbox/Quintel/Projects/CHP clean up Energy Matters/201310_chp_costs_v5.xlsx

AlexanderWirtz commented 10 years ago

Back to @ChaelKruip for the final 'To do'.

ChaelKruip commented 10 years ago

All seems well. Closing.