Schneider — Microgrid Analysis

Transcript

1. M I C R O G R I D A N A L Y S E S + S O L A R S T O R A G E
2. we need Microgrids
3. 1996 First Western electricity coordination council blackout 2M people affected in 14 states 2M PEOPLE 1996 Second Western electricity coordination council blackout 7M people affected in US & Canada 7M PEOPLE $42-45B EST. COST 2OO1 Summer Power Crisis in CA $6B EST. COST 2OO3 New England Blackout, 50M people affected, 2O13 SAN JOSE substation shooting 1977 Lightening causes blackout affecting 
 1OM people in NY $3OOM EST. COST 2OO5 Energy Policy Act 2OO7 Energy Independence Security Act (smart grid) 2OO9 Executive
 Order 13514 1994 2M PEOPLE lose power in western states
4. Microgrid: islanding
5. Renewables Storage Local 
 Site Utility
 Grid
6. the Key Drivers
7. LOW COST RELIABIILTY SECURITY
8. GRID OPTIMIZATION ENVIRONMENT REMOTE LOCATIONS
9. Regional Microgrid Generation 
 Capacities
10. Megawatts in 7OO SOUTHWEST 562 NORTHEAST 274 SOUTHEAST 211 WEST COAST 92 HAWAII 7O ALASKA 39 MIDWEST SOURCE: GMT
11. 39 MIDWEST COMMERCIAL MILITARY UNIVERSITY / 
 RESEARCH FACILITY 67 % 12 % 21 % SOURCE: GMT
12. We can do Better
13. 6OKW Solar + 6OKW Storage Expansion Plans 1.4 MW Solar Eliminated blackouts—
 no more teaching disruptions! Attained energy efficiency Cut peak load by 20% Integrated more distributed renewable energy resources http:/ /www.iitmicrogrid.net/microgrid.aspx
14. 6OKW Solar + 6OKW Storage Expansion Plans 1.4 MW Solar $5OOK Yearly Energy Savings http:/ /www.iitmicrogrid.net/microgrid.aspx
15. 28OKW Solar + 1 MW Li-On Battery Expansion Plans 1.5 MW Solar Sustainability + Clean Energy Cut down energy consumption by 50% Critical Reliability,
 frequency regulation services Peak-load demand & 
 Emergency back-up power http:/ /www.sheddaquarium.org/
16. $1OOK Yearly Energy Savings 28OKW Solar + 1 MW Li-On Battery Expansion Plans 1.5 MW Solar http:/ /www.sheddaquarium.org/
17. $1OOK $5OOK 28OKW Solar 1MW Li-On Battery 6OKW Solar 6OKW Storage CLAIMED ENERGY SAVINGS
18. $1OOK $5OOK ? CLAIMED ENERGY SAVINGS
19. = Sites under NU 
 Team Analysis Existing Microgrids Sites proposed by ComEd
20. = Sites under NU 
 Team Analysis Existing Microgrids Sites proposed by Comed There are 
 NO MICROGRIDS 
 in North 
 Chicagoland area.
21. = Sites under NU 
 Team Analysis Existing Microgrids Sites proposed by Comed YET! There are 
 NO MICROGRIDS 
 in North 
 Chicagoland area.
22. our Objective
23. Quantitative Analysis Qualitative Analysis Costs involved Payback period
 & savings Resiliency CO2 emissions Sustainability Efforts Microgrid 
 Modeling Tools Used HOMER DER-CAM ESVT
24. our Approach
25. Gather Data 1 12 months, 15 mins kW & kWh, utility tariff structure Cleanse 
 the data 2 Input Data 3 into HOMER, DER-CAM 
 & ESVT [simulation results] Analyze 
 the results 4 Compare & contrast outputs 5
26. Feature Matrix
27. HOMER DER-CAM ESVT Parent Organization NREL LBL EPRI Year Launched 2OOO 2OOO 2O13 User Base 1OO,OOO (193 countries) — (42 countries) — MOLP Electrical Loads Thermal Loads Model Type Simulation Optimization Optimization
28. Financial Analysis
29. Case Studies I II III
30. Energy Charge Demand Charge & Energy Consumption Time Demand (kW) Peak Load ENERGY CHARGE Energy Consumption* (Electric Charge/kWh) DEMAND CHARGE Energy Consumption* (Electric Charge/kWh) DEMAND CHARGE Peak Load * Demand Rate ($/kW/month)
31. Case Study # 1 Northwestern University (NU) is a private research university based in Evanston, Illinois, with campuses in Evanston & Chicago, Illinois, San Francisco, California and Doha, Qatar. LOCATION Evanston, IL FACILITY TYPE Research 
 University OWNERSHIP NPO
32. Tech Building Visitor’s Center North Campus SITE SELECTION
33. Tech Building Visitor’s Center North Campus SPACE
 CONSTRAINT POTENTIAL
 ALTERNATIVE Ideal location for both quantitative & qualitative benefits, Client’s Interest. ?
34. Annual Energy Cost $14,674 $89,984 Energy Charge Demand Charge ANNUAL ENERGY PROFILE Northwestern ENERGY CONSUMPTION ( kWh) 1,199,374 kWh PEAK LOAD ( kW ) 474 kW FLAT CHARGE 7.5 cents/kWh DEMAND RATE $4.5O/kW TOTAL ELECTRICITY CHARGE $ 1O4,658 COST OF ENERGY (COE) 8.71 cents/kWh
35. ENERGY 
 CONSUMPTION 
 ANALYSIS Daily Profile Seasonal Profile Yearly Profile days hours kW
36. HOMER 
 OUTPUT

37. DER-CAM 
 OUTPUT
 No Storage Suggested
38. Yearly investments & operational costs (k$) DER-CAM 
 OUTPUT

39. DER-CAM 
 OUTPUT
 Annualized Energy Costs (k$)
40. Optimal Dispatch for Electricity Technologies (January-week) DER-CAM 
 OUTPUT

41. ENERGY 
 SAVINGS Energy Charges Energy Savings PV ONLY (125 KW ) GRID ONLY SOLAR + STORAGE
 (175 KW + 400 KW ) Demand Charges Demand Savings ENERGY CHARGES $71,913 ENERGY SAVINGS $18,O71 DEMAND CHARGES $14,113 DEMAND SAVINGS $561 ENERGY CHARGES $77,2OO ENERGY SAVINGS $12,784 DEMAND CHARGES $14,171 DEMAND SAVINGS $5O3 TOTAL SAVINGS N/A TOTAL SAVINGS $ 13,287 TOTAL SAVINGS $ 18,632 COE/KWH 8.71 CENTS 7.O6 CENTS COE/KWH 7.1O CENTS COE/KWH ENERGY CHARGES $71,913 ENERGY SAVINGS N/A DEMAND CHARGES $14,113 DEMAND SAVINGS N/A
42. ENERGY 
 SAVINGS Energy Charges Energy Savings PV ONLY (125 KW ) GRID ONLY SOLAR + STORAGE
 (175 KW + 400 KW ) Demand Charges Demand Savings ENERGY CHARGES $71,913 ENERGY SAVINGS $18,O71 DEMAND CHARGES $14,113 DEMAND SAVINGS $561 ENERGY CHARGES $77,2OO ENERGY SAVINGS $12,784 DEMAND CHARGES $14,171 DEMAND SAVINGS $5O3 TOTAL SAVINGS N/A TOTAL SAVINGS $ 13,287 TOTAL SAVINGS $ 18,632 ENERGY CHARGES $71,913 ENERGY SAVINGS N/A DEMAND CHARGES $14,113 DEMAND SAVINGS N/A COE/KWH 8.71 CENTS 7.O6 CENTS COE/KWH 7.1O CENTS COE/KWH
43. FINANCIAL
 OUTCOME
 ASSUMPTIONS System Size 125 kW 175 kW + 4OO kW Project Payback 2.7 years 5.7 years IRR (2O Years) 26.8% 11.6% NPV $39O,123 $37O,557 CAPEX $O.34M $1.45M SOLAR ONLY SOLAR + STORAGE ANCILLARY SERVICES – 175 KW BATTERY 1. ITC Benefit: 3O% 2. Discount Rate: 6% 3. Demand Charge Escalator: 3% 4. Inflation: 2% 5. Solar Panel Cost: $1.5/Watt 6. Flow Battery Cost: $73O/kWh 1. Arbitrage - NA 2. Frequency Regulation: $34,O8O/year 3. Demand Response: $15,526/year
44. QUALITATIVE 
 BENEFITS Output from Homer QUANTITY ONLY GRID SOLAR + STORAGE % Change Carbon di Oxide 758,004 604,586 -20.24% Sulphur di Oxide 3,286 2,621 -20.24% Nitrogen Oxides 1,607 1,281 -20.29% Anuual Emissions Research Purpose Showcase Sustainability
45. Case Study # 2 Argonne National Laboratory is a science and engineering research national laboratory operated by UChicago. LOCATION Lemont, IL FACILITY TYPE Research 
 Lab OWNERSHIP Government
46. FAC_549A_
 SG_7_8.MAIN_T8 FAC_549A_
 SG_4.T4_MAIN FAC_376_
 SG5.MAIN FAC_549A_
 SG_7_8.MAIN_T7 FACILITY_
 544.Main_L2 FAC_549A_
 SG_3.T3_MAIN FAC_551.
 Main_T9 FAC_551.
 Main_T10 FACILITY_
 544.Main_L1_1 FAC_376_
 SG6.MAIN_1 $ 10100.65 M $ 9917.48 M $ 3839.93 M $ 13980.84 M $ 9610.35 M $ 2980.75 M $ 8578.47 M $ 8609.51 M $ 8079.69 M $ 4586.77 M SITE SELECTION Criteria 1. High Load 2. Client’s Interest 3. More variability *Interested only in storage/battery option. 1. High Load 2. Client’s Interest 3. More variability CRITERIA *INTERESTED ONLY IN 
 STORAGE/BATTERY OPTION. Criteria 1. High Load 2. Client’s Interest 3. More variability *Interested only in storage/battery option. kW Meter #
47. Annual Energy Cost $ .69 M $ 2.51 M Energy Charge Demand Charge ENERGY CONSUMPTION ( kWh ) 76,487,152 kWh PEAK LOAD ( kW ) 13,984 kW PEAK CHARGE 3.98 cents/kWh OFF-PEAK CHARGE 2.83 cents/kWh ANNUAL ELECTRICITY CHARGE $ 3.2OM DEMAND RATE PER MONTH $4.8O/kW COE 4.19 cents/kW ANNUAL ENERGY PROFILE Argonne National Lab
48. ENERGY 
 CONSUMPTION 
 ANALYSIS Daily Profile Seasonal Profile Yearly Profile
49. ENERGY 
 SAVINGS ENERGY CHARGES $2,482,814 ENERGY SAVINGS $25,49O DEMAND CHARGES $682,1OO DEMAND SAVINGS $17,715 ENERGY CHARGES $2,5O6,823 ENERGY SAVINGS $1,481 DEMAND CHARGES $683,212 DEMAND SAVINGS $16,6O3 TOTAL SAVINGS N/A TOTAL SAVINGS $ 18,O84 TOTAL SAVINGS $ 43,2O5 GRID ONLY SOLAR + STORAGE
 (500 KW + 1MW) STORAGE
 ONLY
 (1MW) COE/KWH 4.17 CENTS COE/KWH 4.14 CENTS COE/KWH 4.19 CENTS ENERGY CHARGES $2,5O8,304 ENERGY SAVINGS N/A DEMAND CHARGES $699,815 DEMAND SAVINGS N/A Energy Charges Energy Savings Demand Charges Demand Savings
50. ENERGY 
 SAVINGS ENERGY CHARGES $2,482,814 ENERGY SAVINGS $25,49O DEMAND CHARGES $682,1OO DEMAND SAVINGS $17,715 ENERGY CHARGES $2,5O6,823 ENERGY SAVINGS $1,481 DEMAND CHARGES $683,212 DEMAND SAVINGS $16,6O3 TOTAL SAVINGS N/A TOTAL SAVINGS $ 18,O84 TOTAL SAVINGS $ 43,2O5 GRID ONLY SOLAR + STORAGE
 (500 KW + 1MW) STORAGE
 ONLY
 (1MW) COE/KWH 4.17 CENTS COE/KWH 4.14 CENTS COE/KWH 4.19 CENTS ENERGY CHARGES $2,5O8,304 ENERGY SAVINGS N/A DEMAND CHARGES $699,815 DEMAND SAVINGS N/A Energy Charges Energy Savings Demand Charges Demand Savings
51. FINANCIAL
 OUTCOME
 ASSUMPTIONS STORAGE ONLY SOLAR + STORAGE* ANCILLARY SERVICES – 4OO KW BATTERY 1. ITC Benefit*: 3O% 2. Discount Rate: 6% 3. Demand Charge Escalator: 3% 4. Inflation: 2% 5. Solar Panel Cost: $1.5/Watt 6. Flow Battery Cost: $73O/kWh 1. Arbitrage: $6O,OOO/year 2. Frequency Regulation: $85,2OO/year 3. Demand Response: $38,814/year System Size 1 MW 5OO kW + 1 MW Project Payback 11 years 4.5 years IRR (2O Years) 6.2% 14.2% NPV $23,66O $1,3O8,3O2 CAPEX $2.62M $3.6M
52. QUALITATIVE 
 BENEFITS Output from Homer Anuual Emissions QUANTITY ONLY GRID SOLAR + STORAGE % Change Carbon di Oxide 48,339,880 47,881,392 -0.95% Sulphur di Oxide 209,575 207,587 -0.95% Nitrogen Oxides 102,439 101,521 -0.90% Resiliency & 
 Seamless Power Backup Showcase 
 Sustainability
53. Case Study # 3 Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Of Greater Chicago is the district’s seven modern water reclamation plants that provide excellent treatment for residential and industrial wastewater. LOCATION Cook County, IL FACILITY TYPE Waste Water Treatment 
 Plant OWNERSHIP Independent 
 Agency of State Government
54. Annual Energy Cost $ .85 M $ .38 M Energy Charge Demand Charge MWRD TOTAL ELECTRICITY CHARGE $ 1.23M ENERGY CONSUMPTION ( kWH ) 18,368,36O kWh PEAK LOAD ( kW ) 38O3 kW FLAT CHARGE 4.6 cents/kWh DEMAND RATE PER MONTH $1O.84/kW COE 6.69 cents/kWh ANNUAL ENERGY PROFILE
55. ENERGY 
 CONSUMPTION 
 ANALYSIS Daily Profile Seasonal Profile Yearly Profile
56. ENERGY 
 SAVINGS ENERGY CHARGES $816,473 ENERGY SAVINGS $29,299 DEMAND CHARGES $338,OO1 DEMAND SAVINGS $46,37O ENERGY CHARGES $845,899 ENERGY SAVINGS $-127 DEMAND CHARGES $338,OO1 DEMAND SAVINGS $46,37O TOTAL SAVINGS N/A TOTAL SAVINGS $ 46,243 TOTAL SAVINGS $ 75,669 GRID ONLY SOLAR + STORAGE
 (5OO KW + 6OO KW) STORAGE
 ONLY
 (6OO KW) COE/KWH 6.69 CENTS 6.4O CENTS COE/KWH 6.28 CENTS COE/KWH ENERGY CHARGES $845,772 ENERGY SAVINGS N/A DEMAND CHARGES $384,371 DEMAND SAVINGS N/A Energy Charges Energy Savings Demand Charges Demand Savings
57. ENERGY 
 SAVINGS ENERGY CHARGES $816,473 ENERGY SAVINGS $29,299 DEMAND CHARGES $338,OO1 DEMAND SAVINGS $46,37O ENERGY CHARGES $845,899 ENERGY SAVINGS $-127 DEMAND CHARGES $338,OO1 DEMAND SAVINGS $46,37O TOTAL SAVINGS N/A TOTAL SAVINGS $ 46,243 TOTAL SAVINGS $ 75,669 GRID ONLY SOLAR + STORAGE
 (5OO KW + 6OO KW) STORAGE
 ONLY
 (6OO KW) COE/KWH 6.69 CENTS 6.4O CENTS COE/KWH 6.28 CENTS COE/KWH ENERGY CHARGES $845,772 ENERGY SAVINGS N/A DEMAND CHARGES $384,371 DEMAND SAVINGS N/A Energy Charges Energy Savings Demand Charges Demand Savings
58. FINANCIAL
 OUTCOME
 ASSUMPTIONS ANCILLARY SERVICES – 600 KW BATTERY 1. Arbitrage: $36,OOO/year 2. Frequency Regulation: $51,12O/year 3. Demand Response: $11,643/year STORAGE ONLY SOLAR + STORAGE* System Size 6OO kW 5OO kW + 6OO kW Project Payback 8.2 years 3.9 years IRR (2O Years) 8.9% 17% NPV $29O,852 $1,343,352 CAPEX $1.61M $2.58M 1. ITC Benefit: 3O% 2. Discount Rate: 6% 3. Demand Charge Escalator: 3% 4. Inflation: 2% 5. Solar Panel Cost: $1.5/Watt 6. Flow Battery Cost: $73O/kWh
59. QUALITATIVE 
 BENEFITS Output from Homer Anuual Emissions QUANTITY ONLY GRID SOLAR + STORAGE % Change Carbon di Oxide 11,620,173 11,217,632 -3.46% Sulphur di Oxide 50,379 48,633 -3.47% Nitrogen Oxides 24,638 23,784 -3.46% Resiliency & 
 Seamless Power Backup Showcase 
 Sustainability
60. Risks & Mitigations
61. TECHNOLOGY CASH FLOW LOAD UTILITY Effects Mitigation Actual performance less than optimal O&M costs more than expected Customer 
 non-payment Incentives withheld or need verification Customer 
 load changes dramatically Utility changes tariff structure in a way that is unfavorable Performance 
 guarantee Meaningful Warranty EPC with hardware 
 specific experience Creditworthy customer Transparent 
 incentive programs For owner: Min. 
 required payments Customer 
 load changes dramatically For owner: 
 Specify acceptable changes to load
 in contract Support a powerful trade organization Faith in the current status-quo utility model
62. TECHNOLOGY LOAD Effects Mitigation Actual performance less than optimal O&M costs more than expected Customer 
 load changes dramatically Performance 
 guarantee Meaningful Warranty EPC with hardware 
 specific experience Customer 
 load changes dramatically For owner: 
 Specify acceptable changes to load
 in contract
63. Our Conclusion
64. The average Cost of Energy for all the analyzed sites are lower than the current 
 Cost of Energy in Illinois.
65. microgrids are 
 a viable option Despite this, when ITC and ancillary services are considered.
66. HOMER & DER-CAM are 
 more sophisticated tools compared to other tools available in the market. eg: ESVT, etc.
67. We learned some Lessons
68. what makes a + S OL A R STORAGE M AR KET Higher Utility
 Tariff Rates
 Generally
 > $O.1O/kWh Demand Charges 
 > $12.5/kW
 /Month Availability of 
 Ancillary 
 Services
69. What’s Next?
70. Description Solar PV and energy storage 
 savings are packaged 
 and price as a fixed monthly charge Energy storage savings accrue 
 to the 3rd party owner, who in turn offers a lower PAA rate Customer signs a PPA for 
 solar generation and lease 
 or shared savings for 
 energy storage Customer 
 Transaction One Bill 
 for the customer Two Bills: • Energy @ PPA rate • Pass through 
 a demand savings Two Bills: • Energy @ PPA rate • Payment for lease or 
 shared demand savings Contract 
 Risk Customer Third-party owner Third-party owner Ability to Finance Easy Moderate Moderate Common 3rd Party Agreement Types LEASE SUBSIDIZED PPA DUAL AGREEMENT
71. Thank you! P R E S E N T A T I O N 
 D E S I G N B Y