IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v13y2020i2p488-d310573.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Sashwat Roy

    (Energy & Environmental Policy Program, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19711, USA)

  • Parikhit Sinha

    (First Solar Inc., Tempe, AZ 85281, USA)

  • Syed Ismat Shah

    (Energy & Environmental Policy Program, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19711, USA)

Abstract

The United States needs to add at least 20 GW of peaking capacity to its grid over the next 10 years, led by large-scale projects in California, Texas and Arizona. Of that, about 60% must be installed between 2023 and 2027, meaning that the energy storage industry has more time to build an economic advantage by lowering costs and improving performance to compete with conventional gas peakers. In this paper, we assess the technical feasibility of utility-scale PV plus battery energy storage (PVS) to provide high capacity factors during summer peak demand periods using a target period capacity factor (TPCF) framework as an alternative to natural gas peakers. Also, a new metric called “Lifetime Cost of Operation” (LCOO) is introduced to provide a metric, focusing on the raw installation and operational costs of PVS technology compared to natural-gas fired peaker plants (simple cycle or conventional combustion turbine) during the target period window. The target period window is the time period during which it is valuable for power plants to provide firm capacity usually during early or late evening peak demand periods in the summer months (from April to September); a framework for which is increasingly being asked for by utilities in recent request for proposals (RFPs). A 50 MW AC PV system with 60 MW/240 MWh battery storage modelled in California can provide >98% capacity factor over a 7–10 p.m. target period with lower LCOO than a conventional combustion turbine natural gas power plant.

Suggested Citation

  • Sashwat Roy & Parikhit Sinha & Syed Ismat Shah, 2020. "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, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-24, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:2:p:488-:d:310573
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/2/488/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/2/488/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wiser, Ryan & Millstein, Dev & Mai, Trieu & Macknick, Jordan & Carpenter, Alberta & Cohen, Stuart & Cole, Wesley & Frew, Bethany & Heath, Garvin, 2016. "The environmental and public health benefits of achieving high penetrations of solar energy in the United States," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 472-486.
    2. Kenneth Gillingham & James H. Stock, 2018. "The Cost of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 32(4), pages 53-72, Fall.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nawaz Edoo & Robert T. F. Ah King, 2021. "Techno-Economic Analysis of Utility-Scale Solar Photovoltaic Plus Battery Power Plant," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-22, December.
    2. Marco Raugei & Alessio Peluso & Enrica Leccisi & Vasilis Fthenakis, 2020. "Life-Cycle Carbon Emissions and Energy Return on Investment for 80% Domestic Renewable Electricity with Battery Storage in California (U.S.A.)," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-22, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ladislava Volková, 2022. "Carbon reporting: evidence from the Czech financial sector [Uhlíková stopa: Udržitelné výkaznictví českého finančního sektoru v ČR]," Český finanční a účetní časopis, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2022(2), pages 69-87.
    2. Jonathan Colmer & Ralf Martin & Mirabelle Muûls & Ulrich J. Wagner, 2020. "Does pricing carbon mitigate climate change? Firm-level evidence from the European Union emissions trading scheme," CEP Discussion Papers dp1728, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    3. Yang, Jing & Zhang, Zhiyong & Yang, Mingwan & Chen, Jiayu, 2019. "Optimal operation strategy of green supply chain based on waste heat recovery quality," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 599-605.
    4. Maregedze, Laurence & Chingosho, Hilton & Madiye, Luxmore, 2022. "Use and cost optimization for underground mines electrical energy: A case of a mine in Zvishavane," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 247(C).
    5. Yicong Lin & Hanno Reuvers, 2020. "Cointegrating Polynomial Regressions with Power Law Trends: Environmental Kuznets Curve or Omitted Time Effects?," Papers 2009.02262, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2021.
    6. Homroy, Swarnodeep, 2023. "GHG emissions and firm performance: The role of CEO gender socialization," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    7. Kumar, Pankaj & Brar, S.K. & Pandove, Gulab & Aulakh, C.S., 2021. "Bioformulation of Azotobacter spp. and Streptomyces badius on the productivity, economics and energetics of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 232(C).
    8. Martinsson, Gustav & Sajtos, László & Strömberg, Per & Thomann, Christian, 2022. "Carbon Pricing and Firm-Level CO2 Abatement: Evidence from a Quarter of a Century-Long Panel," Misum Working Paper Series 2022-10, Stockholm School of Economics, Mistra Center for Sustainable Markets (Misum).
    9. Abajian, Alexander & Pretnar, Nick, 2021. "An Aggregate Perspective on the Geo-spatial Distribution of Residential Solar Panels," MPRA Paper 105481, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Sarah Armitage & Noël Bakhtian & Adam Jaffe, 2024. "Innovation Market Failures and the Design of New Climate Policy Instruments," Environmental and Energy Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 5(1), pages 4-48.
    11. Ahmed S. Alahmed & Lang Tong, 2022. "Integrating Distributed Energy Resources: Optimal Prosumer Decisions and Impacts of Net Metering Tariffs," Papers 2204.06115, arXiv.org, revised May 2022.
    12. Yushchenko, Alisa & Patel, Martin Kumar, 2017. "Cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency programs: How to better understand and improve from multiple stakeholder perspectives?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 538-550.
    13. Gregory Casey, 2024. "Energy Efficiency and Directed Technical Change: Implications for Climate Change Mitigation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 91(1), pages 192-228.
    14. Ahmadian, Amirhossein & Ghodrati, Vahid & Gadh, Rajit, 2023. "Artificial deep neural network enables one-size-fits-all electric vehicle user behavior prediction framework," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 352(C).
    15. Adam Michael Bauer & Cristian Proistosescu & Gernot Wagner, 2023. "Carbon Dioxide as a Risky Asset," CESifo Working Paper Series 10278, CESifo.
    16. Kaur, Navneet & Vashist, Krishan Kumar & Brar, A.S., 2021. "Energy and productivity analysis of maize based crop sequences compared to rice-wheat system under different moisture regimes," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    17. Mathias Reynaert, 2021. "Abatement Strategies and the Cost of Environmental Regulation: Emission Standards on the European Car Market," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 88(1), pages 454-488.
    18. Wang, Kunlun & Zheng, Leven J. & Lin, Boqiang, 2024. "Demand-side incentives, competition, and firms’ innovative activities: Evidence from automobile industry in China," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    19. Dewan Muktadir‐Al‐Mukit & Firoz Haroon Bhaiyat, 2024. "Impact of corporate governance diversity on carbon emission under environmental policy via the mandatory nonfinancial reporting regulation," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 1397-1417, February.
    20. Fangzhi Wang & Hua Liao & Richard S.J. Tol & Changjing, "undated". "Endogenous preference for non-market goods in carbon abatement decision," Working Paper Series 0224, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:2:p:488-:d:310573. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.