Concentrating Solar Power and Water Issues in the U.S. Southwest

Bracken, Nathan; Macknick, Jordan; Tovar-Hastings, Angelica; Komor, Paul; Gerritsen, Margot; Mehta, Shweta

doi:10.2172/1176743

Cited by 61 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…cooling water volume per electrical energy output) based on reported values from primary literature sources [25,10]. This compilation of water use rates has been central to most recent studies evaluating cooling water use at the operational phase of power production [22,[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42]. It characterizes power facility cooling water consumption and withdrawal rates based on fuel, cooling system, and prime mover configuration for a small sample of generators (on average four facilities per technology classification) reflecting the best available data at the time of publication [10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterizing cooling water source and usage patterns across US thermoelectric power plants: a comprehensive assessment of self-reported cooling water data

Peer

Sanders

2016

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study characterizes cooling water sources (by type and quality) and cooling water usage rates in thermoelectric power plants across the US based on data reported by power plant operators to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) for the year 2014. Geospatial distributions of water usage by specific cooling technologies and water sources confirm trends towards wet recirculating cooling systems, dry cooling and reclaimed water usage in the power sector, especially in more water constrained locations. Results include a database of water withdrawal and water consumption rates for 672 unique power plants organized by fuel, prime mover and cooling system classification, expanding available data records by an order of magnitude from previous analyses. While median calculated rates are generally comparable to values reported in the literature for most cooling technologies, results suggest that water usage rates at power plants with unique locations or operating conditions might not be accurately characterized by averages, especially in the case of once-through cooled facilities. Despite previous criticisms of EIA cooling water data, improvements in form instructions, reporting methods, and cooling system definitions have markedly improved the quality and usability of cooling water data records in recent years.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterizing cooling water source and usage patterns across US thermoelectric power plants: a comprehensive assessment of self-reported cooling water data

Peer

Sanders

2016

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additional washing water was required for the solarpowered chemical plant due to the periodic cleaning of the mirrors. Considering a washing water consumption Vwater of the heliostat field of 18 L/MWhth,on field [32], the amount of required water per kg of H2 was deduced from Equation (13). The total cost of water per kg of H2 was hence calculated by Equation 14ℎ = .…”

Section: Utilities Feedstock and Variable Costs (I)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Techno-Economic Assessment of Solar-Driven Steam Gasification of Biomass for Large-Scale Hydrogen Production

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Solar biomass gasification is an attractive pathway to promote biomass valorization while chemically storing intermittent solar energy into solar fuels. The economic feasibility of a solar gasification process at a large scale for centralized H2 production was assessed, based on the discounted cash-flow rate of return method to calculate the minimum H2 production cost. H2 production costs from solar-only, hybrid and conventional autothermal biomass gasification were evaluated under various economic scenarios. Considering a biomass reference cost of 0.1 €/kg, and a land cost of 12.9 €/m2, H2 minimum price was estimated at 2.99 €/kgH2 and 2.48 €/kgH2 for the allothermal and hybrid processes, respectively, against 2.25 €/kgH2 in the conventional process. A sensitivity study showed that a 50% reduction in the heliostats and solar tower costs, combined with a lower land cost of below 0.5 €/m2, allowed reaching an area of competitiveness where the three processes meet. Furthermore, an increase in the biomass feedstock cost by a factor of 2 to 3 significantly undermined the profitability of the autothermal process, in favor of solar hybrid and solar-only gasification. A comparative study involving other solar and non-solar processes led to conclude on the profitability of fossil-based processes. However, reduced CO2 emissions from the solar process and the application of carbon credits are definitely in favor of solar gasification economics, which could become more competitive. The massive deployment of concentrated solar energy across the world in the coming years can significantly reduce the cost of the solar materials and components (heliostats), and thus further alleviate the financial cost of solar gasification.

show abstract

“…The solar energy development in Tucson city has been studied in the literature in the past few years (e.g. see [25,26]). These studies provide a good amount of information that is useful for feasibility analysis of a parabolic trough CSP plant in Tucson.…”

Section: Case Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

A Through-Life Cost Analysis Model to Support Investment Decision-Making in Concentrated Solar Power Projects

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research paper aims to propose a through-life cost analysis model for estimating the profitability of renewable concentrated solar power (CSP) technologies. The financial outputs of the model include net present value (NPV) and benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of the project, internal rate of return (IRR) and discounted payback period (DPBP) of the investment, and levelized cost of energy (LCoE) from the CSP technology. The meteorological data for a specific location in the city of Tucson in Arizona is collected from a network of automated weather stations, and the NREL System Advisor Model (SAM) is applied to simulate hourly energy output of the CSP plant. An Excel spreadsheet tool is designed to calculate, in a bottom-up approach, the financial metrics required for approval of CSP projects. The model is tested on a 50 MW parabolic trough CSP plant and the results show an annual energy production of 456,351,232 kWh, NPV of over $64 million and LCoE of 0.16 $/kWh. Finally, a sensitivity analysis is performed to identify the factors which have the most significant effect on the economic performance of CSP technologies. The proposed model can provide valuable guidance to support the strategic planning and investment decision-making in CSP projects.

show abstract

Concentrating Solar Power and Water Issues in the U.S. Southwest

Abstract: The views expressed herein are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect their respective institutions or the views of any states that are members of the Western Governors' Association or Western States Water Council. Any errors are the sole responsibility of the authors.

Cited by 61 publications

References 18 publications

Characterizing cooling water source and usage patterns across US thermoelectric power plants: a comprehensive assessment of self-reported cooling water data

Characterizing cooling water source and usage patterns across US thermoelectric power plants: a comprehensive assessment of self-reported cooling water data

Techno-Economic Assessment of Solar-Driven Steam Gasification of Biomass for Large-Scale Hydrogen Production

A Through-Life Cost Analysis Model to Support Investment Decision-Making in Concentrated Solar Power Projects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About