Estimating the Impact of Residual Value for Electricity Generation Plants on Capital Recovery, Levelized Cost of Energy, and Cost to Consumers

Jenkin, Thomas; Feldman, David; Kwan, Alan Shu Khen; Walker, Brian

doi:10.2172/1493401

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 6 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Varying this assumption can (and does) impact upfront PPA and CfD prices. Some research on this exists in the field (see for example Jenkin et al, 2019;Simshauser and Gilmore, 2020) but further research seems warranted.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Renewable entry costs, project finance and the role of revenue quality in Australia's National Electricity Market

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Renewable entry costs, project finance and the role of revenue quality in Australia's National Electricity Market

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The economic and environmental performance of the optimized system design was calculated for the four configurations in each city. PV cost ($/kW) 63 650 700 650 600 PV O&M cost ($/kW) 63 15 PV derating factor (%) 63 90.5 PV efficiency (%) 63 17.5 PV lifetime (years) 63 30 PV rebate (%) 63 30 inverter cost ($/kW) 63 100 inverter efficiency (%) 63 98 inverter lifetime (years) 63 15 discount rate (%) 63,64 6.9 4.5 6.9 9.3 inflation rate (%) 63 2.5 project lifetime (years) 10 maximum power from the grid (kW) 8 For the economic analysis, the net present cost was represented as an annualized cost, which is a yearly recurring cash flow over the system lifetime by considering the annual discount rate. The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) was calculated by dividing the annualized cost of the system by the total electricity consumed over a year.…”

Section: ■ Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic and Environmental Feasibility of Second-Life Lithium-Ion Batteries as Fast-Charging Energy Storage

Kamath

Arsenault

Kim

et al. 2020

Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Energy storage can reduce peak power consumption from the electricity grid and therefore the cost for fast-charging electric vehicles (EVs). It can also enable EV charging in areas where grid limitations would otherwise preclude it. To address both the need for a fast-charging infrastructure as well as management of end-of-life EV batteries, second-life battery (SLB)-based energy storage is proposed for EV fast-charging systems. The electricity grid-based fast-charging configuration was compared to lithium-ion SLB-based configurations in terms of economic cost and life cycle environmental impact in five U.S. cities. Compared to using new batteries, SLB reduced the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) by 12–41% and the global warming potential (GWP) by 7–77%. Photovoltaics along with SLB reduced the use of grid electricity and provided higher GWP and cumulative energy demand (CED) reduction compared to only using SLB. The LCOE of the SLB-based configurations was sensitive to SLB cost, lifetime, efficiency, and discount rate, whereas the GWP and CED were affected by SLB lifetime, efficiency, and the required enclosure materials. Solar insolation and electricity pricing structures were key in determining the configuration, which was economically and environmentally suitable for a location.

show abstract

“…The function contains initial capital costs along with maintenance and operation costs. By considering these explanations, the cost function will be achieved by the following equation:

italicMin ((), italicTA C_{cap} + italicTA C_{O & M})

where, TAC cap TAC O & M describe the total cost ($) for capital and operation and maintenance, respectively.

italicTA C_{cap} = italicCRF ({}, N_{WT} \times \Pr_{WT} \times E_{italicWT, r} + A_{PV} \times \Pr_{PVT} + \Pr_{EES}^{P} \times C s_{EES} + \Pr_{TES} \times normalC s_{TES} + \Pr_{EH} \times E_{italicEH, r} + P_{italicConv / italicInv}^{P} \times N_{italicConv / italicInv})

italicTA C_{O & M} = A_{PV} \times C_{PVT}^{O & M} + N_{WT} \times E_{italicWT, r} \times C_{WT}^{O & M}

where, A describes Area of PV and collector ( m 2 ), C is cost, CRF describes the capital recovery factor, N describes the Number of elements, E signifies the Electrical power (kW), Cs defines the capacity of the storage unit (kWh), Pr defines the price per unit of component ($), r stands for the term rated, The capital recovery factor (CRF) is achieved by the following 41 :

italicCRF = \frac{i {(1 + i)}^{n}}{(1 <...>)}

…”

Section: Cost Functionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A new configuration of autonomous CHP system based on improved version of marine predators algorithm: A case study

Wang

Wang²,

Zhang³

et al. 2021

Int Trans Electr Energ Syst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary The present paper describes a new optimal design for an autonomous renewable energy‐based CHP system for a remote area in Zhidoi county, China. The configuration contains different parts of the electric heater (EH), photovoltaic‐thermal (PV/T), wind turbines (WTs), thermal energy storage (TES), and electrical energy storage (EES). The total annual cost (TAC) is utilized as a cost function of the system configuration and the idea is to minimize this function to access an optimal configuration. Due to the complicated nonlinear nature of this system, a metaheuristic‐based method, called Improved Marine Predators Algorithm (IMPA) has been introduced and designed. The reason for using this new algorithm is to cover the main drawbacks of most metaheuristics like better accuracy and higher convergence speed. To show the capability of the designed IMPA, it is validated by some different new metaheuristics from the literature. Afterward, the algorithm is used for system configuration optimization. Some sensitivity analysis is also investigated to shoe the method capability and the final results confirm the high ability of the proposed method for providing an optimal renewable energy‐based CHP system. The final results show a $56 307.74 value of TAC. The total efficiency of the system for the winter and the summers are 66% and 61%, respectively and the minimum total annual cost happens at AD = 0.8983. Finally, the minimum value of the total annual cost is achieved by the proposed method with 922.4 kWh.

show abstract

Estimating the Impact of Residual Value for Electricity Generation Plants on Capital Recovery, Levelized Cost of Energy, and Cost to Consumers

Abstract: Department of Energy (DOE) reports produced after 1991 and a growing number of pre-1991 documents are available free via www.OSTI.gov.

Cited by 11 publications

References 6 publications

Renewable entry costs, project finance and the role of revenue quality in Australia's National Electricity Market

Renewable entry costs, project finance and the role of revenue quality in Australia's National Electricity Market

Economic and Environmental Feasibility of Second-Life Lithium-Ion Batteries as Fast-Charging Energy Storage

A new configuration of autonomous CHP system based on improved version of marine predators algorithm: A case study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About