Security of supply A remaining challenge in the energy transition to a greener power generation Power-Gen Europe, Cologne June 12-14, 2012 Lothar Balling Head of Gas Turbine Power Plant Solutions Fossil Power Generation Division of Siemens Energy Siemens Protection AG 2012. notice All / Copyright rights reserved. notice
No doubt about the vision of a CO 2 neutral power generation but we have to ask ourselves: How to ensure security of supply during the transition phase? Page 2
Content Europe s power generation market boundaries The role of fossil power generation case study Germany CCPP: bridge technology into the future Conclusion Page 3
European electricity generation growth by 1.1% p.a. and German electricity generation growth by -0.1% p.a. European Electricity Generation by fuel type in TWh 3.3 11% 11% 27% 24% 2% 25% 51% 1.1% +9.9% 45% 3.6 23% 10% 21% 26% 1% 18% 50% 8% 1% 28% 14% Installed capacity of renewables Wind Onshore Wind Offshore Solar CSP Solar PV Other Renewables Hydro Nuclear Gas Oil Coal German Electricity Generation by fuel type in TWh 0.62 17% 3% 20% 15% 1% 43% -0.1% +7.6% 59% 58% 0.61 5% 34% 18% 1% 39% 3% 34% 13% 0% 47% 6% 2011 2020 Source: Siemens 2011 2020 Renewables with strongest growth, mainly dominated by wind Page 4
Renewables are not regionally equal distributed and are often not localized close to the centers of demand Photovoltaic power generation in Germany is located in the sunny south whereas wind power generation dominates the windy north The delay in transmission grid expansion puts an additional burden on grid stability Page 5
Scenario 2020: Intermediate and peak load still have to be covered by fossil units Uncontrollable and volatile renewables replace base load units Residual load 2020 Renewable surplus feed-in will impact grid stability Required margin for grid stabilization Residual load 2020 A shrinking fossil fleet will have to balance out grid disturbances Page 6
Need for a massive grid development concept in order to implement renewables and secure electricity supply German high voltage grid Demand for grid expansion based on DENA Necessary expansion Already realized 20km/a Demand according DENA I 500km/a Additional demand according DENA II DENA I & DENA II Net construction projects until 2015 (source Dena I) Expected grid shortage NPP effected by nuclear phase out To build 3.600 km high voltage line, 12.000 power poles have to be set Since 2005, 20 km grid per anno have been built. To serve the demand, the construction capacity has to be increased up to 500 km/ anno in the next 10 years. Source: DENA Page 7
Additional demand in power supply back-up (Germany until 2022) 45 40 GW 41 Source: 1 VGB/SRU (Sachverständigenrat für Umweltfragen) 2 Ethikkommission-Deutschlands Energiewende 3 DENA 4 BMWI 35 30 20 14 25 20 21 13 15 14 10 4 10 5 0 Nuclear phase out Retirements Fossil 1 Total demand Secured capacity renew. & savings Already under construction or awarded Demand fossil Potential for BHPP & SPP Demand for green CCPPs 10 14 GW additional gas fired units required to provide a environmental friendly back-up solution for renewables Page 8
Content Europe s power generation market boundaries The role of fossil power generation case study Germany CCPP: bridge technology into the future Conclusion Page 9
Load distribution 2010 vs. scenario 2020 (VDE 40) 0,4% 1,1% Peak Load Intermediate Load Weekly Base Load Base Load 19,5% 28,5% 6,0% 40,1% 74,2% 30,3% 2010 2020 The trend is away from base load towards intermediate load operation for remaining fleet outside of renewables Page 10
The market does not pay what we need Unit Costs in /MWh el Average Electricity Price - ~58 Natural Gas Price @ = 60% 23 /MWh th - ~39 CO 2 Certificates @ = 60%; gas firing 40 /t - ~12 Remaining revenues to cover generation cost - ~7 Required coverage for new investments - 10-15 min 6-10 /MWh The actual clean spark spread in Germany is not sufficient to make a new CCPP economic viable Page 11
Subsidies and Incentives for the German market system are very unbalanced >13 Mrd /a with increasing tendency* for solar and wind subsidies of >80 TWh * Expected in 2020: 250 TWh 40 Mrd /a Only 1-2 Mrd /a required for a markt design to support highly ecofriendly back up power with CCPP of 30-40 TWh Page 12
Other countries in Europe e.g. Brittany: ~90 /kw for stand by and availability of high efficient CCPP Quelle: LBD; Stand: 19.09.2011 Page 13 http://www.bet-aachen.de/fileadmin/redaktion/pdf/veroeffentlichungen/2011/ BET- Studie_BNE_Kapazitaetsmarkt_1109.pdf have already designed Capacity Markets to promote investment in new projects, Germany is debating.
Content Europe s power generation market boundaries The role of fossil power generation case study Germany CCPP: bridge technology into the future Conclusion Page 14
Future CCPP market drivers One answer is not enough Highest efficiency through the whole load range Optimized start up and shutdown operation Wirkungsgrad Stable operation in case of grid incidents Netz- Stabilisierung On Demand Rapid availability Page 15
How will we achieve lowest CO 2 emissions? Wirkungsgrad Netz- Stabilisierung On Demand Page 16
The evolution of Siemens Combined Cycle Technology 1992 1996 2008 2011 ~2015 SGT5-2000E SGT5-4000F (Introduction) SGT5-4000F (actual upgrade) SGT5-8000H (introduction) SGT5-8000H (future developm.) CCPP Killingholme (2x1) 2 x 470 MW CCPP Didcot B (2x1) 2x 705 MW CCPP Mainz (1x1) 405 MW CCPP Irsching 4 (1S) 557 MW CCPP SCC5-8000H 1S > 600 MW 525 C / 80 bar 2pressure w/o RH 540 C / 110 bar 3pressure w RH 565 C / 125 bar 3pressure w RH 600 C / 170 bar 3pr RH, Benson t.b.d 3pr RH, Benson Advanced GT technology allows for significant improvement of competitiveness and serves as basis for CO2-reduction of fossil generation Page 17
Start-Stop Operation FACY improves the start-up efficiency by 14%-points during a hot start Start up times hot start load conventional hot start Hot start with FACY Improved start up Improvement Conventional start up Fuel consumption (start up only) Average efficiency (time frame for conventional start) ~514 MWh ~326 MWh ~36% ~50% ~40 min. time Electricity price: CO 2 taxes: Fuel costs: 57,1 /MWh 7,76 /t 20,2 /MWh (LHV) Nightly shutdowns: 200 per year SCC5-8000H 1S with FACY technology saves ~ 717 /year (at 200 hot starts per year) Page 18
CO 2 Emissions reduction potential through fuel switching, efficiency improvement, IGCC and CCS New & clean power plant @ 100 & load, site in in Germany, bituminous coal; condenser pressure = 4 kpa, LHVcoal = 25 MJ/kg, 334,5 gco2/kwhhu Net Efficiency (LHV) [%] 58,8 57,7 58,0 62,0 60,0 61,0 CO 2 capture rate 90 % incl. CO2 compresssion to to 100 bar, w/o transport and storage 55,0 42,8 41,0 42,0 44,8 43,0 43,5 46,8 47,0 45,3 45,9 46,0 43,0 51,4 49,3 50,0 50,0 51,0 CO 2 -Emissions [g/kwh] 796 769 729 727 669 656 SPP SPP SPP IGCC SPP IGCC subcritical supercritical 600 C 2006 700 C 2020 341 325 CCPP CCPP 2006 2020 48,0 43,4 40,3 41,0 38,0 CO 2 capture rate 90 % w/o penalty for CO2 transport & storage 43,0 82 78 SPP 700 C IGCC 2020 CO2-Capture CO2-Capture Lower CO 2 emissions by factor of 8-10 seems realistic Page 19
How will we provide power when it is needed? Wirkungsgrad Netz- Stabilisierung On Demand Page 20
Plant output Turbine speed Dynamic load tests Plant fast hot start up (FACY TM, hot start-on-the-fly) 600 60 Plant start up time < 30 min. CC full load 500 50 400 Plant output 40 GT speed Ø Ramp Rate > 25 MW/min 300 ST speed 30 200 20 100 GT load up to 35 MW/min 10 0 0 GT ignition Time [min] GT @ base load More than half a GW in less than half an hour Page 21
Plant Output Turbine Speed Load tests: Plant fast shutdown (FACY TM ) and minimum stable load 600 Plant Shutdown Time < 30 min. 760 60 500 660 GT Speed ST Speed 50 560 GT Speed 400 Plant Output 460 ST Speed 40 300 35 MW/min 360 30 200 100 GT Load 28 MW/min 260 160 60 GT Load ~ 60 MW Plant min. load ~100 MW 20 10 0 Time Time 0 15-40 0 30 30 60 90 GT Load ~ 60 MW 0 GT @ base load Geno. breaker open Plant ramp down to minimum load at 100 MW (~ 20%) or shutdown in less than 30 minutes Page 22
How will we ensure grid stability? Wirkungsgrad Netz- Stabilisierung On Demand Page 23
Dynamic capability: Frequency response Irsching 4 test results Achieved results: Plant load increase by 12% within 10 s No load reduction followed Achieved results: De-loading by 45% followed within 6 s Stable behavior of plant and components CC load Load decrease 250 MW (45%) in 6 s Frequency simulation 500mHz Page 24 Frequency response target overachieved Potential for more stringent future demand
Content Europe s power generation market boundaries The role of fossil power generation case study Germany CCPP: bridge technology into the future Conclusion Page 25
High efficient H-class CCPP solution enables significant CO 2 emissions reduction 100% Average coal fired power plant fleet in Europe CO 2 reduction by fuel switch from coal to gas CCPP Efficiency Improvement CO 2 reduction by Siemens H-class CCPP ~ 40% Siemens H-class CCPP CO 2 saving: >3 Mill tons/year/ 1000 MW* (*) per 1000 MW unit power output at 36% average efficiency and 5000 operation hours ~ 60% CO 2 emission reduction with highly efficient back up power solution possible Page 26
Page 27
Thank you for your kind attention! Page 28
Disclaimer This document contains forward-looking statements and information that is, statements related to future, not past, events. These statements may be identified either orally or in writing by words as expects, anticipates, intends, plans, believes, seeks, estimates, will or words of similar meaning. Such statements are based on our current expectations and certain assumptions, and are, therefore, subject to certain risks and uncertainties. A variety of factors, many of which are beyond Siemens control, affect its operations, performance, business strategy and results and could cause the actual results, performance or achievements of Siemens worldwide to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements that may be expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. For us, particular uncertainties arise, among others, from changes in general economic and business conditions, changes in currency exchange rates and interest rates, introduction of competing products or technologies by other companies, lack of acceptance of new products or services by customers targeted by Siemens worldwide, changes in business strategy and various other factors. More detailed information about certain of these factors is contained in Siemens filings with the SEC, which are available on the Siemens website, www.siemens.com and on the SEC s website, www.sec.gov. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary materially from those described in the relevant forward-looking statement as anticipated, believed, estimated, expected, intended, planned or projected. Siemens does not intend or assume any obligation to update or revise these forward-looking statements in light of developments which differ from those anticipated. Trademarks mentioned in this document are the property of Siemens AG, it's affiliates or their respective owners. Page 29