CSP with storage future

[Martin Nicholson]

Last week I watched a CSP webinar from the US. It was full of optimistic assessments for future costs but one speaker made an interesting observation that CSP plus storage (probably 5-7 hours) was most competitive in the “afternoon peak” market where they could deliver power into the early evening. I assume they use the morning power generation to recharge the heat storage to cash in on the higher evening spot prices than the morning.

The pro-CSP speakers clearly saw PV as a cost threat which may be another reason for targeting the early evening market where PV (usually without storage) cannot compete.

Any comments welcome.

[David B Benson]

I'm surprised somebody thinks CSP can compete at all. Well, in the California market this may be possible as California currently forbids building any new NPPs.

[Martin Nicholson]

You could be right David. I think he was from California.


Remember that vendors are always optimistic about future cost reductions and they probably figure they can get CSP with storage competitive during afternoon peak.

[Graham Palmer]

I've always seen this issue as one of many examples in this area of a mismatch between the technology strength and the market - CSP's strength is generating revenue at time of peak demand, but why would an investor pay $7,000/kW for CSP rather than less than $1,000 for gas peakers. Yet generating a large amount of abatement requires year-round baseload, which is CSP's weakness. So CSP seems to be sort of stuck in this midway point. From an investment point-of-view, I struggle to see where a business case, absent direct support, can be made for CSP except perhaps to reduce fuel usage in remote grids where reticulated gas isn't available.

While solar PV doesn't have storage, it offers the benefit of distributed generation - another massive weakness for CSP. It will be interesting over the next few years to see where the private investment is directed.

[Martin Nicholson]

Graham, I guess the CSP peaker v gas peaker will come down to gas prices and carbon cost in the end. I suspect you are correct today that in most locations gas will be much cheaper than CSP. This may not always be true.

It begs the question why are any CSP plants being built today? I suspect politics rather than economics.

[David B. Benson]

Several projects in CA and AZ started out as CSP but have switched to solar PV.

[Anon]

Apr 28, 2012 9:29:34 GMT 9.5 Martin Nicholson said:

Graham, I guess the CSP peaker v gas peaker will come down to gas prices and carbon cost in the end. I suspect you are correct today that in most locations gas will be much cheaper than CSP. This may not always be true.

There's also the question of load following nuclear and its economics which may well end up better than solar for intermediate load.

[unclepete]

www.wizardpower.com.au/

In my view these folk have a fighting chance of providing reasonably priced CSP in certain locations in Australia. Note that the first plant is planned to be built in Port Augusta SA. Also the Pilbara would be a suitable location. I hope some day to write a post why it is a non starter in Eastern Australia (Personal experience)

[anonposter]

Looks to me like it's mainly just a cheaper way to build the concentrator, maybe they'll get costs down enough to make it worth doing but I personally doubt it (at the very least solar has a well deserved reputation for being expensive).

[singletonengineer]

This past week I had the opportunity to visit a newly commissioned CSP plant in NSW.

Weather: approx 30 degrees, full sun, no wind.

These are perfect conditions to generate steam and thus replace coal in the steam cycle of the adjacent power station's boilers.

Unfortunately, nothing was happening. The mirrors were turned away from the collectors.

I have high hopes for CSP, but these will not be achieved until it is developed beyond demonstration plants, trial runs and pretty pictures. I am waiting to see straightforward, everyday production supervised by normal power station operators, as against boffins and commissioning engineers whose purpose is to gather proof-of-design data.

Conclusion: Any assumption that CSP will displace baseload coal fired generation is not yet firmly founded on fact. Thus, by extension, ZCA2020's plans for zero carbon within a decade or two are doomed via this path. ZCA's 3-legged stool of PV, CSP and demand reduction has lost this leg.

This is unfortunate, but is also the only rational assessment possible based on current achievements.