Power System Design Report

Summit Station Model 5

Final Draft Version 3.1

August, 2010
Contacts

E. Ian Baring-Gould
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
1617 Cole Blvd
Golden, CO 80401
Phone: 303-384-7021
Fax: 303-384-6901
Ian.baring.gould@nrel.gov
Joseph Owen Roberts
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
1617 Cole Blvd
Golden, CO 80401
Phone: 303-384-7151
Fax: 303-384-7411
Joseph.roberts@nrel.gov

Overview

This report summarizes an analysis of conceptual power system options for the new
Summit Station Model 5 development based on the best available data at the time of
writing. This report specifically considers the costs and other impacts of different power
system configurations incorporating renewable and conventional power generation
options as well as outlines additional data that should be considered prior to a final power
system design specification.

Acknowledgements
The work represented in this paper was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE),
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy under a Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) formalized in June of 2009 between DOE and the National
Science Foundation (NSF). The MoU was signed between Secretary of Energy Steven
Chu and NSF Director Aeden L. Bement Jr. to support expanded use of energy
efficiency, renewable energy, and building technologies in NSF Arctic and Antarctica
facilities.
This work is being completed in close collaboration with the NSF Office of Polar
Programs and with the support of staff from CH2MHill Polar Services.
eibg/jor - NREL

August 30, 2010

Executive Summary
This report summarizes an analysis of conceptual power system options for the new
Summit Station Model 5 development. This report specifically considers the costs and
other impacts of different power system configurations incorporating renewable and
conventional power generation options. This report does not implicitly discuss specific
design constraints for the more general Model 5 power system, but does incorporate
concepts, such as designed redundancy, which are addressed in other Model 5 design
documents. This report indicates that the optimal system from a least cost perspective
using all of the costs and assumptions described in this report is a system with a cost of
energy of $1.072/KWh comprised of diesel engines, a single North Wind 100 wind
turbine where 19% of the stations electrical, thermal, and water needs are met by
renewable sources compared to a diesel only system which represents a cost of energy of
$1.143/KWh. A system that would provide 42% of the stations total energy needs would
have a 19% increase in the lifetime cost of energy compared to the diesel only scenario.
Additionally, due to the use of an engineering economic model to conduct these analyses
and the inability to assign accurate costs for emissions, a cost for impact of these
emissions on research, and the potential increase of fuel costs over the life of the station,
a 2% difference in total life cycle cost may not be significant. In an effort to consider
more of the stations energy needs being supported by renewable sources, analysis was
conducted specifying that approximately 50%, 75% and then 100% of the energy come
from renewable sources. Each of these cases result in a higher cost, but lower fuel use
and lower emissions. Descriptions of the results of each of these cases are provided. All
simulations were conducted using the HOMER software developed by the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. This report also provides an overview of all of the
resource data that was used in the analysis as well as a summary of the programmatic
assumptions.
The analysis enclosed is primarily focuses on providing an assessment of a potential
power system for Summit Station and then assessing the costs and impacts of different
amounts of renewable technologies being implemented at the Station. Since many
elements of the power system optimization are hard to quantify, it becomes difficult to
provide a hard recommendation on a specific system design. However it is understood
that there is a value in providing a recommended system design, based on initial
experience and expected desired outcomes. With this in mind the recommendation of this
document would be to implement a power system that would incorporate three (3)
Northwind 100 kW wind turbines (or equivalent), a small amount of PV, likely
approximately 10 kW depending on the available mounting surface of the new Summit
facility and a small battery bank to provide system electrical stability. Once a value for
long-term, no diesel operation is determined, it may be worth investigating a larger
battery to provide longer term electrical storage. This system would provide
approximately 54% of the total stations energy needs using renewable technologies,
would reduce fuel usage to 52,633 liters per year and save an estimated 236.9 tons of
CO2 production from an all diesel case which represents a reduction of 61.2% in CO2
emissions. This system would cost approximately$5.27 million dollars and have a per
kWh cost of $1.754 as compared to $1.145/KWh for the diesel only case.
eibg/jor - NREL

ii

August 30, 2010

Future assessments that build on this report are needed, such as the definition of a
specific length of diesel autonomy for sizing of the electrical storage and further
definition of the thermal space heating loads for the new station. More data for
environmental parameters should also be collected to reduce the uncertainty of the
modeling undertaken in this report. Also, basing the model on a constraint such as an
arbitrary level of renewable penetration is not advised since the model will simply meet
this constraint when a more cost effective option with slightly more or less renewable
penetration could be used.

eibg/jor - NREL

iii

August 30, 2010

Table of Contents
Overview
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
Table of Figures
Table of Tables
Introduction
Summit Station

i
i
ii
iv
v
v
6
6

Current Conditions and Redesign Constraints

Modeled Conditions and Assumptions
Energy Needs
Energy Sources and Resource Data
Constraints
System Control
Diesel Generators
Wind Turbine Generators
Photovoltaic Panels
Energy Storage

7
7
7
10
13
15
16
16
18
20

Analysis Results

22

Notes on Recommendations
Lower RE Penetration Systems
Diesel Off Summer System
Recommended System and 50% Renewable Energy Model
75% Renewable Energy Model
100% renewable contribution full renewable power system
Conclusions and Recommendations
Further Analysis, Data Needs and Assessments
Appendix A: Renewable Energy Hybrid System Technologies
Appendix B: Historic Fuel and Freight Costs
Appendix C: Recommended System: 50% Renewable Energy Requirement Model Results
Appendix D: 75% Renewable Energy Requirement Model Results
Appendix E: 100% Renewable Energy Requirement Model Results

24
26
26
26
27
27
28
29
30
35
37
52
67

eibg/jor - NREL

iv

August 30, 2010

Table of Figures
Figure 1: Outside Temperature Frequency ................................................................................... 10
Figure 2 :Solar Resource Data ....................................................................................................... 11
Figure 3: Shear Vs. Wind Speed..................................................................................................... 13
Figure 4:Turbine Energy Production Fraction Vs. Temperature ................................................... 14
Figure 5: Scatter Plot Turbine Energy Production Vs Temperature .............................................. 15
Figure 6: Proven 6kW Historical Actual/Possible Energy Production Fraction ............................. 17
Figure 7 :PV Paramaters ................................................................................................................ 19
Figure 8: Fuel Savings for Various Deferrable Load Sizes .............................................................. 21
Figure 9: Renewable Fraction vs. Cost of Energy for Various Technologies ................................. 24
Figure 10: Cost of Energy from Diesel Generation at Varrying Fuel Price..................................... 25
Figure A.1: Schematic of low-penetration wind/diesel hybrid ..................................................... 31
Figure A.2: Schematic of high-penetration wind/diesel power system ........................................ 33

Table of Tables
Table 1: Science Loads Model 5 Power Generation ..................................................................... 8
Table 2 : Facility Loads Model 5 Power Generation ..................................................................... 8
Table 3: Thermal Load and Temperature ........................................................................................ 9
Table 4: Monthly 10m Wind Speed Statistics................................................................................ 12
Table 5: Applicable Wind Turbines ................................................................................................ 18
Table 6:Optomized Model Configurations for Various Technologies ........................................... 25

eibg/jor - NREL

August 30, 2010

Introduction
This report summarizes an analysis of conceptual power system options for the new
Summit Station Model 5 development. This report specifically considers the costs and
other impacts of different power system configurations incorporating renewable and
conventional power generation options. This report does not implicitly discuss specific
design constraints for the more general Model 5 power system, but does incorporate
concepts, such as designed redundancy, which are addressed in other Model 5 design
documents.
This report provides an overview of all of the data that was used in the analysis as well as
a summary of the programmatic assumptions. Descriptions of the results of five specific
cases; diesel only, lower penetration renewables, 50%, 75%, and 100% renewable annual
contribution is provided. A general system recommendation is also provided based on the
information currently available. All simulations were conducted using the HOMER
software developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
There are no specific conclusions drawn from this report except for the very obvious that
the incorporation of expanded renewables, both wind and solar, result in a reduced usage
of imported fuels and thus reduced atmospheric pollution. The report does provide a
qualitative understanding of the costs and impacts associated with increasing the use of
renewable technologies at Summit Station. Recommended configurations for each case
are provided but these are to be used only as informative of the costs and impacts. More
detailed system design and engineering studies should be undertaken as the project
develops.

Summit Station
Summit Station is a National Science Foundation (NSF) research facility located on the
Greenland Ice Sheet (72 deg 34min North by 38 deg 29 min West). The mission of the
station is to make sensitive measurements of the atmosphere and snow chemistry. The
site is well-suited and in some cases unique for science focusing on atmospheric
monitoring, snow and ice studies, and other research important to understanding climate
change dynamics and effects. The facility supports staffing and equipment for several
year round science activities supported by the NSF and the National Ocean and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The location is above the Arctic Circle and at an
altitude of 3200m and thus is typified by cold temperatures year round, with only
seasonal direct sun.
The station is currently primarily powered by fossil fuel for transportation, heat, and
electricity through the installation of two diesel engines rated at 90 and 120 kW. Starting
in August of 2008 a Proven 6kW wind turbine was installed at the location to test the use
of small wind energy systems and disucssions have been undertaken to install
approximetly 10 kW of Photovoltaics (PV) to support higher summer loads and assess
the applicability of this technology.

eibg/jor - NREL

August 30, 2010

The remote nature of the facility results in very high logistics costs, especially for fuel,
and thus a desire to rely heavily on locally available resources, specifically solar and
wind. There is also an extreme desire to make efficient use of all available energy,
leading toward a focus on energy efficiency and heat recovery from the diesel engines.
The nature of the scenic work undertaken at the site also points to a desired reduction in
fossil fuel usage, especially when local conditions can blow the pollutant plume from the
station towered research sites.
As part of a redevelopment plan, a new power system relying more heavily on renewable
energy technologies is being considered. This report describes an assessment of lowest
cost and high renewable power system capture options.

Current Conditions and Redesign Constraints

The current redesign efforts for the Summit Station Model 5 represent the staffing and
equipment needed to support a full time base line research at the facility. No specific
design constraints were defined in the analysis, except for the expressed desire to provide
at least 50% of the stations total energy requirements from renewable based generation.
The estimated thermal load for heating the three proposed modules as well as the heating
load for snow melting and hot water was taken into account. Although this was a specific
modeling constraint, the report also provided information on system designs at lowest life
cycle cost and then with 50%, 75%, and 100% (theoretically) of the energy being
provided by renewable sources.
Historical pricing for diesel is available in Appendix B: Historic Fuel and Freight Costs which
can be used to justify the assumed $15/gal delivered cost of diesel at Summit Station.
The energy density is assumed to be 36.38 KWh/gallon of Jet AN which gives a cost of
$0.69/kWh in just fuel cost assuming a 60% efficiency (33% mechanical/electrical
generation efficiency combined with 27% thermal waste heat collection efficiency).
Thus for a diesel only generation scenario when operations and maintenance and
replacement costs are taken into consideration of the true cost of energy of a diesel only
generation system was modeled to be $1.143/KWh.

Modeled Conditions and Assumptions

The following section provides information on the loads and specific design assumptions
considered in the analysis.
Energy Needs

Our assumptions for the Model 5 scenario for loads were split into science loads, facility
loads, building thermal loads, and water needs through snow melting. Each of these loads
is described as follows. The total power system load was modeled as the energy needed
to meet the projected population of six (6) people during the all months, except for two
week periods in April, August, November, and February when the assumed population
jumps to 12 people. These values were based on specific design requirements and
estimates based on current energy needs at Summit Station presented by staff of CH2M
HILL Polar Services. Except as otherwise noted, all loads are assumed to be consistent
year round. The science loads were assumed to be fairly consistent at 12.4 kW through
the year but were modeled having a small variation of 5% day to day and 5% time step to
eibg/jor - NREL

August 30, 2010

time step. Also, we assumed that this load would jump to 16 kW average when the
population increases to 12 during the previously mentioned periods. The science loads
include the AWO science loads as well as ICECAPS loads.
Load per Module in Watts
Load Description

Total Load
in Watts

AWO

AWO Science Loads

5,400

5,400

ICECAPS

7,000

Total

12,400

ICECAPS

7,000

Table 1: Science Loads Model 5 Power Generation

The facility load was modeled as an average load of 16.7 kW which consisted of facility
lighting, power plant ancillary, communications, appliances, and some heating and air
handling. We did assume a fairly large fluctuation possibility of 10% day to day and
15% time step to time step for this load, although these assumptions are not based on
scientific measurements of the current power system. Table 2 describes the Facility
loads.
Load per Module in Watts
Total Load
in Watts

Generation

Residence

Storage

AWO

Lighting

3,000

500

1,000

500

1,000

Power Plant Ancillary

2,200

2,000

Communications Equipment

3,500

3,500

Appliances

2,000

2,000

Heating and Ventilation Air

Handling

6,000

Total

16,700

Load Description

2,000

200

500

500

3,000

Table 2 : Facility Loads Model 5 Power Generation

Both the science and facility loads are modeled on an hourly time-step basis with each
load being defined for each hour of the day for every day of the year. Thus these loads
are not dispatchable and must be met on each time-step of the model.
The thermal load for heating the modules was estimated using preliminary results from
the Model 5 building design. Table 3 shows the relationship between outside temperature
and the heating load for the total of the three proposed modules including snow melting
and hot water heating loads.
For modeling purposes, the one minute temperature data from the met tower at 2m above
ground level from 2009 was used to cross reference table 3 to specify the heating load for
that minute. Figure 1: Outside Temperature Frequency shows the distribution of 2009
temperatures and an average from the past 16 years at Summit Station. The average
eibg/jor - NREL

August 30, 2010

temperature for the 16 past years was -29.5C and the average temperature for 2009 was 24.5C. Thus our modeled estimates will represent roughly a 12% underestimate in this
load compared to the theoretical average heating load from the past 16 years.
Additionally, the model may not accurately reflect the actual boiler performance because
the HOMER model does not allow specific size specification. However, the maximum
boiler outputs for most systems between 19 and 75% renewable penetration were 9096KW. The 98% renewable penetration system boiler maximum output was
approximately 117kW. Thus, the current boiler sizing seems to align with any of the
modeled power systems, however it will have a slightly different efficiency than that
assessed in the modeling.
Outside
Temperature
(deg. C)
-62.5
-57.5
-52.5
-47.5
-42.5
-37.5
-32.5
-27.5
-22.5
-17.5
-12.5
-7.5
-2.5

Heating Load
(KW)
117.5
110.3
103.2
96.1
89.0
81.9
74.8
67.6
60.5
53.4
46.3
39.2
32.0

Table 3: Thermal Load and Temperature

Based on a population of six (6) full time staff and 12 people in July, water usage was
estimated. Each person is assumed to use 15 gallons of water per day and wash one load
of clothes per week which uses 22 gallons. This totals approximately 876 gallons per
week for a population of six (6) and includes a 15% margin above the calculated need.
CH2M Hill staff estimate that a 14 kW snow melter can make enough water in two days
for a two week supply for 6 people and that a 17.6 kW load for making hot water has
been reserved within the heating load in Table 3. This snow melt load was modeled as
being able to be met by the waste heat from any of the modeled generators, the dump
load from excess renewable or generators energy, and a diesel fired boiler with an
assumed fuel cost of $15 per US gallon and efficiency of 95%. This efficiency gives a
specific fuel consumption of approximately 0.107 l/kWh which translates to a cost of
energy of $0.424/kWh of heat energy in the thermal load case. HOMER does not allow a
thermal load to be modeled as a deferrable load and thus the deferrable load models are
only able to be met by renewable energy and diesel electrical generation sources.
However, we have adjusted the model output by mathematically modeling the output of
the models to account for the proposed 2,637 kWh of thermal storage.
eibg/jor - NREL

August 30, 2010

Waste heat recovery from diesel generators is a proven technology when removing heat
from the engine coolant. Removing waste heat from the engine exhaust is more complex
especially when the engines are not simply functioning at full load and in extremely cold
environments. We have modeled the thermal waste heat recovery at an efficiency of
approximately 28% when the diesels are functioning at full load. This reflects a higher
efficiency than typical jacket heat recovery, but since the generators will be housed
within the facility and will contribute some space heating to the structures. This level of
thermal energy capture is a reasonable first order assumption. Further waste heat could be
recovered from the exhaust from the engines, and this option should be explored in the
future.

Outside Temperature Frequency

18%

2009 temp data

16%

16 year compiled

14%

Fraction of Time

12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30
-20
Temp Deg C

-10

10

20

Figure 1: Outside Temperature Frequency

Energy Sources and Resource Data

The overall goal of this modeling was to examine and compare the required infrastructure
and cost of various power sources including different contributions from renewable
energy. Given the location only two renewable sources of energy are available, wind and
solar. These resources were modeled using provided historical site data for the wind
speeds, temperatures, and pressures, and NASA modeled radiation data for the solar
resource. A depiction of the direct solar radiation on a flat surface and the associated
clearness index is provided in Figure 2 :Solar Resource Data. Solar is a viable energy
source for Summit Station however given the location it is only really usable from April
through August due to the very northerly location of the site. During the summer months
the site has a very good, all day resource. Temperature data from 2009 at 10m above
eibg/jor - NREL

10

August 30, 2010

ground level was used to correct the photovoltaic output as the efficiency of photovoltaic
panels increases as temperature decreases. Although previous analysis have focused on
using an expanded amount of solar technology for both power and heat to cover high
summer loads, the Model 5 concept focuses the station around a six (6) person year round
staffing and science requirement, with the normal influx of summer research being
addressed by other systems described in the Model 6 concept. The fact that the load for
the Model 5 station is not expected to dramatically increase in the summer reduces the
preserved correlation of the load to the solar resource, reducing the larger reliance on
solar technologies seen in previous power system proposals.

Figure 2 :Solar Resource Data

One minute interval wind speed data from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009 was
used to calculate energy output of various turbines which was corrected given the 10m
temperature and pressure measurements from the same period. The data provided only
one level of wind speed but additional data from 2001-2002 which contained multiple
levels of anemometry was examined to draw an assumption of wind shear, which is the
phenomena of wind speed increasing as distance from the earths surface increases.
Figure 3: Shear Vs. Wind Speed shows the correlation between wind speed and wind
shear at Summit Station. In this analysis a wind shear exponent of 0.1 was used to
extrapolate the 10 m wind speed data from 2009 to various potential turbine hub heights.
Although the data shows the potential for much higher shear values based on wind speed,
given the distribution of wind speeds this should represent a realistic but conservative
estimate of the possible energy production for a turbine at a hub height other than 10 m.
Table 4: Monthly 10m Wind Speed Statistics shows the monthly averages from June 2008
through December 2010. The overall average at 10 m was 5.79 m/s.

eibg/jor - NREL

11

August 30, 2010

Year

Month

Mean

Max

(m/s)

(m/s)

Std. Dev.

Weibull k

(m/s)

Weibull c
(m/s)

2008

Jun

6.7049

13.5

2.5293

2.911

7.5302

2008

Jul

5.0715

16.7

2.6847

1.984

5.7278

2008

Aug

6.4174

24

3.3606

1.982

7.2296

2008

Sep

5.6399

16.1

2.6596

2.199

6.3407

2008

Oct

6.0028

25.6

3.4726

1.819

6.7611

2008

Nov

6.5038

21.2

3.4034

7.3405

2008

Dec

8.0536

26

4.3854

1.939

9.1025

2009

Jan

5.982

20.5

3.1817

1.962

6.7462

2009

Feb

4.9604

13.9

2.4616

2.029

5.5527

2009

Mar

5.0868

13.7

2.3263

2.251

5.6995

2009

Apr

6.2269

23

3.779

1.737

7.0141

2009

May

5.3751

17.5

2.9375

1.953

6.09

2009

Jun

4.7839

19.2

3.009

1.638

5.3485

2009

Jul

5.3118

17.8

2.9241

1.905

5.9958

2009

Aug

3.9347

12

1.9854

2.005

4.4094

2009

Sep

5.5935

18.2

3.0375

1.895

6.288

2009

Oct

6.1161

17.3

2.6643

2.391

6.8637

2009

Nov

6.1662

14.5

2.5053

2.613

6.8936

2009

Dec

6.9305

24.8

3.3455

2.167

7.8212

5.7942

26

3.1771

1.889

6.5186

All data

Table 4: Monthly 10m Wind Speed Statistics

Future work to refine this study should include collection and processing of expanded
historical data to look at the long term wind resource and trends, to prevent over or under
expectation of wind production. Analysis should also be conducted to get a better
estimate of wind shear specifically relating to temperature, a known local inversion and
the potential for icing, all of which would impact the potential output of a wind turbine
installed at this location.
The delivered cost of fuel was modeled to be $15/US gallon. Obviously there are many
factors that go into determining this cost, including transportation, but it is also important
to understand the other impacts of fuel use. Expanded logistical support in terms of the
number of flights that are possible during the season, the effectiveness of the traverses,
expanded staff time and risk in its transport, use, and distribution, storage and spill
prevention requirements, environmental impact, science impacts, transport and supply
risk, and price variability. Thus a consideration must be given as to the quantity of fuel
that will need to be delivered each year, if this is achievable from a logistics perspective,
what risk and additional costs are associated with its use and what contingencies are
available to address supply reductions.

eibg/jor - NREL

12

August 30, 2010

Figure 3: Shear vs. Wind Speed

Constraints

For most models the energy required from renewable sources was set at 50%, meaning on
an annual basis renewable technologies contributed at least 50% of the stations total
electrical, thermal, and load for melting and heating water. Several runs of the model
were conducted to examine what would happen at a required 75% and 100% renewable
energy contribution. In cases where 50% of the electrical energy is supplied on average,
it indicates that there will be times when renewable sources are producing more energy
than is needed to meet the load, called instantaneous penetration or contribution. To
allow consistent high quality power when a large amount of the stations power is being
supplied by renewable sources the modeling defines an operating reserve (sometimes
referred to as spinning reserve, but because reserve requirements can be met by batteries
or other non-spinning sources, the term operating reserve is more accurate), as a
percentage of the renewable output that must be held in reserve if there is a sudden loss
of renewable power. For all systems that included batteries the operating reserve was set
to zero but was changed to 100% for systems that did not contain batteries. In systems
without storage this forces a diesel generator to always operate when there is a load even
if the renewable output exceeds the load. Further discussion in average and instantaneous
contribution from renewable sources if found in Appendix A of this document.
Other constraints include the requirement for all loads to be met for all time-steps, as well
as the requirements for operating reserve. The final design of the system including
charge set points, battery capacity, battery make and model selection, and battery deeibg/jor - NREL

13

August 30, 2010

rating over time will assist in defining the operating constraints to maximize the amount
of renewable energy utilized while still being able to meet all loads.
Since turbines can be designed and constructed to operate at lower temperatures than are
typically made available for the general market, an analysis was conducted to look at the
amount of time the turbines would be off line due to low temperatures, which is described
below. Further analysis could be completed to look at the power production impacts of
modifying an existing turbine to operate at lower temperatures.
Since larger wind turbines typically have a minimum operating temperature limit, a
constraint was added to eliminate power production when the temperature is below - 40C.
This typically only impacts larger turbines as smaller turbines, like the existing Proven
6kW unit current installed, have no method to stop operation at low temperatures.
Figure 4:Turbine Energy Production Fraction Vs. Temperature shows the fraction of
energy that was possible to produce versus the lower limit of the turbines operating
envelope. For this example of the Northern Power Systems Northwind 100/21, 100 kW
turbine, which is available with a lower operating limit of -40C, the turbine could
possibly produce 11% more energy if it could operate at lower temperatures given the
concurrent temperature and wind data from 2009 and concurrently calculating the power
output of the turbine. NREL has already performed a study which identifies the specific
components that will need to be changed to facilitate a much lower operating temperature
for the NW100 and these changes are not substantial and are reasonably achievable for
this project.

Turbine Energy Production Fraction Vs Temperature

1
0.9
Turbine Output Energy/
Possible energy

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-80

-70

-60

-50
-40
-30
-20
Turbine Temperature Rating Deg C

-10

(NOTE: This temperature data was collected Jan1-Dec31 2009 at 10m AGL, temperatures may be
higher as height increases)

Figure 4:Turbine Energy Production Fraction Vs. Temperature

eibg/jor - NREL

14

August 30, 2010

Figure 5: Scatter Plot Turbine Energy Production Vs Temperature

Temperature data was for the full calendar year of 2009 and was taken at a 10 m height.
As shown in Figure 1: Outside Temperature Frequency, the temperature distribution for
2009 compared to the last 16 years at Summit reveals that approximately 11.4% of the
year in 2009 the temperature was below -40 C whereas approximately 25.0% of the time
the temperature was below -40 C for the past 16 years. The potential turbine
performance impact of this difference is unknown because it is not necessarily windy
when the temperatures are cold. This is shown in Figure 5: Scatter Plot Wind Speed Vs
Temperature which displays the frequency of wind speeds versus outside temperature. As
described the exact correlation between temperature and wind speed should be examined
further. Additionally, thermal stratification of the air is very common at Summit Station
and the impact of this temperature constraint will likely decrease as the hub height
increases. The impacts of turbine operation warrants further investigation into long term
temperature and wind speed data to ensure this model is not based on statistically
irrelevant data.
System Control

Due to the station design request for some autonomy will involve large battery banks,
looking at different battery discharge levels more sensitivities should be conducted to
examine battery life expectancies, days of diesel autonomy, size and storage cost. This
also assumed that NSF will require some length of diesel autonomy. Other options for
the system configuration for all models include the options for either better cycle
charging or load following, allowing for multiple generators and allowing them to
operate simultaneously. Additionally systems with generators with capacities less than

eibg/jor - NREL

15

August 30, 2010

the peak load were allowed as well as allowing excess diesel electricity to serve the
heating load.
Diesel Generators

The HOMER model was run with the large (base) generator sized at 60 KW even though
a 44 KW unit would meet the theoretical hourly maximum facility and science loads in a
base analysis. Assuming very generic variation in the load as described above, this is a
conservative sizing and would have to be assessed more carefully in a final design
process once final loads are identified. The HOMER software was then allowed to select
the size of two other generators, using the largest generator to simply cover the largest
potential load. Future analysis should optimize the size of the diesels for a given
renewable penetration.
Wind Turbine Generators

Wind Turbine Generators (WTGs) have long been used in remote locations with harsh
environments such as in polar regions, and represent one of the most cost effective
sources of renewable energy globally. However, they do need periodic maintenance and
do have problems with icy atmospheric conditions since ice buildup on the blades can
cause larger than normal forces on the machine as well as greatly reduced performance.
Wind turbines convert the kinetic energy in the wind into a mechanical force which is
then converted to either alternating current or direct current electricity. This electricity is
then either used to meet loads that are present, to charge batteries if there is more
electrical energy generated by the turbine than needed by the loads, or in cases when even
the batteries are full, used to create heat. In a location like Summit the heat could either
be for direct space heating or to heat a transfer fluid that can be used or stored in an
insulated container.
Initially the 6 kW Proven turbines were considered due to their history in cold climates
and at Summit specifically, but this would result in a large number of small turbines
which is not operationally feasible. For this reason the 15kW Proven turbine was then
considered. This turbine is a very similar design to the 6kW but does not have the cold
climate operating experience. The 15 kW turbine was also undersized for the expected
loads at Summit so other larger turbines needed to be considered. For this reason the 50
kW Entegrity and the 100 kW Northwind 100/21 turbine produced by Northern Power
Systems was identified as viable candidate due to its operational use in Alaska and cold
climate design. After the revision of the thermal load, which represented a 230% increase
in the total site load compared to just the electrical load, it became apparent that larger
turbines should be examined. For this reason the 330 kW Enercon E33 turbine was also
modeled. The Enercon E33 machine is one of the only medium scale wind turbines to be
successfully deployed in colder climates as evidenced by the installations on the
Antarctic continent at McMurdo and Mawson Stations. Turbines of this size present even
larger logistical concerns such as crane size required for erection, foundation
considerations, etc and the costs associated with these issues can become massive. Thus
we believe the NW100 to be the most proven, available, and logistically viable turbine
that will is logistically feasible. Although assessments were made on the cost for
implementing such a large turbine, these are very preliminary and were modeled between
3.5 and 5 times as much as a typical installation in the continental US. As part of a
eibg/jor - NREL

16

August 30, 2010

detailed study on the potential power system for Summit Station Model 5, a more
detailed review of available wind turbines, including a special 30kW turbine designed
specifically for the German Antarctic Station, and possible installed costs at Summit
should be undertaken. A list of turbines considered for this analysis is provided in Table
5.
One major issue that was raised was that of ice events and the impact that these events
have on the turbine energy production. A comparison of actual output for the Proven 6
kW turbine which has been installed at Summit Station since August of 2008 was
conducted to assess the output. The review of data from August 2008 to January 2010
was performed and the results can be seen in Figure 6: Proven 6kW Historical
Actual/Possible Energy Production Fraction.

ActualEnergy Production Fraction of Existing

Proven 6kw Turbine
% Energy Produced of Possible Energy

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Apr-08

Jul-08

Oct-08

Feb-09

May-09

Aug-09

Dec-09

Figure 6: Proven 6kW Historical Actual/Possible Energy Production Fraction

The data represents actual power production as compared to the theoretical production
based on the wind speed and power curve of the turbine. For this reason the data
represents all of the local conditions that would reduce power generation including
turbine curtailment, down time due to maintenance or other operational issues, but most
importantly altitude and icing. There is clearly a wide variability in the power production
of the turbine, with higher production in the summer months and then reduced
performance during the winter. Although several months of data was missing the average
output compared to the modeled output based on wind speed averaged approximately
50% for the months believed to have good data.
eibg/jor - NREL

17

August 30, 2010

Manufacturer

Turbine Model

Nameplate
Output

Rotor
Diameter

Temperature Rating

Enercon

E33

330kW

33.4m

-40C

Northern Power

Northwind 100

100kW

21m

-40C

Entegrity/AOC

EW50 15/50

50/60kW

15m

-40C

Proven

15kW

15kW

9m

NA

Proven

6kW

6kW

5.5m

NA

Tble 5: Applicable Wind Turbines

All Proven turbines modeled were assumed to produce 50% of their possible output,
similar to the existing Proven 6 kW output. Blade coatings and de-icing technologies
could be retrofitted to these turbines to decrease the icing impacts on these turbines, but
this retrofit for powered blade de-icing or icing prevention systems will take a large
technical effort. Our assumption for the Northwind 100 was that powered blade de-icing
or ice prevention systems will be more reliable since the NW100 already has power
available in the hub. Thus we modeled the reduction in turbine power production at 21%
which would account for turbine downtime when icing events are too heavy for the antiicing technologies and for the electricity consumed to melt the ice from the blades.
Concern was also raised regarding snow buildup around the foundation which will
affectively decrease the turbine hub height. Historical measurements show that an
average accumulation of snow is approximately 2 feet per year. Investigation into a
jackable foundation has not been conducted but a combination of construction above
grade, a taller tower, or just allowing snow to accumulate seem to be reasonable options.
The annual reduction in turbine output will amount to 0.52% per year if the snow is not
removed or the turbine not raised.
Photovoltaic Panels

Due to the obvious seasonal nature of the solar resource PV was not expected to have a
large contribution to the overall renewable energy fraction when balanced with cost. The
panels are assumed to be mounted at 90 degrees from horizontal, or vertical, and this is to
prevent mounting and snow buildup problems in the future. The panels are assumed to
be facing south and to have a ground reflectance when mounted vertically of 60%.
Mounting the panels horizontally reduces their performance and thus raises the cost of
energy by $0.40/kWh evaluated over the life of the project. Other parameters for the PV
system are provided in Figure 7 :PV Paramaters

eibg/jor - NREL

18

August 30, 2010

Figure 7 :PV Paramaters

Temperature data was input from 2009 to show the increased performance of the panels
due to the lower operating temperature. The HOMER model also assumes the
implementation of an electronic maximum power point tracker as part of the power
system design although this assessment assumes fixed racks. One note to consider is that
due to this low temperature Homer estimates the peak output of a 20 kW system mounted
at 72.5 degrees from horizontal to be nearly 30 kW so other components such as wiring,
max power point controllers, etc should be size appropriately and not to the nameplate
reading.
Further study into the cost effectiveness of solar hot water heaters and solar snow melters
should be explored as these systems will have substantially higher efficiencies than PV
panels.
System capable of supplying the full summer load from solely the solar resource was
modeled and it consisted of approximately 95kW of PV mounted horizontally and 300
square meters of solar evacuated tube collectors. The model for the evacuated solar
collectors was not a specific model or physical test result, but the equation used was
derived from a model used in RETScreen. 1

RETScreen Engineering and Cases Textbook Solar Water Heating Project Analysis P.26 http://dsppsd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collection_2007/nrcan-rncan/M39-101-2003E.pdf

eibg/jor - NREL

19

August 30, 2010

Energy Storage

Longer term potential energy storage in two forms is applicable to Summit Station,
electrical and thermal. As is described in Appendix A: Renewable Energy Hybrid
System Technologies, the incorporation of electrical storage allows better use of power
generation, either from renewables or the diesel engines while allowing expanded time
with all of the diesel generators off. Total thermal load, for heat and water
creating/heating, allow the expanded use of thermal energy, primarily from diesel
thermal, excess electrical, and direct fired fuel boilers. The modeled thermal storage
simply utilizes otherwise spilt electricity, (electricity which comes from the renewable
sources of electricity), by storing this excess electricity be heating water or glycol. This
glycol is then stored in a insulated container and pumped through heat exchangers when
the building needs to be heated. This calculation is performed during each time-step and
if excess electricity exists and the thermal storage is not full this energy is captured and
then later utilized. Thermal storage allows for available energy to be converted to
thermal energy and then used throughout the station when needed. Thermal storage also
allows a level of system autonomy, providing critical heat for a period when energy
sources are either unavailable or its use would cause issues for scientific research. This
introduces the concept of a deferrable load, a load either electrical or thermal that can
be deferred to a time when excess, lower cost or less environmentally impactful energy
resource is available. All recommended systems here modeled the two days of thermal
storage that was recommended by the Model 5 design team.
Sensitivity studies were conducted to generate a curve showing fuel use versus the
deferrable thermal load size. These calculations assume the 58% renewable contribution
system with no battery storage. These results can be seen in Figure 8. It should be noted
that as renewable penetration increases the contribution of total energy by a thermal
storage system will increase to a point. This assumes that higher penetrations there is a
large fraction of unused or spilt electricity compared to when the RE Fraction is low there
is not enough excess electricity to be captured by the thermal storage.
Although the cost associated with this deferrable storage was not taken into consideration
as an input to the model, clearly the ability to store small amounts of thermal energy
lowers the cost of energy dramatically. Further examination as to the cost effectiveness
of thermal storage should be conducted.
In the case described here the electrical energy storage would be paired with an energy
conversion technology (power converter) to allow the battery to accept and provide
power to the Station. In the analysis two types of batteries were considered, conventional
deep cycle lead-acid batteries as well as a more theoretical flow battery. Conventional
lead acid sealed batteries require very little maintenance and in this scenario have an
approximate lifetime of 17 years, although this estimate based on usage is optimistic.
Flow batteries utilize an electrolyte pumped fluid and so the size or capacity of this
electrolyte can be changed independently of the converter, which determines the power
output of the flow battery. HOMER has the limitation of modeling battery life assuming
a finite and constant throughput of energy for each battery modeled, where in reality
many variables such as the depth of discharge, time at low SOCs, storage temperature,
and other conditions have large affects on battery life and should be examined in future
eibg/jor - NREL

20

August 30, 2010

analysis. Both batteries could be used to smooth out fluctuations in wind energy while
allowing all of the stations diesel engines to be shut off, however due to the expected
loads of the Model 5 summit development, a single string (330 kWh) of conventional
batteries would only allow for approximately 12 hours of complete non-diesel autonomy
while the flow batteries would allow expanded capacity, up to several days. However,
very few flow batteries have been installed and most of these are attached to large grid
networks with large service capabilities. At this point flow batteries are likely not
appropriate for implementation at a remote location like summit although in the near
future this may be a possibility. Obviously a proportional amount of thermal storage
should be considered unless the flow battery is a more cost effective manner of storing
electrical potential for thermal generation. However, the specifics of this deployment are
much more involved and should be studies further if considered.
Fuel Savings vs Deferrable Load Size for a Single Enercon E33 system at 58% RE
600000

10000

Boiler Output

8000

Spilt Electricity

500000

6000

Fuel Savings

KWH

2000
0

300000

-2000
200000

Liters of Fuel

4000

400000

-4000
-6000

100000

-8000
-10000

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

Deferrable Load Size (KWH) (Note: All systems are projected to only use 1/3 their storage capacity)

Figure 8: Fuel Savings for Various Deferrable Load Sizes

The implementation of electrical storage that would allow expanded non-diesel operation
during times when there is a potential to contaminate measurements in the clean air zone
was not conducted. This was not addressed explicitly since no value has been assigned
for the loss of these measurements, making economic optimization impossible. As a
further refinement of this analysis such a study should be conducted, looking at the
frequency and duration of southerly winds and a cost of scientific impact. Because the
current assessment does not address this issue, the longer autonomy provided by the flow
batteries is not seen as valuable from a cost perspective and thus is not used. A study
of this impact would allow the monetization of the storage option, leading to an ability to
better assess the benefits of providing longer term system autonomy. Assuming that the
development of flow or other batteries progress to the point where they can be proven
reliable for remote applications such as Summit Station, longer term electrical storage
should be considered. If a specific amount of diesel autonomy is desired and thus be
eibg/jor - NREL

21

August 30, 2010

defined explicitly, the system can be designed and further optimized for that amount of
storage.
A survey of available electrical storage products, both conventional and new, should be
made at the time of final design specification.

Analysis Results
The following section provides the results of the simulation runs conducted with the
HOMER power system simulation software. It should be noted that at current fuel prices
only low penetration systems which utilize larger turbines represent an actual savings in
the lifecycle cost of energy of the station. Since the three levels identified in this analysis,
50%, 75% and 100% are all arbitrary they serve to identify the cost of 4 various
contribution levels of renewable technologies. Reverence Table 6:Optomized Model
Configurations for Various Technologies for the various combinations of technologies
that make up the points in Figure 9: Renewable Fraction vs. Cost of Energy for Various
Technologies.
This model assumes that diesel delivered to Summit Station costs $15/US gallon and uses
the thermal load as recommended from CH2MHill. Energy produced solely by diesel
reciprocating engines costs approximately $1.145/kWh (which is represented by 0%
renewable energy penetration in Figure 9: Renewable Fraction vs. Cost of Energy). As
stated previously this cost assumes a current delivered fuel cost at fuel prices at 2008
levels, the cost also does not include any value placed on carbon emissions, loss of
science data due to air pollution or the potential increase in market fuel price. A system
utilizing a single NW100 with no PV or battery storage will result in a 19% renewable
contribution at a cost of $1.141/kWh. As can be seen if Figure 9: Renewable Fraction
vs. Cost of Energy, PV represents the least cost effective solution for high penetrations,
but the most cost effective solution for very low penetrations, while larger turbines
become more cost effective as renewable penetration increases.
The model in this form simply identifies the most cost effective methods of generation,
and we must adjust the costs and projected availability of each component to
appropriately reflect the real installed cost at Summit Station. One should also consider
the fact that the cost of two turbines will not necessarily be twice the installed cost of a
single turbine, but we have modeled it as if the cost is linear. Redundancy in the system
is also a large advantage, and the cost of installing two should be less than just a single
turbine.
However, installing more than a small number of turbines or a realistic amount of PV
seems to have diminishing returns. This is due to long periods of no wind production in
February through March and in August for the data used in the analysis. Obviously, the
lack of sun during the winter months limits the total overall penetration that can be
provided by solar energy. Figure 9: Renewable Fraction vs. Cost of Energy for Various
Technologies illustrates the asymptotic nature of the addition of turbines beyond about 600
kW of installed wind capacity.

eibg/jor - NREL

22

August 30, 2010

Fuel costs have a key barring when assessing the economic impacts of implementing RE
technologies, especially as it relates to providing critical needs to sustain operation at
such a remote site. Fuel price uncertainly also has a large impact, especially for
operations which must operate on a fixed budget, such as NSF. During the high fuel
prices in the spring of 2008, many organizations were required to curtail operations in the
face of a doubling of fuel costs. The U.S. DOE, Annual Energy Outlook for 2010
brackets the cost of oil from between $50 and close to $200 / barrel, with the reference in
the area of $100/barrel. Although not generally instructive, it does highlight the huge
potential variability and fuel price risk associated with being tied to diesel technology.
Although it is not overly instructive to conduct an assessment of the potential impact of
fuel price volatility, it is instructive to consider the cost of energy associated with
changes in fuel price. Figure 10: Cost of Energy from Diesel Generation at Varrying Fuel Price,
shows the impact of different fuel prices on the cost of energy, ranging from the
$1.145/kWh at $15/gal to over $1.55/kWh at a delivered fuel cost of $21/gal. In this
assessment we assumed a fixed delivery cost of fuel of $12/gal and a varying purchased
fuel cost from free to $6.00 /gal. It is understood that this likely underestimates the
volatility in fuel cost due to the high component of fuel required to deliver the fuel to
Summit, either through the traverse or C-130 aircraft. It should also be understood that
although a $6.00 / gal fuel cost may be high; this could also include a potential cost of
carbon. All this said, this discussion just hopes to empress that although current diesel
only supply provides power at a cost of $1.145/kWh, one should not assume that this is
the flat cost over the life of the Summit Station, and thus selecting a system with a higher
renewable penetration, but that has a higher overall cost of energy, should be given more
than fair consideration.
As with any technology implementation there are physical constraints that exist with the
implementation of technology. Examples of such include the available space for
mounting a PV array, which may not allow such large arrays, or the use of very large
wind turbine technologies. Some forms of renewable energy will also become more cost
effective once a specific length of diesel autonomy is specified, thus the model may
choose larger renewable generation if more electrical storage is specified.
At low RE penetration levels the model chooses PV over a Proven 6 kW or an AOC
15/50 with current pricing and 50% de-rating on the turbines for ice and other impacts.
Also, this explains why between installations of turbines the model fills the gap to
generate renewable energy by using PV and then battery storage in that order. This
relationship of PV and battery cost of energy changes as the availability of excess
electricity increases.
As discussed, without a specification as to how many days of diesel autonomy were
required for this scenario, the cost based optimum storage capacity was determined to be
55 3,000 amp hours of conventional batteries storage which gives approximately 230
kWh of storage from full charge to the minimum 30% charge. This configuration offers
less than half a day of storage if both the facility and science loads operate as modeled.
Heating loads are covered through thermal storage and no renewable support is assumed.
Given the remote location of this site we assume that the period of diesel autonomy

eibg/jor - NREL

23

August 30, 2010

requirement will be longer than this most cost effective storage configuration, but this has
yet to be determined.
Renewable Penetration vs $/KWh for Various Technologies

5.25
4.75
4.25
3.75

NW 100

3.25

$/KWh

Disesel Only

2.75
2.25
1.75

150 KW PV

1.25

30 KW PV

0.75
0

20

40
60
Renewable Penetration %

80

100

Figure 9: Renewable Fraction vs. Cost of Energy for Various Technologies

Further analysis should be conducted over the whole spectrum to find local optima during
the final design phase of this project. For example, based on the available technology
and the fact that they can to be purchased in a wide array of sizes, it could be that
producing 51% of the stations electrical energy from renewables is substantially more
expensive than producing 49% of the stations energy, just by the need to install a large
system component. It would be most appropriate to identify several key economic criteria
to determine what level of renewable energy is desired for Summit Station and use that
value as a key design parameter.

Notes on Recommendations
The below cost of energy numbers are not corrected for the savings in fuel due to the
thermal storage. We are also not currently recommending the use of the Enercon turbine
due to the added complexities in purchasing these turbines in the U.S. as well as the
technical difficulties inherent with an ice foundation design of this magnitude. Further
analysis on the potential implementation of a turbine of this size or at least the
availability of slightly larger turbines than the NW 100 should be assessed. Because the
larger Enercon turbine is currently unavailable to U.S. markets and no know research has
been done on ice foundation designs for such a large turbine, in the following
discussions, only the smaller NW100 turbine is included.

eibg/jor - NREL

24

August 30, 2010

Also, no cost could be modeled for thermal storage and thus the cost of installing any
thermal storage in any capacity is not included in the cost of energy calculations.
$6.00

$1.540

$4.00

$1.240

$3.00

$1.140

$2.00

$1.040

$1.00

$0.940

$-

Cost of Energy ($/KWH)

$1.340

$11.00

$13.00

$15.00

$17.00

$19.00

Estimated approximete fuel Prive ($/gal)

$5.00

$1.440

$21.00

Cost of Delivered Fuel ($/US Gallon)

Figure 10: Cost of Energy from Diesel Generation at Varrying Fuel Price

RE (%)
94.1
76.1
67
62.2
54
41.4
19.4
17.2
14.2
10.6
7
3.5
0

$/KWh
4.723
3.389
2.563
2.134
1.736
1.392
1.171
1.716
1.584
1.46
1.351
1.266
1.145

NW 100
(#
turbines)
8
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0

PV (KW)
100
60
10
10
10
10
10
150
120
90
60
30
0

Battery
Strings
7
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0

Thermal
Storage
(days)
10
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0

Table 6:Optomized Model Configurations for Various Technologies

eibg/jor - NREL

25

August 30, 2010

Lower RE Penetration Systems

The HOMER software is designed to choose energy sources that minimize the overall
cost of energy, however it can only consider factors that have an economic impact. As
such the cost of carbon, potential increases in fuel cost, and loss of data due to fuel
contamination are not considered. When allowed to assess solely on system economics
the model indicates the most cost effective option using renewable technologies provides
a renewable penetration of roughly 19% consisting of one NW100, three diesel
generators, two days of thermal storage, and one string of batteries providing
approximately 12 hours of unassisted reserve with a total system cost of energy of
$1.091/kWh. This is compared to a diesel only system which utilizes three different sized
diesels delivers a cost of energy of $1.145/kWh. The system which utilized these three
diesel gensets with no renewable or storage would use 135,572 liters of fuel a year with
38,165 liters per year being used by the boiler for heating. The lowest penetration RE
system would use 93,650 liters of fuel per year with 47,063 being consumed by the
boiler. The increase in boiler fuel use is largely a result of reduced diesel operation and
subsequent loss of thermal energy from the diesel for heating. At these low renewable
penetration levels there is little excess renewable energy to make up for the loss in diesel
thermal output.
With two NW100 turbines the RE fraction with the two days of thermal storage is 41.4%
and without the thermal storage the renewable fraction is only 32.5% which represents a
2136 gallon savings in fuel which the two days of thermal storage capacity offsets. If the
thermal storage is doubled to a four day storage capacity the renewable fraction increases
to 44.6% which indicates this additional storage may not be cost effective due to the
small gain in renewable fraction.

Diesel Off Summer System

Assuming no contribution from the wind turbine(s), the electrical load can be met from
mid May to early July by approximately 95 KW of PV panels mounted horizontally
combined with two strings of 55 batteries rated at 3000 amp hours each. If this system
was to be combined with approximately 300 square meters of evacuated tube solar
collectors to generate hot water to meet the space heating, snowmelt, and hot water loads
the station could be completely powered by just solar energy for a period from mid May
to early July. Evacuated solar tube collectors will produce roughly 525 kWh/m2/year at
the Summit location.

Recommended System and 50% Renewable Energy Model

The recommendation of this document would be to implement a power system that would
incorporate three (3) Northwind 100 kW wind turbines (or equivalent), a small amount of
PV, likely approximately 10 kW depending on the available mounting surface of the new
Summit facility and a small, a two strings of batteries to provide system electrical
stability and a short term level of diesel autonomy. Once a value for long-term, no diesel
operation is determined, it may be worth investigating a larger conventional or flow style
battery to provide longer term electrical storage. This system would provide
approximately 54% of the total stations energy needs using renewable technologies,
would reduce fuel usage to 52,633 liters per year and save an estimated 236.9 tons of
eibg/jor - NREL

26

August 30, 2010

CO2 production from an all diesel case which represents a reduction of 61.2% in CO2
emissions. This system would cost approximately$5.27 million dollars and have a per
KWh cost of $1.754 as compared to $1.145/KWh for the diesel only case.

75% Renewable Energy Model

The optimized power system that HOMER recommends when given the constraint of
76.1% of energy to come from renewable sources coupled with the constant snow melt
load case utilizes six NW100 turbines, two strings of batteries (approx 660kWh) and
60kW of PV coupled with the standard 20 kW, 30 kW, and 60 kW diesel generators and
the assumed two days of thermal storage. The cost of energy for the 76.1% renewable
energy case is $3.281/kWh and the camp would consume 25,542 liters of diesel a year.

100% renewable contribution full renewable power system

The optimized power system that HOMER recommends when given the constraint of
100% of energy to come from renewable sources was not possible to model, but a system
of 94.1% renewable penetration was modeled. The cost of energy for the 94.1%
renewable energy case is $4.738. This system uses 8 NW100 turbines, 7 strings of
batteries and 100kW of PV. Other technologies not considered in this model are likely
needed to implement a system of this nature. The camp would consume 6,254 liters of
diesel a year with 10 days of thermal storage capacity.

eibg/jor - NREL

27

August 30, 2010

Conclusions and Recommendations

Renewable energy sources are intermittent, meaning they only provide power when the
resources are available to drive them. This means that for remote power systems they are
typically included as part of a centralized power system where multiple components can
be combined to provide reliable power. All of the systems assessed in this study follow
this concept and in all cases the system taking advantage of diesel, wind, solar, battery
storage, and power conversion technology. The fact that all of the proposed designs
followed the same general configuration is actually quite encouraging, allowing a great
deal of flexibility when it comes to initial system development and then potentially
expansion or contraction as needed over time. The power systems comprised of
renewables and conventional technology also provide a strong base from a safety
standpoint, with multiple levels of redundancy to allow insured power generation even in
the event of catastrophic failure of one or more of the individual system components.
As discussed previously, although overall system cost is clearly one of the drivers from a
modeling perspective and percent of energy coming from renewable sources is a second
major directional motivator, additional parameters such as fuel usage, fuel price stability,
pollution, and operational costs are clear concerns. Since each of these items have not
been defined quantitatively, it is hard to make recommendations on a specific design, but
can only provide relative information, allowing others to weigh the impacts of these
different choices.
As to an actual recommendation of a configuration we recommend several different sized
diesels combined with some energy storage as well as a combination of wind turbines and
solar panels. We recommend a single diesel capable of meeting all loads on an
instantaneous basis including the domestic heating load in the instance that the boiler is
not functional and all renewable sources of electricity are not functional as well. This
diesel will not be used when the system is functioning as designed and will only serve as
an emergency backup generator. Homer continuously recommends two different sized
generators, as 20kW and a 30kW capacity generator to meet the modeled scientific,
facility and water heating loads in conjunction with a boiler. All these units should be
plumbed into the facility to allow capture of electrical and thermal energy.
The implementation of PV presents a very tricky problem as mounting the PV at the ideal
slope of 72.5 degrees will require building structures, roof or fielded mounting structures
capable of withstanding the forces of the winds, snow removal, etc. Thus the exact
amount of space available for vertical and horizontal PV mounting at the current station
was not addressed as a limitation in any of these models. Our recommendation is that
some amount of PV makes sense to have another source of energy for redundancy, but a
large array will never be cost effective unless weighed with the impact of the diesel
emissions on research. This impact on research could also be combated by larger storage
capacities and charging algorithms that took wind direction into account and allowed for
maximum renewable penetration during these periods.

eibg/jor - NREL

28

August 30, 2010

Further Analysis, Data Needs and Assessments

Overall, renewables can reduce fuel use, emissions, and stabilize future energy costs at a
small proportion to current estimated costs of energy at Summit Station. Future
assessments that build on this report need additional specifications such as a specific
length of autonomy for sizing of the electrical storage and specifying thermal space
heating loads for the building. Additionally further information on the cost, if any, of
environmental damage, loss of data due to pollution and/or the level of interest in
considering the potential impact of fuel price volatility should be defined before further
economic based modeling is conducted.
More data for environmental parameters should be collected to reduce the uncertainty of
basing a model on a single year of data. Also, basing the model on a constraint such as
specifying a single level of renewable penetration is not advised since the model will
simply meet this constraint when a cost effective option with slightly more or less
renewable penetration could be used.
Given the models bias towards wind power for a renewable energy resource, we
recommend exploring turbines that are generally larger in size (~50-150kW) or have
blade de-icing technologies. Blade de-icing technologies on the current turbine may also
be cost effective given the massive reduction in power output. Additionally the
temperature at Summit Station seems to be highly stratified with large differences in
temperature existing for small differences in height above the ground. Thus one method
of ice mitigation is to install the turbines on taller towers to avoid lower temperatures and
possibly higher moisture closer to the ground. The stratification of the moisture should
be studied to ensure money is not wasted on tall towers. Historical ice accumulations on
the tall met tower may be the best indicator if this data may exist. Also, this large
difference in temperature will have a significant influence on the air density so more data
must be collected to see how this stratification changes annually.
Obtaining concurrent temperature, pressure, due-point, wind speed, and wind direction at
more than a single height will help verify if raising the turbines will lessen the icing
conditions as well as give us an idea of the shear of the site.
Depending on the level of waste heat recovery from the diesel generator exhaust, other
recovery technologies have been successfully implemented, such as Rankin cycles should
be considered if a low renewable penetration system is to be implemented.
We also recommend looking into the cost effectiveness of solar snow melters or solar
thermal technology for use during the summer months even if the loads remain constant
throughout the year.
Lastly, further verification of the costs and viability of these various technologies,
especially energy storage technologies, is necessary as pricing and availability of various
components can change drastically yearly.

eibg/jor - NREL

29

August 30, 2010

Appendix A: Renewable Energy Hybrid System Technologies

Renewable Energy Contribution
In the discussion of adding renewable energy technologies to diesel power systems, much
relies on the amount of energy that is being supplied by renewable technologies as
compared to diesel. In almost all cases, the systems control requirements increase with
increasing reliance on energy from renewables. A method proposed but not formally
published by Steve Drouilhet classifies and defines the contribution of renewable energy ,
a term of art Mr. Drouilhet calls system penetration to help characterize the levels of
system control complexity:
Instantaneous penetration is the product of the Wind Turbine Power Output (kW)
divided by the Primary Electrical Load (kW) while the average penetration is a product
of the Total Wind Turbine Energy Output (kWh) divided by the total Primary Electrical
Load (kWh) over a given time period, typically a month or year.
Instantaneous penetration relates to the power system complexity and the required level
of control to maintain acceptable power quality. Power systems with low instantaneous
wind penetration require limited additional control. System control is provided by devices
integrated into diesel generator hardware. As instantaneous penetrations increase, more
caution is required because the variation in wind turbine output, driven by the variation of
the wind resource, may overwhelm the capabilities of standard diesel control hardware.
At very high levels of instantaneous penetration, where wind production is on par or even
exceeds the system energy requirements, additional control must be put in place to
maximize system performance and stability.
Average penetration allows an estimation of fuel savings and fuel storage needs, general
system operation characteristics, and potential long-term monetary impact. Averaged
over longer periods of time, it provides a record of the total amount of system energy
coming from wind technology.
It should be noted that different renewable technologies have different impacts on system
control as it relates to renewable contribution, and in most cases the specific location can
also greatly impact the control requirements. For example wind is a variable resources,
which changes on a seasonal, daily, hourly and in many cases instantaneous basis. Solar
power is more predictable, but a passing cloud can cause the complete loss of energy
from a PV array in the matter of seconds.
Low-Penetration Systems: Many low-penetration systems have been installed
worldwide. These vary from small to relatively large isolated grids, such as those found
on several Greek islands. In fact, some large grids, such as those found in certain areas of
the United States and Europe, reach a wind power penetration that would classify them in
the same category as low-penetration systems. Basically, low-penetration systems are
those in which the renewable generation source is just another source, requiring no
special arrangements. The control technology required at this level of generation is
trivial, especially given the control, flexibility, and speed of modern diesel and wind
systems. In many systems, no form of automated control is requiredthe wind turbines
eibg/jor - NREL

30

August 30, 2010

act under their commercial controllers and an operator monitors all system functions.
Because the diesel engines are designed to allow for rapid fluctuations in power
requirements from the load, the addition of wind has very limited impact, if any, on the
ability of the diesel control to provide the remaining difference. Issues of spinning
reserve, a term used to represent the availability of instantaneous system capacity to
cover rapid changes in system load or energy production, are addressed by the allowable
capacity of the diesel engines, which in many cases can run at 125% rated power for
short periods of time with no adverse impact on the diesel or generator. A generic
schematic of a low-penetration system is shown in Figure A.1 (Lundsager and Madsen
1995 and Lundsager et. al. 2001).

Control
System

AC Wind Turbines

AC Bus

AC Diesels

Figure A.1: Schematic of low-penetration wind/diesel hybrid

Medium-Penetration Systems: Systems with larger ratios of renewable energy

contribution fall into this category. Allowing power penetrations of up to 50% will allow
any under-loaded diesel generators in multiple diesel plants to be shut off or to be
switched to a smaller unit for production. This, in turn, will reduce plant diesel
consumption and reduce diesel engine operation. However, this may also open the power
system to potential shortfalls, assuming the loss of one or more of the wind generators or
diesel engines. In addition, with a large penetration of energy being produced by the
variable renewable source, it will become harder for the operating diesel units to tightly
regulate system voltage and maintain an adequate power balance. There are options to
ensure that the high-power-quality requirements of the power system are maintained,
even with half of the energy provided by renewable sources. Some of the options include
eibg/jor - NREL

31

August 30, 2010

power reduction capabilities within the wind turbine controller, the inclusion of a
secondary load to ensure that no more than a specified amount of energy will be
generated by the wind, installation of capacitor banks to correct power factor, or even the
use of advanced power electronics to allow real-time power specification.
Spinning reserve on medium-penetration power systems requires experience in regard to
proper power levels and system commitments but is not considered technically complex.
Such spinning reserve questions should be handled on a case-by-case basis but can be
partially solved by using options, including the use of advanced diesel controls, the
installation of a modern diesel engine with fast start and low-loading capabilities,
controlled load shedding or reduction, power forecasting, and proper system oversight.
Combined with the use of variable-speed or advanced-power conditioning available on
many modern wind turbines, the control requirements of medium-penetration systems are
quite simple. The ability to provide high power quality in medium-penetration power
systems has been demonstrated for years in a number of highly important locations. The
most notable examples are the military diesel plants on San Clemente Island and
Ascension Island and the power system in Kotzebue, Alaska. All of these systems have
experienced power penetration at or above these guidelines set for medium-penetration
systems (McKenna and Olsen 1999).
High-Penetration Systems: Although this technology has been demonstrated on a
commercial basis, high-penetration wind-diesel power stations require a much higher
level of system integration, technology complexity, and advanced control. The principle
of operation of high-penetration systems is that the required equipment is installed in
addition to the wind turbine so that the diesel can be shut off completely when there is an
abundance of renewable-power production. Any instantaneous power production over the
required electrical load, an instantaneous penetration over 100%, is supplied to a variety
of controllable secondary loads. In these systems, synchronous condensers, load banks,
dispatchable loads (and possibly storage in the form of batteries or flywheel systems),
power converters, and advanced system controls are used to ensure power quality and
system integrity. Spinning reserve is created through the use of short-term storage or the
maintenance of a consistent oversupply of renewable energy. Although these systems are
demonstrated commercially, they are not yet considered a mature technology and have
not been demonstrated on systems larger than approximately 200-kW average load. A
generic schematic of a high penetration with storage is shown in Figure A.2 (Drouilhet
2001).
Systems Storage: Until recently, it was assumed that wind-diesel systems without
storage were theoretical, possibly born out of short-term testing in test-stand-based power
systems. This is no longer the case. Commercially operating short-term and no storage
systems have been installed in recent years, demonstrating that both technology choices
are viable.
In systems incorporating storage, the storage is used to cover short-term fluctuations in
renewable power. The premise of this system design is that a large penetration of
renewables is used (up to 300% of the average power requirements). When the
renewable-based generators supply more power than is needed by the load, the engine
generators can be shut down. During lulls in the renewable power generation, discharging
eibg/jor - NREL

32

August 30, 2010

the battery bank or other storage device supplies any needed power. If the lulls are
prolonged or the storage becomes discharged, an engine generator is started and takes
over supplying the load. Studies have indicated that most lulls in power from the wind are
of limited duration, and using storage to cover these short time periods can lead to
significant reductions in the consumption of fuel, generator operational hours, and
reduced generator starts.

Figure A.2: Schematic of high-penetration wind/diesel power system

In large power systems, the installation of a battery bank to cover shortfalls in renewable
production may not be feasible, mainly because of cost. However, without storage it is
very difficult to control the stability of a conventional power grid with large quantities of
renewable powerthus the challenge of hybrid systems without storage. This
configuration is based on the AC bus and does not use batteries to provide grid
stabilization. The basic premise of these systems is that the installed capacity of the
renewable technology is much larger than the load. When the renewable devices are
operating and producing more energy than is needed by the load by some margin, usually
between 125% and 150%, the dispatchable generators can be turned off. External control
devices, such as dispatchable secondary loads, fast-acting dump loads, synchronous
condensers, and advanced diesel control are used to maintain system stability and control.
If the renewable energy dips below a specified threshold, a generator is started to ensure
power security or some of the dispensable loads can be disconnected to increase the
systems headroom. This type of system produces a large amount of extra energy that
must be used if the project is to be economical. This is completed with a large thermal
storage tank that acts as a buffer for the electrical load, allowing the smoothing of the
variable wind energy and dispatching a diesel generator when there is not enough energy
to cover the loads or if the thermal storage tank temperature drops below a specified
eibg/jor - NREL

33

August 30, 2010

limit. The control system and hardware requirements are less complex than a system
using battery storage; however, the facility must have a large and expensive heating
requirement to cover the cost of the additional infrastructure, which is the case for the
Arctic.
All high-penetration systems, with and without storage, have been installed in northern
climates where the extra energy can be used for heating buildings or water, displacing
other fuels. In these systems, it may be wise to install uninterruptible power supplies
(UPSs) on critical loads. Although only a limited number of systems have been installed,
the concept is economically attractive and can drastically reduce fuel consumption in
remote communities (Beyer et. al. 1987; Shirazi and Drouilhet 1997).

eibg/jor - NREL

34

August 30, 2010

Appendix B: Historic Fuel and Freight Costs

Justification for the assumed cost of fuel at $15/gal was provided by Sandy StarkWeather as it
appears below.

Basis for Summit Fuel Cost

July 23, 2010
The cost per gallon of fuel used at Summit (Table 1, Combined Cost) is calculated using the
direct cost of fuel and the indirect cost of fuel delivery. Other indirect costs (i.e. fuel system
O&M costs at Summit) are excluded from the Combined Cost.
Table 1. Basis for Summit Fuel Cost, 2006-2010
Effective Summit Cost per Pound
Fuel Rate
to Summit
2010 $
4.51
$
1.50
2009 $
2.05
$
1.51
2008 $
5.69
$
1.36
2007 $
4.51
$
0.95
2006 $
4.35
$
0.90

Cost of Fuel
Delivery
$
9.98
$ 10.07
$
9.04
$
6.31
$
6.01

Combined Cost
$ 14.49
$ 12.12
$ 14.73
$ 10.82
$ 10.36

Effective Summit Fuel Rate: Fuel can be purchased for Summit from one of two locations
(Kanger or Thule), at distinctly different costs per gallon (Table 2). The Effective Summit Fuel
Rate above reflects the actual cost normalized by gallons delivered from each location (this
includes fuel delivered by the traverse).
Table 2. Fuel Costs per Gallon at Thule and Kanger, 2006-2010
Thule
Kanger
2010
$
2.38
$
5.44
2009
$
1.44
$
2.03
2008
$3.04 to $4.07
$5.63 to $5.73
2007
$
2.14
$
3.96
2006
$2.00 to $2.53
$3.70 to $4.68
Cost per Pound to Summit: The cost of cargo/fuel/pax delivery to Summit is calculated using the
SAAM rate & a nominal average ACL of 20,000 lbs. The round trip flight cost is divided by the
one-way ACL because Summit flight demand is driven by inbound cargo requirements. In 2010,
the cost was not independently calculated but fixed at $1.50 based on the 2009 rate. Though
eibg/jor - NREL

35

August 30, 2010

some fuel has been delivered by the traverse (2008: ~3000 gal; 2010: ~11,000 gal) or flown in
from Thule, the Summit RT SAAM-based cost of delivery was applied to all fuel.

Table 3. Derivation of the Summit Cargo Delivery Rate.

SAAM Rate
Summit SAAM Cost,
(10% discount)
RT
2010 $
6,967
$ 27,868
2009 $
7,573
$ 30,292
2008 $
6,796
$ 27,184
2007 $
4,743
$ 18,972
2006 $
4,517
$ 18,068
* fixed near 2009 rate

Cost per Pound to

Summit
$
1.50*
$
1.51
$
1.36
$
0.95
$
0.90

Cost of Fuel Delivery: The Summit delivery cost per pound is applied against the weight of a
gallon of fuel 6.65 lbs/gal. The Summit SAAM RT cost is based on 4.0 hour per RT.

eibg/jor - NREL

36

August 30, 2010

Appendix C: Recommended System: 50% Renewable Energy

Requirement Model Results
System Report - Summit Station recommended system v3 50% .hmr
System architecture
PV Array

10 kW

Wind turbine

3 Linearized 2

Generator 1

60 kW

Generator 2

30 kW

Generator 3

20 kW

Battery

110 Hoppecke 24 OPzS 3000

Inverter

300 kW

Rectifier

300 kW

Dispatch strategy Cycle Charging

Cost summary
Total net present cost

$ 9,332,751

Levelized cost of energy $ 1.754/kWh

Operating cost

$ 317,816/yr

Net Present Costs

eibg/jor - NREL

37

August 30, 2010

Capital

Replacement O&M

Fuel

Salvage

Total

($)

($)

($)

($)

($)

($)

PV

200,000

62,361

-34,950

227,411

Linearized 2

4,500,000 0

575,251

5,075,251

Generator 1

60,000

-13,630

46,370

Generator 2

30,000

27,976

822,497

-1,829

878,644

Generator 3

20,000

14,868

413,698

-4,279

444,286

Boiler

2,122,554 0

2,122,554

Hoppecke 24 OPzS 3000

385,000

120,045

-67,278

437,767

Converter

75,000

31,295

-5,825

100,470

System

5,270,000 256,545

575,251

3,358,750 -127,792 9,332,754

Component

Annualized Costs
Capital

Replacement O&M

Fuel

Salvage

Total

($/yr)

($/yr)

($/yr)

($/yr)

($/yr)

($/yr)

PV

15,645

4,878

-2,734

17,790

Linearized 2

352,020 0

45,000

397,020

Generator 1

4,694

-1,066

3,627

Generator 2

2,347

2,188

64,341

-143

68,733

Generator 3

1,565

1,163

32,362

-335

34,755

Boiler

166,040 0

166,040

Hoppecke 24 OPzS 3000

30,117

9,391

-5,263

34,245

Converter

5,867

2,448

-456

7,859

System

412,255 20,069

45,000

262,744 -9,997

Component

eibg/jor - NREL

38

730,071

August 30, 2010

eibg/jor - NREL

39

August 30, 2010

Electrical
Production Fraction
Component
(kWh/yr)
PV array

11,470

2%

Wind turbines 512,516

86%

Generator 1

0%

Generator 2

49,217

8%

Generator 3

24,695

4%

Total

597,898

100%

Consumption Fraction
Load
(kWh/yr)
AC primary load 263,529

100%

Total

100%

263,529

Quantity

Value

Units

Excess electricity

312,361

kWh/yr

Unmet load

0.000109 kWh/yr

Capacity shortage

0.00

kWh/yr

Renewable fraction 0.501

Thermal
eibg/jor - NREL

40

August 30, 2010

Production Fraction
Component
(kWh/yr)
Generator 2

42,778

6%

Generator 3

21,541

3%

Boiler

382,854

50%

Excess electricity 312,361

41%

Total

100%

759,533

Consumption Fraction
Load
(kWh/yr)
Thermal load 617,579

100%

Total

100%

617,579

Quantity

Value

Units

Excess thermal energy 141,954 kWh/yr

eibg/jor - NREL

41

August 30, 2010

PV
Quantity

Value

Units

Rated capacity

10.0

kW

Mean output

1.31

kW

Mean output

31.4

kWh/d

Capacity factor

13.1

Total production 11,470

kWh/yr

Quantity

Value

Units

Minimum output

0.00

kW

Maximum output

7.64

kW

PV penetration

4.35

Hours of operation 4,378

hr/yr

Levelized cost

$/kWh

eibg/jor - NREL

1.55

42

August 30, 2010

AC Wind Turbine: Linearized 2

Variable

Value

Units

Total rated capacity 3.00

kW

Mean output

58.5

kW

Capacity factor

1,950

Total production

512,516 kWh/yr

Variable

Value

Units

Minimum output

0.00

kW

Maximum output

248

kW

Wind penetration

194

Hours of operation 7,034

hr/yr

Levelized cost

$/kWh

eibg/jor - NREL

0.775

43

August 30, 2010

Generator 1
Quantity

Value Units

Hours of operation

hr/yr

Number of starts

starts/yr

Operational life

1,000

yr

Capacity factor

0.00

Fixed generation cost

23.0

$/hr

Marginal generation cost

0.990

$/kWhyr

Quantity

Value Units

Electrical production

0.00

kWh/yr

Mean electrical output 0.00

kW

Min. electrical output

0.00

kW

Max. electrical output

0.00

kW

Thermal production

0.00

kWh/yr

Mean thermal output

0.00

kW

Min. thermal output

0.00

kW

Max. thermal output

0.00

kW

Quantity

Value Units

Fuel consumption

L/yr

Specific fuel consumption 0.000

L/kWh

Fuel energy input

kWh/yr

Mean electrical efficiency

0.0

Mean total efficiency

0.0

eibg/jor - NREL

44

August 30, 2010

Generator 2
Quantity

Value Units

Hours of operation

1,643

hr/yr

Number of starts

308

starts/yr

Operational life

9.13

yr

Capacity factor

18.7

Fixed generation cost

11.5

$/hr

Marginal generation cost

0.990

$/kWhyr

Quantity

Value

Units

Electrical production

49,217 kWh/yr

Mean electrical output 30.0

kW

Min. electrical output

17.4

kW

Max. electrical output

30.0

kW

Thermal production

42,778 kWh/yr

Mean thermal output

26.0

kW

Min. thermal output

19.0

kW

Max. thermal output

26.1

kW

Quantity

Value

Units

Fuel consumption

16,248

L/yr

eibg/jor - NREL

45

August 30, 2010

Specific fuel consumption 0.330

L/kWh

Fuel energy input

156,165 kWh/yr

Mean electrical efficiency

31.5

Mean total efficiency

58.9

Generator 3
Quantity

Value Units

Hours of operation

1,249

hr/yr

Number of starts

537

starts/yr

Operational life

12.0

yr

Capacity factor

14.1

Fixed generation cost

7.67

$/hr

Marginal generation cost

0.990

$/kWhyr

Quantity

Value

Units

Electrical production

24,695 kWh/yr

Mean electrical output 19.8

kW

Min. electrical output

6.00

kW

Max. electrical output

20.0

kW

Thermal production

21,541 kWh/yr

Mean thermal output

17.2

eibg/jor - NREL

kW

46

August 30, 2010

Min. thermal output

9.52

kW

Max. thermal output

17.4

kW

Quantity

Value

Units

Fuel consumption

8,172

L/yr

Specific fuel consumption 0.331

L/kWh

Fuel energy input

78,548 kWh/yr

Mean electrical efficiency

31.4

Mean total efficiency

58.9

eibg/jor - NREL

47

August 30, 2010

Battery
Quantity

Value

String size

55

Strings in parallel 2
Batteries

110

Bus voltage (V)

110

Quantity

Value

Units

Nominal capacity

660

kWh

Usable nominal capacity 462

kWh

Autonomy

13.0

hr

Lifetime throughput

1,121,560 kWh

Battery wear cost

0.370

$/kWh

Average energy cost

0.340

$/kWh

Quantity

Value

Units

Energy in

55,942

kWh/yr

Energy out

48,110

kWh/yr

Storage depletion

0.000122 kWh/yr

Losses

7,832

kWh/yr

Annual throughput 51,879

kWh/yr

Expected life

yr

eibg/jor - NREL

20.0

48

August 30, 2010

eibg/jor - NREL

49

August 30, 2010

Converter
Quantity

Inverter Rectifier Units

Capacity

300

300

kW

Mean output

kW

Minimum output

kW

Maximum output

44

134

kW

Capacity factor

1.8

1.9

Quantity

Inverter

Rectifier Units

Hours of operation 2,581

5,105

hrs/yr

Energy in

51,869

59,922

kWh/yr

Energy out

46,682

50,934

kWh/yr

Losses

5,187

8,988

kWh/yr

eibg/jor - NREL

50

August 30, 2010

Emissions
Pollutant

Emissions (kg/yr)

Carbon dioxide

172,570

Carbon monoxide

159

Unburned hydocarbons 17.6

Particulate matter

12

Sulfur dioxide

319

Nitrogen oxides

1,416

eibg/jor - NREL

51

August 30, 2010

Appendix D: 75% Renewable Energy Requirement Model Results

System Report - Summit Station recommended system v3 75%.hmr
System architecture
PV Array

60 kW

Wind turbine

6 Linearized 2

Generator 1

60 kW

Generator 2

30 kW

Generator 3

20 kW

Battery

110 Hoppecke 24 OPzS 3000

Inverter

300 kW

Rectifier

300 kW

Dispatch strategy Cycle Charging

Cost summary
Total net present cost

$ 14,476,204

Levelized cost of energy $ 3.281/kWh

Operating cost

eibg/jor - NREL

$ 289,924/yr

52

August 30, 2010

Net Present Costs

Capital

Replacement O&M

Fuel

Salvage

Total

($)

($)

($)

($)

($)

($)

PV

1,200,000

374,166

-209,699 1,364,467

Linearized 2

9,000,000

1,150,503 0

10,150,502

Generator 1

60,000

-13,630

46,370

Generator 2

30,000

9,030

362,338

-5,499

395,870

Generator 3

20,000

5,521

215,795

-4,046

237,269

Boiler

1,743,491 0

1,743,491

Hoppecke 24 OPzS 3000 385,000

120,045

-67,278

437,767

Converter

75,000

31,295

-5,825

100,470

System

10,770,000 540,057

Component

1,150,503 2,321,624 -305,978 14,476,203

Annualized Costs
Capital

Replacement O&M

Fuel

Salvage Total

($/yr)

($/yr)

($/yr)

($/yr)

($/yr)

($/yr)

PV

93,872

29,270

-16,404

106,738

Linearized 2

704,040 0

90,000 0

794,040

Generator 1

4,694

-1,066

3,627

Generator 2

2,347

706

28,345

-430

30,968

Generator 3

1,565

432

16,881

-317

18,561

Boiler

136,388 0

136,388

Hoppecke 24 OPzS 3000 30,117

9,391

-5,263

34,245

Converter

5,867

2,448

-456

7,859

System

842,502 42,247

Component

eibg/jor - NREL

90,000 181,613 -23,936

53

1,132,426

August 30, 2010

eibg/jor - NREL

54

August 30, 2010

Electrical
Production Fraction
Component
(kWh/yr)
PV array

68,819

6%

Wind turbines 1,025,032

91%

Generator 1

0%

Generator 2

21,642

2%

Generator 3

12,706

1%

Total

1,128,199

100%

Consumption Fraction
Load
(kWh/yr)
AC primary load 263,529

100%

Total

100%

263,529

Quantity

Value

Units

Excess electricity

843,765

kWh/yr

Unmet load

0.000168 kWh/yr

Capacity shortage

0.00

kWh/yr

Renewable fraction 0.743

eibg/jor - NREL

55

August 30, 2010

Thermal
Production Fraction
Component
(kWh/yr)
Generator 2

18,862

2%

Generator 3

11,307

1%

Boiler

314,481

26%

Excess electricity 843,765

71%

Total

100%

1,188,414

Consumption Fraction
Load
(kWh/yr)
Thermal load 617,579

100%

Total

100%

617,579

Quantity

Value

Units

Excess thermal energy 570,835 kWh/yr

eibg/jor - NREL

56

August 30, 2010

PV
Quantity

Value

Units

Rated capacity

60.0

kW

Mean output

7.86

kW

Mean output

189

kWh/d

Capacity factor

13.1

Total production 68,819 kWh/yr

Quantity

Value Units

Minimum output

0.00

kW

Maximum output

45.8

kW

PV penetration

26.1

Hours of operation 4,378 hr/yr

Levelized cost

eibg/jor - NREL

1.55

$/kWh

57

August 30, 2010

AC Wind Turbine: Linearized 2

Variable

Value

Units

Total rated capacity 6.00

kW

Mean output

117

kW

Capacity factor

1,950

Total production

1,025,032 kWh/yr

Variable

Value Units

Minimum output

0.00

kW

Maximum output

496

kW

Wind penetration

389

Hours of operation 7,034 hr/yr

Levelized cost

eibg/jor - NREL

0.775 $/kWh

58

August 30, 2010

Generator 1
Quantity

Value Units

Hours of operation

hr/yr

Number of starts

starts/yr

Operational life

1,000 yr

Capacity factor

0.00

Fixed generation cost

23.0

$/hr

Marginal generation cost 0.990 $/kWhyr

Quantity

Value Units

Electrical production

0.00

kWh/yr

Mean electrical output 0.00

kW

Min. electrical output

0.00

kW

Max. electrical output

0.00

kW

Thermal production

0.00

kWh/yr

Mean thermal output

0.00

kW

Min. thermal output

0.00

kW

Max. thermal output

0.00

kW

Quantity

Value Units

Fuel consumption

L/yr

Specific fuel consumption 0.000 L/kWh

Fuel energy input

kWh/yr

Mean electrical efficiency 0.0

Mean total efficiency

eibg/jor - NREL

0.0

59

August 30, 2010

Generator 2
Quantity

Value Units

Hours of operation

728

hr/yr

Number of starts

147

starts/yr

Operational life

20.6

yr

Capacity factor

8.24

Fixed generation cost

11.5

$/hr

Marginal generation cost 0.990 $/kWhyr

Quantity

Value

Units

Electrical production

21,642 kWh/yr

Mean electrical output 29.7

kW

Min. electrical output

16.4

kW

Max. electrical output

30.0

kW

Thermal production

18,862 kWh/yr

Mean thermal output

25.9

kW

Min. thermal output

18.4

kW

Max. thermal output

26.1

kW

Quantity

Value

Units

Fuel consumption

7,158

L/yr

Specific fuel consumption 0.331

eibg/jor - NREL

L/kWh

60

August 30, 2010

Fuel energy input

68,796 kWh/yr

Mean electrical efficiency 31.5

Mean total efficiency

58.9

Generator 3
Quantity

Value Units

Hours of operation

679

hr/yr

Number of starts

265

starts/yr

Operational life

22.1

yr

Capacity factor

7.25

Fixed generation cost

7.67

$/hr

Marginal generation cost 0.990 $/kWhyr

Quantity

Value

Units

Electrical production

12,706 kWh/yr

Mean electrical output 18.7

kW

Min. electrical output

6.00

kW

Max. electrical output

20.0

kW

Thermal production

11,307 kWh/yr

Mean thermal output

16.7

kW

Min. thermal output

9.52

kW

Max. thermal output

17.4

kW

eibg/jor - NREL

61

August 30, 2010

Quantity

Value

Units

Fuel consumption

4,263

L/yr

Specific fuel consumption 0.336

Fuel energy input

L/kWh

40,972 kWh/yr

Mean electrical efficiency 31.0

Mean total efficiency

eibg/jor - NREL

58.6

62

August 30, 2010

Battery
Quantity

Value

String size

55

Strings in parallel 2
Batteries

110

Bus voltage (V)

110

Quantity

Value

Units

Nominal capacity

660

kWh

Usable nominal capacity 462

kWh

Autonomy

13.0

hr

Lifetime throughput

1,121,560 kWh

Battery wear cost

0.370

$/kWh

Average energy cost

0.213

$/kWh

Quantity

Value

Units

Energy in

51,078

kWh/yr

Energy out

43,927

kWh/yr

Storage depletion

0.0000610 kWh/yr

Losses

7,151

kWh/yr

Annual throughput 47,368

kWh/yr

Expected life

yr

eibg/jor - NREL

20.0

63

August 30, 2010

eibg/jor - NREL

64

August 30, 2010

Converter
Quantity

Inverter Rectifier Units

Capacity

300

300

kW

Mean output

kW

Minimum output

kW

Maximum output 44

134

kW

Capacity factor

1.5

Quantity

2.3

Inverter Rectifier Units

Hours of operation 2,786

3,925

hrs/yr

Energy in

67,443

46,708

kWh/yr

Energy out

60,698

39,701

kWh/yr

Losses

6,744

7,006

kWh/yr

eibg/jor - NREL

65

August 30, 2010

Emissions
Pollutant

Emissions (kg/yr)

Carbon dioxide

119,351

Carbon monoxide

74.2

Unburned hydocarbons 8.22

Particulate matter

5.6

Sulfur dioxide

221

Nitrogen oxides

662

eibg/jor - NREL

66

August 30, 2010

Appendix E: 100% Renewable Energy Requirement Model Results

System Report - Summit Station recommended system v3 95%re.hmr
System architecture
PV Array

100 kW

Wind turbine

8 Linearized 2

Generator 1

60 kW

Generator 2

30 kW

Generator 3

20 kW

Battery

385 Hoppecke 24 OPzS 3000

Inverter

450 kW

Rectifier

450 kW

Dispatch strategy Load Following

eibg/jor - NREL

67

August 30, 2010

Cost summary
Total net present cost

$ 19,385,418

Levelized cost of energy $ 4.738/kWh

Operating cost

$ 298,468/yr

Net Present Costs

Capital

Replacement O&M

Fuel

Salvage

Total

($)

($)

($)

($)

($)

($)

PV

2,000,000

623,610

-349,498 2,274,112

Linearized 2

12,000,000 0

1,534,004 0

13,534,006

Generator 1

60,000

-13,630

46,370

Generator 2

30,000

95,218

-4,450

120,768

Generator 3

20,000

30,980

-3,223

47,757

Boiler

1,679,524 0

Hoppecke 24 OPzS 3000

1,347,500

420,157

-235,475 1,532,183

Converter

112,500

46,942

-8,737

System

15,570,000 1,090,710

Component

eibg/jor - NREL

1,679,524

150,705

1,534,004 1,805,723 -615,014 19,385,422

68

August 30, 2010

Annualized Costs
Capital

Replacement O&M

Fuel

Salvage

Total

($/yr)

($/yr)

($/yr)

($/yr)

($/yr)

($/yr)

PV

156,453

48,783

-27,340

177,896

Linearized 2

938,721

120,000

1,058,721

Generator 1

4,694

-1,066

3,627

Generator 2

2,347

7,449

-348

9,447

Generator 3

1,565

2,424

-252

3,736

Boiler

131,384 0

131,384

Hoppecke 24 OPzS 3000

105,411

32,868

-18,420

119,858

Converter

8,801

3,672

-684

11,789

System

1,217,990 85,323

120,000

141,256 -48,111

Component

eibg/jor - NREL

69

1,516,458

August 30, 2010

Electrical
Production Fraction
Component
(kWh/yr)
PV array

114,698

8%

Wind turbines 1,366,705

92%

Generator 1

0%

Generator 2

5,431

0%

Generator 3

1,264

0%

Total

1,488,098

100%

Consumption Fraction
Load
(kWh/yr)
AC primary load 263,529

100%

Total

100%

263,529

Quantity

Value

Units

Excess electricity

1,199,197 kWh/yr

Unmet load

0.000166

kWh/yr

Capacity shortage

0.00

kWh/yr

Renewable fraction 0.824

eibg/jor - NREL

70

August 30, 2010

Thermal
Production Fraction
Component
(kWh/yr)
Generator 2

5,059

0%

Generator 3

1,847

0%

Boiler

302,943

20%

Excess electricity 1,199,197

79%

Total

100%

1,509,046

Consumption Fraction
Load
(kWh/yr)
Thermal load 617,579

100%

Total

100%

617,579

Quantity

Value

Units

Excess thermal energy 891,467 kWh/yr

PV
Quantity

Value

Units

Rated capacity

100

kW

Mean output

13.1

kW

Mean output

314

kWh/d

eibg/jor - NREL

71

August 30, 2010

Capacity factor

13.1

Total production 114,698 kWh/yr

Quantity

Value

Units

Minimum output

0.00

kW

Maximum output

76.4

kW

PV penetration

43.5

Hours of operation 4,378

hr/yr

Levelized cost

$/kWh

eibg/jor - NREL

1.55

72

August 30, 2010

AC Wind Turbine: Linearized 2

Variable

Value

Units

Total rated capacity 8.00

kW

Mean output

156

kW

Capacity factor

1,950

Total production

1,366,705 kWh/yr

Variable

Value

Units

Minimum output

0.00

kW

Maximum output

662

kW

Wind penetration

519

Hours of operation 7,034

hr/yr

Levelized cost

$/kWh

eibg/jor - NREL

0.775

73

August 30, 2010

Generator 1
Quantity

Value Units

Hours of operation

hr/yr

Number of starts

starts/yr

Operational life

1,000

yr

Capacity factor

0.00

Fixed generation cost

23.0

$/hr

Marginal generation cost

0.990

$/kWhyr

Quantity

Value Units

Electrical production

0.00

kWh/yr

Mean electrical output 0.00

kW

Min. electrical output

0.00

kW

Max. electrical output

0.00

kW

Thermal production

0.00

kWh/yr

Mean thermal output

0.00

kW

Min. thermal output

0.00

kW

Max. thermal output

0.00

kW

Quantity

Value Units

Fuel consumption

L/yr

Specific fuel consumption 0.000

L/kWh

Fuel energy input

kWh/yr

Mean electrical efficiency

0.0

Mean total efficiency

0.0

eibg/jor - NREL

74

August 30, 2010

Generator 2
Quantity

Value Units

Hours of operation

218

hr/yr

Number of starts

16

starts/yr

Operational life

68.8

yr

Capacity factor

2.07

Fixed generation cost

11.5

$/hr

Marginal generation cost

0.990

$/kWhyr

Quantity

Value Units

Electrical production

5,431

kWh/yr

Mean electrical output 24.9

kW

Min. electrical output

18.4

kW

Max. electrical output

30.0

kW

Thermal production

5,059

kWh/yr

Mean thermal output

23.2

kW

Min. thermal output

19.5

kW

Max. thermal output

26.1

kW

Quantity

Value

Units

Fuel consumption

1,881

L/yr

eibg/jor - NREL

75

August 30, 2010

Specific fuel consumption 0.346

L/kWh

Fuel energy input

18,079 kWh/yr

Mean electrical efficiency

30.0

Mean total efficiency

58.0

Generator 3
Quantity

Value Units

Hours of operation

185

hr/yr

Number of starts

45

starts/yr

Operational life

81.1

yr

Capacity factor

0.721

Fixed generation cost

7.67

$/hr

Marginal generation cost

0.990

$/kWhyr

Quantity

Value Units

Electrical production

1,264

kWh/yr

Mean electrical output 6.83

kW

Min. electrical output

6.00

kW

Max. electrical output

16.8

kW

Thermal production

1,847

kWh/yr

Mean thermal output

9.99

kW

eibg/jor - NREL

76

August 30, 2010

Min. thermal output

9.52

kW

Max. thermal output

15.6

kW

Quantity

Value Units

Fuel consumption

612

L/yr

Specific fuel consumption 0.484

L/kWh

Fuel energy input

5,882

kWh/yr

Mean electrical efficiency

21.5

Mean total efficiency

52.9

eibg/jor - NREL

77

August 30, 2010

Battery
Quantity

Value

String size

55

Strings in parallel 7
Batteries

385

Bus voltage (V)

110

Quantity

Value

Units

Nominal capacity

2,310

kWh

Usable nominal capacity 1,617

kWh

Autonomy

45.7

hr

Lifetime throughput

3,925,460 kWh

Battery wear cost

0.370

$/kWh

Average energy cost

0.000

$/kWh

Quantity

Value

Units

Energy in

60,328

kWh/yr

Energy out

51,882

kWh/yr

Storage depletion

0.000244 kWh/yr

Losses

8,446

kWh/yr

Annual throughput 55,946

kWh/yr

Expected life

yr

eibg/jor - NREL

20.0

78

August 30, 2010

eibg/jor - NREL

79

August 30, 2010

Converter
Quantity

Inverter Rectifier Units

Capacity

450

450

kW

Mean output

kW

Minimum output

kW

Maximum output

44

414

kW

Capacity factor

1.9

1.2

Quantity

Inverter

Rectifier Units

Hours of operation 3,077

3,181

hrs/yr

Energy in

82,972

57,526

kWh/yr

Energy out

74,675

48,897

kWh/yr

Losses

8,297

8,629

kWh/yr

eibg/jor - NREL

80

August 30, 2010

Emissions
Pollutant

Emissions (kg/yr)

Carbon dioxide

92,910

Carbon monoxide

16.2

Unburned hydocarbons 1.79

Particulate matter

1.22

Sulfur dioxide

173

Nitrogen oxides

145

eibg/jor - NREL

81

August 30, 2010