SPS AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES COST AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS Michael E. Samsa Argonne National Laboratory - Argonne, Illinois 60439 An important consideration in the analysis of the Satellite Power System (SPS) concept for electrical energy production early in the twenty-first century is its expected generation cost in comparison with that for alternative technologies. This study uses, as a standard metric, the constant dollar level- ized annual revenue requirement for production of a unit kilowatt-hour of electrical energy from each system as the basis for comparison. Levelized annual revenue requirement, expressed in mills/kWh, is essentially a discount factor weighted average unit cost of energy production which includes all components of capital recovery, fuel, and nonfuel operating cost projected over the facility's economic lifetime, A typical utility's weighted average cost of capital, exclusive of general inflation, was selected as the appropriate discount rate. Analysis of future costs is complicated by the existence of large uncertainties about capital and fuel prices twenty to fifty years in the future. This uncertainty originates from three major concerns: 1) uncertain performance capabilities and capital costs for improved current, near-term, and advanced technologies, 2) uncertain future economic trends and their effect on energy demand, and 3) uncertain future regulations that may constrain certain fuel production or use. Each of these factors is accounted for in the analysis. Table 1 displays the low, nominal and high capital costs projected for each technology for the year 2000. As shown, these costs derive from the direct and indirect capital cost estimates made as part of the technology characterization task by adding costs for contingencies, owner's expenses, and interest during construction. These additions result in a nominal 1978 costs. Projection of these costs to the year 2000 consider ranges of uncertainty in future environmental regulations, safety requirements and technological advances. Low year 2000 costs for coal and nuclear systems assume optimistic projections of future environmental and safety requirements, respectively. Low costs for the central station photovoltaic and SPS technologies assume a reduction in solar cell costs from the nominal $37.80/m2 (1978) to $21.60/m2 (1978). High year 2000 costs are driven primarily by uncertainties in achieving the currently estimated nominal costs as a result of technical and regulatory uncertainties. Figures 1 and 2 show the ranges of installed generating capacity and fuel prices that result from uncertainties in future economic trends and energy demand. Values shown are derived from the results of the alternative futures scenarios task. Examination of Figure 1 indicates that only the high capacity growth scenario (scenario UH) is capable of accepting a full implementation of sixty SPS units by 2030 if the SPS is limited to no more than twenty-five percent of installed capacity for utility operational purposes. In the lower capacity growth scenarios, UI and CI/CI(d), the SPS implementation rate would need to be reduced to one-half or one-third the nominal rate, respectively, in order to satisfy the twenty-five percent criteria in 2030. Although reduction of the SPS implementation rate would also reduce the up-front investment costs necessary to support it, only about half of the investment costs would vary proportionately; the other half would remain unchanged. Thus, as the SPS implementation rate is reduced, up-front investment adds significantly to the average
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==