MODERN MANAGEMENT REVIEW
MMR, vol. XXI, 23 (4/2016), pp. 17-32
2016
October-December
Ryszard BARTNIK1
Zbigniew BURYN2
Anna HNYDIUK-STEFAN3
WHICH POWER TECHNOLOGIES ARE WORTH
CONSIDERING AS AN INVESTMENT?
The analysis in this paper involves the issues of the specific cost of electric power
generation in the particular technologies applied in its production. Therefore, the analysis
involves all accessible technologies in power engineering (except hydroelectric power stations): coal-fired power plants applying conventional combustion and CCS (Carbon Capture
and Storage) technology in oxy-combustion, nuclear power plants, combined cycle power
plants – CCPP, dual-fuel combined cycle power plants – DFCC, wind farms, photovoltaics
power plants. The article presents from the economic perspective, that the most beneficial
technology is the one in which the cost of power generation is the lowest. It is relative to:
specific cost of investment, internal electric load of the power plant, its annual operating
time, fuel prices and their variability in time, ratio of the chemical energy of the fuel in its
total annual use, for which the purchase of additional CO2 allowances and tariff rates on the
use of the environment is not required. The calculations apply the methodology and mathematical modeling of the specific cost of electric power generation valuation in continuous
time. The use of continuous time approach provides an options for the analysis of various
scenarios regarding variability of energy carriers in time. Moreover, such approach can apply differential calculus for the calculation of the specific cost of electricity production. The
analysis of sensitivity of the cost incurred in such production can aid in the assessment of
the variability of energy carrier prices in the function of the parameters which influence the
overall cost.
Keywords: power technologies, specific cost of electricity production, CCS, CCPP, DFCC
1. INTRODUCTION
A decision regarding an investment in power engineering needs to be based on information giving answers to a few questions. What are the suitable technologies to guarantee
Poland’s security of energy supply, including security and continuity of electricity supply?
What is the influence of the prices of energy carriers and what relations between them
need to be maintained to maintain a target value of an adopted criterion in the search for
an optimum investment strategy? The above questions are relevant with regard to the
economic efficiency of technologies applied in power engineering. It seems quite clear
that profit on an investment should be as high as possible, the cost of electricity produc-
1
2
3
Prof. Ryszard Bartnik, DSc, PhD,Eng., Opole University of Technology, Faculty of Production Engineering
and Logistics, Department of Power Engineering Management.
Zbigniew Buryn, PhD, Eng., Opole University of Technology, Faculty of Production Engineering and Logistics, Department of Power Engineering Management.
Anna Hnydiuk-Stefan, PhD,Eng., Opole University of Technology, Faculty of Production Engineering and
Logistics, Department of Power Engineering Management.
18
R. Bartnik, Z. Buryn, A. Hnydiuk-Stefan
tion should be low whereas the condition of stability and security of power supply is fulfilled.
The aim of this paper is to present analysis which involves the issues of the specific
cost of electric power generation in the particular technologies applied in its production.
Therefore, the analysis involves all accessible technologies in power engineering (except
hydroelectric power stations):
- coal-fired power plants applying conventional combustion and CCS (Carbon Capture
and Storage) technology in oxy-combustion4 (Fig. 1),
- nuclear power plants (Fig. 1),
- combined cycle power plants – CCPP (Fig. 2),
- dual-fuel combined cycle power plants – DFCC (Figs. 3&4),
- wind farms,
- photovoltaics power plants.
The calculations apply the methodology and mathematical modeling of the specific
cost of electric power generation valuation in continuous time (formula (1))5. The use of
continuous time approach provides an options for the analysis of various scenarios regarding variability of energy carriers in time. Moreover, such approach can apply differential
calculus for the calculation of the specific cost of electricity production. The analysis of
sensitivity of the cost incurred in such production can aid in the assessment of the variability of energy carrier prices in the function of the parameters which influence the overall
cost.
2. APPLICATION OF A MATHEMATICAL MODEL IN SEARCH FOR AN OPTIMUM INVESTMENT STRATEGY OF INVESTMENT IN ELECTRICITY
SOURCES
The mean specific cost of electricity generation is expressed by the formula5:
t 0
t 0
CO pCO
CO pCO
e t 0
( aCO r ) T
( a r )T
( a r )T
k el ,av (1 x sw,m ,was ) fuel [e fuell 1] 2 2 [e CO2 1]
[e
1]
a
r
a
r
a
r
fuel
CO2
CO
t 0
t 0
NOX p NO
SO2 pSO
( a NOX r ) T
( a r )T
X
2
[e
1]
[e SO2 1]
a NOX r
a SO2 r
p t 0
dust dust [e ( a
adust r
dustł r ) T
t 0
CO eCO
(b
1] (1 u )
[e
bCO r
2
2
CO2 r ) T
1]
2
r
el
1 e rT
1)
(1 xsal ,t ,ins )i (1 e rT )δserv riz(
min .
rT
rt A
T
el (1 el )(1 e )
(1)
4
Hnydiuk-Stefan A., Analysis of the parameters of power plants operating in oxy-fuel combustion, Ph.D. thesis,
Opole University of Technology 2014 [in Polish]
5
Bartnik R., Bartnik B., Hnydiuk-Stefan A., Optimum Investment Strategy in the Power Industry, Springer, New
York 2016
Which power technologies…
19
where:
a el , a fuel , a CO2 , a CO , a SO2 , a NO X , a dust , bCO2 ‒ controls 6,7,
serv – annual rate of constant cost regardless of the value of investment (cost of maintenance of overhaul of equipment),
el ‒ internal electric load of the power plant (its value is relative to the technology applied in electric power generation),
ƞel ‒ gross electric power efficiency (its value is relative to the technology applied in the
electric power generation),
u − ratio of the chemical energy of the fuel in its total annual use for which the purchase
of additional CO2 allowances is not required,
p CO2 , pCO , p NO x pSO2 , pdust – specific rates per emissions of CO2, CO, NOx, SO2,
particulate matter, PLN/kg,
CO2 , CO , NO x , SO2 , dust – emission of CO2, CO, NOx, SO2, per unit of the
chemical energy of fuel, kg/GJ (relative to the type of fuel).
r − discount rate,
tA − annual operating time,
T – calculated exploitation period of a power plant expressed in years (depreciation rate),
xsw,m,was − coefficient used to account for the cost of supplementing water, use of auxiliary
materials and waste disposal,
xsal,t,ins − coefficient used to account for the cost of remuneration, taxes, insurance, etc.
z – coefficient expressing immobilization of capital 6,7.
From the economic perspective, the most beneficial technology is the one in which the
cost of power generation kel,av is the lowest. It is relative to: specific cost of investment i,
internal electric load of the power plant Ɛel, its annual operating time tA, fuel prices and
their variability in time, ratio u of the chemical energy of the fuel in its total annual use,
for which the purchase of additional CO2 allowances and tariff rates on the use of the
environment is not required.
3. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF EXEMPLARY RESULTS
Figs. 5−14 present the results of calculations regarding specific cost of electric power
production kel in the specific technologies. Figs. 1–4 contain the energy balances corresponding to them. Table 1 contains the input data used in these calculations. Figs. 5−14
also show how the value of kel is affected by the variability in the fuel prices efuel,
investment J and internal electric load of the power plant el. The variability of these values was assumed to vary in the range of 20% from the base values (Tables 1 and 2) The
presented results deal with both the payback period of the investment as well as the period
which follows it. The reduced prices which correspond to the base ones assume the value
of 1 on the X axis in Figs. 5−14.
6
Bartnik R., Bartnik B., Hnydiuk-Stefan A., Optimum Investment Strategy in the Power Industry, Springer, New
York 2016.
7
Bartnik R., Bartnik B., Economic calculations in power engineering, WNT, Warszawa 2014 [in Polish].
20
R. Bartnik, Z. Buryn, A. Hnydiuk-Stefan
3.1. Power units in the conventional and CCS technologies and nuclear installation
Fig. 1. Energy balance in a conventional technology, CCS technology and a nuclear installation (for the case of nuclear power plant, a nuclear reactor and steam generator is
used in the place of a boiler).
Source: own calculations
The gross efficiency of electric power generation in units with sub- and supercritical
steam parameters is expressed by the formula (for the case of the nuclear power plant, the
efficiency of the boiler ηB is expressed by the efficiency of the reactor and steam generator):
el
EelST
B SH STme
Echfuel
(2)
At present, this efficiency can be as high as above 50% (whereas for nuclear power
plants around 40%).
The net efficiency of electric power generation is expressed by the formula:
el ,net el (1 el )
(3)
The net efficiency of the units operating in the particular technologies are functions of
their internal electric load el . By substitution of formulae (2), (4)−(6) instead of (1), we
can analyze the effect of the efficiency of the equipment applied in the analyzed technologies on the value of kel,av. For the case of gas and steam units, it is then necessary to account for the annual use of the chemical energy of gas in the gas turbogenerator with the
capacity of N elST an efficiency of ηST equal to Echg , A ( N elGT A ) GT , as well as account for
the production electric power in them. In the search for the minimum of the cost kel,av,
optimization should involve the ratio of the chemical energy of the gas in the chemical
Which power technologies…
21
energy of the coal combustion in the power plant in equations (5) and (6), i.e.
q par Echgas, A Echcoal, A and qser Echgas, A Echcoal, A .
3.2. Combined cycle units
Fig. 2. Energy balance of a combined cycle power unit.
Source: own calculations
The gross efficiency of electric power generation in a combined cycle unit is expressed
with a formula:
el
EelGT EelST
GT (1 GT )HRSGSTme
Echgas
(4)
At present this efficiency can be as high as above 60% (with a note that the steam
pressure in combined cycle power unit which secures its highest efficiency is two times
lower from the value of the critical pressure in it 8).
8
Bartnik R., Combined Cycle Power Plants. Thermal and economic effectiveness, (Wydawnictwa NaukowoTechniczne WNT), Warszawa 2009 (reprint 2012).
22
R. Bartnik, Z. Buryn, A. Hnydiuk-Stefan
3.3. Dual-fuel combined cycle unit in a parallel system
Fig. 3. Energy balance of dual-fuel combined cycle unit in a parallel system
Source: own calculations.
The gross efficiency of electric power generation in a dual-fuel combined cycle unit in
a parallel system is expressed by the formula (this efficiency can be as high as 50%9):
el
9
q [ q par (1 GT )SH B ]SHSTme
EelGT EelST
par GT
gas
coal
Ech Ech
1 q par
(5)
Bartnik R., Combined Cycle Power Plants. Thermal and economic effectiveness, (Wydawnictwa NaukowoTechniczne WNT), Warszawa 2009 (reprint 2012).
Which power technologies…
23
3.4. Dual-fuel combined cycle unit with in-series configuration
Fig. 4. Energy balance of dual-fuel combined cycle unit with in-series configuration
Source: own calculations
The gross efficiency of electric power generation of a dual-fuel combined cycle unit
with in-series configuration is expressed by the formula (this efficiency can be as high as
45%):
el
E elGT E elST
q [ qser (1 GT ) 1] B SH ST me
ser GT
gas
coal
1 qser
E ch E ch
where:
E chgas chemical energy of gas combustion in the gas turbine,
E chcoal chemical energy of coal combustion in the boiler,
E elGT gross electric output of the gas turbogenerator,
E elST gross electric output of the steam turbogenerator,
Qcon condensation heat of the steam of the condenser in the steam turbine,
gpar ratio of the chemical energy of gas in the energy of the coal in a parallel system,
(6)
24
R. Bartnik, Z. Buryn, A. Hnydiuk-Stefan
qser ratio of the chemical energy of gas in the energy of the coal in a series system,
ηB gross boiler efficiency (for the case of the nuclear power plant- efficiency of the
reactor and steam generator),
ηHRSG gross efficiency of the heat recovery steam generator,
ηSH energy efficiency of the crossoverpipe used to feed steam into the turbine,
ηGT gross efficiency of the gas turbine,
ST CR i energy efficiency of the steam turbine (product of the efficiency of
Clausius-Rankine cycle and internal efficiency of the steam turbine),
me mG
electromechanical efficiency of the steam turbogenerator (product of the
mechanical efficiency of the steam turbine and total efficiency of the generator).
Table 1. Summary of basic input data for calculations of specific cost of power generation in the
analyzed technologies
Power plant type
Estimated investment i, mln
PLN/MW
Annual operating time tR , h/year
Internal electrical load: Ɛel, %
Construction period b, years
Specific fuel price, PLN/GJ
coalfired
prosumer
coal-fired with oxy- nuclear photovoltaic
photovoltaic
combust
with air
combustion ion
6.3
12.6
6,5
9.1
18
(1.5 euro/W)
(3 euro/W)
7500
7500
8000
750
750
7.6
33
7.6
1
1
5
5
5
1
1
11.4
11.4
6.6
0
combined cycle
(CCPP)
dual-fuel
combined
cycle (DFCC)
2.7
4.6
7500
4
2
7500
6.2
5
coal = 11.4
gas = 32
wind
prosumer
wind
6.3
(1.5 euro/W)
1750
1
1
12.6
(3 euro/W)
1750
1
1
0
0
32
0
Exploitation period: T = 20 years
Annual rate of maintenance and overhaul serv = 3%.
Coefficients: x sal,t,ins = 0.25; x sw,m,was = 0.02.
Discount rate r = 8%
CO2 emission charges: eCO2= 29.4 PLN/MgCO2, (eCO2=7 euro; exchange rate EURO/PLN=4.2).
Tariff charges on emissions: p CO2=0,29 PLN/MgCO2, p CO=110 PLN/MgCO, p NOx=530 PLN/MgNOx, p SO2=530 PLN/MgSO2, p dust=350 PLN/Mgdust
Emission from coal combustion: ρCO2=95 kg/GJ, ρCO=0,01 kg/GJ, ρNOx=0.164 kg/GJ, ρSO2=0.056 kg/GJ, ρdust= 0.007 kg/GJ
Emission on gas combustion: ρCO2=55 kg/GJ, ρCO=0 kg/GJ, ρNOx=0.02 kg/GJ, ρSO2=0 kg/GJ, ρdust= 0 kg/GJ
Ratio of chemical energy of the fuel in its total annual use for which the purchase of additional allowances is not required: CO 2: u = 0.
Source: calculations based on data from Bartnik Ryszard, Bartnik Berenika, Hnydiuk-Stefan
Anna. 2016. Optimum Investment Strategy in the Power Industry. New York: Springer
and Hnydiuk-Stefan Anna. 2014. Analysis of the parameters of power plants operating in oxy-fuel combustion, Ph.D. thesis. Opole University of Technology.
Which power technologies…
Fig. 5. Impact of fuel prices, internal load of the power plant, and value of investment on the
specific cost of electric power generation kel for a coal-fired power plant during the
pay-back period and after this period: 3, 6 – internal electical load of the coal-fired
power plant Ɛel during the pay-back period and after depreciation of the unit,
respectively; 2, 5 – fuel prices; 1, 4 – investment J in the coal-fired power plant
Source: own calculations
Fig. 6. Impact of fuel prices, internal electric load of a power plant, and value of investment
on the specific cost of electric power generation kel for a coal-fired power plant in oxycombustion technology and for condition that xccs=0.2 during the pay-back period and
after depreciation period, where: 2, 5 – internal electric load of the power plant Ɛel in
oxyfuel technology during the pay-back period and after depreciation period; 3, 6 –
fuel prices; 1, 4 – investment J in the power plant in oxyfuel technology
Source: own calculations
25
26
R. Bartnik, Z. Buryn, A. Hnydiuk-Stefan
Fig. 7. Specific cost of power generation in a nuclear plant in the function of the exploitation
period of a unit T (identical with depreciation period) for the discount rate: 1 – r =
8%, 2 – r = 5%
Source: own calculations
Fig. 8. Impact of fuel prices, internal electrical load of the power plant, and value of
investment on the specific cost of power generation kel for a nuclear plant during the
pay-back period and after its depreciation period, where: 3, 6 – internal electric load
Ɛel of a power nuclear plant during and after its depreciation; 2, 5 – fuel prices; 1, 4 –
investment J in a nuclear power plant
Source: own calculations
Which power technologies…
Fig. 9. Impact of fuel prices, internal electric load of a power plant, and value of investment
on the specific cost of power generation kel for a dual-fuel combined cycle plant
during pay-back period and after its depreciation, where: 3, 6 – internal load el of a
dual-fuel combined cycle plant during its depreciation period and after its
depreciation, respectively; 4– fuel prices; 2, 5 – investment J in a dual-fuel
combined cycle plant
Source: own calculations
Fig. 10. Impact of fuel prices, internal electric load of the power plant, and the value of
investment on the specific cost of electric power generation kel for a combined cycle
power plant during its pay-back period and after its depreciation, where: 3, 6 –
internal electric load Ɛel of the combined cycle power plant during its pay-back
period and after its depreciation, respectively; 1, 4– fuel prices; 2, 5 – investment J
in a combined cycle power plant.
Source: own calculations
27
28
R. Bartnik, Z. Buryn, A. Hnydiuk-Stefan
Fig. 11. Impact of fuel prices, internal electric load of the power plant, and the value of
investment on the specific cost of electric power generation kel for a photovoltaic
plant during the back-back period and after its depreciation, where: 2, 5 – internal
electric load Ɛel of the photovoltaic plant during the back-back period and after its
depreciation, respectively; 1, 4 – investment J in a photovoltaic plant; 3, 6 – annual
operating time of a photovoltaic plant.
Source: own calculations
Fig. 12. Impact of fuel prices, internal electric load, and the value of investment on the
specific cost of power generation kel for a prosumer photovoltaic plant during the
pay-back depreciation period and after its depreciation, where: 2, 5 – internal
electric load Ɛel of a prosumer photovoltaic plant during the pay-back period and
after its depreciation, respectively; 1, 4 – investment J in a prosumer photovoltaic
plant; 3, 6 – annual operating time of a photovoltaic plant.
Source: own calculations
Which power technologies…
Fig. 13. Impact of fuel prices, internal electric load, and the value of investment on the
specific cost of electric power generation kel for a wind farm during its depreciation
period and after depreciation, where: 2, 5 – internal electical load Ɛel of a wind farm
during its pay-back period and after its depreciation, respectively; 1, 4 – investment
J in a wind farm; 3, 6 – annual operating time of a wind farm.
Source: own calculations
Fig. 14. Impact of fuel prices, internal load, and the value of investment on the specific cost
of power generation kel for a prosumer wind farm during the pay-back period and
after its depreciation, where: 2, 5 – internal electric load Ɛel of a prosumer wind farm
during the pay-back period and after its depreciation, respectively; 1, 4 – investment
J in a wind farm; 3, 6 – annual operating time of a prosumer wind farm.
Source: own calculations
29
30
R. Bartnik, Z. Buryn, A. Hnydiuk-Stefan
Table 2. Summary of mean specific cost of power generation in the particular technologies of its
production for the data in Table 1.
Power plant type
nuclear
photovoltaic
prosumer
wind
photovoltaic
prosumer
wind
dual-fuel
combined
cycle
(DFCC)
combined
cycle
(CCPP)
coal-fired
coal-fired with oxycombustion
with air
combustion xccs = 0.2
Specific cost of electric
power generation kel
[PLN/MWh]
419
1217
2434
522
1043
296
276
279
463
Specific cost of electric
power generation after
depreciation period
kel,amort [PLN/MWh]
115
318
636
136
273
214
234
160
232
Source: calculations based on a formula Bartnik Ryszard, Bartnik Berenika, Hnydiuk-Stefan
Anna. 2016. Optimum Investment Strategy in the Power Industry. New York:
Springe and data from Table 1.
4. CONCLUSIONS
As we can note from the calculations in Fig. 6, the specific cost of electric power generation in coal-fired units employing CCS technology is as much as two times higher from
the cost in the power units lacking these technologies (Fig. 5). This cost is even considerably higher than the cost incurred in nuclear power plants (Figs. 7, 8) despite two times
more costly specific investment in the nuclear units (computed per unit of capacity). If
the policy aimed at limiting greenhouse gases is maintained worldwide, a current issue
should concern finding a substitute to the current use of coal. However, if such a policy
provides for stricter emissions control, this issue will also concern the use of natural gas.
In such a case, there is no other option than the use of fissile fuel. For the case of nuclear
power plants, the cost of nuclear fuel accounts for a small proportion (around 5%) of the
specific cost kel of electricity generation in them, whereas in conventional units the proportion of the cost of coal and gas use are considerable (i.e. around 35% in conventional
coal-fired plants with supercritical parameters, 30% in the ones employing oxy-fuel combustion and 75% in combined cycle power plants burning natural gas). In this case, the
specific cost of electricity generation in a nuclear plant is equal to around kel = 420
PLN/MWh (by increasing the depreciation period from T = 20 years to T = 40 years, kel =
362 PLN/MWh; on condition that the interest rate on the investment decreases by 3 %, i.e.
from r = 8% to r = 5%, kel = 332 PLN/MWh for T = 20 years and kel = 268 PLN/MWh for T
= 40 years, Fig. 7). The commissioning of nuclear stations additionally lead to the increase
in the energy security of the country. In addition, in the long term nuclear-generated power becomes a very cheap source after the depreciation of the units and considerably cheaper from the production in depreciated coal-fired unit with supercritical parameters. This
price is decided primarily by the cost of the nuclear fuel, which forms only a few per cent
of the specific cost of kel, whereas in the coal-fired units coal accounts for several dozen
per cent of the overall cost. Hence, the only sensible and justified way of finding a substitute for coal and gas in the existing power plants is associated with their substitution with
fissile fuel. By the way, we can note that the Poland’s energy policy needs to combine
coal and nuclear sources of power. In this, we need not build new coal-fired plants but
retrofit the existing ones so that their operation is possible over the next dozens of years.
Which power technologies…
31
The option of ceasing their operation imposed by the European climate and energy package is counter to the Polish raison d'être. The investment in the retrofitting the existing
power plants is inconsiderable in comparison to the investment required to build new ones
burning coal. In addition, investment needs to be made in nuclear power plants, as it is
justified from the economic perspective. This policy should be accompanied by the development of production of fuel elements for power reactors. The resources of uranium ores
in Poland are large. Thus, following this direction offers a rational way of economic and
civilization development of the Polish state.
Renewable energy sources (RES) are characterized with particularly high specific
costs of electric power generation, as concluded from Figs. 11–14. This is due to the high
specific investment needed in them, which is equal to the ones made in the units with
supercritical parameters. Another factor is the very short period of their potential yearly
operation, which is equal to 1,500−2,000 h/a for the wind farms in the conditions of
Polish climate (compared to the total number of 8,760 hours in a year). In addition, electricity generation of RES sources is random as a result of unreliable weather conditions.
Furthermore, power generation in photovoltaic cells is another solution which cannot
secure sufficient power supply in sufficient volumes and in a reliable manner. This is due
to their high cost and low reliability, as well as the operating time estimated at 750 hours
per year. Hence, despite the fact that solar power is the only endless and reliable source of
energy, harnessing its power is matter of remote future, at least dozens if not hundreds of
years. A solution which seems to offer a closer perspective is associated with gaining
skills in applying fusion reaction. As a consequence of its development, humankind will
have an inexhaustible source of clean energy. The existence of RES is only possible due
to the subsidies from the state treasury (i.e. it relies on taxpayers). In the old 15 EU member states, power generation in photovoltaics obtains a subsidy in the amount of 430
€/MWh, while the power from wind turbines – 160 €/MWh). In addition, such sources
can only prove as a supplement to the baseload power plants, which are the only ones
capable of continuously supply the required volumes of electric power. Sociological analysis indicates that 80% of people will live in metropolitan areas in 2050; hence, the idea
of the prosumer RES is a complete delusion. Apart from this, the specific cost of power
generation in them are the highest, as visible in Figs.12, 14.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
Bartnik Ryszard, Bartnik Berenika, Hnydiuk-Stefan Anna. 2016. Optimum Investment Strategy in the Power Industry. New York: Springer.
Bartnik Ryszard, Bartnik Berenika. 2014. Economic calculations in power engineering. Warszawa: WNT. [In Polish].
Bartnik Ryszard. 2009. Combined Cycle Power Plants. Thermal and economic effectiveness:
Wydawnictwa Naukowo-Techniczne. Warszawa: WNT. (Reprint 2012).
Hnydiuk-Stefan Anna. 2014. Analysis of the parameters of power plants operating in oxy-fuel
combustion, Ph.D. thesis. Opole University of Technology. [In Polish].
W JAKIE TECHNOLOGIE ENERGETYCZNE NALEŻY INWESTOWAĆ?
W artykule przeanalizowano jednostkowe koszty wytwarzania elektryczności w różnych
technologiach jej produkcji. Analizie poddano wszystkie dostępne technologie energetyczne
(bez elektrowni wodnych): elektrownie węglowe ze spalaniem konwencjonalnym
32
R. Bartnik, Z. Buryn, A. Hnydiuk-Stefan
i w technologii CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) oxy-spalania, elektrownie jądrowe,
elektrownie gazowo-parowe, elektrownie gazowo-parowe dwupaliwowe, elektrownie
wiatrowe, elektrownie fotowoltaiczne. W artykule przyjęto, że najkorzystniejszą
ekonomicznie technologią jest ta, dla której średni jednostkowy koszt produkcji energii
elektrycznej jest najmniejszy. Zależy on między innymi od takich czynników jak: od
jednostkowych nakładów inwestycyjnych, elektrycznych potrzeb własnych, rocznego czasu
pracy, ceny paliwa i jej zmian w czasie, udziału energii chemicznej paliwa w całkowitym
jego rocznym zużyciu, dla którego nie jest wymagany zakup pozwoleń na emisję CO2,
taryfowych opłat za korzystanie ze środowiska naturalnego, co wykazano w artykule.
W obliczeniach posłużono się ponadto metodyką i uzyskanym za jej pomocą modelem
matematycznym jednostkowego kosztu produkcji, co istotne, z czasem ciągłym. Umożliwia
on uwzględnianie w obliczeniach m.in. różnych scenariuszy zmian w czasie cen nośników
energii. Co więcej, pozwala na wykorzystanie rachunku różniczkowego do analizy wartości
jednostkowych kosztów wytwarzania elektryczności. Przeprowadzono ponadto dla
rozważanych technologii analizę wrażliwości tych kosztów w celu oceny zmian ich wartości
w funkcji zmian parametrów mających na nie wpływ.
Słowa kluczowe: technologie energetyczne, koszt wytwarzania energii, CCS,
elektrownie gazowo-parowe, elektrownie gazowo-parowe dwupaliwowe
DOI: 10.7862/rz.2016.mmr.40
Tekst złożono w redakcji: październik 2016
Przyjęto do druku: grudzień 2016