ARTICLE / MAKALE The capacity projections shown tor 2005-10 range from EWEA's 2005 to its 2002 Wind Force 12 estimates - the latter adopted by the IEA using a 25% capacity factor. Future values will almost certainly be higher. O Photovoltaic dala are from Worldwatch lnstitute (which uses the industrystandard PV News database) and Solarbuzz's 2005 Marketbuzz, solving for the lag between shipments and iitnnhse1t a9f ilr9l as6tt .i ocTnohsma itmn e2r0c 0i a4l . PWV ep aa sn se ul sm, em aa d2e5 -i ny e1a9r 7a1 v, esrtaagr tee dl i f er e, t isroi n g will probably prove conservative since some modern PVs come with a 25-year warranty. We adopt the lnternational Energy Agency's (IEA's) 2010 capacity factor. O i s f rSomma ltlhhey ldnrtoe' rsn a2 0t i o0 n4acl aApsascoi tcyi,a4t i7o nGfWo r (Somf au lnl i tHsyudpr ot o( I A1 0S HM) W. ) , The 2010 capacity is interpolated from simple exponential growth to the World Energy Council's favourable scenario tor 2020 (75 GW), then pre-2004 capacity is extrapolated backwards. We adopt for all years IASH's implicit 2010 projection of 45.8% capacity factor. O Biomass-fuelled generation: we adopt Navigant G IC r E e o W A n n o ' ) s s r u t m 7 o lt a 0 i m n l % iz g a e' t c s c a t h i hp n e a t c h c r i e e m it m y I p E e l f i a A n e c t ' d s a t o l 2 p r c . 0 r o a1 jpOeact ctoei tt day l 5ai n5d sdGti at Wi lol en das ncf doa rpa a2s cs0 iu0t ym0 (-e51 05t h, . 7e O Here, we adopt the IEA's 2002 capacity, Navigant (Cr eo nn os ruml t ianlgi z' se dh ifsr toomr i c1a1l . 8a nt do tphreo jIeEcAt e' sd 1c3a pGaWc i t yt o at adl df iot iro 2n 0s 1 O), ascnadlethdeliInEeAa'rslyc)a. pacity factors (72% in 2002, 78% in 201 O, O Nuclear capacity data are from the lnternational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) through 2004, cross-checked tor 2005 against the World Nuclear Association's database, which we also use tor expected 2005-2010 shutdowns. We adjust for upratings (which the IAEA 'slipstreams' rather than re1e9xpt9roa1r p-t 2i on0lga0 t4eexduppbl ircaaictt kli ny )g os no ct hc eu r ar es ds uamt pa t i loi nne tahr a rt at thee a 3n . d6 cGaWn boef wards one year to 1990 and forward to 201 O (agreeing within 0.12% with the USDOE's projection). Nuclear gsoeunrecrea.tion deastliamaartee f2r0o0m5-t2h0e 1I0E Anu, cthleearmoousttpcuot,mplete historical To we assume a l8in8e.5a1r%incinre2a0se10f.rom 84.1% capacity factor in 2002 to the IEA's PLAUSIBLE CANDIDATE A plausible candidate would be relative prıces. Consistent with the hypothesis that the world is buying more micropower (and etcrleaennctstr rpai cal i zr eeennd dt , s- uau spnepd l yed,f of iacc iues men pce ayn r) t aebtdee ccRao MumsI peaa inrt i ascloyonss i t sos f ol etf hf seesr stdheaal i nvs ei mr epdl e c, o s t aor ecf scooonuuerncmtei nsag, r gpbi rnaeassli eskn(Wtoeht dh ef i rnr o tm2h0a0Un4Spdrcooejl elnact rrisa l l i oi fzene, da acno dn sdi setceennt t r a l i z e d which is appropriate to each technology). Centralized or remote resources incur a delivery cost to the retail meter, conservatively taken as the 1996 embedded historic average (including average grid losses) tor US investor-owned utilities - 2.75 cents/kWh. On-site resources avoid this cost because they're already delivered. The approximately $13 billion of just-approved ftneheed enrea xl tn 6u cGl eWa r -s mu bi gs hi dt i, ei sf h- i gr oh ul yg hs ul yc tchees sef nu tl ,i r ec uct at ph iet acl ocsot sot ff oar w delivered nuclear kWh from 9.8 cents/kWh (using a 40 year life and 85% capacity factor) to 7.0 cents/kWh. NUCLEAR'S MARKET FAILURE TrehvuesrstehethNeamtioanrkael tEfnaeilurgrey PofolnicuyclAeacrt opfo 2005 attempts to wer by making it potentially competitive - under very optimistic assumptions - with its coal-and gas-fired central-station competitors. it will become obvious that those are the wrong competitors, because all three types of central plants are uncompetitive with three other options: wind power and some other renewables, CHP and end-use efficiency. Observed market behaviour, which strongly favours these onputciolenasr,pimo plies that even if the policy intent - that yet again, wer cannot be allowed to fail were realized, the desired outcome would not be, because the decentralized competitors, being markedly less costly, would continue to win. rTceehsneot rudarol ci czeues md' geprnl aat pen hdt se adbsycs : uo smt sp t ai or ne s d be el i bh ei nr da t tehl ye cdheoc seennt r at ol i zf ea dv o u r O understating marginal delivery costs O counting a generous 0.9 cents/kWh firming and integration cost for wind power but no reserve margin for centralized ptohluaetnastgsi ze(e)a, l fl rteyqpuees nocfy ,g de un rear tai ot onr, s caarues ien taenr md i pt treendti,c tdai fbf ei l ri ti yn go fo n l y i n O offering the option to back out wind power's Production Tax (Cthreodsiet, fbourtnnuoctletahrepcoentralized plants' pre-2005 subsidies wer far exceed the PTC) O using relatively high costs for windpower (its assumed bParosdicucctoiosnt, fToarx3C0ryeedaitropfr0o.j8e6ctsceinnctlsuding the levelized /kWh, is 3.0-3.5 cents/kWh - twice that of today's cheapest projects) O using static 'snapshot' costs rather than cost trends, which strongly favour micropower and efficiency (only the expected 1 cent/kWh drop in wind power costs to 2012 is shown). The CHP costs are based on natural-gas prices of $5.4-8.7/ GJ, $1/GJ higher than for central stations, and a 10%/year raLecLt tCuur,anal opl ver oeajrde i 2cnt5gs ycUeoSanrsCsi . dHlePnr deuddse tvrreei apl ol r peCesHre Pn t ac toi vs et s bayr eP rbi amsaer dy oEnn ef i rvgey with about 0.9 GW of operating projects. The conventional industrial CHP projects shown are in the 28-64 MWe range. The 60-160 MWe projects using recovered waste heat, which has about 94 GW of untapped US potential9, deliver electricity at negative cost because the heat's value more than repays capital plus non-fuel operating costs. Gas-fired CHP can yield even lower costs in ao pstui mi tiazbelde (btuy pi l di ci anlgl yt hbaynt riing eanneirnadt iuosnt roi arl bfeatcliel i try, i f i t i s h i g h l y with system efficiencies equal to or above 0.9) and well integrated with prior demand-side improvements. t -+-----�==�4, -------- ENERJİ & KOJENERASYON OUNYASI . MART 2006 .� 64 "AB'ye Giriş Sürecinde Türkiye'de Kojenerasyon-Yeni Gelişmeler"
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTcyMTY=