1 / 16

Submission on the cogeneration of electricity

Prana Energy presents waste energy recovery projects for electricity generation, seeking government support with a detailed economic comparison. We outline the benefits of cogeneration and emphasize the need for policy continuity and upfront capital subsidy for project viability.

gvictor
Download Presentation

Submission on the cogeneration of electricity

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Submission on the cogeneration of electricity 25 July 2013

  2. AGENDA • Introducing Prana Energy • The type of projects covered by our submission • Characteristics of Waste Energy Recovery projects • What we need from Government • Questions

  3. Introducing Prana Energy

  4. Prana Energy • Prana Energy started developing cogeneration projects in 2006; • We are considered to be one of the leading project developers in the cogeneration space; • We formed a JV with Exxaro in 2007 (“Exxaro On-Site”) with the specific aim of the JV being developing cogeneration projects as these projects were perceived to be the “low-hanging fruits” back then; • Exxaro On-Site submitted cogeneration projects with a combined capacity of 930 MW into Eskom’s Pilot National Cogeneration Programme (“PNCP”) in 2007 but withdrew these due to a poor PPA; • We have roughly 200MW of projects which can be delivering electricity within 24 months if an appropriate regulatory environment existed

  5. The type of projects covered by our submission

  6. The type of projects covered by our submission Covered by our submission Not covered by our submission Electricity recovered from waste Combined Heat and Power (CHP) The co-generator has no control over the fuel source - at the end of an industrial process The co-generator has significant control over the fuel source • Pulp and Paper • Sugar • Biomass • Natural gas • Etc. • Ferrochrome smelters • Ferromanganese smelters • Cement kilns • Steel manufacturing • Etc.

  7. Characteristics of Waste Energy Recovery projects

  8. Cogeneration from waste energy recovery • Quick to implement relative to new-build coal (circa 24 months) • As “green” as electricity from wind, solar and hydro – i.e. it reduces carbon emissions • It also typically have further environmental benefits – e.g. reduced air pollution • The grid connection points are already in place – no additional transmission infrastructure required • The electricity is not exported back into the grid as generation is typically less than the on-site consumption – i.e. reduced grid losses • Fantastic grid alignment (almost like base-load) – see next slide

  9. Fantastic grid alignment If the demand from the industrial process on Eskom is LOW, the cogeneration plant produces LESS electricity If the demand from the industrial process on Eskom is HIGH, the cogeneration plant produces A LOT of electricity

  10. Economic Comparison of Technologies * Based on REIPPP round 3 caps ** Estimates

  11. What we need from Government

  12. What we need from Government We need continuity of policy.... • We have been developing 2 cogeneration projects (Waste Energy Recovery) with generation capacity of 60MW; • These projects are only viable if there is an IDM type subsidy available but given that this was the case until April of this year, we spent in excess of R15m on developing these projects; • In April, the IDM subsidy was abruptly taken away as part of NERSA’s MYPD3 ruling; • No alternative is being offered... i.e. a total discontinuity in policy • These projects may have to be terminated at a time when the grid desperately needs it • The Prana projects are not the only casualties

  13. What we need from Government (cont.) The cheapest / quickest / best way to make these projects happen is a once-off up-front capital subsidy • This is similar in nature to the IDM subsidy which existed at Eskom for cogeneration projects until March / April this year and which already enabled a number of cogeneration projects successfully • Our request is that the IDM subsidy which previously existed within Eskom be re-activated (very easy to do) until such time as an alternative mechanism exists (as per the NERSA ruling) • Our further request is that sufficient funding be made available to Eskom (from an alternative source?) and that they be given a temporary mandate to tailor the amount of the IDM subsidy to enable these projects as long as pre-agreed economic and commercial criteria are met

  14. Up-front capital subsidy Subsidy makes the price of cogenerated electricity comparable to that of Eskom

  15. Up-front capital subsidy (cont.) • Cheap.... the IDM subsidy at ZAR 5.25m/MW works out to roughly 8 c/kWh for the Prana projects already submitted to Eskom. It is far cheaper than anything else but the size of the subsidy required will differ from project to project • Quick.... the IDM infrastructure and legal framework already exists at Eskom and is being used for other energy efficiency projects • Alignment of interest.... There is perfect, self-regulating alignment of interest as the owner of the cogeneration plant has to provide the rest of the capital – i.e. there is a very strong incentive to make sure the plant produces electricity • A proven mechanism... It already worked in South Africa and is widely used internationally

  16. Thank you

More Related