1. Technical & Economic Assessment Grid, Mini-grid & Off-grid Electrification Technologies Chubu Electric Power Co.,Inc. (CEPCO) Toyo Engineering Co. (TOYO) The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) Princeton Energy Resources Institute (PERI)

2. Study Objective To characterize the current and future comparative economic costs of generation from renewable and fossil fuel-fired electricity generation technologies configured to suit off-grid, mini-grid and grid applications (50 W to 500 MWs)

3. Generating Types Off-grid Mini-grid Grid-connected 10w 100w 1kw 10kw 100kw 1MW 10MW 100MW 1GW Renewable (13) Solar PV Wind PV-Wind Hybrids Solar thermal Geothermal Biomass Gasifier Landfill Gas Biomass Steam Biogas Pico/Micro Hydro Mini Hydro Large Hydro Pumped storage Hydro Fossil (9) Diesel/Gasoline Generator Micro Turbines Fuel Cells Oil/Gas Combustion Turbines Oil/Gas Combined Cycle Coal Steam (subcritical, SC, USC) Coal IGCC Coal AFB Oil Steam Power Generation Options

4. Estimated by Study team, based on World Energy Outlook 2005(IEA), International Energy Outlook (DOE) and World Bank. Fuel cost include transportation cost and refinery cost.(Gasoline:50%, LO: 40%) Base crude oil : 38$/bbl Levelized Fuel Cost (2004 $/GJ) Generating Technology Oil Gasoline 19.6 (2.4$/gal) Gasoline-generator Light oil 14.7 (2.0$/gal) Diesel-generator, Combustion-turbine, Combined-cycle Residual Oil5.7Diesel-generator, Oil steam Coal India (Sulfur 0.6%)1.6AFBC Australia (Sulfur 0.8%) 2.1Coal-steam, IGCC GasNatural gas5.7 Combustion-turbine, Combined-cycle, Micro-turbine Fuel Prices

5. Power Generation Options for Off-grid, Mini-grid and Grid-connected Applications Pico Hydro 1kW Gas Combined Cycle 300MW Coal Steam subcritical 300MW Coal IGCC 300MW Coal AFBC 300MW Oil Steam 300MW Biomass Gasifier 100kW Biogas 60kW Micro Hydro 100kW Wind 10MW Geothermal 50MW Bio Steam 50MW MSW/ Landfill Gas 5MW Mini Hydro 5MW Diesel Generator 5MW Fuel Cells 5MW Off-Grid Mini-Grid Grid connected (cent/kWh) Average Sensitivity Range

6. Many renewables are generally more economical than comparable conventional generation options in off-grid (1 kW or less) configurations Diesel/Gasolene Generator 1kW (CF=30%) Diesel/Gasolene Generator 300W (CF=30%) Pico Hydro 1kW (CF=30%) Pico Hydro 300W (CF=30%) PV-Wind Hybrid 300W (CF=30%) Wind 300W (CF=30%) Solar PV 300W (CF=20%) Solar PV 50W (CF=20%) Average Sensitivity Range

7. Renewables also compare favorably with comparable conventional generation options in mini-grid (5kW-500kW) configurations Solar PV 25kW (CF=20%) Wind 100kW (CF=30%) PV-Wind Hybrid 100kW (CF=30%) Geothermal 200kW (CF=70%) Biomass Gasifier 100kW (CF=80%) Biogas 60kW (CF=80%) Micro Hydro 100kW (CF=30%) Diesel Generator 100kW (CF=80%) Micro Turbines 100kW (CF=80%) Fuel Cells 200kW (CF=80%)

8. Some renewables are more economical than conventional generation in small (5MW – 50MW) grid-connected applications Wind 10MW (CF=30%) Solar Thermal without storage 30MW (CF=20%) Solar Thermal with storage 30MW (CF=54%) Geothermal 20MW (CF=85%) Geothermal 50MW (CF=90%) Biomass Gasifier 20MW (CF=80%) Bio Steam 50MW (CF=80%) MSW/Landfill Gas 5MW (CF=80%) Mini Hydro 5MW (CF=45%) Diesel Generator (Base) 5MW (CF=80%) Diesel Generator (Peak) 5MW (CF=10%) Fuel Cell 5MW (CF=80%)

9. Conventional generation options remain more economical for grid-connected applications Wind 100MW (CF=30%) Geothermal 50MW (CF=90%) Large Hydro 100MW (CF=50%) Gas Comb. Turbines (Peak) 150MW (CF=10%) Gas Combined Cycle 300MW (CF=80%) Coal Steam 300MW (CF=80%) Coal IGCC 300MW (CF=80%) Coal AFBC 300MW (CF=80%) Oil Steam 300MW (CF=80%)

10. Many Coal generation options; best choice depends on fuel costs and environmental requirements Coal Steam subcritical 300MW (CF=80%) Coal IGCC 300MW (CF=80%) Coal AFBC 300MW (CF=80%) Coal Steam subcritical 500MW (CF=80%) Coal Steam SC 500MW (CF=80%) Coal Steam USC 500MW (CF=80%) Coal IGCC 500MW (CF=80%) Coal AFBC 500MW (CF=80%)

11. Advanced generation options have considerable potential Supercritical PC offers higher efficiency and lower risk with potential for further improvements AFBC is competitive especially with low quality fuels IGCC economics are expected to improve 500 MW Plant Generating TypesCapital Cost ($/kW) Generating Cost (cent/kWh) 200420102015200420102015 Coal Steam (Subcritical)1,0601,0401,0204.254.08 Coal Steam (SC)1,0901,0701,0504.204.044.03 Coal Steam (USC)1,1701,1401,1004.194.023.99 Coal AFB1,0501,0209903.843.863.83 Coal IGCC1,4001,3001,1905.024.744.60

12. Factors being taken into account Fuel price forecasts Technology development trends Grid connection costs and issues Risks Climate change considerations

13. Fuel Price Forecasts ($/GJ, in 2004) 33$/bbl 38$/bbl 4.1$/MMBtu 5.1$/MMBtu 35$/ton 40$/ton High-case 2005, Reference-case High-case 2005, Reference-case High-case 2005, Reference-case 2004, Reference-case Oil Gas Coal 2004, Reference-case Source: Estimated by Study team, based on World Energy Outlook 2005(IEA), International Energy Outlook (DOE) and World Bank

14. 500 MW Thermal Power Plant CO2 Reduction Potential Net Efficiency (%LHV) Annual CO2 Reduction (million tons/year) Value of CO2 Reductions at $20/ton ($millions/year) Subcritical 39.0Base Supercritical 41.0-0.138-2.75 Ultra- supercritical 44.0-0.320-6.41 IGCC (2005) 43.2-0.274-5.48 IGCC (2020) 45.0-0.376-7.52 Capacity Factor: 80%

15. Conclusions Renewables are competitive especially for off- grid and mini-grid applications Thermal power still preferable for large grid connected applications Technological developments and climate change may alter the cost-effectiveness of technologies Site-specific factors affect significantly the technology selection Remaining activities under the project: Complete risk assessment Develop spreadsheet to assess costs considering site-specific considerations