Final thesis: Technological maturity of future energy systems
•
3 likes•1,254 views
For my Master thesis I built a methodology to assess system maturities in energy sector. The aim was to build a framework, process and tools with the scope of assessing emerging systems and their current technological maturity in an uniform and quantitative way.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Final thesis: Technological maturity of future energy systems
Similar to Final thesis: Technological maturity of future energy systems (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Final thesis: Technological maturity of future energy systems
- 1. DNV GL © System Readiness Assessment How to assess the technological matureness of future energy systems? Power Grid Gas Grid Wind turbine Fuel cells Combustion turbines Methanation Chemical plants Electrolysis Hydrogen storage Nina Kallio MSc student University of Groningen Energy and Environmental Sciences
- 2. DNV GL © Introduction: Background: Roadmaps, future scenarios, targets Aim: To build a methodology in order to assess the technological maturity of future energy systems How to assess the technological maturity of future energy systems in a quantitative way Relevance: Development phase assessments Supporting tool for technology development management Technology Readiness Level verifications Comparison of different systems with similar functions
- 3. DNV GL © Verification and validation of the methodology Building of methodology to assess systems in energy sector Conclusions Results Case studies Assessment tools Description and analysis of the methods Literature review Research process
- 4. DNV GL © System Readiness Level Technology Readiness Level Integration Readiness Level
- 5. DNV GL © Technology Readiness Level (TRL): Background Defines the maturity of a technology with a scale from 1 (least mature) to 9 (fully implemented and operational) Used by NASA since the 80s Implemented also by U.S DoD and DoE;; and in EU Research and Innovation Program Horizon 2020 Definitions by DoE should be used also in Europe
- 6. DNV GL © Assessing TRL Original tool with 274 yes/no questions by AFRL In this thesis an Excel-based tool was built 137 yes/no -questions Divided between levels Questions answered by experts Se NO YES 1.1 Basic technology processes and principles have been observed and reported 1.2 The problem or opportunity that the technology addresses has been identified 1.3 Physical laws and assumptions used in the new technology have been identified and defined 1.4 Research hypothesis formulated 1.5 Knowledge who would perform research and where it would be done 1.6 Paper studies confirm basic principles: basic characterization data exists 1.7 Initial scientific observations reported in journals/conference proceedings/technical report TRL 1 met by TRL 1 TECHNOLOGY READINESS LEVEL (TRL) CALCULA 57%
- 7. DNV GL © System Readiness Level Technology Readiness Level Integration Readiness Level
- 8. DNV GL © Integration Readiness Level (IRL): Background Original 7 levels introduced by Gove in 2007 Sauser et al. modified to current scale of 9 levels Used in space and defense applications Definitions should be used in Energy sector
- 9. DNV GL © Assessing IRL Sauser et al. assessed the criticality of 79 questions with 33 system development experts (governmental and industrial) in 2011 In this thesis an Excel-based tool was built 79 yes/no -questions Divided between levels Questions answered by experts Se NO YES 1.1 Principal integration technologies have been identified 1.2 Top-‐level functional architecture and interface points have been defined 1.3 Availability of principal integration technologies is known and documented 1.4 Integration concept/plan has been defined/drafted 1.5 Integration test concept/plan has been defined/drafted 1.6 High-‐level Concept of Operations and principal use cases have been defined/drafted 1.7 Integration sequence approach/schedule has been defined/drafted 1.8 Interface control plan has been defined/drafted 1.9 Principal integration and test resource requirements (facilities, hardware, software, surrogates, etc) have been defined/identified 1.10 Integration & Test Team roles and responsibilities have been defined 70%IRL 1 met by INTEGRATION READINESS LEVEL (IRL) CAL IRL 1
- 10. DNV GL © Check-list Check-list I Objective Tool Result System Readiness Level Technology Readiness Level Integration Readiness Level
- 11. DNV GL © Check-list Check-list I Objective Tool Result System Readiness Level Technology Readiness Level Integration Readiness Level Model
- 12. DNV GL © System Readiness Level (SRL): Background Method by Sauser et al. (2011) Simplified version: TRL * IRL = SRL Verified by assessing failed NASA missions
- 13. DNV GL © Technology 1 Technology 2 Technology 3 TRL 5 TRL 6 TRL 9 IRL 2 IRL 7 Technology 4 IRL 5 TRL 8 SRL ITRL 1 ITRL 2 ITRL 3 ITRL 4
- 14. DNV GL © Verification and validation of the methodology Fossil (F) Hydrogen (H) Electricity (FE) Ammonia (FA) Electricity (HE) Ammonia (HA) Current (verification) Emerging (validation)
- 15. DNV GL © Power Grid Gas Grid Wind turbine Fuel cells Combustion turbines Methanation Chemical plants Electrolysis Hydrogen storage Ammonia SYSTEM BOUNDARIES
- 16. DNV GL © Power Grid Gas Grid Combustion turbines Chemical plants Ammonia System FE System FA SYSTEM F (for verification)
- 17. DNV GL © Power Grid Gas Grid Wind turbine Fuel cells Combustion turbines Methanation Chemical plants Electrolysis Hydrogen storage Ammonia SYSTEM H (for validation)
- 18. DNV GL © Power Grid Gas Grid Fuel cells Combustion turbines Methanation Electrolysis System HE
- 19. DNV GL © Power Grid Wind turbine Chemical plants Electrolysis Hydrogen storage Ammonia System HA
- 20. DNV GL © Verification results Fossil (F) 100% Electricity (FE) 100% Ammonia (FA) 100%
- 21. DNV GL © TRL and IRL results in validation Assessed Check-‐list Result Weighted Result >90% result TRL 1. GCT 9 -‐ -‐ 2. Fuel cell 6 -‐ -‐ 3. Wind turbine 9 -‐ -‐ 4. Power grid 9 -‐ -‐ 5. Electrolyser 6 -‐ -‐ 6. Methanation 2 3 5 7. Gas grid 9 -‐ -‐ 8. Hydrogen storage 2 7 -‐ 9. Chemical plant -‐ 9* -‐ IRL 1. GCT Power grid 9 -‐ -‐ 2. Fuel cell Power grid 1 6 -‐ 3. Wind turbine Power grid 9; 9 -‐ -‐ 4. Power grid Electrolyser 9 -‐ -‐ 5. Electrolyser Fuel cells 2 -‐ -‐ 6. Electrolyser Hydrogen storage 7 -‐ -‐ 7. Electrolyser Methanation -‐ 3 1 8. Methanation Gas grid 3 9 -‐ 9. Gas grid GCT 9; 9 -‐ -‐ 10. Hydrogen storage Chemical plant -‐ 9* -‐
- 22. DNV GL © SRL Validation Results Hydrogen (H) 75% Electricity (HE) 56%...68% Ammonia (HA) 74%...86%
- 23. DNV GL © ITRL results for System HE
- 24. DNV GL © ITRL results for System HA
- 25. DNV GL © ITRL System HA Wind turbine Power grid Chemical plant Hydroge n storage Electroly sis 100% 89% 89% 77% 76% ITRL System HE GCT Gas grid Power grid Methana tion Fuel cell Electroly sis 100% 78% 78% 52% 49% 48% ITRL System H GCT Wind turbine Chemical plant Power grid Gas grid Hydroge n storage Methana tion Electroly sis Fuel cell 100% 100% 89% 82% 78% 77% 52% 51% 49% ITRL results comparison
- 26. DNV GL © TRA Definitions by DoE Performed with Check-list Result: IRA Definitions by Sauser et al. Performed with Check-list Result: SRA Scale from 0 to 100% Calculated with model using TRLs and IRLs Result: Conclusions: Methodology to assess future energy systems
- 27. DNV GL © Thank You! Any questions? Power Grid Gas Grid Wind turbine Fuel cells Combustion turbines Methanation Chemical plants Electrolysis Hydrogen storage