Upload
others
View
18
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
GETTING TO ZERO: PATHWAYS TO ZERO CARBON ELECTRICITY SYSTEMS
Jesse D. Jenkins PhD Candidate, Institute for Data, Systems and Society, Massachusetts Institute of Technology | [email protected]
Jesse D. Jenkins • PhD Candidate, MIT Institute for
Data, Systems and Society
• Researcher, MIT Energy Initiative, Electric Power Systems Center
• Previously: S.M. Technology & Policy, MIT (2012-2014)
Director of Energy & Climate Policy, Breakthrough Institute (2008-2012)
Research & Policy Associate, Renewable Northwest (2006-2008)
B.S. Computer & Information Science, University of Oregon (2006)
2
GETTING TO ZERO
3
Source: Peters et al. (2017), “Key indicators to track current progress and future ambition of the Paris Agreement,” Nature Climate Change 7: 118-122
The Decarbonization Challenge
4
Near-zero CO2
4
5 Source: Deep Decarboniza0on Pathways Project, “High Nuclear” scenario, h?p://deepdecarboniza0on.org/
~2x electricity demand
Near-zero CO2
2010 2050 2030 5
Deep Decarbonization of Electricity
We Are Falling Behind…
Nuclear energy Carbon capture & storage
Source: Peters et al. (2017), “Key indicators to track current progress and future ambition of the Paris Agreement,” Nature Climate Change 7: 118-122 6
The Motivations
July 31, 2017
Westinghouse Files for Bankruptcy, in Blow to Nuclear
PowerMarch 29, 2017
7
Santee Cooper, SCE&G pull plug on roughly $25 billion nuclear plants in South Carolina
June 29, 2017
Carbon Capture Suffers a Huge Setback as Kemper Plant Suspends Work
…Renewable Energy Excepted
Source: Peters et al. (2017), “Key indicators to track current progress and future ambition of the Paris Agreement,” Nature Climate Change 7: 118-122
Wind & solar energy Biomass
8
The Motivations
January 17, 2018
Renewable energy will be consistently cheaper than fossil
fuels by 2020, report claimsJanuary 13, 2018
9
Xcel Energy receives shockingly low bids for Colorado electricity from renewable sources
August 27, 2016 December 9, 2016
Cost reductions since 2008 for selected technologies
Source: U.S. DOE, 2016. Revolution… Now. The Future Arrives for Five Clean Energy Technologies – 2016 Update
10
Image Source: go100percent.org
11
Do We Go All In?
12
“…there is strong agreement in the literature that a diversified mix of low-CO2 generation resources offers the best chance of affordably achieving deep decarbonization.”
13
The Mental Model
-
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Solar GW Solar $/MWh
Coal $/MWh
Gas $/MWh
A race to beat fossil fuels on cost…
14 Data Source: Lazard (2017), Levelized Cost of Energy 2017, h?ps://www.lazard.com/perspec0ve/levelized-‐cost-‐of-‐energy-‐2017/.
Leve
lized
cos
t of
ele
ctri
city
($/M
Wh
)
Glo
bal
inst
alle
d s
olar
PV
cap
acit
y (G
W)
The (Flawed) Mental Model
?
15
The (Correct) Mental Model
16 Source: Sivaram & Kann (2016), Solar needs a more ambi0ous cost target, Nature Energy Vol. 1 (April 2016).
A race between declining cost and declining value…
Sola
r P
V a
vera
ge m
arke
t va
lue
($
/kW
h)
Solar PV market share (% of total annual energy)
GenX: Power System Optimization
• Highly configurable
• Detailed operating constraints
• Hourly resolution
• Transmission & distribution networks
• Distributed energy resources
17
Declining Value: Four Mechanisms
18
1. Declining “fuel-saving” value (energy substitution)
2. Decreasing “capacity value” (capacity substitution)
3. Increasing “curtailment” (wasted generation when supply exceeds demand)
4. (Increasing reserve requirements and transmission network costs)
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 6 12 18 0 6
En
erg
y (G
Wh
)
Hour of the Day Nuclear Gas CCGT Wind Solar Gas CT Storage discharging Demand shifting satisfied Demand curtailment Storage charging Demand shifting delayed Wind curtailment Solar curtailment
CO2 Limit
19
7
29
0
64
0 16
0
20
40
60
80
400 t/GWh
Annual Energy Share (%)
Annual Marginal Curtailment (%)
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 6 12 18 0 6
En
erg
y (G
Wh
)
Hour of the Day Nuclear Gas CCGT Wind Solar Gas CT Storage discharging Demand shifting satisfied Demand curtailment Storage charging Demand shifting delayed Wind curtailment Solar curtailment
CO2 Limit
20
44
28
0
29
41
61
0
20
40
60
80
100 t/GWh
Net demand peak moved to February
evening
Annual Energy Share (%)
Annual Marginal Curtailment (%)
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 6 12 18 0 6
En
erg
y (G
Wh
)
Hour of the Day Nuclear Gas CCGT Wind Solar Gas CT Storage discharging Demand shifting satisfied Demand curtailment Storage charging Demand shifting delayed Wind curtailment Solar curtailment
CO2 Limit
21
43
26
17
14
41
74
0
20
40
60
80
50 t/GWh
Net demand peak moved to February
evening
Annual Energy Share (%)
Annual Marginal Curtailment (%)
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 6 12 18 0 6
En
erg
y (G
Wh
)
Hour of the Day Nuclear Gas CCGT Wind Solar Gas CT Storage discharging Demand shifting satisfied Demand curtailment Storage charging Demand shifting delayed Wind curtailment Solar curtailment
CO2 Limit
22
16
25 59
0
5
36
0
20
40
60
80
1 t/GWh
Annual Energy Share (%)
Annual Marginal Curtailment (%)
The role of flexible base resources in deep decarbonization of power systems
with Nestor Sepulveda, Richard Lester, Charles Forsberg, & Fernando de Sisternes, Joule (revise and resubmit)
23
What We Find
Energy storage
Demand response
Biogas CTs
Nuclear Coal and gas w/CCS
Geothermal & biomass
Seasonal storage?
Wind Solar PV
Solar thermal Run-of-river
hydro
“Fuel saving” variable resources
“Fast burst” resources
“Flexible base” resources 24
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12
En
erg
y (G
Wh
)
Hour of the Day Nuclear Gas CCGT Wind Solar Gas CT Storage discharging Demand shifting satisfied Demand curtailment Storage charging Demand shifting delayed Wind curtailment Solar curtailment
A Balanced Portfolio 1 g/kWh CO2 emissions limit (99.9% decline)
25
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12
En
erg
y (G
Wh
)
Hour of the Day
A Balanced Portfolio 1 g/kWh CO2 emissions limit (99.9% decline)
26
Flexible Base Resources
Fuel Saving Resources
Fast Burst Resources
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12
En
erg
y (G
Wh
)
Hour of the Day Nuclear Gas CCGT Wind Solar Gas CT Storage discharging
Without Flexible Base Resources 1 g/kWh CO2 emissions limit (99.9% decline)
27
Note 2x increase in y-axis scale
Fuel Saving Resources
Fast Burst Resources
28
Very high shares of wind and solar entail significant curtailment (even with storage and flexible demand…)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Ren
ewab
le e
nerg
y cu
rtailm
ent
(% o
f 201
5 to
tal U
.S. e
lect
ricity
con
sum
ptio
n)
Renewable energy market share (% annual energy)Graphic is author’s with data from: Frew et al. 2016. Flexibility mechanisms and pathways to a highly renewable US electricity future. Energy 101: 65-78. Data from Fig. 9 for Indep. PEV scenarios.
29
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Ren
ewab
le e
nerg
y cu
rtailm
ent
(% o
f 201
5 to
tal U
.S. e
lect
ricity
con
sum
ptio
n)
Renewable energy market share (% annual energy)Graphic is author’s with data from: Frew et al. 2016. Flexibility mechanisms and pathways to a highly renewable US electricity future. Energy 101: 65-78. Data from Fig. 9 for Agg. PEV scenarios.
Reduction in curtailment by aggregating all 10 FERC regions in continental U.S.
Very high shares of wind and solar entail significant curtailment (…and trans-continental power grid expansion)
30
To reach 90% renewable electricity in the United States, NREL’s Renewable Energy Futures study (Mai, et al. 2014) propose a doubline of U.S. long-distance transmission…
31
…MacDonald, Clack et al. 2016 envision a continent-spanning HVDC “supergrid” to link all US regions…
Graphic source: MacDonald et al. 2016. Future cost-competitive electricity systems and their impact on US CO2 emissions. Nature Climate Change 6: 526-531.
…as does Frew et al. 2016.
Graphic source: Frew et al. 2016. Flexibility mechanisms and pathways to a highly renewable US electricity future. Energy 101: 65-78
The Importance of Flexible Base Resources
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
% Energy % Cost Reduction % Energy % Cost Reduction % Energy % Cost Reduction % Energy % Cost Reduction
Flexible base energy share
Percent cost reduction vs renewable only
New England
New England
Texas Texas
Moderate storage cost reduction (50% below 2016)
Deep storage cost reduction (75% below 2016)
34
An
nu
al e
ner
gy s
har
e / C
ost
red
uct
ion
Source: Sepulveda, Jenkins et al. (forthcoming), The role of flexible base resources in deep decarboniza0on of power systems
Flexible Base Options
35
Seasonal Storage?
36
Graphic source: Jenkins & Therntsrom 2017. Deep Decarbonization of the Electric Power Sector: Insights from Recent Literature. Energy Innovation Reform Project.
Energy storage capacity required in 100% renewable energy scenarios for U.S. deep decarbonization
For comparison, the ten largest pumped hydro storage facilities in the United States provide enough energy storage capacity to supply average U.S. electricity needs for just 43 minutes.
Photo of Grand Coulee Dam and John W. Keys III Pump-Generating Plant. Credit: US Bureau of Reclamation
2015 U.S. electricity consumption from EIA. Storage capacity from DOE Global Energy Storage Database.
12
27 miles
John W. Keys III Pump-Generating Plant and Banks Lake Reservoir at Grand Coulee Dam: 25 GWh or 3 minutes and 30 seconds of storage.
2015 U.S. electricity consumption from EIA. Storage capacity from DOE Global Energy Storage Database. 13
13
John W. Keys III Pump-Generating Plant and Banks Lake Reservoir at Grand Coulee Dam: 25 GWh or 3 minutes and 30 seconds of storage.
Storing 2-4 months of US consumption in flow batteries would fill between 9 and 52 of these lakes…
13
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
400 300 200 100 50 15
Variable Renewables Nuclear Natural Gas
400 300 200 100 50 15 1
It’s Not a Straight Line to Zero Carbon
New England Texas
Emissions limit (t/GWh)
En
ergy
Sh
are
41
Policy Insights
42
1. Policy makers should not compare resources using cost; must consider value and distinct roles in a specific
system context.
Policy Insights
43
2. Policy support should not exclude
nuclear or carbon capture and storage; they play distinct “flexible base” role
Policy Insights
44
3. Technology policy needs to make
multiple “bets” in each class of resource, including flexible base resources
Policy Insights
45
4. Not a straight-line path to zero carbon;
beware lock-in from myopic policymaking
Policy Insights
46
5. Given uncertainty, policies should,
where possible, create and preserve maximum optionality and avoid lock-in
and dead ends
Concluding Thoughts
47
Cost
Land area impact
Up- & down-stream environmental
impacts
Air pollutants
Industry scale-up and
energy intensity rates
Technical and reliability
challenges
Concluding Thoughts
48
Cost
Land area impact
Up- & down-stream environmental
impacts
Air pollutants
Industry scale-up and
energy intensity rates
Technical and reliability
challenges
Hypothe0cal scoring of balanced solu0on set
Concluding Thoughts
49
Cost
Land area impact
Up- & down-stream environmental
impacts
Air pollutants
Industry scale-up and
energy intensity rates
Technical and reliability
challenges
Hypothe0cal scoring of unbalanced solu0on set
Jesse D. Jenkins • PhD Candidate, MIT Institute for
Data, Systems and Society
• Researcher, MIT Energy Initiative, Electric Power Systems Center Email: [email protected] Google Scholar: bit.ly/ScholarJenkins LinkedIn: jessedjenkins Twitter: @JesseJenkins
50