GETTING TO ZERO: PATHWAYS TO ZERO CARBON ELECTRICITY SYSTEMS

Jesse D. Jenkins PhD Candidate, Institute for Data, Systems and Society, Massachusetts Institute of Technology | jessedj@mit.edu

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: jessedj@mit.edu Google Scholar: bit.ly/ScholarJenkins LinkedIn: jessedjenkins Twitter: @JesseJenkins

50