Download
from innovation to market expansion n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Achieving Low Carbon Growth : PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Achieving Low Carbon Growth :

Achieving Low Carbon Growth :

173 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Achieving Low Carbon Growth :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. From Innovation to Market Expansion

    Achieving Low Carbon Growth:

  2. Overview of Presentation: Multiple renewable energy and energy efficiency tools are available; but implementation is varied in details and effectiveness In this talk we will examine different policy and technology tools, focusing on the US, Germany, and California to keep these ideas rooted in practice Smart analysis and modeling tools are needed for the smart grid Transportation and stationary power, once separate, and now seen increasingly as linked through energy and climate and health/air quality issues
  3. Utility-scale Storage Distributed Storage Rooftop Solar Plug-in Electric Vehicles Wind Farms Solar Farms / Power Plants Building A Sustainable Electric System: Model and Policy Components Electric Grid Customers Power Plants Nuclear Power Plants Transmission Lines Natural Gas Generators Smart Grid functionality restores the balance Distribution Substations Hydro Power Plants
  4. Energy Intensity (E/GDP) in the US 1949 - 2007 1970, First Earth Day E/GDP = thousand Btu/$ (in $2000)
  5. CA Peak Power: Testimony by Goldstein and Rosenfeld (Dec. 1974)
  6. Per Capita Electricity Sales (not including self-generation) (kWh/person) (2006 to 2008 are forecast data) Denmark
  7. Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards (30 states + Washington, DC) MN: 25% by 2025 (Xcel: 30% by 2020) ME: 30% by 2000 10% by 2017 - new RE VT: RE meets load growth by 2012 *WA: 15% by 2020 NH: 23.8% in 2025 ND: 10% by 2015 WI: requirement varies by utility; 10% by 2015 goal MA: 4% by 2009 + 1% annual increase MT: 15% by 2015 OR: 25% by 2025(large utilities) 5% - 10% by 2025 (smaller utilities) RI: 16% by 2020 CT: 23% by 2020 *NV: 20% by 2015 IA: 105 MW NY: 24% by 2013 CO: 20% by 2020(IOUs) *10% by 2020 (co-ops & large munis) IL: 25% by 2025 NJ: 22.5% by 2021 CA: 20% by 2010 33% by 2020 PA: 18%¹ by 2020 MO: 11% by 2020 MD: 9.5% in 2022 NC: 12.5% by 2021(IOUs) 10% by 2018 (co-ops & munis) AZ: 15% by 2025 *DE: 20% by 2019 DC: 11% by 2022 NM: 20% by 2020(IOUs) 10% by 2020 (co-ops) *VA: 12% by 2022 TX: 5,880 MW by 2015 HI: 20% by 2020 State RPS State Goal Minimum solar or customer-sited RE requirement * Increased credit for solar or customer-sited RE ¹PA: 8% Tier I / 10% Tier II (includes non-renewables) Solar water heating eligible March 2011
  8. Why AB 32? Climate Impacts… California Projected Impacts 75% loss in snow pack 1-2 foot sea level rise 70 more extreme heat days/year 80% more ‘likely ozone’ days 55% more large forest fires Twice the drought years
  9. 50% CEC Data Business as Usual 40% AB 32 Scenario 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 California Global Warming Solutions Act: ~25% cut in emissions by 2020 In CA: Carbon loading order ~60 GW peak, 12 new GW of DG manadate EV mandate % Change from 1990 levels An integrated framework that uses sectoral targets and a carbon market (first auction, November 2012
  10. California Climate Planning (2006 – 2050)Integration across sectors
  11. Energy Efficiency Strategies Residential New Construction All new residential construction in California will be zero net energy by 2020.
  12. California Investor owned Utility (IOU) Investment in Energy Efficiency Climate planning Crisis Performance Incentives Climate law & land-use integrated Profits decoupled from sales Market Restructuring 2% of 2004 IOU Electric Revenues Public Goods Charges
  13. Complex Power Systems: High Temporal and Spatial Resolution Modeling Oil Coal http://rael.berkeley.edu/switch Biomass
  14. The SWITCH-WECC Model (Energy Policy, 2012) Figure 1. Optimization and data framework of the western North American SWITCH model, WECC: Western Electricity Coordinating Council.
  15. New Generation & Storage Options in SWITCH Not in California Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) Compressed Air Sodium Sulfur Battery Storage
  16. The SWITCH-WECC Model (Energy Policy, 2012) Figure 6. Base Cost scenario hourly power system dispatch at 54% of 1990 emissions in 2026-2029. This scenario corresponds to a $70/tCO2 carbon price adder. The plot depicts six hours per day, two days per month, and twelve months. Each vertical line divides different simulated days. Optimizations are offset eight hours from Pacific Standard Time (PST) and consequently start at hour 16 of each day. Total generation exceeds load due to distribution, transmission, and storage losses. Hydroelectric generation includes pumped storage when storing and releasing.
  17. The SWITCH-WECC Model (Energy Policy, 2012) CARBON COST AND DECARBONIZATION: Base Cost scenario CO2 emissions relative to 1990 emission levels (A) and yearly power generation by fuel (B) in 2026-2029 as a function of carbon price adder. As shown in panel A, the climate stabilization target of 450 ppm is reached at a carbon price adder of $70/tCO2. WECC: Western Electricity Coordinating Council
  18. The SWITCH-WECC Model (Energy Policy, 2012) Average generation by fuel within each load area and average transmission flow between load areas in 2026-2029 at 54% of 1990 emissions for the Base Cost scenario. This scenario corresponds to a $70/tCO2 carbon price adder. Transmission lines are modeled along existing transmission paths, but are depicted here as straight lines for clarity. The Rocky Mountains run along the eastern edge of the map, whereas the Desert Southwest is located in the south of the map.
  19. Nelson, J. et al., Energy Policy, 43 (2012) 436–447 | http://rael.berkeley.edu/switch
  20. US has twice the German insolation endowment
  21. German total additions more than 5x US size, Germany’s 2011 additions nearly 4x US market
  22. 70% of US solar market is CA
  23. US Soft-Balance of Systems cost make up nearly all the cost difference
  24. Average Residential Response to Critical Peak Pricing CPP Event 4.5 Control Group 4.0 3.5 Fixed Incentive with Controllable Thermostat 3.0 2.5 kW 2.0 1.5 CPP with Controllable Thermostat 1.0 0.5 0.0 Noon 2:30 7:30 Midnight Critical peak pricing and the demand-side
  25. Transportation: Options for reducing GHG emissions from transportation subsectors Provide snapshots of 80% reduction in transport emissions Create a spreadsheet tool for developing scenarios and calculating emissions Transportation Kaya identity PT EC
  26. Questions: How are US clean electricity standards comparable and distinct from those in Europe? Identify two examples of energy/environmental policy stability, not including those discussed in this talk What does energy equity and access enter the conversation in US and/or California energy policy? Critique the assertion that a modified version of the German solar policy can be transferred elsewhere, such as to the US and California, as asserted in this talk. Design a Kaya identify, clarify what existing data sets can be used for each term.