Transcript Integration of Intermittent Renewables into the Grid

Insert title here
Insert Subtitle here
Per Capita Electricity Sales (not including self-generation)
(kWh/person) (2006 to 2008 are forecast data)
14,000
Overview of Presentation:
12,000
United States
2005 Differences
= 5,300kWh/yr
= $165/capita
10,000
8,000
California
6,000
•
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
4,000
Per Capita Income in Constant 2000 $
1975
2005
% change
2008
2006
2004
94%
79%
2002
2000
1998
31,442
33,536
1996
1992
16,241
18,760
1990
1988
1986
1982
1980
1978
1976
1974
1972
1970
1968
1966
1964
1962
1960
0
1984
US GDP/capita
Cal GSP/capita
1994
2,000
Building A Sustainable Electric System: Model and Policy Components
Electric Grid
Power Plants
Nuclear Power Plants
Customers
Utility-scale
Storage
Transmission Lines
Distributed
Storage
Natural Gas Generators
Smart Grid functionality restores the
balance
Rooftop Solar
Hydro Power Plants
Distribution
Substations
Plug-in Electric
Vehicles
Wind Farms
Solar Farms / Power Plants
Energy Intensity (E/GDP) in the US 1949 - 2007
E/GDP = thousand Btu/$ (in $2000)
1970, First
Earth Day
CA Peak Power: Testimony by Goldstein and Rosenfeld (Dec. 1974)
Per Capita Electricity Sales (not including self-generation)
(kWh/person) (2006Per
to Capita
2008 are
forecast
data)
Electricity
Sales
(not including self-generation)
(kWh/person) (2006 to 2008 are forecast data)
14,000
12,000
United States
2005 Differences
= 5,300kWh/yr
= $165/capita
10,000
8,000
California
6,000
Denmark
4,000
Per Capita Income in Constant 2000 $
1975
2005
% change
2008
2006
2004
94%
79%
2002
2000
1998
31,442
33,536
1996
1992
16,241
18,760
1990
1988
1986
1982
1980
1978
1976
1974
1972
1970
1968
1966
1964
1962
1960
0
1984
US GDP/capita
Cal GSP/capita
1994
2,000
Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards
(30 states + Washington, DC)
MN: 25% by 2025
ME: 30% by 2000
VT: RE meets load
growth by 2012
(Xcel: 30% by 2020)
*WA: 15% by 2020
ND: 10% by 2015
WI: requirement varies by
utility; 10% by 2015 goal
MT: 15% by 2015
OR: 25% by 2025 (large utilities)
☼ NH: 23.8% in 2025
MA: 4% by 2009 +
1% annual increase
RI: 16% by 2020
5% - 10% by 2025 (smaller utilities)
☼ *NV: 20% by 2015
CT: 23% by 2020
IA: 105 MW
☼ CO: 20% by 2020 (IOUs)
☼ NY: 24% by 2013
IL: 25% by 2025
*10% by 2020 (co-ops & large munis)
CA: 20% by 2010
10% by 2017 - new RE
MO: 11% by 2020
33% by 2020
☼ NC: 12.5% by 2021 (IOUs)
☼ AZ: 15% by 2025
10% by 2018 (co-ops & munis)
☼ NJ: 22.5% by 2021
☼ PA: 18%¹ by 2020
☼ MD: 9.5% in 2022
☼ *DE: 20% by 2019
☼ DC: 11% by 2022
☼ NM: 20% by 2020 (IOUs)
*VA: 12% by 2022
10% by 2020 (co-ops)
TX: 5,880 MW by 2015
State RPS
HI: 20% by 2020
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
California Global Warming Solutions Act:
~25% cut in emissions by 2020
In CA:
% Change from 1990 levels
50%
- Carbon
loading order
CEC Data
Business as Usual
40%
AB 32 Scenario
20%
- ~60 GW
peak, 12 new
GW of DG
manadate
10%
- EV mandate
30%
0%
-10%
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
An integrated framework that uses sectoral targets
and a carbon market (first auction, November 2012
2020
California Climate Planning (2006 – 2050)
Integration across sectors
Energy Efficiency Strategies
Residential New Construction
• All new residential construction in California
will be zero net energy by 2020.
California Investor owned Utility (IOU) Investment in Energy Efficiency
$1,000
Performance
Incentives
Profits
decoupled
from sales
$800
$600
Climate law & landuse integrated
Market
Restructuring
2% of 2004
IOU Electric
Revenues
$700
$500
$400
$300
$200
Public Goods Charges
$100
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
1984
1982
1980
1978
$0
1976
Millions of $2002 per Year
$900
Climate planning
Crisis
Complex Power Systems: High Temporal and
Spatial Resolution Modeling
Oil
Coal
http://rael.berkeley.edu/switch
Biomass
!
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.
New Generation & Storage Options in SWITCH
Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS)
Storage
Compressed Air
Sodium Sulfur Battery
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.
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
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.
!
Nelson, J. et al., Energy Policy, 43 (2012) 436–447
| http://rael.berkeley.edu/switch
US has twice the German insolation endowment
German total additions more than 5x US size, Germany’s 2011
additions nearly 4x US market
PV capacity additions (MW)
8000
7408
7485
25000
Annual additions [MW]
20000
6000
5000
15000
3794
4000
10000
3000
1950
2000
1000
0
951
670
108
24 53 32 110 48 110 67 139 94
1900
1271
918
843
149
210
338
473
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Germany cumulative
5000
USA cumulative
Cumulative Addition [MW]
7000
70% of US solar market is CA
residual price for
customer
federal ITC
state ITC
01.07.…
01.01.…
01.07.…
01.01.…
01.07.…
01.01.…
01.07.…
01.01.…
01.07.…
01.01.…
01.07.…
01.01.…
after tax state
grant
01.07.…
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
01.01.…
$ 2011 / W
Incentives for residential systems in CA
US Soft-Balance of Systems cost make up nearly all the cost difference
Soft-BOS cost comparison for residential PV
4
3,5
profit
$ 3.60
0,35
other costs
$ 2011 / W
3
2,5
permitting fee
1,73
PII
2
1,5
1
0,5
marketing and
advertisement
customer acquisition
0,09
0,15
0,34
0,24
0,11
0,59
$ 0.61
USA 2011
Germany 2011
0,28
0,33
0
system design engineering
installation labor
Critical peak pricing and the demand-side
Average Residential Response to Critical Peak Pricing
CPP Event
4.5
Control Group
4.0
3.5
Fixed Incentive with
Controllable Thermostat
kW
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
CPP with Controllable
Thermostat
0.5
0.0
Noon
2:30
7:30
Midnight
• 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
CO2,Transport
æ Transport öæ Energy öæ Carbon ö
º ( Population)ç
֍
֍
÷
Person
Transport
Energy
è
øè
øè
ø
P
Population
California pop.

T

Transport intensity
(e.g., VMT/capita)
E

Energy Intensity
(e.g., MJ/mile)
C
Carbon Intensity
(e.g. gCO2-eq/MJ)
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.