Zero-Emissions Electric System Demonstration of Feasibility

I believe that single biggest flaw in the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net zero transition is the failure to include a feasibility analysis.   I agree with Francis Menton, the Manhattan Contrarian, that the ultimate test would be a demonstration project to determine the feasibility of a fully wind/solar/battery electric generation system.  This post describes a series of articles by Ed A. Reid, Jr. at the Right Insight blog describing what he believes should be included in a grid-scale demonstration project.

I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 350 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  I have devoted a lot of time to the Climate Act because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that the net-zero transition will do more harm than good by increasing costs unacceptably, threatening electric system reliability, and causing significant unintended environmental impacts.  The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Overview

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  It includes an interim 2030 reduction target of a 40% reduction by 2030 and a requirement that all electricity generated be “zero-emissions” by 2040. The Climate Action Council (CAC) is responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlines how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.”  In brief, that plan is to electrify everything possible using zero-emissions electricity. The Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantifies the impact of the electrification strategies.  That material was used to develop the Draft Scoping Plan.  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan recommendations were finalized at the end of 2022.  In 2023 the Scoping Plan recommendations are supposed to be implemented through regulation, PSC orders, and legislation. 

The Problem

In my opinion a feasibility analysis that addresses reliability, affordability, and cumulative environmental impacts should be a prerequisite for the proposed changes to the New York energy plan.  State leaders claim that the Scoping Plan is sufficient, but I disagree.  The Scoping Plan lists various control strategies that it claims meets the Climate Act requirements but no where does it document the expected costs, emission reductions, and assumption for the components of the control strategies in sufficient detail to verify the total costs necessary to determine expected costs to New Yorkers.  It does not even include projected ratepayer costs or an affordability standard.  Even though Climate Action Council members claimed that the Scoping Plan adequately addressed reliability, and some went so far as to say that no new technology was needed, the reality is that the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) has raised many unaddressed reliability issues.  Furthermore, the NYISO, the Integration Analysis and the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) agree to the need to “identify innovative technologies to ensure reliability of a zero-emissions electric grid”.  The most recent cumulative environmental impact assessment does not include between 20% and 40% more onshore wind, about twice as much offshore wind, and over three times as much distributed and utility-scale solar projected in the Scoping Plan.  In addition, no previous cumulative environmental impact analysis considered the impacts of massive energy storage facilities or the “zero-carbon firm resource” that the Integrated Analysis presumes will be provided by hydrogen resources. 

The NYISO is responsible for keeping the lights on in New York.  They have a very sophisticated resource adequacy modeling process and are required to provide regular reliability assessments.  There are staff dedicated to addressing those requirements and I have a lot of respect for their skill and body of knowledge.  They have been analyzing the electric system for many years and have a great understanding of the current electric system.  However, I have enough modeling experience and background to still be skeptical that the existing resource adequacy process will be able to address all the inter-related components and unintended consequences of the transition to an electric system that relies on weather-dependent and inverter-based resources.  As a result, I worry that some combination of circumstances will occur that causes unexpected reactions that will result in blackouts despite their best efforts.  We know that an electric grid that relies on nuclear and hydro “zero-emissions” resources will work.  What is needed is a demonstration project that can be used to test whether wind, solar, and energy storage resources can work and refine the resource adequacy modeling to address those resources.

Reid’s Renewable Demonstration

Ed Reid agrees with this need and writes “I believe it is essential that at least one large scale demonstration of a completely freestanding renewable plus storage powered grid be conducted under carefully controlled conditions.”  Even if such a project was implemented, he points out an important caveat: the long duration storage or alternative “zero-carbon firm resource” cannot be tested because neither resource is currently commercially available.

He proposes a demonstration for a selected zone within the grid. His proposal would only consider sources within the zone isolated from external sources of power and incorporate storage initially using “pseudo-storage” by tracking exports from the isolated zone and what is needed from outside the isolated zone. He suggests an iterative development process whereby:

The demonstration managers would be able to import electricity from external sources if required to avoid demonstration grid failure but would then be required to install additional generation capacity or contract for more pseudo-storage to avoid a repeat of the imminent grid failure condition. The demonstration managers should not be permitted to deliver electricity outside the demonstration zone, other than to pseudo-storage.

His first demonstration project article concludes:

It might be ideal to site the demonstration zone in the metropolitan Washington, DC area to assist agencies of the federal government and federal legislators to understand the various issues with a renewable plus storage grid in real time and work to resolve them in a timely fashion.

In the next article Reid argues that transparency should be a key component of the demonstration.  He proposes that the first step be complete documentation describing the generation and energy storage resources within the demonstration zone.  He goes on to explain:

The next step in the process would be the initial design of the renewable plus storage system to replace the existing conventional, dispatchable fossil generation resources. This would include designation of the types and capacities of the wind and solar generators, plus designation of the capacities and delivery rates of short, intermediate and long duration storage to be installed or simulated by pseudo-storage.

After a period of testing, the wind, solar, and energy storage resources “would be used to meet the contemporaneous demand of the grid and to charge both actual and pseudo-storage”.  The reporting system would track all the generation and energy usage.  He suggests that in order to address the affordability component that “all renewable generation and storage resources installed in the demonstration zone be capitalized at their full cost, with no federal or state incentives of any kind”.  

Market costs also must be tracked. 

He concludes the second article:

These approaches to the demonstration should assure that the demonstration zone facilities would be designed to be a reliable and flexible renewable electric system and that the electricity costs in the demonstration zone would representative of a renewable plus storage grid on a national scale.      

The third article suggests a reporting format for the renewable plus storage demonstration proposed.  If you are interested in those details, I refer you to the article.

The fourth article raises an important point about the ultimate viability of renewable energy plus storage electric system.  Climate Act accounting requirements mandate that fossil-fired generating resources include upstream emissions.  Reid points out that a true “zero-emissions” electric system should also eliminate emissions in the supply chain.  He argues:

The supply chain begins with the use of electric mining equipment to mine the raw materials required to fabricate the wind, solar and storage components of the renewable plus storage grid in US mines and the use of electric transportation to move these raw materials to the manufacturing facilities at which the components of the system would be fabricated. The fabrication of the components would occur in US plants using electric processing equipment.

The steel and cement required for installation of the system components would also be produced in US plants. In the case of the calcining of limestone to produce cement, carbon capture and storage (CCS) systems would be required to capture the CO2 released from the limestone.

Preparation of the installation sites for the wind and solar generators and the storage systems would be performed by US manufactured electric earthmoving equipment. The system components would be transported to the installation sites by US manufactured electric trucks or electrified trains and erected using US manufactured electric cranes.

Considering supply chain emissions introduces much more complexity.  He argues that all the claims about clean energy job creation ignore the current reality that the “current supply chains for wind turbines, solar collectors and storage batteries, all of which currently require mining and processing of minerals in Asia and Africa and frequently rely on foreign manufacture, particularly of solar collectors and wind turbines” has many jobs outside of the United States.  My concern is that it is not only the jobs but also there are lower environmental and safety considerations.  Finally, there is a moral aspect because the “mining and processing jobs in Asia and Africa and the manufacturing jobs in Asia reputedly rely on child, forced and prison labor”.

Conclusion

I think there is a clear need for a feasibility demonstration project.  Attempting to convert the current electric system that has evolved over decades to a system relying on significantly different resources by 2040 is such an enormous challenge that I think it is inappropriate to rely on modeling to check feasibility.  Reid describes a feasibility demonstration on a utility-scale.  Menton has argued for a smaller project:

Before embarking on “net zero” for a billion people, how about trying it out in a place with, say, 10,000, or 50,000, or 100,000 people.  See if it can actually work, and how much it will cost.  Then, if it works at reasonable cost, start expanding it.

While there are some large jurisdictions that have achieved very low-carbon grids, they did not do so by relying on underperforming intermittent wind and solar generation.  Instead, they achieved low emissions by using high-capacity-factor firm resources—namely hydropower and nuclear. To my knowledge no jurisdiction has demonstrated the ability to achieve “zero-emissions” using wind, solar, and energy storage.  Ideally a large-scale test such as the one proposed by Reid should be done before New York goes any further.  However, I think that even the small-scale demonstration proposed by Menton would show that the Climate Act “zero-emissions” electric system is infeasible on reliability and affordability grounds.

I believe that the fatal flaw of all “green” technologies is that they do not work all the time.  “On average”, “in general”, or for “many people”, it may be possible to argue that electric vehicles, heat pumps, or renewable generation technologies are feasible.  However, when the criteria are raised to include 24-7, 365 reliability and overall affordability with all the hidden costs included, then these technologies fail to deliver.  The only way I will be convinced otherwise is if there is a demonstration project that proves otherwise.