Roger Caiazza
On February 6, 2022, an article of mine was published: New York Climate Act: Is anyone listening to the experts? This post suggests that experts are now saying there’s a big problem with New York’s plan for a “zero-emissions” grid by 2040. Unfortunately, this message is buried in a manure product. technical analysis and is worded in jargon so the warning can be ignored.
Story
New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act was passed in 2019 and went into effect on January 1, 2020. The Climate Action Council has worked since then to develop plans to implement the Act. In the summer of 2021, the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) and consultants Environmental Economics + Energy (E3) prepared Integrated Analytics to “estimate the benefits, costs, and economy-wide GHG emission reductions associated with pathways to achieving the Climate Act’s GHG emission limits and carbon neutrality targets”. Integrated Analysis execution strategies included Draft scoping plan when it is released in late 2021.
My last post here describes the New York Independent Systems Operator (NYISO) Comprehensive Reliability Plan 2021-2030 (CRP) report (Appendix) was released late last year. The difficulties raised in the report were so great that I questioned whether any of the leaders in New York would listen to this expert opinion. This post highlights the results shown in a presentation manuscript that all but conceded that the achievement of the fictitious Climate Act goals is not possible according to the mandated schedule.
Last problem
I discussed about last problem The previous will only summarize here. In the family presented to the Power Generation Advisory Board on September 16, 2020 E3 includes the following figure. The problem is that there are significant periods when the wind is so low that wind output is negligible, and especially in winter, solar production is also low: “Demand for divisible resources The canopy is most pronounced during winter periods when there is high demand for electric heating and transportation and reduced wind and solar output”. The presentation notes: “As the share of discontinuous resources such as wind and solar increases dramatically, some studies suggest that supplemented by corporate, zero-emissions resources, such as Bioenergy, fusion fuels such as hydrogen, hydroelectricity, carbon capture and sequestration, and nuclear production may provide a number of benefits. New York has substantial existing hydroelectric resources but cannot expect any further development. Nuclear is the obvious choice going forward, but New York’s policies have shut down 2,000 MW of nuclear capacity over the past few years so that’s unlikely for the net-zero plan. The final issue is that Dispersable Emissions Free Resources (DEFRs) will be used to provide electricity during a multi-day winter monsoon lull. In the NYISO CRP it states: “While there are hundreds of projects in the NYISO connection queue, none is capable of providing distributed zero-emissions resources that can be executed in the span of days to maintain the reliability of the bulk power system. Such resources are not yet commercially available.”
Analysis of NYISO
A little background information about NYISO. That is Regional transmission organization / Independent system operator for the State of New York. Independent system operators (ISOs) have developed orders that allow de-regulating electrical systems. The concept of the Independent System Operator is a way for existing tight energy groups to meet the requirement of providing non-discriminatory access to the transmission line. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has encouraged the voluntary establishment of Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) to manage the transmission grid on a regional basis throughout North America (including Canada).
NYISO Power system planning working group (ESPWG) is a group of stakeholders that provide Market participants input to NYISO’s comprehensive planning processes. On March 24, 2022, the NYISO Economic Planning Department presented to EPSWG their System & Resources Outlook Update. The presentation itself is a draft – “for discussion purposes only” so specific numbers have not been finalized. This analytical reference point is to show what experts are saying today about the critical dispersable zero-emissions resource needed for net-zero power system transition. The purpose of Resource & System Outlook analysis is to predict what electricity generation resources will be needed to maintain a reliable electricity system in the future. The Economic Planning Department is collaborating with EPSWG and the presentation was designed to solicit input from EPSWG and stakeholders.
This type of scalable modeling analysis develops a reference case that represents what is expected to happen to the system without any changes to “business as usual.” “. The analysis then develops “Policy” case simulations and computational models that optimally predict the capacity required for Climate Act policy implementation. The presentation described 27 different policy scenarios covering a range of different possible prospects for the future. For example, they include two different low-load projections for the future that are, not surprisingly, predicted to require much less future generation capacity. Scenarios that consider increased imports from Canada, different cost projections for wind and solar capacity, changes in nuclear decommissioning, and lower hydroelectricity production are also included. . In addition, six scenarios that were considered different future projections for DEFR were included.
In response to a request from EPSWG, three DEFR build types were resolved:
- High capital, low activity (HcLo)
- Average Capital, Average Activity (McMo)
- Low capital, high activity (LcHo)
As has been the case with all other analyzes to date, these build types are only proxies for what might happen if a DEFR is developed with the defined characteristics in mind. The authors selected three cost and activity profiles to indicate what types of DEFR would be built. These building types are included so that the capacity expansion model can provide solutions to load requirements and build resources if they are economical to build using assumed properties. .
What the experts are saying
The following two slides from Presentations At the heart of my statement that experts are warning that there is a problem with New York’s transition to net-zero. The first slide describes one of the policy case scenarios in the analysis described above. I have highlighted one of the things to keep in mind: Significant uncertainty regarding the cost/availability of DEFR technologies, as well as the regulatory definition of “zero-emissions” compliant technologies. .
Figure 1: NYISO Resource & System Update Update Emissions Free Resources (DEFR) Description in March 24, 2022 Presentation to EPSWG.
The following DEFR capacity expansion scenarios slide describes the assumptions used for five different scenarios. I have emphasized the note: Assumptions are made into situations that are not endorsements or estimates of the validity of the modified values. Some scenarios do not represent actual system performance but are useful in determining directional and sensitive effects on key variables.
Experts from NYISO, the organization primarily responsible for turning on the lights, said there was “considerable uncertainty regarding the cost/availability of DEFR technologies, as well as the regulatory definition of these technologies.” compliant technology “zero-emissions” and “Some scenarios are not representative of actual system performance but are useful in determining directional and sensitive effects on key variables”. For those familiar with lingo and electrical systems, these are red flags.Let me unpack the reports for everyone else.
Currently, distributed zero-emission resource technologies do not exist to provide energy over the long term when solar and wind sources are expected to provide minimal electricity. This type of technical report indicates “significant uncertainty” because they cannot say outright that “we do not think this will happen”. Because they don’t think a certain resource will be available, they certainly can’t predict the cost. A scenario that does not represent “actual system performance” makes it clear that we cannot expect the system to function as needed with the script’s resources. This roughly tells the Climate Action Council that their “plan” of zero emissions by 2040 will not come to fruition without actually stating it. In a perfect world, an “independent” organization would just say so, but this is New York state so politics colors everything, including the future of the electrical system.
Furthermore, in the presentation discussion, the point was made that capacity projections suggest a large amount of generation is required. That result was described as just “stunning”. Someone asked if anyone on the Council was seeing what this meant. These professionals are clearly worried about the enormous resources that must be built up in response to turn the New York grid to zero. That concern lies above and beyond my concern about DEFRs.
There is another aspect of the first statement that needs to be addressed. The reference to the “regulatory definition of “zero-emissions” compliant technologies is included because the Climate Action Council has not defined the definition of “zero emissions”. Some of the most powerful members of the Council believe that zero emissions means no combustion and are determined to impose that restriction. All the analyzes in New York that attempted to predict what type of electricity generation and how many words of each would be needed for a future net zero electricity system included the generation of combustion using hydrogen or gas. naturally renewable. The leaders of the Council did not have the courage to tell the irresponsible members of the reliability and little expertise involved “Sorry, even if we burn fuels that are supposed to be not those emissions, there are still major risks to a reliably viable system. If we don’t use them, the risk of feasibility is very high and the system will be unreliable.”
Conclusion
NYISO’s capacity expansion model was forced to conform to the Draft Plan for scoping using DEFR technology and building large amounts of generating capacity. Capacity resource modeling is based on what is needed to keep the lights on, rather than whether the distributable zero-emissions resources that provide those resources are actually available. The report’s authors essentially say they don’t think DEFR technologies will be available but I don’t think the message is blunt enough to force the Climate Action Council to respond.
Not so long ago, the idea that natural gas could be used as a bridge fuel until these ambitious, non-distributable zero-emissions resources could be tested at the scale needed. needed, operating like a unit that generates natural gas and provides energy at a similar cost, is generally accepted as a reasonable approach. The same for ignoring the need for bridge fuel is that proponents want to jump out of a perfectly fine aircraft without a parachute because they think the concept of a parachute will be developed, proven viable. technically and economically, and then delivered in time to provide a soft landing. That can’t end well and this won’t either.
—————————————————————————————————————————————
Roger Caiazza blogs about environmental and energy issues in New York at New York’s Pragmatic Environmentalist. More details on the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act this. This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other company he is affiliated with.
Related
