Getting to Zero - Princeton University · 2020-02-08 · Statute Executive Order Last updated...

m

Getting to ZeroCan America Transition to a

Net-Zero Emissions Energy System?

Jesse D. Jenkins, PhDAssistant Professor | Princeton UniversityDept. of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering | Andlinger Center for Energy & Environment

m1. Why Net-Zero?

3

Executive OrderStatute

Last updated February 8, 2020. Source: http://www.usclimatealliance.org/state-climate-energy-policies

States committed to net-zero emissions

4

November 22, 2019

January 28, 2020

5

All committed to net-zero by 2050 (at the latest)

6October, 2018

to Zero

Source: IPCC (2018) Special Report on Global Warming 1.5°C

1.5°C Window

2045-2060

2°C Window

2060-2080

7

Getting to zero: the Decarbonization Challenge

to Zero

Source: IPCC (2018) Special Report on Global Warming 1.5°C8

Every tenth of a degree matters!

America should lead, not follow

1010

2. Decarbonizing the United States

11

The Net-Zero America Study (A Sneak Peak)

Eric LarsonHead, Energy Systems Analysis GroupAndlinger Center for Energy and the

Environment

Chris GreigGerhardt R. Andlinger Visiting FellowAndlinger Center for Energy and the

Environment

Jesse JenkinsAssistant Professor

Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and Andlinger Center for

Energy and the Environment

12

With Steve Pacala, Rob Socolow, Bob Williams, Erin Mayfield, Andrew Pascale, Chuan Zhang, Rick Duke (Gigaton Strategies), Rich Birdsey (US Forest Service, retired), Keith Paustian (Colorado State University), Emily Leslie (Energy Reflections), and Ryan Jones (Evolved Energy Research).

Funding from CMI-BP, Andlinger-ExxonMobil, Dow, Princeton University

Consultative committee: BP, ExxonMobil, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, the Nature Conservancy, Clean Air Task Force, and others

13

205020302020 2040

Power plant

Vehicles

Pipelines

Commercial boilers

AC & Furnace

Appliances

Bulb

Stock replacements before mid-century

The time to plan is now!

Image credit: Ryan Jones, Evolved Energy Research

14

15

Sizing up the challenge

REFERENCE

46

23~23 quads of non-hydrocarbon final energy demands could be satisfied with zero carbon electricity (1/3 of total)

~46 quads demand for hydrocarbons (2/3 of total) with the following solutions: • Energy productivity (efficiency,

mode shifting, conservation)• Electrification of end-uses• Drop-in zero-carbon fuels• Emissions offsetting and continued

fossil fuels

16

Six Pillars of Decarbonization

1. Energy productivity (efficiency)2. Electrification3. Clean electricity4. Net-zero carbon fuels5. Carbon capture and sequestration6. Enhanced land sinks

3. Electricity: the linchpin

18

Energy productivity + Electrification

1. Final energy consumption down ~20-30% (~13-20 Quads saved)REFERENCE HIGH ELECTRIFICATION ELECTRIFICATION CONSTRAINED

Data source: Preliminary results, Princeton University and Evolved Energy Research, “Net Zero America Project.” Net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 scenarios.

19

REFERENCE HIGH ELECTRIFICATION ELECTRIFICATION CONSTRAINED

2. Hydrocarbons consumption down ~40-67% to ~15-27 Quads

Energy productivity + Electrification


ligh

t-d

uty

car

slig

ht-

du

ty t

ruck

sm

ediu

m t

ruck

sh

eavy

tru

cks

20

HIGH ELECTRIFICATION ELECTRIFICATION CONSTRAINED

Electrification (new vehicle sales)

2028

2033

2033

2033

2038

2043

2043

2043


ligh

t-d

uty

car

slig

ht-

du

ty t

ruck

sm

ediu

m t

ruck

sh

eavy

tru

cks

21


100% by 2045 80-90% by 2050

Electrification (new vehicle sales)


22 22

REFERENCELOW

BIOMASSHIGH

BIOMASS

The substitute for electrification: more electricity!


Intermediate demand

Final demand

High Constrained Electrification

High Constrained Electrification

direct air capture

23

Electricity: the Linchpin

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

2020 2030 2040 2050

Natural gas Coal Oil & other fossil Existing nuclear Existing hydro Existing other renewables


Tera

wat

t-hou

rs

+106-163%

23

Total Electricity Generation by ScenarioHigh electrification Electrification constrained

Twin challenges: zero carbon, >double demand

High biomass Low biomass

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

24

Tera

wat

t-hou

rs

24

(a) Total New Carbon-free Electricity Generation

Total 2020 U.S. electricity generation

Total 2020 zero-CO2generation

(a) Data source: Preliminary results, Princeton University and Evolved Energy Research, “Net Zero America Project.” Net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 scenarios.

High electrification Electrification constrainedHigh biomass Low biomass

(b) Data source: U.S. EIA for renewables growth rate. MIT Future of Nuclear in a Carbon Constrained World study for historic nuclear growth rate (rescaled by population for comparison)

U.S. non-hydro

renewables 2010-2018,

3.4

U.S. non-hydro

renewables 2016 (peak year), 5.3

U.S. nuclear 1981-

1990*, 7.4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Average gigawatts per year

(b) Annual Additions Rate (2020-2050)

*Growth rate scaled by population for comparison purposes

+28-37 average GW/year


Data sources: U.S. renewables from Historical per capita deployment rates from MIT 2018, The Future of Nuclear in a Carbon Constrained World, scaled to based on projected 2035 U.S. population of 364 million from U.S. Census Bureau.

Aver

age

GW

add

ition

s pe

r yea

r

25

High electrification, 33 Electrification

constrained, 28Sweden, Nuclear 1974-1983*, 30

France, Nuclear 1979-1988*, 26

U.S., Natural Gas 2001-2010, 23

Germany, Non-hydro Renewables, 2017*

(peak year), 12Germany, Non-

hydro Renewables, 2009-2018*, 6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

402020-2050 Average Scale-up Rates

Clean electricity growth without precedent


High electrification,33-37

Electrification constrained,

28-35

4. Renewables take center stage

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Leve

lized

cost

of w

ind

and

sola

r ($/

MW

h)

Lith

ium

-ion

batt

ery

pack

cos

ts ($

/KW

h)

Li-ion packs $/KWh -85%

Solar $/MWh -88%

Data Sources: Wind & solar costs from Lazard (2018), Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis – Version 12.0, https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf/. Battery pack costs from Bloomberg New Energy Finance (2018), Battery Price Survey, https://about.bnef.com/blog/behind-scenes-take-lithium-ion-battery-prices/

Total cost declines (2009-2018)

27

Wind $/MWh -69%

The good news: wind, solar, battery costs falling


28

Wind and solar can become dominant

REFERENCEHIGH

ELECTRIFICATIONELECTRIFICATION

CONSTRAINED

Low biomass

High biomass



29

Pace of new wind and solar additions

REFERENCEHIGH


CONSTRAINED

Ch

ina

reco

rd a

nn

ual

PV

exp

ansi

on (2

017

)

Ch

ina

reco

rd a

nn

ual

Win

d e

xpan

sion

(20

15)

U.S

. exp

ecte

d 2

020

sol

ar a

dd

itio

ns

U.S

. exp

ecte

d 2

020

win

d a

dd

itio

ns

Low biomass

High biomass


5430 18.5 15.2

Data source: U.S. EIA

REFERENCE

Low biomass

High biomass

Low biomass

High biomass


REFERENCE


30

Pace of new wind and solar additions

RENEWABLES CONSTRAINED


Low or High biomass

Low biomass

High biomass

Ch

ina

reco

rd a

nn

ual

PV

exp

ansi

on (2

017

)

Ch

ina

reco

rd a

nn

ual

Win

d e

xpan

sion

(20

15)

U.S

. exp

ecte

d 2

020

sol

ar a

dd

itio

ns

U.S

. exp

ecte

d 2

020

win

d a

dd

itio

ns

5430 18.5 15.2

100% RENEWABLE ENERGY


31

Why not 100% renewables?

REFERENCEHIGH


CONSTRAINED

1072

Tota

l U.S

. ele

ctri

city

gen

erat

ing

cap

acit

y to

day


Low biomass

High biomass


32

“It can be more expensive to add cheap solar than to add expensive geothermal.” -David Olsen, Member of CAISO

Board of Governors, former President & CEO of Patagonia

A riddle…

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/geothermals-surprise-cheap-renewables-could-keep-states-from-achieving-cl/569807/

An Illustrative Example

Peak demand: 34 GWCapacity factorsWind: 28%Solar: 24% (ac)No storage or flexible demands in this example

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Gas Wind Solar Clean Firm

Leve

lized

cos

t of

ele

ctri

city

(c

ents

/kW

h)

33

The answer…

Wind Capacity Value

9%

Solar Capacity Value

4%

Wind Energy Value

100%

Solar Energy Value

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Over-generation

0%

Clean Energy Share

20%

34

Clean firm

Net peak: September 8th

5pm

33 GW firm capacity needed

34 GW demand peak

Wind Capacity Value

9%


4%

Wind Energy Value

100%

Solar Energy Value

100%

Over-generation

0%

Clean Energy Share

20%

35

Clean firm

Over-generation

3%

Wind Energy Value

91%

Solar Energy Value

77%

Wind Capacity Value

9%


4%

Net peak: September 8th

5pm

Clean Energy Share

40%


36

34 GW demand peak

Clean firm

Over-generation

7%

Wind Capacity Value

2%


2%

Net peak: August 19th

6pm

Wind Energy Value

72%

Solar Energy Value

59%

Clean Energy Share

60%


37

34 GW demand peak

Clean firm

Over-generation

28%

Wind Capacity Value

2%


2%


6pm

Wind Energy Value

25%

Solar Energy Value

20%

Clean Energy Share

80%


38

34 GW demand peak

Clean firm

Over-generation

11%

Wind Capacity Value

2%


2%


6pm

Wind Energy Value43%

Solar Energy Value

34%

Clean Energy Share

80%


39

34 GW demand peak

Clean firm

?

40

4141

What about storage?

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

Gig

awat

ts

Week

Wind, Solar, Hydro Demand

42

The Dunkelflaute (“Dark Doldrums”)Western Interconnection, Renewables + Storage Only

(24 hour rolling average power)

5 11 68 days 35 days

Data source: Unpublished results, Jesse D. Jenkins, GenX model, Western Interconnection.

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

Tera

wat

t-h

ours

Weeks

H2 Storage State of Charge

43

Long Duration Storage NeededWestern Interconnection, Renewables + Storage Only


5 11 68 days 35 days


-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

Tera

wat

t-h

ours

Weeks

H2 Storage State of Charge

44

Long Duration Storage NeededWestern Interconnection, Renewables + Storage Only


2.4 billion Tesla Power Walls

33 terawatt-hours


A Race Against Declining Value

$0

$200

$400

$600

0-10 10-20 20-30

150 100 50E

ner

gy

stor

age

aver

age

syst

em

valu

e ($

/kW

h in

stal

led

)

Energy storage power capacity (% of peak system demand)

CO2 Emissions Rate Limit (g/kWh)

Graphic is author’s own created with data from: de Sisternes, Jenkins & Botterud (2016), “The value of energy storage in decarbonizing the electricity sector,” Applied Energy 175: 368-379. Assumes Li-ion storage system with 2 hours storage duration and 10 year asset life. Estimated 2018 Li-ion storage cost per kWh from Lazard (2018), Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Storage Analysis – Version 4.0.

2018 estimated Li-ion storage installed cost ($330/kWh)

45

Declining Value of StorageTexas-like power system

46

Solar, wind & batteries will be stars…

46

“Fast burst”

balancing resources

“Firm” low-carbon resources

“Fuel saving” variable

renewables

47“Flexible base” “Firm cyclers”

Long-duration

…but we need to complete the team

“Fast burst”

balancing resources

“Firm” low-carbon resources

“Fuel saving” variable

renewables

48

5. Clean firm resources

49

In the near-term, wind, solar, batteries (and coal to natural gas transition)

can drive emissions reductions

49

Fully decarbonizing electricity requires “clean firm” substitutes for

natural gas and retiring nuclear units

Image: International Energy Agency 50

New nuclear: Commercialization, construction cost, waste storage

Carbon capture and sequestration: For (1) power plants, (2) hydrogen from gas, or (3) with biomass or air capture to offset remaining natural gas burn

Hydrogen combustion: Need combustion turbines capable of burning high hydrogen blends and produce & supply sufficient hydrogen to plants 51

Three main clean firm options


52

Pace of thermal capacity additions

REFERENCEHIGH


CONSTRAINED


Low biomass

High biomass

Low biomass

High biomass

Rec

ord

U.S

. an

nu

al n

ucl

ear

exp

ansi

on

Rec

ord

U.S

. an

nu

al N

GC

C e

xpan

sion

(20

02)

1060



53

Pace of thermal capacity additions

REFERENCERENEWABLES CONSTRAINED


Rec

ord

U.S

. an

nu

al n

ucl

ear

exp

ansi

on

Rec

ord

U.S

. an

nu

al N

GC

C e

xpan

sion

(20

02)

1060


Low biomass

High biomass

5454

http://bit.ly/FirmLowCarbon

“Firm”

“Fuel Saving”

“FastBurst”

CO2 emissions limit (g/kWh)Data source: Sepulveda, N., Jenkins, J.D., et al. (2018), “The role of firm low-carbon resources in deep decarbonization of electric power systems,” Joule 2(11).

“Fuel Saving”

“FastBurst”

Ave

rag

e co

st o

f ele

ctri

city

($/M

Wh

)

55

050100150200 050100150200

Wind, solar, battery costs

LowMid-rangeConservative

Northern System

“Firm”

“Fuel Saving”

“FastBurst”


“Fuel Saving”

“FastBurst”

Ave

rag

e co

st o

f ele

ctri

city

($/M

Wh

)

56

050100150200 050100150200



Northern System

“Firm”

“Fuel Saving”

“FastBurst”


“Fuel Saving”

“FastBurst”

Ave

rag

e co

st o

f ele

ctri

city

($/M

Wh

)

57

050100150200 050100150200



Northern System

Lower cost AND lower risk

58

6. Securing social license


Data sources: U.S. renewables from Historical per capita deployment rates from MIT 2018, The Future of Nuclear in a Carbon Constrained World, scaled to based on projected 2035 U.S. population of 364 million from U.S. Census Bureau.

Aver

age

GW

add

ition

s pe

r yea

r

59

High electrification, 33 Electrification

constrained, 28Sweden, Nuclear 1974-1983*, 30

France, Nuclear 1979-1988*, 26

U.S., Natural Gas 2001-2010, 23

Germany, Non-hydro Renewables, 2017*

(peak year), 12Germany, Non-

hydro Renewables, 2009-2018*, 6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

402020-2050 Average Scale-up Rates

Enormous infrastructure build required


High electrification,33-37

Electrification constrained,

28-35

Wind and Solar

Carbon Capture and

Storage

Biomass

Nuclear Power

60

• Siting up to ~50-200 GW of new wind/solar annually for decades

• ~2-4x New Jersey’s land area for wind & solar siting nationwide (18x for 100% renewables cases)

• ~2-4x interstate transmission capacity

• Siting up to 250 new 1,000 MW-scale reactors or 3,800 small modular reactors by 2050

• Spent fuel storage solution needed

• Large new interstate CO2 pipeline network needed

• 0.9-1.7 billion metric tons injected annually by 2050

Social license challenges unavoidable

• ~12-22 Quads of biomass for energy• “Low” biomass: convert ALL corn

ethanol and conservation reserve lands to high yield bioenergy + use ag/forest/muni. waste

• “High” biomass: ~all available biomass in US economy


61

The Net-Zero America Study

Coming soon…

Jesse D. JenkinsAssistant ProfessorDepartment of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering and Andlinger Center for Energy & EnvironmentPrinceton University

[email protected]: @JesseJenkinsLinkedin.com/in/jessedjenkins Google scholar: http://bit.ly/ScholarJenkins

Date post:	04-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Getting to Zero - Princeton University · 2020-02-08 · Statute Executive Order Last updated...

Documents