Comments by Adam James Subscribe

On Bill McKibben Gets the Math Wrong on Fracking

Not a defense of the McKibben report, but one thing to note:

Emissions come from both combustion of fossil fuels and natural gas systems (including pipelines). The dramatic emissions reductions you note have come primarily from fuel switching (the combustion part) but if emissions have increased from natural gas systems, it is possible that has cut into the emissions reductions.

This is similar to the Twitter conversation I had with people yesterday about increased production of natural gas. The fugitive emissions across the lifecycle of natural gas (from well to stove, in this case) will increase as production and/or use increases.

I don't have anything to add on the magnitude of the offsets, but the fact that natural gas combustion and heating are different doesn't make the emissions leakage from pipelines not a contributor to overall emissions.

Best,

Adam

@adam_s_james

On Bill McKibben Gets the Math Wrong on Fracking

Not a defense of the McKibben report, but one thing to note:

Emissions come from both combustion of fossil fuels and natural gas systems (including pipelines). The dramatic emissions reductions you note have come primarily from fuel switching (the combustion part) but if emissions have increased from natural gas systems, it is possible that has cut into the emissions reductions.

This is similar to the Twitter conversation I had with people yesterday about increased production of natural gas. The fugitive emissions across the lifecycle of natural gas (from well to stove, in this case) will increase as production and/or use increases.

I don't have anything to add on the magnitude of the offsets, but the fact that natural gas combustion and heating are different doesn't make the emissions leakage from pipelines not a contributor to overall emissions.

Best,

Adam

@adam_s_james

On Department of Energy Launches New Clean Energy Manufacturing Initiative

Good piece Jesse.

I think the coolest potential aspect of this program is having Institutes for Manufacturing Innovation anchoring clusters of universities, SME's, and manufacturing operations. Since they have grantmaking capacity, it could be a new pipeline for getting early-stage tech through to commercialization.

Someone at DOE also pointed out to me theres a lot of benefit to domestically sourcing these goods, because the positive feedback loops with manufacturing industry and design operations can make cleantech products better.

Anyways, I wrote a little on this here and will have it up on TEC later this week:

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Do-Clean-Energy-Innovation-Clusters-Work

Best,

Adam

On U.S. Natural Gas Capacity Must Peak Soon To Achieve Sustainable Pathway

You mean just because it's published it doesn't mean it's true?

Both sides would do well to heed that advice!

On U.S. Natural Gas Capacity Must Peak Soon To Achieve Sustainable Pathway

Haven't read the paper, so I won't weigh in on that. But just for clarity, are you saying that PV plays absolutely no role in providing energy during peak hours? I am pretty sure that is incorrect.

My contention isn't that PV will constitute all needed supply during peak hours (obviously, since you cannot ensure that the sun will shine at those moments and I wouldn't want to assert storage will enable that to happen). However, it is my contention that PV can provide energy supply during peak hours- which by its nature means you wouldn't be firing up a peaking plant to supply that energy.

Wind and solar aren't interchangeable, because they are intermittent or variable resources. I get that. As I mention in some other comments, intermittency is decreased by wider geographical dispersement, transmission, storage, and DR. However, some baseload is needed- and that is why coal, natural gas, and nuclear power can play a small role in the supply mix (until we develop an amazing, cost-effective energy storage technology- fingers crossed!).

But really, dismissing those very real technological and management tools as "hand waving" and then alluding to a perpetual motion machince doesn't really engage that point on its merits. The notion that the current high-carbon system is somehow sustainable seems much more like the belief in a perpetual motion machine to me, insofar as it assumes we can continue along this path while not incurring climate costs that will eventually force a transition and make the entire economy grid to a halt.

Thanks for reading, and for your thoughtful comments!

Adam

On U.S. Natural Gas Capacity Must Peak Soon To Achieve Sustainable Pathway

These are all good points, and well taken.

Having solicited feedback about the post, I think #1 and #3 in your comment reflects the part of my argument I could do a better job on. As a few others have pointed out, we can probably retire coal much faster than I imply. I do stand by the fact (as you allude to regarding government intervention) that actually shutting down those coal plants is politically troublesome enough that, while I may be dead wrong about the reliability piece, it is still unlikely to happen.

On the other hand, I have also spent more time with the projections and analyzing the capacity factors- and I think that if I were to rewrite (or add) to my argument I would do it this way:

1) We are adding 100GW of natural gas capacity by 2030

2) Projected capacity factors are staying constant, at ~25-30%

3) As coal goes offline (which it has to if we want to hit climate targets, as you note) what is more likely to happen, that we ramp up existing natural gas capacity (from 30% to 70%, or whatever is needed to maintain a capacity margin buffer) or that we build new renewables?

I think that we should just be aware of the dangers of setting ourselves up for that situation later on. I agree that natural gas (plus some EPA regs) have made the construction of new coal obsolete, and that is a great thing. But looking ahead, natural gas really can't constitute more that 35% (tops) of our energy supply in 2030, so lets not create the kinds of hurdles I mention in point (3) here.

That all said- your #2 point is well taken. I rarely give CCS and natural gas explicit credit- and I am open minded to that. I think we view it similarly (although I may be misreading you) that natural gas::CCS as renewables::storage. It is a supporting technology that changes the role that resource will play in the energy mix- and it shouldn't be counted out. But we can still make projections based on current technology and then leave the door open for those kinds of changes. It important to outline the risks and be realistic about what influences decisions down the road.

Thanks for reading, and for your thoughtful comments.

On U.S. Natural Gas Capacity Must Peak Soon To Achieve Sustainable Pathway

I'm not a skeptic, I just don' think it's actually the debate needed at the moment.

For starters, climate change has to be the starting point- otherwise this conversation is an arbitrary dialogue about preferred energy sources. If you believe the science, though, a high carbon pathway is entirely unsustainable. The costs of inaction, the price imposed by a BAU path, will have an incredible toll on the economy AND on personal living standards.

That's why it is always strange to try to use the economic lens as a justification for inaction. The costs of not doing anything about climate change (which can include everything from the increased health costs from pollution, response to extreme weather events, and just the general costs of the 7C increase in temperature we are on track for) are massive. 

That would be enough to justify action, even extreme action that has costs. But further supporting the argument for low carbon alternatives is that low carbon economic growth is entirely possible. Is every policy under that guise a good one? No. But it's important to remember that economically speaking, there is an underexplained cost of inaction and a real argument for wealth creation via action. 

Also, I think the time horizons are relevant. The risks associated with climate change are primarily paid by future generations. This makes it much easier to reject proposals that raise short term costs (or don't, but are portrayed as doing so) while abating long term risk. Most policymakers are currently making decisions based on a shorter time horizon, but younger folks like myself are unwilling to accept those same risks. The same applies to the benefits. Incumbents primarily benefit from the status quo, whereas the newer generation stands to gain the most from innovative business models and new approaches that begin when the status quo is shaken up.

Anyways, it is a good discussion to have. Building a clean energy economy both offsets future risks and costs, while acting as a down payment on future benefits. It is an exciting proposition- and one that really shouldn't play second fiddle to short-term fears. 

On U.S. Natural Gas Capacity Must Peak Soon To Achieve Sustainable Pathway

See discussion below.

On U.S. Natural Gas Capacity Must Peak Soon To Achieve Sustainable Pathway

This is a really good, and thorough, response- and one that probably can't be settled on a blog.

I'll try to go back through this in order, but up front I want to address the transparency issue since it came up a few times. I agree with consumer education, and I think that I would extend that sentiment to the costs associated with carbon. So, of course education to ratepayers is incredibly important- but it needs to actually be a balanced education that includes information about the externalities of carbon emissions (from air quality to climate change) and the associated impacts and costs for them and their children.

One more note on the costs question, I think that there needs to be serious consideration of rate restructuring to allow utilities to make these kinds of forward looking investments without undercutting their rate base. So compensation for a "network utility" role would allow and encourage more DG investments, as well as encouraging rates that reflect the actual values of different services. For instance, investments in solar PV that offset the need to construct new peaking gas plants can be valued not just on capital costs, but as incubating consumers from fluctuating fuel costs. This is a nuance I think gets ignored, because our current rate structure is designed to accomodate centralized generation and fossil fuels.

Throughout the rest of your reply there are a couple of really good points- and like I said above- difficult to answer in a post or above my pay grade and technical expertise. However, there are a few things I can address.

First,putting aside the ACESA numbers (which I don't actually care much about) the capacity factors of renewables are currently in the 30% range when you average them together. But as you break down those different inputs, you see that any reasonable portfolio would have to include mostly offshore wind, a little onshore wind, about the same amount CSP, and then even less solar PV. Plus Hydro and Geothermal is actually enough to supply baseload when considering those other factors (storage, transmission, DR). The capacity factors on each of those technologies, when you disaggregate them, give you a much better idea of how to manage a portfolio of multiple technologies to play to each others strengths. For instance, wind blows mostly at night, solar PV and CSP mostly during peak hours, and so on. 

There are risks associated with moving to a more distributed system, and there are a lot of smart folks who I work with who agree and remind me about it regularly (and conversations like this, of course). But, at the end of the day, my feeling is that I don't believe in an entirely distributed system- just a more distributed one. For instance, I don't think every home will be on its own little microgrid. I think more buildings will become net zero, through efficiency, DG, and energy management systems, and they will have a different relationship with the grid than they used to. Also, I think some technologies, solar PV and EV's being two, are reflections of this transition.I wrote some of the high-level vision stuff regarding this here http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2012/08/27/33827/the-networked-energy-web/. 

I agree with you somewhat about demand response, but I can't help but feel that scenario is more of a perfect storm than a new normal. IF storage isn't enough, IF high voltage transmission lines cant pull RE from thousands of miles away, IF hydro and geothermal aren't enough, IF coal and natural gas in small quantities, all aren't enough then yeah, maybe you cant turn on your toaster. Although that's also assuming building energy management systems dont prioritize appliances to 'ration' energy in the building (i.e. washing machine doesn't need power right now, toaster does. TV doesn't, HVAC does). I think its a failure of imagination, not a pipe dream.

I don't understand what you mean about the new capacity (or about where we disagree on that question). I agree that existing capacity should be utilized before building new capacity. Project economics and capacity needs should drive those investment chocies. Definitely. Also not entirely sure about the argument in the second to last paragraph. Do you mean renewables are new, innovative, and unproven?

Good dialogue on this. I think that a low-carbon path is a neccesity, so we have to find the answers to this questions and get moving promptly with a comprehensive, holistic energy policy. By what I have looked at, the absolute largest amount of supply natural gas can play in that picture with the US meeting its 2030 climate goals is 35%. I'd be interested to see anything that gives it more of a stake. 

Best

Adam

On U.S. Natural Gas Capacity Must Peak Soon To Achieve Sustainable Pathway

Thanks for reading John, and for your thoughtful comments.

As to your first paragraph, I would note that regardless of the validity of modeling already done regarding technological pathways to meet those emissions targets, those emissions targets must be the context for making decisions about technological pathways.

In other words, I am not preoccupied with their cost-estimates, etc, but do believe that their emissions reductions targets help us determine options for future supply and capacity mixes that can then be used to chart a pathway from 2012 to 2030.

NREL's analysis goes to the hourly, but not sub-hourly, level. However, I would note that their analysis also models for high-demand scenarios which does have implications for sub-hourly load. I also would note that their scenarios assume conventional, current technology- and it is pretty likely that there will be newer, better storage technology as time goes on.

I think the point in your second paragraph is pretty limited in its scope. It isn't just storage that enables renewables to accomodate intermediate load, it is also demand response, efficiency, transmission expansion, existing nuclear, existing coal, and existing gas. To say that "substantial and increasing" amounts of natural gas are needed is strongly overstating that case. It is a pretty typical response, but one that I think is based on an old-school conceptualization of our electrical grid, one that assumes no progressive change. However, our grid needs investment no matter what- and targeting those investments into building new, smarter technology that can enable the grid to accomodate higher loads of renewables should be a high-priority. If we stick with the antiquated, centralized grid, you are probably right. But why stick with that? The combination of the massive price tag on a high carbon grid and the mounting need for investment seems to make that decision irrational at best.

Your third paragraph makes a related point, but I would add that those periods of uninterruptable power demand exceeding supply are what the NREL "high demand" and stress scenarios model.

With peaking power, natural gas may always play a role- but widely dispersed solar PV can as well. Looking at the 80% renewables scenario, PV has about the same installed capacity as natural gas.

Again, the risk of black and brown outs assumes integration of renewables into the existing grid and no transmission, storage, or DR. I think that renewable integration has to be put into the context of a holistic transition to a low-carbon grid writ large, or else it doesn't make much sense.

Of course, the above post doesn't make those points! It just lays out the target of where we need to be, and then the maximum amount of capacity needed to meet those targets. Recommending that we build natural gas capacity which exceeds that emissions scenarios and pretending like we won't use it is, in my mind, asking for trouble. Particularly given the low projected capacity factors (under 30%) through 2035. That means there is lots of headroom for increased utilization of those plants. I think thats a risky combination, personally, given that it's cheaper to run an existing plant than build a new one. That is one of the few things utilities and ratepayer advocacy groups will agree on in PUC hearings.

Anyways, I appreciate and respect your sentiments and comments- but in short feel like they rely on status quo assumptions and discount the impacts of a high-carbon path.

Adam James (@adam_s_james)

On Natural Gas: Is It Stunting Innovative Thinking?

This is a great post. I would add that making investments in natural gas infrastructure today will lock utilities into certain sunk costs over the next 20 years which will stifle other capital investments over their lifetime. Particularly if other capital investments (in renewables) become the lower cost option, leaving utilities holding the natural gas bag.

As far as Matthews good additions:

1- You lay out a few criteria for energy sources to meet, a) cost b) performance and c) risk/ability to "plug in" to existing infrastructure. Renewables are becoming cost competitive, solar PV on their day and sometimes wind. I think their costs will continue to fall, but the other important factor is that natural gas prices will rise. $3 isn't going to stick, I think it will cliimb to $5-7. So the target is to get renewables competitive at those prices. Performance is as much about the percentage of renewables online as anything else, they will be more variable in lower concentrations than in higher concentrations. If there were only 1 coal mine and 1 coal truck, coal would be a variable resource because you'd have to shuttle it back and forth, causing intermittency. Enough solar PV, wind, some storage, demand response, and you have a totally different grid which performs the same. As to the risk, while I agree there is a tendency towards centralized energy because it is what we know- I would add that distributed resources would be more popular if there were regulations which enabled utilities adequate cost recovery. It seems like more of a business model question to me.

2- The NREL study called for more transmission, but most of what we need- we already have. Acceleration requires incentivizing the people who have the money to invest (utilities). Incentivizing requires regulation and rate reform to change core business models. There is some federal and state coordination to ensure this gets done in a responsible way, of course, but I think thats where the action is. Not in another big federal cash infusion.

Thanks for the additional thoughts!

-Adam James

@adam_s_james

On Renewables Must Learn From Natural Gas

But to your original post, I think the funny thing is that the rationale for that iinvestment in nat gas was that if we could develop those resources it would be a tremendous boost for our international competitiveness and help secure our energy supply. There is more solar/wind/biomass resource potential that nat gas by a mile, and proven job creation/competitiveness/energy security. So it's an excellent point to raise about rationale for investments. Renewables are worth it.