They're right (with a few exceptions). Here's why...
We already have over 540 gigawatts of natural-gas fired generating capacity in the U.S. today. That's enough to meet about 2/3 of our nationwide peak in electricity demand. That's plenty of capacity to help manage the variability of weather-dependent wind & solar as they scale up
Those existing natural gas power plants will play a key role in the near-term as what I've termed "firm" generating capacity: available on demand (dispatchable), any time of the year, for as long as needed. (For more on firm generation, see doi.org/10.1016/j.joul…)
Firm capacity provided by existing gas plants will make it possible to rapidly shutter ~250 GW of coal plants responsible for 60% of power sector CO2 by 2030, which would avoid about 100,000 premature deaths (aka real Americans killed by coal power!). Shuting coal is priority #1.
If we're serious about using natural gas as a "bridge" fuel, that bridge needs to start arcing down to the other side. Modeling @Princeton of a net zero transition for the U.S. shows we need to REDUCE gas-plant capacity nationwide ~5-15% by 2030; power generation falls ~20%.
In short, if we're serious about decarbonizing the power sector and building a 100% clean electricity system -- and most major utilities profess to be serious (see map catf.us/2020/10/state-…) -- we need to see a peak in nationwide natural gas power capacity very soon.
Specific regions could build net new gas capacity, but any such proposals should have a high burden of proof and be evaluated on case by case basis. I suggest the following criteria are all met...
(1) not in places already off coal (like New England or California);
(2) only as part of utility sector-wide commitment nationwide decline in gas capacity;
(3) only where necessary to replace coal; and...
(4) Only if new plants are built ready for later use of high hydrogen combustion (80-100% by energy) or carbon capture OR they are amortized over <20 years and prepared for early closure by 2040 (e.g. if prepared to zero out emissions by ~2040).
Additionally, if the electric sector wants to rely on gas as a bridge fuel over the next decade or two, and be leaders in decarbonization as they claim, they have to take responsibility for upstream leakage of methane --a potent greenhouse gas-- associated with the gas they burn.
This is something that Ben Fowke, CEO of @xcelenergy and Chairman of the Edison Electric Institute (the private utility trade group) talked about at the @AndlingerCenter Annual Meeting during a panel of utility CEOs I moderated on October 30 (acee.princeton.edu/2020-annual-me…)
In particular, electric utilities as major purchasers of natural gas should establish a clean gas standard: utilities take responsibility for pressuring gas producers and govt to clean up gas supply chain & cut methane emissions to 1% or less.
Many electric utilities are of course also natural gas utilities, and they have to take direct responsibility to reduce downstream gas pipeline emissions under their purview.
If methane leakage is large it greatly diminishes the climate benefits of natural gas over coal.
Finally, the utility sector needs to play a leading role in developing -- + calling for government support -- for a large-scale clean (zero carbon) hydrogen production sector (harnessing biomass and gas w/CCS & clean electricity) to fuel their combustion turbines in the future...
.. and in planning, financing, and building a national CO2 transportation system to enable retrofit of existing gas plants with CCS, where that makes economic and environmental sense. Utility leadership is key.
I'll wrap this up here, but from where I sit, if we're serious about gas as a bridge to a 100% clean electricity system, the above principles should be embraced by utilities -- and used by regulators, consumer advocates, and NGOs to hold the sector to its green promises. /END
Here's 39 things President-Elect Biden could do to take #ClimateAction, featuring a round-up of voices from across the climate policy landscape: bloomberg.com/features/2020-…
My entry w/@CostaSamaras: appoint climate-focused Budget Director and White House Chief of Staff. Why? 🧵⤵️
President-elect Biden’s chief of staff and OMB director must align all federal agencies, spending, and legislative strategy around four big goals: ending the pandemic, rebuilding the economy, dismantling systemic racism, and confronting climate change. 1/
Cabinet secretaries get a higher profile, but no other positions beyond the President him or herself has a broader reach across the federal government than the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and White House Chief of Staff. 2/
Wind, solar & battery costs have plummeted & energy storage installs are booming. Good timing for my new paper w/@dhariksm & @nsepulvedam on "Long-run system value of battery energy storage in future grids with increasing wind and solar generation"
Our new study out in @ElsevierEnergy's journal Applied Energy finds that the economic value of storage increases as variable renewable energy generation supplies an increasing share of electricity supply but that storage cost declines are needed to realize full potential.
We used a detailed electricity system planning model (energy.mit.edu/wp-content/upl…) to examine battery storage & determine key drivers that impact its economic value, how value changes w/increasing deployment over time, and implications for the long-term cost-effectiveness of storage.
In round #s: assuming electrification consistent w/net zero economy wide emissions by 2050, US needs ~5k-5.5k TWh of total electricity in 2035 (vs ~4k now). Need to ~double again by 2050 too! We have on order or 1.5k TWh from all clean sources today (about 1/2 nuclear & 1/2 RE).
So that says we need to more than triple all current carbon-free generation from now to 2035 to meet Biden goal. And we would need to build ~7 times current carbon-free generation cumulatively by 2050 to keep up with growing electric demand from EVs, heat pumps, electrolysis, etc
I'm a co-PI of @Princeton's Net Zero America study which is researching what it will take to get the US to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. We'll be sharing findings later this year on the scale and pace of this undertaking and the impacts on employment, pollution, etc.
A new ICE order from the Trump Administration out today may result in deportation of thousands of international students attending U.S. universities. Pure spite and racist hatred as policy. 😡 ice.gov/news/releases/…
As many universities (including mine) go partially or entirely online this Fall to continue their educational missions and contend with health risks of #COVID19, this new policy bars students on nonimmigrant F-1 visas from taking courses entirely online while residing in the U.S.
It simultaneously prohibits those in the U.S. from taking more than 1 class online while maintaining their visa status. In effect, this order forces students to take a full course load (less 1 online class) in person, whether that is safe or not, or to leave the country entirely
Im prepping my second to last lecture for 'Introduction to the Electricity Sector' -- on distributed energy resources & associated regulatory challenges. It's made me revisit the huge body of work published out of @MITEnergy Utility of the Future study effort...
I was so fortunate to be part of this effort, to learn from mythical figures in the field including Ignacio Perez-Arriaga (our fearless leader & my mentor), Dick Schmalensee, Bill Hogan, Paul Joskow, Michael Caramanis, Dick Tabors, Tomas Gomez, Carlos Batlle, and many more...
...and to get to spend 5 yrs thinking through regulatory challenges posed by growth of distributed energy resources with a crew of brilliant young scholars incl. @burgersb, Jose Pablo Chaves, Ash Bharatkumar, Pablo Duenas, Ignacio Herrero, Claudio Vergara, Sam Huntington & more.
"Months, not weeks." that's the phrase that went bouncing around in my head all day.
Modeled scenarios I've seen for spread of #COVID19 in US (eg nyti.ms/2wSDnro) dont have us past peak infections until summer, and later if we successfully in to flattening the curve.
The paradox: the better we are at maintaining social distance -- work from home, closed schools, kids kept from play dates, no dinner parties, etc -- the longer until we're past peak infections. The better we do, the less "severe" things will seem, making it harder to maintain.
But the difference between a peak of infections in July vs Sept is the difference between an overloaded medical system or one that can keep pace with the strain, and literally 100s of thousands of lives saved.