Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
http://pesd.stanford.edu • Stanford University
Assessing U.S. Progress Toward “Deep” Decarbonization
Mark C. ThurberProgram on Energy and Sustainable Development (PESD)
“The G7 and Decarbonization: Long-Term Thinking and the Road Ahead”Carnegie Endowment for International PeaceSeptember 30th, 2015
Required Elements for Deep Decarbonization
1) Realize Renewables Potential2) Involve End Users3) Develop Flexible, Zero-Carbon Generation4) Price Carbon5) Stop Building New Coal Plants (& Phase Out Existing)
Key point: Adding more renewables becomes muchharder and more expensive above ~50% penetration (added renewable capacity is less and less valuable)
Realize Renewables Potential
• Only moderate renewables growth in EIA reference case
– Doubtful that Clean Power Plan will significantly increase penetration, as other emissions reductions usually cheaper
• Majority of U.S. states have renewable portfolio standards (CA governor wants 50% of electricity from renewables by 2030)
• Solar: U.S. can learn from Germany on reducing non-module costs
• U.S. renewables penetration seriously limited by inability to build new transmission lines
Realize Renewables Potential
Source: Seel, Barbose, Wiser 2013
• We cannot achieve ambitious climate targets without asking end users to be more aware of and involved with their energy use
– Why not a carbon price on the university campus?• Dynamic pricing of electricity is crucial to renewables integration
– Price electricity according to instantaneous system conditions => Higher price when sun not shining or wind not blowing
– Dynamic pricing ≠ �me of use pricing– Dynamic pricing creates market driver for storage
• As of late 2014, 43% of US households had smart meters; no jurisdiction had widespread dynamic pricing in place
Involve End Users
Develop Flexible, Zero-Carbon Generation
• Dynamic pricing and storage alone are not sufficient at >50% renewable generation because seasonal variations are too large
Source: Denholm and Hand, Energy Policy 2011
• Candidates for flexible, zero-carbon generation: flexible nuclear reactors (small modular reactors?); coal or natural gas with CCS?
Normalized monthly renewable output and demand for ERCOT
Develop Flexible, Zero-Carbon Generation
• U.S. regulatory framework highly unsuited to developing advanced reactor designs (see Geist 2015)
– Very high risk to industry in DOE cost sharing approaches– NRC not equipped to regulate such designs
• CCS progress also very slow– Kemper coal/CCS plant costs up from $1.8 to $6.2 billion– Boundary Dam CCS in Canada has been smoother
Price Carbon
Current Carbon Prices in U.S. ($/tonne of CO2)California/Québec: $12.77RGGI (East/Northeast): ~$6(compare against ~$9 for EU ETS)
• National carbon price seems politically elusive for now• Will Clean Power Plan lead to more carbon trading at state and
regional levels?
Stop Building New Coal Plants
• US has accomplished this on the strength of unconventional gas• Clean Power Plan will create additional incentives to phase out
existing use of coal
http://pesd.stanford.edu • Stanford University
Thank you
