Solar Microgrids May Not Fix the Caribbean’s Devastated Power Systems

After the destruction inflicted across the Caribbean by hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, renewable energy advocates are calling for a rethink of the region’s devastated power systems. Rather than simply rebuilding grids that delivered mostly diesel generation via damage-prone overhead power lines, renewables advocates argue that the island grids should leapfrog into the future by interconnecting hundreds or thousands of self-sufficient solar microgrids.

“Puerto Rico will lead the way for the new generation of clean energy infrastructure. The world will follow,” asserted John Berger, CEO for Houston-based solar developer Sunnova Energy in a tweet before meeting in San Juan with Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rosselló this week. Rosselló appears to be on board, inviting Elon Musk via tweet to use Puerto Rico as a “flagship project” to “show the world the power and scalability” of Tesla’s technologies, which include photovoltaic (PV) rooftops and Powerwall battery systems.

Some power system experts, however, say the solar-plus-batteries vision may be oversold. They say that the pressing need to restore power, plus equipment costs and other practical considerations, call for sustained reliance on centralized grids and fossil fuels in the Caribbean. “They need to recover from the storm. Unfortunately I think the quickest way to do that is to go back to how things were before,” says Brad Rockwell, power supply manager for the Kauaʻi Island Utility Cooperative that operates one of the most renewable-heavy grids in the U.S.

Now is a tough time for a debate, given the ongoing power and communications blackouts afflicting many Caribbean islands, including Puerto Rico, the U.S. and British Virgin Islands, Dominica, and St. Martin. As of Thursday 12 October—more than three weeks after Maria’s cyclonic wrecking ball crossed the region—over four-fifths of customers in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands remained without power, according to U.S. Department of Energy status reports.

Puerto Rico lost major transmission lines that dispatched electricity generated at oil, coal, and natural gas-fired power plants on its lightly populated South shore to all corners of the territory. Its outage level actually slipped from 88.3 to 89.4 percent earlier this week after a tie line went down near San Juan. But it bounced back slightly, to an estimated 83 percent outage level, by yesterday.

What is clear is that several firms are trying to move fast while they talk, equipping rooftop solar systems with battery storage that enables consumers to operate independently of stricken grids. For example:

  • German storage system manufacturer sonnen launched a PV-plus-battery collaboration with local Aguadilla-based solar developer Pura Energía early this month;
  • Sunnova is crafting storage options for roughly 10,000 customers in Puerto Rico that it has already equipped with PV systems;
  • Tesla says it is sending “hundreds” of its Powerwall battery systems to Puerto Rico and, after reports of price gouging by independent installers, plans to dispatch experienced installers from the mainland to expand its local teams.

Peter Asmus, a microgrids analyst with Navigant Research, says that such solar microgrids will deliver power to solar system owners far faster than grid restoration, which is still months away for many customers. He says microgrids will also make the island systems more resilient in the long run.

Asmus sees the situation as reminiscent of post-war Europe, when devastated European grids left a vacuum that enabled something better. “They built a more advanced grid than we have in the U.S.,” says Asmus. He says the Caribbean has a similar opportunity today: “The infrastructure was devastated so severely. They can start over with a cleaner slate.”

Some suppliers see microgrids actually supplanting some of the region’s largest transmission lines. “The grid in Puerto Rico will never be built back the way it used to be,” wrote John Merritt, applications engineering director for Austin, Texas-based Ideal Power in an email to IEEE Spectrum. Ideal Power’s multi-port power converters enable microgrids to efficiently swap power between their alternating current and direct current components, including PV systems, generators, and storage batteries.

Giving up big transmission lines sounds optimistic to Rockwell at the Kauaʻi Island Utility Cooperative (KIUC). It would, he says, represent a major system overhaul and thus lost time that Puerto Rico’s residents and economy can ill afford. “The people of Puerto Rico are not going to want to withstand any more delays than they have to while people figure out how to rebuild in a different way,” he says.

Rockwell adds that batteries are still a rather costly way to balance variable renewable generation. He speaks from experience. KIUC’s grid is over four-fifths solar-powered during some midday hours. Several utility-scale storage systems help integrate such a high degree of  variable power by quickly covering for lost PV generation when clouds pass overhead or by absorbing surplus midday generation and discharging it after the sun sets. But Rockwell says high battery costs mean KIUC still relies heavily on its diesel power plants.

Merritt at Ideal Power acknowledges that the same is true for microgrids. Integrating solar can cut an island microgrid’s fuel consumption by 60 to 70 percent, slashing operating costs and pollution, but he says diesel generators remain “important” assets. “Moving a site from 24/7 diesel-powered microgrid to a 24/7 solar + storage microgrid would be cost prohibitive in most cases,” says Merritt.

There are also questions about PVs’ hardiness. Harvey, Irma, and Maria left many PV systems in shambles. Merritt says that a microgrid for a commercial facility on Saint Croix that Ideal Power participated in assembling before storms is operating without its six 33-kilowatt solar arrays. While they are out of commission for the next few months, the microgrid is relying solely on its diesel generators, battery, and converters.

Some utility-scale solar plants also took a beating, especially Puerto Rico’s Humacao solar array. PV panels shattered and flew out of their frames when Maria’s Category-4 winds ripped over the Humacao solar plant, where its French owner Reden Energie was in the process of doubling capacity from 26 to 52 megawatts.

Houston-based microgrid developer Enchanted Rock advocates rugged microgrids supported by natural gas, which is cheaper and cleaner than diesel and more reliable than both diesel and solar during heavy weather. “You can build community-type microgrids that have some combination of natural gas generation, solar and storage,” says Enchanted Rock CEO Thomas McAndrew.

Enchanted Rock made a name for itself during Hurricane Harvey when its natural gas-powered microgrids at Houston-area grocery stores and a truck stop turned into hubs for first responders and weary residents. Diesel deliveries were hard to come by for 4-5 days, says McAndrew, but natural gas kept flowing underground throughout the storm.

At present few Caribbean islands have access to natural gas, and even Puerto Rico’s gas infrastructure is limited to one liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal that pipes the fuel to two power plants. Rosselló had been working to expand LNG imports so more of its oil-fired power plants could burn gas.

Enchanted Rock’s McAndrew favors a network to distribute the gas instead, which he says would be cheaper than putting power lines underground to protect them from weather. He acknowledges that his proposal is ambitious, but says the outside investors that Puerto Rico will need to attract to support its revival can insist on infrastructure that will survive future storms. As McAndrew puts it: “Whether it’s private or government money, there’s got to be some sense that we might want to do this differently so we don’t just end up rebuilding it every couple of years.”

This post was created for Energywise, IEEE Spectrum’s blog about the future of energy, climate, and the smart grid

Advertisements

NATURE Scientists Get Political on Climate

By Peter Fairley for Nature / October 11 2017

It’s moving day at the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia on a sunny summer morning in Victoria, Canada, and climate scientist-turned politician Andrew Weaver is battling to retain an expansive leather sofa for his new basement office. Just a few weeks earlier, in May 2017, thousands of people in and around Victoria cast their votes for the British Columbia Green Party, which Weaver leads, growing the caucus from his one lonely seat to three. The wider of the office’s sofas, he explains, will be crucial during long nights of debate and voting. “This is the one you can sleep on. And we need that.”

Three seats in an 87-seat legislature might sound modest, but it’s enough to make Weaver — a professor at the University of Victoria — into a political kingmaker. The incumbent Liberal Party and the opposition New Democratic Party (NDP) each garnered fewer than half of the seats, giving Weaver’s Green Party the balance of power. Weaver exercised his new-found influence in the weeks after the election to remove Christy Clark, the Liberal premier of British Columbia, who had championed fossil fuels and neglected climate policy. He negotiated climate-friendly terms with the NDP to install John Horgan as the party’s first premier in 16 years.

Weaver is an internationally recognized pioneer of models that represent Earth’s physical systems at a modest resolution, facilitating the simulation of climate over tens of thousands of years. His ascent from academic to political power broker is a far cry from the attacks on climate scientists that are under way in the United States. But there are US researchers who dare to dream that they too can tilt the political balance. In fact, dozens have declared the intent to run for local, state or national office, promising to reverse the dismissal of climate change and other anti-science positions espoused by US President Donald Trump’s administration and other Republican Party leaders.

… READ ON AT NATURE.COM

Floating Wind Turbines on the High Seas

Master.Energywise.StatoilHywind

Norwegian oil and gas giant Statoil positions 6-megawatt turbines off the coast of Scotland for the world’s first floating wind farm. Photo: Roar Lindefjeld/Woldcam/Statoil

The world’s first wind farm employing floating turbines is taking shape 25 kilometers off the Scottish coast and expected to begin operating by the end of this year. New research by atmospheric scientists at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, Calif. suggests that the ultimate destination for such floating wind farms could be hundreds of kilometers out in the open ocean. The simulations, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, show that winds over the open ocean have far greater staying power than those over land.

Wind power generation is obviously contingent on how fast and how often winds blow. But only over the past decade have scientists and wind farm developers recognized that the winds measured prior to erecting turbines may not endure. For one thing, dense arrays of wind turbines act as a drag on the wind, depleting local or even regional wind resources. Continue reading

Has the UN Climate Assessment Process Become Obsolete?

Peter Fairley for InsideClimate News Sept 8, 2017

The sweeping multi-year assessments produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change set the gold standard for global scientific consensus on how humanity is altering Earth’s climate, and how to anticipate and minimize those changes. Some top climate scientists, however, are reviving a harsh critique of the IPCC’s assessment process, saying that it takes too long and that the delay could actually be creating an excuse for political inaction.

That process is moving forward this week with little sign of changing as scientists and government officials meet in Montréal to nail down a detailed blueprint for the sixth assessment since the IPCC’s creation in 1988. On Wednesday, IPCC Chair Hoesung Lee called the meeting the “most important” in the production cycle for what will become IPCC Sixth Assessment Report—a cycle that began in 2015 and will not conclude until 2022.

That seven-year schedule is simply unacceptable for a document that is “relied on by countless decision makers around the world every day,” said Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist and co-director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech …

… read on at ICN

Rumble Royale: Can the U.S. Grid Work With 100% Renewables?

Four Days in 2055: Dynamic heat and power supply in the mid-century wind, water and sunlight-fuelled Continental U.S. simulated by Stanford’s Mark Jacobson. Credit: ASU/PNAS

A battle royale between competing visions for the future of energy blew open today on the pages of a venerable science journal. The conflict pits 21 climate and power system experts against Stanford University civil and environmental engineer Mark Jacobson and his vision of a world fuelled 100 percent by renewable solar, wind, and hydroelectric energy. The criticism of his “wind, water and sun” solution and an unapologetic rebuttal from Jacobson and three Stanford colleagues appear today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

The critics enumerate what they view as invalid modeling tools, modeling errors, and “implausible and inadequately supported assumptions” in a projection of the mid-century U.S. energy supply that Jacobson and his coauthors published in PNAS in 2015. “The scenarios of [that paper] can, at best, be described as a poorly executed exploration of an interesting hypothesis,” write the experts, led by Christopher Clack, CEO of power grid modeling firm Vibrant Clean Energy.

Clack says their primary goal is accurate science, the better to equip policymakers for critical decisions: “We’re trying to be scientific about the process and honest about how difficult it could be to move forward.”

The text and statements by Clack’s coauthors question Jacobson’s evaluation of competing energy technologies, and specifically his rejection of two non-renewable energy options: fossil fuel power plants equipped to capture their own carbon dioxide pollution and nuclear reactors.

Jacobson calls Clack’s attack, “the most egregious case of scientific fraud I have encountered in the literature to date.”

In fact, while both sides claim to be objectively weighing the energy options, the arguments and backgrounds of the protagonists belie well-informed affinities for various energy sources (and informed biases against others). As sociologists of science would say, their choice of data and their reading of it reflects hunches, values, and priorities.

Consider Clack’s coauthor Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science. Caldeira’s press release broadcasting their critique argues that removing carbon dioxide from the U.S. power supply is a massive job demanding the biggest tool box possible: “When you call a plumber to fix a leak, you want her to arrive with a full toolbox and not leave most of her tools at home,” says Caldeira.

The same document then abandons this technology-agnostic tone to call out nuclear energy and carbon capture as technologies that “solving the climate problem will depend on.” And Caldeira has appealed for deploying a new generation of nuclear reactors which he and other nuclear boosters such as former NASA scientist Jim Hansen say are needed because renewables “cannot scale up fast enough.” Continue reading

U.S. Tech Titans Vow to Resist Trump’s Paris Pullout

U.S. President Donald Trump’s Rose Garden declaration yesterday that he will pull the country out of the Paris Agreement on climate change painted the United States as an economic victim, swindled into an “unfair” deal by the global community. He is right that the world is united: Nearly 200 countries back the 2015 Paris deal, with only Syria, Nicaragua and now the U.S. opting out. But fact checkers had a field day with Trump’s justification: his claim (against all evidence to the contrary) that the treaty imposes “onerous energy restrictions” on the U.S. that would beget “lost jobs, lowered wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production.”

Nicaragua opted to stay out because it viewed the treaty’s reliance on voluntary national pledges rather than binding greenhouse gas reduction targets as “a path to failure” that would allow human-caused global warming in this century to surpass the agreed limit of 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius. Trump said yesterday he would keep the U.S. in the Paris deal only if he can renegotiate it to be weaker still, though his language belied a lack of conviction. “If we can, that’s great. If we can’t, that’s fine,” equivocated Trump.

The President’s retreat from one the great technological challenges of the 21st Century marked a sad day for America’s innovation leaders, and a breaking point for Elon Musk. The tech titan behind such fast-growing engineering powerhouses as Tesla Motors and SpaceX insisted on Tuesday that he had worked mightily, both directly with the President and through his membership on three Presidential economic councils, to convince Trump to stick with Paris. Within minutes of Trump’s speech yesterday, Musk tweeted that he was pulling himself from Team Trump:

Elon Musk tells Trump what he really thinks.

Musk had considerable company. A sweeping set of U.S. innovators, mayors, governors, and business leaders spoke up yesterday, vowing to stick with the goals of the Paris Agreement even if the federal government does not. They have another three years to work on Trump’s stance, because the treaty’s rules impose at least a three year wait for a signatory to pull out. Continue reading

Visualizing Donald Trump’s ‘Who knew?!’ Climate Policy Moment

U.S. President Donald Trump called health insurance an “unbelievably complex subject” when Congress was debating health care in February. “Nobody knew health care could be so complicated,” said Trump as Republicans in Congress struggled to find consensus on how to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. Given developments in Washington, D.C., over the past week, he could soon be issuing similar tweets about unimagined intricacies in energy policy—intricacies with critical implications for technology developers.

Last week’s main affair in Washington, of course, was Trump’s firing of FBI director James Comey, and the ensuing ‘political firestorm’. But two big energy issues were also playing out, exposing policy rifts among Republicans—cracks that that could ultimately shift the course of U.S. and global policy. Continue reading