More stories

  • in

    How can India decarbonize its coal-dependent electric power system?

    As the world struggles to reduce climate-warming carbon emissions, India has pledged to do its part, and its success is critical: In 2023, India was the third-largest carbon emitter worldwide. The Indian government has committed to having net-zero carbon emissions by 2070.To fulfill that promise, India will need to decarbonize its electric power system, and that will be a challenge: Fully 60 percent of India’s electricity comes from coal-burning power plants that are extremely inefficient. To make matters worse, the demand for electricity in India is projected to more than double in the coming decade due to population growth and increased use of air conditioning, electric cars, and so on.Despite having set an ambitious target, the Indian government has not proposed a plan for getting there. Indeed, as in other countries, in India the government continues to permit new coal-fired power plants to be built, and aging plants to be renovated and their retirement postponed.To help India define an effective — and realistic — plan for decarbonizing its power system, key questions must be addressed. For example, India is already rapidly developing carbon-free solar and wind power generators. What opportunities remain for further deployment of renewable generation? Are there ways to retrofit or repurpose India’s existing coal plants that can substantially and affordably reduce their greenhouse gas emissions? And do the responses to those questions differ by region?With funding from IHI Corp. through the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI), Yifu Ding, a postdoc at MITEI, and her colleagues set out to answer those questions by first using machine learning to determine the efficiency of each of India’s current 806 coal plants, and then investigating the impacts that different decarbonization approaches would have on the mix of power plants and the price of electricity in 2035 under increasingly stringent caps on emissions.First step: Develop the needed datasetAn important challenge in developing a decarbonization plan for India has been the lack of a complete dataset describing the current power plants in India. While other studies have generated plans, they haven’t taken into account the wide variation in the coal-fired power plants in different regions of the country. “So, we first needed to create a dataset covering and characterizing all of the operating coal plants in India. Such a dataset was not available in the existing literature,” says Ding.Making a cost-effective plan for expanding the capacity of a power system requires knowing the efficiencies of all the power plants operating in the system. For this study, the researchers used as their metric the “station heat rate,” a standard measurement of the overall fuel efficiency of a given power plant. The station heat rate of each plant is needed in order to calculate the fuel consumption and power output of that plant as plans for capacity expansion are being developed.Some of the Indian coal plants’ efficiencies were recorded before 2022, so Ding and her team used machine-learning models to predict the efficiencies of all the Indian coal plants operating now. In 2024, they created and posted online the first comprehensive, open-sourced dataset for all 806 power plants in 30 regions of India. The work won the 2024 MIT Open Data Prize. This dataset includes each plant’s power capacity, efficiency, age, load factor (a measure indicating how much of the time it operates), water stress, and more.In addition, they categorized each plant according to its boiler design. A “supercritical” plant operates at a relatively high temperature and pressure, which makes it thermodynamically efficient, so it produces a lot of electricity for each unit of heat in the fuel. A “subcritical” plant runs at a lower temperature and pressure, so it’s less thermodynamically efficient. Most of the Indian coal plants are still subcritical plants running at low efficiency.Next step: Investigate decarbonization optionsEquipped with their detailed dataset covering all the coal power plants in India, the researchers were ready to investigate options for responding to tightening limits on carbon emissions. For that analysis, they turned to GenX, a modeling platform that was developed at MITEI to help guide decision-makers as they make investments and other plans for the future of their power systems.Ding built a GenX model based on India’s power system in 2020, including details about each power plant and transmission network across 30 regions of the country. She also entered the coal price, potential resources for wind and solar power installations, and other attributes of each region. Based on the parameters given, the GenX model would calculate the lowest-cost combination of equipment and operating conditions that can fulfill a defined future level of demand while also meeting specified policy constraints, including limits on carbon emissions. The model and all data sources were also released as open-source tools for all viewers to use.Ding and her colleagues — Dharik Mallapragada, a former principal research scientist at MITEI who is now an assistant professor of chemical and biomolecular energy at NYU Tandon School of Engineering and a MITEI visiting scientist; and Robert J. Stoner, the founding director of the MIT Tata Center for Technology and Design and former deputy director of MITEI for science and technology — then used the model to explore options for meeting demands in 2035 under progressively tighter carbon emissions caps, taking into account region-to-region variations in the efficiencies of the coal plants, the price of coal, and other factors. They describe their methods and their findings in a paper published in the journal Energy for Sustainable Development.In separate runs, they explored plans involving various combinations of current coal plants, possible new renewable plants, and more, to see their outcome in 2035. Specifically, they assumed the following four “grid-evolution scenarios:”Baseline: The baseline scenario assumes limited onshore wind and solar photovoltaics development and excludes retrofitting options, representing a business-as-usual pathway.High renewable capacity: This scenario calls for the development of onshore wind and solar power without any supply chain constraints.Biomass co-firing: This scenario assumes the baseline limits on renewables, but here all coal plants — both subcritical and supercritical — can be retrofitted for “co-firing” with biomass, an approach in which clean-burning biomass replaces some of the coal fuel. Certain coal power plants in India already co-fire coal and biomass, so the technology is known.Carbon capture and sequestration plus biomass co-firing: This scenario is based on the same assumptions as the biomass co-firing scenario with one addition: All of the high-efficiency supercritical plants are also retrofitted for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), a technology that captures and removes carbon from a power plant’s exhaust stream and prepares it for permanent disposal. Thus far, CCS has not been used in India. This study specifies that 90 percent of all carbon in the power plant exhaust is captured.Ding and her team investigated power system planning under each of those grid-evolution scenarios and four assumptions about carbon caps: no cap, which is the current situation; 1,000 million tons (Mt) of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, which reflects India’s announced targets for 2035; and two more-ambitious targets, namely 800 Mt and 500 Mt. For context, CO2 emissions from India’s power sector totaled about 1,100 Mt in 2021. (Note that transmission network expansion is allowed in all scenarios.)Key findingsAssuming the adoption of carbon caps under the four scenarios generated a vast array of detailed numerical results. But taken together, the results show interesting trends in the cost-optimal mix of generating capacity and the cost of electricity under the different scenarios.Even without any limits on carbon emissions, most new capacity additions will be wind and solar generators — the lowest-cost option for expanding India’s electricity-generation capacity. Indeed, this is observed to be the case now in India. However, the increasing demand for electricity will still require some new coal plants to be built. Model results show a 10 to 20 percent increase in coal plant capacity by 2035 relative to 2020.Under the baseline scenario, renewables are expanded up to the maximum allowed under the assumptions, implying that more deployment would be economical. More coal capacity is built, and as the cap on emissions tightens, there is also investment in natural gas power plants, as well as batteries to help compensate for the now-large amount of intermittent solar and wind generation. When a 500 Mt cap on carbon is imposed, the cost of electricity generation is twice as high as it was with no cap.The high renewable capacity scenario reduces the development of new coal capacity and produces the lowest electricity cost of the four scenarios. Under the most stringent cap — 500 Mt — onshore wind farms play an important role in bringing the cost down. “Otherwise, it’ll be very expensive to reach such stringent carbon constraints,” notes Ding. “Certain coal plants that remain run only a few hours per year, so are inefficient as well as financially unviable. But they still need to be there to support wind and solar.” She explains that other backup sources of electricity, such as batteries, are even more costly. The biomass co-firing scenario assumes the same capacity limit on renewables as in the baseline scenario, and the results are much the same, in part because the biomass replaces such a low fraction — just 20 percent — of the coal in the fuel feedstock. “This scenario would be most similar to the current situation in India,” says Ding. “It won’t bring down the cost of electricity, so we’re basically saying that adding this technology doesn’t contribute effectively to decarbonization.”But CCS plus biomass co-firing is a different story. It also assumes the limits on renewables development, yet it is the second-best option in terms of reducing costs. Under the 500 Mt cap on CO2 emissions, retrofitting for both CCS and biomass co-firing produces a 22 percent reduction in the cost of electricity compared to the baseline scenario. In addition, as the carbon cap tightens, this option reduces the extent of deployment of natural gas plants and significantly improves overall coal plant utilization. That increased utilization “means that coal plants have switched from just meeting the peak demand to supplying part of the baseline load, which will lower the cost of coal generation,” explains Ding.Some concernsWhile those trends are enlightening, the analyses also uncovered some concerns for India to consider, in particular, with the two approaches that yielded the lowest electricity costs.The high renewables scenario is, Ding notes, “very ideal.” It assumes that there will be little limiting the development of wind and solar capacity, so there won’t be any issues with supply chains, which is unrealistic. More importantly, the analyses showed that implementing the high renewables approach would create uneven investment in renewables across the 30 regions. Resources for onshore and offshore wind farms are mainly concentrated in a few regions in western and southern India. “So all the wind farms would be put in those regions, near where the rich cities are,” says Ding. “The poorer cities on the eastern side, where the coal power plants are, will have little renewable investment.”So the approach that’s best in terms of cost is not best in terms of social welfare, because it tends to benefit the rich regions more than the poor ones. “It’s like [the government will] need to consider the trade-off between energy justice and cost,” says Ding. Enacting state-level renewable generation targets could encourage a more even distribution of renewable capacity installation. Also, as transmission expansion is planned, coordination among power system operators and renewable energy investors in different regions could help in achieving the best outcome.CCS plus biomass co-firing — the second-best option for reducing prices — solves the equity problem posed by high renewables, and it assumes a more realistic level of renewable power adoption. However, CCS hasn’t been used in India, so there is no precedent in terms of costs. The researchers therefore based their cost estimates on the cost of CCS in China and then increased the required investment by 10 percent, the “first-of-a-kind” index developed by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Based on those costs and other assumptions, the researchers conclude that coal plants with CCS could come into use by 2035 when the carbon cap for power generation is less than 1,000 Mt.But will CCS actually be implemented in India? While there’s been discussion about using CCS in heavy industry, the Indian government has not announced any plans for implementing the technology in coal-fired power plants. Indeed, India is currently “very conservative about CCS,” says Ding. “Some researchers say CCS won’t happen because it’s so expensive, and as long as there’s no direct use for the captured carbon, the only thing you can do is put it in the ground.” She adds, “It’s really controversial to talk about whether CCS will be implemented in India in the next 10 years.”Ding and her colleagues hope that other researchers and policymakers — especially those working in developing countries — may benefit from gaining access to their datasets and learning about their methods. Based on their findings for India, she stresses the importance of understanding the detailed geographical situation in a country in order to design plans and policies that are both realistic and equitable. More

  • in

    Using liquid air for grid-scale energy storage

    As the world moves to reduce carbon emissions, solar and wind power will play an increasing role on electricity grids. But those renewable sources only generate electricity when it’s sunny or windy. So to ensure a reliable power grid — one that can deliver electricity 24/7 — it’s crucial to have a means of storing electricity when supplies are abundant and delivering it later, when they’re not. And sometimes large amounts of electricity will need to be stored not just for hours, but for days, or even longer.Some methods of achieving “long-duration energy storage” are promising. For example, with pumped hydro energy storage, water is pumped from a lake to another, higher lake when there’s extra electricity and released back down through power-generating turbines when more electricity is needed. But that approach is limited by geography, and most potential sites in the United States have already been used. Lithium-ion batteries could provide grid-scale storage, but only for about four hours. Longer than that and battery systems get prohibitively expensive.A team of researchers from MIT and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) has been investigating a less-familiar option based on an unlikely-sounding concept: liquid air, or air that is drawn in from the surroundings, cleaned and dried, and then cooled to the point that it liquefies. “Liquid air energy storage” (LAES) systems have been built, so the technology is technically feasible. Moreover, LAES systems are totally clean and can be sited nearly anywhere, storing vast amounts of electricity for days or longer and delivering it when it’s needed. But there haven’t been conclusive studies of its economic viability. Would the income over time warrant the initial investment and ongoing costs? With funding from the MIT Energy Initiative’s Future Energy Systems Center, the researchers developed a model that takes detailed information on LAES systems and calculates when and where those systems would be economically viable, assuming future scenarios in line with selected decarbonization targets as well as other conditions that may prevail on future energy grids.They found that under some of the scenarios they modeled, LAES could be economically viable in certain locations. Sensitivity analyses showed that policies providing a subsidy on capital expenses could make LAES systems economically viable in many locations. Further calculations showed that the cost of storing a given amount of electricity with LAES would be lower than with more familiar systems such as pumped hydro and lithium-ion batteries. They conclude that LAES holds promise as a means of providing critically needed long-duration storage when future power grids are decarbonized and dominated by intermittent renewable sources of electricity.The researchers — Shaylin A. Cetegen, a PhD candidate in the MIT Department of Chemical Engineering (ChemE); Professor Emeritus Truls Gundersen of the NTNU Department of Energy and Process Engineering; and MIT Professor Emeritus Paul I. Barton of ChemE — describe their model and their findings in a new paper published in the journal Energy.The LAES technology and its benefitsLAES systems consists of three steps: charging, storing, and discharging. When supply on the grid exceeds demand and prices are low, the LAES system is charged. Air is then drawn in and liquefied. A large amount of electricity is consumed to cool and liquefy the air in the LAES process. The liquid air is then sent to highly insulated storage tanks, where it’s held at a very low temperature and atmospheric pressure. When the power grid needs added electricity to meet demand, the liquid air is first pumped to a higher pressure and then heated, and it turns back into a gas. This high-pressure, high-temperature, vapor-phase air expands in a turbine that generates electricity to be sent back to the grid.According to Cetegen, a primary advantage of LAES is that it’s clean. “There are no contaminants involved,” she says. “It takes in and releases only ambient air and electricity, so it’s as clean as the electricity that’s used to run it.” In addition, a LAES system can be built largely from commercially available components and does not rely on expensive or rare materials. And the system can be sited almost anywhere, including near other industrial processes that produce waste heat or cold that can be used by the LAES system to increase its energy efficiency.Economic viabilityIn considering the potential role of LAES on future power grids, the first question is: Will LAES systems be attractive to investors? Answering that question requires calculating the technology’s net present value (NPV), which represents the sum of all discounted cash flows — including revenues, capital expenditures, operating costs, and other financial factors — over the project’s lifetime. (The study assumed a cash flow discount rate of 7 percent.)To calculate the NPV, the researchers needed to determine how LAES systems will perform in future energy markets. In those markets, various sources of electricity are brought online to meet the current demand, typically following a process called “economic dispatch:” The lowest-cost source that’s available is always deployed next. Determining the NPV of liquid air storage therefore requires predicting how that technology will fare in future markets competing with other sources of electricity when demand exceeds supply — and also accounting for prices when supply exceeds demand, so excess electricity is available to recharge the LAES systems.For their study, the MIT and NTNU researchers designed a model that starts with a description of an LAES system, including details such as the sizes of the units where the air is liquefied and the power is recovered, and also capital expenses based on estimates reported in the literature. The model then draws on state-of-the-art pricing data that’s released every year by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and is widely used by energy modelers worldwide. The NREL dataset forecasts prices, construction and retirement of specific types of electricity generation and storage facilities, and more, assuming eight decarbonization scenarios for 18 regions of the United States out to 2050.The new model then tracks buying and selling in energy markets for every hour of every day in a year, repeating the same schedule for five-year intervals. Based on the NREL dataset and details of the LAES system — plus constraints such as the system’s physical storage capacity and how often it can switch between charging and discharging — the model calculates how much money LAES operators would make selling power to the grid when it’s needed and how much they would spend buying electricity when it’s available to recharge their LAES system. In line with the NREL dataset, the model generates results for 18 U.S. regions and eight decarbonization scenarios, including 100 percent decarbonization by 2035 and 95 percent decarbonization by 2050, and other assumptions about future energy grids, including high-demand growth plus high and low costs for renewable energy and for natural gas.Cetegen describes some of their results: “Assuming a 100-megawatt (MW) system — a standard sort of size — we saw economic viability pop up under the decarbonization scenario calling for 100 percent decarbonization by 2035.” So, positive NPVs (indicating economic viability) occurred only under the most aggressive — therefore the least realistic — scenario, and they occurred in only a few southern states, including Texas and Florida, likely because of how those energy markets are structured and operate.The researchers also tested the sensitivity of NPVs to different storage capacities, that is, how long the system could continuously deliver power to the grid. They calculated the NPVs of a 100 MW system that could provide electricity supply for one day, one week, and one month. “That analysis showed that under aggressive decarbonization, weekly storage is more economically viable than monthly storage, because [in the latter case] we’re paying for more storage capacity than we need,” explains Cetegen.Improving the NPV of the LAES systemThe researchers next analyzed two possible ways to improve the NPV of liquid air storage: by increasing the system’s energy efficiency and by providing financial incentives. Their analyses showed that increasing the energy efficiency, even up to the theoretical limit of the process, would not change the economic viability of LAES under the most realistic decarbonization scenarios. On the other hand, a major improvement resulted when they assumed policies providing subsidies on capital expenditures on new installations. Indeed, assuming subsidies of between 40 percent and 60 percent made the NPVs for a 100 MW system become positive under all the realistic scenarios.Thus, their analysis showed that financial incentives could be far more effective than technical improvements in making LAES economically viable. While engineers may find that outcome disappointing, Cetegen notes that from a broader perspective, it’s good news. “You could spend your whole life trying to optimize the efficiency of this process, and it wouldn’t translate to securing the investment needed to scale the technology,” she says. “Policies can take a long time to implement as well. But theoretically you could do it overnight. So if storage is needed [on a future decarbonized grid], then this is one way to encourage adoption of LAES right away.”Cost comparison with other energy storage technologiesCalculating the economic viability of a storage technology is highly dependent on the assumptions used. As a result, a different measure — the “levelized cost of storage” (LCOS) — is typically used to compare the costs of different storage technologies. In simple terms, the LCOS is the cost of storing each unit of energy over the lifetime of a project, not accounting for any income that results.On that measure, the LAES technology excels. The researchers’ model yielded an LCOS for liquid air storage of about $60 per megawatt-hour, regardless of the decarbonization scenario. That LCOS is about a third that of lithium-ion battery storage and half that of pumped hydro. Cetegen cites another interesting finding: the LCOS of their assumed LAES system varied depending on where it’s being used. The standard practice of reporting a single LCOS for a given energy storage technology may not provide the full picture.Cetegen has adapted the model and is now calculating the NPV and LCOS for energy storage using lithium-ion batteries. But she’s already encouraged by the LCOS of liquid air storage. “While LAES systems may not be economically viable from an investment perspective today, that doesn’t mean they won’t be implemented in the future,” she concludes. “With limited options for grid-scale storage expansion and the growing need for storage technologies to ensure energy security, if we can’t find economically viable alternatives, we’ll likely have to turn to least-cost solutions to meet storage needs. This is why the story of liquid air storage is far from over. We believe our findings justify the continued exploration of LAES as a key energy storage solution for the future.” More

  • in

    Making solar projects cheaper and faster with portable factories

    As the price of solar panels has plummeted in recent decades, installation costs have taken up a greater share of the technology’s overall price tag. The long installation process for solar farms is also emerging as a key bottleneck in the deployment of solar energy.Now the startup Charge Robotics is developing solar installation factories to speed up the process of building large-scale solar farms. The company’s factories are shipped to the site of utility solar projects, where equipment including tracks, mounting brackets, and panels are fed into the system and automatically assembled. A robotic vehicle autonomously puts the finished product — which amounts to a completed section of solar farm — in its final place.“We think of this as the Henry Ford moment for solar,” says CEO Banks Hunter ’15, who founded Charge Robotics with fellow MIT alumnus Max Justicz ’17. “We’re going from a very bespoke, hands on, manual installation process to something much more streamlined and set up for mass manufacturing. There are all kinds of benefits that come along with that, including consistency, quality, speed, cost, and safety.”Last year, solar energy accounted for 81 percent of new electric capacity in the U.S., and Hunter and Justicz see their factories as necessary for continued acceleration in the industry.The founders say they were met with skepticism when they first unveiled their plans. But in the beginning of last year, they deployed a prototype system that successfully built a solar farm with SOLV Energy, one of the largest solar installers in the U.S. Now, Charge has raised $22 million for its first commercial deployments later this year.From surgical robots to solar robotsWhile majoring in mechanical engineering at MIT, Hunter found plenty of excuses to build things. One such excuse was Course 2.009 (Product Engineering Processes), where he and his classmates built a smart watch for communication in remote areas.After graduation, Hunter worked for the MIT alumni-founded startups Shaper Tools and Vicarious Surgical. Vicarious Surgical is a medical robotics company that has raised more than $450 million to date. Hunter was the second employee and worked there for five years.“A lot of really hands on, project-based classes at MIT translated directly into my first roles coming out of school and set me up to be very independent and run large engineering projects,” Hunter says, “Course 2.009, in particular, was a big launch point for me. The founders of Vicarious Surgical got in touch with me through the 2.009 network.”As early as 2017, Hunter and Justicz, who majored in mechanical engineering and computer science, had discussed starting a company together. But they had to decide where to apply their broad engineering and product skillsets.“Both of us care a lot about climate change. We see climate change as the biggest problem impacting the greatest number of people on the planet,” Hunter says. “Our mentality was if we can build anything, we might as well build something that really matters.”In the process of cold calling hundreds of people in the energy industry, the founders decided solar was the future of energy production because its price was decreasing so quickly.“It’s becoming cheaper faster than any other form of energy production in human history,” Hunter says.When the founders began visiting construction sites for the large, utility-scale solar farms that make up the bulk of energy generation, it wasn’t hard to find the bottlenecks. The first site they traveled to was in the Mojave Desert in California. Hunter describes it as a massive dust bowl where thousands of workers spent months repeating tasks like moving material and assembling the same parts, over and over again.“The site had something like 2 million panels on it, and every single one was assembled and fastened the same way by hand,” Hunter says. “Max and I thought it was insane. There’s no way that can scale to transform the energy grid in a short window of time.”Hunter says he heard from each of the largest solar companies in the U.S. that their biggest limitation for scaling was labor shortages. The problem was slowing growth and killing projects.Hunter and Justicz founded Charge Robotics in 2021 to break through that bottleneck. Their first step was to order utility solar parts and assemble them by hand in their backyards.“From there, we came up with this portable assembly line that we could ship out to construction sites and then feed in the entire solar system, including the steel tracks, mounting brackets, fasteners, and the solar panels,” Hunter explains. “The assembly line robotically assembles all those pieces to produce completed solar bays, which are chunks of a solar farm.”

    Charge Robotics’ machine transports an autonomously assembled portion of solar farm to its final place in a solar farm.

    Credit: Courtesy of Charge Robotics

    Previous item
    Next item

    Each bay represents a 40-foot piece of the solar farm and weighs about 800 pounds. A robotic vehicle brings it to its final location in the field. Hunter says Charge’s system automates all mechanical installation except for the process of pile driving the first metal stakes into the ground.Charge’s assembly lines also have machine-vision systems that scan each part to ensure quality, and the systems work with the most common solar parts and panel sizes.From pilot to productWhen the founders started pitching their plans to investors and construction companies, people didn’t believe it was possible.“The initial feedback was basically, ‘This will never work,’” Hunter says. “But as soon as we took our first system out into the field and people saw it operating, they got much more excited and started believing it was real.”Since that first deployment, Charge’s team has been making its system faster and easier to operate. The company plans to set up its factories at project sites and run them in partnership with solar construction companies. The factories could even run alongside human workers.“With our system, people are operating robotic equipment remotely rather than putting in the screws themselves,” Hunter explains. “We can essentially deliver the assembled solar to customers. Their only responsibility is to deliver the materials and parts on big pallets that we feed into our system.”Hunter says multiple factories could be deployed at the same site and could also operate 24/7 to dramatically speed up projects.“We are hitting the limits of solar growth because these companies don’t have enough people,” Hunter says. “We can build much bigger sites much faster with the same number of people by just shipping out more of our factories. It’s a fundamentally new way of scaling solar energy.” More

  • in

    How hard is it to prevent recurring blackouts in Puerto Rico?

    Researchers at MIT’s Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS) have shown that using decision-making software and dynamic monitoring of weather and energy use can significantly improve resiliency in the face of weather-related outages, and can also help to efficiently integrate renewable energy sources into the grid.The researchers point out that the system they suggest might have prevented or at least lessened the kind of widespread power outage that Puerto Rico experienced last week by providing analysis to guide rerouting of power through different lines and thus limit the spread of the outage.The computer platform, which the researchers describe as DyMonDS, for Dynamic Monitoring and Decision Systems, can be used to enhance the existing operating and planning practices used in the electric industry. The platform supports interactive information exchange and decision-making between the grid operators and grid-edge users — all the distributed power sources, storage systems and software that contribute to the grid. It also supports optimization of available resources and controllable grid equipment as system conditions vary. It further lends itself to implementing cooperative decision-making by different utility- and non-utility-owned electric power grid users, including portfolios of mixed resources, users, and storage. Operating and planning the interactions of the end-to-end high-voltage transmission grid with local distribution grids and microgrids represents another major potential use of this platform.This general approach was illustrated using a set of publicly-available data on both meteorology and details of electricity production and distribution in Puerto Rico. An extended AC Optimal Power Flow software developed by SmartGridz Inc. is used for system-level optimization of controllable equipment. This provides real-time guidance for deciding how much power, and through which transmission lines, should be channeled by adjusting plant dispatch and voltage-related set points, and in extreme cases, where to reduce or cut power in order to maintain physically-implementable service for as many customers as possible. The team found that the use of such a system can help to ensure that the greatest number of critical services maintain power even during a hurricane, and at the same time can lead to a substantial decrease in the need for construction of new power plants thanks to more efficient use of existing resources.The findings are described in a paper in the journal Foundations and Trends in Electric Energy Systems, by MIT LIDS researchers Marija Ilic and Laurentiu Anton, along with recent alumna Ramapathi Jaddivada.“Using this software,” Ilic says, they show that “even during bad weather, if you predict equipment failures, and by using that information exchange, you can localize the effect of equipment failures and still serve a lot of customers, 50 percent of customers, when otherwise things would black out.”Anton says that “the way many grids today are operated is sub-optimal.” As a result, “we showed how much better they could do even under normal conditions, without any failures, by utilizing this software.” The savings resulting from this optimization, under everyday conditions, could be in the tens of percents, they say.The way utility systems plan currently, Ilic says, “usually the standard is that they have to build enough capacity and operate in real time so that if one large piece of equipment fails, like a large generator or transmission line, you still serve customers in an uninterrupted way. That’s what’s called N-minus-1.” Under this policy, if one major component of the system fails, they should be able to maintain service for at least 30 minutes. That system allows utilities to plan for how much reserve generating capacity they need to have on hand. That’s expensive, Ilic points out, because it means maintaining this reserve capacity all the time, even under normal operating conditions when it’s not needed.In addition, “right now there are no criteria for what I call N-minus-K,” she says. If bad weather causes five pieces of equipment to fail at once, “there is no software to help utilities decide what to schedule” in terms of keeping the most customers, and the most important services such as hospitals and emergency services, provided with power. They showed that even with 50 percent of the infrastructure out of commission, it would still be possible to keep power flowing to a large proportion of customers.Their work on analyzing the power situation in Puerto Rico started after the island had been devastated by hurricanes Irma and Maria. Most of the electric generation capacity is in the south, yet the largest loads are in San Juan, in the north, and Mayaguez in the west. When transmission lines get knocked down, a lot of rerouting of power needs to happen quickly.With the new systems, “the software finds the optimal adjustments for set points,” for example, changing voltages can allow for power to be redirected through less-congested lines, or can be increased to lessen power losses, Anton says.The software also helps in the long-term planning for the grid. As many fossil-fuel power plants are scheduled to be decommissioned soon in Puerto Rico, as they are in many other places, planning for how to replace that power without having to resort to greenhouse gas-emitting sources is a key to achieving carbon-reduction goals. And by analyzing usage patterns, the software can guide the placement of new renewable power sources where they can most efficiently provide power where and when it’s needed.As plants are retired or as components are affected by weather, “We wanted to ensure the dispatchability of power when the load changes,” Anton says, “but also when crucial components are lost, to ensure the robustness at each step of the retirement schedule.”One thing they found was that “if you look at how much generating capacity exists, it’s more than the peak load, even after you retire a few fossil plants,” Ilic says. “But it’s hard to deliver.” Strategic planning of new distribution lines could make a big difference.Jaddivada, director of innovation at SmartGridz, says that “we evaluated different possible architectures in Puerto Rico, and we showed the ability of this software to ensure uninterrupted electricity service. This is the most important challenge utilities have today. They have to go through a computationally tedious process to make sure the grid functions for any possible outage in the system. And that can be done in a much more efficient way through the software that the company  developed.”The project was a collaborative effort between the MIT LIDS researchers and others at MIT Lincoln Laboratory, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, with overall help of SmartGridz software.  More

  • in

    So you want to build a solar or wind farm? Here’s how to decide where.

    Deciding where to build new solar or wind installations is often left up to individual developers or utilities, with limited overall coordination. But a new study shows that regional-level planning using fine-grained weather data, information about energy use, and energy system modeling can make a big difference in the design of such renewable power installations. This also leads to more efficient and economically viable operations.The findings show the benefits of coordinating the siting of solar farms, wind farms, and storage systems, taking into account local and temporal variations in wind, sunlight, and energy demand to maximize the utilization of renewable resources. This approach can reduce the need for sizable investments in storage, and thus the total system cost, while maximizing availability of clean power when it’s needed, the researchers found.The study, appearing today in the journal Cell Reports Sustainability, was co-authored by Liying Qiu and Rahman Khorramfar, postdocs in MIT’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, and professors Saurabh Amin and Michael Howland.Qiu, the lead author, says that with the team’s new approach, “we can harness the resource complementarity, which means that renewable resources of different types, such as wind and solar, or different locations can compensate for each other in time and space. This potential for spatial complementarity to improve system design has not been emphasized and quantified in existing large-scale planning.”Such complementarity will become ever more important as variable renewable energy sources account for a greater proportion of power entering the grid, she says. By coordinating the peaks and valleys of production and demand more smoothly, she says, “we are actually trying to use the natural variability itself to address the variability.”Typically, in planning large-scale renewable energy installations, Qiu says, “some work on a country level, for example saying that 30 percent of energy should be wind and 20 percent solar. That’s very general.” For this study, the team looked at both weather data and energy system planning modeling on a scale of less than 10-kilometer (about 6-mile) resolution. “It’s a way of determining where should we, exactly, build each renewable energy plant, rather than just saying this city should have this many wind or solar farms,” she explains.To compile their data and enable high-resolution planning, the researchers relied on a variety of sources that had not previously been integrated. They used high-resolution meteorological data from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which is publicly available at 2-kilometer resolution but rarely used in a planning model at such a fine scale. These data were combined with an energy system model they developed to optimize siting at a sub-10-kilometer resolution. To get a sense of how the fine-scale data and model made a difference in different regions, they focused on three U.S. regions — New England, Texas, and California — analyzing up to 138,271 possible siting locations simultaneously for a single region.By comparing the results of siting based on a typical method vs. their high-resolution approach, the team showed that “resource complementarity really helps us reduce the system cost by aligning renewable power generation with demand,” which should translate directly to real-world decision-making, Qiu says. “If an individual developer wants to build a wind or solar farm and just goes to where there is the most wind or solar resource on average, it may not necessarily guarantee the best fit into a decarbonized energy system.”That’s because of the complex interactions between production and demand for electricity, as both vary hour by hour, and month by month as seasons change. “What we are trying to do is minimize the difference between the energy supply and demand rather than simply supplying as much renewable energy as possible,” Qiu says. “Sometimes your generation cannot be utilized by the system, while at other times, you don’t have enough to match the demand.”In New England, for example, the new analysis shows there should be more wind farms in locations where there is a strong wind resource during the night, when solar energy is unavailable. Some locations tend to be windier at night, while others tend to have more wind during the day.These insights were revealed through the integration of high-resolution weather data and energy system optimization used by the researchers. When planning with lower resolution weather data, which was generated at a 30-kilometer resolution globally and is more commonly used in energy system planning, there was much less complementarity among renewable power plants. Consequently, the total system cost was much higher. The complementarity between wind and solar farms was enhanced by the high-resolution modeling due to improved representation of renewable resource variability.The researchers say their framework is very flexible and can be easily adapted to any region to account for the local geophysical and other conditions. In Texas, for example, peak winds in the west occur in the morning, while along the south coast they occur in the afternoon, so the two naturally complement each other.Khorramfar says that this work “highlights the importance of data-driven decision making in energy planning.” The work shows that using such high-resolution data coupled with carefully formulated energy planning model “can drive the system cost down, and ultimately offer more cost-effective pathways for energy transition.”One thing that was surprising about the findings, says Amin, who is a principal investigator in the MIT Laboratory of Information and Data Systems, is how significant the gains were from analyzing relatively short-term variations in inputs and outputs that take place in a 24-hour period. “The kind of cost-saving potential by trying to harness complementarity within a day was not something that one would have expected before this study,” he says.In addition, Amin says, it was also surprising how much this kind of modeling could reduce the need for storage as part of these energy systems. “This study shows that there is actually a hidden cost-saving potential in exploiting local patterns in weather, that can result in a monetary reduction in storage cost.”The system-level analysis and planning suggested by this study, Howland says, “changes how we think about where we site renewable power plants and how we design those renewable plants, so that they maximally serve the energy grid. It has to go beyond just driving down the cost of energy of individual wind or solar farms. And these new insights can only be realized if we continue collaborating across traditional research boundaries, by integrating expertise in fluid dynamics, atmospheric science, and energy engineering.”The research was supported by the MIT Climate and Sustainability Consortium and MIT Climate Grand Challenges. More

  • in

    Is there enough land on Earth to fight climate change and feed the world?

    Capping global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius is a tall order. Achieving that goal will not only require a massive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, but also a substantial reallocation of land to support that effort and sustain the biosphere, including humans. More land will be needed to accommodate a growing demand for bioenergy and nature-based carbon sequestration while ensuring sufficient acreage for food production and ecological sustainability.The expanding role of land in a 1.5 C world will be twofold — to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and to produce clean energy. Land-based carbon dioxide removal strategies include bioenergy with carbon capture and storage; direct air capture; and afforestation/reforestation and other nature-based solutions. Land-based clean energy production includes wind and solar farms and sustainable bioenergy cropland. Any decision to allocate more land for climate mitigation must also address competing needs for long-term food security and ecosystem health.Land-based climate mitigation choices vary in terms of costs — amount of land required, implications for food security, impact on biodiversity and other ecosystem services — and benefits — potential for sequestering greenhouse gases and producing clean energy.Now a study in the journal Frontiers in Environmental Science provides the most comprehensive analysis to date of competing land-use and technology options to limit global warming to 1.5 C. Led by researchers at the MIT Center for Sustainability Science and Strategy (CS3), the study applies the MIT Integrated Global System Modeling (IGSM) framework to evaluate costs and benefits of different land-based climate mitigation options in Sky2050, a 1.5 C climate-stabilization scenario developed by Shell.Under this scenario, demand for bioenergy and natural carbon sinks increase along with the need for sustainable farming and food production. To determine if there’s enough land to meet all these growing demands, the research team uses the global hectare (gha) — an area of 10,000 square meters, or 2.471 acres — as the standard unit of measurement, and current estimates of the Earth’s total habitable land area (about 10 gha) and land area used for food production and bioenergy (5 gha).The team finds that with transformative changes in policy, land management practices, and consumption patterns, global land is sufficient to provide a sustainable supply of food and ecosystem services throughout this century while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions in alignment with the 1.5 C goal. These transformative changes include policies to protect natural ecosystems; stop deforestation and accelerate reforestation and afforestation; promote advances in sustainable agriculture technology and practice; reduce agricultural and food waste; and incentivize consumers to purchase sustainably produced goods.If such changes are implemented, 2.5–3.5 gha of land would be used for NBS practices to sequester 3–6 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2 per year, and 0.4–0.6 gha of land would be allocated for energy production — 0.2–0.3 gha for bioenergy and 0.2–0.35 gha for wind and solar power generation.“Our scenario shows that there is enough land to support a 1.5 degree C future as long as effective policies at national and global levels are in place,” says CS3 Principal Research Scientist Angelo Gurgel, the study’s lead author. “These policies must not only promote efficient use of land for food, energy, and nature, but also be supported by long-term commitments from government and industry decision-makers.” More

  • in

    New solar projects will grow renewable energy generation for four major campus buildings

    In the latest step to implement commitments made in MIT’s Fast Forward climate action plan, staff from the Department of Facilities; Office of Sustainability; and Environment, Health and Safety Office are advancing new solar panel installations this fall and winter on four major campus buildings: The Stratton Student Center (W20), the Dewey Library building (E53), and two newer buildings, New Vassar (W46) and the Theater Arts building (W97).These four new installations, in addition to existing rooftop solar installations on campus, are “just one part of our broader strategy to reduce MIT’s carbon footprint and transition to clean energy,” says Joe Higgins, vice president for campus services and stewardship.The installations will not only meet but exceed the target set for total solar energy production on campus in the Fast Forward climate action plan that was issued in 2021. With an initial target of 500 kilowatts of installed solar capacity on campus, the new installations, along with those already in place, will bring the total output to roughly 650 kW, exceeding the goal. The solar installations are an important facet of MIT’s approach to eliminating all direct campus emissions by 2050.The process of advancing to the stage of placing solar panels on campus rooftops is much more complex than just getting them installed on an ordinary house. The process began with a detailed assessment of the potential for reducing the campus greenhouse gas footprint. A first cut eliminated rooftops that were too shaded by trees or other buildings. Then, the schedule for regular replacement of roofs had to be taken into account — it’s better to put new solar panels on top of a roof that will not need replacement in a few years. Other roofs, especially lab buildings, simply had too much existing equipment on them to allow a large area of space for solar panels.Randa Ghattas, senior sustainability project manager, and Taya Dixon, assistant director for capital budgets and contracts within the Department of Facilities, spearheaded the project. Their initial assessment showed that there were many buildings identified with significant solar potential, and it took the impetus of the Fast Forward plan to kick things into action. Even after winnowing down the list of campus buildings based on shading and the life cycle of roof replacements, there were still many other factors to consider. Some buildings that had ample roof space were of older construction that couldn’t bear the loads of a full solar installation without significant reconstruction. “That actually has proved trickier than we thought,” Ghattas says. For example, one building that seemed a good candidate, and already had some solar panels on it, proved unable to sustain the greater weight and wind loads of a full solar installation. Structural capacity, she says, turned out to be “probably the most important” factor in this case.The roofs on the Student Center and on the Dewey Library building were replaced in the last few years with the intention of the later addition of solar panels. And the two newer buildings were designed from the beginning with solar in mind, even though the solar panels were not part of the initial construction. “The designs were built into them to accommodate solar,” Dixon says, “so those were easy options for us because we knew the buildings were solar-ready and could support solar being integrated into their systems, both the electrical system and the structural system of the roof.”But there were also other considerations. The Student Center is considered a historically significant building, so the installation had to be designed so that it was invisible from street level, even including a safety railing that had to be built around the solar array. But that was not a problem. “It was fine for this building,” Ghattas says, because it turned out that the geometry of the building and the roofs hid the safety railing from view below.Each installation will connect directly to the building’s electrical system, and thus into the campus grid. The power they produce will be used in the buildings they are on, though none will be sufficient to fully power its building. Overall, the new installations, in addition to the existing ones on the MIT Sloan School of Management building (E62) and the Alumni Pool (57) and the planned array on the new Graduate Junction dorm (W87-W88), will be enough to power 5 to 10 percent of the buildings’ electric needs, and offset about 190 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions each year, Ghattas says. This is equivalent to the electricity use of 35 homes annually.Each building installation is expected to take just a couple of weeks. “We’re hopeful that we’re going to have everything installed and operational by the end of this calendar year,” she says.Other buildings could be added in coming years, as their roof replacement cycles come around. With the lessons learned along the way in getting to this point, Ghattas says, “now that we have a system in place, hopefully it’s going to be much easier in the future.”Higgins adds that “in parallel with the solar projects, we’re working on expanding electric vehicle charging stations and the electric vehicle fleet and reducing energy consumption in campus buildings.”Besides the on-campus improvements, he says, “MIT is focused on both the local and the global.” In addition to solar installations on campus buildings, which can only mitigate a small portion of campus emissions, “large-scale aggregation partnerships are key to moving the actual market landscape for adding cleaner energy generation to power grids,” which must ultimately lead to zero emissions, he says. “We are spurring the development of new utility-grade renewable energy facilities in regions with high carbon-intensive electrical grids. These projects have an immediate and significant impact in the urgently needed decarbonization of regional power grids.”MIT is also making more advances to accelerate renewable energy generation and electricity grid decarbonization at the local and state level. The Institute has recently concluded an agreement through the Solar Massachusetts Renewable Target program that supports the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ state solar power development goals by enabling the construction of a new 5-megawatt solar energy facility on Cape Cod. The new solar energy system is integral to supporting a new net-zero emissions development that includes affordable housing, while also providing additional resiliency to the local grid.Higgins says that other technologies, strategies, and practices are being evaluated for heating, cooling, and power for the campus, “with zero carbon emissions by 2050, utilizing cleaner energy sources.” He adds that these campus initiatives “are part of MIT’s larger Climate Project, aiming to drive progress both on campus and beyond, advancing broader partnerships, new market models, and informing approaches to climate policy.”  More

  • in

    New solar projects will grow renewable energy generation for four major campus buildings

    In the latest step to implement commitments made in MIT’s Fast Forward climate action plan, staff from the Department of Facilities; Office of Sustainability; and Environment, Health and Safety Office are advancing new solar panel installations this fall and winter on four major campus buildings: The Stratton Student Center (W20), the Dewey Library building (E53), and two newer buildings, New Vassar (W46) and the Theater Arts building (W97).These four new installations, in addition to existing rooftop solar installations on campus, are “just one part of our broader strategy to reduce MIT’s carbon footprint and transition to clean energy,” says Joe Higgins, vice president for campus services and stewardship.The installations will not only meet but exceed the target set for total solar energy production on campus in the Fast Forward climate action plan that was issued in 2021. With an initial target of 500 kilowatts of installed solar capacity on campus, the new installations, along with those already in place, will bring the total output to roughly 650 kW, exceeding the goal. The solar installations are an important facet of MIT’s approach to eliminating all direct campus emissions by 2050.The process of advancing to the stage of placing solar panels on campus rooftops is much more complex than just getting them installed on an ordinary house. The process began with a detailed assessment of the potential for reducing the campus greenhouse gas footprint. A first cut eliminated rooftops that were too shaded by trees or other buildings. Then, the schedule for regular replacement of roofs had to be taken into account — it’s better to put new solar panels on top of a roof that will not need replacement in a few years. Other roofs, especially lab buildings, simply had too much existing equipment on them to allow a large area of space for solar panels.Randa Ghattas, senior sustainability project manager, and Taya Dixon, assistant director for capital budgets and contracts within the Department of Facilities, spearheaded the project. Their initial assessment showed that there were many buildings identified with significant solar potential, and it took the impetus of the Fast Forward plan to kick things into action. Even after winnowing down the list of campus buildings based on shading and the life cycle of roof replacements, there were still many other factors to consider. Some buildings that had ample roof space were of older construction that couldn’t bear the loads of a full solar installation without significant reconstruction. “That actually has proved trickier than we thought,” Ghattas says. For example, one building that seemed a good candidate, and already had some solar panels on it, proved unable to sustain the greater weight and wind loads of a full solar installation. Structural capacity, she says, turned out to be “probably the most important” factor in this case.The roofs on the Student Center and on the Dewey Library building were replaced in the last few years with the intention of the later addition of solar panels. And the two newer buildings were designed from the beginning with solar in mind, even though the solar panels were not part of the initial construction. “The designs were built into them to accommodate solar,” Dixon says, “so those were easy options for us because we knew the buildings were solar-ready and could support solar being integrated into their systems, both the electrical system and the structural system of the roof.”But there were also other considerations. The Student Center is considered a historically significant building, so the installation had to be designed so that it was invisible from street level, even including a safety railing that had to be built around the solar array. But that was not a problem. “It was fine for this building,” Ghattas says, because it turned out that the geometry of the building and the roofs hid the safety railing from view below.Each installation will connect directly to the building’s electrical system, and thus into the campus grid. The power they produce will be used in the buildings they are on, though none will be sufficient to fully power its building. Overall, the new installations, in addition to the existing ones on the MIT Sloan School of Management building (E62) and the Alumni Pool (57) and the planned array on the new Graduate Junction dorm (W87-W88), will be enough to power 5 to 10 percent of the buildings’ electric needs, and offset about 190 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions each year, Ghattas says. This is equivalent to the electricity use of 35 homes annually.Each building installation is expected to take just a couple of weeks. “We’re hopeful that we’re going to have everything installed and operational by the end of this calendar year,” she says.Other buildings could be added in coming years, as their roof replacement cycles come around. With the lessons learned along the way in getting to this point, Ghattas says, “now that we have a system in place, hopefully it’s going to be much easier in the future.”Higgins adds that “in parallel with the solar projects, we’re working on expanding electric vehicle charging stations and the electric vehicle fleet and reducing energy consumption in campus buildings.”Besides the on-campus improvements, he says, “MIT is focused on both the local and the global.” In addition to solar installations on campus buildings, which can only mitigate a small portion of campus emissions, “large-scale aggregation partnerships are key to moving the actual market landscape for adding cleaner energy generation to power grids,” which must ultimately lead to zero emissions, he says. “We are spurring the development of new utility-grade renewable energy facilities in regions with high carbon-intensive electrical grids. These projects have an immediate and significant impact in the urgently needed decarbonization of regional power grids.”MIT is also making more advances to accelerate renewable energy generation and electricity grid decarbonization at the local and state level. The Institute has recently concluded an agreement through the Solar Massachusetts Renewable Target program that supports the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ state solar power development goals by enabling the construction of a new 5-megawatt solar energy facility on Cape Cod. The new solar energy system is integral to supporting a new net-zero emissions development that includes affordable housing, while also providing additional resiliency to the local grid.Higgins says that other technologies, strategies, and practices are being evaluated for heating, cooling, and power for the campus, “with zero carbon emissions by 2050, utilizing cleaner energy sources.” He adds that these campus initiatives “are part of MIT’s larger Climate Project, aiming to drive progress both on campus and beyond, advancing broader partnerships, new market models, and informing approaches to climate policy.”  More