IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/appene/v265y2020ics0306261920303366.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How do non-carbon priorities affect zero-carbon electricity systems? A case study of freshwater consumption and cost for Senate Bill 100 compliance in California

Author

Listed:
  • Tarroja, Brian
  • Peer, Rebecca A.M.
  • Sanders, Kelly T.
  • Grubert, Emily

Abstract

Characterizing the advantages and disadvantages of different electricity resource mixes in meeting electricity decarbonization goals is an active area of research. Many system-level assessments, however, evaluate different mixes on the basis of minimizing electricity costs without accounting for regional environmental externalities. California represents a highly populated region with both aggressive electricity decarbonization policies and water scarcity issues that are projected to worsen under climate change, representing an interesting case study for assessing the tradeoffs between the costs of electricity decarbonization and water resource consumption. This study therefore combines electric grid dispatch modeling and regional life cycle freshwater consumption data to compare in-state freshwater consumption and levelized cost of electricity for four electricity mix scenarios designed to achieve zero-carbon electricity in California by 2045, compliant with current law (California Senate Bill 100). In modeled scenarios, we find that the lowest costs occurred for mixes with lower energy storage capacity needs enabled by high capacity factor and dispatchable renewables. However these mixes also resulted in high freshwater consumption due largely to heavy reliance on geothermal resources. By contrast, the mix with the lowest freshwater consumption relied exclusively on wind, solar, and hydropower and reduced water consumption by an order of magnitude compared to that of the lowest cost mix. Due to lower capacity factors and greater difficulty in matching supply to demand (increasing energy storage needs), this mix increased the levelized cost of electricity by 30%. Overall, our results show that prioritizing low electricity costs as well as other climate-relevant criteria, such as freshwater consumption, in meeting zero-carbon electricity goals will result in a very different electricity mix than simply considering costs alone.

Suggested Citation

  • Tarroja, Brian & Peer, Rebecca A.M. & Sanders, Kelly T. & Grubert, Emily, 2020. "How do non-carbon priorities affect zero-carbon electricity systems? A case study of freshwater consumption and cost for Senate Bill 100 compliance in California," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:265:y:2020:i:c:s0306261920303366
    DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114824
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261920303366
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114824?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Krakowski, Vincent & Assoumou, Edi & Mazauric, Vincent & Maïzi, Nadia, 2016. "Feasible path toward 40–100% renewable energy shares for power supply in France by 2050: A prospective analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 501-522.
    2. Tarroja, Brian & Shaffer, Brendan P. & Samuelsen, Scott, 2018. "Resource portfolio design considerations for materially-efficient planning of 100% renewable electricity systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 460-471.
    3. Dev Millstein & Ryan Wiser & Mark Bolinger & Galen Barbose, 2017. "The climate and air-quality benefits of wind and solar power in the United States," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 2(9), pages 1-10, September.
    4. Krakowski, Vincent & Assoumou, Edi & Mazauric, Vincent & Maïzi, Nadia, 2016. "Reprint of Feasible path toward 40–100% renewable energy shares for power supply in France by 2050: A prospective analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 1529-1550.
    5. Arent, Doug & Pless, Jacquelyn & Mai, Trieu & Wiser, Ryan & Hand, Maureen & Baldwin, Sam & Heath, Garvin & Macknick, Jordan & Bazilian, Morgan & Schlosser, Adam & Denholm, Paul, 2014. "Implications of high renewable electricity penetration in the U.S. for water use, greenhouse gas emissions, land-use, and materials supply," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 368-377.
    6. Eichman, Joshua D. & Mueller, Fabian & Tarroja, Brian & Schell, Lori Smith & Samuelsen, Scott, 2013. "Exploration of the integration of renewable resources into California's electric system using the Holistic Grid Resource Integration and Deployment (HiGRID) tool," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 353-363.
    7. Mi, Zhifu & Zhang, Yunkun & Guan, Dabo & Shan, Yuli & Liu, Zhu & Cong, Ronggang & Yuan, Xiao-Chen & Wei, Yi-Ming, 2016. "Consumption-based emission accounting for Chinese cities," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 1073-1081.
    8. Barbose, Galen & Wiser, Ryan & Heeter, Jenny & Mai, Trieu & Bird, Lori & Bolinger, Mark & Carpenter, Alberta & Heath, Garvin & Keyser, David & Macknick, Jordan & Mills, Andrew & Millstein, Dev, 2016. "A retrospective analysis of benefits and impacts of U.S. renewable portfolio standards," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 645-660.
    9. Akorede, Mudathir Funsho & Hizam, Hashim & Pouresmaeil, Edris, 2010. "Distributed energy resources and benefits to the environment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 724-734, February.
    10. Deason, Wesley, 2018. "Comparison of 100% renewable energy system scenarios with a focus on flexibility and cost," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 3168-3178.
    11. Mileva, Ana & Johnston, Josiah & Nelson, James H. & Kammen, Daniel M., 2016. "Power system balancing for deep decarbonization of the electricity sector," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 1001-1009.
    12. Tarroja, Brian & Chiang, Felicia & AghaKouchak, Amir & Samuelsen, Scott, 2018. "Assessing future water resource constraints on thermally based renewable energy resources in California," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 226(C), pages 49-60.
    13. Zappa, William & Junginger, Martin & van den Broek, Machteld, 2019. "Is a 100% renewable European power system feasible by 2050?," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 233, pages 1027-1050.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Elena Helerea & Marius D. Calin & Cristian Musuroi, 2023. "Water Energy Nexus and Energy Transition—A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-31, February.
    2. Tarroja, Brian & Hittinger, Eric, 2021. "The value of consumer acceptance of controlled electric vehicle charging in a decarbonizing grid: The case of California," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    3. Lingling Zhou & Tao Shi & Qian Zhou, 2023. "Is ICT Development Conducive to Reducing the Vulnerability of Low-Carbon Energy? Evidence from OECD Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-22, January.
    4. Grubert, E. & Zacarias, M., 2022. "Paradigm shifts for environmental assessment of decarbonizing energy systems: Emerging dominance of embodied impacts and design-oriented decision support needs," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Østergaard, P.A. & Lund, H. & Thellufsen, J.Z. & Sorknæs, P. & Mathiesen, B.V., 2022. "Review and validation of EnergyPLAN," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    2. Tian, Shan & He, Haoyang & Kendall, Alissa & Davis, Steven J. & Ogunseitan, Oladele A. & Schoenung, Julie M. & Samuelsen, Scott & Tarroja, Brian, 2021. "Environmental benefit-detriment thresholds for flow battery energy storage systems: A case study in California," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 300(C).
    3. Hansen, Kenneth & Breyer, Christian & Lund, Henrik, 2019. "Status and perspectives on 100% renewable energy systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 471-480.
    4. Maeder, Mattia & Weiss, Olga & Boulouchos, Konstantinos, 2021. "Assessing the need for flexibility technologies in decarbonized power systems: A new model applied to Central Europe," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 282(PA).
    5. Lugovoy, Oleg & Gao, Shuo & Gao, Ji & Jiang, Kejun, 2021. "Feasibility study of China's electric power sector transition to zero emissions by 2050," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    6. Borasio, M. & Moret, S., 2022. "Deep decarbonisation of regional energy systems: A novel modelling approach and its application to the Italian energy transition," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    7. Tarroja, Brian & Shaffer, Brendan P. & Samuelsen, Scott, 2018. "Resource portfolio design considerations for materially-efficient planning of 100% renewable electricity systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 460-471.
    8. Behrang Shirizadeh, Quentin Perrier, and Philippe Quirion, 2022. "How Sensitive are Optimal Fully Renewable Power Systems to Technology Cost Uncertainty?," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1).
    9. Shirizadeh, Behrang & Quirion, Philippe, 2021. "Low-carbon options for the French power sector: What role for renewables, nuclear energy and carbon capture and storage?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    10. Tarroja, Brian & Hittinger, Eric, 2021. "The value of consumer acceptance of controlled electric vehicle charging in a decarbonizing grid: The case of California," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    11. Fortes, Patrícia & Simoes, Sofia G. & Gouveia, João Pedro & Seixas, Júlia, 2019. "Electricity, the silver bullet for the deep decarbonisation of the energy system? Cost-effectiveness analysis for Portugal," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 237(C), pages 292-303.
    12. Mostafa Rezaei & Ali Mostafaeipour & Mojtaba Qolipour & Hamid-Reza Arabnia, 2018. "Hydrogen production using wind energy from sea water: A case study on Southern and Northern coasts of Iran," Energy & Environment, , vol. 29(3), pages 333-357, May.
    13. Vaillancourt, Kathleen & Bahn, Olivier & Frenette, Erik & Sigvaldason, Oskar, 2017. "Exploring deep decarbonization pathways to 2050 for Canada using an optimization energy model framework," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 774-785.
    14. Lo Piano, S. & Smith, S.T., 2022. "Energy demand and its temporal flexibility: Approaches, criticalities and ways forward," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    15. Tarroja, Brian & Chiang, Felicia & AghaKouchak, Amir & Samuelsen, Scott & Raghavan, Shuba V. & Wei, Max & Sun, Kaiyu & Hong, Tianzhen, 2018. "Translating climate change and heating system electrification impacts on building energy use to future greenhouse gas emissions and electric grid capacity requirements in California," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 225(C), pages 522-534.
    16. Rivera, Nathaly M. & Ruiz-Tagle, J. Cristobal & Spiller, Elisheba, 2024. "The health benefits of solar power generation: Evidence from Chile," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    17. Copp, David A. & Nguyen, Tu A. & Byrne, Raymond H. & Chalamala, Babu R., 2022. "Optimal sizing of distributed energy resources for planning 100% renewable electric power systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PE).
    18. Mauleón, Ignacio, 2019. "Optimizing individual renewable energies roadmaps: Criteria, methods, and end targets," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 253(C), pages 1-1.
    19. Mertens, Tim & Poncelet, Kris & Duerinck, Jan & Delarue, Erik, 2020. "Representing cross-border trade of electricity in long-term energy-system optimization models with a limited geographical scope," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 261(C).
    20. Zerrahn, Alexander & Schill, Wolf-Peter, 2017. "Long-run power storage requirements for high shares of renewables: review and a new model," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 1518-1534.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:265:y:2020:i:c:s0306261920303366. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405891/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.