New York Prepares To Go Full Speed Ahead With Energy Storage Goals

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

The New York Public Service Commission (NYPSC) has taken the next step toward reaching its energy storage goals when it accepted the environmental review report connected to the state’s Energy Storage Roadmap.

The roadmap, announced with great fanfare by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, envisions 1.5 GW of storage installed in the state over the next seven years. The NYPSC has undertaken steps to make that goal a reality in the most effective, environmentally friendly way possible.

According to a release announcing its acceptance of the environmental review, the NYPSC says the goal means that nearly one-fifth of New York households could have energy storage once the 1.5 GW is installed.

[wds id=”3″]

“Energy storage is not only crucial to achieving our goal of 50 percent renewable energy by 2030, it will improve the resiliency of the grid as we face extreme weather events and other emergency situations,” said Commission Chair John B. Rhodes. “With this step, we continue to advance the deployment of energy storage, in line with the target of 1,500 MW deployed by 2025.”

Under the state’s Environmental Quality Review Act, the NYPSC had to conduct the review whose findings it accepted. It found a number of positive effects assocaited with the roadmap thanks to the reductions of peak-load demand, increased grid efficiency and the displacement of fossil-fuel based generation. These outcomes would result, the report said, in improved economic, health and environmental benefits.

At the same time, the negative effects are negligible.

According to the release, the benefits may include:

Creation of approximately 30,000 jobs associated with energy storage research and development, development, manufacturing, installation and other support services;
Mitigation of the impacts of climate change from approximately 2 million metric tons of avoided greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; and
Improvement in public health from avoided emissions of criteria air pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx) and particulate matter (PM2.5). To the extent that these avoided air emissions occur from the displacement of peaker plants located in Potential Environmental Justice Areas (PEJAs), the associated benefits may accrue to these vulnerable communities.

New York’s Governor Cuomo has made renewable energy one of the hallmarks of his time in office, and while New York still lags behind California (and doesn’t even make the Solar Energy Industries Association’s list of Top 10 Solar States), aggressive targets like this are what will get them back into the game and put their renewable energy future on par with its New England cohort. States like Massachusetts and New Jersey await its arrival.

Utility-Scale Storage Comes To Massachusetts

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

After receiving a grant from Massachusetts of $875,000, National Grid has added its first battery – a vanadium redox-flow battery (VRB) – in connection with its 1 MW solar farm outside of Shirley, Massachusetts, according to reports in the RTO Insider newsletter.

The battery setup is designed to demonstrate how utility-scale storage can work in this state, which is currently ranked No. 7 in the country in overall solar deployment.

[wds id=”3″]

As RTO Insider reports, “Carlos Nouel, vice president of innovation and development at National Grid, told RTO Insider that ‘the Shirley project will serve as a test bed for integrating storage and solar through the use of flow batteries, and support the development of new frameworks for dispatching stored solar power.'”

Integrating storage into the grid is the biggest challenge facing, and the group that won the grant decided to go with VRB instead of traditional lithium because of the utility-scale size. As RTO Insider explains:

A VRB stores chemical energy in the form of vanadium-based electrolyte and generates electricity by inducing a reduction-oxidation (redox) reaction: that is, a transformation of matter by electron transfer across an ion exchange membrane, within a battery stack. The reaction is achieved by either applying an electrical load (discharge) or an electrical supply (charge) to the battery stack as the electrolyte is flowing or being pumped across the membrane.

“Lithium is dominating the storage market, but it is not always the best tool for the job,” said Jonathan Milley, director of business development at Vionx, is quoted by RTO Insider as saying. “Lithium batteries are really for power applications, best-suited for short duration purposes, while vanadium flow batteries are for energy applications, and are therefore a more serious tool for keeping the lights on overnight.”

There are two important things to remember with RTO’s great story about Massachusetts:

1) There are actually markets outside of California where battery storage is being tested successfully. The hope is that this initial deployment will lead to more battery storage being installed in Massachusetts and, therefore, more solar along with it.

2) There are other battery technologies than lithium ion being deployed. While it’s easy to focus on lithium-ion batteries because it’s something with which we’re all familiar, there are other technologies out there, some of which may be better suited for different applications.

More:

Massachusetts Deploys Utility-Scale Energy Storage

Memo To Forbes Writer: Nuclear Energy Is NOT Clean Energy

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

As I was scrolling through my LinkedIn feed this weekend, I ran across an article from Forbes magazine writer Michael Shellenberger that both made me laugh out loud and shake my head.

The headline of the article was “Had They Bet On Nuclear, Not Renewables, Germany & California Would Already Have 100% Clean Power.” Which, if you think about it, is like saying, “If my dog meowed, she’d be a cat.”

Shellenberger bases his article on a study by Environmental Progress, which a quick glance at their website shows is a shill organization for the nuclear power industry. Something you’d think Shellenberger, who writes about energy and the environment, might either be aware of or at least might want to disclose in the article.

[wds id=”3″]

Instead, Shellenberger wants to pretend that this is an organization like the Sierra Club or Greenpeace that are just interested in preserving the environment. He wags his finger at the denizens of the Global Climate Action Summit for not mentioning nuclear, and then goes ahead with his analysis of Germany and California, shaking his head at their foolishness for not investing enormous amounts of money in the nuclear energy.

Here are a couple of key issues that Shellenberger, in full nuclear hawk mode, ignores. First off, and most importantly, nuclear power is not a clean energy source. Even if you ignore the potential safety concerns about having a nuclear power plant in your back yard (and as someone that has two within 100 miles of his home in two directions, I have those concerns), there’s still the question of what to do with the spent fuel rods. Until you finally build that storage facility inside Yucca Mountain, you’re going to have to put those fuel rods somewhere – and right now there’s no safe place to put them.

Furthermore, he conveniently ignores the costs of storing those rods in his evaluation of costs of nuclear plants, which is something that get ignored by most nuclear proponents. And given the most recent struggles in constructing nuclear plants in Georgia and elsewhere, I’m going to respectfully suggest that the construction costs on which Environmental Progress based its projections may be a little understated.

This discussion is not academic. They are currently debating whether to include nuclear as a clean energy in Arizona’s renewable portfolio standard. So articles like this one from Forbes, dishonest as they are, are important to call out when they appear. Let’s make sure this one doesn’t go unanswered.

More:

Had They Bet On Nuclear, Not Renewables, Germany & California Would Already Have 100% Clean Power

Rhode Island Issues RFP For 400 MW Of Renewable Energy

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

When you think of renewable energy leaders, Rhode Island may not immediately leap to mind – but thanks to a recent request for proposal (RFP) issued by Governor Gina M. Raimondo for 400 MW of renewable energy, that may be about to change.

The state’s largest utility National Grid developed the RFP in coordination with the Rhode Island Office of Energy Resources (OER) and Division of Public Utilities & Carriers (DPUC).

According to a release, the state has more than tripled the amount of renewable power in its portfolio since Governor Raimondo announced her goal to bring 1,000 MW of clean energy into the state’s energy portfolio last year.

[wds id=”3″]

“I have set an ambitious goal of making Rhode Island’s energy system ten times cleaner in an affordable and reliable manner, and we’re well on our way,” said Governor Raimondo. “Our commitment to combating climate change is as strong as ever. Along with the recently announced 400 MW Deepwater Wind offshore wind project, this administration is working hard to secure new and diverse supplies of cost-effective clean energy for Rhode Island homes and businesses, reduce our carbon footprint, and spur other benefits for our economy.”

Rhode Island is looking for projects that are greater than 20 MW in size, including such technologies as solar, offshore wind and onshore wind. Competitive project developers must submit their bids by October 29 at noon. Qualified bids will be thoroughly evaluated, with independent oversight by the Office of Energy Resources and Division of Public Utilities & Carriers.

National Grid will be leading this renewable energy procurement, the RFP does allow for potential joint purchases by the Pascoag Utility District and the Block Island Power Company, subject to approval by the respective parties.

The Public Utilities Commission must review and approve selected projects before any contracts are executed. These proceedings, which will include opportunities for public comment, will be accessible to the public and interested stakeholders.