From Watts Up With That?

Roger Caiazza

Readers may recall my articles (DEFR Concerns Update November 2024 and Compendium of DEFR analyses July 2024) last year about New York’s magical new Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resource (DEFR) technologies. New York agencies all agree that new resources are needed to make a solar and wind-reliant electric energy system viable during extended periods of low wind and solar resource availability.  This article describes a recent report about DEFR technologies prepared for New York.

A New York Public Service Commission (PSC) May 2023 Order notes that the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) directs the PSC to establish a program to ensure that the electric sector targets are achieved and explains that “there is a gap between the capabilities of existing renewable energy technology and expected future system reliability requirements.”  It concludes: “This Order initiates a process to identify technologies that can close the gap between the capabilities of existing renewable energy technologies and future system reliability needs, and more broadly identify the actions needed to pursue attainment of the Zero Emission by 2040 Target.” 

All credible projections for New York electric resources include a substantial estimate for DEFR.  The New York Independent System Operator 2023-2042 System & Resource Outlook establishes a baseline requirement of 20 GW of DEFR capacity by 2040 to replace the current 25.3 GW of fossil generation.  There are other projections calling for much more.

The New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) recently announced the completion of its Zero by 40 Technoeconomic Assessment (Zero by 40 Report).  The study was prepared by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) under contract to NYSERDA.  It evaluates potential DEFR technologies needed for New York’s goal of a zero-emissions electric grid by 2040. ​

Technologies Evaluated in the Zero by 40 Technoeconomic Assessment

Section 1.4 in the Zero by 40 Report describes the technologies evaluated:

This report evaluates potential resources that can provide firm energy and capacity in a zero-emissions power sector. The study examines seven technology categories that could serve as DEFRs. These technologies are grouped into three resource groups based on their expected operational characteristics. While some resources can be configured to serve different roles, these groupings reflect constraints on costs, emissions, and availability in New York State, which are discussed later in the report.

Low-capacity factor resources can be deployed during periods of high demand and low renewable generation, offering reliability, fast-ramping capabilities, and no duration limitations, assuming fuel availability, but are not operated as baseload units due to plant economics. Low-capacity factor Resources include:

• Hydrogen (H₂)
• Renewable natural gas (RNG) and renewable diesel (RD)

High-capacity factor resources operate the majority of the year and can provide reliable baseload power, including power during challenging events, but are less suitable for fast ramping or frequent starts and stops. High-capacity factor resources include:

• Advanced nuclear including three types:
  • Large light water reactors (LLWRs) that are large reactors (>600 megawatts electric [MWe], pressurized water reactors and boiling water reactors, using low-enriched uranium fuel and water as the coolant and moderator. Advanced LLWRs incorporate evolutionary safety features and improved performance compared to earlier generations.
  • Light water small modular reactors (lwSMRs) that are small reactors (50–300 MWe) derived from LLWR designs, often with an integrated reactor and steam generator in a single containment vessel.
  • Non-water-cooled reactors: Reactors, both small and large, using a coolant and moderator other than water and often a high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) fuel.
• Carbon capture and storage (CCS) on thermal plants
• Geothermal including four types:
  • Conventional geothermal or Hydrothermal
  • Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) generates electricity from hot dry rock,
  • Closed-Loop Geothermal Systems (CLGS) refers to a new generation of systems in which no fluids are introduced to or extracted from the earth.
  • Superhot rock geothermal (SHR) targets deeper formations with temperatures exceeding 450⁰C,

Gap-rightsizing resources can help balance supply and demand to adjust the capacity gap. While they do not generate electricity directly, they enhance the utilization of other clean resources. Gap-rightsizing resources include:

• Long duration energy storage (LDES) Note that this refers to interday storage (10-36 hours)
• Virtual power plants (VPP)

Technology Assessment Summary

I am not going to include descriptions of the resources considered because of time and space considerations.  Instead, I will summarize the Chapter 9 explanations of the results for the three functional DEFR categories. The report uses the following comparison criteria: performance attributes, readiness by 2040, infrastructure and supply chain readiness dynamics, project lead times, emissions and other considerations, cost, and scalability for 2040.

The Low-Capacity resource summary of the evaluation of these resources states:

Low-capacity factor resources are expected to be critical in any future zero-emission grid, offering reliability and fast-ramping capabilities on days with the most extreme system needs. Each technology evaluated has advantages and challenges. Infrastructure constraints and high costs may limit the widespread availability of H2 in 2040, but low GHG emissions, especially for green H2, will likely provide value across various industries in 2040 and beyond, making investments in pilot projects and eventual strategic infrastructure deployment important from an economywide perspective.

RNG and RD may be the most viable low-capacity factor resources for 2040 deployment given their technology readiness, existing fuel transport infrastructure, and ability to serve as drop-in fuels in existing plants. However, the combination of feedstock limitations, competition for fuels from other sectors and states, and GHG considerations necessitates limiting their use to low-capacity factor applications.

The High-Capacity resource evaluation summary states:

High-capacity factor resources are valuable for meeting existing load and expected load growth. While renewables are projected to supply most of the energy demand in 2040, high-capacity factor resources can provide firm power and grid services that support reliability in a predominantly renewable grid. Their high energy density also helps mitigate potential land-use challenges associated with large-scale renewable deployment. High-capacity factor resources could also reduce the need for low-capacity factor resources, which are expensive and mostly idle. However, high-capacity factor resource technologies require long lead times, often 10 years or more. To ensure they are operational by 2040, stakeholders must take early action.

Each technology offers unique advantages and faces specific challenges. From a deployment-readiness perspective, LLWRs and CCS are the most prepared for near-term implementation. However, lwSMRs and non-water-cooled reactors could also become commercially viable by 2040. Geothermal, while promising, has lower readiness and limited scalability in New York State.

The Zero by 40 report does not summarize gap-rightsizing resources.  Both gap-rightsizing resources LDES and VPP are largely ready for deployment.  Costs for VPP are lower than other technologies but depend on costumer participation which makes availability uncertain.  Furthermore, there are limits to the energy potential of this technology.  LDES batteries will be more expensive, but “has the potential for longer discharge durations and higher operational certainty, but it is also a net load on the grid due to the need to recharge and round-trip efficiency losses.”

Implications

The Zero by 40 Report modifies the services provided by DEFR. The original DEFR concern focused only on low-resource episodes that would be served by the low-capacity DEFR category.  The report adds high-capacity factor DEFR which is best suited to operate most of the year providing reliable baseload power but can also provide power during challenging events, albeit these resources are “less suitable for fast ramping or frequent starts and stops.”  The gap-rightsizing resource category “help balance supply and demand to adjust the capacity gap”.  This is not the rare peak-load gap associated with low wind resource availability.  Instead, this gap is the more common inter-day gap when there is not enough short-term storage to adequately support load.

In my opinion, these changes reflect the need to address inconvenient issues.  The most promising DEFR backup technology is nuclear generation because it is the only candidate resource that is technologically ready, can be expanded as needed, and does not suffer from limitations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But there are two nuclear issues regarding the Climate Act mandate to use renewables.  It is not suitable as only backup for the short-term peak because it is best used as a high-capacity resource.   That means that logically it should be used as the primary electric resource instead of wind and solar if only because it eliminates the need for massive redundant DEFR backup. 

Another takeaway from these expanded DEFR categories is that it recognizes that New York is not well-suited for wind and solar resource availability.  As a result, there is the need for more kinds of DEFR.  The Zero by 40 Report also notes that there are even more required resources to support renewables including  “short-duration storage and grid-forming inverters” and “Other technologies, such as regional and in-state transmission and dynamic line ratings” that resolve transmission issues.

I admit that I was not familiar with the term “technoeconomic”.  When I looked it up, I found that there is another similar term “techno-economic analysis”.   The difference is relevant.  Technoeconomic assessment is an adjective that describes an analysis that includes both technical and economic factors.  A techno-economic analysis is a formal process that compares technical and economic performance that informs decision making.  This report is a technoeconomic assessment but what New York needs is a techno-economic analysis.

The Zero by 40 Report is like other New York energy policy documents because they all address technical and economic factors but do not include a feasibility analysis supporting a particular proposed pathway.  No state report provides comprehensive, technology-specific cost estimates that would allow direct comparison of technologies to each other and to conventional alternatives.  Technological considerations are noted but not resolved.  A techno-economic analysis would provide the details necessary to determine feasibility of a future system meeting the legal mandates of New York law.

Francis Menton recently described the New York Supreme Court decision that required the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to issue final regulations establishing economy-wide greenhouse gas emission (GHG) limits on or before Feb. 6, 2026 or modify the Climate Act schedule.  Although the authors of the Zero by 40 Report did not explicitly say that the DEFR technologies needed to meet the 2040 Climate Act zero emissions target would not be available, they certainly did not say it would be ready either.   In my opinion, it is time for the Legislature to reconsider not only the schedule but the aspiration of the Climate Act because of the findings of this report.

Conclusion

This report provides multiple reasons that New York State needs to pause Climate Act implementation.  Future action should only proceed if reliability requirements are ensured and this report identifies issues that may make that impossible.

---

Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York.  This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other company with which he has been associated.