As the future is never known with certainty, the evaluation of the prospective benefits requires the formation of expectations.
– Dale Mortensen
An earlier article in this series – How to Evaluate Benefits Delivered by an Energy Option – showed that a second step in a decision-making process for adopting a renewable energy option might look like decision-makers evaluating benefits of energy options available for adoption. In this article, I’m going to show you a first-ever method for evaluating performance benefits of an energy option.
* * * *
An energy option might be said to deliver performance benefits to the extent that the option delivers a desired energy service (electric power, heating & cooling, transportation) having desired physical properties (frequency, voltage, temperature, speed, time) to a user of the energy service provided by the energy option.
Put another away, an energy option might be said to deliver performance benefits to the extent it “works” for an energy service user.
For purposes of evaluating performance benefits of an energy option, energy options might be divided into 2 categories – energy options for stationary uses, and energy options for mobile uses — as shown in Figure 1:
For purposes of evaluating performance benefits of an energy option for stationary uses, energy options for stationary uses might be further divided into 2 categories – energy options for electric power uses, and energy options for heating & cooling uses, as shown in Figure 2:
* * * *
What Might Evaluating Performance Benefits of an Energy Option
for Electric Power Uses Look Like?
An electric power grid “performs” when physical properties (such as frequency and voltage) of electric power provided to users of electric power are maintained within specified “reliable” ranges over time.
An electric power grid fails to perform when such physical properties are not maintained within such reliable ranges.
Not maintaining physical properties such as frequency and voltage within reliable ranges over time can crash the grid. Not maintaining such physical properties within reliable ranges can damage and destroy equipment and devices that are connected to the grid.
Performance of an electric power grid (“grid performance”) can be modeled and/or measured by counting the number and duration of occurrences when a physical property of electric power (such as frequency or voltage) is not maintained within a reliable range over time.
An energy option for electric power uses might be said to deliver performance benefits[i] to the extent that electric power flows attributable to the energy option do not cause physical properties (such as frequency and voltage) of electric power flows on the grid to go outside specified “reliable” ranges.
An energy option for electric power uses might be said to fail to deliver performance benefits to the extent that electric power flows attributable to the energy option cause physical properties of electric power flows on the grid to go outside specified reliable ranges.
To evaluate performance benefits of an energy option for electric power uses, decision-makers might use a computer model – called a “grid performance model” – that simulates electric power flows on the grid – or on a distribution circuit of the grid – as it presently exists. Decision-makers might use such a grid performance model to count the number and duration of occurrences when electric power flows attributable to the energy option cause physical properties of electric power flows on the grid to go outside specified reliable ranges.
Hawaii Story: Decision-makers in Hawaii have created and validated three sets of grid performance models – Siemens PTI PSS/E Power Flow and Transient Stability models, General Electric Positive Sequence Load Flow (PSLF) models, and Energy + Environmental Economics (E3) REFLEX models – that simulate electric power flows on the electric power grids for the islands of Oahu, Hawaii and Maui. Decision-makers in Hawaii also have created and validated a set of Synergi Section Incremental Hosting Capacity grid performance models that simulate electric power flows on distribution circuits of the electric power grids for the islands of Oahu, Hawaii and Maui.
Decision-makers at Hawaiian Electric engaged E3 to conduct a series of “system hosting capacity” studies to determine the total amount of photovoltaic distributed generation (DG-PV) generation capacity that might be adopted with each of Hawaiian Electric’s power grids without causing physical properties of electric power flows on those grids (modeled as “overgeneration events”) to go outside reliable ranges over time. E3’s evaluation of the performance benefits (shown as a range in the number of over-generation events per year) of an energy option (a total amount of DG-PV generating capacity interconnected with the Oahu electric power grid) as a function of increases in the amount of such total DG-PV generating capacity above 633 MW is shown in Figure 3:
Decision-makers might evaluate the performance benefits of an energy option for electric power uses by using a method that looks like this:
- Create and validate a “base case” for a grid performance model that assumes that electric power flows on a grid remain as they presently exist (adjusted for energy options in the process of being adopted)
- Identify an energy option available for adoption and having specified physical characteristics (for example, capacity (MW), frequency response, regulating reserve, etc.)
- Assume that the energy option being evaluated is adopted with the grid as it presently exists
- Input assumptions about the physical characteristics of the energy option into the base case of the grid performance model
- Use the grid performance model to evaluate whether or not electric power flows attributable to the energy option cause physical properties (such as frequency and voltage) of electric power flows on the grid to go outside specified reliable ranges.
Here’s a summary of such a method:
Delivery of performance benefits might be seen as a pass-fail test for adopting an energy option for electric power uses. Decision-makers might adopt an energy option evaluated to maintain such physical properties within reliable ranges over time, depending on decision-makers’ evaluation of other benefits that might be delivered by the energy option. Decision-makers might be counted on to not adopt an energy option that causes such physical properties to go outside such ranges and that fails to deliver performance benefits, no matter what other benefits it might deliver.
* * * *
For purposes of evaluating performance benefits of an energy option for electric power uses, energy options for electric power uses might be divided into 2 categories – renewable energy options for electric power uses, and non-renewable generation options for electric power uses – as shown in Figure 5:
For purposes of evaluating performance benefits of a renewable energy option for electric power uses, such renewable energy options might be further divided into 2 categories – distributed energy resource (DER) options, and non-DER options, as shown in Figure 6:
What Might Evaluating Performance Benefits of a DER Option
Look Like?
A distributed energy resource (DER) might be thought of as a renewable energy option that – by definition – is adopted at the distribution-level of an electric power grid.
A DER option might be said to deliver performance benefits to the extent that electric power flows attributable to the DER option do not cause physical properties of electric power flows on a distribution circuit of the electric power gridto go outside specified reliable ranges. A DER option that maintains such physical properties within reliable ranges over time might be said to deliver “circuit-level performance benefits.”
Decision-makers might use a grid performance model to evaluate whether electric power flows attributable to a DER option causes physical properties of electric power flows on a distribution circuit of the grid to go outside reliable ranges. A DER option evaluated to not cause such physical properties to go outside reliable ranges might be said to deliver circuit-level performance benefits.
Hawaii Story: A user-provided PV generation system of less than 100 kW that exports energy to the grid is a DER option that might or might not deliver circuit-level performance benefits. Decision-makers in Hawaii have used a Synergi Section Incremental Hosting Capacity model of electric power flows on a distribution circuit of the grid to evaluate whether electric power flows attributable to such a DER option would cause physical properties (such as voltage) of electric power flows on the circuit to go outside reliable ranges. A DER option that causes such physical properties to go outside reliable ranges is said by decision-makers in Hawaii to create a “circuit hosting capacity violation.” Such a DER option might be said to fail to deliver circuit-level performance benefits.
Decision-makers might adopt a DER option evaluated to not create a circuit-hosting capacity violation on the distribution circuit, depending on decision-makers’ evaluation of other benefits that might be delivered by the DER option. Decision-makers might be counted on to not adopt a DER option that causes a circuit-hosting capacity violation and that fails to deliver circuit-level performance benefits, no matter what other benefits it might deliver.
What Might Evaluating Performance Benefits of a Set of DER Options
Look Like?
A set of DER options that have similar physical characteristics, and that might be adopted on distribution circuits across the grid, might be treated as a single DER option for purposes of evaluating the performance benefits delivered – in the aggregate — by the set of DER options at the system-level of the grid (“system-level performance benefits”).
Decision-makers might use a grid performance model to evaluate whether electric power flows attributable to such a set of DER options causes physical properties of electric power flows at the system-level of the grid to go outside reliable ranges. A set of DER options evaluated to not cause such physical properties to go outside reliable ranges might be said to deliver system-level performance benefits.
Hawaii Story: A set of user-provided PV generation systems that have similar physical characteristics (for example, similar sizes ≤ 100 kW, similar export of energy to the grid, similar inverter functions), and that might be adopted on distribution circuits across an electric grid, might be treated as a single DER option that, in the aggregate, might or might not deliver system-level performance benefits. Decision-makers in Hawaii have used E3 REFLEX grid performance models of the electric grids on the islands of Oahu, Hawaii and Maui to evaluate whether electric power flows attributable to such a DER option would cause physical properties (such as frequency) of electric power flows at the system-level of the grids to go outside reliable ranges. The aggregate generating capacity of such a DER option beyond which such physical properties go outside reliable ranges is said by decision-makers in Hawaii to be the “system-level hosting capacity” of the grid. Such a DER option that causes such physical properties to go outside reliable ranges might be said to fail to deliver system-level performance benefits.
Such a set of DER options that delivers system-level performance benefits might be adopted by decision-makers, depending on decision-makers’ evaluation of what other benefits might be provided by the set of DER options. A set of DER options that does not deliver system-level performance benefits can be counted on to not be adopted, no matter what other benefits it might provide.
What Might Evaluating Performance Benefits of a Non-DER Option
Look Like?
A non-DER option might be defined as a renewable energy option for electric power uses that is adopted at the system-level of the grid.
Decision-makers might use a grid performance model to evaluate whether electric power flows attributable to a non-DER option causes physical properties of electric power flows at the system-level of the grid to go outside reliable ranges. A non-DER option evaluated to not cause such physical properties to go outside reliable ranges might be said to deliver system-level performance benefits.
Hawaii Story: A “utility-scale” PV generation facility adopted at the system-level of the grid is a non-DER option that might or might not deliver system-level performance benefits. Decision-makers in Hawaii have used PTI PSS/E Power Flow and Transient Stability models of the electric grids on the islands of Oahu, Hawaii and Maui to evaluate whether electric power flows attributable to such a non-DER option would cause physical properties (such as frequency) of electric power flows at the system-level of the grids to go outside reliable ranges and, therefore, whether or not a non-DER option delivers system-level performance benefits.
Decision-makers who evaluate a non-DER option as delivering system-level performance benefits might adopt the non-DER option depending on their evaluation of its other benefits. A non-DER option that does not deliver system-level performance benefits can be counted on to not get adopted by decision-makers, no matter what other benefits it might deliver.
What Might Evaluating Performance Benefits of a Combination of Renewable Energy Options for Electric Power Uses Look Like?
For purposes of evaluating performance benefits of a combination of renewable energy options for electric power uses, such renewable energy options might be divided into 2 categories – renewable generation options for electric power uses, and mitigation options for electric power uses – as shown in Figure 7:
Renewable generation options for electric power uses often deliver no performance benefits because renewable generation is often variable, non-dispatchable and/or non-curtailable. Distribution-level renewable generation options often deliver no circuit-level performance benefits because electric power flows attributable to such options often cause voltage and other physical properties of electric power flows on a distribution circuit to go outside reliable ranges. System-level renewable generation options often deliver no system-level performance benefits because electric power flows attributable to such options often cause frequency and other physical properties of electric power flows on the grid to go outside reliable ranges.
Decision-makers can be counted on to not adopt a renewable generation option that delivers no performance benefits, unless the renewable generation option is combined with one or more mitigation options, so that the combination of renewable generation and mitigation options delivers performance benefits.
Hawaii Story: On many distribution circuits of the electric grids in Hawaii, adoption of more distribution-level export PV generation options would cause circuit hosting capacity violations and would not deliver circuit-level performance benefits. Decision-makers in Hawaii have evaluated circuit-level performance benefits of combinations of distribution-level export PV generation options and inverter-based mitigation options. During 2017, these decision-makers came into consensus on allowing adoption of more distribution-level export PV generation options if the PV generation is combined with inverter-based volt-VAR and frequency-Watt mitigation options.
A renewable energy option – consisting of a combination of renewable generation and mitigation options – that delivers performance benefits might be adopted by decision-makers, depending on decision-makers’ evaluation of other benefits that might be delivered by the renewable energy option. Such a renewable energy option that delivers no performance benefits can be expected to not get adopted by decision-makers, no matter what other benefits it might deliver.
What Might Evaluating Performance Benefits of a Non-renewable Generation Option for Electric Power Uses Look Like?
A non-renewable generation option (such as natural gas generation, petroleum generation, coal generation, or nuclear generation) for electric power uses might be said to deliver performance benefits to the extent that electric power flows attributable to the non-renewable generation option do not cause electric power flows on the electric power gridto go outside specified reliable ranges.
Decision-makers might use a grid performance model to evaluate whether electric power flows attributable to a non-renewable generation option cause physical properties of electric power flows on the grid to go outside reliable ranges. A non-renewable generation option evaluated to not cause such physical properties to go outside reliable ranges might be said to deliver performance benefits.
Hawaii Story: Liquefied natural gas (LNG) generation is a non-renewable generation option for electric power uses that has been considered by decision-makers for adoption in Hawaii. Decision-makers at Hawaii’s principal electric utility, Hawaiian Electric, used Siemens PTI PSS®E Power-Flow and Transient Stability models to evaluate the performance benefits of candidate resource plans that included LNG generation options for the islands of Oahu, Hawaii and Maui.
A non-renewable generation option that delivers performance benefits might get adopted by decision-makers, depending on their evaluation of its other benefits. A non-renewable generation that does not deliver performance benefits can be counted on to not get adopted by decision-makers, regardless of what other benefits it might provide.
What Might Evaluating Performance Benefits of an Energy Option for
Heating & Cooling Uses Look Like?
An energy option for heating & cooling uses might be said to deliver performance benefits to the extent that the energy option heats or cools air, water or any medium of heat exchange to a temperature (°C) desired by the user of the heating or cooling service provided by the energy option. An energy option fails to deliver performance benefits to the extent that the energy option fails to heat or cool air, water or any medium of heat exchange to such a temperature.
Decision-makers might evaluate performance benefits of an energy option for heating & cooling uses by measuring and/or modeling the energy option’s physical capacity to heat or cool air, water or a medium of heat exchange to a desired temperature.
Hawaii Story: Solar water heaters perform well in Hawaii. Hawaii leads the nation in per capita solar water heaters with more than 90,000 solar water heating systems in operation across the State of Hawaii. Solar water heater standards promulgated by the Hawaii Public Utilities Commission require that solar water systems shall be designed to provide a minimum of 90% of the annual average water heating load, to provide consistency of performance over the life of the system, and to achieve a minimum 15-year useful life.
Decision-makers might adopt an energy option for heating & cooling uses that delivers performance benefits, depending on its other benefits. Decision-makers who evaluate such an option as not delivering performance benefits can be counted on to not adopt such an option, no matter what other benefits it might deliver.
What Might Evaluating Performance Benefits of an Energy Option
for Mobile Uses Look Like?
An energy option for mobile uses might be said to deliver performance benefits to the extent that the energy option provides a transportation service to a destination desired by a user of the transportation service.
For purposes of evaluating performance benefits of an energy option for mobile uses, energy options for mobile uses might be divided into 2 categories – supply-side options for mobile uses, and demand-side options for mobile uses – as shown in Figure 8:
For purposes of evaluating performance benefits of a supply-side option for mobile uses, supply-side options for mobile uses might be divided into 2 categories – electric power supply options for mobile uses, and fuel supply options for mobile uses – as shown in Figure 9:
What Might Evaluating Performance Benefits of an Electric Power Supply Option for Mobile Uses Look Like?
An electric power supply option for mobile uses might be said to deliver performance benefits to the extent that electric power flows attributable to the option do not cause physical properties (such as frequency and voltage) of electric power flows on the grid – used to deliver a transportation service – to go outside specified reliable ranges.
Decision-makers might use a grid performance model to evaluate whether electric power flows attributable to an electric power supply option for mobile uses causes physical properties of electric power flows on the grid – or on a distribution circuit of the grid — to go outside reliable ranges. Such an option evaluated to not cause such physical properties to go outside such reliable ranges might be said to deliver performance benefits for users of electric power services provided by the grid, including users of transportation services provided by the electric power supply option for mobile uses.
Hawaii Story: Decision-makers in Hawaii have established a time-of-use (TOU) rate program that encourages an owner of an electric vehicle (EV) to charge the EV battery during off-peak (9 pm to 7 am) hours. Under the program, an EV owner is allowed to purchase electric power during off-peak hours at a TOU rate that is discounted by about $.06/kWh from the residential rate that the EV owner otherwise would pay for electric power supplied by the grid. The program is designed to deliver performance benefits for users of electric power services – including users of transportation services provided by EVs – by increasing load to match generation, and maintaining frequency within a reliable range, during off-peak hours.
An electric power supply option for mobile uses evaluated to deliver performance benefits might be adopted, depending on decision-makers’ evaluation of other benefits that might be delivered by the option. Such an option evaluated to not deliver performance benefits can be expected to not get adopted, regardless of what other benefits it might deliver.
What Might Evaluating Performance Benefits of a Fuel Supply Option
for Mobile Uses Look Like?
A fuel supply option for mobile uses might be said to deliver performance benefits to the extent that physical properties (such as flash point, acid number, water and sediment content, viscosity, sulfur content, etc.) of fuel supplied by the energy option – used to provide a transportation service — are maintained within standardized limits. Such a fuel supply option fails to deliver performance benefits to the extent that physical properties of such fuel go outside such standardized limits.
Decision-makers might evaluate performance benefits of a fuel supply option for mobile uses by physically testing such fuel to ensure that physical properties of such fuel are maintained within standardized limits.
Hawaii Story: Pacific Biodiesel uses Hawaii-sourced feedstocks and waste oils to produce biodiesel fuel meeting ASTM D6751 biodiesel performance standards. Pacific Biodiesel is the primary supplier of biodiesel fuel for biodiesel-fueled vehicles in Hawaii.
Decision-makers might adopt a fuel supply option for mobile uses that delivers performance benefits, depending on decision-makers’ evaluation of its other benefits. Decision-makers who evaluate such an option as not delivering performance benefits can be counted on to not adopt such an option, no matter what other benefits it might deliver.
What Might Evaluating Performance Benefits of a Demand-Side Option
for Mobile Uses Look Like?
For purposes of evaluating performance benefits of a demand-side option for mobile uses, demand-side options for mobile uses might be divided into 2 categories – transport options for mobile uses, and infrastructure options for mobile uses – as shown in Figure 10:
What Might Evaluating Performance Benefits of a Transport Option for Mobile Uses Look Like?
A transport option for mobile uses might be said to deliver performance benefits to the extent that the option moves a physical thing (a person or freight) to a desired destination at a desired speed (kilometers/hour) over a desired time (hours).
A transport option for mobile uses might be said to fail to deliver performance benefits to the extent that the transport option fails to move a person or freight to a desired destination at the desired speed and/or fails to move a person or freight over the desired time.
To evaluate performance benefits of a transport option, decision-makers might evaluate the extent to which the transport option moves a person or freight to a desired destination at a desired speed (kilometers/hour) over a desired time (hours).
Hawaii Story: A battery-powered electric vehicle (EV) is a transport option that might or might not deliver performance benefits for a transportation services user in Hawaii. With the increasing energy storage capacity of lithium ion battery packs beginning about 2011, the maximum range and travel time of battery-powered EVs between re-chargings has increased about 350%, from about 151 km and 3 hours (at a speed of 50 km/hour) in 2011, to about 539 km and more than 10 hours (at a speed of 50 km/hour) in 2017. As the travel time of battery-powered EVs has risen to come within the desired travel time of more transportation service users, adoption of battery-powered EVs in Hawaii increased at an average rate of about 72% per year from 2011 through 2017.
Performance benefits of a transport option might be thought of as a pass-fail test for adopting such an option. A transport option that moves a person or freight at a desired speed over a desired time might be adopted by decision-makers, depending on evaluation of its other benefits. A transport option that does not move a person or freight at a desired speed, or that does not move a person or freight over a desired time, might be expected to not get adopted, no matter what other benefits it might deliver.
What Might Evaluating Performance Benefits of an Infrastructure Option for Mobile Uses Look Like?
An infrastructure option for mobile uses might be said to deliver performance benefits to the extent that the infrastructure option moves a physical thing (a person or freight) to a desired destination at a desired speed (kilometers/hour) over a desired time (hours).
An infrastructure option for mobile uses might be said to fail to deliver performance benefits to the extent that the infrastructure option fails to move a person or freight to a desired destination at the desired speed and/or fails to move a person or freight over the desired time.
To evaluate performance benefits of an infrastructure option, decision-makers might use computer models that simulate flows of people and/or freight in a transportation system as it presently exists. Decision-makers might use such transportation system performance models to evaluate the extent to which people and/or freight flows attributable to such an infrastructure option will ease or congest flows of people and/or freight in the transportation system as a whole.
Hawaii Story: Decision-makers at the Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization (OMPO) have established a Congestion Management Process (CMP) to identify congested segments of freeways, expressways, arterials and collectors in Oahu’s surface transportation system, to use quantifiable performance measures (such as volume-to-capacity ratios) to evaluate infrastructure options for mitigating congestion on such segments, and to prioritize adoption of infrastructure options based on those evaluations.
Decision-makers might adopt an infrastructure option that delivers performance benefits by easing congestion in a transportation system, depending on decision-makers’ evaluation of other benefits that might be delivered by the option. Decision-makers can be counted on to not adopt a infrastructure option that worsens congestion in a transportation system, no matter what other benefits it might deliver.
* * * *
Delivery of performance benefits might be seen as a pass-fail test for adopting an energy option.
An energy option that maintains or improves performance of energy services (color-coded green in Figure 11 below) passes the test. Such an option might be adopted, depending on decision-makers’ evaluation of its other benefits.
An energy option that impairs performance of energy services (color-coded red in Figure 11 below) fails the test. Decision-makers might be expected to not adopt such an option, no matter what other benefits it might deliver.
* * * *
If decision-makers are in consensus on a method for evaluating performance benefits of available energy options, they next might ask themselves, “What might evaluating economic benefits of an energy option look like?”
* * * *
Ready for a deeper understanding of how to reverse global warming?
My new book, You Can Reverse Global Warming:
- frames global warming as a decision-making problem
- shows a decision-making process for swiftly achieving 100% renewable energy and reversing global warming
- shows a “right-question-asking” process for persuading decision-makers how to shift to the “unlimited upside” shown in Figure 12, and making them think it was their own idea:
For a limited time, you can download a complimentary advance copy of You Can Reverse Global Warming at www.erikkvam.com.
Got questions about how you can swiftly achieve 100% renewable energy? About how you can reverse global warming? If you do, I hope that you will send me a message at extraordinary@erikkvam.com.
* * * *
In the next article in this Reversing Global Warming series, I’m going to show you a first-ever method for evaluating the economic benefits of an energy option.
Thank you for reading this article. I’m grateful for your comments.
[i] Performance benefits of an energy option for electric power uses are sometimes referred to as “grid services,” “ancillary services,” “system reliability,” “system security,” or “technical requirements.”
