Renewables

Investment in renewable energy sources combats both the problems of rising greenhouse gas emissions and energy dependability. Addressing emissions of harmful pollutants, with an emphasis on carbon dioxide, provides a proactive take on preparation for climate change in the form of “preventative mitigation:” that is, improving current sustainability behaviors to minimize the required extent of later action. Additionally, increased energy independence confronts resource security, eliminating the uncertainties associated with non-renewables such as price volatility and relying on limited resources.

Tackling the challenge of increasing renewable energy sources for both MIT and the City of Cambridge requires multidisciplinary approaches in the areas of government and policy, education, and innovation.

For the city as a whole, the first step requires action on the part of municipal lawmakers. Cambridge has already passed a Climate Protection Plan to reduce GHG emissions by 80% by the year 2050;^[1] if new legislation augmented this goal to seek carbon neutrality by 2050, implementing clean energy initiatives city-wide would prove far simpler. Pledging “carbon neutrality” demonstrates a company or organization’s commitment to achieve a net zero carbon footprint, either by eliminating emissions or by removing as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they put in. While ambitious, carbon neutrality is possible with municipal support. To achieve neutrality, transportation, infrastructure, and electric-generation power sources will require prompt renovation and installations of new technologies. In Cambridge, 80% of our climate-destroying emissions come from building energy use. Transportation accounts especially for site-concentrated emissions, particularly from fuel-powered vehicles. For MIT specifically, communications with the university’s administration regarding the importance of emission reduction may encourage commitment to a more concrete carbon neutrality plan; however, utilizing city legislation would provide a far more broad reaching and effective method of reducing emissions. In terms of how possible passing stronger clean energy legislation may be, much of Cambridge municipal, as of late 2017, supports stark changes in sustainability and energy policy. Out of the nine candidates elected to Cambridge City Council on November 7, 2017, seven cited net-zero energy and sustainable development as primary issues on their official campaign statement pages, and have previously advocated for drastic widespread changes in energy and emissions action policies.^[2] Thus, facilitating discussion of carbon neutrality and bringing a proposal to municipal ballot chances minimal political impediment.

In an article recently published by The World Bank detailing the financials and risks of investment in renewable energy technologies, an overview of clean energy barriers noted that “As long as energy prices fail to properly internalize externalities and specifically take into account the wider global and local environmental impacts of different technologies as well as their contributions to reducing the price volatility of energy and increasing energy security, many RETs will continue to cost more than conventional technologies.”^[3] Internalizing externalities refers to the need for conventional energy sources, such as coal and fossil fuels, to absorb the costs of the negative environmental effects they produce. To facilitate this, government bodies must impose a carbon price, not only to reduce demand for fossil fuels but to give more economic leverage to renewable technologies as they continue to develop. A carbon price would significantly reduce emissions by ensuring renewable technologies are the most financially sensible option for energy investors, as well as providing public revenue. The best option to facilitate a carbon price for Cambridge would be to provide support and education for the two proposals currently under consideration. The bills (H 1726, “An Act to Promote Green Infrastructure, Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Create Jobs” sponsored by Representative Jennifer Benson and S. 1821, “An Act Combating Climate Change” sponsored by Senator Mike Barrett) both propose carbon prices increasing by yearly increments until reaching $40 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted. To promote these proposals, drafting persuasive media and educating the public, especially influential members of the MIT administration, policy groups, and general constituents, could help to project a positive stance on carbon pricing to the outside community. Communicating, especially with existing outreach groups such as MIT Climate Action and Climate XChange, could encourage and educate community members on being politically active on vital issues like carbon pricing.

The second step towards increasing renewable energy sources and decreasing emissions involves concrete and innovative solutions currently available for implementation. Beyond the caliber of the energy technology itself, obstacles facing the implementation of renewables include geographic barriers, mobilizing private investors, and providing enough reliable, regulation-compliant infrastructure to satisfy all local energy needs, especially in times of high demand. Common renewable energy sources include solar, wind, hydropower, landfill, and steam recapture, among many. Each fluctuates in its respective technological benefits and downsides, contingent especially on climate patterns, geography, and finances.

For Cambridge, large-scale solar investment would not provide reliable widespread energy, primarily due to the severity of temperature drops and precipitation providing low energy returns in the autumnal and winter seasons. While private solar investment should be encouraged, especially across well-suited infrastructure around the city, looking to solar for a full renewable solution may not provide as much energy independence as required. Energy security stems from confidence in complete capacity to fulfill a region’s energy needs, and present fluctuations in climate do not provide a constant or even predictable model for temperature and weather patterns to come. Solar does, however, provide a financially feasible option in that investment in panels and management today is still outweighed financially by constant operation, maintenance, and supply costs of conventional energy sources.^[4]

A less pragmatic renewable option would be repurposing landfill methane for energy generation, considering lack of present infrastructure to transport and process products as well as factoring in the uncertainties associated with depending on a constant supply of landfill material. Beyond operational challenges, the methane captured from landfills and burned to create power still contributes to emissions. While the process is renewable, it may not be considered the most sustainable option for clean energy investment. Similar issues are seen in investigating the possibility of steam recapture from industrial processes.

Hydropower provides a dependable and topographically-relevant solution for coastal communities in general, and requires infrastructure investment which times well with necessary water-control renovation and refurbishment within Cambridge. New England Hydropower, a regional company focused on restoring clean energy sources, has released a model for redeployment of small dams across the northeast. This model utilizes Archimedes screws tested in the UK and advertised as fish-friendly, low-impact technology. If the promises of the company’s vision hold true, it could mean a more diverse range of renewable energy supplying the Cambridge area and beyond.^[5] By guaranteeing to either improve local ecology or leave no environmental effect at all, hydropower investors may avoid “greenwashing,” or utilizing the positive facade of clean energy to mask unseen and adverse environmental effects. Despite Cambridge’s coastal location along the Charles River, whose waters long ago powered the city’s antique industry with hydroelectricity, Mission 2021 found little opportunity for site-specific dam repurposing and investment. Isolating specific sites for potential run-of-the-river hydroelectric plants proves difficult when many existing dams currently require power intake to pump water up as a means of flood prevention. However, the 80-mile long river holds numerous dams and short, undeveloped stretches of coastal property; as hydrotech becomes more environmentally-friendly, more sites may be categorized as suitable for new plants. Over 50% of dams in New England are situated next to mills, many of which are still actively productive.^[6] Locally-sourced, reliable clean power for industrial sites could facilitate significant reductions in carbon emission offsets, incentivizing mills not only with the investment’s positive social and environmental impacts but also the financial returns provided by tax credits and utilizing a constant renewable energy supply.

The most promising widespread clean energy solution for the City of Cambridge would be wind-power from both on- and off-shore sources, with increases in private solar use expected to bring down volume of grid electricity demanded in coming decades. Wind power provides reliable zero-emission energy, and could be installed within or around the city onshore or offshore along the coasts of Boston Harbor. Locating willing private investors to finance the initial infrastructure costs associated with large-scale wind farms poses minimal difficulties, considering the long-term economic benefits wind power presents. These long-term benefits stem primarily from wind power’s dependable income, considering only operational and management costs remain when supply costs are eliminated. A current approved offshore farm, Cape Wind, will soon supply 75% of the average electricity demanded from Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket, while offsetting nearly eight hundred thousand tons of carbon dioxide emissions every year.^[7] The potential success of Cape Wind could pave a path for more renewable farms to supply power for Cambridge; turbines located four miles off the coast in Nantucket Sound, providing local economic incentives for “eco-tourism” cruises, diversifying the energy supply and eliminating the price volatility of fossil fuels, may incite similar investment for Boston Harbor. The City of Boston has demonstrated support for increased projects, citing online that three onshore coastal Boston turbines generate more than five million kilowatt-hours annually and save about $600,000 per year.^[8] To promote private investment of wind power, municipal tax credits should be supplied by the City of Cambridge, cumulating with existing credits for greater economic incentive. To promote wind energy both privately and publicly, educating the public regarding typical opposition stances to wind, and refuting those without substance will help to dilute political obstacles in the way of new projects. Cape Wind, for example, faced severe legal opposition from homeowners fearing property-value degradation as well as environmental protests advocating for protecting the ecology of Nantucket Sound. Cape Wind responded by running tests ensuring their blades would not pose threats to native birds, and argued that sustainable progress, energy dependability, and economic incentives far outweighed the social costs of seeing turbines four miles off the coast of Cape Cod beaches. These obstacles were manageable, but can also be avoided when studying the case of renewable energy for Cambridge by installing onshore wind farms. For a Massachusetts Port Authority (MPA) clean energy project installed in 2008, steady waterfront winds provide ample power for 20 turbines located on the roof of Logan Airport’s offices.^[9] Onshore wind installments avoid the physical and economic difficulties associated with operation and management of offshore turbines, as well as eliminating the need for extra electricity transmission equipment to move the power from the source. MIT specifically could implement on-site wind power paralleling the successful 2008 MPA project by installing turbines on roofs. While some buildings would not offer feasible spaces for numerous reasons, from historic regulations to federal law, potential roofs for turbine-hosting investigation include the Ray and Maria Stata Center, the Stratton Student Center, and several buildings within the main academic complex. These estimates come from investigating photovoltaic-potential maps published by MIT’s Sustainable Design Lab as well as satellite photography used to distinguish the curvatures and areas of different rooftops around the campus.^[10] While the methodology utilized to suggest buildings was crude due to lack of resources, it brought attention to the deficit of private research conducted for potential wind sites in general. This we observed relative to the large number of solar potential geography maps found on the web, all supplied with complex algorithms and data formulated by numerous reputable organizations, including MIT itself. Considering MIT’s access to researchers and technological resources, the university should further investigate the physical and financial potential for installment of wind power using the site-specific data available to them. Additionally, wind power, unlike solar, does not face the risks associated with extreme climate of New England, nor the climate change threats of increased severe storm conditions. If anything, investment in wind power protects energy reliability in times of atypical low temperature and heavy storms. In a study of three subnormal temperature days in the winter of 2004, during which natural gas availability for power generation dropped significantly, the U.S. Department of Energy determined that the presence of wind turbines off of the coast of Massachusetts would have provided substantial regional electricity reliability benefits to southeast New England.^[11]

When compared with renewables by ISO NE, the mean costs of conventional energy sources per megawatt-hour produced far exceeded those of wind and solar. In the same data study, ISO NE compared the costs of going “all-in” for both wind and solar– indicating full investment in infrastructure– to the full operational and management costs as well as fuel costs for different conventional energy. Implementing entirely new renewable production facilities for onshore wind, when including price deductions from tax credits, depending on variables such as climate, market pricing, and future technological innovations, could cost less than average costs per megawatt-hour of producing energy with existing gas and coal production plants. Solar investment slightly exceeds day-to-day gas and coal production prices, though the investment still provides increased energy security and long-term financial gain when noting future uncertain availabilities of fossil fuels as well as cumulative costs of processing and obtaining them. For this reason, while solar provides price reduction on energy bills and promotes sustainable behavior, we encourage small-scale investment of this renewable with a larger focus on wind and hydropower.

Source: Medium Corporation^[12]

As published by ISO New England (ISO NE), the majority of Massachusetts’s energy derives from natural gas, which provides approximately half of net energy, and nuclear. Renewables and hydropower account respectively for ten percent of energy sourcing, with renewables referring broadly to solar, off- and on-shore wind, and imported power. Electricity imported from the northeastern United States and Quebec allows for the possibility of low-carbon energy use from grids selling surplus.^[13] The Federal Energy Regulatory Committee presently authorizes ISO NE (a federally-appointed independent system operator serving Massachusetts as a public electric utility) for grid operation and power system planning.

In terms of a concrete timeline for investment, new energy sources will be in demand before the end of the decade as existing plants retire. As of 2009, four coal-fired power plants ran in Massachusetts, compared to just one today and zero by 2020. If these facilities are replaced by natural-gas-fired plants rather than coal-combustion, 5.0 MMTCO2e in reductions would result.^[14] Renewable energy sources, however, would have an even higher impact on emission reductions. Investment in clean energy infrastructure is essential to following a path towards net emission reduction in coming years.

By Jen Fox

References

1.  Sullivan M., et al. City of Cambridge Climate Protection Plan – Local actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Retrieved November 25, 2017, from http://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/CDD/Climate/climateplans/climate_plan.pdf?la=en
2. Cambridge Candidate Pages – 2017. (2017, November 5). Retrieved November 25, 2017, from http://vote.cambridgecivic.com/
3. The World Bank. Financing renewable energy – Options for Developing Financing Instruments Using Public Funds. Retrieved November 25, 2017, from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTENERGY2/Resources/SREP_financing_instruments_sk_clean2_FINAL_FOR_PRINTING.pdf
4. Medium Corporation – America’s Power Plan. Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? (2016, December 21). Retrieved November 25, 2017, from https://medium.com/americas-power-plan/wind-and-solar-are-our-cheapest-electricity-sources-now-what-do-we-do-b323082239de
5. New England Hydropower Company, LLC. How we do it. (2017). Retrieved November 25, 2017, from http://www.nehydropower.com/how-we-do-it
6.  New England Hydropower Company, LLC. What we do. (2017). Retrieved November 25, 2017, from http://www.nehydropower.com/what-we-do
7. Cape Wind – Energy for Life. Project Benefits. (2014). Retrieved November 25, 2017, from http://www.capewind.org/what/benefits
8. City of Boston. Using Wind Energy to Power the City. (2016, July 12). Retrieved November 25, 2017, from https://www.boston.gov/departments/environment/using-wind-energy-power-city
9. City of Boston. Using Wind Energy to Power the City. (2016, July 12). Retrieved November 25, 2017, from https://www.boston.gov/departments/environment/using-wind-energy-power-city
10. MIT Sustainable Design Lab. Cambridge Solar Map. (2012). Retrieved November 25, 2017, from http://web.mit.edu/SustainableDesignLab/projects/CambridgeSolarMap/
11. Cape Wind – Energy for Life. Project Benefits. (2014). Retrieved November 25, 2017, from http://www.capewind.org/what/benefits
12. Medium Corporation – America’s Power Plan. Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? (2016, December 21). Retrieved November 25, 2017, from https://medium.com/americas-power-plan/wind-and-solar-are-our-cheapest-electricity-sources-now-what-do-we-do-b323082239de
13. ISO New England. New England Power Grid 2016–2017 Profile. Retrieved November 25, 2017, from https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2017/01/ne_power_grid_2016_2017_regional_profile.pdf
14. 2015 Update of the Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2020.  Coal-fired Power Plant Retirement. (2015). Retrieved November 25, 2017, from http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/eea/gwsa/energy-generation-and-distribution/coal-fired-power-plant-retirement.pdf

Further Reading

Cambridge flood maps: https://www.cambridgema.gov/cdd/projects/climate/~/media/BF65658ED5C34C6AB9894A5F124F6704.ashx

State Energy Data System: https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/seds-data-complete.php?sid=MA

Primary Energy Consumption in MA: https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/sep_sum/html/sum_btu_totcb.html&sid=MA

MA State Electricity Profile: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/Massachusetts/

MA State Energy Profile: https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=MA