This is the second article about ISO-NE's report about the challenges and opportunities for a clean energy transition. We look at decarbonization and offshore wind. Both face problems.
Do you see a future for Nuclear in New England? A combination of SMR nuclear and wind could give you a virtually dispatchable output that could obviate some of the proposed battery investment.
The report discusses synthetic gas and SMR as possible solutions for the dispatchable power needed in 2050. Synthetic gas is hydrogen. They don't go into any real detail about these because they acknowledge the technologies are new. Their modeling suggests adding each reduces the amount of renewables needed so will lower the cost. Lots of assumptions never identified.
My next article will take a stab at estimating the cost of the ISO-NE renewables system in 2050. They I may tackle the SNG and SMR costs.
That sounds right on point. However, watch the terminology, since "Syn Gas" is a mixture of Hydrogen and Carbon Monoxide produced from natural gas. I suspect they are thinking that they can convert surplus wind power to Hydrogen via electrolysis. That can be done, but then you have the high costs of moving the Hydrogen to someone who can store it and then consume it without leakage.
Exactly. Hydrogen is their preferred solution and involves using the surplus renewable power. Sure to lock in a very high cost of electricity, but pushed because the overbuilding finds some use.
The Chemical Engineer's lament will be that burning Hydrogen is a suboptimal solution unless all chemical needs for green Hydrogen have been satisfied. The petrochemical industry can always outbid the power industry for Hydrogen because of the higher value added by chemical conversion. However, New England is noticeably short of chemical consumers of Hydrogen. Sounds like a high-cost solution all away round.
Allen-
Do you see a future for Nuclear in New England? A combination of SMR nuclear and wind could give you a virtually dispatchable output that could obviate some of the proposed battery investment.
The report discusses synthetic gas and SMR as possible solutions for the dispatchable power needed in 2050. Synthetic gas is hydrogen. They don't go into any real detail about these because they acknowledge the technologies are new. Their modeling suggests adding each reduces the amount of renewables needed so will lower the cost. Lots of assumptions never identified.
My next article will take a stab at estimating the cost of the ISO-NE renewables system in 2050. They I may tackle the SNG and SMR costs.
That sounds right on point. However, watch the terminology, since "Syn Gas" is a mixture of Hydrogen and Carbon Monoxide produced from natural gas. I suspect they are thinking that they can convert surplus wind power to Hydrogen via electrolysis. That can be done, but then you have the high costs of moving the Hydrogen to someone who can store it and then consume it without leakage.
Exactly. Hydrogen is their preferred solution and involves using the surplus renewable power. Sure to lock in a very high cost of electricity, but pushed because the overbuilding finds some use.
The Chemical Engineer's lament will be that burning Hydrogen is a suboptimal solution unless all chemical needs for green Hydrogen have been satisfied. The petrochemical industry can always outbid the power industry for Hydrogen because of the higher value added by chemical conversion. However, New England is noticeably short of chemical consumers of Hydrogen. Sounds like a high-cost solution all away round.