1. 11 A Systems Approach to Energy Transitions Developed by a multidisciplinary team of faculty and staff from xx colleges at Cornell University February 2011 Town of Caroline Energy Independence & Local Energy Policies Al George, Cornell University, CCE Inservice, November 15, 2011

2. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 20112 Quote “Although the development of discipline- based science has been the source of almost all scientific advances of the past century, it has also limited the capacity of science to address problems that span multiple disciplines.” –[Charles Perrings, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., September 25, 2007 vol. 104, no. 39, 15179- 15180 ]

3. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 20113 Quote “If we see each problem – be it water shortages, climate change, or poverty – as separate and approach each problem separately, the solutions we come up with will be short-term, often opportunistic, “quick fixes” that do nothing to address deeper imbalances.” –[Senge, et al, The Necessary Revolution, 2008]

4. Introduction

5. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 20115 “Energy Independent Caroline” (EIC) The Town of Caroline, just outside of Ithaca has been actively moving towards “energy independence” for about seven years. Over the years they have worked with Cornell CCE and a number of student-faculty groups at Cornell University. In this talk I will present a new education and decision aid for local energy use and production It is intended to help people evaluate what “local” and “green” sources and conservation come closest to meeting a community’s goals

6. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 20116 Town of Caroline Located just southeast of Ithaca Mix of commuting and also rural households 1,161 households Population 3,282 Median age 40.3 Land area (sq. miles) 55.1 Density (persons per sq. mile) 59.6 Median household income $51,354 Also working with Tompkins County

7. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 20117 “Energy Independent Caroline” “Energy Independent Caroline is a collaborative effort between residents, Town Board, and other interested people to effectively use our natural resources to achieve energy independence from fossil fuels on a municipal & residential level. “Our mission is to produce power for electricity, heat, and transportation from renewable resources. “To accomplish this, we initiate renewable energy projects while educating Caroline residents about energy issues in order to build commitment to reducing energy consumption.”

8. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 20118 Presentation Outline 1.Thoughts on energy independence, transitions to different energy sources, economics, jobs, and local actions 2.Early history of EIC 3.Looking at the next stage toward EI 4.A user-tailored information and decision aid for municipalities 5.Example and open discussion on how the information could be made more useful

9. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 20119 Thoughts on energy independence, transitions to different energy sources, economics, jobs, and local actions

10. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201110 Questions Why do we care about “Energy Independence”? What does that mean? How do we define “Independence”? How does this relate to the community’s economics, jobs, environment? How does this relate to national well-being? How does this relate to ethics and justice?

11. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201111 The Challenge In the 21st century new sources of energy must be developed. They will enable and require: major transformations in the nations and communities in which they are developed. The time scale is very different from historical precedents. It is critical that we as a society learn quickly to manage such enormous changes –to maintain a good quality of life –if we are to bequeath a sustainable planet to future generations.

12. 12 Solar Geothermal Biofuels Hydro Wave and tidal Coal Oil Natural gas Nuclear Wind All Energy Sources Have Initial and Life-Cycle Costs and Impacts

13. 13 Examples of Poor Decisions Regarding Energy Choices in the Past: Ethanol from corn grain Manufacturing methanol from coal MTBE gasoline additives Subsidies for Hummers and large SUV’s Flex fuel CAFE credits to car manufacturers Nuclear waste disposal Electrical grid inadequacies Delayed fuel economy and emission regulations for small trucks and SUV’s Mexicans protest tortilla price surge. Feb. 7, 2007 -Soaring U.S. demand for ethanol has sent corn prices to their highest level in a decade, pulling up prices of Mexico's national food staple.

14. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201114 Polarization Dominates the Issues

15. 15 Polarization Dominates the Issues Even wind energy

16. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201116 Why Are Energy Decisions Difficult? Our current energy systems have enormous inertia, corporate investments, and lobbying, making change difficult and costly There are many competing energy sources There are different economic, job, security, environmental, and sustainability considerations for different sources Usage is also complex, involving many possibilities for substitution & conservation Energy sourcing and usage is a “Systems” Problem but often not recognized as such

17. Energy Systems View

18. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201118 Decisions Energy and National Security Economics – Jobs, Taxes, etc Environment – Water, Air, Land Use, Infrastructure, Waste, Services Regulations – Monitoring, Enforcement, etc.

19. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201119

20. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201120 How to Deal with Complexity Systems approach accounting for all the parts and interactions with each other “Think globally, act locally” –Can learn from dealing with a simpler but still complex situation –We are learning from working with Caroline

21. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201121 Some Systems Ideas System and parts Boundaries Interaction with parts outside context Models of behavior of parts and interactions Needs for domain expert advice, equipment for system General practitioners and specialists

22. Example Systems Diagram Showing Interactions

23. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201123 Hierarchy Model - Interfaces System Sub-systems Components Shows Interfaces And Requirements Requirements Interfaces

24. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201124 Consider All Simultaneously?

25. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201125 Decide on Context & Interactions Parts to be included in system considered Part considered external Part considered external Part considered external Part considered external Defined interactions

26. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201126 This study

27. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201127 Need for Two Kinds of Experts Example: In medicine have Specialists and General Practitioners/Internists Part or aspect experts –Examples: Meteorological consultant for wind turbine location Economist for effects of shale gas availability on wind energy costs Systems experts –Examples: Modelers of systems to determine if wind turbines will pay off, given the input from system part experts – blades, tower, generator, wind experts Developers of decision methods – this project

28. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201128 Modeling is needed Future: Develop a range of predictive models to model physical, economic, infrastructure, and resource effects and their interactions. Modeling for Decision Makers

29. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201129 Present Study: Simpler Model How changing parameters affects other things. Examples: –Time to pay off a bond or loan depending on interest rate –Payback period of wind turbine depending on price of electricity –Amount of air pollution for given type of energy source Remember: “All models are incorrect, some are useful” As add complexity, model uncertainty increases

30. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201130 Cornell – Caroline Projects Over the years residents in Caroline have had an interests in green, sustainable, and local energy Cornell Cooperative Extension and different faculty and students have worked with Caroline This is an ongoing project, now also associated with Tompkins County.

31. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201131 Early history of EIC 2004 – Caroline Council members all personally contributed money to have 27% of the municipality’s energy be sourced from wind. 2005 to date - 100% wind and renewable for municipal energy 2006 – EIC formed, began planning, and promoted energy reduction 2006 to date – Studies of local wind power 2008 – Lighten Up Caroline! Event –http://www.cce.cornell.edu/EnergyClimateChange/NaturalGasDev/Docu ments/PDFs/Caroline%20Case%20Study.pdfhttp://www.cce.cornell.edu/EnergyClimateChange/NaturalGasDev/Docu ments/PDFs/Caroline%20Case%20Study.pdf Ref.

32. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201132 EIC (and CCE) Ongoing Initiatives Conservation –Lighten Up Caroline! –Tighten Up Caroline! Local wind energy studies 2010 - Solar and super-insulated near- carbon-neutral town office building Other possibilities – how to choose? Cornell “Community Energy Choices” project

33. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201133 “Community Energy Choices” Project User-appropriate information and decision aids for Caroline and other municipalities Team: –Tristan Morris (BSE 2011)- spring & summer 2011 –Al George (Professor of Engineering and Systems) – to date –Qinyi Chew (BSE 2012) – began fall 2011 –Tucker Browne (MEng 2012) – began fall 2011

34. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201134 Context Copious energy source and energy conservation information freely available How to tailor this to people interested in a community working toward energy independence –Versus: Global or national energy policy –Versus: Single homeowner interests Differences in scale, local organization, money available, volunteer involvement

35. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201135 Process Have been summarizing available data in appropriate formats for: –General public –Planning officials –Technically inclined people Meetings with EIC members and continuously revise our approach to more closely meet their wishes and expectations

36. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201136 Process Realized that a community differs from a straightforward business. Many more factors considered such as: –Keeping money in Caroline –Doing the right thing for the local and global environment –Keeping the community’s small town character –Supporting local businesses and reducing the need to drive to Ithaca, etc.

37. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201137 Interim Results Developed two reports so far: 1. “Town of Caroline Energy Independence: General Overview” – for general public http://www.cce.cornell.edu/EnergyClimateChange/NaturalGasDev/Do cuments/PDFs/Caroline_EIC-_Short_Report_9-26-11.pdf 2. “Community Energy Choices: Guide and Planning Overview” – interim and somewhat technical http://www.cce.cornell.edu/EnergyClimateChange/NaturalGasDev/Do cuments/PDFs/Energy_Choices_Interim_Report-10-27-11.pdf

38. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201138 1. General Overview Report Conservation and home efficiency most important Difficult for town to help individual home owners due to loans versus mortgages Can improve public buildings Due to lack of enthusiasm for bond borrowing – instead try cycles of investments, each giving energy savings which can pay for next improvements Improvement of transportation and of local shopping to reduce transportation energy use

39. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201139 2. Full Report - Community Energy Choices Present Interim version: –Solar PV panels –Wind turbines –Nuclear –Concentrated solar –Biomass gas generation –High efficiency bulbs To be added: –Geothermal heat pumps –Hydropower – small and large scale –Insulation of buildings –Leak sealing –High efficiency appliances –Solar thermal heating –Transportation options –Biodiesel –Other home conservation

40. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201140 Report Format Explanatory general text Fact Sheets for different energy sources and conservation methods More detailed appendices for different energy sources and conservation methods Excel spreadsheet to calculate and report on comparisons of different sources or conservation methods

41. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201141 Fact Sheets, Page 1 - Qualitative Metrics Short descriptive text “At-a-Glance” qualitative metrics Example: –Cost Effectiveness : Good –Environmental Friendliness: Very Good –Local Sustainability: Average. –Energy Independence: Poor

42. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201142 Fact Sheet, Page 2 – More Quantitative Metrics Minimum Plant Cost Average Cost: $/kWh Marginal Cost: $/Watt Capacity Operating Cost Productivity Ratio = % of operation in 24 hour day Carbon Emissions Other Emissions Local Effects National Security Local Security Global Concerns Flexibility = on demand Regularity = predictable Interconnection: Zoning and Planning: Community and Social Impact: Land Area Resource Opportunity Cost Development Period Survey Costs

43. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201143 Example Fact Sheet Wind Turbines

44. Wind The descendant of the windmill, modern wind turbines come in both vertical and horizontal axis mounts. The more common Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine (HAWT, above), features a large, propeller like blade on a swivel mount, enabling it to rotate to that the turbine is always facing directly into the wind. The support pole serves to keep the spinning blades away from the ground, but it also serves to alter the height of the turbine blades, as wind altitudes can significantly change even a short distance above the ground. The sharp change in wind speed between tower height and ground level also makes wind a survey intensive power option, as ground-level data is not sufficient to determine if the technology is viable. Of all of the power sources presented in this report, wind is arguably the most difficult to model. The fact that wind turbine output varies with the cube of wind speed renders most simple approximations impossible. This makes surveys expensive, such that wind power is an option that is likely only attractive to communities with unusually great wind power potential. Microturbines of either axis configuration, built to use near ground level wind, are safe for urban and residential use – including as a building modification. These provide a lower initial investment option for wind power, although they are less efficient then their larger counterparts. These systems do not produce a significant amount of power on their own, but can be a good add-on to another power plan or individual home development. Wind is a capital intensive option for most communities – although it pays for itself quickly, the turbine itself is usually a significant initial investment. Wind is a clean and very environmentally friendly power source, but wind turbines should not be placed near major bird habitats or along bird migration routes, as birds can be killed by the turbine blades. Reports of the amount of noise generated by wind turbines are inconsistent – some models are loud, some are not. At-a-Glance Metrics Cost Effectiveness : Good Properly placed wind turbines can pay for themselves in as little as two years. Environmental Friendliness: Very Good As long as they are not placed near migratory bird habitats, wind turbines have no significant environmental impact. Some visual & noise impacts. Local Sustainability: Average. Wind systems are low maintenance and easily placed, making them a good local choice – but their high initial cost can be prohibitive for small communities. Energy Independence: Poor Wind power can be intermittent and inconsistent, making it a poor baseline power source for any kind of energy independence plan. Page C-2-1

45. Wind Standard Metrics: Economic Costs Minimum Cost: $20,000 Average Cost: $0.03-0.28/kWh Marginal Cost: $1.5-5/Watt Capacity Productivity Ratio: 20-45% Environmental Effects Carbon Emissions: 3-5% Secondary Emissions: None Significant Local Effects: Some possible harm to wildlife if turbines are build adjacent to major bird nesting area or migration routes. Security Local Security: None Global Concerns: None Reliability Flexibility: None Regularity: None Interconnection: Assumed, cost included in given prices. Zoning and Planning: Zoning requirements vary, but in many locations are either antiquated or hostile. Legal fees of up to $10,000 may be required for large projects. Community and Social Impact: Turbines built inside or adjacent to urban areas can potentially cause noise pollution. Land Area Exclusive: None Non-Exclusive: 0.085 Hectares/kW Resource Opportunity Cost: None Development Period: Less then 1 year. Survey Costs: $10,000-15,000

46. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201146 Example Appendix Part of first page of solar photovoltaic

47. Appendix D-1: Solar Photovoltaic Systems Overview Solar photovoltaic cells -- also known as solar-PV, solar panels, and simply “solar cells” – are one of the more common and arguably best known types of solar power collector. Consisting of two, connected sheets of p and n-type semiconductors, they employ the photoelectric effect to turn sunlight directly into electrical current. The actual "solar panel” consists of a number of individual semiconductor cells mounted inside a metal frame. For this reason, solar panels can be made at any size by varying the number of cells that compose the panel, although sizes larger than two square meters are uncommon for reasons of practicality. The flow of electronics through the semiconductor cell is one-way, and all of the cells are arranged in parallel – as a result, solar-PV cells produce direct instead of alternating current. In small applications, such as charging batteries or exterior lights, this is not a problem, but any purpose that... Sample of Appendix Materials

48. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201148 How Choose Between Alternatives? Community Goals – Willingness to pay more for green energy and/or independence Economic Factors - Need to make detailed economic calculations, but still somehow include factors as environmental concerns, reliability, local jobs, etc. Scale - Except for solar, larger size installations are more economical but may need more than local input -> negative independence and transportation costs.

49. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201149 Community Goals Goals to quantify: 1. Environmentally friendly 2. Locally sustainable 3. Energy independent Rate from 1 to 5 (or higher) –(1 is not important, 5 is very important) Relate to willingness to pay a premium for energy Increase by 1 in the ranking is essentially equated to being willing to pay 2 % more for energy.

50. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201150 Economics Availability of capital : –Cash on hand ($) –Loans ($ maximum available to community) Interest rates (%) Energy prices $/kWh

51. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201151 Inputs for Each Source Type Capital and operating costs range - minimum and maximum ($, $/kWh – Energy generated or saved) Minimum/Maximum plant size (e.g., nuclear) (kW) Maximum resource available (e.g., biomass) Subsidies or low cost loans for construction– may vary by source. (e.g., wind, $/kW installed) Premium prices or subsidies – for energy generated – may vary by source. (e.g., wind, $/kWh) Hours of operation, efficiency of source (min and max)

52. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201152 Other Ratings for Each Source Type CO 2 Emissions % rating relative to coal Local Sustainability rating Predictability rating –Examples Biomass – Good - 1 Solar – Moderate - 2 Wind – Poor - 3

53. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201153 Calculation Process Compares levelized average cost/kWh of energy versus grid prices and then calculates payback period,. Repeats, accounting for subsidies Repeats for premium price if applicable Checks if community has enough cash on hand plus amount of loans available to afford the initial investment. Repeats payback accounting for community goal ratings

54. Sample Output Sample Output: Spreadsheet & Charts

55. “Sampletown” – Not Really Caroline Goal Data Goal:Rating: Environmental1 Cost Efficacy5 Self-Sufficiency3 Independence0

56. © Cornell Systems Engineering, 201156 Economic Data Power Category:ImmediatePotentialInterestSubsidyPurchase (kWh)Purchase ($/kWh) General $ 7,000.00 $ 30,000.008%10% 537,000.00 $ 0.19 Solar PV $ - $ 50,000.0010%40% $ - Wind $ - $ 30,000.009%30% - $ - Nuclear $ - 0%20% - $ - Concentrated Solar $ - $ 70,000.0012%40% - $ - Biomass Gasification $ - $ 2,000.008%10% - $ -

58. Goal Adjusted Economic Metrics NameTotal Cost (TC_subs) Goal Adjusted Selling Price ($) (SP_G) Goal Adjusted Premium Selling Price ($) (SP*_G)Goal Adj. Period (n_GA) Max.Min. Solar-PV Cells $ 39,968.75 $ 0.118 $ 0.221#NUM! Wind $ 32,700.00 $ 0.118 $ 0.2214.571.82 Nuclear n/a $ 0.118 $ 0.221n/a Concentrated Solar n/a $ 0.118 $ 0.221n/a Biomass Gasification $ 21,900.00 $ 0.118 $ 0.2212.572.41 Subsidy-Adjusted Economic Metrics NameTotal Cost (TC_subs)Average Cost (AC)Payback Period (yrs) (n_subs) Min.Max. Min. Solar-PV Cells $ 39,968.75 $ 0.11 $ 0.55unable to payback Wind $ 32,700.00 $ 0.02 $ 0.176.742.55 Nuclear n/a $ 0.04 n/a Concentrated Solar n/a $ 0.06 $ 0.09n/a Biomass Gasification $ 21,900.00 $ 0.08 $ 0.109.068.35

59. Questions? Open discussion on how the information could be made more useful Or email Al George