• Energy Research

The Renewable Electricity Futures (RE Futures) Study investigated the challenges and impacts of achieving very high renewable electricity generation levels in the contiguous United States by 2050. The analysis focused on the sufficiency of the geographically diverse U.S. renewable resources to meet electricity demand over future decades, the hourly operational characteristics of the U.S. grid with high levels of variable wind and solar generation, and the potential implications of deploying high levels of renewables in the future. RE Futures focused on technical aspects of high penetration of renewable electricity; it did not focus on how to achieve such a future through policy or other measures. Given the inherent uncertainties involved with analyzing alternative long-term energy futures as well as the multiple pathways that might be taken to achieve higher levels of renewable electricity supply, RE Futures explored a range of scenarios to investigate and compare the impacts of renewable electricity penetration levels (30%-90%), future technology performance improvements, potential constraints to renewable electricity development, and future electricity demand growth assumptions. RE Futures was led by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

The Renewable Electricity Futures (RE Futures) Study investigated the challenges and impacts of achieving very high renewable electricity generation levels in the contiguous United States by 2050. The analysis focused on the sufficiency of the geographically diverse U.S. renewable resources to meet electricity demand over future decades, the hourly operational characteristics of the U.S. grid with high levels of variable wind and solar generation, and the potential implications of deploying high levels of renewables in the future. RE Futures focused on technical aspects of high penetration of renewable electricity; it did not focus on how to achieve such a future through policy or other measures. Given the inherent uncertainties involved with analyzing alternative long-term energy futures as well as the multiple pathways that might be taken to achieve higher levels of renewable electricity supply, RE Futures explored a range of scenarios to investigate and compare the impacts of renewable electricity penetration levels (30%-90%), future technology performance improvements, potential constraints to renewable electricity development, and future electricity demand growth assumptions. RE Futures was led by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

The surface land use of fossil fuel acquisition and utilization has not been well characterized, inhibiting consistent comparisons of different electricity generation technologies. Here we present a method for robust estimation of the life cycle land use of electricity generated from natural gas through a case study that includes inventories of infrastructure, satellite imagery and well-level production. Approximately 500 sites in the Barnett Shale of Texas were sampled across five life cycle stages (production, gathering, processing, transmission and power generation). Total land use (0.62 m2 MWh−1, 95% confidence intervals ±0.01 m2 MWh−1) was dominated by midstream infrastructure, particularly pipelines (74%). Our results were sensitive to power plant heat rate (85–190% of the base case), facility lifetime (89–169%), number of wells per site (16–100%), well lifetime (92–154%) and pipeline right of way (58–142%). When replicated for other gas-producing regions and different fuels, our approach offers a route to enable empirically grounded comparisons of the land footprint of energy choices. Understanding land-use requirements for the life cycle of electricity generation allows for consistent comparisons of different technologies. Jordaan et al. present a method that leverages highly resolved, empirical data sets to give robust estimates of land use for natural-gas-fired electricity.

The surface land use of fossil fuel acquisition and utilization has not been well characterized, inhibiting consistent comparisons of different electricity generation technologies. Here we present a method for robust estimation of the life cycle land use of electricity generated from natural gas through a case study that includes inventories of infrastructure, satellite imagery and well-level production. Approximately 500 sites in the Barnett Shale of Texas were sampled across five life cycle stages (production, gathering, processing, transmission and power generation). Total land use (0.62 m2 MWh−1, 95% confidence intervals ±0.01 m2 MWh−1) was dominated by midstream infrastructure, particularly pipelines (74%). Our results were sensitive to power plant heat rate (85–190% of the base case), facility lifetime (89–169%), number of wells per site (16–100%), well lifetime (92–154%) and pipeline right of way (58–142%). When replicated for other gas-producing regions and different fuels, our approach offers a route to enable empirically grounded comparisons of the land footprint of energy choices. Understanding land-use requirements for the life cycle of electricity generation allows for consistent comparisons of different technologies. Jordaan et al. present a method that leverages highly resolved, empirical data sets to give robust estimates of land use for natural-gas-fired electricity.

This study presents the results of a campaign that estimated methane emissions at 268 gas production facilities in the Fayetteville shale gas play using onsite measurements (261 facilities) and two downwind methods – the dual tracer flux ratio method (Tracer Facility Estimate – TFE, 17 facilities) and the EPA Other Test Method 33a (OTM33A Facility Estimate – OFE, 50 facilities). A study onsite estimate (SOE) for each facility was developed by combining direct measurements and simulation of unmeasured emission sources, using operator activity data and emission data from literature. The SOE spans 0–403 kg/h and simulated methane emissions from liquid unloadings account for 88% of total emissions estimated by the SOE, with 76% (95% CI [51%–92%]) contributed by liquid unloading at two facilities. TFE and SOE show overlapping 95% CI between individual estimates at 15 of 16 (94%) facilities where the measurements were paired, while OFE and SOE show overlapping 95% CI between individual estimates at 28 of 43 (65%) facilities. However, variance-weighted least-squares (VWLS) regressions performed on sets of paired estimates indicate statistically significant differences between methods. The SOE represents a lower bound of emissions at facilities where onsite direct measurements of continuously emitting sources are the primary contributor to the SOE, a sub-selection of facilities which minimizes expected inter-method differences for intermittent pneumatic controllers and the impact of episodically-emitting unloadings. At 9 such facilities, VWLS indicates that TFE estimates systematically higher emissions than SOE (TFE-to-SOE ratio = 1.6, 95% CI [1.2 to 2.1]). At 20 such facilities, VWLS indicates that OFE estimates systematically lower emissions than SOE (OFE-to-SOE ratio of 0.41 [0.26 to 0.90]). Given that SOE at these facilities is a lower limit on emissions, these results indicate that OFE is likely a less accurate method than SOE or TFE for this type of facility.

This study presents the results of a campaign that estimated methane emissions at 268 gas production facilities in the Fayetteville shale gas play using onsite measurements (261 facilities) and two downwind methods – the dual tracer flux ratio method (Tracer Facility Estimate – TFE, 17 facilities) and the EPA Other Test Method 33a (OTM33A Facility Estimate – OFE, 50 facilities). A study onsite estimate (SOE) for each facility was developed by combining direct measurements and simulation of unmeasured emission sources, using operator activity data and emission data from literature. The SOE spans 0–403 kg/h and simulated methane emissions from liquid unloadings account for 88% of total emissions estimated by the SOE, with 76% (95% CI [51%–92%]) contributed by liquid unloading at two facilities. TFE and SOE show overlapping 95% CI between individual estimates at 15 of 16 (94%) facilities where the measurements were paired, while OFE and SOE show overlapping 95% CI between individual estimates at 28 of 43 (65%) facilities. However, variance-weighted least-squares (VWLS) regressions performed on sets of paired estimates indicate statistically significant differences between methods. The SOE represents a lower bound of emissions at facilities where onsite direct measurements of continuously emitting sources are the primary contributor to the SOE, a sub-selection of facilities which minimizes expected inter-method differences for intermittent pneumatic controllers and the impact of episodically-emitting unloadings. At 9 such facilities, VWLS indicates that TFE estimates systematically higher emissions than SOE (TFE-to-SOE ratio = 1.6, 95% CI [1.2 to 2.1]). At 20 such facilities, VWLS indicates that OFE estimates systematically lower emissions than SOE (OFE-to-SOE ratio of 0.41 [0.26 to 0.90]). Given that SOE at these facilities is a lower limit on emissions, these results indicate that OFE is likely a less accurate method than SOE or TFE for this type of facility.

The Joint Institute for Strategic Energy Analysis (JISEA) designed this study to address four related key questions, which are a subset of the wider dialogue on natural gas: 1. What are the life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with shale gas compared to conventional natural gas and other fuels used to generate electricity?; 2. What are the existing legal and regulatory frameworks governing unconventional gas development at federal, state, and local levels, and how are they changing in response to the rapid industry growth and public concerns?; 3. How are natural gas production companies changing their water-related practices?; and 4. How might demand for natural gas in the electric sector respond to a variety of policy and technology developments over the next 20 to 40 years?

The Joint Institute for Strategic Energy Analysis (JISEA) designed this study to address four related key questions, which are a subset of the wider dialogue on natural gas: 1. What are the life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with shale gas compared to conventional natural gas and other fuels used to generate electricity?; 2. What are the existing legal and regulatory frameworks governing unconventional gas development at federal, state, and local levels, and how are they changing in response to the rapid industry growth and public concerns?; 3. How are natural gas production companies changing their water-related practices?; and 4. How might demand for natural gas in the electric sector respond to a variety of policy and technology developments over the next 20 to 40 years?