The Electricity Journal 32 (2019) 15–24

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Electricity Journal

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tej

Efficient pathways to reduce carbon emissions in the electric sector T

Alan D. Lamont
Engineering Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (ret), 13160 Skyline Blvd, Oakland, CA, 94619, United States

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The study develops a 2-dimensional map of the feasible design space for an electric generation system. Cost and
Electric generation CO2 emissions contours are plotted across the map. The principles of constrained optimization are used to
Efficient carbon reduction identify the efficient pathways eliminating emissions and the technology drivers that determine them. The CO2
Technologies for carbon reduction intensity of the baseload is shown to be the primary driver. Further, the need for large, seasonal storage depends
Energy storage
strongly on the level of baseload deployed.

1. Introduction particularly storage.

This paper takes the position that elimination of carbon emissions
from the energy system is one of society’s most important goals for the
foreseeable future. It is important to understand the factors that de-
termine cost effective ways to eliminate carbon emissions from electric
generation, since a large portion of emissions comes from electric
generation, and electric generation will play a large role in replacing
fossil based transportation fuels.
Future electric generation systems will primarily rely on non-carbon
emitting generators. These include intermittent renewables (wind,
solar, waves, …), and non-carbon baseload technologies (nuclear, fossil
with carbon capture and sequestration, geothermal). However, these
non-carbon technologies are not sufficiently flexible to follow the load
from hour to hour. Intermittent generation depends on the time of day
and the weather. Baseload generators are operated a fairly steady rate
for both economic and engineering reasons. These inflexible technolo-
gies need to be complemented by flexible generation such as natural gas
cycling generators, non-carbon cycling generation (eg. hydro) and by
storage. Flexibility can also be introduced through demand response
and load shifting.
There is, in fact, a wide range of ways that a system can be struc-
tured to reliably meet the loads. The totality of all the ways that a
system can be structured constitutes the “design space” for the electric
generation system. This paper uses a “ternary diagram” to provide a
two-dimensional map of the design space. The map can show the
contours of the carbon emissions and system costs across the space.
Using the insights from economic optimization, these contours identify
the most cost efficient pathways to eliminating carbon. More important,
the map shows the way that these pathways change depending on the
nature of the technologies, and changes in their costs. We can also
determine the need for, and feasibility of, other technologies,
This analysis illustrates the underlying economic principles that
determine the efficient approaches to carbon reduction, and it shows
the effects that the characteristics of the technologies have on the ef-
ficient paths.
2. Literature review
Many studies have explored ways that the future electricity system
could be structured to reduce or eliminate carbon emissions. The results
found in any given analysis depend on its objectives, its mathematical
approach, and constraining assumptions. Existing studies roughly fall
into three classes depending on whether or not they are optimizing, and
depending on the a priori assumptions about the degree of carbon re-
duction sought and the deployment of technologies, particularly non-
carbon baseload (nuclear and geothermal). Several studies are men-
tioned briefly in this review. Later in the paper, the results and insights
obtained by these studies are compared to the results obtained in this
analysis.
One class finds plausible ways to structure the energy system to
reduce or eliminate carbon through renewables. These studies are not
optimizing and do not necessarily claim that they find the most efficient
ways to eliminate carbon. They are generally structured for finding
pathways to reducing carbon to a specified level, and/or for deploying
renewables to a specified level. Although they are not optimizing, they
provide an understanding of the operational and cost issues that will
arise with high renewable systems and suggest approaches to dealing
with them. Some examples include: Becker et al (2014), Hart and
Jacobson, (2012), Williams et al, (2012); E3 (2014); Shaner et al
(2018); Converse (2012), and Weitemeyer et al. (2015). These studies
generally find that a system fully driven by renewables is feasible. They
often find that some form of large storage and/or load shifting is

E-mail address: alandlamont@earthlink.net.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2019.02.005

Available online 28 February 2019

1040-6190/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
A.D. Lamont The Electricity Journal 32 (2019) 15–24

required to meet the loads, at least at intermittent penetration above

roughly 50%.
Another class of studies employs optimization models to find least
cost structures for the system. However, this class assumes some sort of
constraint on baseload—either they assume it will be retired altogether,
or they assume that it will only be deployed at a low level. These
constraints may reflect the analyst’s view of what is technically or po-
litically feasible (e.g. deployment of nuclear). The assumption that
there will be little to no baseload drives the solution to some combi-
nation of intermittents and cycling generation (natural gas and hydro).
Examples of these studies include: Mai et al (2012); Haller et al (2012);
Wei et al (2012) investigates paths to emissions reductions of 80% from
the entire economy.
The final class of studies finds cost minimizing approaches to re-
ducing carbon while making very few assumptions about technology Fig. 1. Ternary map showing possible percentages of generation technologies
constraints. Examples include Jenkins and Thernstrom (2017); De for the electric system.
Sisternes et al (2016); Hirth (2015); McCollum et al (2012), and Nelson
et al (2012) Each of these finds that non-carbon baseload (nuclear and
Each point in the map specifies a mixture of primary energy. As an
geothermal) is part of the efficient mix for reducing carbon emissions
example, the highlighted point in Fig. 1 represents a system where 30%
of the energy is provided by baseload generators, 40% by cycling
3. Overview of the paper
generators, and 30% by intermittent generators. Note that the percen-
tages in the map refer to total generation including over-generation.
The following sections develop the ternary map and examine the
A model with hourly loads and hourly intermittent generation is
most efficient pathways to reducing carbon.
solved at each point in the map to determine the capacities and hourly

• Section 4 introduces the construction and use of a “ternary” map to generation required. The model’s equations specify that the load must
be met in every hour, and that the proportions of energy from each type
illustrate the design space.
• Section 5 explores the operations of the system across the map to of generator must match the specified proportions. Dispatch of tech-
nologies uses the following loading order: The intermittents and base
provide insight into the over- and under-generation across the map
are must-run and are dispatched first. Then cycling is dispatched up to
and the value of seasonal storage.
• Section 6 Illustrates the economic principles that determine the ef-
its capacity. Any additional loads are met from storage. The operation
of storage is discussed below. The model assumes that the transmission
ficient pathways to eliminating carbon. This section demonstrates
system is a copper plate and does not include transmission costs or
the impact of assumptions about the carbon intensity of the baseload
losses.
generation.
• Section 7 discusses the conclusions from the study.
This stage of the analysis simply finds the feasible solutions at each
point in the map. It is not concerned with the costs of the technologies.
Economics and emissions are introduced at a later stage to illustrate the
4. Representation of the electric generation design space and the
way that costs and emissions change across the design space, depending
system model
on our assumptions about technology costs and emissions rates.
The hourly load data and the intermittent generation are based on
An electric generating system is designed to meet a pattern of loads
data from California, CAISO (2011), so that loads and intermittent
over the year using a set of generators with different operational
generation are realistically correlated. However, this is not literally a
characteristics. This analysis recognizes that there are three basic
model of the California electricity system. For example, it does not
classes of generators:
include imports and exports, both of which are large components of the

• Baseload: These run at full capacity all the time and typically are not California electricity supply.
The pattern of intermittent generation depends on the proportion of
cycled. These include nuclear, coal, gas, geothermal, fossil with
wind and solar generation in the system, so the proportions of wind and
carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), biomass
• Cycling: These can be started and stopped, and ramped up and down
solar generation must be specified ahead of time. In the analyses below
the intermittent generation is assumed to be 50% wind and 50% solar.
to meet the varying load. Principally these are natural gas turbines
Sensitivity cases were run with 100% wind and with 100% solar. The
and hydro.
• Intermittent: wind, solar, wave, tidal. These are all carbon free. They
case of 100% wind produced results similar to those shown here. The
case of 100% solar showed costs substantially higher than these results.
operate on their own schedule that does not necessarily match the
The economic and technology parameters of the model and their
load (although solar does).
sources are given in Appendix B. The primary results shown here are
developed using the set of parameters for fuel costs, and capital costs of
A combination of these three types of generators will provide 100%
technologies shown in the appendix.
of the primary energy. When 100% of something is provided by three
sources, the results can be plotted in a 2-dimensional “ternary” dia-
gram. 4.2. Implementation of storage in the model

4.1. Ternary map and system model
The ternary diagram provides a graphical map of the design space
for the electric generating system—all of the basic combinations of
ways that electric generators can be configured to meet the electric
load. Fig. 1 illustrates a ternary diagram, while Appendix A illustrates
the derivation of the diagram.
At higher levels of intermittents and lower levels of cycling gen-
eration there are hours with over- or under-generation. In that case, the
model adds storage to the system to capture excess generation and use it
to cover the under-generation
Storage charges when the sum of baseload plus intermittents ex-
ceeds the load and discharges when the capacities of the generators are
not sufficient to cover the load. The model is constrained so that storage

16
A.D. Lamont
does not go below zero and that the level of storage at the start and end
of the year are equal. In the runs shown here, energy storage capacity is
allowed to be as large as needed to cover all of the under-generation
and to absorb nearly all the excess generation.
The sections below show that under a broad range of conditions
seasonal storage is needed for a practical system. To optimize a system,
the marginal value of a technology should be deployed such that its
marginal value is equal to its marginal cost. The marginal value of
energy storage is a function of the number of times it fully cycles during
a year and the price differential between the marginal charging and
discharging prices each time it cycles (Lamont (2013)).
In this case, seasonal storage is required. Since seasonal storage is
only cycled once a year, the cost per unit storage must be low to be
economically viable. This analysis assumes ammonia as a storage
medium. Ammonia has the advantage that it is liquid at room tem-
perature and fairly manageable pressures (about 128 psi) so it is easily
stored in inexpensive pressurized tanks. The cost per unit energy stored
is very low, about 13¢/kWh, Bartels and Pate (2008). It can be trans-
ported easily using existing pipelines. There is considerable experience
in storing and transporting ammonia, Ahlgren (2012).
Ammonia is currently produced using the Haber-Bosch synthesis
process, which is relatively capital intensive and has an energy effi-
ciency of 0.5, Wang et al. (2018). In this analysis a newer process
termed the Solid State Ammonia Synthesis process (SSAS) (also termed
the electro-catalyst process), is assumed. This technology is still in de-
velopment, but it promises substantially lower capital cost and higher
efficiency (around 0.71), Bartels and Pate (2008); Leighty (2011); Wang
et al. (2018). Assuming the SSAS process for storage, rather than Haber-
Bosch, lowers the cost of over- and under-generation and provides more
optimistic results for implementing highly intermittent systems.
The ammonia is converted to electricity using a turbine assumed to
be similar in cost to a combined cycle natural gas turbine with a
somewhat lower efficiency (about 40% is assumed here). This yields a
round-trip efficiency of 28%. This is in line with current research,
Brown (2017); Michie et al. (2010). Although such turbines have not
been used commercially, they have been demonstrated in research
settings, Uenami, (2017), and Japan for Sustainability (2016).
5. The drivers of costs and emissions across the map
This section reviews the changes in structure and operations over
the map to better understand the drivers of costs and emissions.
5.1. Seasonal operations and requirements for storage at selected locations
across the map
Fig. 2 shows the hourly generation for several days during winter
and summer at different levels of intermittent penetration. It also shows
the levels of storage over the year for each example.
Panel A shows the generation with 30% intermittent generation,
40% base, and 30% cycling. There is very little to no over- or under-
generation and essentially no storage is required. Panel B shows a case
with 50% intermittents. Panel C shows the fully intermittent case.
At higher penetration of intermittents there is a large seasonal im-
balance, requiring a large seasonal storage capacity. In the100% in-
termittent case, the maximum energy storage capacity requirement is
16% of the total annual energy load. In the case of 50% intermittents
and 30% base the maximum energy in the storage amounts to about 2%
of the total annual generation. However, when the level of intermittents
decreases to 30%, essentially no storage is required.
5.2. Storage and over- and under-generation across the map
Fig. 3 shows the total over-generation (panel A) and under-gen-
eration (panel B) across the map. We note that there is a broad, roughly
triangular region in the lower left where the system is balanced and
17
The Electricity Journal 32 (2019) 15–24
there is little to no over- or under- generation. The upper boundary of
this region in indicated in Fig. 3A by a dotted line. Note that the exact
location of this boundary is nominal. It is drawn here along the contour
where the over generation is approximately 1% of the total load.
Seasonal storage is important once we are outside of the balanced
region. Fig. 4 shows the energy storage capacity used across the map.
Within the balanced region the level of storage required is essentially
zero. Outside of the balanced region the requirement for storage in-
creases rapidly.
Although this analysis uses storage whenever there is under- or
over-generation, it is possible to structure the system to operate with
limited storage outside of the Balanced Region. When storage is limited,
the model scales up the capacities to cover the loads in all hours. This
can meet the loads, but at the cost of high capacity investment and
substantial over-generation.
The finding that large levels of storage are needed as the system
moves to larger shares of intermittents is consistent with other studies.
Hart and Jacobson (2012) study the CO2 reduction that results from
several different scenarios of high renewable penetration. Their ana-
lysis finds that up to 20,000 MW h storage (about 8% of annual load) is
needed for California. Jenkins and Thernstrom (2017) survey several
studies on high renewable systems that find that seasonal storage is
needed for a workable, reliable system with high intermittents. Haller
et al (2012) modeled scenarios to decarbonize Europe and the Medi-
terranean region. They assume that nuclear and coal will be retired.
Their analysis finds that storage is needed when renewables reach 20 to
50% of generation. The maximum stored energy reaches 10% to 15% of
the total annual energy. Converse (2012) examines the need for sea-
sonal storage over the entire U. S. The results indicate that seasonal
storage needs to be 5% to 27% of annual consumption, depending on
the mix of intermittents. Weitemeyer et al. (2015) evaluates storage
requirements in Germany with different levels of renewables with no
baseload. Storage is needed at about 50% penetration of wind and solar.
Shaner et al (2018) studies mixes of wind and solar needed to meet up
to 80% of electric demands. They do not include baseload. The results
indicate that ≈32 days of storage are required. Becker et al (2014)
evaluate the seasonal storage requirements across the U.S. for systems
that are 100% renewable but with different mixtures of wind and solar.
The storage requirement varies substantially with the proportion of
wind and solar. For the wind/solar mix that minimizes the storage re-
quirement, the required storage is around two to three months of the
annual load.
5.3. Cost contours across the map
Up to this point, the discussion has not included cost considerations.
The capacities and the dispatch of different components needed to
make the system feasible and function reliably are determined by the
patterns of generation and loads, and by the efficiencies of the storage.
This section addresses the costs and cost drivers across the map.
In the cases below, the baseload is modeled with different ratios of
coal and nuclear. The proportions of baseload coal and nuclear gen-
eration affect the shapes of both the cost and the emissions contours.
The discussion considers three cases with 50% coal / 50% nuclear, 25%
coal / 75% nuclear, and 100% nuclear. The operations of the generators
and storage are not dependent on the coal/nuclear mix—baseload is
baseload. However, the observations about costs and emissions do de-
pend on these assumptions.
Fig. 5 shows the generation cost contours for the three cases. The
costs are presented in terms of cost per MWh of load. In Fig. 5A
(baseload is 50% coal and 50% nuclear) the minimum cost system is
similar to conventional systems in place today. It uses about 60%
baseload energy and the rest is cycling. No intermittents are used.
Fig. 5B assumes the baseload is 25% coal and 75% nuclear. Under the
assumptions of this analysis, nuclear generation has a relatively high
capital cost. Using such a large component of nuclear generation means
A.D. Lamont The Electricity Journal 32 (2019) 15–24

Fig. 2. Generation in winter an summer and the corresponding requirements for storage.

that the minimum cost system is in the lower left corner—a system that
is entirely based on natural gas generation. This is true in spite of the
fact that this analysis assumes a relatively high price for natural gas
($10/mmBTU). The final case, Fig. 5C, uses 100% nuclear baseload.
Again, the minimum cost system is all cycling technology.
For all of these cases the costs within the balanced region are re-
latively low and change very little over a broad range of system designs.
Outside of the balanced region, costs increase quickly as the system
moves to higher levels of intermittent generation or reduces the cycling
generation. The costs increase due to the need for storage. Storage
imposes capital costs directly and indirectly. Direct costs include the
cost of the storage system itself. Indirect costs result from the fact that
the imperfect efficiency of storage requires significant additional in-
vestment in generation capacity to provide enough energy to meet the
loads. We can lower the indirect costs of storage by using a more effi-
cient technology (eg. batteries), but the direct costs would increase
substantially.

Fig. 2. (continued)

18
A.D. Lamont The Electricity Journal 32 (2019) 15–24

Fig. 3. Total over generation and under generation (fraction of total annual load). Dashed line in Panel A is the nominal upper boundary of the balanced region.

5.4. Emission contours across the map

Along with the cost contours, the shape and orientation of the
emission contours determine the efficient path to follow to reduce
carbon emissions. The emissions contours depend very strongly on the
carbon intensity of the base load generation. The three cases are shown
in Fig. 6.
Fig. 6A shows the contours for high carbon intensity baseload—50%
coal and 50% nuclear. The contours slope up to the right. Carbon
emissions can only be reduced by moving up and to the left in the map
to reduce baseload generation.
Fig. 4. Seasonal storage energy capacity used (fraction of total annual load). As the carbon intensity of the baseload is reduced, the emissions
contours rotate in a clock-wise direction. Fig. 6B shows the case where
the baseload is assumed to be 25% coal and 75% nuclear. In this case
carbon is reduced by moving up and to the right, reducing cycling
generation.

Fig. 5. Levelized costs of energy ($/MWh) across the map for different baseload carbon intensities.

19
A.D. Lamont
Fig. 6. Emissions contours for baseload that is 50%, 75%, and 100% nuclear (Kg CO2/MWh).
If the baseload is entirely non-carbon (e.g. nuclear, geothermal, or
fossil with CCS), the emissions are determined by the cycling genera-
tion. This is shown in Fig. 6C. In this case the emissions contours slope
down to the right. Emissions are reduced by moving to the right side of
the map. In fact, any system structure on the right-hand boundary of the
map has zero emissions. Consequently, we can reach zero emissions at
any level of intermittent generation. The question is what is the most
efficient level of intermittent and base generation?
6. Conditions that determine the efficient pathway to reduce
emissions
To find the optimal pathway for carbon reduction, we essentially
need to determine the optimal system structure needed to meet a re-
quired level of carbon emissions. As the required level of emissions is
reduced, the sequence of system structures defines the efficient
pathway. The mathematical conditions leading to a cost minimizing
solutions are derived from Lagrangian optimization. These conditions
optimize a function—in this case minimizing cost—subject to a con-
straint. In this case the constraint is that CO2 emissions equal a speci-
fied level. The basic theory can be found in a wide range of sources, for
example Chiang (1984) and Osborne (2016). The conditions for con-
strained optimization are termed the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions.
These state that the cost minimizing solution to meet a given emissions
constraint occurs at the point where the constraint contour is tangent to
a cost contour. Or, if there is no point of tangency (ie. the emissions
contour cuts across the cost contours), the minimum occurs at the
boundary of the space.
When the cost contours and emissions contours are plotted together
on the map, the points of tangency and the optimal pathway are readily
identified. Fig. 7 shows these pathways for the three different levels of
nuclear baseload and carbon intensity.
Fig. 7A illustrates the case with baseload that is 50% coal and 50%
20
The Electricity Journal 32 (2019) 15–24
nuclear. As noted above, the minimum cost system configuration
(without carbon constraints) is a conventional system where the bulk of
the energy is provided by baseload and the rest by cycling. There is no
intermittent generation. However, to reduce carbon efficiently the
system structure moves upward and to the left in the diagram, following
the points of tangency. Along this pathway the system eliminates the
coal baseload (along with the nuclear since in this example the baseload
is assumed to be 50% nuclear at all points). Eventually the path reaches
the left hand side of the map where baseload is eliminated and gen-
eration is provided by a combination of 55% cycling and 45% inter-
mittents. From this point on, reductions in carbon emissions require the
reduction of cycling generation and an increase in intermittent gen-
eration. This is accomplished by increasing the storage capacity (see
Fig. 4) to capture the increasing over-generation from the intermittents.
In the case of 25% coal and 75% nuclear (Fig. 7B) baseload power
becomes more expensive, given the relatively high cost of nuclear as-
sumed in this analysis. The least cost system is entirely powered by
natural gas (lower left hand corner). To eliminate even a small amount
of carbon, the system structure moves to a system with roughly 50%
baseload and 50% cycling. Further reduction in carbon initially moves
the system up and to the right, following the points of tangency. In-
itially, this increases the intermittent generation to about 25% of total
generation while reducing the cycling to about 30% of generation.
Further reduction of carbon shifts the system toward the left hand
boundary, eliminating the baseload almost entirely. From then on the
path is similar to the case with 50% coal and 50% nuclear—cycling
generation is replaced by intermittent generation through the increase
in storage capacity.
The cases with any coal baseload are similar in the end. Eliminating
carbon requires a system with 100% intermittents. However, the case
with 100% nuclear baseload, Fig. 7C, is quite different. We note that all
of the carbon emissions come from the cycling generation. Eliminating
carbon requires that the system move to the right, across the emissions
A.D. Lamont
Fig. 7. Efficient pathways follow the tangents between the cost and emissions contours. The cost values are from Fig. 5, and emissions values are from Fig. 6.
contours. Initially, the minimum cost system is 100% cycling, again due
to the high cost of nuclear generation. However, reducing carbon
emissions moves the system in an arc across the lower part of the map.
Initially, the efficient path adds some intermittents, increases non-
carbon baseload, and decreases cycling. Midway through the path, the
share of intermittents begins to decline as the pathway approaches the
boundary of the balanced region. At the far right in the map, reliance on
intermittents reduces to a small amount.
The pathway for the 100% nuclear case stays almost entirely in the
balanced region. In this region there is little to no over- or under-gen-
eration and little storage is required. It is only at the extreme right,
where cycling generation is completely eliminated that there is a sig-
nificant mismatch between generation and load requiring some storage.
It is reasonable to assume that if future systems include baseload
generation, it will be a combination of non-carbon technologies—pos-
sibly fossil with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), nuclear, and
geothermal. For the rest of this discussion it is be assumed that the
baseload is nuclear.
Other results from the literature also find that the optimal path to
reducing carbon (as opposed to promoting renewables) makes heavy
use of nuclear with a modest level of intermittent generation.
The key issue is the extent to which an analysis allows, or assumes,
the deployment of non-carbon baseload. As is noted earlier, many
studies make the a priori assumptions that baseload will not be used,
driving the model solutions to the left hand side of the map. A few
studies include nuclear baseload and allow the model to determine the
optimal baseload capacity.
de Sisternes et al. (2016) allow nuclear baseload in the system. They
find a efficient pathway similar to the path in Fig. 7C.
Hirth (2015) uses the EMMA optimizing model to evaluate the pe-
netration of intermittent generation technologies in the northern
21
The Electricity Journal 32 (2019) 15–24
European system. Carbon is reduced by imposing a carbon tax in the
model. The analysis finds that as the carbon price rises and carbon is
reduced, the share of wind initially increases and then decreases similar
to Fig. 7C. As carbon is reduced, nuclear baseload increases.
Nelson et al. (2012) evaluate cases to partially reduce carbon
emissions in WECC, down to a level of 54% of 1990 emissions. The
parameters of the analysis allow very little to no coal baseload. Base-
load is provided by non-carbon technologies including nuclear, geo-
thermal, and biomass. The solutions in this study also fall within the
balanced region with 15–30% intermittents and 20–50% baseload.
McCollum et al (2012) finds least cost pathways to reduce CO2 from
entire California energy system to reduce carbon emissions 90% below
the 1990 levels. The solution found for the electric system in 2050 falls
close to the border of the Balanced Region with about 36% non-carbon
baseload (27% nuclear and 9% geothermal). Wind and solar account for
a little less than 50% of electric generation.
Wei et al (2012) find structures to reduce emissions by 80% from
the entire energy system. The level of baseload generation is con-
strained and only non-carbon baseload is allowed in the solutions. The
solutions use 20 to 30% cycling with 12 to 36% baseload. These results
stay within or close to the Balanced Region.
7. Conclusions and policy implications
This study started from the premise that elimination of carbon from
the electric system is our primary goal. As a corollary, technologies
should be chosen to the extent that they help meet that goal. The
question is how can we do this most efficiently. This analysis leads to
two primary conclusions:
The efficient pathway to reducing carbon depends very strongly on the
carbon intensity of baseload generation. The carbon intensity determines
A.D. Lamont The Electricity Journal 32 (2019) 15–24

the orientation of the carbon emissions contours. If there is no non-
carbon baseload available, the efficient pathway moves toward the left
side of the map, eliminating baseload and relying on intermittent
generation with natural gas cycling. With non-carbon baseload, the
strategy is a larger reliance on baseload with moderate amounts of
intermittents.
Under and over generation are major issues in relying on inflexible
generation. There is a Balanced Region in the design space of generation
systems that has little to no over- and under-generation and little need
for storage. Staying within, or close to, this region substantially sim-
plifies the operation of the electric system and reduces cost.
These observations highlight the choices that society has in dec-
arbonizing the electric system. There are several technology choices
that can be made: first, society can promote the development and de-
ployment of new nuclear technologies. Second, society can start to
implement of large, seasonal storage capacity. From the discussion
above, a high degree of nuclear deployment would eliminate the need
for large seasonal storage. But such a high level of nuclear capacity may
not occur due to social and political issues. Without a high level of
nuclear deployment, the system will still rely to a significant extent on
intermittent generation with at least some over- and under generation,
so seasonal storage will be needed.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Appendix A. Derivation of Ternary Diagram

Fig. A1

Fig. A1. Derivation of the ternary diagram.

Appendix B. Parameters of model

The analysis is done using the assumptions and parameters listed below.
System loads and intermittent generation
Loads and generation are taken from CAISO (2011). These data give California loads, wind generation and PV generation for the 33% renewable
penetration analysis for the year 2020. The original data is given in one minute time steps. The data were averaged over each hour for this study.
Generation technology data
The technology data is taken from the Energy Information Agency Annual Energy Outlook from EIA (2016a) This data is reproduced in Table A1,
below. The last column in the table, “Efficiency (computed from heat rate)”, was not part of the original data and is computed in this study.
Fuel costs
The following fuel costs were used:

22
A.D. Lamont The Electricity Journal 32 (2019) 15–24

Table A1
Costs and efficiencies of generation technologies from EIA (2016a).
Technology Nominal Capacity Heat Rate (Btu/ Overnight Capital Cost Fixed O&M Cost Variable O&M Cost Efficiency (computed from
(MW) kWh) ($/kW) ($/kW-yr) ($/MWh) heat rate)

Adv Nuclear 2,234 10,449 6,108 98.11 2.25 1.0a

Wind 100 9,541 1,644 49.98 0.00 na
Photovoltaic 150 9,541 2,480 21.33 0 na
Adv Comb. Cycle 429 6,200 1,080 9.78 1.96 0.55
Dual Unit Adv Coal PC 1,300 8,800 2,934 31.18 4.47 0.38747

a
The price of uranium fuel is given in terms of the cost per unit of electricity produced ($/kWhe). Consequently, this study uses an efficiency of 1.0 for the nuclear
generators.

Coal: 0.0058 $/kWh Price for 2005 based on EIA (2010)

Uranium: The Nuclear Energy Institute reports fuel costs of $0.0058 $/kWh to $0.0078$/kWh, Nuclear Energy Institute (2017). A study by MIT
(Yangbo and Parsons, 2009) gives a fuel cost of $0.00697/kWhe. The present study uses a value of $0.0075/kWhe. These prices are given in terms of
the cost per unit of electricity produced, so the efficiency of the nuclear generators is set to 1.0.
Natural gas: Was set at 10 $/mmBTU. This is at the high side of the EIA past data and future projections (EIA, 2016b).
Emissions factors
Emissions from the technologies were as follows:
Coal emissions: In pounds of carbon dioxide per million Btu, U.S. average factors are 227.4 for anthracite, 216.3 for lignite, 211.9 for sub-
bituminous coal, and 205.3 for bituminous coal, Hong and Slatick (1994). A value of 205.3 lbs/million Btu was used in here.
Natural gas emissions: Value for natural gas is 116.39 lbs CO2/MMBtu EIA (2004)
Ammonia production and storage costs
Efficiency of converting electricity to ammonia (Kwh of energy in ammonia per kWh of electricity) is calculated from Bartels and Pate (2008) as
0.71 for the Solid State Ammonia Synthesis (SSAS) process. This is similar to Wang et al. (2018).
The capital costs of the SSAS process is calculated from Bartels and Pate (2008) and from Leighty (2011) as $844.8/kWh NH3-h. That is $844 of
capital cost for a plant that can produce 1 kW h of NH3 energy per hour.
The capital cost of liquid ammonia storage is calculated from Bartels and Pate (2008) as $0.13/kWh NH3.

References Report, January-april 1994, DOE/EIA-0121(94/Q1) (Washington, DC, August 1994).

Ahlgren, William L., 2012. The Dual-Fuel Strategy: An Energy Transition Plan. Proc. IEEE
100 (November (11)), 2012.
Bartels, Jeffrey R., Pate, Micheal B., 2008. A Feasibility Study Of Implementing An
Ammonia Economy. Iowa State University Dec. 2008.
Becker, Sarah, Frew, Bethany A., Andresen, Gorm B., Zeyer, Timo, Schramm, Stefan,
Greiner, Martin, Jacobson, Mark Z., 2014. Features of a fully renewable US electricity
system: optimized mixes of wind and solar PV and transmission grid extensions.
Energy 72 (2014), 443–458.
Brown, Trevor, 2017. Round-Trip Efficiency of Ammonia as A Renewable Energy
Transportation Media. Ammonia Energy. October 20, 2017 http://www.
ammoniaenergy.org/round-trip-efficiency-of-ammonia-as-a-renewable-energy-
transportation-media/ accessed 17May18.
CAISO (California Independent System Operator), 2011. One-Minute Data for Load,
Wind, and Solar 3/14/2011. accessed from. http://www.caiso.com/Pages/
documentsbygroup.aspx?GroupID=FDE2E73E-EE90-4B43-8168-467221BB808C.
Chiang, Alpha C., 1984. Fundamental Methods of Mathematical Economics, McGraw-Hill
International Editions.
Converse, Alvin O., 2012. Seasonal energy storage in a renewable energy system. Proc.
Ieee 100 (February (2)), 2012.
de Sisternes, Fernando J., Jemkins, Jesse D., Botterud, Audun, 2016. The value of energy
storage in decarbonizing the electricity sector. Appl. Energy 175, 368–379.
E3 (Energy and Environmental Economics), 2014. Investigating a Higher Renewables
Portfolio Standard in California. . https://ethree.com/documents/E3_Final_RPS_
Report_2014_01_06_with_appendices.pdf.
EIA (Energy Information Agency), 2004. Unit Conversions Emissions Factors, And Other
Reference Data, November 2004. Downloaded from http://www.epa.gov/cpd/pdf/
brochure.pdf accessed 26Aug13. .
EIA (Energy Information Agency), 2010. Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Report #:DOE/
EIA-0383(2010), Release Date: May 11, 2010. Downloaded from http://www.eia.
doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/aeoref_tab.html, accessed 25Sep10. .
EIA (Energy Information Agency), 2016a. Cost and Performance Characteristics of New
Generating Technologies, Annual Energy Outlook 2016.
EIA (Energy Information Agency), 2016b. Annual Energy Outlook 2016 With Projections
To 2040, DOE/EIA-0383 (2016).
Haller, Markus, Ludig, Sylvie, Bauer, Nico, 2012. Decarbonization scenarios for the EU
and MENA power system: considering spatial distribution and short term dynamics of
renewable generation. Energy Policy 47 (2012), 282–290.
Hart, Elaine K., Jacobson, Mark Z., 2012. The Carbon Abatement Potential of High
Penetration Intermittent Renewables. Energy Environ. Sci. 5, 6592–6601.
Hirth, Lion, 2015. The optimal share of variable renewables: how the variability of wind
and solar power affects their welfare-optimal deployment. Energy J. 36 (1).
Hong, B.D., Slatick, E.R., 1994. Carbon Dioxide Emission Factors for Coal, Note: This Article
Was Originally Published in Energy Information Administration, Quarterly Coal
pp. 1–8. accessed 26Aug13. http://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/co2_
article/co2.html.
Japan for Sustainability, 2016. Researchers Succeed in Generating Electricity Using
Ammonia-Fired Gas Turbine: One Step Closer to Hydrogen Power. accessed
17May18. https://www.japanfs.org/en/news/archives/news_id035522.html.
Jenkins, Jesse D., Thernstrom, Samuel, 2017. Deep Decarbonization of the Electric Power
Sector Insights From Recent Literature. Energy Innovation Reform Project March.
Lamont, Alan D., 2013. Assessing the economic value and optimal structure of large-scale
electricity storage. Ieee Trans. Power Syst. 28 (2) May 2013.
Leighty, William C., 2011. Solid State Ammonia Synthesis (SSAS) Pilot Plant
Demonstration System for Renewable Energy (RE) Firming Storage, Transmission,
and Export. Alaska Applied Sciences, Inc., pp. 2011.
Mai, Trieu, Wiser, Ryan, Sandor, Debra, Brinkman, Gregory, Heath, Garvin, Denholm,
Paul, Hostick, Donna J., Darghouth, Naim, Schlosser, Adam, Strzepek, Ken, 2012.
Exploration of high-penetration renewable electricity futures, national renewable
energy laboratory/TP-6A20-52409. Renew. Electr. Futures Study 1. http://www.
nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/.NREL/TP-6A20-52409.
McCollum, David, Yang, Christopher, Yeh, Sonia, Ogden, Joan, 2012. Deep greenhouse
gas reduction scenarios for California strategic implications from the CA-TIMES en-
ergy-economic systems model. Energy Strategy Rev. 1, 19–32.
Michie, Preston, Holbrook, John, Robertson, Jack, Field, Pam, 2016. Preliminary
Feasibility Study of Hydrogen Hubs: An Energy Storage Device Using Anhydrous
Ammonia and A Storage Medium, Version 2.0. The Northwest Hydrogen Alliance, pp.
2010.
Nelson, James, Johnston, Josiah, Mileva, Ana, Fripp, Mattias, Hoffman, Isn, Petros-Godd,
Autumn, Blanco, Christian, Kammen, Daniel M., 2012. High resolution modeling of
the western north american power system demonstrates low-cost and low carbon
futures. Energy Policy 43, 436–447.
Nuclear Energy Institute, 2017. Nuclear Costs in Context. Nuclear Energy Institute
August.
Osborne, Martin J., 2016. Mathematical Methods For Economic Theory. available at
http://mjo.osborne.economics.utoronto.ca/index.php/tutorial/index/1/men/t
Accessed May 29, 2016. .
Shaner, Matthew R., Davis, Steven J., Lewis, Nathan S., Caldeira, Ken, 2018. Geophysical
constraints on the reliability of solar and wind power in the United States. Energy
Environ. Sci. 4, 2018.
Uenami, Harumi, 2017. Ammonia-Fueled Gas Turbine Power Generation. Ammonia
Energy News February 16.
Wang, Lu, Xia, Meikun, Wang, Hong, Huang, Kefeng, Qian, Chenxi, Maravelias, Christos
T., Ozin, Geoffrey A., 2018. Greening ammonia toward the solar ammonia refinery.
Joule 2 (June (20)), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.04.017.
Wei, Max, Nelson, James H., Ting, Michael, Yang, Christopher, Greenblatt, Jeff B.,
McMahon, James E., Kammen, Daniel M., Jones, Chris, Mileva, Ana, Johnston,
Josiah, Bharvirkar, Ranjit, 2012. California’s Carbon Challenge: Scenarios for
Achieving 80% Emissions Reduction in 2050. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

23
A.D. Lamont
October 31.
Weitemeyer, Stefan, Kleinhansa, David, Vogta, Thomas, Agerta, Carsten, 2015.
Integration of renewable energy sources in future power systems: the role of storage.
Renew. Energy 75, 14–20.
Williams, James H., DeBenedictis, Andrew, Ghanadan, Rebecca, Mahone, Amber, Moore,
Jack, Morrow III, William R., Price, Snuller, Torn, Margaret S., 2012. The technology
path to deep greenhouse gas emissions cuts by 2050: the pivotal role of electricity.
Science 335, 53.
Yangbo, Du, Parsons, John E., 2009. Update on Cost of Nuclear Power. MIT Center for
24
The Electricity Journal 32 (2019) 15–24
Energy and Environmental Policy May, 09-004.
Dr. Lamont Is a retired researcher from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. While
at LLNL he was engaged in studies of system economics. He developed that META-Net
economic modeling system to analyze long-term market equilibrium solutions for energy
systems. His work also included studies of the long-term economic value of intermittent
generation and storage technologies.