Decarbonizing the energy system using decentralized energy generation

EPM 4902 Capstone Seminar

for

Degree of Master of Applied Science

Degree Program Environmental Policy and Management

Flavia Carina Ferreira Bexiga

University of Denver University College

Date September, 2016

Instructor: Dr. John A. Hill

 Bexiga-2

Capstone Proposal

The primary reason for greenhouse gases (GHG) concentration in the at-

mosphere is the combustion of fossil fuel followed by land use change and deforesta-

tion, which in turn elevate the global temperature changing the climate system (IPCC

2014). Looking to mitigate this problem, countries have focus their energy agenda in

alternative solutions and increased their reliance on hydropower, which is arguable

clean and can supply energy to the growing demand with an affordable cost. Because

hydropower requires the construction of dams, flooding large areas of native envi-

ronment and deviating the course of rivers, it is controversial whether is the best

choice of energy generation. For instance, freshwater ecosystems in the Amazon for-

est have suffered from human interventions as the construction of dams and defor-

estation (Castello et al. 2012). Therefore, the use of decentralized energy generation

would be more efficient to combat climate change than the use of large hydropower

plants. The reason is due the flexibility in using different low carbon technologies, the

non or close to zero environmental impacts related to implementation, and the close

proximity to the center of demand, thus avoiding energy losses along transmission

lines.

This study proposes to expose the environmental problem and suggests a de-

centralized energy system as an alternative to supply the growing energy demand.

The approach will follow a qualitative method using previous research datas. A first

section will introduce hydropower technology along with its benefits and drawbacks.

Within the disadvantages a set of evaluations will consider: a)deforestation necessary

to build the plant, to open roads to access the plant, to build the transmission lines,
 Bexiga-3

and the consequences to the ecosystem; b)degradation of rivers and the ecosystem

along it; c)the impacts of those activities to climate change (see, for example, Martin

and Watson 2016; Barros et al. 2011). Next, a second section will introduce possible

solutions of clean energy presenting the challenges faced by each technology. Then, a

third section introducing the proposed solution explaining the evolution of decentral-

ized energy system in supplying energy to different sectors, while providing low car-

bon energy. Case studies currently in place or under implementation will base the ar-

gumentation showing the benefits and challenges involving the decentralized energy

system (see, for example, Ruggiero et al. 2015).

Studies have focus on particular issues of hydropower, in one side the defenders

of such technology highlighting its contribution to energy security with low costs, and

also its characteristic as a clean energy in a substitution to fossil fuel technologies to

combat climate change (see examples in Pereira et al. 2010; Prozeske 2014; da Silva

et al. 2016; Jacobson and Delucchi 2010). In the other side, the impacts from hy-

dropower are revealed focusing in a locally environmental and social scenarios (see

examples in Lees et al. 2016; Berchin et al. 2015). Guidelines have been proposed to

avoid such impacts. For instance, the European commission have set mitigation mea-

sures, however, with generation losses exceeding 10% (EC 2011). So far, these mea-

sures have not reach developing countries as Brazil, India and China with large hy-

dropower plants under construction (Scheumann and Hensengerth 2014, 3). Likely,

this is due the lack of competitive matured technologies that can serve as a base load

energy and help to fight climate change in a short term - without generating much

debate as the case of nuclear energy. The expectation of this study is to confirm the
 Bexiga-4

assumption that the environmental impacts resulted from the use of large hydropower

plants have a significant contribution of CO2 emissions validating the use of decen-

tralized energy systems. Also, it is belief that a decentralized system has an addition-

al advantage of improving local economies structure through creation of jobs and

economy diversification, thus turning this option more cost effective. However, the

selection of energy technologies to compound the decentralized system will depend

on case by case. Countries with less available areas will have a different solution than

countries with large areas, as well as the resources availability will influence the

portfolio of energy to be adopted. A worse case scenario would rebound absurd costs

and time for the implementation of a decentralized energy system, negatively influ-

encing the GHG emissions results. Nevertheless, this study will have limitations in

time to analyze in deep decentralized energy system as a sustainable energy in the

economic, social and environmental contexts, which could be explored in future re-

searches.
 Bexiga-5

References

Barros, Nathan, Jonathan J. Cole, Lars J. Tranvik, Yves T. Prairie, David Bastviken,

Vera LM Huszar, Paul Del Giorgio, and Fábio Roland. 2011. “Carbon emission

from hydroelectric reservoirs linked to reservoir age and latitude.” Nature

Geoscience 4, no. 9 (Sep): 593-596. Accessed September 14, 2016. http//dx.-

doi.org/10.1038/NGEO1211.

Berchin, Issa Ibrahim, Jéssica Garcia, Mauri Luiz Heerdt, Angélica de Quevedo Mor-

eira, Ana Clara Medeiros Silveira, and José Baltazar Salgueirinho de Andrade

Guerra. 2015. “Energy production and sustainability: A study of Belo Monte hy-

droelectric power plant.” In Natural Resources Forum, vol. 39, no. 3-4, pp.

224-237. 2015. Accessed January 21, 2016. http//dx.doi.org/10.1111/

1477-8947.12085.

Castello, Leandro, David G. McGrath, Laura L. Hess, Michael T. Coe, Paul A. Lefebvre,

Paulo Petry, Marcia N. Macedo, Vivian F. Renó, and Caroline C. Arantes. 2012.

“The vulnerability of Amazon freshwater ecosystems.” Conservation Letters 6,

no. 4 (Dec): 217-229. Accessed September 8, 2016. http//dx.doi.org/10.1111/

conl.12008.

da Silva, Rodrigo Corrêa, Ismael de Marchi Neto, and Stephan Silva Seifert. 2016.

“Electricity supply security and the future role of renewable energy sources in

Brazil.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 59 (Jan): 328-341. Ac-

cessed September 8, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.001.

 Bexiga-6

de Queiroz, Anderson Rodrigo, Luana M. Marangon Lima, José W. Marangon Lima,

Benedito C. da Silva, and Luciana A. Scianni. 2016. “Climate change impacts in

the energy supply of the Brazilian hydro-dominant power system.” Renewable

Energy 99 (July): 379-389. Accessed September 8, 2016. http://dx.doi.org.-

du.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.07.022.

European Commission. 2011. Hydropower generation in the context of the EU WFD.

Study commissioned by the European Commission, DG Environment – Unit SRD.

3. 2011, Brussels; 2010. Accessed September 18, 2016. http://www.ecrr.org/

Publications/tabid/2624/mod/11083/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3289/

Default.aspx.

IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I,

II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Cli-

mate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC,

Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.

Jacobson, Mark Z., and Mark A. Delucchi. 2010. “Providing all global energy with

wind, water, and solar power, Part I: Technologies, energy resources, quantities

and areas of infrastructure, and materials.” Energy Policy 39, no. 3 (Dec):

1154-1169. Accessed April 20, 2015. http//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.

2010.11.040.

Lees, Alexander C., Carlos A. Peres, Philip M. Fearnside, Maurício Schneider, and

Jansen AS Zuanon. 2016. “Hydropower and the future of Amazonian biodiversi-

 Bexiga-7

ty.” Biodiversity and Conservation 25, no. 3 (March): 451-466. Accessed Sep-

tember 8, 2016. http//dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1072-3.

Martin, Tara G., and James E.M. Watson. 2016. “Intact ecosystems provide best de-

fence against climate change.” Nature Climate Change 6, no. 2 (Feb): 122-124.

Accessed September 12, 2016. http//dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2918.

Prozeske, Kai. 2014. “The effects of anti-deforestation programs on Brazil's ecological

sustainability goals and the implications for the economic objectives of the

strategic partnership with the European Union.” PhD dissertation, Monterey,

California: Naval Postgraduate School, 2014. Accessed September 8, 2016.

http://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/42709/

14Jun_Prozeske_Kai.pdf?sequence=1.

Pereira, Amaro Olimpio, André Santos Pereira, Emilio Lèbre La Rovere, Martha Macedo

de Lima Barata, Sandra de Castro Villar, and Silvia Helena Pires. 2010. “Strate-

gies to promote renewable energy in Brazil.” Renewable and sustainable ener-

gy reviews 15, no. 1 (Sep): 681-688. Accessed September 8, 2016. http//dx.-

doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.09.027.

Ruggiero, Salvatore, Vilja Varho, and Pasi Rikkonen. 2015. “Transition to distributed

energy generation in Finland: Prospects and barriers.” Energy Policy 86 (Aug):

433-443. Accessed September 7, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.

2015.07.024.
 Bexiga-8

Scheumann, Waltina, and Oliver Hensengerth. 2014. Evolution of Dam Policies: Evi-

dence from the Big Hydropower States. 1st ed. New York: Springer-Verlag

Berlin Heidelberg.