Carbon reduction organizations identify where solar energy is most needed

Renewable energy sources reduce carbon dioxide production by replacing fossil fuel plants, but it’s possible that something like solar panels would have a measurably greater impact if built in a region with higher carbon dioxide emissions and less proliferation of renewable energy.

Clearloop, a subsidiary of carbon-reduction solar energy company Silicon Ranch, and WattTime, a nonprofit organization focused on data-driven greenhouse gas emissions research, have published a white paper titled “Curing Carbon Blindness: How Carbon-Focused Renewable Energy Development Can Accelerate Decarbonization and Confront Environmental”. Inequality in the USA. The purpose of the article is to provide a clearer framework for determining which regions of the United States could benefit most from the development of renewable energy such as solar energy.

The world of solar energy spoke with white paper co-authors Laura Zapata, CEO and co-founder of Clearloop, and Laura Corso, vice president of strategic development at WattTime, about the disparities in production and carbon reduction among U.S. regions and where implementing renewable energy can make the biggest impact .

This interview has been edited for brevity.

SPW: In what areas do you see the greatest benefits in terms of reducing carbon dioxide emissions through the introduction of solar power plants and other renewable energy sources?

Laura Zapata: In the central part of the country, we have not observed such a large development of renewable energy sources. We begin to break down the various balancing organs. Our grid in the United States is a patchwork of grids, depending on how you slice it. Fundamentally, though, the Southeast, where Clearloop is based, is still very reliant on fossil fuels, and these are things on the fringes that we can really break down and sort out.

Laura Corso: Focusing initially on some of the Southeast and South Central territories, we saw where renewable energy penetration was higher, particularly in the Southwest Power Pool, but it was very concentrated in wind. So focusing on alternative, renewable assets with a different distribution profile helps balance the different times of day where wind will often be a great resource at night, while of course sun will counteract it during the day. So the opportunity to focus not only on renewable energy sources in general, but also on the types of renewable energy sources in these regions, could also have very different effects.

What was the process of identifying regions with the greatest demand for renewable energy?

LZ: To start with, the first thing you can pay attention to is the overall composition of the network, i.e. the resources available in a given region. In Tennessee and Mississippi in particular, in these areas, it’s very clear that the initial baseload associated with these regions – nuclear, hydropower – is huge, but what’s on the margins is often very resource-dependent fossil. This is a high level that is worth paying attention to when dividing the country into different ways of balancing the grid. As a side note, you can easily see which generators respond most often. At a high level, this is a great way to start focusing. As you dig deeper into the specifics of the sub-regions, you can start to see differences in the impact a given project will have on that region. stack.

LC: We look at that high level, locational, marginal emissions, and then we actually connect that to our specific assets or irradiance, and then the distressed community index. We put all these things together and figure out how many watts of solar power do you need to build in a given area to offset a metric ton of carbon?

When you compare different states, this is a rough way of thinking about it, because some states are divided into different grids, so it becomes a little more complicated. But generally speaking, when you look at these different states, you see that it takes 80 W of new solar energy to offset a metric ton of carbon in a place like California compared to a place like Louisiana where it takes 30 W of new solar energy to offset metric ton of coal.

What we’re trying to say is, “You can build something smaller and get more bang for your buck in terms of carbon emissions.” We can do this in more of these communities.

I’m curious about the jump in power needed to balance a metric ton of coal between California and Louisiana.

LZ: The bottom line is always marginal emissions, right? What is the carbon intensity of the grid in this particular location? What we’re saying in this white paper is that it really does matter, that location and timing really do matter in the United States. But location is different from renewable energy development because the carbon impact that you might have as a result of where you go really does matter.

How big of an undertaking is obtaining nationwide data on carbon dioxide production?

LC: From an emissions perspective, until Watt Time was founded, there was no marginal emissions data set. So that was one of the first keys we tried to unlock. We have simply provided data that can be used to make decisions. Then, as we learn more about each mesh, as more data becomes available, the model becomes smarter and makes the model grow and evolve.

Finding companies and organizations that can provide bankable financing is a really big hurdle in this space, and we need to continue to find more ways and tools to make that happen. The first thing that we can do that has clearly been brought to the forefront is to prioritize decarbonization and emissions in the decision-making process. It’s great that so many companies are focused on decarbonization and have VPPAs and are thinking about that, but often the avoided emissions can be the deciding factor when you consider other criteria. And I think that’s where Clearloop really comes at it from a different angle, saying that we want to make that one of the first criteria that we use when we’re making decisions about new projects.

How do you instruct companies trying to reduce their carbon emissions to achieve more effective reductions, rather than going where it might be easiest?

LZ: That’s the intersection: if you want to do something good for the environment, you can also do something good socially, by combining those two things and saying that by going after the networks that generate the most carbon emissions, you also focus on the most deprived communities and you can bring to life new clean energy infrastructure in a community that has not seen any development for many years.

The impetus and the real impetus for starting Clearloop was that we could do something here in our area, and being a proud Tennessean, I wanted to see more investment in my home state. If we see all this private capital there, let’s invest it in my home state. Then looking at the data and seeing this discrepancy where in some cases you can get 50% more reductions in emissions from state to state, it’s jarring.

Are there any common features of these regions that result in higher carbon emissions?

LZ: I think there’s a real overlap at the intersection of fossil fuel dependence and vulnerable communities, where you see poverty and chronic underinvestment. This concept of intersectionality, where you also see high-poverty communities and fossil fuel-dependent communities, they’re all interconnected. You don’t see it as much in the Rocky Mountains – those are socioeconomic factors that we also focus on. But you can see it in the Mississippi Delta down below. You can see that these are the same places where we haven’t invested any infrastructure for a long time.

LC: There are certainly similarities to be found, but they are not necessarily 100% present in all modern fossil regions. It depends on what these different comparable indicators are. There are certainly some, from a socioeconomic perspective, that share similar characteristics. But if you compare one region to another, they can also be very different from each other in terms of population, or just overall industry.

What do you hope to achieve by publishing this white paper?

LZ: This white paper is a project. It’s a map that says: this is where we should go, this is where the treasure is. Now it’s time to act, let’s go and really scale the actions that we’ve seen so far and the successes that we’ve had so far. This is a really clear way of saying that the treasure is here and that it is worth it. It is worth having equal access to clean energy, making investments and overcoming the difficulties associated with being the first and pioneering different ways of unlocking this energy.

---

The full white paper entitled “Curing carbon blindness: How developing carbon-focused renewable energy can accelerate decarbonization and address environmental inequality in the U.S.” is available Here.