Low-impact land use pathways to deep decarbonization of electricity

Abstract

A growing number of jurisdictions are passing ambitious clean energy policies. Yet few studies have accounted for natural and agricultural land impacts of low-carbon pathways and how environmental siting constraints affect electricity costs and technology choices. To address this gap, we developed an integrated land-energy planning framework to examine the land use trade-offs of renewable energy development required to achieve ambitious clean energy goals, using the state of California as a case study. Using high-resolution ecological and agricultural datasets for 11 Western U.S. states, we modeled environmentally-constrained onshore wind, solar photovoltaic, and geothermal potential and used an electricity capacity expansion model to build generation portfolios for 2050. Here we show that California can meet its targets, but the technology mix, spatial build-out, and system costs are sensitive to land protections and availability of out-of-state renewable resources. Results suggest that failure to consider land availability in energy planning could increase uncertainties, environmental impacts, and risks in meeting subnational climate targets.

Carbon‐Neutral Pathways for the United States

“…For comparison, the total current U.S. wind and solar capacity is less than 150 GW (U.S. EIA, 2020). Using rule of thumb metrics for wind and solar land requirements (Miller & Keith, 2018, 2019; Ong et al, 2013; Wu et al, 2016, 2020), the total land used was 36 MHa in the central case, 17 MHa in the low land case, and 48 MHa in the 100% renewable primary energy case (Table 2), equivalent to 2–6% of contiguous U.S. land area.…”

“…Three other scenarios also reach zero net emissions in 2050, while meeting additional constraints. The (iv) low land case tests the effect of limitations on land use in response to concerns about the sustainability of biomass use (Fletcher et al, 2011;IPCC, 2019;Searchinger et al, 2008;Smith et al, 2013) and the land requirements for siting renewable energy and transmission facilities (Hise et al, 2020;Kahn, 2000;McDonald et al, 2009;Wu et al, 2016Wu et al, , 2020. In this scenario, the land area of onshore wind and utility-scale solar was limited to 50% of the central case value, and the biomass supply was limited to 50% of its technical potential (Langholtz et al, 2016).…”

“…Rigid positions on tradeoffs will not be helpful for informed decision-making as they may lead to over-constrained problems and policy paralysis; better public participation, analysis, and data are more likely to improve outcomes. Recent work in California, where conflicts between renewables siting, biodiversity conservation, and agriculture have emerged, points to the potential of incorporating geospatial analysis into energy planning to help reconcile competing land uses in large-scale wind, solar, and transmission buildouts (Wu et al, 2016(Wu et al, , 2020.…”

Least-cost targets and avoided fossil fuel capacity in India’s pursuit of renewable energy

“…At a cost of USD 330 per kWh of battery storage, net system costs of all battery storage scenarios are greater than the base scenario without battery storage, because of both battery investment costs and efficiency losses ( 28 , 29 ). Battery storage becomes increasingly cost effective with greater VRE targets as it captures more value by smoothing the greater variability in VRE generation.…”

Airborne Wind Energy

“…Spatial considerations are represented as spatial constraints to resource potential, capturing already-occupied land (e.g., civil infrastructure, buildings, and so on), safety requirements (e.g., siting ordinances), or locations where development might be challenging because of land management strategies (e.g., national parks, conservation easements, threatened and endangered species habitats). Critical to assessing technical potential is an understanding that land-use objectives are fluid and evolving over time and space as communities prepare or react to energy development or potential wildlife impacts are identified (Lopez et al 2021;Wu et al 2020;Beiter et al 2016). Further, technology is constantly evolving, leading to increased energy production (Wiser et al 2020) and changing footprints.…”