Are you a utility or climatetech startup looking to understand how artificial intelligence will shape your company? Come to our one-day event, Transition-AI: Boston, on June 15. Our listeners get a 20% discount with the code PSPODS20. On the Catalyst with Shayle Kann podcast this week: The good news: the U.S. has about 47 days’ worth of energy stored up for later use. The bad news? Virtually all of it is in the form of fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas. By comparison, if you add up all the energy stored in batteries, pumped hydropower and other zero-carbon storage, it adds up to just a few seconds’ worth. This small scale of low-carbon energy storage is a big problem. We’re building out intermittent renewables fast, and we need enough energy storage to back up wind when turbines slow down and solar when the sun isn’t shining.  But there are technologies that could get us there. In this episode, Shayle talks to his colleague Andy Lubershane, who is a partner and head of research at Energy Impact Partners. Andy recently wrote a piece called Four ways to store sunlight, which compares lithium-ion batteries, heat storage, ion-air batteries, and hydrogen. Andy and Shayle cover topics like: The storage trifecta: short duration, diurnal, and multi-day seasonal Andy’s guess at how low the price of lithium-ion batteries could go Why we would use heat storage and hydrogen, despite their low round-trip efficiencies Why molten-salt heat storage didn’t take off High hopes for iron-air batteries’ low costs Blending hydrogen into gas turbines How all these technologies are competing against carbon capture and storage (CCS) Recommended Resources: Andy Lubershane: Four ways to store sunlight Form Energy: Enabling a True 24/7 Carbon-Free Resource Portfolio for Great River Energy with Multi-Day Storage Catalyst is a co-production of Post Script Media and Canary Media. Support for Catalyst comes from Climate Positive, a podcast by HASI, that features candid conversations with the leaders, innovators, and changemakers who are at the forefront of the transition to a sustainable economy. Listen and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Catalyst is supported by Scale Microgrids, the distributed energy company dedicated to transforming the way modern energy infrastructure is designed, constructed, and financed. Distributed generation can be complex. Scale makes it easy. Learn more: scalemicrogrids.com.

Are you a utility or climate tech startup looking to understand how artificial intelligence will shape your company? Come to our one-day event, Transition-AI: Boston on June 15. Our listeners get a 20% discount with the code PSPODS20. Last year, the Supreme Court struck down the EPA’s first attempt to limit greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants. But it also preserved the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The agency just needed to find the right approach. The question for the EPA was: What legal tools would pass the scrutiny of the court? Last week, Biden’s EPA came out with its answer. The proposed plan requires new and existing power plants to meet emission standards. The agency estimates that the rule would reduce GHG emissions by a total 617 million tons through 2042, a small but meaningful fraction of the total. Right now the U.S. power sector emits about 1.5 billion tons per year.  It’s an approach that dovetails with the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which is expected to dramatically reduce the cost of key emissions-reducing technologies, such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) and hydrogen. If the IRA was the Biden administration’s carrot for reducing climate emissions, then the new rule is the stick.  In this episode, Shayle unpacks the proposal with John Larsen, who leads U.S. climate policy research at the Rhodium Group. In March, John’s team modeled the impact of hypothetical power emissions standards on the U.S. power fleet, finding that many coal plants might shut down rather than install CCS. Shayle and John dig into specifics, like: The four main options available to power plant operators under the proposed rules: shut down, install carbon capture and storage (CCS), co-fire with hydrogen, or just run less The differences in rules for new and existing plants How the standards become more stringent with higher capacity factors The role of states in the rules and the “off-ramps” they could use to get around some of the rules The power plants that would be exempt from the rules, such as gas peaker plants with low capacity factors What the changing economics of CCS and hydrogen could mean for the effect of the regulations The legal gauntlet that the plan is sure to face, including lawsuits from Republican states  Recommended Resources: Rhodium Group: Pathways to Paris: Post-IRA Policy Action to Drive US Decarbonization Rhodium Group: Has the Supreme Court Blocked the Path to the 2030 Climate Target? Heatmap: What the EPA Can’t Say About Its New Power Plant Rules Canary: The EPA has a controversial new plan to clean up power plants Catalyst is a co-production of Post Script Media and Canary Media. Support for Catalyst comes from Climate Positive, a podcast by HASI, that features candid conversations with the leaders, innovators, and changemakers who are at the forefront of the transition to a sustainable economy. Listen and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Catalyst is supported by Scale Microgrids, the distributed energy company dedicated to transforming the way modern energy infrastructure is designed, constructed, and financed. Distributed generation can be complex. Scale makes it easy. Learn more: scalemicrogrids.com.

Depending on who you talk to, Bitcoin mines are either great for the grid or the worst thing that’s ever happened to it. These warehouses of computers essentially turn electricity into bitcoins. Proponents argue that mines can do a number of things for the grid, like: Support grid reliability by reducing demand during peak hours Incentivize new renewable generation by raising the prices that solar and wind farms receive Reduce methane emissions by capturing flare gas from fossil fuel wells and then using that gas to generate electricity for mine operations Meanwhile, opponents argue that the mines raise emissions and electricity prices. So how do we make sense of the great Bitcoin energy debate? In this episode, Shayle talks to Ben Hertz-Shargel, global head of grid edge at Wood Mackenzie. The New York Times recently reported on the role of Bitcoin mining on the grid, and Ben was part of a team that contributed to the report. Shayle and Ben discuss:  How Bitcoin mines affect electricity prices for nearby consumers Whether mines use only excess renewable generation or incentivize fossil-fuel generators to ramp up What mines’ load profiles say about their flexibility and price-sensitivity, especially during peak demand The evidence on whether mines are signing long-term power purchase agreements, repowering mothballed projects or otherwise helping to incentivize new renewables construction Alternative crypto currencies that don’t require so much electricity Recommended Resources: NYT: The Real-World Costs of the Digital Race for Bitcoin Earth Justice and The Sierra Club: The Energy Bomb: How Proof-of-Work Cryptocurrency Mining Worsens the Climate Crisis and Harms Communities Now Coinspeaker: Texas Senate Passes Bill to Limit Incentives for Crypto Miners Participating in Demand Response Programs Catalyst is a co-production of Post Script Media and Canary Media. Support for Catalyst comes from Climate Positive, a podcast by HASI, that features candid conversations with the leaders, innovators, and changemakers who are at the forefront of the transition to a sustainable economy. Listen and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Catalyst is supported by Scale Microgrids, the distributed energy company dedicated to transforming the way modern energy infrastructure is designed, constructed, and financed. Distributed generation can be complex. Scale makes it easy. Learn more: scalemicrogrids.com.

The U.S. power grid is clogged, and it’s holding back the energy transition.  Solar and wind farms are waiting four or more years to connect to the grid. Rising congestion costs are driving up retail electricity prices while hurting generator revenues. And the process of approving projects for interconnection is so complicated and expensive that it’s forcing developers to abandon the projects they were planning to build.  We need much more transmission capacity and a better process for connecting projects. And we need it now more than ever. Demand for power will skyrocket as we connect EVs, heat pumps and other new loads to the grid. But Rob Gramlich, our guest today, comes with good news: We did it before. We can do it again.  Rob is the founder and president of Grid Strategies. In this episode, Shayle and Rob talk through the three major challenges of transmission – congestion, interconnection, and buildout. And Rob explains how we’ve built out transmission in the past with efforts like ERCOT’s Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (CREZ) and MISO’s Multi-Value Projects (MVPs). They also cover topics like: The history of transmission in the U.S. The three P’s of transmission challenges: planning, permitting, and paying How congestion costs might shoot up over the next few years as grid capacity lags behind generation, causing new generation to slow and retail electricity prices to go up Reforming the slow, complex, and expensive approval process for interconnection at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Where local opposition fits into transmission’s larger problems Recommended Resources: Grid Strategies: Transmission Congestion Costs in the U.S. RTOs Grid Strategies: Fewer New Miles: The U.S. Transmission Grid in the 2010s Catalyst is a co-production of Post Script Media and Canary Media. Support for Catalyst comes from Climate Positive, a podcast by HASI, that features candid conversations with the leaders, innovators, and changemakers who are at the forefront of the transition to a sustainable economy. Listen and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Catalyst is supported by Scale Microgrids, the distributed energy company dedicated to transforming the way modern energy infrastructure is designed, constructed, and financed. Distributed generation can be complex. Scale makes it easy. Learn more: scalemicrogrids.com.

We’re bringing you a special crossover episode this week from Catalyst’s sister podcast, The Carbon Copy. It’s about a rogue startup that was trying to do something we’ve talked about on this show: solar geoengineering.  Last year, Time staff writer Alejandro de la Garza found himself on the floor of a hotel room in Nevada with two guys trying to cook sulfur dioxide out of a tin can.  Luke Iseman and Andrew Song are the co-founders of Make Sunsets, a startup claiming to be implementing solar geoengineering by launching weather balloons filled with SO2 into the stratosphere. Their first experimental launch in the Mexican state of Baja California resulted in a swift regulatory response from the Mexican government. But when they ran another test launch a few weeks ago just outside of Reno, Nevada, Luke invited Alejandro to join them.  This week, we speak with Alejandro about his Time profile of the controversial startup. Plus, we talk with geoengineering experts Holly Buck and Kevin Surprise. “Any single person you talk to in solar geoengineering research, whether they’re bullish or against it, they all think that what Make Sunsets is doing is a bad idea,” explains Alejandro. Make Sunsets represents a turning point for the field of geoengineering, with rogue actors pushing the field from academic debate into the real world. Is the company’s recent balloon launch an act of performance art — or an open door to an uncontrolled climate experiment? Recommended Resources: Time: Exclusive: Inside a Controversial Startup's Risky Attempt to Control Our Climate The Guardian: Solar geoengineering could be ‘remarkably inexpensive’ – report MIT Technology Review: This technology could alter the entire planet. These groups want every nation to have a say. US Geological Survey: The Atmospheric Impact of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo Eruption Catalyst: Solar geoengineering: Is it worth the risk? Catalyst is a co-production of Post Script Media and Canary Media. Support for Catalyst comes from Climate Positive, a podcast by HASI, that features candid conversations with the leaders, innovators, and changemakers who are at the forefront of the transition to a sustainable economy. Listen and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Catalyst is supported by Scale Microgrids, the distributed energy company dedicated to transforming the way modern energy infrastructure is designed, constructed, and financed. Distributed generation can be complex. Scale makes it easy. Learn more: scalemicrogrids.com.