Pathways to climate change mitigation and stable energy by 100% renewable for a small island: Jamaica as an example

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 121 (2020) 109671

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Pathways to climate change mitigation and stable energy by 100% renewable for a small island: Jamaica as an example A.A. Chen a, *, A.J. Stephens b, c, R. Koon Koon a, M. Ashtine a, K Mohammed-Koon Koon a a

Department of Physics, The University of the West Indies, Mona, Kingston 7, Jamaica Managing Director of Empowered Caribbean Communities, Jamaica c IEEE Member, USA b

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Energy security Climate change The Paris agreement Mitigation SIDS Renewable energy Frequency fluctuations Grid stability Battery energy storage Sustainability

This paper examines a pathway for small islands to replace fossil fuels by renewable sources, such as wind and solar, up to 100% to economically achieve energy security and satisfy The Paris Agreement to limit temperature rise as close as possible to 1.5 � C, in an economically beneficial manner. Using Jamaica, as an example, it is shown that the introduction of intermittent renewable energy to an island grid, which is electrically isolated, relying totally on itself for backup, causes serious frequency fluctuations and load shedding. Simulations show that a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) using Li-ion batteries can be employed to economically overcome these problems. It is also noted that the cost of batteries with longer discharge capacity is on the decline and their use is expected to be become economical in about 10 years. Looking at the reported pathway to satisfy The Paris Agreement, a 2-phase pathway is suggested. In the Phase 1 (2020–2030) 30% integration of intermittent re­ newables with BESS backup can be implemented in a manner that is not economically burdensome whilst the remaining fossil fuel system can provide the firm energy needed. In Phase 2 (2030–2055), more renewables can be implemented, provided sufficient long term storage, including batteries, can be added to provide firm energy. By 2030 the cost of such storage is expected to fall resulting in increased deployment without a financial burden to the islands. Ideally, during the period 2020 to 2055, there should be no new additions of fossil fuel plants and retiring plants should be replaced by renewable energy plants; although an account is necessary for plants already in the planning and development stages. The leeway period of 2020–2030 should be used for the preparation and planning of adding up to 100% renewables in all sectors.

1. Introduction The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) encompasses fifteenmember island states each having its own geographic, socioeconomic and political diversity; but a shared interest all nations arduously pursue is that of energy security. The current energy market depicts a depen­ dence on the importation of fossil fuels by many CARICOM nations which is reflected in the relatively high domestic retail rate for elec­ tricity of USD $0.35/kWh [1]. Caribbean nations are therefore vulner­ able to the volatile nature of the price of fossil fuel-based products, and as such, there is a strengthened and continued transition away from

conventional sources of energy towards renewable forms of energy. One such effort contributing towards this transition has yielded a regional energy policy in 2013 [2], which has facilitated the drive towards higher penetration rates of renewables across the Caribbean. The shared challenges experienced by all CARICOM member states can be addressed through the vast abundance of unexploited renewable energy resources. Belize and Jamaica collectively account for 126.1 MW of hydropower potential, holding an 82% utilization overall, whilst Dominica, Grenada, Montserrat, St. Lucia, St. Kitts & Nevis and St. Vincent & the Grenadines all exhibit immense untapped geothermal energy potential, collectively accounting for 6.28 GW of power [2]. The

Abbreviations: AR5, IPCC 5th Assessment Report, Climate Change 2013; BESS, Battery Energy Storage System; CARICOM, Caribbean Community and Common Market; EV, Electric vehicles; IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; JPS, Jamaica Public Service; SIDS, Small Island Developments States; SKN, Saint Kitts & Nevis; SVG, Saint Vincent & the Grenadines; SR15, IPCC Special Report, Global Warming of 1.5 � C; RE, Renewable energy; UFLS, Under frequency load shedding; UNFCCC, United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change; TNC, Third National Communication. * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.A. Chen), [email protected] (A.J. Stephens), [email protected] (R. Koon Koon), masao. [email protected] (M. Ashtine), [email protected] (K. Mohammed-Koon Koon). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109671 Received 1 March 2019; Received in revised form 4 November 2019; Accepted 16 December 2019 Available online 8 January 2020 1364-0321/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

A.A. Chen et al.

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 121 (2020) 109671

island of St. Vincent is aiming to become the first CARICOM member to operate and generate electricity through a geothermal power plant after its drilling programme produced promising results of 250 � C at 2.5 km in-depth and possessing suitable permeability [77]. Other small island states throughout the world are looking to renewable energy [4]. It is solar and wind energy, however, that offer the most abundant renewable resources. In fact, solar photovoltaics (PV) and wind technologies have become cost-competitive [5] when compared to conventional generation tech­ nologies, such as natural gas and coal, under certain circumstances. This cost-competitive nature of solar PV and wind has led to a number of research papers being published on integrating renewable sources to the electricity grid. Jian and Hong-Gwo [6] emphasized sustainable devel­ opment; Mendoza-Vizcaino et al. [7] examined integrated approaches including energy planning, grid assessment, and economic analysis; Cabrera et al. [8] examined a cross-sectoral approach (electricity, hea­ ting/cooling, desalination, transport and gas sectors) in introducing renewable energy; Weir reported a case study of specific islands [9] and Chen and Stephens [10] stressed wind and solar energy plus batteries as a means of greenhouse gas mitigation. None of these papers, however, discuss a pathway of mitigation consistent with the deadline suggested by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to keep temperature rise below 1.5 � C [11]. The latest Assessment Report, AR5, on climate change from the IPCC, issued in 2013 confirmed previous assessments of an accelerating change to the climate and its dire consequences [12]. More recently, the IPCC issued a Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 � C, SR15 [11], assessing the impacts of global warming of 1.5 � C above pre-industrial levels and its related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Caribbean scientists advocated strongly for the SR15 and were integral in providing data for this report [13]. Furthermore, such scientists have indicated the difference between a global warming target of 1.5 � C and 2 � C is almost year-round warm spells, longer hot and dry spells, greater portions of the region being under drought, increased occurrence of extreme drought conditions and a transition to a mean drier condition for the entire region at the higher temperature. In addition, the hurri­ cane season of 2017 has forewarned Caribbean governments of the impacts of extreme events, particularly on energy resilience and security [14,15]. SR15 provides a stylized approach in dealing with a limit of 1.5 � C or slightly above that, but below 2 � C as shown in Fig. 1 (Figure SPM.1(b) in SR15). Fig. 1 illustrates the variation of billion tonnes of CO2 per year (GtCO2/yr) over the timeline. The grey uneven line gives the historical emissions and emissions estimated to 2020. The vertical error bar in this line gives the likely range of annual historic emissions. The straight lines after 2020 give the stylized declines in CO2 emissions, reaching zeroemission in 2040 or 2055, that can achieve the desired limit in tem­ perature rise. The blue line is obviously a faster track to limit temper­ ature rise to no more than 1.5 � C. Although the central tercile of the error bar in this scenario puts temperature rise below 1.5 � C, the upper tercile puts the temperature above 1.5⁰ for some time before settling near 1.5 � C toward the end of this century. The grey line, arriving at zero-emission in 2055, gives a central tercile with temperature rise closer to 1.5 � C than the blue line, with the upper tercile being above 1.5 � C. Reaching zero-emission of CO2 from 2020 to 2040 is very unlikely. There are, for example, over 8000 combined cycle power plants in operation in the USA according to the US Energy Information Admin­ istration, many of which will be repaired and overhauled. Furthermore, many new plants are planned to come on stream by 2020 [16] and there is a very strong natural gas lobby. A scenario of zero-emission by 2055 would be more likely, but still difficult to achieve and the temperature reached may still exceed the 1.5 � C limit. In actuality a non-linear pathway will exist, in which the decline rate will be less initially, tending to a more rapid decline before reaching zero in about 2055. The

Fig. 1. Stylized net global CO2 emission pathways to limit temperature rise to 1.5 � C. The vertical axis is given in GtCO2/yr. Reproduced from Figure SPM.1 (b) in SR15 [11] by permission of IPCC.

timelines of these pathways show the urgency for global action. When it comes to mitigation all countries must act and a suggested pathway to zero-emission by 2055 for small islands is discussed in Section 4. Renewable energy, especially solar and wind for islands deficient in other forms of renewable energy, offer small islands the opportunity to solve the twin problem of energy security and climate change, although there are problems with intermittence. However, in combating climate change most Small Island Development States (SIDS) concentrate mainly on adapting to climate change rather than mitigating greenhouse gases [17] and the anecdotal evidence is that the notion of 100% renewable energy to replace fossil fuels is unfamiliar and is considered too expensive. This paper, therefore, examines the problems of introducing intermittent renewable energy, especially solar and wind, into small island states; solutions to the problems by the implementation of Battery Energy Storage System (BESS); and a step by step pathway to 100% renewables keeping within the guideline of mitigation prescribed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [11] in a manner that is technically and economical feasible and therefore sustainable, using Jamaica as an example. 2. Jamaica’s energy situation 2.1. Jamaica’s current energy profile Jamaica’s energy sector is heavily dependent upon crude oil imports to meet the country’s electricity and transportation requirements. In 2018, crude oil imports amounted to US$516.49 million [18] or 3.5% of the country’s Gross Domestic products (GDP) using an exchange rate of US$1 to JM$137.96 [19]. Jamaica’s total energy consumption in 2018 was equivalent to 20,638 thousand Barrel of Oil Equivalent (BOE) [18]. As depicted in Fig. 2, petroleum-based fuels accounted for 92.36% of total energy consumption, of which, transportation and electricity generation utilized 35.58% and 24.81% respectively. Although less than 8% of the total energy consumed comprised of alternative energy, consumption of such energy increased by 46.7% relative to 2017 [20]. The Third National Communication (TNC) of Jamaica to the UNFCCC 2018 [21], states that although Jamaica has a relatively low carbon footprint, for a small country it has a “high per capita GHG emission comparable to Uruguay and Georgia and higher than that of Albania.” The baseline scenario put forward by the TNC forecasts an increase in total GHG emissions of approximately 1000 thousand tonnes CO2 every 2

A.A. Chen et al.

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 121 (2020) 109671

Fig. 2. Jamaica’s preliminary total energy consumption for 2018 – figure based on data from Refs. [18,20].

five years in Jamaica from 2015 to 2050.

$0.37/kWh, US$0.32/kWh, and US$0.28/kWh respectively [2] which are all greater than that of Jamaica (US$0.26/kWh) a Low-Income is­ land. This indirect correlation among income category of islands, per capita electricity consumption and prices can lead towards more com­ plex economic analyses involving fossil fuel importation rates, islands GDP and economic debt. Notably, Jamaica’s renewable energy drive has generated an overall reduction in its fossil fuel importation from 9% of the country’s GDP in 2015 [2] to 3.5% in 2018 [18], one of the lowest among Caribbean islands. A detailed illustration of the price of electricity for Caribbean islands when compared to the annual fossil fuel importation cost as a percentage of GDP, and the Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative (ND-GAIN) Index is seen in Fig. 3. The ND-GAIN (an index rating out of 100, the higher the better able to adapt) is a combination of a country’s vulnerability to climate change (the ability to adapt to the negative ef­ fects of climate change) and its readiness (weighted investments spe­ cifically designed for adaptation actions) to improve resilience [29].

2.2. Electricity production Electricity in Jamaica is supplied by the Jamaica Public Service Company Limited (JPS), the sole electric utility company and distributor in the country. JPS owns and operates four main power stations, eight hydro-electric plants, one wind farm (Munro) and approximately 1200 km of transmission lines that are connected to 53 substations across the island [22]. In 2018, Jamaica’s available generating capacity was approximately 864.0 MW, of which, 69.7% was supplied by JPS and the remaining 30.3% by independent power producers (IPPs). The propor­ tion of electricity generated from renewable energy sources in 2018 increased by 0.9% to 12.1% compared to 2017 [18]. Losses are a serious problem. Total system losses for 2017 were 26.6%, this comprised of 8.5% technical and 18.1% non-technical losses [23]. By the end of 2019, a 24.5 MW hybrid energy storage system, comprising of 21 MW of battery and 3.5 MW of flywheel will have been added to the national grid system in order to provide some level of frequency control. In addition, JPS will be replacing 193.5 MW of old steam turbine generating plant with a 190 MW of LNG fired combined cycle plant and the contracted New Fortress Energy will build a 100 MW (94 MW net) LNG fired gas turbine plant, at Jamalco in Clarendon [24]. Under the existing operating condition, The Jamaica Electricity Sector Book of Codes (The Codes) [25] mandated all four baseload steam tur­ bines (OH2, OH3, OH4 at Old Harbour and B6 at Hunts Bay) to carry an aggregate minimum of 30 MW of spinning reserve. However, only the Hunts Bay B6 unit makes any significant response to the frequency changes and reserve requirements of the system. The other three base­ load plants in total used less than 10% of their spinning reserves capacity.

2.4. Jamaica’s renewable energy potential Jamaica’s energy mix has undergone significant diversification through the introduction of substantial decentralized generation centres across the island. The major forms of renewable energy throughout the island are solar, wind, hydropower and bagasse. While biomass can be seen as a firm source of energy, the attention of the Government of Ja­ maica is toward the production of biofuels [30]. The only usage of biomass as a source of energy in Jamaica is the burning of bagasse almost exclusively for cogeneration (thermal and approximately 20 MWe) in sugar factories, and at times it alone cannot supply the requisite energy [31]. Although viewed as a potential source of energy for the grid, the continuing steep decline in sugar production [32] will pose a problem. Plans to produce sugar for biofuels and electricity have not yet materialized [33]. Distributed power generation facilities of note in Jamaica include Wigton Wind Farm, Blue Mountain Renewables (BMR), Content Solar and Paradise Park (as seen in Fig. 4); all are grid-connected and positioned along the island’s high-voltage trans­ mission lines (138 kV & 69 kV). Section 2.1 above outlined Jamaica’s total energy consumption for 2018. As such, a further analysis was undertaken to determine the economic and environmental benefits of the renewable portion of the country’s energy mix as seen in Table 1. This analysis shows that in 2018 Jamaica experienced a net savings of US$ 22.75 million, through the avoided cost of imported of fossil fuels and products, displacing 326, 000

2.3. Electricity price comparison to other caribbean islands The dependence on petroleum-based products by many Caribbean islands directly affects the price of electricity and more so the per capita electricity consumption across the islands. This per capita electricity consumption for the islands have been categorised into groups; Antigua & Bermuda, The Bahamas, Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago (above the World Average of 3045 kWh), Grenada (Middle-Income, 1816 kWh), Dominica and Jamaica (Low-Income, 219 kWh), and Haiti is below LowIncome [26]. With the exception of Trinidad & Tobago (T&T), the price of electricity for Antigua & Bermuda, The Bahamas and Barbados is US 3

A.A. Chen et al.

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 121 (2020) 109671

Fig. 3. Price of electricity across Caribbean islands – figure based on data from Refs. [2,27,28,29].

Fig. 4. Map of renewable energy generating facilities across Jamaica – figure based on [34–38].

BOE (not includng bagasse) representative of approximately 358; 360 tonnes of avoidable atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions. Therefore, Jamaica’s current drive towards higher penetration rates of renewable and distributed energy generation is certainly advanta­ geous to its economy through the projected financial savings and posi­ tive environmental impacts of avoided carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. Notably, this pursuit has continued in 2019 with the

addition of the 51 MW Paradise Park Solar farm in Westmoreland, Jamaica. 2.5. Problems prior to planned battery introduction The JPS, which operates the power grid, has been experiencing power quality and grid stability issues with the level of renewable en­ ergy (RE) penetration from wind and solar. These issues were evident especially in the area of frequency control which in some cases resulted in the system frequency falling outside of the steady-state operating limits. More seriously, these low operating frequencies occasionally resulted in the generators operating outside of their design-operating limits, which can result in cumulative damage to the turbine blades and unintended under frequency load shedding (UFLS). The addition of the 51 MW solar farm in Westmoreland in 2019 is expected to further aggravate the problem if it is not properly managed and the appropriate control mechanisms are not in place.

Table 1 Renewable energy profile in Jamaica for 2018 based on [18]. Type of Alternative Power

Installed Power Capacity (GWh)

Barrels of Oil Equivalent Displaced (‘000 BOE)

Avoided Cost (US$ million)a

Avoided tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions (tCO2 )b

Wind Solar Hydropower

302 46 179

187 28 111

13.05 1.95 7.75

205,360 31,280 121,720

a b

2.5.1. Examples of frequency violation Examples of frequency violation are given on 2 typical days using

Assuming US$69.78/BOE for 2018 [39]. A carbon intensity of 680 gCO2 e=kWh is used [40]. 4

A.A. Chen et al.

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 121 (2020) 109671

of that spinning reserves was from the Hunts Bay B6 generator. Part of the problem is also the different response times of the system. JPS presently uses fast-responding gas turbine generators as the con­ ventional means of correcting the frequency regulation problem. Typical starting time for these generators kept offline, usually vary between 5 and 7 min. These generators, therefore, will not be able to correct vio­ lations that last shorter than the start-up time. Hence, operating the generators in these starts-up and shutdown modes will not provide full regulations for the system. Additionally, the frequent starting up and shutting down of the generators will increase their operation and maintenance (O&M) cost. If the gas turbines are kept online, they will be able to correct most of the violations. However, such use of the gener­ ators as online reserve, rather than for power generation, will result in the displacement of more economic generation and increase the cost of service to consumers as O&M costs will increase. Differences in responses are also seen in the ramp-up and ramp-down rates of the system. When the power of the RE plant goes down the system reserve is expected to compensate by ramping-up power. Simi­ larly, when the power of the RE goes up, the system power will rampdown. Fluctuations will occur if the magnitude of the ramp-down rates of the RE plants is greater than the ramp-up rates of the conven­ tional plants used to control frequency leading to under frequency conditions. Conversely, if the magnitude of the ramp-up rate of the RE plants are greater than that the ramp-down rate of the conventional plants, over frequency conditions can occur. Both of these contrasting situations occurred on the first day, the former between 13:10 and 13:11 and the latter between 13:38 and 13:40, as seen in Fig. 5. Correspond­ ingly, Table 2 (a) shows the greater magnitude of ramp-down rate of renewables than the magnitude of ramp-up rates of the conventional generators from 13:10 to 13:11, with an aggregate ramp down rate of 4.0 MW/min. Table 2 (b) shows the greater magnitude of ramp-up rate of renewables than the magnitude of ramp-down rates of the conven­ tional generators from 13:38 to 13:40, giving an aggregate ramp-up rate of 3.77 MW/min. The net effect was that the outputs from the REs were changing at a rate of almost twice that of conventional generators which were online to provide some level of frequency support. The above discussion illustrates that intermittent renewable energy can have severe effects on the grid of small island states like Jamaica that are electrically isolated. In such a vulnerable system, the replace­ ment of large amounts of conventional generation with renewable en­ ergy sources can have significant implications for grid security and stability as noted by Merino et al. [41] in the use of wind energy. With regards to the way forward, it is, therefore, very important that island grid systems give serious consideration to the inclusion of suitable control mechanisms in order to provide appropriate grid support when

data supplied by JPS. Fig. 5 shows several frequency violations that occurred within the system between 13:00 and 14:00 on the first of these days, which resulted from the frequency of the electricity generated going beyond designated limits. This is demonstrated in the figure by the positive/negative deviations from the 50 Hz (Hz) operating frequency. The Jamaica Electricity Sector Book of Codes [25] states that a con­ ventional generating plant and auxiliary apparatus shall be designed to operate within 50 � 0.5 Hz frequency range and maintain constant active power output at any load point, to avoid turbine damage. The Codes also state that the normal operating frequency of the system shall be controlled by the system operator within 50.0 Hz � 0.2 Hz. Industries using frequency sensitive equipment program their equipment to oper­ ate within this limit, and deviations can cause disruption in operation. Fig. 5 shows that the system frequency was outside the 50 � 0.5 Hz design-limit between 13:12:10 and 13:14:36, and outside the 50 � 0.2 Hz operating-limit on several occasions between 13:17:02 and 13:43:48. At about 13:14 the frequency was at 49.37 Hz and below the 49.80 Hz steady-state lower limit. In response, the 18 MW Gas Turbine Unit 6, in Montego Bay (GT6) was brought online to correct that problem. How­ ever, by the time it was synchronized, the frequency was already increasing, and the inclusion of the generator helped to push the fre­ quency to 50.39 Hz, beyond the 50.2 Hz upper limit for steady-state operation. At the same time, while the system frequency was rising, the outputs from an online solar farm started to increase and the attempt to limit it by reducing the output from GT6 initially did not prevent the frequency from rising to 50.41 Hz at about 13:19:28, before the correction was made. The effects of cloud coverage leading to fluctuations in power output of a solar plant can be seen in Fig. 6 which shows the cloud-induced transient conditions that occurred on the second of these days. The transient lasted for approximately three 3 h and 40 min, and there were about 20 noticeable instances in output variations from the solar farm. The worst of which occurred between 11:04 and 11:13 a.m. when the output from the farm fell from 19.57 MW to 3.1 MW. In total there were 71 frequency violations at that time, with 43 of them being highfrequency and 28 low-frequency. Spinning reserves are expected to correct these fluctuations. The arithmetic spinning reserve, given in MW, is calculated by subtracting the output of the generators from their available capacity. However, in responding to these fluctuations, the arithmetic reserve calculation method used by JPS does not actually provide system operators with any level of confidence, because it misrepresented the actual active reserve that was available on the day in question. Only about 8.2 MW, of the 36 MW calculated arithmetic spinning reserves that were available, were utilized when the outputs from renewable fell by 16 MW, and 7.39 MW

Fig. 5. One-hour System Frequency Profile on a given day, showing frequency variation outside both the 50 � 0.2 Hz system operating frequency limits and generator design frequency limits of 50 � 0.5 Hz. Produced from data used with permission of JPS. 5

A.A. Chen et al.

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 121 (2020) 109671

Fig. 6. Cloud-induced transient in power output of a solar power plant on a cloudy day. Produced from data provided with permission of JPS.

investigations were carried out to examine the feasibility of batteries to provide an energy reserve for frequency regulation as opposed to con­ ventional fossil fuel plants. Li-ion batteries, in particular, can be used and have an economic value for frequency regulation [44]. Simulations were performed to determine if a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) can be used to improve response and cost-effectiveness of system dynamics and regulating frequency. The methodology consid­ ered changes in frequency during a power loss without and with battery backup storage. Similar analyses were conducted by JPS for their hybrid storage system to be installed; however, such data were not made available to the public. The BESS used in the simulations was the general-purpose BESS model developed by DIgSILENT, and the simula­ tions were done using the DIgSILENT/Power Factory suite of power system software. The results of the simulation were then made available to the University of the West Indies for further analysis.

Table 2 Aggregate ramp rates of renewables and of conventional generators on a given day. Produced from data by permission of JPS. (a) 13:10 to 13:11 Power Plant

Power Generation (MW)

Renewables

Start

Aggregate Wind 31.06 Solar 20.01 Total ramp-down rate Conventional Generators Old Harbour Steam 47.02 Plant 3 Old Harbour Steam 58.45 Plant 4 Hunts Bay Steam 57.92 Plant B6 Total ramp-up rate Net ramp down rate (MW/min)

Duration (mins.)

Power Ramp Rate (MW/min)

24.11 12.67

2 2

3.48 3.67 ¡7.15

48.05

2

0.51

58.62

2

0.08

63.02

2

2.55

End

3.2. Dynamic analysis

3.15 ¡4.00

For the dynamic analysis, the following were assumed:

(b) 13:38 to 13:40 Power Plant

Power Generation (MW)

Renewables

Start

Aggregate Wind 23.68 Solar 8.7 Total ramp-down rate Conventional Generators Old Harbour Steam 49.89 Plant 3 Old Harbour Steam 59.35 Plant 4 Hunts Bay Steam 61.37 Plant B6 Total ramp-up rate Net ramp down rate (MW/min)

Duration (mins.)

Power Ramp Rate (MW/min)

32.20 15.85

2 2

4.26 3.58 7.84

47.49

2

1.20

57.75

2

0.80

57.23

2

2.07

a. All BESS used in the simulations were modeled at unity power factor order to get maximum real power benefit from the BESS, for fre­ quency control. b. The simulations were performed assuming conventional baseload generators (that usually carry spinning reserves) were modeled without reserves. This assumption was made because only the B6 unit used a significant amount of its spinning reserves to provide grid support and because the spinning reserves do not function as intended.

End

3.2.1. Results of power system dynamic simulations The results showed no significant changes in the voltages at the buses selected for analysis (69 kV substations) and by extension, throughout the system with or without BESS. For frequency regulation, however, BESS is an improvement, as shown in Table 3 which gives sample results of the dynamic simulation. Firstly, consider the role of BESS in restoring frequency in an underfrequency incident caused by generation loss shown in column 2 of Table 3. Column 3 presents the amount of BESS backup used to restore power and the last column displays the minimum frequency reached during the loss and the time taken for the final frequency to be restored. Cases 6 and 7 show that with BESS backup of 20 MW, a 20 MW loss can be restored to operational steady-state frequency (50 � 0.2 Hz) within 3 s and a 30 MW loss can be brought within design limit (50 � 0.5 Hz) in less than 6 s. Cases 11 and 12 show that with 25 MW of BESS, both the 20

¡4.07 3.77

needed. Control by means of batteries as a solution is discussed in the following section. 3. Batteries as a method of control 3.1. Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Previous technical analyses such as Li et al. [42] and Greenwood et al. [43], have clearly demonstrated the need for battery storage to stabilize frequency regulation in electricity generation. For Jamaica, 6

A.A. Chen et al.

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 121 (2020) 109671

d. The gas turbine generators used to provide frequency regulation should be able to vary their outputs within a �10 MW bandwidth. e. The capital cost of the BESS and the O&M cost were extrapolated from the cost provided by JPS for its 24.5 MW hybrid energy storage system. The cost of charging the BESS to provide frequency regula­ tion and spinning reserve worked out to be 220 US $/MWh (22 ¢/kWh). f. The cost associated with the gas turbine, when it is used for man­ aging the frequency regulation problem, includes the cost of running the gas turbines out of merit order, and the O&M cost. g. A value of US $4.00/kWh was used as the cost of unserved energy, which is an economic cost to the country when the energy is not delivered.

Table 3 Sample results of dynamic simulation using BESS. Under-frequency operation Case No.

Trip Loss (MW)

BESS Rating (MW)

Frequency (Hz) Minimum

Time (sec.) 2.8 5.3 3.29 2.44

Final

6 20 20 7 30 20 11 20 25 12 30 25 Frequency regulation operation Case Frequency (Hz) No. Minimum Maximum

49.49 49.43 49.49 49.49

49.88 49.62 49.87 49.81

33

49.75

50.1

34

49.88

50.075

10 MW in generation from solar farm and No BESS. 10 MW in generation from solar farm with BESS.

Comments

3.3.1. Results of economic analysis The cost-benefit analysis calculated over a period of ten years (esti­ mated lifetime of the battery) yielded a payback period of five (5) years with a cumulative net-present worth value of US $43,695,831 and an Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of 30%. The numerical findings in Table 4 supports the fact that BESS is cost-beneficial with promising returns. Columns 1 and 2 show the power demand over the years. Column 3 lists the cost of the battery system in the first year and subsequent O&M costs including escalation costs, whilst column 4 gives the present worth, discounting the future amount at a rate of 12% per year compounded annually. Columns 5 to 9 estimate the costs of running a conventional spinning reserve, including:

and 30 MW loss can be restored to steady-state frequency in less than 4 s. The simulations also included Stage 0 Under-Frequency Load Shedding (UFLS) which occurs when the frequency is below 49.35 Hz, shedding about 30 MW. In general, with a 20 MW BESS support, stage 0 UFLS operation will only occur for loss of generation between 40 MW and 60 MW, but for these cases, a 25 MW BESS will prevent stage 0 UFLS operation. Cases 33 and 34 examined frequency variations due to a 10 MW solar farm with and without BESS support. A system without BESS will operate below the steady-state limit at 49.75 Hz, but with BESS support it can be brought within the limit to 49.88 Hz. The over-frequency variations were within the steady-state limit. The results showed that the fast response time of BESS, ranging from milliseconds to seconds, placed it at an advantage when compared with conventional generating plants in providing frequency support. A major disadvantage, however, is that if the BESS is not properly specified and sized, the life span of the BESS will be reduced thereby increasing investment costs.

1. Cost of operating the spinning reserve for frequency control, 2. The economic cost of the unserved energy that the utility has to account for during ULFS, 3. Cost of running out of merit dispatch, i.e., the cost of not using the least costly generation unit first, 4. Total cost and, 5. Present worth. The last 2 columns present the net benefit of using BESS, first the differences in present worth and then cumulative present worth.

3.3. Economic analysis The economic analysis compared the cost of operating a system using conventional spinning reserves for frequency regulation against the cost of a system using BESS. Overall benefits will result from savings that the utility will accrue with the use of BESS by removing the reserve re­ quirements that are placed on baseload generating plants. The elimi­ nation of fast responding gas turbines for frequency regulation and unserved energy are costs which otherwise would have been the re­ sponsibility of the utility. The cost of unserved energy is an economic valuation of the cost of electricity interruptions to customers and the economy as a whole. The following assumptions were made:

3.4. Conclusions of BESS analysis Conventional generating plants carrying spinning reserves provided inadequate responses and as such did not aid in limiting the aggregated variation in production from the wind and solar farms. This resulted in the system frequency falling outside of the operating steady-state and design limits. The analysis demonstrates that BESS is not only a costeffective approach but also provides better frequency regulation than a conventional generating plant. The analysis is an idealistic and simplified approach; however, it endorses other detailed oriented analyses [42–44]. In a more detailed analysis, consideration should be given to the use of rate of change of charging the batteries, and or the ramp-up and ramp-down rate func­ tions. Also, as part of the operation (day to day planning) of the system, the daily duty cycle for which the BESS is required to operate must be determined for it to meet the worst-case scenario. Furthermore, careful consideration must be given to the batteries based on the subjected stress levels.

a. Unlike the dynamic analysis, the simulations were performed assuming the conventional baseload generators were carrying spin­ ning reserve. Power plants coming on stream in 2019 and 2020 were also included in the analysis so that a true cost-benefit can be ob­ tained for Jamaica. Thus, it was assumed that the 190 MW combined cycle plant at Old Harbour and the 94 MW generating plant at Jamalco will carry the minimum 30 MW spinning reserves, as required by The Codes. b. The economic analysis was conducted for a 60 MW BESS to provide frequency regulation, and some aspect of spinning reserve support, and will not be charged to deliver more than 50 MW. Thus the BESS will have some capacity to absorb energy (i.e., BESS can be charged) if the conventional plant ramps up, thereby absorbing the extra en­ ergy and providing stability. c. At no time the state of charge of the BESS should go below 10 MW in order to protect the batteries.

4. Mitigation pathway to limit temperature rise to as close as possible to 1.5 � C Following the stylized pathway of Fig. 1, emission of CO2 must start declining after 2020. That is, any new power plant added must be nonfossil fuel, although consideration must be given to fossil fuel plants already in the planning and developmental stages. The non-fossil sour­ ces could include nuclear, geothermal, hydropower and even biomass, 7

A.A. Chen et al.

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 121 (2020) 109671

Table 4 Power demand, cost of battery and O&M versus cost of conventional spinning reserve and net benefit of BESS over 10 years in US$ millions (M). Year

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Power Demand (MW)

655 675 695 716 737 759 782 806 830 855

Battery & O&M Costs (US $M)

Cost of Conventional Spinning Reserve (US$M)

Net Benefit (US$M)

Total Cost

Present Worth

Spinning Reserve

UFLS

Out of Merit Order Dispatch

Total Cost

Present Worth

Present Worth

Cum PW

76.8 12.3 12.7 13.1 13.4 13.8 14.3 14.7 15.1 15.6

76.8 10.7 9.52 8.50 7.59 6.78 6.05 5.40 4.82 4.31

18.6 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.6

1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20

0.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0

19.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8

19.8 27.5 24.6 21.9 19.6 17.5 15.6 13.9 12.4 11.1

56.9 16.9 15.1 13.4 12.0 10.7 9.57 8.54 7.63 6.81

56.9 40.0 25.0 11.6 0.443 11.2 20.7 29.3 36.9 43.7

interconnection). Thus, it is essential that Li-ion Batteries are utilized towards the 30% renewable energy target. During phase 1, such distributed generations can be integrated to replace retiring fossil fuel plants or for expanding power capacity. Furthermore, during such time, no new fossil plant should be added to replace old ones being decom­ missioned. The remaining 70% of the energy mix will be generated through fossil fuel plants supplying the firm or bulk energy needed.

as long as the latter is carbon neutral. For a small island such as Jamaica, the main source of non-fossil fuel will be wind and solar power, and as such a two-phase mitigation pathway is envisaged. The first phase during the period of 2020–2030 entails the integration of wind and solar power up to 30% of the energy mix coupled with Li-ion batteries for frequency control. The second phase for the period of 2030–2055 will consist of further integrating wind and solar up to 100% of the energy mix, combined with Li-ion and other longer-term storage, e.g., vana­ dium flow batteries. These pathways need not be economically burdensome and in fact are more likely be economically beneficial, as seen in the following sections.

4.2. Phase 2 (2030–2055): integrating wind and solar up to 100% of the energy mix According to the SR15 scenarios, the time span for introducing the additional 70% renewable will be around 2030 to 2055. This provides just over a 10 year period from the present to plan the implementation of renewables with long-duration storage of 6 or more hours per night. It should be noted that a battery of 6-h duration can last throughout the night when power consumption is low. It means that there is a 10-year leeway for long term storage to become economically viable. This is not beyond expectation. Vanadium flow batteries, for example, Resch et al. [49] stated that the investment costs of Vanadium redox flow batteries must be reduced by at least 30% in order to break even for primary control reserve, and Lazard [50] estimates that cost will fall by 38% in the next 5 years. IRENA [45] gives the reduction potential of Vanadium flow batteries from 2016 to 2030 to be about 60%. However, recently high vanadium cost, due to the addition of small amounts in steel manufacturing in China, has stalled investment. But it is expected that by 2030, Vanadium flow batteries will regain its market share [51]. Another long-duration battery that is expected to be a cheap alternative to Vanadium flow battery is the iron-based flow battery [52]. A manu­ facturer claims that it can produce an iron-based flow battery at a price of $250 to $300/kWh [53], which could result in a levelized-cost of energy for the battery of under $0.05/kWh. A new and novel storage source which can compete with batteries is based on gravity. The system consists of a six-arm crane which sits atop a 33-storey tower, raising and lowering concrete blocks and storing en­ ergy in a similar method to pumped hydropower stations. The system shows potential to be technically valuable to future energy systems and the levelized-cost of energy for the system is estimated to be under $0.05/kWh [54]. One of the world’s largest technology investor has made a huge investment in this storage source [55]. Comparison of the cost of energy from 100% photovoltaic power plants plus battery storage versus the cost from fossil fuel power plants in Jamaica 10 years from now (~2030) can be simply done by ballpark calculations making the following assumptions:

4.1. Phase 1(2020–2030): integrating wind and solar up to 30% of the energy mix The addition of wind and solar into the energy mix to acquire 30% of grid capacity from 2020 to 2030, coupled with Li-ion batteries for fre­ quency control and ramping-up and down are both technically and economically feasible. On the economic side wind and solar are costcompetitive with gas [5], so there is no economic disadvantage in uti­ lizing them to replace retiring fossil fuel plants. This paper and others [44] have demonstrated that it is more economical to use BESS for fre­ quency control rather than conventional fossil fuel plants. In addition, the cost of wind and solar plus Li-ion batteries is expected to decrease during the period [45], while gas prices will likely be stagnant or in­ crease [46] so the economic advantage of introducing up to 30% renewable is expected to continue throughout the period. It should be noted that the savings expected could be used to purchase additional batteries needed. On the technical side, it is conventionally thought that the addition of renewables only up to 30% of capacity to the grid will not lead to grid instability, provided that appropriate measure and control mechanisms are put in place to ensure grid stability. For example, a study done by the American Physical Society states that ‘Although small penetration of renewable generation on the grid can be smoothly integrated, accom­ modating more than approximately 30% electricity generation from these renewable sources will require new approaches to extending and operating the grid’ [47], and a grid impact assessment done by Hinicio for Jamaica states that ‘The integration of 30% renewable will be cost neutral at the transmission grid level’ [48]. However [48], only looked at the grid in steady-state, and as such would not have been able to evaluate the frequency regulation problem discussed in this paper. However, this paper has shown that an addition of even 12% renewable energy to a conventional grid, like the one in Jamaica, will pose serious problems. This problem can be attributed to the fact that the Jamaican grid, like other small isolated networks, is electrically weak, due to its low inertia [41], thus making it more sensitive to fluctuations than large interconnected grids (e.g., the Mexico, USA and Canada

a) The installation cost of a solar plant is approximately the same as that of a fossil fuel plant. This assumption is based on the cost of the latest fossil fuel plant to be installed in Jamaica (approximately $1.74 M 8

A.A. Chen et al.

b)

c) d) e) f)

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 121 (2020) 109671

per MW [56]) and the costs of the two solar plants recently installed in Jamaica (approximately US$2.14 M per MW and US$1.62 M per MW), calculated from reports [57,58]. The expectation is that the solar plant will actually be cheaper [59]. Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs will be approximately the same. In actuality, the solar plant will cost less to operate and maintain since there are no moving parts involved and solar panels can operate maintenance free (except for washing) for over 20 years. The cost of fossil fuel in Jamaica will remain at the 2018 level ($345,194,443/year). This price does not include natural gas, so the calculation strictly applies to oil-based fossil fuel. The electricity consumption will remain the same (4,335,502,000 kWh/year) The cost of flow batteries will be approximately $250/kWh [60]. The flow battery will be capable of 100% depth of discharge without degradation [61].

limited one-way traffic flow, of the utility providing electricity to con­ sumers and a monthly billing by the utility. However, a more delicate relationship between the utility and the consumer is introduced through smart grids, as both electricity and information are exchanged; a two-way dialogue [63]. There are many beneficial dimensions resulting from smart grid integration such as a shorter elapsing period resulting from power disturbances, specifically designed to handle the integration of large-scale renewable energy systems, enhanced efficiency, and se­ curity. In addition, both the reduction in peak demand periods and operations and management costs will have eventual reductions in the price of electricity to the consumer. A deployment strategy for a smart-grid to successfully address rate and bill impacts are required, given that, the smart grid is thought of as the combination of information and operational technology applied across the electric grid, thus providing an enhanced sense of security and customer-based options [64]. Communication is predominantly used by electric utilities, with the greatest number of privately owned and operated wide-area networks (WANs). Hence, what is needed for smart grid integration is a pervasive Internet Protocol (IP) transport network working at adequate bandwidth capability to successfully provide utility power delivery applications along large volumes of data within the smart grid [64]. It goes without saying that during this period, relevant personnel must keep up to date with technology development, especially battery and other storage technology. Training needs must be assessed and implemented. The introduction of a pilot project into the island would be ideal. Finally, legislative procedures and social and environmental impacts must be considered.

Since the installation costs and O&M costs are assumed roughly the same, the only other costs to consider is the cost of fuel over a given period versus the cost of batteries. A ball park calculation will show that while the capital expenditure of batteries is high, over a 10 year period t, (i.e., ~2030–2040) the cost of fuel will exceed the initial cost of batteries by $482,422,512, even if the batteries were required to provide 100% backup for the solar plant. A similar analysis could be done for a wind farm. Without invoking the fact that O&M costs for solar will be lower than for fossil fuel and other parameters, this simple calculation shows the vast potential of renewables plus storage, especially since 100% backup would not normally be required and battery costs are expected to keep falling. So with an expected decline in cost of long-term storage systems, such as Vanadium flow batteries, iron flow batteries and gravity tower storage, the prospects of using renewables for bulk or firm energy in the next 10 years in an economically advantageous manner is hopeful, and so is the prospect of 100% renewable for small islands. If costs for long term storage do not decline to economically viable levels in this time, it will be incumbent on the global community to subsidize storage in one form or another since we will face an existential crisis unless some other practical solution of eliminating greenhouse gases can be found. Implementing the two phases require long-term planning or integrated resource assessments.

4.3.3. Optimization The introduction of a flexible power network means that optimiza­ tion is no longer focused on single objective functions such as mini­ mizing fuel cost or system losses but rather multi-objective functions which simultaneously consider factors such as location of reactive power units, voltage stability, maximum renewable penetration and the control network [65]. Alonso et al. [65] suggests that heuristic-based ap­ proaches are presently the best methods for smart-grid optimization and demonstrated the use of genetic algorithm (GA) to solve a large-scale problem of location of distributed generation to increase grid penetra­ tion whilst maintaining voltage stability. After a survey of existing techniques for improving grid-penetration of renewable energy and damping ratio reduction, Renuka et al. [66] noted limitations of traditional optimization methods included reduced efficiency and increased computational complexity and cost. Hence, the authors proposed the use of Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) to maximize grid-penetration of intermittent PV and wind resources and increase small signal stability by improving damping ratios. Testing their method on an IEEE 14-bus system and the Kerala grid, Reunka et al. [66] demonstrated increases of 294 MW and 288 MW respectively.

4.3. Integrated resource planning 4.3.1. Resource studies Foremost, it is necessary to know if the island has enough wind, solar and other renewable sources available for 100% renewable, and it is necessary to know if proposed power plants can be accommodated in the space available. Thus, resource maps of wind, solar and other renewable sources are needed to be compiled and assessed, and a spatial plan including energy resources need to be in place. Wind maps need wind measurements and modeling. Solar resources can be obtained from satellite data plus ground truth measurements. For the grid support and the most efficient and economical use of storage, all resources need to be integrated, especially in terms of diurnal and seasonal variations, and forecasting resources, both weather-wise and climate-wise, i.e., shortand long-term, are necessary. As a last resort for backup, existing gas plants can be kept operable and brought into action if necessary, hence it is especially useful to forecast the availability of renewable resources.

4.3.4. Transportation Transportation accounts for approximately 30% of petroleum con­ sumption [67] so that de-fossilization of the transportation sector is also necessary. Current trends suggest stabilization at much higher oil prices than the 2016 crash, and fluctuations will continue to affect renewable energy (RE) integration and investments [68,69]. In addition to high environmental costs, dependence on expensive imported petroleum products has led to serious inefficiencies in the power sector thus eroding competitiveness [70]. Therefore, reductions in the fuel impor­ tation bill within the transport sector is paramount for Caribbean gov­ ernments. Previous studies [71,72] provide a foundation for overcoming some of the major hurdles to EV and storage deployment in the Carib­ bean, at present, and in the future. This is in support of the Caribbean Community Market (CARICOM) Energy Use for Transportation Policy (2013), which among other objectives, aims to implement strategies to encourage fuel switching in the transportation sector and improve

4.3.2. Grid consideration Next, in preparation for adding up to 100% renewable to the grid, it is necessary to look at grid impact, whether to add distributive gener­ ation and the need for smart grids. The addition of increased renewable energy and distributed generation add to increased grid complexities, and as such smart grids can assist to successfully integrate these energy resources to existing grids [62]. Originally, the grid was designed for a 9

A.A. Chen et al.

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 121 (2020) 109671

overall fuel economies. The Jamaican Government has unoffically raised its RE target to 50% by 2030, an ambitious goal to achieve in a relatively short timeframe. Jamaica has experienced a significant increase (~350,000) in the number of motor vehicles between mid-2014 to mid-2017, and light motor cars accounted for 70% while motorcycles accounted for 8% of the overall number of motor vehicles in 2017 [73]. EV intervention on an initial small-scale can target that 8% (~58,000 motorcycles) across Jamaica, yielding substantial savings to the economy. The possibility of introducing EVs into the Jamaican road network is a tentative transition that requires in-depth analyses into major road networks, grid stability, positioning of charging stations and a cost comparison of EVs to con­ ventional motor vehicles to create a competitive market price alternative.

Acknowledgements For their support, one author (AS) would like to acknowledge the Office of Utilities Regulations (OUR), especially Mr. Hopeton Heron and Mr. Valentine Fagan, as well as Mr. Blaine Jarrett and Mr. Algon Meikle of the Jamaica Public Service (JPS) and Ms. Andrea King. The other authors thank Dr. Tannecia Stephenson, Head of Department, for her support. References [1] Energy Chamber. Understanding the electricity subsidy in T&T. Available at: https ://energynow.tt/blog/understanding-the-electricity-subsidy-in-tt. [Accessed 27 August 2019]. [2] Ochs A, Konold M, Auth K, Mosolino E, Killen P. Caribbean sustainable energy roadmap and strategy (C-SERMS): baseline report & assessment. Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute; 2015. [4] Walker-Leigh V. Small islands push for new energy. In: Powell, editor. Our World. United Nations University; 2012. https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/small-islandspush-for-new-energy. [Accessed 29 August 2019]. [5] Lazard, azard’s Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis– Version 12.0. https://www. lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pd f. [Accessed 1 February 2019]. [6] Jian H, Hong-Gwo S. Sustainable development of renewable energy on wangan island, taiwan. Util Policy 2018;55:200–8. [7] Mendoza-Vizcaino J, Raza M, Sumper A, Díaz-Gonz� alez F, Galceran-Arellano S. Integral approach to energy planning and electric grid assessment in a renewable energy technology integration for a 50/50 target applied to a small island. Appl Energy 2019;233–234:524–43. [8] Cabrera P, Lund H, Carta JA. Smart renewable energy penetration strategies on islands: the case of Gran Canaria. Energy 2018;162:421–43. [9] Weir T. Renewable energy in the Pacific Islands: its role and status. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;94:762–71. [10] Chen AA, Stephens AJ. Mitigation using solar, wind and batteries in the caribbean. Caribb Q 2018;64(1):100–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00086495.2018.1435338. [11] Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5� C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5� C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in The context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. P€ ortner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, Moufouma-Okia, C. P�ean, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 32 pp. [12] Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change [core writing team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp. [13] Taylor MA, Clarke LA, Centella A, Bezanilla A, Stephenson TS, Jones JJ, Campbell JD, Vichot A, Charlery J. Future caribbean climates in a world of rising temperatures: the 1.5 vs 2.0 dilemma. J Clim 2018;31:2907–26. https://doi.org/ 10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0074.1. [14] Klotzbach PJ, Schreck III CJ, Collins JM, Bell MM, Blake ES, Roache D. The extremely active 2017 North Atlantic hurricane season. Mon Weather Rev 2018; 146(10):3425–43. [15] Popke J, Harrison C. Energy, resilience, and responsibility in post-Hurricane Maria Dominica: ethical and historical perspectives on ‘building back better’. J Extrem Event 2018;5(4):1840003. [16] Energy Times. Massive expansion of gas power set for Ohio. https://www.theener gytimes.com/capacity/massive-expansion-gas-power-set-ohio. [Accessed 25 February 2019]. [17] Caribbean Climate. Dr. Ulric trotz: let’s Re-imagine GCF resources (article and interview). Belize: Caribbean Climate Podcast; 2016. May 31, https://caribbeancli mateblog.com/2016/05/31/dr-ulric-trotz-s-re-imagine-gcf-resources-article-and-i nterview/. [Accessed 7 September 2019]. [18] Planning Institute of Jamaica. Economic and social survey of Jamaica 2018. Jamaica: Planning Institute of Jamaica; May 2019. p. 220–4. [19] Scotiabank Jamaica. Foreign exchange rates & currency fees: foreign ExchangeJamaica. https://jm.scotiabank.com/personal/rates-and-fees/foreign-e xchange-rates.html. [Accessed 2 September 2019]. [20] Ministry of Science, Energy and Technology. Alternative energy consumption 2018. https://www.mset.gov.jm/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ALTERNATIV E-ENERGY-CONSUMPTION-2018.pdf. [Accessed 31 August 2019]. [21] Third national communication of Jamaica to the united nations framework convention on climate change. 54;346, https://unfccc. int/sites/default/files/resource/TNC_Final_December132018.pdf 2019. [Accessed 2 September 2019]. [22] Jamaica Public Service Company. Power plants. https://www.jpsco.com/powe r-plants/. [Accessed 2 September 2019]. [23] Mian Z. JPS: high electricity losses. The Sunday Gleaner, April 7, 2019. http://ja maica-gleaner.com/article/focus/20190407/zia-mian-jps-high-electricity-losses. [Accessed 31 October 2019].

5. Conclusion This paper examined the problems associated with introducing intermittent renewable energy in a small island state, such as Jamaica, in order to achieve energy security. In the first place island states are usually electrically isolated and likely electrically weak, making the need for backup essential. Storage of energy is an appropriate solution and long-term storage can lead to 100% renewable energy. Simulations show that conventional fossil fuel plants used for spin­ ning reserve can be replaced by a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) with near-zero load shedding for the cases considered. Furthermore, the savings resulting from not using conventional plants for grid stabiliza­ tion will payback for the BESS system in ~5 years of the 10-year battery life. Therefore, a substantial gain from the BESS investment will be obtained at the end of its lifetime. Wind and solar plants are now cost-competitive with coal and gas and are likely sources of renewable energy for small island states where other sources of renewable energy such as hydro and geothermal are not available. The costs of batteries, both Li-ion and longer duration batte­ ries, are on the decline. These findings bode well for islands to suc­ cessfully complete mitigation requirements in line with the pathway suggested by the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 � C, SR15 [11], which requires zero-emission of CO2 by 2055. A two-phase approach can be implemented for islands predominantly utilizing solar and wind energy to replace fossil fuels. In Phase 1 (2020–2030), 30% renewable energy integration can be attained through the use of the BESS to avoid frequency fluctuations and load shedding. In Phase 2 (2030–2055) intermittent renewables can be gradually increased from 30% to 100% of the energy mix. The renewables must provide firm or bulk energy so that backup batteries of 6 or more hour-duration or other storage systems will be required. During the 10-year leeway from 2020 to 2030, it is expected that the cost of these batteries, e.g., Vanadium and iron-based flow batteries, as well the cost of gravity towers, will decrease to cost-competitive levels. Thus, by 2030 islands can use such batteries for firm or bulk energy without any extra financial burden. This means that the transition to 100% renewable can be sustainable. The 10-year leeway from 2020 to 2030 should also be used to prepare the islands for the addition of higher penetration rates of renewable energy sources. In particular, the implementation of charging stations for electric vehicles can assist with providing the required energy for tran­ sition to renewables within the transportation sector. For small islands, therefore, the road to energy security lies with renewable energy and storage, especially batteries. Furthermore, 100% renewable can be achieved in such a manner as to satisfy and be in line with the IPCC guidelines for limiting temperature rise to 1.5 � C. It should no longer be a question of cost and small islands, like all countries of the world, have to mitigate. In fact, some small islands have already started on the path to 100% renewable [74,75].

10

A.A. Chen et al.

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 121 (2020) 109671

[24] Sunday Gleaner. Ansord Hewitt | OUR sees brighter future for electricity. September 1, 2019, http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/commentary/20190901/a nsord-hewitt-our-sees-brighter-future-electricity. [Accessed 7 September 2019]. [25] Jamaica Electricity Sector Book of Codes. Available at: https://www.google.com. jm/url?sa¼t&rct¼j&q¼&esrc¼s&source¼web&cd¼1&ved¼2ahUKEwiI1NCzs 9fgAhVovFkKHeZuD7kQFjAAegQIChAC&url¼https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mset.gov. jm%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fpdf%2FJamaica%2520Electric%2520Utility% 2520Sector%2520Book%2520of%2520Codes.pdf&usg¼AOvVaw08uNw UjAeMv6tHUzRO1jSx;2016. [Accessed 25 February 2019]. [26] Timilsina GR, Shah KU. Filling the gaps: policy supports and interventions for scaling up renewable energy development in Small Island Developing States. Energy Policy 2016;98:653–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.02.028. [27] Surroop D, Raghoo P, Bundhoo ZMA. Comparison of energy systems in small island developing states. Util Policy 2018;54:46–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jup.2018.07.006. [28] JPS. Electricity rates drop by 3.14% for november. Available at: https://www. jpsco.com/electricity-rates-drop-by-3-14-for-november/2018. [Accessed 30 September 2019]. [29] ND-GAIN. Country rankings. Available at: https://gain.nd.edu/our-work/countryindex/rankings/2019. [Accessed 30 September 2019]. [30] National Biofuels Policy 2010-2030. Ministry of energy and mining. https://www. mset.gov.jm/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Draft-Biofuels-Policy_0.pdf. [Accessed 31 October 2019]. [31] Loy D, Coviello MF. Renewable energies potential in Jamaica. United Nation’s Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC); 2005. [32] Sugar Industry Authority. Cane and sugar production in Jamaica: 1975-2017. https://www.jamaicasugar.org/sugar-cane-production.html. [Accessed 25 October 2019]. [33] Long Pond co-generation plant in jeopardy. CEO, the gleaner. Oct. 30, http://jamaica-gleaner. com/article/lead-stories/20170831/long-pond-co-generation-plant-jeopardy-ceo 2019. [Accessed 30 October 2019]. [34] WRB. Jamaica 20 MW content solar project. https://wrbenterprises.com/ener gy/jamaica-28mw-content-solar-project/. [Accessed 9 September 2019]. [35] MPC Caribbean Clean Energy. https://www.jamstockex.com/wp-content/uploa ds/2019/02/MPC-Caribbean-Clean-Energy-_-Mr.-Martin-Vogt-Managing-DirectorMPC-Capital.pdf. [Accessed 9 September 2019]. [36] Jamaica Information Service. Wigton wind farm limited. https://jis.gov.jm/gov ernment/agencies/wigton-wind-farm-limited/. [Accessed 9 September 2019]. [37] Miller NK, Harlan AE, Waite L. Water resource assessment of Jamaica. Mobile, Alabama: US Army Corps of Engineers Mobile District & Topographic Engineering Center; 2001. [38] UNIDO. World small hydropower development report 2016. https://www.unido. org/sites/default/files/2016-11/WSHPDR_Executive_Summary_2016_0.pdf. [Accessed 9 September 2019]. [39] Statista. Average annual OPEC crude oil price from 1960 – 2019. https://www.st atista.com/statistics/262858/change-in-opec-crude-oil-prices-since-1960/. [Accessed 1 September 2019]. [40] Gay DR, Rogers TE, Shirley R. Small island developing states and their suitability for electric vehicles and vehicle-to-grid services. Util Policy 2018;55:69–78. [41] Merino J, Veganzones C, Sanchez JA, Martinez S, Platero CA. Power system stability of a small sized isolated network supplied by combined wind – pumped storage generation system: a case study in the canary island. Energies 2012;5(7): 2351–69. https://doi.org/10.3390/en5072351. [42] Li X, Yao L, Hui D. Optimal control and management of a large-scale battery energy storage system to mitigate fluctuation and intermittence of renewable generations. J Modern Pow Syst Clean Energy 2016;4(4):593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40565016-0247-y. [43] Greenwood DM, Lim KY, Patsios C, Lyons PF, Lim YS, Taylor PC. Frequency response services designed for energy storage. Appl Energy 2017;203:115–27. [44] Hur W, Moon Y, Shin K, Kim W, Nam S, Park K. Economic value of Li-ion energy storage system in frequency regulation application from utility firm’s perspective in korea. Energies 2015;8:5000–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/en8065000. [45] IRENA. Electricity storage and renewables: costs and markets to 2030. Abu Dhabi: International Renewable Energy Agency; 2017. 2017, https://www.irena.org/ publications/2017/Oct/Electricity-storage-and-renewables-costs-and-markets. [Accessed 1 November 2019]. [46] COMSTAT Data Hub. Natural gas prices forecast: long term 2018 to 2030 | data and charts. http://comstat.comesa.int/ncszerf/natural-gas-prices-forecast-long-te rm-2018-to-2030-data-and-charts. [Accessed 19 February 2019]. [47] American Physical Society. Integrating renewable electricity on the grid, A report by the aps panel on public affairs. https://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-repor ts/upload/integratingelec.pdf. [Accessed 1 February 2019]. [48] GOJ Ministry of Science, Technology, Energy and Mining. Grid impact analysis and assessment for increased penetration of renewable energy into the Jamaican electricity grid: final report. http://www.mset.gov.jm/sites/default/files/pdf/Grid %20Impact%20Analysis%20Final%20Report_0.pdf. [Accessed 1 February 2019]. [49] Resch M, Bühler J, Schachler B, Kunert R, Meier A, Sumper A. Technical and economic comparison of grid supportive vanadium redox flow batteries for primary control reserve and community electricity storage in Germany. Int J Energy Res 2019;43:337–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.4269. [50] Lazard. Lazard’Levelized cost of storage analysis –. New York: Lazard; 2018., Version 4.0. https://www.lazard.com/media/450774/lazards-levelized-cost-of-st orage-version-40-vfinal.pdf. [Accessed 1 February 2019]. [51] Thompson-Clarke C. Ebb and flow high vanadium prices hinder the spread of redox flow batteries. In: Stephenson, editor. The assay. Hong Kong: The Assay; 2019. http

[52] [53]

[54] [55]

[56]

[57] [58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62] [63] [64] [65] [66]

[67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72]

[73] [74] [75] [77]

11

s://www.theassay.com/technology-metals-edition-insight/ebb-and-flow-highvanadium-prices-hinder-the-spread-of-redox-flow-batteries/. [Accessed 29 August 2019]. Dinesh A, Olivera S, Venkatesh K, Santosh MS, Priya M, Inamuddin I, Asiri A. Basavarajaiah Muralidhara, H, Iron-based flow batteries to store renewable energies. Environ Chem Lett 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-018-0709-8. Stone M. New iron flow battery company makes big claims about cost. Will it prove itself? In: Wesoff, editor. Gtm energy storage. Green Tech Media; 2016. April 04, https://www.greentechmedia. com/articles/read/new-iron-flow-battery-claims-low-storage-price-but-h as-yet-to-prove-itself#gs.ztgf5t. [Accessed 29 August 2019]. Husseini T. Tower of power gravity-based storage evolves beyond pumped hydro. In: Tyndall, editor. Power. Power Technology; 2019. https://www.power-technol ogy.com/features/gravity-based-storage/. [Accessed 29 August 2019]. Keating C. ‘World’s largest tech investor’ puts US$110m bet on energy storage using concrete. Solar Storage. London: Solar Media Limited; 2019. 15 Aug, http s://www.energy-storage.news/news/worlds-largest-tech-investor-bets-110 m-on-energy-storage. [Accessed 29 August 2019]. Cross J. New power plant moving Jamaica closer to energy security. Gleaner 2018; August 22. http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/lead-stories/20180822/newpower-plant-moving-jamaica-closer-energy-security 2018. [Accessed 30 October 2019]. WRB Energy’s Content Solar in Jamaica. Resiliency by design. WRB enterprises april 09. https://wrbenterprises.com/wrb-energys-content-solar-in-jamaica-resilie ncy-by-design/. [Accessed 1 November 2019]. Hines H. Paradise Park Solar Farm to be Ready by Summer. Jamaica Observer 2019;(March 17). http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/sunday-finance/paradise-pa rk-solar-farm-to-be-ready-by-summer_159681?profile¼1056. [Accessed 1 November 2019]. Teplin C, Dyson M, Engel A, Glazer G. The growing market for clean energy portfolios: economic opportunities for a shift from new gas-fired generation to clean energy across the United States electricity industry. Rocky Mountain Institute; 2019. Giovinetto A, Eller A. Comparing the costs of long duration energy storage technologies, commissioned by national grid ventures. Nav Res 2019. https://www.slenergystorage.com/documents/20190626_Long_Duration% 20Storage_Costs.pdf 2019. [Accessed 30 October 2019]. Heilborn A, Liljehov F. Integrating vanadium redox flow batteries with large-scale wind power, Master of Science Thesis TRITA-ITM-EX 2018:147. KTH Royal Institute of Technology; 2018. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f3b4/5147e10 9a2f9e54b50240a135d70bf009f7f.pdf. [Accessed 31 October 2019]. Acharjee P. Strategy and implementation of smart grids in India. Energy Strat Rev 2013;1(3):193–204. Smartgrid Gov. Initiative that catalyze the industry to modernize the grid. What is the smart grid?. https://www.smartgrid.gov/the_smart_grid/. [Accessed 12 February 2019]. Cupp JG, Beehler ME. Implementing smart grid communications – managing mountains of data opens up new challenges for electric utilities. Burns McDonnell Tech Brief 2008;4. Alonso M, Amaris H, Alavarez-Ortega C. Integration of renewable energy sources in smart grids by means of evolutionary optimization algorithms. Expert Syst Appl 2012;39:5513–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.11.069. Renuka TK, Reji P, Sreedharan S. An enhanced particle swarm optimization algorithm for improving the renewable energy penetration and small signal stability in power system. Renewables: Wind, Water, and Solar 2018. https://doi. org/10.1186/s40807-018-0053-4. 5:6. Makhijani S, Ochs A, Weber M, Konold M, Lucky M, Ahmed A. Jamaica sustainable roadmap: pathways to an affordable, reliable, low-emission electricity system. Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute; 2013. Shah IH, Hiles C, Morley B. How do oil prices, macroeconomic factors and policies affect the market for renewable energy? Appl Energy 2018;215:87–97. Dominkovi�c D, Stark G, Hodge BM, Pedersen A. Integrated energy planning with a high share of variable renewable energy sources for a Caribbean Island. Energies 2018;11(9):2193. McIntyre A, El-Ashram A, Ronci M, Reynaud J, Che N X, Wang K, Mejia S, Lutz S. Caribbean energy; macro-related challenges. 16/53. IMF Working Papers. International Monetary Fund; 2016. Coignard J, Saxena S, Greenblatt J, Wang D. Clean vehicles as an enabler for a clean electricity grid. Environ Res Lett 2018;13(5):054031. Taibi E, del Valle CF. The impact of electric vehicles deployment on production cost in a caribbean island country. In: Taibi, editor. First E-mobility power system integration symposium. mobilityintegrationsymposium.org; 2017. Berlin, Germany. Potopsingh R. Towards a fuel-efficient economy for Jamaica. Jamaica: Presentation to the UNEP-GFEI, Jamaica Project National Stakeholders Meeting, University of Technology; 2018. Chow L. Tesla, eco watch: SolarCity power entire island with solar þ batteries. http s://www.ecowatch.com/tesla-solarcity-tau-samoa-island-2104960096.html. [Accessed 11 September 2019]. 100% renewable energy atlas. https://www.100-percent.org/country-island/. [Accessed 11 September 2019]. Richter A. Drilling on St. Vincent promising with high temperature confirmed at depth. In: O’Halloran, editor. Reykjavik, Iceland: THINKGEOENERGY; 2019. http: //www.thinkgeoenergy.com/drilling-on-st-vincent-promising-with-high-temper ature-confirmed-at-depth/; 2019. [Accessed 9 September 2019].