Study finds California sitting on 8 GW gold mine with resilience hubs

Did you know that in 2020, the average American home was without power for eight hours? This might seem small, but in just five years, the outage time has doubled in the US. Moreover, this number does not capture the long durations of power outages communities face during severe weather events.

The warming planet makes summer heat intolerable, and maintaining utility infrastructure can be challenging. Frequent wildfires and severe weather events like hurricanes pose major challenges to keeping the grid connected and online.

These events are only set to increase in frequency and intensity shortly, and the aging infrastructure cannot cope. Rebuilding the infrastructure in the US might take decades, so local governments are gearing toward building resilience hubs that can help communities meet their basic needs with solar power.

The need for continuous power

A few hours of power outage might seem like a small problem individually, but without power, devices like air purifiers and air conditioners cannot work, increasing health risks.

A power outage also affects medical devices in homes and hospitals, risking the lives of thousands of people at a time.

Over the past few years, millions of Californians have lost power for multiple days as power grids were shut down to prevent wildfires. The impact of such outages is felt most by vulnerable communities—children, older populations with underlying diseases, and communities that have faced environmental and social injustice over the years.

What are resilience hubs?

Resilience hubs are designed to serve the community during and after a disaster and provide year-round support, such as information sharing or health services. Previous research has shown that community strategies for addressing critical needs are 10-40 times less expensive than those delivered at individual levels.

A good resilience hub should be able to support operations for over 72 hours during a power outage, ideally set up in public places such as schools, libraries, places of worship, and community centers.

Researchers at PSE Healthy Energy explored reliable ways to keep resilience hubs powered on. They found that fossil fuel generators have significant drawbacks and then looked into solar plus energy storage as a more reliable solution.

Problems with fossil fuels

The research team led by Patrick Murphy, senior scientist at PSE Health Energy, explored whether fossil fuel would make the hub resilient in power supply. Generators, despite their limited use during emergencies, demand ongoing upkeep and periodic testing, according to the researchers’ findings.

“Half of poorly maintained generators fail within 48 hours during a long-duration outage, and regular failures of hospital backup generators lead to patient evacuations and rescheduling,” the researchers wrote in the paper published last week.

The system also needs fuel, which is scarce during emergencies. Additionally, generator use emits lethal carbon monoxide gas, which claimed more lives than the actual hurricane during Hurricane Laura in 2020.

Solar-powered resilience hubs

The researchers then looked into solar plus energy storage as a more reliable solution to the power problem. A solar-powered resilience hub can provide individuals access to facilities such as ice or refrigeration to keep medicines at optimal temperatures or air conditioning to prevent the risk of heat stroke at higher temperatures.

Although individuals are keen on solar-based power in the region, many factors, including the low homeownership rate or lack of capital, have discouraged disadvantaged communities from deploying it themselves.

“Communities that need them most likely have the fewest resources for self-funding,” Murphy told Interesting Engineering via email. In their recent work, Murphy’s team worked to arrive at an estimate of how much power would be needed by resilience hubs to provide the required services.

By collating data from various sources, the team arrived at a list of 18,000 potential sites for housing these resilience hubs, taking into account utility costs and the duration of outages. By placing them strategically, California could generate as much as 8GW of energy while lowering its emissions by as much as five million tons annually.

When grid power is available, the facilities could provide power to 15.8 million Californians, or about 40 percent of the state’s population.

“Hubs provide services year-round, not just during disasters,” Murphy said in a press release. “So they can also help build a community’s adaptive capacity – before a disaster hits.”

How do we build resilience hubs?

The concept of resilience hubs has gained traction among community members. Over 100 communities requested funding from California’s Strategic Growth Council to build these hubs. However, funding was limited to just 11 projects.

“I was not in on any of their decision process, but I have to think funding availability is a key consideration,” Murphy told IE when enquired about the low funding rate.

Solar-plus-storage systems typically recoup their costs through daily use, according to industry experience. However, achieving high-level resilience for extended outages demands more advanced, costly batteries, necessitating additional funding support.

The long-term planning required for these facilities enables community involvement in key decisions, allowing residents to shape the hub’s capacity and resilience to meet their specific needs.

Factors affecting decision-making

Utility rates play an important role in decision-making since low utility prices make it harder to justify investing in comparatively more expensive solar solutions. Researchers propose more discounted pricing on renewable energy infrastructure in these areas to make it competitive.

In most areas with plenty of sunshine and high utility rates, solar solutions can already deliver a better return on investment.

The other challenge is making the resilience hubs equitable to disadvantaged communities. “If all the hubs we identified were built, they could provide six to nine percent of Californians with hub services during challenging outages,” Murphy said. “My colleagues and I are continuing research to see if these hubs are in the right places to serve the most vulnerable communities.”

“Prioritizing the most at-risk and vulnerable populations must take into account historical environmental injustice, varying exposures to pollution and cumulative health risks, and the likelihood of various climate-driven and other disasters,” the researchers wrote in the paper published in Risk Analysis .

“Projecting how climate change will impact the location, frequency, and severity of disasters will also be necessary,” the paper added.