Yet again, an expert – this time, a German – has announced that Germany’s energy transition cannot succeed. He has a surprising insight for Energiewende proponents: the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow. How could we have missed that, wonders award-winning energy author Craig Morris? Courtesy Energy Transition/Global Energiewende.
German economist Heiner Flassbeck recently argued that Germany will never be able to rely on renewable electricity. His central argument is that the month of December up to the date of the original publication (20 December) shows that Germany’s energy transition is doomed to fail. Here is the chart that got Mr. Flassbeck going:
The low levels – nothing usual, by the way: here’s me writing about exactly the same thing in December 2014 – led Flassbeck to conclude the following:
“This winter could go down in history as the event that proved the German energy transition to be unsubstantiated and incapable of becoming a success story. Electricity from wind and solar generation has been catastrophically low for several weeks.”
What Flassbeck, who says he is a “lay person,” has just discovered for himself is well known in the German debate as the Dunkelflaute: the “dark doldrums,” or a time of very low solar & wind power production. I wrote about it here last year, mainly to explain my surprise at how close even the worst periods are to the original target (!) of 20 percent renewable power by 2020 (since raised to 35 percent). I have also published load duration curves going back at least to 2012 (see chart 1 in this PDF); these charts show how frequent periods of, say, low wind and/or solar power production are.
The solution to all of this is “flexibility options”: first, all power plants that can ramp; second, demand that can react; and third, storage – in that order
It is thus revealing, but not surprising, to read Flassbeck’s next statement: “We have attempted unsuccessfully to find Energiewende advocates willing to explain that inconsistency. Their silence is not easy to fathom.”
His statement is not surprising because Energiewende critics often accuse their proponents of having overlooked things already studied in depth. Here, it’s as though Flassbeck thought the best German minds didn’t know that it’s dark half the time. (The irony of Energiewende critics using charts made by Energiewende experts to show what those experts have allegedly not addressed is often lost on these critics.)
Assuming Flassbeck is using the royal “we” in the quote above, he obviously didn’t look hard. This website is not exactly unknown to those interested in the Energiewende (and I have also published at Energy Post). Likewise, the Wikipedia entry (in German) for Dunkelflaute (yes, there is one) specifically references texts from Agora Energiewende, the source of the chart Flassbeck uses. At Energy-Charts.de, Fraunhofer ISE has highlighted times of the lowest annual solar & wind power production going all the way back to 2011. The chart below from 2011, for instance, emphasizes a long-forgotten concern about a possible power outage that June.
What’s the solution?
Not only have German experts coined a term and spoken about the danger of “dark doldrums” for years, they have even produced studies about what to do about them. Last year, I created two videos with the head of Fraunhofer IWES, the institute behind the Combined Power Plant study, which visualized the reliability of German power supply with 100% renewables (a goal, it should be noted, more ambitious than the German government’s actual target of 80% renewable power by 2050): see here.
The short answer to the obstacle of the dark doldrums begins when we extend the chart Flassbeck uses to cover all of December. Days of high wind & solar are never far from days of low wind & solar.
On the day Flassbeck originally published, wind power was just picking up again. It hit near record levels for five days in a row. As Fraunhofer’s chart below for the same month shows, conventional power was pushed below 10 GW as a share of domestic demand, with exports once again “rescuing” these plants.
Indeed, Germany posted a new record level of wind power production on January 3 of around 36 GW at 9 pm, as the chart below for the first half of January shows.
The solution to all of this is “flexibility options”: first, all power plants that can ramp; second, demand that can react; and third, storage – in that order. Ho hum.
We are just entering the second stage, requiring more demand shifting. Right now, dispatchable power plants ramp to accommodate spikey wind and solar. As boring as the issue Flassbeck addresses currently is, it will become interesting – and the Dunkelflaute is the central technical challenge of the Energiewende in the power sector. The scariest chart I have seen shows the residual load for 2050 with 100% renewables (below).
Does that chart not prove that Flassbeck is right and the Energiewende is doomed to fail? He certainly puts his finger on the main challenge, yes. (But don’t forget charging electric vehicles and electric heat – and the 80% target, not 100%!). The problem with his analysis is that he acts as though there are no solutions – indeed, as though no one had even looked for any.
Editor’s Note
Craig Morris (@PPchef) is the lead author of Global Energy Transition. He is co-author of Energy Democracy, the first history of Germany’s Energiewende, and is currently Senior Fellow at the IASS. He is a winner of the Excellence in Written Journalism Award of the International Association for Energy Economics.
This article was first published on the blog Energy Transition/The Global Energiewende and is republished here with permission.
[adrotate group=”9″]
onesecond says
When I saw this headline from Mr. Flassbeck here on energypost, I just rolled my eyes and ignored the article, because there are tons of studies that lay it out in detail how to make it work with 80% or even 100% renewable electricity. Obviously Mr. Flassbeck didn’t care at all to look them up. I don’t know why articles are published that neglect even the most basic research.
Are Hansen says
Understandable. But unfortunately the headline is misleading, or maybe deliberately trying to lure in The Disbelievers – in the end Flassbeck actually says what you say 😉
Fenimore Hardy says
Watch Germany closely. Watch its utilities closing down the more reliable power plants that provide useful power on demand. Watch industries moving overseas in order to obtain the reliable, high quality, affordable electric power they desperately need. Watch desperate immigrants looking for the jobs that are no longer there, then watch government writing more and more dole checks with less and less to back them up. Germany’s demographic profile is shifting to the point that soon 1 worker will have to support 2 retirees. (2026) When that 1 worker is unemployed due to the chain reaction effects of unreliable unaffordable energy choices, the entire country sinks.
Bob Wallace says
Fenimore, German industrial rates peaked at €0.2071 in the first half of 2014. Since then they have dropped to €0.1958. That’s a 6% drop.
That’s the price including all fees and taxes. For the same period industrial electricity sans fell from €0.1586 to €0.1492.
I know of no industry which has left Germany seeking lower energy prices. Beyer did move some of their chemical industry to Louisiana in order purchase cheaper natural gas as a feedstock. Not as an energy source.
Jeff says
Energiewende has already failed. Fails every time German citizens get their electricity bill and see they pay the highest rate in the world (while getting most of their power from coal).
Would any industrialized nation in the world trade their electricity sources and prices with Germany? I don’t think so. We certainly wouldn’t in the states where we’ve reduced carbon emissions more than Germany and pay less than one third the price.
Raffaele Piria says
Jeff, [] Here some sources that refer [refute?] your arguments:
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/polls-reveal-citizens-support-energiewende shows the vast support of German citizens for the Energiewende, confirmed by dozens of surveys over many years. And by their voting behaviour: do you want to bet that at the upcoming federal election the parties that want to continue the Energiewende will achieve at least 85% of the popular vote?
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Electricity_price_statistics
shows that the electricity prices for (large) INDUSTRY in Germany are slightly below the European average.
The HOUSEHOLD electricity prices in GER have been the second (not first) highest in Europe after Denmark nearly all the time since the statistics start in 2007 (and probably earlier too). The comparably high electricity prices existed already as the massive deployment of the scale deployment of renewables had just started.
Yes, many other industrialized nations have been deploying renewables at large scale and will continue to do so. Including the United States. You can find a lot of information at the wesntie of http://www.irena.org
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC
shows that in the latest year with available data (2013) the CO2 in the U.S. were 16.4 metric tons per capita, in Germany 9.2 metric tons. Since then, the CO2 emissions declined in both countries.
The main reason for the reduction in the US in the last years was a massive switch from coal to gas. If you take climate change seriously, you should consider the other greenhouse gas emissions from gas.
Harry Degenaar says
Raffaele, use current data not stuff from 2013, Energiewende has failed in many ways. Wind & Solar alone can not power a nation. It will always require fast responding baseload support, even used in a wind rich nation like Denmark. Now with prices for electricity going through the roof, ask what Germans think of it now. They have started to spend a lot of money on their own nuclear fusion program.
https://stopthesethings.com/2017/02/23/coal-power-prevents-thousands-of-germans-from-freezing-as-wind-solar-output-plummets/
Globally renewable electricity generation hardly makes dent when compared with the other ones.
GLOBAL LIVE POWER USEAGE:
http://data.reneweconomy.com/LiveGen
Are Hansen says
“Wind & Solar alone can not power a nation”
That is simply not true. Of course they can, but as they are variable we need some sort of storage. Already now it would be technically possible to build huge amounts of battery backup (from Tesla or other suppliers) and store enough electricity to last through the night (or week/mont/year…), but currently that would be uneconomical.
However, battery prices continue to fall sharply, and that is even before Teslas Gigafactory is up to full production – alone it will double the world’s lithium-ion battery production. And they plan several more
There might be other ways that are cheaper. F.ex. concentrated solar power (CSP) with molten salt storage. It is already being done in the US, and starting up in China
Never say never 😉
Harry Degenaar says
Are Hansen, (never say never), energy storage using molten salt, batteries, etc are possibly fine for micro-grids. Commercial grid connected flywheels and battery plants are fine for voltage stability and frequency control, but not for backup power.
Did you read my commentary March 6, 2017 at 03:40 on Denmark the experts on renewable energy, they do it without any battery storage, but use the country’s extensive natural gas storage capacity. To obtain generation security they still rely on baseload support.
I have a question for you; recently there are some record breaking lithium-ion battery storage plants built. One of them has a capacity of some 120 MWh with the claim being able to supply enough electricity to power 20,000 customers for FOUR (4) HOURS. Due to the unreliable nature of the grids connected renewable energy sources, the city with its roughly 144,000 inhabitants is now able to use the stored power from this (world’s largest) lithium-ion battery plant when the sun doesn’t shine. Four hours of storage, at night when the sun doesn’t shine for say 12 hours.??? The article even makes mention of, “due to the unreliable nature of most renewable energy sources”. It a sad joke. My advice would be, when using intermittent renewable electricity generation like “Wind & Solar” is to go back to reliable baseload generation support. Would you agree with me.?
Furthermore, batteries are not a renewable energy, as a matter of fact they are not an energy at all, they store the electricity put in to them. The components like cobalt, lithium, graphite and aluminium have to be mined (a dirty business) and they are all finite resources. Then the batteries over the years will experience capacity loss, especially for those in warm climates. Furthermore, their life cycle may only be 10 years, and expensive to replace.
How long do you think grid connected battery plants can supply backup electricity to an area that has heavy industry (like aluminium smelters, oil refineries, steel and chemical industries), connected to the grid.? Only residential PV solar with battery storage will work and can bring some relieve with utility demand response control from a network suffering from peak demand problems.
Bas Gresnigt says
Are,
The Germans started to develop Power-to-Gas (PtG) in ~2003. They now operate ~30 large scale pilots, using different technologies and serving different markets (incl. H2 PtG at car refill stations to serve FCEV’s) .
They expect that:
– in 2022 the installed pilot PtG capacity will be ~2GW;
– to start in 2024 gradually with full scale roll-out.
Note that:
– their PtG expansion plan can afford to suffer a delay of at least 10years, as Germany may not reach >80% renewable before 2040.
– they have enough deep underground storage (>200TWh) to cover long seasonal winter dips.
Bob Wallace says
” Wind & Solar alone can not power a nation. It will always require fast responding baseload support”
Partially right. Leave out the word “baseload” and you’d be fine.
Everyone knows that the wind does not blow all the time nor does the Sun shine all the time. We will need some sort of fill-in. Just like we need fill-in when nuclear or coal plants go off line.
Most grids have some hydro which they can use as dispatchable fill-in. Some have a lot. Almost 50 countries now get 60% to 100% of their electricity from hydro.
Several have some storage. Countries built pump-up hydro storage to shift nuclear output from low to high demand times. More PuHS is being built. Batteries are beginning to be installed.
In the near time we’ve got more than enough coal and natural gas generation for fill-in. Gas plants have quick startup time so they are the best for short periods of low wind/solar. For longer periods of inadequate wind/solar slower responding coal plants can be used.
We’re already seeing seasonal use of coal in the Pacific NW of the US. There’s adequate wind and hydro to allow coal plants to be shut down for multi-month stretches.
Long term we can expect batteries to become cheaper than PuHS for somewhat frequent cycling. Say up to three days of storage. Longer periods will likely be handled by running PuHS (and perhaps biofuel thermal plants) 24 hours from early in the low wind/solar cycle through the duration. During low demand hours the output from PuHS/biofuel can charge short cycle batteries and combined they can meet high demand hours.
The other thing that will help greatly with wind/solar gaps in a single country or part of a country is more robust transmission. The larger one makes the renewable harvest area the less hour to hour variation is observed. In the dark winter of northern Europe there’s a lot of sunshine in southern Europe.
Bob Wallace says
German citizens paid the highest rate for electricity in 1990, 1995 and 2000. Probably most other years as well, I didn’t take time to check them all. Hard to blame that on renewables.
Math Geurts says
A problem for the progress of the Energiewende.
“In conclusion, for the large-scale use of storage with today’s available technologies, these are a factor of 100-1000 away from economic and technical necessities in practically all relevant fields of application. New research approaches may exist and should be pursued, but it will take decades to close the major gaps in energy density, efficiency and costs that would make storage suitable as a replacement for fossil fuels and nuclear power.”
https://peterscoll.de/%20storage-business-cases-many-pitfalls-rare-viability/
Bob Wallace says
“these are a factor of 100-1000 away from economic and technical necessities in practically all relevant fields of application”
If that’s the case then you need to explain why some utilities are installing batteries for grid smoothing rather than to continue to use peakers and spinning reserve.
And you’d need to find a reason why pump-up storage continues to be built if it isn’t financially advantageous.
—
In the US new nuclear costs 13+ cents/kWh. Nuclear needs some storage unless only a small portion of the grid supply is nuclear.
Short cycle battery storage is now about 10c/kWh. Short and long term pump-up hydro storage is about 10c/kWh.
New wind (unsubsidized) is around three cents. New solar (unsubsidized) is around five cents.
Please try to find a mix of nuclear and storage that is cheaper than a mix of wind, solar and storage. Tell us the percentages that work.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Bob Wallace – A mix of nuclear and storage, that is a strange question. A mix of Nuclear and Renewables makes sense.
France – Live
http://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/eco2mix-mix-energetique-en
The UK – Live
http://energynumbers.info/gbgrid
Canada – Live
http://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html
A question to you, how many batteries would you need to supply electricity backup for one week to a mineral processing plant with a constant demand of 500MW.?
Bob Wallace says
Hendrikus, let me ask you. Since reactor produced electricity is very expensive and using a reactor as a dispatchable source would further increase the cost of its electricity how would nuclear work along with renewables?
The way I see it, it would be foolish to turn a reactor output up and down and wind/solar ebbed and flowed.
Remember –
The Cost of Electricity = Total Annual Costs / Total Annual Output.
Reduce the denominator by throttling down the reactor and the numerator gets divided by a smaller number which increases the solution. The cost of electricity.
Can you explain how nuclear would work with renewables?
“A question to you, how many batteries would you need to supply electricity backup for one week to a mineral processing plant with a constant demand of 500MW.?”
As many as it would take to make up for the low wind/solar input.
Unless the price of batteries becomes very cheap it’s more likely we would use pump-up hydro or biofueled thermal plants for those few annual extended periods of low wind and solar.
Truthfully, if we actually had a week long period of little wind and solar we’d probably turn off mineral processing plants as part of our load-shedding programs.
That is what we do right now with aluminum smelters. Grid gets stressed by summer heat, extended winter cold spell, multiple thermal plants on an unscheduled outage, and aluminum plants get paid to go on vacation.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Child like replies, the Bureau of Meteorology advised us just turn the aluminium smelter off, we know that there is no wind next week. Can you enlighten me on who’s load shedding program this is.? Furthermore, can you tell me where those aluminium, steel and mineral processing plants are located? How about the cost of lost business. I heard that they are looking for $ millions in compensation now, some are even thinking of moving their operations elsewhere, or building their own power plants. Do you have any idea what damage is done and the associated cost to a smelter when they experience a blackout.
Nuclear power plants in France operate in flexible load-following mode.
1) Primary power regulation for system stability (when frequency varies, power is automatically adjusted by the turbine).
2) Secondary power regulation related to trading contracts.
3) Adjusting power in response to demand (decrease from 100% during the day, down to 50% or less during the night, and respond to changes in renewable inputs to the grid, etc.)
http://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/eco2mix-mix-energetique-en
Bob Wallace says
Well, here’s a case of an aluminum smelter being turned off in order to avoid a blackout in Australia a few weeks ago. February, 2017. Heatwave.
“The record-high electricity demands forced AGL Energy to cut power to a large aluminium smelter in the state’s Hunter Valley in order to avoid mass electricity blackouts across the state.
The Tomago aluminium smelter near Newcastle consumes 10 per cent of the state’s electricity.
AGL said that if power to the smelter had not been cut, there would have been electricity cuts to schools, businesses and homes across NSW.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-10/nsw-power:-blackouts-across-the-state-averted/8260830
And this is from a 2008 Oak Ridge National Lab study if you’d prefer something more mature.
“Responsive load remains the largest underutilized reliability resource available to the North American power system today. Many loads have response characteristics that are technically well matched to the power system reliability needs.
…
Alcoa engaged in an extensive and expensive effort to enable the Warrick plant to supply minute-to-minute regulation to the power system. The plant proved that the process can supply fast and accurate regulation, even with existing power supply equipment.”
https://www.ferc.gov/eventcalendar/Files/20100526085850-ALCOA%20Study.pdf
—
” can you tell me where those aluminium, steel and mineral processing plants are located? ”
On grids around the world. I’m sure you can find more specific information by searching.
—
“I heard that they are looking for $ millions in compensation now, some are even thinking of moving their operations elsewhere, or building their own power plants.”
Perhaps you are thinking about the Dutch aluminum plant that stated that if it couldn’t access cheaper German industrial electricity that it would go bankrupt?
(They applied for bankruptcy and then were given permission to purchase from Germany which allowed them to stay in business.)
—
“Do you have any idea what damage is done and the associated cost to a smelter when they experience a blackout.”
Obviously not much. Otherwise they wouldn’t make themselves available as dispatchable loads.
—
“Nuclear power plants in France operate in flexible load-following mode.”
Yes they do. And some US reactors are capable of load-following the same as those in France.
However, the largest part of the cost of electricity in nuclear plants are fixed costs, not variable costs.
I just happened to look up operating costs for various technologies a bit earlier this evening. For a nuclear reactor in the US fixed operating costs run $12.6/MWh and variable operating costs run $11.7/MWh. But that assumes roughly 90% CF. Run lower and the fixed costs have to be averaged over fewer MWh.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
Fuel costs are almost nothing for reactors. According to the World Nuclear Institute the average fuel cost at a nuclear power plant in 2013 was 0.79 cents / kWh.
http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/Costs-Fuel,-Operation,-Waste-Disposal-Life-Cycle
Now that’s for a paid off reactor. New nuclear in the US would be 13+ cents per kWh. Out of that only 1.2 cents would be variable opex.
Consider what would happen were a new reactor to be used as a dispatchable load and used only 50% of the time. I’ll be generous and assume the lower end of 13c/kWh.
Each sold kWh would have to fetch 13c + 11.8c for the reactor to stay in business.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Bob Wallace – Yes large industrial and commercial dispatchable loads, like aluminium smelters, can be compensated through demand response programs for delaying being turned on during periods of peak demand, or encouraged to turn on during low periods of demand.
Aluminium smelters in Australia are forced to make themselves available as a load shedding target. Last January 2017, the Australian Federal Government, announced to make a $30 million grant to Portland Aluminium to fund the cleaning out of all the frozen pots so that the smelter can go back in full operation.
South Australia’s biggest mining and industrial sites are facing revenue losses of more than $150 million from last week’s blackout as they plan for at least another week without power.
The already struggling Whyalla steelworks and the Prominent Hill copper and gold mine would be without power until at least Tuesday next week, their operators said yesterday.
And while BHP Billiton’s big Olympic Dam copper and uranium mine, one of the worlds biggest copper mine and the state’s biggest power user, will not say when it expects its power to be back up and running, it is thought to be in the same situation.
And the extended production suspension is starting to impact on global metal prices, helping pushing lead prices on the London Metal Exchange to a 16-month high.
On top of this, Nyrstar’s Port Pirie lead smelter, where molten slag froze in the blast furnace because of the extended power failure, has flagged pre-tax earnings losses of up to $7m as it takes 10 to 14 days to repair its plant.
I have been closely involved with the above operations at senior management level going years back and can say that only since South Australia implemented a high penetration of wind & solar it all problems with energy security. Who is to blame, politicians and privatisation of the generation and grid infrastructure.
Electricity production and security appears to be in a mess there days. Maybe to many in the government and private industry are spending to much time on social media…
Helmut Frik says
Well, northern power staion was able to switch off the light by internal failures three times in south australia even without tornadoes and several power line collapses in short succession. So such grid collapses are nothing new to south australia, and konwing how grids are being handeled in germany i could point out which violation of rules accepted as neccesary here lead to all of these blackouts. It has nothing to do with wind or solar. It’s simple grid operation.
Also it is possible to keep aluminum smelters hot, so without pots being frozen while reducing their power input drastically, so enough to do the demand side management. But it needs some thinking in advance to handle such situations – which e.g. can also happen in case of a failure in one of the grid connections of tha aluminum smelter (and similar facilities) .
But some prefere to carry all eggs in the same basket if it’S 1ct cheaper on the first look.
Helmut Frik says
E.g. Trimet in germany works like this on their own interest to increase power use on lowe prices and reduce power use on high prices. They abandoned fixed price contracts with the lignite etc. plants (sometimes located on the other side of the fence) because the long term power purchase contracts were too expensive and nearly killed trimet economically. They also sell their ability to switch huge loads on and of on the market for grid services to get additional profits.
Cement production in germany operate their mills in similar ways.
As it seems both pay (significant) less than 5ct/kWh all in for their electricity needs.
I have not read a single complaint from trimet aobout high energy prices in germany since they adopted their mode of operation from the old fashioned operation mode you seem to have in mind to modern times operation.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Helmut Frik – A mineral Processing plant like Olympic Dam cost US$30 billion to build and has been constantly upgraded, they just don’t have their own power plant. Maybe the way its going they will.
Now some of the latest like the US$20 billion Citic Pacific Mining Operation in Western Australia built their own gas fired combined cycle 450 megawatt power plant. They certainly don’t make them available for dispatch purposes to the grid.
Helmut Frik says
I guess this will depend how much they get payed. BASF offers their 1…2 GW power generation capacity on the market too. While others in Australia build solar power stations to get their own supply.
What Olympic Dam sees as preferable solution for them is their own business. but having a grid which does not have n-1 redundancy in usual operation (also for power plants and corridors) and does not have reserves for frequency control will not provide a stable pwoer supply, no matter if the power turning the generator comes from nuclear, coal, gas or wind, or if the electrons are pushed directly by photons.
Bob Wallace says
“this will depend how much they get payed”
Exactly. Utilities will decide if it’s cheaper to pay some loads to curtail, install more storage, or install more generation.
There are many load-shedding ideas being investigated.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Helmut Frik – Simple grid operation. In South Australia its all about wind and solar. The so-called clever people (arm-chair engineers and politicians) thought that they can do away with baseload support. They did have a gas fired plant, but it was shut down because the gas price was to high, (a problem when you have a privatised operator). Germany still has this support so there its not an issue. When a smelter (Aluminium, Lead or Steel) is cut off from power (black out) there is nothing you can do to save it from being damaged.
Helmut Frik says
Especially they did not have frequency control reserves which could ramp up if one of the power generator trips (it could as well have been Torrens B whch trips and brings down the grid as norther power station did several times before.
If this would have been present e.g. to catch up the grid in case torrens B trips, it also would have handeled the Grid failure caused trip of the wind farms.
b) South australia was trading heavily over heyworth interconnector, although there was and is no redundant corridor avaiilable (n-1 violation again) to catch up the power transfer in case the heyworth connector corridor breaks down. If a redundant corridor would be present or the heyworth interconnector would have been closed for power trade, as it would have been required here, the interconnector would have been able to catch up the trip of the wind farms caused by the series of grid faults.
Non of those two big failures in grid operation has anything to do wit wind, solar, nuclear, coal or gas pushing the electrons in the wires.
And a gas power station denying to fulfill it’s contract shows how unreliable “reliable” supply can be as well. Same in NSW, where a gas power station could not come online due to too low gas pressure while a coual power station partly failed… Causing the neccesity for the aluminum smelter to reduce power consumption. Again no wind or solar involved.
Bob Wallace says
You can work smarter. Put deep backup CCNG plants close to critical need operations. If you’re only going to use those plants a few hours a year then fuel costs become a minor issue.
During really critical times cut back on the power going to the smelter, give it enough from freezing up. Send the rest to the grid to keep critical needs supplied.
We need to continue to get smarter. Not claim that something won’t work because someone used it inappropriately in the past.
Math Geurts says
It is about Europe and Germany. Needed will be “large-scale use of storage”. “grid smooting” is the smallest problem.
Beside of that: in Europe where demand for energy peaks in winter and supply of solar peaks in summer utilities hardly install batteries. I am also not aware of much expanding of pump-up storage nowadays. And even in Germany there is local resistance against it.
Also in Germany there is an awfull lot of resistance against high-voltage grids. So there will be no “smooting out” of solar lull.
Bob Wallace says
Don’t know if you noticed but there’s also a lot of resistance in Germany to nuclear reactors.
And unhappiness with nuclear spreads across most of Europe, does it not?
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Not in Finland, even the greens have put themselves behind a nuclear waste repository now under construction. Don’t comeback with the old news on the EPR 1600 MW Nuclear Reactor, that is a problem the French are responsible for. The Finnish utility Teollisuuden Voima (TVO) has started legal action against Areva. Hopefully it will begin power production by 2018.
In the UK the construction on the Hinkley Point C has started, with more (maybe Chinese) reactors to follow.
Bob Wallace says
Now, want to tell us about the European countries that have decided to close their reactors?
Belgium and Netherlands, I think are getting out. Spain has seven reactors they are considering closing.
Nigel West says
Belgium and the Netherlands are inconsequential. Europe’s three largest economies are the UK, France and Germany. Two out of three are not abandoning nuclear power.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Never say Never, the Netherlands like Norway (not a EU member) are very much involved with R&D on Thorium MSR. One day a change in government may see Germany do a turn around. Anyhow Germany is investing big time in their own fusion program. One day, you just never know.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Well said Nigel…
Bob Wallace says
Germany is most certainly abandoning nuclear power. Their last reactors are scheduled for closure in 2022.
France is in the process of cutting their nuclear fleet by one third. They will be closing reactors as they add renewables to replace them.
Then France will have to make the decision on whether to replace their worn out reactors with expensive new reactors or less expensive renewables.
England is still toying with nuclear. Scotland is going gangbusters with renewables.
I believe Switzerland has announced that they will not replace their reactors with new reactors when the present fleet ages out.
Worldwide reactors are being closed faster than new ones are constructed. And there’s a huge bulge of aging out reactors that will go out of service over the next 20 years. A large majority of US reactors are now 40 years and older. Most are very unlikely to make it to their 60th birthday.
Bob Wallace says
Have you given thought to how much cheaper electricity might be if thorium rather than uranium was used as a fuel?
According to the World Nuclear Institute the average fuel cost at a nuclear power plant in 2013 was 0.79 cents / kWh.
http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/Costs-Fuel,-Operation,-Waste-Disposal-Life-Cycle
Given that new nuclear in the US would run from 13 to 20 cents per kWh using zero cost thorium would not be enough to make nuclear competitive.
The killer for nuclear is the capex and finex. Operating costs are not terribly bad.
The US EIA sets operating per kWh costs:
PV solar = $0.010
Onshore wind = $0.013
Nuclear = $0.024
Switching from uranium to “free” thorium wouldn’t make would bring nuclear’s opex closer to that of wind and solar, but thorium won’t be free.
And remember, it takes about 30 years to pay off the typical reactor before electricity prices would drop from the 13 to 20 cent range to the opex range of 1.5 to 2.5 cents. Nuclear starts very expensive and stays very expensive for a long time.
Nigel West says
Far from phasing out nuclear, EDF is refurbishing their nuclear fleet which is more cost effective than new build. They are also working on a new design the EPR-NM for commissioning in the late 2020s when new nuclear capacity will be needed to replace closing stations.
What Scotland does is not relevant as their grid is an integral part of the UK’s transmission system.
Bob, your info. on the UK is way off. 3.2 GW of new nuclear at Hinkley Point producing 25TWh/year representing 8% of the UK’s annual consumption is much more than toying with nuclear. Not to mention Horizon Nuclear and their plans for 5.4GW, EDF-Energy’s plans for 3.2GW at Sizewell and their JV for a showcase Chinese designed Hualong reactor at Bradwell.
Bob Wallace says
I see online that EDF is fighting the order to close Fessenheim .
https://www.ft.com/content/4b09848e-e237-11e6-8405-9e5580d6e5fb
Unless something has happened since January which didn’t turn up in my search there is no guarantee that EDF will be successful.
My statement came from this –
“France’s energy transition law could force state-controlled utility EDF to close up to a third of its 58 nuclear reactors by 2025, the state audit office said in its annual report on Wednesday.
The Cour des Comptes estimates that the planned reduction of the share of nuclear in French energy production to 50 percent by 2025 from more than 75 percent now could lead to the closure of 17 to 20 reactors if power consumption and exports remain at current levels.
“Only a very significant increase of electricity use or power exports could limit the number of closures but experts do not expect this will happen,” the auditor said.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-edf-nuclear-idUSKCN0VJ0ML
I’m very aware that Scotland is part of the UK. I’m also aware that the UK has wind resources many times its energy needs.
I know that the pro-nuclear people in the UK have plans to build a new fleet of reactors.
I also understand the economics of renewables vs. nuclear.
Bas Gresnigt says
With expanding wind & solar, power prices will decrease towards below operational costs of nuclear.
Then the losses will force EDF to close far more nuclear.
Nigel West says
Yes. Not just the repository, also leading Greens are supporting new nuclear.
https://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2017/04/17/in-finland_2c00_-green-party-candidates-support-nuclear-power-041702#.WP8YUlPyt-U
Bob Wallace says
That is not what your link says.
The linked report says that there is some discussion about nuclear within the Green Party in Finland.
“Four Green Party candidates in Finland, acknowledging their party’s long-standing opposition to nuclear power, called for a reversal on that stance last week”
About a third of Finland’s Greens are open to new nuclear. Two-thirds are opposed.
“about a third of the Green Party members would already “accept nuclear power, at least under some conditions”
Please, don’t create fake news.
Nigel West says
Your point is trivial. But never mind. Much more important and relevant is Rosatom building a new reactor in Finland.
Bob Wallace says
It’s trivial to report that you posted incorrect information?
OK…..
Math Geurts says
What is the most urgent problem for the world? Climate change or nuclear energy?
Bas Gresnigt says
Nuclear, as nuclear creates substantial genetic & health damage to people.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
The climate has always changed up and down and will continue to do so. Air pollution from the burning of fossil fuels, confirmed by WHO, causes 7 million premature deaths, with a massive cost to the health system and economy. Nuclear Power Generation has saved millions and continues to save lives and has the lowest deathprint being the number of people killed by one kind of energy or another per kWhr produced. Quoting misinformation is always the favourite option for the deniers.
Bas Gresnigt says
Only if one follows a.o. James Hanson who states 43 deaths for Chernobyl, etc.
While WHO-IARC estimates are 16,000 deaths (page 5 of the link).
And others estimate 80,000 to more than a million deaths.
Bob Wallace says
Climate change. There is no doubt.
Now, what is the fastest and least expensive way to shut down fossil fuel plants and minimize climate change – nuclear or renewables?
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Bob Wallace – minimise climate change – The climate is not going to change from whatever type of electricity generation you use. That human CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question. Climate Change findings have been disputed by a large number of scientists, and that there is no incontrovertible proof that human caused climate change exists. My point of view is only focused on air pollution especially from coal fired power plants. Nuclear power still supplies more clean energy than renewables, leaving out hydro as it existed before Wind & Solar arrived. We should be continuing to expand nuclear. Like Canada and other countries are planning to do. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/04/26/canada-aims-for-a-fleet-of-small-modular-nukes/#7ddb217e30a8
Mike Parr says
From your statements you appear to be in the game of fairy stories (& very old ones at that). I suggest you find another site on which to peddle them.
Nigel West says
Mr Parr – it’s an alternative view. You may have fixed views. Others don’t and are happy with debate and free speech.
Bob Wallace says
” Climate Change findings have been disputed by a large number of scientists”
Only by scientists in fields other than climate. There is essentially zero dispute among climate scientists.
(I think they found one at some obscure university in the Russian backwaters.)
Biologists and dentists are not equipped by training to have a respected opinion on climate change.
“that there is no incontrovertible proof that human caused climate change exists.”
That is 100% incorrect, Hendrikus. Just totally wrong. As wrong as claiming the Earth is flat or humans haven’t made it to outer space.
jxxx mxxx says
“second, demand that can react” which basically means get used to brownouts
Nigel West says
Yep, or price gouging to force people to switch off – basically stealth power cuts. A company in the UK has tested that with Smart meters doubling the price in the morning peak and evening peak times – wasn’t very popular!
Raffaele Piria says
[censored – no ad hominem allowed]
“demands that react” is a normal and healthy feature in nearly all markets: when prices increase, demand goes down. if prices decrease, demand goes up.
Historically, in the electricity sector most users are not exposed to price signals. They pay the same price at any time, regardless if the wholesale electricity price is close to zero (for instance because there is plenty of wind and solar energy at a time of low demand) or extremely high (for instance because there is little wind and sun, some nuclear power plants are offline due to technical problems, at a time of high demand).
“demands that react” in the electricity sector exist since long time in several countries for large industrial users. grid operators offer them VOLUNTARY contracts that foresee a lower electricity price or another form of premium in exchange for the preparedness to reduce their demand at short notice, under certain technical restrictions. such contracts are voluntary transactions that offer benefits to both sides.
Such “demand response” (or “demand that reacts”) solutions are becoming more economically attractive thank to the IT revolution. The costs of being flexible are going down. Demand side aggregators offer make money by bundling the flexibility of not-so-huge-consumers. In the future, medium sized consumers suuch as shopping malls might contribute. In as hopping mall you can reduce the load of the cooling systems for a while without even noticing the effect. A deand side aggregator with contracts with dozens of shopping mall (and other similar users) can deliver valuable short time flexibility to the power systems. All parties benefit.
The US have a particularly developed demand response market. Germany is learning a lot from the US on this.
Brown outs are measures taken in emergency. Nothing to do with “demands that react” / demand response.
By the way, in many countries and since many years, the critics of renewables have been predicting an increase of brownouts or blackouts as a consequence of the deployment of renewables.
Look at the link below for real data European statistics. Denmark and Germany feature the highest reliability standards in Europe (and globally), while also having very high shares of variable renewables (wind and solar).
There is absolutely no association between icnreasing shares of renewables and frequency of supply interruptions
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-electricity-grid-stable-amid-energy-transition
Nigel West says
The problem with your argument is it is taken from an economics textbook. Economists refer to elasticity of supply. If prices rise more goods (electricity) should then become available so lowering the price. However, in a near 100% renewables scenario when wind and solar is unavailable supply elasticity is zero as the quantity supplied cannot respond to a price change. Sure, security of supply in Denmark and Germany is very good. But that is only because Germany’s renewables fleet is backed up fully, and expensively, by reliable coal, gas and nuclear capacity now.
Energy intensive industrial consumers have already gone to great lengths to manage their demand and optimise costs. ‘Dunkelflaute’ when renewables output can be close to zero can last for days, not just hours. Without reliable back-up, factories might have to shut for extended periods. That would not be good news for business. Jobs could move to another country.
Domestic two rate tariffs have been around for decades. Shifting some demand to overnight periods like storage heating is fine. But shifting cooking and other essential life style needs to overnight is not – unless some people become nocturnal.
Look at S.Australia and recent blackout problems there where they have high installed renewables.
Mike Parr says
“Energy intensive industrial consumers have already gone to great lengths to manage their demand and optimise costs” – gosh really? Germany has about 15GW of load that could provide demand response – tell me what proportion of the 15GW is taking part in DR? (hint – it is quite a small number).
Harry Degenaar says
According to leaked plans from the German federal network agency, published in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, the German government has had to halve its original target for expanding its wind-farms in the gale-beaten northern flatland’s because it cannot extend its power grid quickly enough to the energy-hungry industrial south. Wind-farms in the northernmost states are producing so much energy that in some cases the state has to pay renewable energy companies to switch off their turbines to stop congesting the power grid. Northern Germany produces 4,100 gigawatt hours in excess energy which couldn’t been transported to the south, enough, in theory, to supply 1.2 million households with energy for a year. Protecting the national power grid from such imbalances is costly. Germany paid €1bn, or towards system security measures, a cost which the federal network agency claims could rise to €4bn by 2022 if current trends continue. Since the start of the Energiewende, domestic demand for renewable energy has grown by about 3% per annum. Under revised proposals worked out by the government, the sector’s growth is expected slow to about 1%.
Bas Gresnigt says
In the new Energiewende law FiT’s for wind turbines installed in wind poor regions (=the south) are higher.
So wind turbines will be more evenly distributed over the country, which solves at least part of the N-S transport problems.
Math Geurts says
But makes the production of wind energy more expensive.
Helmut Frik says
Maybe, by 1ct/kWh. Still much cheaper than nuclear, Gas or similar.
Math Geurts says
Unfortunately Seehofer does not only wants no high voltage power grid near his Datcha but also no wind turbines.
Bas Gresnigt says
Agree. Its an optimization issue.
Nigel West says
Mike, in the UK energy intensive users have had to manage their consumption carefully to remain competitive, and they provide DSR services to National Grid. Unlike, Germany where about 700 large industrial electricity consumers receive subsidised electricity, the burden of the Energewende falling instead on domestic consumers.
Mike Parr says
[..] you are twisting & turning: “Energy intensive industrial consumers have already gone to great lengths to manage their demand and optimise costs” – the article is about Germany – not the UK & thus your comment was taken to mean Germany. Whilst the UK is of interest – it is not relevant to this discussion. Large German industries do not get a subsdiy – they simply do not pay their share of the energiewende – because of successful lobbying.
Helmut Frik says
It’s not only lobbying, it’s also logicl consideration. Who is in international competition with companies from countries which do not care about CO2 emissions or how to supply the world with energy in the future should not suffer problems in competition. This is why energiewende is payed by those who are not in international competition or where the energy costs are insignificant.
For the end user it does not matter if he pays the costs by higher elctricity prices, higher taxes or higher product prices. The initial push to develop the neccesary technology will in the end always be payed by the customer, one way or another. The EEG pyment is just very transparent.
Hans says
That is indeed the standard argumentation. However, power intensive industries buy a large part of their demand on the spot market. Renewables press down the prices on the spot-market via the meit-order effect. It seems to me that those industries can pay a surcharge for the same amount as the price decline due to renewables without affecting their international competition position. The current situation is in practice a hidden subsidy for power intensive industries.
Bas Gresnigt says
Based on such complaints, EU comp. dept. investigated the German situation few yrs ago, during half a year.
In the end they ordered only a few small adaptations.
So it seems your subsidy argument doesn’t hold.
Hans says
That is just an argument from authority.
Please explain to me how energy intensive industries getting cheaper electricity thanks to the surcharge paid for by households is not effectively a subsidy.
Helmut Frik says
@ Hans, because everybody outside germany does not have to pay the surcharge. So the “subsidy” is not hindering the companies more than they were hindered (or not hindered) in other countries any way. You also do not have to pay VAT when exporting products.
And competiors in germany are also treated according the same rules, so usually when being in the same branch they pay the same amout .
Math Geurts says
Indeed: “For the end user it does not matter if he pays the costs by higher elctricity prices, higher taxes or higher product prices”. Countries like the UK would be happy if large German industries would have to pay “their share”. Maybe Germany’s energy policy is not very smart, it’s also not that stupid. The only German’s who have (in the past) escaped paying their share are home-owners with solar roofs. Lobbying to keep this privilege has always been very strong.
Nigel West says
This is Europe wide journal – people here talk about the situation across an interconnected Europe.
Regardless of the level of demand side response you believe exists in Germany, it would not be sufficient to manage ‘dark periods’ in a near 100% renewables Germany when they are down for long periods in the winter. If some electricity consumers are not paying their share of Energiewende, others will be paying more than there fair share – hence subsidising others.
Helmut Frik says
Since we are in a “interconnected europe”, this does not matter, because first there would be the imports from the area which have a surplus during the the “dark periods” in germany. At other times power flow will be the other way round.
Math Geurts says
Germany and Europe are not California and USA. “Dark periods” during winter will remain the biggest problem. Solar PV, EV’s and heat pumps are not the solution for that problem. With EV’so and heat pumps the seasonal mismatch is even worse.
Helmut Frik says
No the “seasonal mismatch” is not worse, since, even if you take the remaining fluctations in large grids as “dukelflaute” the absolute supply in winter by wind is much higher than in summer. And so the dispatchable demand fits exactly to the problem. IF you have to fuel your car once in two weeks, you do so when prices are low, and avoid to do so when prices are high. People will not behave different with BEV cars than they do now with ICE cars.
Harry Degenaar says
The GREENS love understandably clean electricity generation. So what is happening today. Germany’s €520 Billion energy project (energiewende), a low carbon, environmentally sound, reliable, and affordable energy supply. It’s now demonstrating that it is not that reliable and affordable. As a result, Germany has been minimising the damage by paying consumers to take excess power and asking Wind & Solar producers to switch off when they’re not needed. Germany paid wind farms $548 million last year to switch off in order to prevent damage to the country’s electric grid. Due to the damaging effects green energy has had on Germany’s grid, the government plans to cap the total amount of wind energy at 40 to 45% of national capacity, according to a report published by the German newspaper Berliner Zeitung. By 2019, Germany will get rid of 6,000 MW of wind power capacity.
Helmut Frik says
[…]
There are 6000MW which are already have permission, which can be built in parallel to the tenders till 1.1.2019. This means wind power in germany might reach 60-62 GW itll 2019.
Also negative prices also happened when there were no relevant amounts in the grid, and they also happen when there are not much renewable generation active in the grid, while they often do not happen when there is alot of renewable generation in the grid. They usually happen when a) there is a error in prdiction, usually of the load (predicted load was too high) b) there are mostly inflexible generators in the grid (Nuclear power, must run combined generation, old lignite plants) which prefere negative prices to ramping down.
Also german grid is far from being unreliable. And spendings were for development, not for the generation. The development of the technologys to generate wind and solar power was successful. It is used all over the world now. German population sees it like this, which results in the high support for “Energiewende” among the voters.
Nigel West says
The interconnection currently is totally inadequate to deal with ‘dunkelflaute’ in Germany without back-up generation currently in the form of coal-fired plants.
To shift/wheel huge quantities of power around Europe would require a switchable DC grid – the switches needed do not exist.
Relying on adequate surplus renewables being available elsewhere in Europe is too risky.
Skeptic UK says
“power plants that can ramp; second, demand that can react; and third, storage .”
Ho-hum?
So…your plan is…that there will be a second, back-up power system, bought and paid for, that sits idle 90% of the time, ready to go at a moments notice. Or your plan is to simply shed load – turn off the power to a lot of people and industry in the middle of winter. Or your plan it to store improbably large amounts of power at scales never before seen in the world.
Ho-hum.
I don’t think anyone is debating whether you CAN do these things, but whether it makes any technical or economic sense to do these things. We could power the grid with practically anything if we didn’t care about cost or reliability.
You CAN run the electric grid off of gerbils in little spinning wheels, if you had enough gerbils and wheels. When the gerbils get tired, you could ramp up an expensive back up system, or simply shed load. Or maybe hook up batteries. But the concept makes no technical or economic sense.
I have no doubt this issue has been studied to death. But your tut-tut “Obviously my good man we have developed a solution involving magic beans in exchange for the cow….” is not going to cut it.
Mike Parr says
Do you understand how demand response works? Your comments suggest not. As for “store improbable amounts of power” – Norway & Sweden – have considerable (GW) PHS potential & increasing numbers of connections to countries to the south. This is before we even consider things such as P2G. You did know that the German gas grid at any moment can store around 220TWh, the UK perhaps 180TWh? Or perhaps given your comments, you did not? […]
Nigel West says
Power to Gas to Power is very inefficient – at best 35%. It wastes 2/3 of the input electricity. UK pumped storage capacity is small at 0.03 TWh (also small in Germany), compared to UK daily demand of about 1 TWh.
Norway’s potential is limited and there are significant environmental issues with converting run of river hydro to pumped storage, aside from feasibility and cost.
What use would a gas grid be in a near 100% renewables world that Germany is striving towards?
Are Hansen says
Your info on Norway is incorrect. Hydro here is not only run of river plants, but also lots of dams with huge reservoirs. There are no additional environmental issues by pumping water back up into those!
Google “Blåsjø”
Nigel West says
Are, yes you are right existing reservoirs too. These would need to be convertible to pumped storage hydro by providing a similar capacity impounding reservoir, if that is feasible and environmentally acceptable.
There is an article on Greentechmedia that says Norway could provide up to 20GW of pumped storage. But it also mentions Norwegians would have to resolve rapidly changing water levels in the reservoirs possibly affecting recreational use, environmental issues with extensive transmission connections and political issues first.
Helmut Frik says
No, to provide storage, there is no pump needed. It’s enough to switch off existing turbines, and let the water accumulate behind the dam till the power is needed.
There are in many cases reservoirs on different levels also which can be interconnected, but so far it does not look like they will be neccesary. some additional turbine capacity might be useful at some of the dams sometimes in far future.
Nigel West says
That is a start and what happens currently when Denmark/Germany/Netherlands exports surplus power to Scandanavia. However the reservoirs have to recharge from rainfall and river flow so it’s limited.
Conversion to pumped storage would be needed, and extensive transmission works, to help with big lulls in renewables generation.
Helmut Frik says
Why?? 112 TWh storage can deliver the 50 GW turbine capacity for more than 2000 hours….. Even with double storage capacity and storages just half full there is more than enough water for any theoretical lull. But since the target is to make norwas safer from draught with the same power lines, the operation would be to draw wind power whenever suitable, and keep the storages full whenever possible.
Nigel West says
It’s not that simple. Norway’s installed hydro capacity is about 30GW. Inside Norway assume their demand is around 20GW, so when exporting to Denmark/Germany during lulls they would have about 10GW of spare generating capacity. Unless they build more hydro capacity.
Ignoring the very significant transmission constraints, determining how long Norway could endure an export of 10GW is complex so that Norway remains safe from drought. E.g. would need to consider, reservoir storage capacity, stored water volume, rate of recharge linked to rainfall, imports of electricity that avoid drawing on hydro etc. Way too complicated for here. Save to say drought risk is not an issue with pumped storage.
Clearly Norway has considered the issue and studies suggest 5-20GW of pumped storage is possible. That could certainly help Germany back-up its renewables fleet.
Are Hansen says
You are being very pessimistic, and conjuring up problems where none exist. As I said, all you need is a pump. The reservoirs are seldom filled to top capacity, and there are anyway many of them so always capacity somewhere.
Changing water levels are nothing new, but have been managed successfully for 100 years. The recreational use of these reservoir seas is not great, as they are mostly positioned high up in mountains virtually devoid of population.
And Helmut, reservoirs of different levels are not so important. There is absolutely no lack of water in Norway to pump up!
Transmission will need to be strengthened
Nigel West says
It’s much more than simply a ‘pump’. For fast acting grid scale pumped storage what’s needed are expensive plants like these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station
Norway’s hydro capacity is virtually all conventional.
Helmut Frik says
Well if there are rrivers in Norway at the low end, you can operate it also like this one in germany. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schluchseewerk
25km horizontal distance between lake and river in this case, which is not the optimum case. It has a much smaller turbine capacity than dinorwig (being much older), but cam store many times more energy (around 100GWh). There are more options to operate a pumped storage scheme than with two reservoirs. But for the forseeable future this is not neccesary in norway, stopping the turbines and letting the water accumulate is enough.
Nigel West says
The proposed 1.4GW pumped storage plant at Atdorf will have a storage capacity of 13GWh – about 0.65% of Germany’s daily consumption.
Norway’s ability to use imported power instead of their hydro is limited to around 7GW according to this analysis:
http://euanmearns.com/how-much-wind-and-solar-can-norways-reservoirs-balance/
Are Hansen says
I didn’t see the point of your link. Retrofitting pumps to existing dams are no big deal
Nigel West says
Are, with a purpose built pumped storage plant like Dinorwig the machines are huge and can both pump and generate. The pumps need to be huge to be able to recharge the upper reservoir quickly, like overnight when power prices are low, to be ready for peaks in demand during the day. It would be no good having to wait days for the reservoir to recharge. Even with a huge capacity upper reservoir, to avoid it eventually going dry the pumping capacity needs to match the rate at which water is used for generation. Simply fitting low capacity pumps would not achieve much in terms of flexible pumped storage on the scale needed to help Denmark and Germany balance a near 100% renewables scenario.
Many conventional hydro plants in Norway do not have a lower reservoir either, needed for pumped storage.
Harry Degenaar says
A new model for thermodynamics is being developed in Norway. A distinctively Norwegian technology is the use of air-cushioned surge chambers in hydropower plants. This requires that the surge chamber, which provides intermediate storage for the water and which helps to control the frequency, is blasted out deep inside the mountain. This air-cushioned chamber has no opening to the air above and therefore cannot get rid of excess water. Instead the chamber is filled with compressed air, which changes with the water level. Traditionally, plants have been run very smoothly and quietly, with few stops and starts to create these fluctuations. But a major expansion of existing hydropower plants is needed for Norway to become Europe’s green battery in the future. The power plants will also need to be started and stopped much more often, and then the problem of load fluctuations increases significantly.
Norway benefit a lot from developing new technologies, both in order to keep electrical frequency stable and to run power plants more aggressively to serve a large market.
Helmut Frik says
These chambers are in use for Ages. E.g. in germany for the Schluchsee Group (a series of interconnected pumped storages / hydrogeneration with dams). It was mainly built in the 1930’s.
I remember how my father explaind me the function of such chambers when I was a very small child.
Harry Degenaar says
Throttling of surge tanks has for many years been common practice in countries such as Germany and Austria In Norway this technology has never been
properly implemented into common practice, and especially air cushion surge tanks have never been
constructed with a throttle.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Norway-Could-Provide-20000-MW-of-Energy-Storage-to-Europe
Math Geurts says
“Norway’s Reservoir Lakes – Batteries for Europe?”
“All in all, using Scandinavia to buffer continental Europe’s fluctuating wind and solar power – an idea that seems compelling at first glance – does not look so convincing when really thought through”
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/3072091/3072091-6247735138671828996
Bas Gresnigt says
We also have Power-to-Gas, etc.
Are Hansen says
Really? Then why are companies and governments spending billions on laying undersea cables for hundreds of kilometers?
But of course there are limits to how large parts of continental Europe Norway can serve this way
bk16 says
“But don’t forget charging electric vehicles and electric heat”
The batteries of electric vehicles are optimized for energy density and safety and because of this, they are even more expensive than stationary plants. Also, their purpose is to make the vehicles move, so they are not freely availabe to the grids command. And not all of them are connected to the grid. A single connection can cost several thousand Euros.
Electric heating is a waste unless you have a heat pump. And you won’t need it in summer, when solar output is 10 times higher than in winter.
Then there are pipe dreams like power-to-gas, which have a total efficiency (including the CC-Gas plant) of some 30%. So we have a few buzzwords but nothing substantial to solve the problem.
Mike Parr says
“A single connection can cost several thousand Euros.” – really – gosh that’s a very expensive 13 amp socket you have (many/most/all EVs can charge from a AC source). What makes you think P2G is a pipe-dream? Are you an expert on this? JUst asking – because you see, I am […].
bk16 says
A connection can cost up to 75’000 Euros. Source:
https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article158779274/Jedes-neue-Haus-soll-Steckdose-fuer-E-Autos-haben.html
P2G is a pipe dream, because the efficiency is very low. The average feed-in-tarif for the EEG is now 15 ct/kWh. Even if this comes down to 10ct/kWh, at 30% efficiency, you would end up at >30ct for every stored kWh, about 10 times more than fossile/nuclear generation costs.
Another thing is that you can either generate hydrogen, which is hard to store, or methane/ethanol, which require a concentrated source for CO2. What would that be if most of your energy comes from renewables?
Mike Parr says
On-shore wind Scotland can be obtained for perhaps 3ecents/kWh. As for hard to store – Nat Grid are running a project looking at 10% injection into the national gas grid. That would give me about 18TWh of storage – & I’d be very happy with that. As for concentrated CO2 (from a renewable resource) – already solved that – as I said – I’m an expert in this area – your comments show you are at very best a partially knowledgeable amateur – your comment “pipe dream” shows you have already made up your mind.
Nigel West says
Forget low cost onshore wind in Scotland, it’s nearly saturated already. For PtGtP to make any meaningful contribution the economics would need to work with an input electricity price closer to 10p/kWh – based on recent CFD prices for UK offshore wind.
Mike Parr says
oh look – the Germans are doing off-shore @ …. wholesale (plus 0.8eurocents/kWh for the interconnector).
Math Geurts says
To bad that Germany is very slow in extending it’s High-Voltage grid to the South
Nigel West says
Mike, I hope UK nearshore wind CFD prices come right down too. Note that those winning bids are based on projects for commissioning around 2023 and forecast cost reductions using bigger machines under development. Unless developers now bid and are awarded a contract they can’t go it alone. Begs the question are developers taking an option to stake a position. Also could they walk if construction costs didn’t fall as they are predicting in their bids.
Unsupported renewables may not help PtGtP in the long run. Offshore wind investors relying just on wholesale prices would not want a situation where there is over capacity which regularly crashes wholesale prices. Developers will not invest in an over supplied market. Supply and demand should come into balance long term. Over supply has only happened to date because supported renewables are insulated from the real market.
If the market is not over supplied where will that leave PtGtP?
Mike Parr says
“Over supply …….because supported renewables are insulated from the real market.” Old argument – let’s try “fossil generation only stays on the bars because carbon is not priced in” see I can play that game as well.
“If the market is not over supplied where will that leave PtGtP” – DIY build your own RES.
Bob Wallace says
Correct. Add in the external cost of coal and it becomes the most expensive way to generate electricity. It’s not just the cost of carbon/climate change. Simply adding in health costs is enough.
Right now we are in an interesting phase of our energy transition in the US. Paid off nuclear plants that are in danger of going bankrupt are starting to receive subsidies.
Subsidies for a 40 year old reactor.
The reason is largely, I think, job protection and to keep the communities around the reactors from being badly hurt.
Bas Gresnigt says
The unmanned PtG facilities only operate when the whole sale market price is ~2cnt or lower = 1.5cnt on av. (same as Geman alu smelters).
With that PtGtP can operate when it can sell for ~6cnt/KWh.
Harry Degenaar says
THÜGA POWER-TO-GAS PLANT has been operational in Germany since late 2014. Thirteen companies of the Thüga group have combined their know-how and capital in a project platform to jointly invest in the development of Power-to-Gas. http://www.itm-power.com/project/thuga-power-to-gas
Helmut Frik says
Of what interest are historical feed in tarifs which are represented in the average EEG-Ffed in tarif?
Of interest is new built capacity, which is significant lower. Which causes the average EEG feed in tarif to drop also, but with more than a decade delay. A eternity in this area.
R. L. Hails Sr. P. E. (ret.) says
The basic issues are will electricity be available when I flip the switch and what will it cost? I am not familiar with Germany grid but it is economically impossible to build an operate a stand by grid, which intermittently ramps up to carry the load at a low level of use. There is only enough money, if you are lucky, to build one grid and if it is not cheap energy, your economy suffers.
Thus option one, ramping carbon fueled power plants has cost penalties which are not developed in the article. Option two, in the States, is called demand management, which gives the customer an old fashioned busy signal when they want juice. That means a cold house in January and a hot one in August. It is a very expensive appliance by appliance outage in which the dispatcher sheds load when he lacks supply. Otherwise he can destroy his equipment with overloads. The last stated option, storage, has technical and cost problems. Pump storage works but costs. The advanced technologies are nascent, may or may not work at a price.
One huge factor, unmentioned in the article is cost effective design, e.g. more insulation in structures and higher efficiency equipment. I note cost effective, many new designs are not.
Harry Degenaar says
No one can run on Wind & Solar power generation alone. Just look at Denmark, a nation the most experienced in Wind Generation Technology and yes they can obtain from time to time 100% electricity generation from Wind Power. But there is more to it, they do have baseload support. Denmark does not run their entire country on 100% wind, they have an energy mix and may have periods of very high wind penetration. Denmark anticipated the need for flexibility of the power system much earlier than most, even decades ago. Over the past twenty years, Denmark has made further modifications to existing coal and natural gas plants to increase their flexibility still further (as has Germany). These modifications, in both control software and equipment, have allowed increased load gradients (ramping rates), reduced minimum stable outputs, made startup (from zero output) quicker, and added software to improve response times. Through these measures, hard coal plants in Denmark can now ramp at rates up to 3-4% of rated output per minute, which is higher than in Germany and unprecedented among coal plants around the world. For comparison, CCGT gas turbine plants in Denmark can ramp at about 3% of rated output per minute. And coal plants in Denmark can cycle down to the minimum level of 10-20% of rated output, compared to a 45-55% level in Germany and typically 60-70% levels elsewhere.
For comparison, CCGT gas plants in Denmark can cycle down to 50% levels. A third Danish innovation is the incorporation of advanced day-ahead weather forecasting into the operation of power system control and dispatch. Such day-ahead weather forecasting has become common and highly sophisticated in regions with high shares of renewables, such as California, Germany, and Spain. Such weather forecasting can be credited as a major contribution to their ability to integrate and balance high shares of renewables, because it makes variable renewables highly predictable for power system control and dispatch on a day-ahead basis, which is how most power markets around the world now operate. But Denmark has taken the day-ahead weather forecasting innovation one step further. During the day, in real time, the Danish power system control centre constantly compares the actual output of renewables against the prediction made the day before.
The error of actual vs. predicted is then used to forecast the output of renewable in the coming hours ahead of real time. This leads to a situation that one senior manager of the Danish power grid said “virtually eliminates errors” in the predictability of renewable output, and thus one which ensures efficient and reliable power system operation. A fourth Danish innovation concerns the practice of transmission planning. Denmark’s electricity system operator, Energinet, proactively plans new transmission capacity anticipating future interconnection of wind farms, based on project development plans and actual consented projects. Thus transmission strengthening occurs in parallel with new generation, not afterwards. And Energinet has a comprehensive plan for upgrading the entire transmission grid in the future, consistent with the increasing shares of renewable energy. The final piece of integrating and balancing of renewables is the operation of the electricity market itself.
Denmark’s power control and market operations (by Energinet), have also evolved an advanced system for balance management and grid reliability. The power control centre every 5 minutes makes an updated forecast of the coming period, and also requires all generators (greater than 10 MW) to submit updates of their output every 5 minutes. This allows the power control and market operation to quickly respond to changes in renewable output. And the ISO has greatly improved its daily “N-1” reliability calculations, to make sure the lights stay on in the event of unexpected events or outages, even with variable renewables, in cooperation with neighbouring countries and EU-wide under the EU “ENTSO-E” reliability framework.
Denmark has no plans for electricity storage, partly because it has such well-developed heat (thermal) storage, which is much cheaper and equally effective for balancing variable renewables on the power grid. However, long-term, Denmark is considering other ideas for energy storage, such as generating synthetic natural gas or hydrogen from excess electricity generation, and storing the natural gas and/or hydrogen (at least in small percentages) within the country’s extensive natural gas storage capacities. Finally, an emerging innovation is demand response. This is the process of varying the level of electricity demand in real-time, using smart-grid technologies and pre-designed operating regimes for what end-user equipment can be turned off, when, and for how long.
Danish National Grid in real-time. Note: there are 6 options to play with. http://www.energinet.dk/EN/El/Sider/Elnettet.aspx?target=el_net
Are Hansen says
Thanx for a very informative post, explaining how modern energy systems can work, thanks to IT tech.
Neither Denmark nor anyone else have substantial electricity storage in the form of battery parks yet, but the prices keep on dropping so this will come too.
AFAIK, this is the largest such installation so far:
https://arstechnica.com/business/2017/01/a-look-at-the-new-battery-storage-facility-in-california-built-with-tesla-powerpacks/
And yes, California does have a goal of 100% renewable electricity by 2050, and recently upped the goal for 2020 to 50%
Harry Degenaar says
Batteries for grid frequency and voltage stability “YES”, for power backup “NO”. It’s in my professional opinion that for domestic (residential) use PV solar and batteries it’s a “YES”, and that’s where it stops. Now you tell me what you would use for backing up a 5000 MW intermittent renewables (wind & solar) grid that supplies power to a region that has also Heavy Industry connected like: 120MW for Steel Production, 650 MW for Mineral Processing, and 820MW for Aluminium Smelters. I know what on what to use, and it’s not batteries. Batteries are not a renewable energy, as a matter of fact they are not an energy at all, they store the electricity put in to them. The components like cobalt, lithium, graphite and aluminium have to be mined (a dirty business) and they are all finite resources. Then the batteries over the years will experience capacity loss, especially for those in warm climates. Furthermore, their life cycle may only be 10 years, and expensive to replace.
Bob Wallace says
At this point in time we have only one good long term energy storage method, pump-up hydro (PuHS). It works, we’ve been using it for 100 years, and it’s affordable. Not cheap, but affordable.
Lithium-ion batteries seem to have reached price parity with PuHS when cycled frequently. Storing power for a few hours, cycling about once a day. The more frequently storage cycles, the more money it earns. PuHS is affordable (not cheap) for long term storage because it doesn’t cost a lot to make the reservoirs larger.
Over time it’s likely that lithium-ion batteries will become cheaper and be cheaper for “two day” storage than PuHS. And perhaps “three day” cheaper.
We’re also seeing work done on turning electricity into a fuel (hydrogen, synfuel) that can be used for backup generators as needed.
And we’re seeing new battery technologies being developed which may be considerably cheaper than lithium-ion.
In short, we have a usable solution now. We’re likely to develop cheaper solutions as we go along.
There are no input problems for lithium-ion batteries. Lithium is a very common mineral. None of the materials in lithium-ion batteries are ‘used up’. We can recycle them and use them in new batteries.
Battery life is what it is. It figures into the cost of storage. Lithium-ion batteries have reached price parity with PuHS even though they need to be replaced after a decade or so while a PuHS facility may last 100 years or much longer.
Bas Gresnigt says
Almost no country has enough high water basin capacity to cover long seasonal dips with hydro & PuHS.
For the real long term we have Power-to-Gas, as the gas storing capacity in earth cavities is at least 10times bigger in most countries, such as Germany.
And it’s also cheaper, especially once the plants are mass-produced.
Bob Wallace says
It’s going to be interesting to see if PtG can undercut the price of PuHS. But most countries have plenty of places for PuHS.
Existing dams, abandoned rock quarries and both open pit and subsurface mines are candidates. Places where elevation changes over a small distance provides opportunity for closed loop storage.
(I’m behind whatever works. Economically and environmentally.)
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Bob Wallace Pump-up hydro, you mentioned we’ve been using it for 100 years. My reply, maybe in the USA, in some area’s. Not all countries have an elevation available to make use of this.
Hydrogen, synfuel is derived from gasification of solid feedstocks such as coal or biomass or by reforming of natural gas. It is not a clean renewable energy source.
Correct – Lithium is a very common mineral. None of the materials in lithium-ion batteries are ‘used up’. We can recycle them and use them in new batteries. Recycling will not satisfy the production of new batteries for many years to come. With this, lithium is nearing it’s peak to be mined in a concentrated form. Yes, it can be mined from less concentrated resources or extracted say from seawater but the cost will be very high. Furthermore, let’s suggest that the world will see 100 Tesla-size battery production factories by 2040. This is enough to produce about 100 million EV’s per year, plus a ton of stationary storage (global sales of cars are about 80 million per year, so 100 million a year seems about right when we’re including many years of sales in the future, with a larger global population). If this is the case, and the basic battery requirements don’t change too much, the world would need about 800,000 metric tons of lithium by 2040. And that’s just for battery production and doesn’t include the many other uses of lithium.
An analysis by Motley Fool’s Maxx Chatsko looks at whether there is enough lithium supply to meet Tesla’s Gigafactory demand by 2020 and concludes that it’s unlikely that there will be enough increase in supply in the next few years to even support Tesla’s single factory, let alone the many, many other factories like it that will have to be built to meet demand if the EV revolution really gets underway in the next decade or two.
Now we have not even talked about the need for cobalt, lithium-ion batteries also include cobalt to improve the oxidation of nickel in the battery. It is also used used as a radioactive tracer and for the production of high energy gamma rays. The world’s soaring demand for cobalt is at times met by workers, including children, who labour in harsh and dangerous conditions. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/batteries/congo-cobalt-mining-for-lithium-ion-battery/
You say we have a usable solution now, I keep reading that they are still trying to find one.
Bob Wallace says
Please list the countries other than Belgium that don’t have terrain suitable for PuHS.
H2 or synfuels from fossil fuel sources is not acceptable. No one suggested it was.
H2 can be extracted from water using renewable electricity. That is a carbon free way to store energy, but it’s inefficient which makes it costly. It may be that the price can be brought down to where it is competitive with PuHS. The best choice may vary from country to country.
“With this, lithium is nearing it’s peak to be mined in a concentrated form.”
That’s absolutely and completely incorrect.
” it’s unlikely that there will be enough increase in supply in the next few years to even support Tesla’s single factory,”
Again, completely wrong. Tesla has a source less than 200 miles from its present Gigafactory which is capable of supplying its needs.
BTW, Musk has just stated that he will announce the location of four more Gigafactories this year.
At 20 mg lithium per kg of Earth’s crust, lithium is the 25th most abundant element. Nickel and lead have about the same abundance. There are approximately 39 million tonnes of accessible lithium in the Earth’s crust
Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, China, Portugal and Zimbabwe have roughly 13 million metric tons of lithium that can be extracted.
Very large deposits of lithium have recently been discovered in the US. Afghanistan has very large lithium deposits.
Bolivia, alone, has 5.4 million tons of concentrated lithium salts.
There are approximately 230,000,000,000 tons of lithium in seawater and the cost of extraction is only about 5x of the cost of lithium salts.
The Nissan Leaf contains $120 of lithium carbonate. If we were forced (sometime in the far future) to use lithium extracted from seawater that would add about $500 to the cost of the car.
Some lithium batteries use cobalt. BYD EV batteries do not.
Cobalt is recoverable and reusable. Tesla already has a process for recycling battery materials in place but it will be several years before there are enough ‘used up’ batteries to start up processing.
We can clean up cobalt mining.
Are you aware that the US has around 18,000 abandoned uranium mines, many of which need to be cleaned up? Radioactive tailings.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Actually Belgium has more elevated area’s than Holland. Holland has none, except if you take into account the area that’s below sea-level. Since I don’t have the time to list all countries that are not suited for PuHS, how about you make such a list. Anyhow, we not seeing much PuHS being implemented except in places where hydro is traditional.
Bob, you are quick in creating a diversion; we can clean up cobalt mining, followed with the US has around 18,000 abandoned uranium mines, many of which need to be cleaned up? Radioactive tailings.
So who is cleaning up what. Now there is an Australian company making an effort for doing just that –
http://www.silex.com – The US Department of Energy and GLE (Licensee for the SILEX Technology) reached an agreement for the sale and purchase of Depleted uranium. DOE’s approval provides for the sale and purchase of approximately 300,000 metric tons of DOE-owned high assay tails inventories for re-enrichment with the SILEX Technology to produce natural grade uranium.
Helmut Frik says
Talk was about uranium mines. (-> Strawman) Germany spends billions since more than 25 years to clean up the remainigs of Wismut AG, and there will be many more years of work left.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Strawman – talk was about uranium mines. Was it – I did notice the words; radioactive tailings. But maybe you don’t know on the meaning on what a tailing is.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
SAG/SDAG Wismut was a uranium mining company. It produced a total of 230,400 tonnes of uranium between 1947 and 1990 and made East Germany the fourth largest producer of uranium ore in the world at the time. It was the largest single producer of uranium ore in the entire sphere of control of the USSR for its nuclear weapons program.
Bob Wallace says
I was simply pointing out that many of our mining operations leave much to be desired.
You are the one who introduced the topic of problematic mining.
” The world’s soaring demand for cobalt is at times met by workers, including children, who labour in harsh and dangerous conditions. “
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Bob Wallace – Yes, but the German cleanup does not use children to do the job.
Helmut Frik says
Hendricus I know what is meant by tailing, and thats one of the majorr tasks in cleaning up the remainings of Wismut.
But denying problems caused by nuclear in earlier times seems to be systematic for some.
People in germany see the several multi billion taxpayer money topics around nuclear.
One more of these multi billion Euro pits which make most germans today believe in “expensive nuclear” instead of “cheap nuclear”. While renewables fulfilled the promise so far to bring down costs for new installations after initial high costs.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Helmut Frik – you are the one that brought up Wismut AG. I am not denying any problems caused by nuclear in earlier times that were created by the cold war and the need to produce nuclear weapons. I actually highlighted them. You guys should have looked for compensation from the former Soviet Union Participants.
When it comes to Nuclear Power Generation there are new method’s available for the reprocessing of the nuclear waste. Some countries are moving forward with nuclear power generation and some not. Let’s see were we will be in 10 years from now and see which way the industry moves. Germany may move to fusion who knows in 20 years from now. Plenty of money is being spent on the promising Wendelstein 7-X project. We may even see the MSR reactor taking shape in 10 years, who knows.
Like your statement that central management is a dumb grid approach. If you want to know why and how a more intelligent approach looks like you could read all the texts I have written to this topic. I don’t what to know why because it looks like that you never looked up on that the WAMnet uses decentralised control. Bringing up IT security problems, the old argument as anything connected to the internet will never be secure, but you can make it as secure as possible. FYI – the WBAMnet also makes use of intelligent price signals.
An intelligent grid from top to bottom, maybe as you put it Germany not, but California does already, and Denmark is moving in this direction, and others are considering.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Bob Wallace, you are the one that brought up synfuel – quote “we’re also seeing work done on turning electricity into a fuel (hydrogen, synfuel) that can be used for backup generators as needed.”
There is nothing such as a hydrogen, synfuel. Yes hydrogen can be produced using excess power from renewable generation. However, synfuel is a liquid fuel, or sometimes gaseous fuel, obtained from syngas, derived from gasification of solid feedstocks such as coal or biomass or by reforming of natural gas.
Helmut Frik says
Wrong. Liquid fuels can be produced from H2 and CO2. (Sabatier, Fischer-Tropsch as base processes)
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Wrong – The Fischer–Tropsch produces a synthetic fuel, typically from coal, natural gas, or biomass. It’s process is a collection of chemical reactions that converts a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen into liquid hydrocarbons. The process, a key component of gas to liquids technology, produces a synthetic lubrication oil and synthetic fuel, typically from coal, natural gas, or biomass.
Helmut Frik says
Just a short notice: geman hard coal and lignite plants also ramp easily hard coal always down to 10-20%, lignite today often down to 20%, even lignite with ramp rates above 3%/minute. Thats why ramping is not a problem in german grid, only nuclear cant ramp to a sgnificant amount. but that problem will go away in the comming years.
“Dunkelflaute” is always a local problem, stretching usually to 1500km diameter, rarely more, and never much more. Grid connections even today span longer distances, allowing to import the surplus of other areas int areas with low wind &sun. That’s why a lot of capacity can go offline in germany without anybody noticing it. just some grid connections need expansion, a political problem mainly around a single politician and his Datscha in Bavaria, not a technical or economical problem.
Bas Gresnigt says
Harry,
So all countries should follow more advanced Denmark.
Especially since those measures don’t cost a lot.
It’s a matter of more advanced programs running in a simple server, with connections to weather forecast computers, etc.
Assume other utilities & ISO’s can buy those advanced programs from the Danish, and start a cooperation in order to improve those further.
So 100% wind & solar grids can operate with the same excellent reliability as that of Denmark (~10 times more reliable than US grid).
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Bas Gresnigt – Just remember that the Danes don’t run a 100% wind & solar grid. I have already developed such a large scale wireless energy efficient coupled to electricity supply and demand software system http://www.wbamnet.org
Bas Gresnigt says
Sorry, I estimate that the Danes have a more optimized program that can handle more parameters.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Bas Gresnigt, sorry to say so but you don’t even know what the WBAMnet entails. So how can you form any qualified opinion. As per my entry on this thread on March 6, 2017 at 03:40 – I have studied the Danish system in detail and can comfortably say that the WBAMnet and it’s wireless smart hardware takes it a number of steps further on what the Danes currently have.
Bas Gresnigt says
Hendrikus,
Which steps?
Hendrikus Degenaar says
electricity demand control in real-time, using smart-grid wireless technologies and pre-designed operating regimes for what end-user equipment can be turned off, or adjusted for energy level, when, and for how long. In other words, state or country wide smart automated load shedding or power level adjustments right down to specific equipment in buildings, shopping complexes, industrial sites, etc.
Helmut Frik says
And what’s new with this? Using wireless deviced for such tasks is state of the art for several years here.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Helmut Frik – […] Tell me more, where does the grid in Germany have the ability to drill down on controlled load shedding say for example on a HVAC system installed in a shopping complex.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Germany and Denmark don’t have currently a system in which the grid operator can control smart automated load shedding or power level adjustments right down to specific wireless controlled equipment in buildings, shopping complexes, industrial sites, etc.
The only region that has such a system currently implemented is California, where they have the Code of Regulations, Title 24 for Building Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Program. The T24 code covers state legislation enforcing energy efficiency and demand response rules on retrofit and new building approvals.
DEMAND RESPONSE AUTOMATION INTERNET
SOFTWARE CLIENT. Software that resides in a buildings Energy Management Control System that can receive
from a grid operator demand response signals and automatically reduce or switch off/on specific targeted groups of equipment like HVAC, lighting systems, and any other electrical load.
Demand Response programs developed and approved by the utilities
depend upon timely and reliable communications
of events and information to the buildings that are
participating in the program.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Helmut Frik – I am aware of the Siemens GOOSE (Generic Object Oriented Substation Events) and SICAM SGU 7XV5676 having a secure and wireless Ethernet communication
for connecting to an energy management system. It
can be used for a wide variety of Smart Grid applications such as
demand response.
SICAM SGU is based on a high performance and upgradeable hardware and software platform and is designed as a binary input/output device for substations and rough requirements in the industrial field.
It is not comparative grid wide from top to bottom (past substation) as the WBAMnet is.
Helmut Frik says
Hendrikus,
controling user side devices by utilities is not wanted here, beside generation which can be controlled.
End users do their smart grid managmenemt wireless already in many cases, which is what i pointed out. Trying central control of all or many end usrer devices by a central management is a dumb grid aproach. If you want to know why and how a more intelligent approach looks like you could read all the texts I have written to this topic (in german).
I know you are not alone with this faulty centralistic approach.
Problem is that you (the central unit) does not know what it’s doing on user side, and that there are severe data protection issues.
Standard control here happens traditionally with signals on the power line itself, which is always present when a grid connected device should be controlled. But doing this wireless would be no problem, but causing significant IT security problems without visible benefit.
Intelligent price signals are a much better approach to this topic. but the amount of renewables in the german grid is too small today to make it neccesary to change thins at once here. this will change in the comming years. (And it is a interesting, but different topic than the one discussed here)
Math Geurts says
Indeed follow the Danes (60% residential heat from heat distrbution systems) because “Germany to miss 2020 carbon reduction targets by a mile”
https://energytransition.org/2017/03/germany-to-miss-2020-carbon-reduction-targets-by-a-mile/
Bob Wallace says
In 2014 estimates were that Germany would miss its 2020 target by five to eight percentage points.
The target was a 40% drop in emissions by 2020 from 1990 levels. With no changes post 2014 Germany would have ended up 32% to 35% drop.
The overall goal for the entire EU is to reach a 40% drop by 2030, ten years after Germany. Even at only 32% drop by 2020 Germany would be ahead of the greater EU.
In 2014 the German cabinet approved a new plan to slash CO2 emissions in order to meet its ambitious climate targets.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/germany-steps-up-co2-cuts-to-meet-2020-climate-goals/
In 1990 Germany emitted 1,003.2 million tonnes of CO2. In 2015 German CO2 was down to 753.6 which is 75% of 1990 levels.
Will Germany be able to shed ~ 250 million tonnes of CO2 over the last five years of the target span? That’s not clear, perhaps unlikely. But expect them to close the gap, especially if Germany is not charged for the CO2 produced when generating electricity for other countries. Almost 10% of all electricity in Germany is exported.
Germany may be moving slowly, but they’re ahead of most other countries…. ;o)
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Bob Wallace, that’s one thing we can agree on, definitely ahead of Australia. The transition has increased market volatility. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/energy-crisis-update-wholesale-electricity-prices-more-petkovic
Helmut Frik says
Agreed . Where did they get all tohose museum pweorstations to reach 1250g/kWh CO2 in Victoria? And how can a grid be so weak to allow such high price differences….
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Caused by uneducated politicians and greedy entrepreneurs. Not engineers.
Bob Wallace says
Volatility is common during transitions.
In this case the factors driving the jump in wholesale electricity prices seem to be all about carbon based fuel costs and the damage done to the climate caused by burning carbon based fuel.
From your linked article…
“Extreme summer heat combined with energy crisis factors such as high gas prices, outdated market rules and a lack of competition, have produced extraordinary wholesale electricity pricing throughout the first quarter (Jan to Mar) of 2017”
Math Geurts says
Quite a big part of Germany’s CO2-emission drop is a result of the collapse of the ecomomy of former DDR. (“hot air”). From the graph: since 2000 the drop is just about 14%
Bob Wallace says
US grid unreliability is largely due to the use of overhead lines.
I suspect Europeans would be amazed at how often people in my country (low population, mostly forested) lose power when the wind comes up.
It just doesn’t make economic sense to bury wire given our distances and terrain. We’re working to supply all points of consumption from two directions. The odds of a tree falling over lines on both sides of your house on the same day is low.
Helmut Frik says
low density populated areas in germany also have overhead lines, bus still do not suffer so many power outages.
I guess the major cause that each village here has tow or three pwoer connections on different corridors, each of which can power the village and then next villages behind them. Same usually or houses along a street usually connected from both ends of that street section. Everything is meshed and redundant wherever possilbe. If one line fails only those directly at that line at that road section loose power. Everyone else sees just a flicker as the fuses fall.
Nigel West says
The approach used to design distribution systems in the UK is based on group demand levels.
A village may just have a single radial connection so in the event of a fault supplies will be off until it is repaired, or a mobile generator is connected. For a town though it is not acceptable for many customers to be off supply while repairs are carried out so duplicate feeder circuits are normally provided. Embedded generation helps too. By my town’s substation two solar farms are being built which should improve security. Some towns now have diesel farms nearby. Grid can run them to reduce demand.
At the transmission level, group demands in the range 300MW to 1500MW shouldn’t be disrupted for the loss of two circuits during periods of low demand.
For group demands >1500MW, the transmission system is planned so that two circuits could be lost at any time of the year without disrupting supplies. In practice that means at least three 400kV circuits are needed. The UK grid system is very reliable but is not designed to ensure 100% supply security which is not technically possible anyway.
Mike Parr says
In terms of topology Uk distribution systems split into two types meshed (415v through to 33kV) and open ring (ditto). The latter has been implemented in most UK DNOs, the former only in the MANWEB urban area. Meshed networks (with unit protection) provide the best reliability (CML) & in the late 1990s this was an order of magnitude better than open ring systems – when comparing like urban area with like. Meshed/unit protection also obviates the need for a SCADA system that goes down to the 11kV/MV level.
Nigel West says
Mike, central London also once ran a solidly interconnected LV system without fuses which meant supplies were not affected for LV faults. Faults blew/burnt clear, but it wasn’t safe for workers so the HSE insisted on it being fused.
In London there are some meshed 11kV networks with unit protection too (e.g. Fleet Street when newspaper printing was there). Eastern tried unit protected rings in new towns too. But it was expensive on switchgear and needed more maintenance than open ring systems so was abandoned.
Now mobile comms. systems can be used to remotely control switchgear on open ring systems.
Mike Parr says
The MANWEB system used LV fuses on the LV dis boards – there was/is no reason why London could not have done the same – indeed – why would you not?. Meshed needing more maintence – why?. Bear in mind I was a systems engineer/senior authorised to 33kV on the MANWEB system. Why would a meshed system require more maintenance than open ring? – based on both systems having similar numbers of faults. The switchgear was rated at 250MVA/13kA – not so different to the kit on open ring – more costly? I doubt it. The only diff was the use of a 2 pair pilot cable plus Solkor – a minimal cost for a system vastly superior to anythign else. Mobile comms? really? – I assume that is a joke.
Nigel West says
London’s solid LV system originally didn’t have fuses on the dis. boards. The network was split into LV load blocks each on the same HV feeder. The LV blocks were interconnected with fringe fuses so the LV system held up for an HV feeder fault. Likely only you and I would be interested, but here is the seminal paper on the system:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5248649/
Compared to open rings, unit protected rings were more costly to build. Extra circuit breakers, indoor gear, pilot cables and Solkor needed. You’re right though maintenance levels should be similar. However the enhanced security of meshed systems isn’t generally justified under P2/6. Except, e.g., in central London where the LV system is meshed. Some special/large connections are supplied from unit protected systems too.
On open ring networks RMUs with actuators and wireless comms. are now used to reduce CI/CMLs by remote switching.
Helmut Frik says
Seems like on highest Voltage level, design parameters / supply safety in UK and germany are about the same (and much much higher than in Australia for example) while on lover levels power supply is safer in germany, explaining the differences in power outages.
Naturally zero fault rates can not be reached. But if e.g. your manufacturing can accept one power failure in 10 years (randome number), if might be reasonable to run it without backup power supply in germany, while a backup pwer supply might be considered in UK, and might be absolitely required in Australia. Making manufacturing more expensive in other places than germany, while in germany grid costs will be higher. Consideration here is that grid costs are low compared to multiplle backup solutions (or forgotten backup solutions… )
Mike Parr says
This is a reply to Mr West’s posting.
“On open ring networks RMUs with actuators and wireless comms. are now used to reduce CI/CMLs by remote switching” – guarenteed to be more expensive and less reliable that fully meshed with pilots/solkor – you commit yourself to never ending DMS expense/up-grades etc etc. Fine if you are in the game of throwing money at IT – fact is you do not need that with meshed/unit protection. What I notice with your your responses Mr West – is continual goal post shifting – you never justify your assertions with numbers –
Nigel West says
Mike, London’s distribution system design dates from decades ago. It’s all underground and was not built with a pilot system. Today, RMU’s with actuators and wireless SCADA/automation are being retrofitted.
This report discusses the costs and benefits of Manweb’s system compared to other UK network operators who use open rings.
https://www.spenergynetworks.co.uk/userfiles/file/201306_A2_10_SPEN_SP%20Manweb%20urban%20network.pdf
On pg. 9 the report says, “although unique in design it delivers frontier performance”, and, “..it is recognised both within SP Energy Networks and the wider industry that this network has greater complexity, involves more components and is more expensive to construct and maintain than the recognised industry network design.” Then on pg. 10, “…there is a cost premium compared to traditional radial (11kV) networks with or without automation”.
Decades ago as a young engineer I was told LE’s and Manweb’s network design was similar.
Mike Parr says
Mr West […] “London’s distribution system design dates from decades ago” so like Manweb’s – “and was not built with a pilot system” well more fool them- they knew what d’E Stowell was doing & chose not to emulate it – morons.
In my previous post I mentioned goal post moving – I’m going to add to that half truths – most of the urban MANWERB network was built in the 1960s and 1970s – thus this comment by you:
“…there is a cost premium compared to traditional radial (11kV) networks with or without automation”.
is utterly irrelevant given that there is minimal network expansion now – I thus conclude that your comment is deliberately misleading – perhaps you work for an IT company supplying kit for power networks?. To be clear, I don’t buy into the IT route to network security – performance – which is a route to an infinitely increasing IT budget delivering more complexity for no better performance. And for the record – back in the late 1990s a like for like – urban vs urban CML was done by Ofgems predecessor – Offer & was so vastly embarrasing for all UK DNOs when compared to MANWEB – that it was never repeated oh dear. & yet you try to justify open rings/DMS – [ ] you are an engineer? – even the SP guys (who I know) acknowledge that the MANWEB urban network is by a very long way the best not just in the UK – but globally and that the rest of the Uk should have done the same.
Nigel West says
This thread started as a useful and simple comparison of networks in Germany and the UK.
The pros and cons of meshed v. open ring design are well understood.
Note, I have not said open rings with automation are better. Only that it is a fact that meshed networks are more expensive as SP Energy Networks who operate the Manweb network acknowledge.
Yet you chose to mount a hostile defence of a network design used in a small corner of the UK calling others ‘fools’ and ‘morons’ because they didn’t adopt the same approach.
I suggest you learn how to conduct yourself better in public. Our continental friends are unlikely to be impressed.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says
Indeed a lot of wishfull thinking about possible solutions, without looking at the economics of these solutions.
Germany still has 100% backup capacity available, even when the last nuclear plant shuts down in a few years from now. The problem is that with increasing renewables, the backup needed still is (near) 100% for in case that in winter solar production is less than 10% of summer production and peak hours are after sunset. Wind can be down for days, even a week and more.
Thus 100% backup (either from fossil fuels or from storage) for 10% of the time. completely attributable to wind and sun power. Who will pay that? German (and Danish) households, who pay the full difference, as the (chemical) industry already threatened to leave Germany (and invest mainly in the US, as the gas price there is 1/3 of in Europe)…
Math Geurts says
“conventional power was pushed below 10 GW as a share of domestic demand, with exports once again “rescuing” these plants”
Yes, that is the problem: also in a more or even “100%” renewable future Germany’s conventional power has to be rescued by exports because Germany’s conventional power has to rescue Germany’s Energiewende. But which European country is able to swallow Germany’s exports after it has followed Germany’s example and has realized its own Energiewende?
Harry Degenaar says
Denmark and Germany are the proud wind capitals of Europe, but they also have the highest home electricity prices on Earth, 42 and 40 cents per kWh, respectively, against just 12.5 cents in the U.S. Germany has embarked on a $1.4 trillion energy transition (Energiewende) that has resulted in recent Der Spiegel headlines like: Germany’s Energy Poverty: How Electricity Became a Luxury Good. Naturally intermittent and more expensive, wind and solar power have surged under Germany’s very expensive energy plan, and the goal remains to get as much as 60% of power from renewables in 2035, versus 28% today. Undeniably non-sensically, Germany has been paying over $26 billion per year for electricity that has a wholesale market value of just $5 billion.
Helmut Frik says
Well, where do your 40ct come from? I pay 24 ct here in germany, all included.
Harry Degenaar says
https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2015/12/27/europes-energy-and-electricity-policies-are-a-bad-model/#7302dcfa3c02
Bas Gresnigt says
It’s amazing how much anti-publications regarding the German Energiewende in US literature, presenting data fully besides reality.
In your Forbes post, e.g:
Consumer and Industrial electricity prices in Germany far off reality. Also shown by e.g. the fact that German aluminum smelters thrive while those in US have difficult times.
May be it’s to prevent that US people would want to follow Germany. So US utility monopolies can continue earning easy money.
Helmut Frik says
Well that’s easy to explain – in the US it seems to be the price for huge industrial electricity users, for germany it’s the price for medium to small industrial electricity users. Both commercial. But who gets power in germany from grid level 1 (400kV) so is a huge electricity consumer, has about the same costs as they are mentioned for the U.S. in the article.
Are Hansen says
Yes, the propaganda is massive, and increasing it seems to me. A lot of that is financed by the Koch Brothers.
I can’t know whether all those commenters here who constantly try to find problems with renewables are in fact paid agents. More likely they are just ordinary people who believes some of that nonsense and keep repeating it.
Also note that they don’t offer any solutions, only complaints and doom-and-gloom. Continuing burning fossil fuels is not an option. The question is only how and how fast we transition to sustainable energy sources
Nigel West says
Bas, you know very well that over 700 German industrial companies are exempt from many of the costs of the Energiewende so effectively receive subsidised energy. Instead the burden is loaded on domestic and small commercial consumers.
That Forbes article was written in 2015 when the exchange rate was about $1.3 to the Euro.
Today average domestic prices in Germany are 29.16 ct/kWh. Which at about $1.1 to the Euro is still very high compared to the US. Also twice the level of UK prices.
Bas Gresnigt says
? Above Helmut states he pays 24cnt/KWh?
Anyway it’s mainly a matter of taxes.
In France and USA little tax for consumers on electricity. So it’s cheap.
In NL (hardly any Energiewende, we are just starting) taxes are ~50%, so I pay ~19cnt (could become a little less when I shop again).
In Germany similar taxes as in NL + 7cnt for the Energiewende.
The exemptions
Your idea about those being a subsidy is researched in detail by an EU commission who concluded: no subsidy.
I assume that competitors, such as the Dutch aluminum smelter, complained about unfair competition as the German smelters pay on av. ~€20/MWh as they only operate when the price is low.
Our Dutch alu smelter broke down and wants to restart after installing a special connection to the German grid.
Nigel West says
Average domestic German electricity price in 2017 is 29.16 ct/kWh. See:
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-households-pay-power
I know how EU member states and big energy companies lobby, and employ lawyers to devise clever schemes and arguments, to put forward cases to the EU for exemptions to EU state aid limitation rules. It was done for the cfd for Hinkley Point. Germany probably employed similar tactics re. the EEG. However there is no getting away from the facts – German domestic consumers pay an unfair share of the energiwende costs compared to exempt industrial consumers.
On German industrial prices, Ullrich Grillo, head of the Association of German Industry (BDI) said last year regarding the slew of subsidies :
“The current subsidies system has spun out of control. Energy costs have become a problem for Germany as a business location.”
Math Geurts says
“Global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions were flat for a third straight year in 2016 even as the global economy grew, according to the International Energy Agency, signaling a continuing decoupling of emissions and economic activity. The biggest drop came from the United States, where carbon dioxide emissions fell 3%, or 160 million tonnes, while the economy grew by 1.6%. The decline was driven by a surge in shale gas supplies and more attractive renewable power that displaced coal. Emissions in the United States last year were at their lowest level since 1992, a period during which the economy grew by 80%”
International Energy Agency, 17 March 2017
Bas Gresnigt says
At the start of the Energiewende ~55% of the Germans supported the Energiewende. Gradually that percentage increased towards ~90% in recent years.
Your data don’t fit with this increase in support by the population!
Seems to me that real prices and costs are much lower.
Especially when one consider that even offshore wind in the N-Sea is now at ~5cnt/KWh and decreasing further. While modern offshore wind farms produce with capacity factor >50%.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Interesting stuff N-Sea is now at ~5cnt/KWh and most-likely correct. I liked what R. L. Hails Sr, mentioned on March 5, 2017. The basic issues are will electricity be available when I flip the switch and what will it cost? The consumer now in all counties with a high penetration of renewables are paying now much more for their electricity.
Bob Wallace says
Taxes.
The reason why electricity is high in Denmark and Germany is taxes, not the cost of electricity generation.
Germany has had the highest or second highest retail cost of electricity in Europe going back to at least 1990, long before wind and solar became contributors.
Europe has long had high energy taxes. Look at how much more expensive gasoline/diesel it in Europe compared to the US. Europe purchases its oil at market prices just as does the US.
In the US states we saw the cost of electricity drop 0.25% from 2008 to 2013 in states with the most wind installed. Over the same time the cost of electricity rose over 7% in other states.
Since then we’ve see a very small increase in the cost of electricity for states that get at least 15% of their electricity from wind and a much larger increase for other states.
We don’t have enough solar installed yet to see it have an impact on prices.
The wholesale price of electricity in Germany has been falling almost continuously since German began installing large amounts of renewables.
As we go forward we should expect cheaper electricity.
Think about a wind farm that comes online, selling its electricity for 3c/kWh. After the 20 year PPA has expired the capex will be paid. It will cost the wind farm less than 1c/kWh to produce electricity. The owners can bid into the market at 2c/kWh and make a good profit. That should continue for another 20 years.
Solar farms are likely to operate much longer. We could see decades of almost free electricity coming out of paid off solar farms.
Nigel West says
After 20 years wind turbines are worn out and need CAPEX to replace them – more so with offshore. Solar panels degrade too. Whereas new nuclear plants will still be running in 60 years time at low marginal production cost.
In Germany only large industry benefits from low power prices. Domestic prices are the 2nd highest in Europe and twice those of the US. The tax issue is irrelevant to the domestic bill payer.
Bas Gresnigt says
Nigel,
All wind turbines of the world’s first offshore, constructed in 1991, still operate…
A life expectancy of 40yrs is more real.
Though replacement for economic reasons may be beneficial. One 9MW machine will produce same as 30 machines of 450KW from the nineties (higher CF).
Wind turbines are simple machines compared to power plants. No extreme heat, etc.
Bob Wallace says
We’re currently replacing our 30 year old turbines at Altamont Pass Wind Farm in California. They’re being replaced partly because maintenance costs were starting to rise and partly because we can replace them with much more efficient modern turbines and harvest more energy from the available real estate.
Given that engineers have had three decades to work on design and materials wouldn’t you expect modern turbines to be operational for more than the 30 years of the first generation?
Just think about the sensors that have been added. Maintenance crews can spot, for example, very small temperature increases which can alert them to lubrication problems. They don’t have to wait for bearings to start smoking and go all wobbly.
And we have lidar that can look ahead, see incoming wind gusts, and pre-position blades in order to minimize loading shock.
—
A recent study by the NREL found that solar panels manufactured after 2000 lose from 0.1% to 0.4% of their output per year based on conditions where they are installed. Panels mounted in areas with more UV and/or heavy wind or snow loading may lose the larger amounts.
That means that a 40 year old panel should be producing between 84% and 96% as much electricity as when new. We don’t know of any “solar cliff” over which panels might fall later in life. Our oldest panels are now over 40 years old and going strong. We might see 100 year old panels producing 60% to 90% of new output.
—
“In Germany only large industry benefits from low power prices.”
True.
“Domestic prices are the 2nd highest in Europe and twice those of the US. The tax issue is irrelevant to the domestic bill payer.”
The tax issue is very relevant to domestic customers. They have to pay the tax.
A portion of the tax/fee is to pay for the solar FiT. In 2013 5.3 euro cents was assessed for FiT costs. Another 9.2 cents in assorted taxes and fees are added on top of that.
Over time the FiT portion will drop out. The first (and almost most expensive) FiT program started in 2001. The FiTs have a 20 year lifespan so that first year cost will drop out in four more years and for each following year there will be further decreases.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Bob Wallace – almost free electricity coming out of paid off solar farms. But free for whom, I am sure not for the consumer. Ask the people living in South Australia or Canada, the Ontario province has a massive surplus of generating capacity, but because much of it is tied up in private, 20-year contracts, Ontarians have to pay for all that electricity, whether they need it or not. With more and more governments privatising electricity generation and distribution, such companies are only interested in serving their shareholders. BTY, do you live in Germany.?
http://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html
Bob Wallace says
A solar (or wind) farm that has paid off its capex and finex costs can generate electricity for almost nothing. Operating costs (fixed and variable) run roughly a $0.01/kWh.
The operating costs for paid off coal, NG, and nuclear are higher than for wind and solar.
The cost of electricity from a new coal, NG or nuclear plant (capex + finex + opex) is higher than that from wind and solar farms.
As we replace traditional electricity generation with wind and solar we should see the retail cost of electricity fall.
We’ve already seen that happen in a few US states. In the US states with significant wind generation we saw a slight drop (about 0.25%) in retail prices compared to other states which experienced a 7+% increase from 2008 to 2013.
Mike Parr says
There was a remark on anther post that we are seeing the same old arguments continuously recycled (and refuted). Mr West “After 20 years wind turbines are worn out” some are some arn’t – it depends (I can point you to a site in UK – 900kW WTs from 1994 – perfectly happy – still @ close to 100% o/p). Offshore – world’s 1st WF (Denmark) just demolished dates from early 1990s – does that mean all W/Fs have that lifespan? Who knows – maybe just topside replacement. You would be a brave person to extrapolate based on one.
Germany ‘leccy prices – “2nd highest in Europe and twice those of the US” I wish I had a $ for each time I have seen this: Germans spend arond 4% of disposalable household income on energy – so do US household. On a PPP basis – German household ‘leccy costs are close to UK ones.
The RES oldies but goldies: it’s expensive, it can’t do 100%, it’s unreliable, it needs back up, it… etc, whilst not mentioning the failure of carbon markets to assign a meaningful price to carbon, that after 57 year nuclear still needs a subsidy, that pricing in energy efficiency is not part of the market (it still needs regulation) & so on & so forth ad nauseum. Please come out with more original criticisms of RES – the old ones have been beaten to death.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Mike Parr, well said and spot on…
Math Geurts says
“A simulation of the German electricity market suggests that the market value of both wind and solar energy will be only about 55% of the market value of dispatchable energy for a 40% penetration of wind and solar energy (fig. 1)”
http://www.pfbach.dk/firma_pfb/references/pfb_cost_of_wind_power_integration_2017_04_20.pdf
Bob Wallace says
The question will be “What will the dispatchable energy source be?”.
Natural gas, hydro and storage are the only highly dispatchable sources. We can’t afford to burn NG much longer, climate change and all that. There aren’t that many places to build more hydro. That leaves storage.
The real question we face is “What storage technologies will dominate 20 years from now?”.
(No, nuclear is not really dispatchable in terms of our needs. It takes far too long to fire up.)
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Canada is looking to fill their looming energy supply gap, and address climate change, by building a fleet of the new super-safe small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) over the next 20 years. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/04/26/canada-aims-for-a-fleet-of-small-modular-nukes/#210202b930a8
China Stops Building Wind Turbines Because Most Of The Energy Is Wasted. The Chinese government isn’t building any new wind turbines because most of the new electricity created was wasted, causing serious damage to the country’s electrical grid. The amount of electricity generated by a wind turbine is very intermittent and doesn’t coincide with the times of day when power is most needed. This poses an enormous safety challenge to grid operators and makes power grids vastly more fragile. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/29/china-stops-building-wind-turbines-because-most-of-the-energy-is-wasted/#ixzz4fRcUfvC3
Bob Wallace says
“Canada is looking to fill their looming energy supply gap, and address climate change, by building a fleet of the new super-safe small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) over the next 20 years. ”
Canada is free to gamble with its money.
Odds are, they’ll lose.
Hans says
The wind moratorium is only for a part of China. The article you link to mentions 15% waste. This is a lot but not “most”. The rest of the article is not backed up by the links behind the statements.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Hans – The moderator does not like the use of many links. I will try one, but its easy with Google to find more. http://m.yicaiglobal.com/news/50021010.html
Bob Wallace says
In 2009 ERCOT (the Texas grid) curtailed 17% of its wind production.
Then they built the transmission they needed in order to move more electricity from the windy parts of the state to where most people live. By 2014 ERCOT was curtailing less than 0.5% of their wind.
Germany installed offshore turbines that couldn’t immediately be hooked to the grid because the necessary cable wasn’t in place.
China needs to run more transmission in order to utilize more wind generation.
There’s a pattern here…. ;o)
Bob Wallace says
The Chinese report…
“The National Energy Administration has asked local authorities in Inner Mongolia, Jilin, Heilongjiang, Gansu, Ningxia and Xinjiang to stop approving conventional wind power projects until they have better infrastructure to transmit and use the power.
In north, northeast and northwest of China, a total of 33.9 billion kilowatt-hours of wind power was wasted in 2015 because of low utilization efficiency, the administration said on Thursday.
The administration appointed Gansu as a pilot province to explore ways to use wind power more efficiently.”
http://www.china.org.cn/business/2016-03/17/content_38056947.htm
The Daily Caller article you linked distorts that report to –
“The Chinese government isn’t building any new wind turbines because most of the new electricity created was wasted, causing serious damage to the country’s electrical grid.
The government stopped approving new wind power projects in the country’s windiest regions earlier this month”
There is nothing in the report about damage to the country’s grid.
You then perpetuate that distortion –
“China Stops Building Wind Turbines Because Most Of The Energy Is Wasted. The Chinese government isn’t building any new wind turbines because most of the new electricity created was wasted, causing serious damage to the country’s electrical grid. ”
This is why we can’t have good things….
The National Energy Administration has asked local authorities in Inner Mongolia, Jilin, Heilongjiang, Gansu, Ningxia and Xinjiang to stop approving conventional wind power projects until they have better infrastructure to transmit and use the power.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
The Chinese government isn’t building any new wind turbines because most of the new electricity created was wasted, causing serious damage to the country’s electrical grid. The amount of electricity generated by a wind turbine is very intermittent and doesn’t coincide with the times of day when power is most needed. This poses an enormous safety challenge to grid operators and makes power grids vastly more fragile. http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/29/china-stops-building-wind-turbines-because-most-of-the-energy-is-wasted/
Helmut Frik says
Which is plain wrong as you were shown before already. The chinese keep installing GW by GW of wind power, they just excluded some regions where power lines must be strengthened first
Be aware that there are power lines under construction spanning more than 3000km. Please show a day when there was a complete lull all along these 3000km. Beside this the chinese have strong interest to build interconnectors in all directions into their neighbourhood. To smooth out variations in generation and demand further.
Bas Gresnigt says
PtG for seasonal storage.
Batteries for short term.
Pumped hydro, etc. will stay marginal.
Bob Wallace says
I hope you’re right. I’d love to see a carbon free long term storage solution which was less expensive than PuHS.
But I’ve yet to see PtG in operation at a scale to demonstrate its usefulness and cost. Not saying that it’s impossible, just that PtG is apparently still best labeled “possible” and not yet “probable” or “proven”.
Bas Gresnigt says
Look at the picture of E.on’s first PtG plant.
Windgas Falkenhagen, started in 2012.
E.on started a second PtG plant in Hamburg. Thought a.o. to refuel H2 cars.
Bob Wallace says
Cost by the time it turns back into electricity?
Bas Gresnigt says
Old, low efficient Falkenhagen earns its money with adding the H2 to the gas in the gas pipe of the national gas grid…
Others are at H2 car & bus refueling stations, etc. Check the project map (left on the page).
For next decade their main function is to get rid of power overproduction.
For PtG-S-GtP 40% efficiency is widely predicted. So if you operate the unmanned PtG plant only when the EPEX is under 2.5cnt/KWh, the av. purchase price will be 2cnt, which delivers output price of 5cnt.
Add equipment costs, etc (storage in earth cavities is for free), and the price will be ~7cnt if those containers containing a PtG and containers with fuel cell assembly are mass produced.
Bob Wallace says
If H2 PtG can furnish fill-in generation for 7c/kWh then it probably has a future.
But are those numbers based on the PtG infrastructure operating 24/365 or only when renewable supply exceeds demand?
Over what percentage of the time are the infrastructure costs for both hydrogen production and fuel cell systems spread?
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Bas Gresnigt – The pilot project GrInHy (Green Industrial Hydrogen) may interest you. They partner with Salzgitter AG an organisation I used to work for. http://www.green-industrial-hydrogen.com/home/
Bob Wallace says
That system has a natural gas input. It’s not sustainable.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Bob Wallace – My remark was addressed to Bas Gresnigt, and not to to you. FYI – it also has a green grid electricity input and output.
Did you look at it’s application.? The established steel production route via blast furnace in an integrated iron and steel works is energy intensive, but highly efficient. Its operation is close to minimum carbon and energy consumption levels that are theoretically possible. The steel industry is continuously implementing energy efficiency measures to reduce energy consumption and energy-related carbon dioxide emissions. However, Energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions mostly arise due to the process related use of carbon from fossil fuels in order to reduce iron ores in the blast furnace.
Bob Wallace says
It does not matter to whom you made the remark. You made it in a public forum where anyone can read and respond.
I’ll repeat. The process is not sustainable. Natural gas is not a sustainable commodity.
Helmut Frik says
Yes a iteresting research project, which could expand the toolbox for the management of grids and to supply the industrie. It fits to this pilot https://industriemagazin.at/a/stahl-kochen-mit-wasserstoff-hintergruende-zur-linzer-pilotanlage-der-voestalpine which allows to remove CO2-emissions of steel production, by using Hydrogen instead of coal in the process. (with naturally more changes in the process. )
Bob Wallace says
Just thinking further about the 55% value cap.
Right now US wind is selling into the grid for less than 3 cents (sometimes less than 2 cents). Solar is selling for 4 cents or less.
Gas peakers, the most dispatchable source we have, can average 21 cents per kWh and go much higher at times. Well into the tens of dollars when the market will bear.
Four cents is only 19% of 21 cents.
The market value of wind and solar will largely be determined by how willing investors are to build more farms. If the price is high enough to make a profit then they will. If not, then not. Right now they are willing to build for under 5 cents and that number will drop.
Gas peakers will get used less and less because we can store <5c wind/solar for less than 10c. Fifteen cents is less that 21c.
(I'm using rough numbers here in order to get my point across.)
That means that NG peakers will run less often. Which means the owners of gas peakers will demand a higher rate when they do run. Which means that more storage and wind/solar will be built.
In the end we may end up with peakers that run only a few hours a year and get hundreds of dollars per kWh. Which pretty much means we'd build a lot more hydro storage. Hydro is good for both daily and very long term storage.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Yes, we just go and build a lot more hydro storage. Hydro is good for both daily and very long term storage. Tell the people of Tasmania that.
Bob Wallace says
Is there something unique about Tasmania that causes gravity to not work with water?
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Funny – there was no water, they had a prolonged drought. They had a the same time a heatwave so no wind for their Wind Turbines.
Bob Wallace says
A drought would have little to no impact on pump-up hydro. Unless it lasted ten years or so.
And if they were in an extended drought they could cover the reservoirs in order to prevent erosion and stretch things out a lot longer.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
So quick with remarks, obviously you have no knowledge on what took place in Tasmania last year, and I am not talking about pump-up hydro. Tasmania is not alone in suffering from the impact of drought on its hydro power facilities. Brazil has been facing actual and potential power cuts because of severe drought, and Snowy Hydro, based in NSW, last year bought another gas-fired power station as back up in the event that drought cuts its ability to provide hydro power. http://reneweconomy.com.au/tasmania-grid-struggles-with-drought-bushfires-lost-connection-95757/
Bob Wallace says
Yes, apparently Tasmania has been suffering from drought conditions. I did not know that before I enquired.
That drought impacted hydro production, as one would expect.
Now let’s do some conversation review –
Me – “Which pretty much means we’d build a lot more hydro storage. Hydro is good for both daily and very long term storage.”
And then you confound the discussion with “Hydro is good for both daily and very long term storage. Tell the people of Tasmania that.”
Hydro depends on inflow.
Pump-up hydro does not depend on inflow. We can build closed loop systems which need only ‘outside’ water to fill them and then, roughly, a 10% annual top up to replace what evaporates.
Snowy and Tasmanian hydro are both being considered for conversion into PuHS.
Helmut Frik says
And most likely also permanent night and so no photons for their solar power?
Seems hydropower was low in tasmania because they sold the energy stored in the hydropower as baseload (nothing else possible trew the thin basslink) to the rest of australia, displacing some natural gas generation while doing so. And then had a broken interconnector when they expected to be able to reimport power during the lowe rain season. Management fault (never rely a power supply on the existence of a non-redundant interconnector. n-1 criteria. )
Bob Wallace says
Actually, I’m in a conversation on another site with someone who is very knowledgeable about Australian hydro.
Apparently the plan being worked is to upgrade the power stations (add more turbines) and add pumps so that some or all of the 40 to 50 dams can be used as pump-up storage. (And build additional transmission.)
A conversion from “baseload” generation to fill-in generation in order to create an all renewable grid.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
There is a difference between Tasmanian Hydro and the Snowy Mountains Scheme. We were discussing the Tasmanian Hydro System. The Snowy Hydro scheme is planned for expansion to secure the electricity supply on the east coast. the plan to increase the current 4,000 megawatt output of the scheme by 50 per cent, which the Government claims is an “electricity game changer” and will help prevent power shortages in the eastern states. The “Snowy Mountains Scheme 2.0” will involve building new tunnels and power stations but no new dams will be built. The scheme’s expansion would run into the billions of dollars.
According to the experts, one issue is that the water supply is limited, so they are looking at off-river pumped hydro. The proposed scheme will only provide peak power capacity but the net energy contribution will be limited.
Nigel West says
Owners of NG peakers will close them, put plant in reserve or sell plant if they are only called on for a few hours a year. Their fixed costs will be too high to spread over such short periods of operation which will be difficult to predict too.
Grid operators need to ensure low load factor plant is available if needed. To ensure peakers remain open TSO’s are likely to cover fixed costs through reserve contracts. Not more than about 12 months though to avoid long term commitments.
Long term TSOs should invite bids for reserve capacity to get the best deal for consumers. In the UK grid has procured reserve capacity through a bidding process. Diesel farms were very successful – low CAPEX, quick build times and short payback periods.
Bob Wallace says
US gas peakers now run only 5% of the time. Utilities pay for their generation when it’s needed. If they are needed less then their costs will rise, but at the same time the amount of electricity purchased will decrease.
Whether we use peakers 5% or 1% of the time our total costs will stay roughly the same over a year. Except we’ll have a lower fuel cost.
Capacity payment or market purchase. The costs will work out about the same.
Bas Gresnigt says
Math,
That’s not a simulation regarding the German market (for that check at Agora).
It’s a paper in which someone tries to show that his idea is right, using the Danish situation where wind alone produces 40%.
He is forced to conclude:
“The value of wind energy in Denmark seems to have stabilized at about 80% of the value of energy from dispatchable sources.”
Which doesn’t fit with your 55% statement.
Math Geurts says
Trying to show something. What do you believe Agora is established for? It is not about the exact future figures, but there can no doubt that non-dispatchable power has already a lower average value than dispatchable power and the differenc will rice.
Bob Wallace says
Yes, highly dispatchable generation has always been priced higher than most less dispatchable generation. We pay more for theater tickets when demand is high. If we want something we’ll pay a higher price when the lower price stuff isn’t available.
Now if those highly paid dispatchable technologies (e.g., gas peakers) were cheaper to operate than less dispatchable (e.g., wind/solar) then we’d be running our grids on gas peakers.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Bob Wallace, – when I look for all those wind/solar plants contributing their electricity to the grids, I can only find a small amount. http://data.reneweconomy.com/LiveGen
Bob Wallace says
Well, you could look in the places that have the most aggressive installation programs.
Iowa now gets over 30% of their electricity from wind. Texas is over 15%. There are a couple of states between them.
Denmark is over 40% wind.
If you include hydro in renewables then there are about four dozen who get 60% to 100% of their electricity from renewables.
if you look at countries that have yet to get a clue then you’ll find less.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
I was talking about wind & solar, not hydro. Back on March 6, 2017 at 03:40 I placed a long expert review on how the system works in Denmark. The discussions on this thread are becoming a repetition on pricing quotes between a small number of participants, almost to the point that one day electricity will cost nothing. Well all I can say is, everywhere the cost for electricity is going through the roof, and it’s reliability of supply has become questionable. Furthermore when stating that the global steam turbine business is doing very well, it all goes quiet sidetracking with trivial stuff.
Bob Wallace says
” Well all I can say is, everywhere the cost for electricity is going through the roof, and it’s reliability of supply has become questionable. ”
No, that’s easily proven incorrect.
There are places such as Texas and Germany which are adding renewables and are enjoying decreasing electricity costs.
“While wind and solar electricity are being fed into the (German) grid at set prices on a priority basis, natural gas- and coal-fired power plants, and soon nuclear power plants, are being forced off the market.
The price of electricity on the wholesale market has been in freefall for five years, plunging from €60 ($67.37) per megawatt-hour to the current €20.”
https://global.handelsblatt.com/companies-markets/electricity-prices-in-a-free-fall-478046
Hendrikus Degenaar says
First of all gas/coal plants being forced from the German market. Coal in time yes, but not fast. I don’t think that gas will be forced off from the German market at all. What I am saying, the wholesale market freefall, is not ending up with reduced electricity bills for the German house holds.
Bob Wallace says
Gas is being forced off the German grid as Germany has to pay an expensive price for gas.
The rapid increase in the wholesale cost of electricity is not bringing down total residential electricity prices for the simple reason that the cost of solar subsidies are being applied to the retail rate of electricity and only to residential rates.
In 2012 the cost of retail electricity was € 0.141. In 2016 the cost of retail electricity dropped to € 0.125.
However the total retail cost (electricity + taxes/fees) rose from € 0.148 to € 0.187.
German industry is benefitting from dropping rates thanks to decreasing wholesale rates but is not required to pay a share of the renewable subsidy.
In other countries the cost of renewable subsidies (where they exist) is paid through tax dollars. In the US renewable (and nuclear) subsidies are paid out in terms of reductions in federal tax (tax credits) and not added to electricity rates.
Bas Gresnigt says
Bob,
Sorry but in Germany gas fluctuates:
2000: 11%
2005: 12%
2010: 14%
2015: 10%
2016: 12% (13% from consumption).
AGEB figures.
Bob Wallace says
I got the gas info from statements made by the heads of RWE and E.ON.
““At these prices, not a single power plant is earning money,” RWE’s Mr. Terium said two weeks ago at the presentation of the company’s financial statement, summing up the situation threatening the very existence of the energy sector.
One day later, E.ON’s Mr. Teyssen could only agree. “Terium is certainly right about that,” he said.
At the moment, the two executives are watching as their business is virtually imploding.
First gas-fired power plants were forced off the market, then the black coal plants, and now low-priced lignite and even nuclear energy is struggling against being shut down.”
https://global.handelsblatt.com/companies-markets/electricity-prices-in-a-free-fall-478046
Hendrikus Degenaar says
No, that’s easily proven incorrect. There are places such as Texas and Germany which are adding renewables and are enjoying decreasing electricity costs. My reply, maybe in the USA but not in Germany. And that is what this article is all about. German household power prices have reached a record high in early 2017 while wholesale prices are sinking. But despite the fact that Germans pay among the highest per-unit rates in Europe, their support for the Energiewende https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-households-pay-power
Bob Wallace says
Hendrikus, how many times do you need someone to explain to you that the cost of generating electricity in Germany is dropping as renewables are added to the grid?
The wholesale cost of electricity in Germany is now below production cost for coal, gas and nuclear. Fossil fuel plants are losing money.
The CEOs of RWE and E.ON have clearly stated that to be true.
In 2016 the wholesale cost of electricity fell to € 0.032/kWh.
This is a very simple concept to master.
—
German retail costs for electricity are dropping.
What makes German (and Danish) retail electricity expensive is taxes added onto the cost of electricity. Not the electricity.
In 2016 the average cost of retail electricity, without taxes, in France was € 0.073.
In Germany the cost was € 0.083 and in Denmark € 0.043.
For German consumers who purchase at least 2.5 MWh of electricity per month their cost is € 0.073, the same as the French average.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Nobody needs to tell me how many times someone needs to explain to me that the cost of generating electricity in Germany is dropping as renewables are added to the grid? I just keep looking up the news (not yours) on what the electricity bills are like for the households and that will do me.
Nigel West says
Hendrikus – same in the UK. Domestic prices here are half the cost of Germany.
In the UK ‘green’ costs are added to consumers’ bills. They are not dealt with using central taxation so the make up of a UK consumer bill is comparable with Germany.
In the UK, Government fortunately has got a grip on runaway green costs through a ‘levy control mechanism’ that will stop green subsidies rising too high.
Another underhand tactic Greens use to try and disguise rising electricity prices is saying don’t worry people will use less energy in the future so bills will reduce. I don’t think so. The easy efficiency measures have been taken already. Switching from gas to electric heating and EV charging will escalate consumption too.
Bob Wallace says
Hendrikus, look up the meaning of “retail” and “wholesale”.
Try to comprehend the factors that make up retail electricity prices. They basically break down to cost of electricity and taxes added to the cost of electricity.
If you want to see what is happening to the cost of electricity (sans taxes) for German retail customers just go to the Eurostat database and look at the numbers.
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database
Make these choices as you work down the tree –
1. Database by theme
2. Environment and energy
3. Energy
4. Energy Statistics prices of natural gas and electricity
You should be able to get the rest of the way on your own. If not, get back to me and I’ll list the rest of the steps.
Helmut Frik says
Love beating strawmen? Houshold power is about one quater of all power sold. discussion here is about the whole market.
Large consumers like aluminum smelters in germany pay around 5ct/kWh now, which is below the operating costs of french nuclear.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Love beating strawmen? Germany still relies on brown coal, hard black coal, natural gas and nuclear. It’s not just all renewables. You just not get it, in the end it’s the general population that cares about their electricity bill and they are the ones that vote. The future will tell.
Helmut Frik says
And this again has nothing to do with the topic of discussion. Reliance on conventional power generation is dropping in germany continuously.
And the cost to add more renewable generation is dropping. So it can be seen already that costs for electricity will drop agan for housholds in germany in a few years.
Nigel West says
Helmut, if German non domestic prices are not a problem, please can you explain why Ullrich Grillo, head of the Association of German Industry (BDI) said last year regarding the slew of subsidies?
“The current subsidies system has spun out of control. Energy costs have become a problem for Germany as a business location.”
http://www.dw.com/en/german-green-energy-surcharge-rises-to-record/a-36040052
Helmut Frik says
What should I say to someone who has difficulties with numbers? If you take a look at the EEG account there are several billions piling up to record high levels, so EEG surcharges will drop again next year.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Lawmakers from Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats, such as deputy caucus chief Michael Fuchs, have pointed out that all the measures to brace for the nuclear exit cost consumers money, risking even higher bills.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-08/germans-may-face-higher-power-costs-on-exit-from-nuclear-energy?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
Bob Wallace says
Germany’s last remaining nuclear reactors are scheduled to go offline in 2022.
By then offshore wind, onshore wind, and solar prices will be even lower than now and probably lower than the cost of electricity now produced by Germany’s remaining reactors.
Starting in 2020 the most expensive solar FiT contracts age out. That will lower the subsidy that is charged to German retail customers, lowering the price they pay for electricity.
The risk of higher retail rates in Germany is not high. The chance of lower retail rates is significant and almost guaranteed over the years following 2022. Generation costs will drop, subsidies will end.
Helmut Frik says
@ Hendrikus, to go on with the off topic discussion about smart / dumb grids: I did read the few informations I found on the site you referenced, and the information / thoughts you gave here in the discussion, and used them as I understand them, which might deviate from your intention.
The approach in california, as I understand it, is to switch capacitys on and off directly from the utility. This works in some special cases, where the amounts of power are high and the systems are simple, and energy costs very relevant, so negotiations etc. can go deep into details to cover al possible hickups in the process.
For most loads this is not the case. And beside some kinds of loads like heatinds whaere a short time switch of can be considered in the design, ost useres of power would see occasions where they would not like some devise to be switched of, although at 50%, 90%, 99%, 99,9% of time they would not mind if the device is switched off for a reasonable time – where the term reasonable could change with prices and over time.
Which is why price signals are more intelligent, and more simple to make safe than direct switching – each user of power can override the “wish” included in high prices to switch off, or in low prices to switch on if it does not fit to his requirements at the moment.
Also it avoids to transfer sensible Data. A point which is maybe less relevant in scantinavia, the US and maybe Australia too. But here it is well known that you might wake up one day and have a gouvernment with bad intentions, not with good ones, so systems being build should not make it too easy to controll each and every citicen all the time. The times of “VEB Horch&Greif” are just 25 years ago, where a wrong word in the wrong place could kill your career, your education, your access to a home or a car, or send you to prison.
So transfering sensible data from customer to central is a unneccesary risk for a society, if it’s enough to send a price signal from the central to the customer to do the job.
Naturally this price signal needs to be well design, e.g. by adding a individual random factor to avoid instabilities around “round” numbers of prices which most perople will use as parameters, and several more details which need to be considered.
There is also no IP connection neccesary from customer to utility (central) if you take a closer look. If you have a link to more material about your system, just write it.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Helmut Frik – off topic discussion? I thought that we are discussing the consequences of Energiewende, energy transition, and I believe that the grid forms part of this. FYI – I am 70 years of age and took it upon me to privately fund a start-up in the field of energy efficiency. On my credentials; in my earlier career I was the Principal EPCM Manager “Far East” for Robert Bosch GmbH, and Klöckner-Werke AG now a subsidiary of Salzgitter AG. The later I represented from working out of Singapore for 8 years. From the many German friends I have in the age group 50~75, I never noticed a paranoid trend related to having a government with bad intentions. Having to choose between controlled load shedding or just having a blackout, I would think the the population would rather have their lights left on than sitting in the dark. Needs to be well designed, there is no question about this. Anyhow, like I always say, time will tell.
Helmut Frik says
Well, it is simply not neccesary to transmit Data which allows to know things about the end users activities, when a simple price signal in the other direction does the job.
For (practically) each activity which consumes power there is a upper price limit where the user of power will prefere tha money and skip the electricity use. Sometimes this limit is high but e.g. at one million dollear per kWh practically all power consuption will be gone for sure.
So there are just two things which have to be done:
a) send the user of a electric power a price signal which represents 1) the overall availabillity of power and 2) eventual grid bottlenecks in his direction(s) of supply.
b) he needs to have the ability to switch major power consumption on and off according to price signals, which can be in simple cases (houses/flats) bei included in a user part of a smart meter (connected with the utility part of the smart meter with e.g. just a hardware interface which transfers the price, and nochting else, eliminating all IT-security problems at this place), and in other cases the management system of the factoy or similar.
Whenever I discuss with someone here there is very big resistance against the utility switching a divice of the user on and off, (beside very few exceptions for short times) and a big resistance about giving the utility short time consumption data of endusers (which tha utility does not really need to run the grid, there are much better places to measure in the grid, which also do not have a pile of problems attached)
I discussed these topics e.g. with ENBW already.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Helmut Frik – With the massive implementation of IoT. Big Data Analytics will be used for a number of trend & risk analysis and other useful purposes. This will be part of live as we move forward. Anyhow good luck with your discussions with EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG.
Helmut Frik says
I have no problem with big data analysis. but you get better results faster when you measure at the outgoing cables of the local substation, and maybe at som mayor branches in the low voltage grid.
A “smart” meter rollout where they are exchanged one by one and piles of old ferraris counters remain installed gives you less information of the grid with higher costs and more data and privacy security problems.
What you need to know for big data analysis (with a justified target) is what consumption e.g. resitental houses in suburb xy have over time, for this it is not neccesary to know which soap opera Miss Miller, low street 15 is looking ( scientists found out that by corellating data measured from the smart meter with high temporal resulution with the video stream the program which is switched on in the house can be found out with high likelyhood – as a example. As well when someone is home or out of home or similar things.)
Hendrikus Degenaar says
IoT paranoia – with big data, everything you do in the near future, like driving your car, watching your TV, turning on your washing machine, etc. It will all go for data analysis.
Blackberry has the raw materials necessary to build a highly relevant secure IoT system.
Helmut Frik says
There is no need to send all those unneccesary data to any data analysis, unless you want to produce high risk for the privae lifes of everybody without producing anything of substantial value. There are usually ways to get the same information with same effort without disclosing anything about private lifes. All it needs is a bit more thinking what is really need it, and how and where to get it. Seems this will be a market advantage for german products in this area..
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Smart software for the future of mobility… http://www.ptvgroup.com/en/
Will be hard to beat the BlackBerry QNX Autonomous Vehicle Innovation Centre (AVIC). Connected cars will need state of the art communications (vehicle-to-vehicle, vehicle-to-infrastructure and vehicle-to-cloud) and the most advanced security technologies to ensure they cannot be hacked. Already, millions of cars on the road are using BlackBerry’s Certicom security technology to authenticate and authorise vital communications.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Germany’s ENERGIEWENDE is a disaster in the making. Renewables are generating an additional cost to energy consumers of the order of Euro 25 billion annually, there is no political party in Germany that opposes the policy in the parliament; the majority of the German population support it too, because they think they are saving the world from a climate catastrophe. Today, energy prices in Germany are already the second highest in Europe (after Denmark). The additional levy on power bills for renewables will rise to an astounding 6.88 ect/kWh in 2017, more than double the market price.
Energy-intensive industries in Germany are profiting from plunging power prices on wholesale markets, the result
of growing overcapacity of renewable plants. As energy-intensive industries are partially exempt from the renewables levy, industries such as steel, copper and chemicals are given a remarkable competitive advantage.
Until now there have been no blackouts, but the risk is growing. The country has benefited from typical German over-engineering of its grid, which was set up with a very wide safety margin. Even if a power line or a power station fails, the power supply remains secure, at least for now.
Germany has nine neighbours with whom power can
be exchanged. If the Energiewende had happened in the UK, the electricity system would have already imploded, but in Germany, on windy days, surplus power can be dumped onto the neighbours’ electricity grids. During the dark doldrums – in Germany they call times when there is no wind in winter or at night the Dunkelflaute – Germany can be saved by calling on old Austrian oil-fired power stations, Polish hard-coal plants or French and Czech nuclear power.
To overcome intermittency, green activists and the true believers of the mainstream tell Germany that they have to build more capacity. However, even tripling today’s wind-power capacity of 51 GW to a whopping 155 GW would not even satisfy half of Germany’s power demand. But it would mean having a 200-m high wind turbine every 2.7 km,
right across the country, no matter what the landscape, or what lakes, mountains, towns or cities were there. Such a system would deliver a huge oversupply when the weather was windy, but in lulls it would still deliver nothing: trebling nothing still gives you nothing. That is mathematics, not politics.
The wind not only changes from hour to hour – stronger in winter, lighter in summer – but it also changes from year to year by 25–30%. How can we cope with this silly target of 80–95% for renewables in the light of this huge inter-annual volatility? Germany can pay for a second system – a backup system of fossil fuels. That is what Germany is doing now, with dramatic economic consequences, the carbon dioxide
target is disappearing over the horizon.
Are the neighbours enthusiastic about receiving money for Germany’s waste power? Poland, the Netherlands, Austria and Switzerland are far from thrilled, because their own power stations have to be shut down, devaluing the investments made in their manufacture. In response, Poland has obtained permission from the European Commission to build phase shifters at their border with Germany, which
will repel the current from the German side. The Czech Republic will soon follow suit.
The proponents of renewable energy and their lobbyists, however, are still busily painting a rosy picture, claiming that oversupply incidents are the result of coal-fired power plants being allowed to continue operating. This story sounds implausible though, because wind and solar are given priority on the grid. Why don’t the grid operators shut down 15–20 GW of conventional plant? The answer lies in another problem, the so-called ‘secondary reserve’. What is this?
When a high-speed train leaves a station, when a steel plant is starting up or the lights go on in a football stadium, it produces a frequency change in the power grid, which
automatically activates a power plant to produce more energy. There is no human intervention involved, no controller shifting a slider in a control room. It happens
automatically and in just a second. However, solar and wind power cannot reliably provide such a secondary reserve. You can throttle wind down, but you cannot run it up. It is not for the love of coal that the German Grid Agency and the four power-grid operators are keeping coal-fired power plants on line. They know that without them, the power grid could collapse. The technical reality is that a minimum of 20%
of electricity demand must be generated by conventional steam turbines to make the system secure.
A total of 6100 km of cable will have to be built by the time the last nuclear power stations shut in 2022. 400 km have been given the go-ahead and 80 km have been built, just 1.3% of the intended total. This has never been attempted on such a scale, anywhere in the world, and the project will probably only be completed five years after the last nuclear power station has shut down.
To safeguard a stable 50 Hz frequency in a system where intermittent wind can change the feed by 10 GW within minutes, you have to ‘re-dispatch’. Re-dispatches in response to grid problems, the cost in 2016 was around e500 million. Building 100 GW of volatile generation capacity in the hope that in 10 years’ time we will be able to store it economically seems more than a little foolish. Using intermittent electricity to produce hydrogen by electrolysis and then forming methane ( power to gas) in order to generate electricity in a gas-fired power station is an alternative, but is only economic at above 0.50 e/kWh. Using electric cars for storage does not help much either. Even if all 40 million
cars in Germany were electric, we could only store 400 GWh. But on lull days, which happen several times a year , Germany would need 7250 GWh.
For all these reasons, resistance to the Energiewende has already been surfacing in Germany. Their movement is well organised, well informed, capable of handling conflict and, in due course, take on the Bundestag.
Helmut Frik says
a) even when wind and solar produce more than 50GW of power, german exports of power do not raise significantly.
b) german neighbours still pay the same price for power exports from germany, than germany pays for it’s power imports. Dumping is something else.
c) Power output of renewables do not change by 10 GW within minutes. But traditional power station output can drom by GWs within seconds. The last dangerous situation in german grid was a faulure of the two BOA blocks in Neurath some years ago.
d) The costs for “Energiewende” are practically all for historical installations, actual instalations do not add significant to the costs any more. And at the moment there are about 5,5 billion € surplus on the acount making it sure the 6,88ct/kWh will drop again at the end of the year. Starting from 2020 the expensive generation will drop out of the support, so extra costs will drop in the future for sure.
Cars with only 10kWh battery capacity are not available on the market. Cars with nearly 100kWh capacity are available. And for Lul-DAys, there is the european grid, interconnected with the asiatic and african grids.
Power connections from asia to indonesia and from indonesia to australia are still missing, but as far as I have heared there are some plannings going on. Once established this would allow power exchange from your place of living to my place of living. How likely is a lull along all this way at once? Or just half of the way? Or a quater?
Bob Wallace says
Lulls and periods of low solar input will happen.
That’s just something that has to be planned for. Whether the best answer is storage, transmission, dispatchable generation, or a combination of all will be determined over time.
Since lulls are very predictable and build gradually the chore of dealing with them will be easier than dealing with the unexpected and abrupt loss of large generation inputs as happens with large thermal plants.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Helmut Frik – Asiatic and African grids. Power connections from Asia to Indonesia and from Indonesia to Australia are still missing, but as far as I have heard there are some plannings going on. Once established this would allow power exchange from your place of living to my place of living. – You can’t be serious. –
Helmut Frik says
I am serious about grids. MAybe you are – like many – not aware how far the interconnected grids stretch even today, while plenty of grid extensions and interconnectors are under way.
E.g. as far as I remember the connections between the european grid and the GUS grid are interconnected with capacities close to 20 GW, with some unused 750kV-Lines which could increase capacity further. Originally it was planned to interconnect both synchronus, but that wa skipped because there was the possibillity that the mass-spring systems of the synchronus generators in Wladiwostock could swing against the mass-spring systems of the synchronus generators in Lissabon. But when a 3GW plant trips in the european grid, almost 1 GW immediate reaction comes from the GUS grid and vice versa.
There are also interconnecions existing between the GUS-Grid and the chinese grid, which is again strongls interlinked with the vietnamese grid, those interconnections date back to the vietnam war. In the other direction turky runs synchronus with the european grid, and is interconnected with iran, syria, etc.
Iran again is interconnected with Pakistan and Afghanistan. Between pakistan and india there is a gap today, due to wars I guess, but there are projects under way to close that gap, as there are projects under way to strengthen the interconnections to indias eastern neighbours. Somewhere inbetween there will surely be some DC-DC connector, but i do not know where it is. Could well be that iran and pakistan are running synchronus with europe.
In Afrika, Marokko, Algeria, Tunesia, Lybia and senegal are running synchronus with europe. Egypt has AC interconnectors with Lybia, and with Saudi Arabia, which again is interconnected with Jordania UAE, etc. UAE has a project under way to interconnect with Iran.
From Egypt there are also AC interconnections to Sudan, stretching further to Ethiopia and Somalia, maybe here we are still synchrouns with the european grid. Between Ethiopia and Kenia a 2GW HVDC interconnector is under construction as far as I rmember.
Kenia, tansania, uganda malavi are interconnected, with which the east affrican power pool ends. From Tansania etc. there are synchrounus interconnectors to the south african power pool, which has a lot of interconectors spanning from Kapstadt up to Kinhasa on the west side of Africa, and further interconnectors on the way.
In Senegal, comming from Marocco, we enter the west african power pool . which ineterconnect Senegal with Kongo Brazzaville. I am not sure if we are still synchronus with the european grid here, but till there I found only AC interconnectors. Interconnectors between Kongo Brazzaville and Kongo Kinhasa are unklear so far.
But at least when the Interconnector between Kenia and Ethiopia is established a power transfer between Kapstadt and Hammerfest ist possible, just the amount is too small yet.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Helmut Frik – From what I read, German’s neighbours are not enthusiastic about receiving money for Germany’s waste power? Poland, the Netherlands, Austria and Switzerland are far from thrilled, because their own power stations have to be shut down, devaluing the investments made in their manufacture. In response, Poland has obtained permission from the European Commission to build phase shifters at their border with Germany, which
will repel the current from the German side. The Czech Republic will soon follow suit.
Helmut Frik says
They are so annoyed that they expand their interconnection capacities….
The phase shifters were a combined project of germany and Pland, with 50 Hz, so germany in the lead. Phase shifters are standard at german borders elsewhere, ans within germany too.
Bob Wallace says
You’re reading the wrong places.
The Polish transmission system has, at times, become overloaded with electricity flowing from western Europe to countries beyond Poland. That power simply flows through the German system.
Nigel West says
Helmut, grid interconnections between largely independent systems occur all over the world. The ability to shift vast amounts of power between continents does not exist and probably never will. Interconnecting grids reduces the need to hold spare generating capacity and allows for arbitrage. That’s it.
Helmut Frik says
Yes, and each expansion allows to shift more power threwout the grid. it simply happens. It allowes to reduce reserves and to trade power. Whenever there is a benefit you buy power over one border and sell it over another.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Germany 2016 – On an annual basis, wind and solar was 19.3% of electricity generation. I had a look at the UK yesterday, wind with it’s installed capacity of 11 GW was only producing 0.5 GW. Today it is only slightly better at 1.2 GW.
http://energynumbers.info/gbgrid
The UK is doing a much better job than Germany with a massive reduction in coal fired electricity generation.
Bob Wallace says
It looks like the UK hit its nuclear peak in 1998 at 99.5 TWh and had fallen to 70.3 TWh by the end of 2015.
The UK’s success in cutting coal isn’t thanks to nuclear. Looks like the UK has been replacing coal with natural gas.
And that’s a good thing. It means that the UK could install a lot of wind and solar, use the NG as fill-in, and cut their gas use/cost. Then, as storage prices fall further, replace NG with storage and have a clean, affordable grid.
Nigel West says
“It means that the UK could install a lot of wind and solar, use the NG as fill-in, and cut their gas use/cost. ”
That is Germany’s policy which the UK will not be following. The UK needs firm generating capacity to replace closing nukes.
Bob Wallace says
Interesting.
A combination of nuclear and natural gas provides firm generating capacity.
But a combination of wind, solar, and natural gas does not provide firm generating capacity.
Sometimes when conversing with nuclear advocates I feel like I’ve fallen down the rabbit hole….
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Bob Wallace – with no new nuclear installed in the UK for quiet some years, it’s a no-brainer that cutting coal isn’t thanks to nuclear. However the nuclear program in the UK is moving forward with the construction started of the Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Station, the first of some 16 GWe of new nuclear generation plants expected to be on line by 2030.
Bob Wallace says
We know that the knuckleheads in the UK government are moving ahead with building new, very expensive nuclear when they could be saving UK citizens money by installing renewable energy.
Between building new nuclear and Brexit it feels like the UK is being run by people as stupid as Donald Trump, but with better hair.
(Wait, there’s Boris….)
Nigel West says
Wrong, new nuclear is not very expensive here. The UK government undertook a value assessment before going ahead with Hinkley Point C:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/556917/3_-_Value_for_Money_Assessment.pdf
It was found to be towards the bottom end of the cost range of comparable offshore wind costs –
£81-132/MWhr.
Follow on new nuclear plants will be cheaper too.
The same words were spoken about Reagan by Democrats when he took office. He was one of the best US presidents. Trump will be too. Hilary lovers and la la land Californian’s may not agree. They only worry about their cheap illegal immigrant labour being sent back south across the border.
PM May is doing fine and will be returned on June 8th with a huge mandate. Unelected Brussels gangsters are learning fast that the UK has never been pushed around by continental types.
Bob Wallace says
Please. Please. Please.
You know very well that the Hinkley Point strike price is about equal to the retail cost of electricity in the UK.
You know very well that the offshore wind prices used for comparison are now very badly out of date. By the time Hinkley could come online offshore wind prices look to be about 0.03 euros per kWh.
—
And this –
“The same words were spoken about Reagan by Democrats when he took office. He was one of the best US presidents. Trump will be too. ”
That has to be some of the stupidest stuff I’ve ever read.
Reagan did major damage to the US. He started the huge movement of wealth to the upper 1% and helped destroy the middle class. Reagan poured gasoline on US race relations and set us back decades. He derailed the environmental movement.
Trump is so bad that even Republicans are starting to discuss either impeaching him or removing him for incompetence. (The 25th Amendment solution.)
Nigel West says
“UK yesterday, wind with it’s installed capacity of 11 GW was only producing 0.5 GW. Today it is only slightly better at 1.2 GW.”
Plenty of other periods like this too when wind is down throughout the year. The UK has to keep enough firm generating capacity available to cover those periods. Not an issue at this time of the year but during the winter there is barely enough firm capacity available. Building more wind capacity without building more firm generating capacity will not keep the lights on in the UK during the winter.
People who think just storage and renewables would work are deluded.
Helmut Frik says
That’s why there is something called “grid” beside renewables and storage.
Bob Wallace says
Nigel, when you make a statement such as “People who think just storage and renewables would work are deluded” it leaves one with the realization that you simply do not understand how energy works.
Mike Parr says
I do not think many people think in terms of “Just” RES & storage – & thus some of Mr West’s statements can be catgeorised as wind-ups.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Bob Wallace – Regarding your comment on Nigel West remark that “People who think just storage and renewables would work are deluded” and your reply “that he simply doe not understand how energy works”.
In support of his comment. What I see from renewable generation and energy storage (apart from the proven established hydro) is a complex assortment of all sorts of entangled solutions. Now in the offering are; ice storage tanks, compressed air energy storage, hydraulic accumulators, a myriad of battery types, thermal storage including molten salts, power to gas, hydrogen, underground caverns, salt domes and depleted oil and gas fields and the list can go on and on.
We can have a simple decentralised system in the form of Generation IV SMR Nuclear Power Stations with energy security and avoid this never ending storage mess. The nuclear waste issue can be addressed with the use of Fast Breeder Reactors for which the UK currently is shown to be interested in the PRISM reactor.
Bob Wallace says
“We can have a simple decentralised system in the form of Generation IV SMR Nuclear Power Stations with energy security and avoid this never ending storage mess.”
We could. (Don’t forget to include backup generation and some storage to time-shift the nuclear output.)
But the issue is cost. I don’t think anyone reading along needs me to post the economic argument against nuclear energy again.
Nuclear is simply priced off the table.
Nigel West says
Helmut, you do appreciate that offshore wind farms have single point failure risks with connections to shore that can result in the loss of a big chunk of generation too? Subsea cables are vulnerable assets that take months to repair and further offshore means longer cables so more risk of damage.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Nigel West – Further to you correct observation, a total of 6100 km of cable will have to be laid in Germany by the time the last nuclear power stations shut in 2022. 400 km have been given the go-ahead and 80 km have been built, just 1.3% of the intended total. This has never been attempted on such a scale, anywhere in the world, and the project will probably only be completed five years after the last nuclear power station has shut down.
There was even a comment made on this Thread for German lull days, that there is the European grid, interconnected with the Asiatic and African grids. Power connections from Asia to Indonesia and from Indonesia to Australia are still missing, but there is some planning going on. Once established this would allow power exchange from Australia to Germany. This reflects the level of technical knowledge of the people we are trying to have an intelligent discussion with.
Nigel West says
Agreed. Few engineers here just wind/solar dreamers with no practical knowledge of power systems. If they were on Linkedin pushing their ideas they wouldn’t be able to stand the heat from engineers.
Helmut Frik says
So physics change when you discuss on a different site?
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Nigel West – Agreed, on Linkedin – your background is shown to demonstrate that you are qualified to have an expert opinion in the field that you are debating.
Helmut Frik says
Thats why they are always built bipolar with each pole being able to operate independent. And that’s why there are plannings under way to interconnect the farms out at sea with additional cables, which ended with the idea to build a island for a power hub on the Doggerbank. Which might be spit in several islands to increase redundancy further. And as a sideffect provides many many GW interconnection power betwern the north european countries.
First example for such projects is Kriegers Flack, where the danish and the german wind park get interconnected, which provides a redundant connection for the wind parks, and in parallel a interconnector between Danmark and Germany.
Nigel West says
“Thats why they are always built bipolar”
Incorrect – many are on single circuit connections. Wind farm developers don’t care about system frequency control. They care about costs. Double circuit connections to offshore wind farms are too expensive. Wind farm investors only pay for double circuit connections if forced to by the grid operator, or if more than one cable is needed on capacity grounds. Wind farms don’t provide firm capacity so why bother with expensive duplicate grid connections for securing the output. Loss of a windfarm on a single circuit cable is no different to losing a large conventional generator.
Helmut Frik says
Single circuit AC-conectors are typical for UK. German Standard is HVDC, bipolar, to avoid most of this problem, and to come along with the longer transport distances of german offshore parks. The preference for stable grids seems to be higher in germany than in UK.
Nigel West says
HVDC double circuit is costly. Note that ENBW and Dong would not have bid zero FIT if they were required to pay for long double circuit DC transmission links.
With huge sums being spent on Germany’s offshore and onshore transmission system to support renewables, the EEG surcharge may decline as said repeatedly here, but for sure German consumers will not escape rising bills to pay for doubling the capacity of their networks. Typical grid fees in a domestic bill currently are 26% so will have to rise significantly.
Helmut Frik says
Wrong, Mr West. If you would know something about HVDC-Power transmission by sea cable you’d know that since many years you to not get the allowence to build unipolar systems with water as second connection. So you need two cables anyway. Once you have two cables there is less cost for bipolar operation than for unipolar operation with double current.
Nigel West says
In the UK, the offshore generation developers pay for their connection to the mainland. In Germany, the offshore connections are constructed, owned and operated by the TSOs. The costs are socialised and levied on consumers bills. Effectively an extra EEG sum.
That makes German offshore wind appear much cheaper compared to the UK.
There is competition too in the provision of UK offshore transmission connections. Unlike Germany where TSOs are in charge which leads to higher costs.
Bob Wallace says
Do you know the costs for offshore transmission for the UK and for Germany?
The EIA sets the expected average offshore transmission cost at $0.048/kWh which is higher than onshore.
That’s surprising to me because offshore has no real estate or transmission tower costs. Just cable buried in the seafloor.
But the EIA has a poor record when it comes to predictions. They set PV solar almost as high as offshore wind whereas much of US solar is being installed close to existing transmission lines which have capacity freed up by closed coal plants. And they set transmission costs for coal at about 1/4th that of solar.
(The fossil fuel industry has good friends in the EIA prediction office. They predict coal use will be higher in 2040 than it is now and the US has quit building coal plants.)
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Helmut Frik – I never mentioned “Cars with only 10kWh battery capacity are not available on the market. Cars with nearly 100kWh capacity are available.” What I did say was, even if all 40 million
cars in Germany were electric, Germany could only store 400 GWh. But on lull days, which happen several times a year , Germany would need 7250 GWh. What I meant to say; you can’t just say that all those 40 million cars are available at once, so I took 10% as a safe value (400 GWh) for available dispatchable power. Whilst this is only given as a hypothetical example, I hate to think about how the German citizens will feel when finding out that their batteries are drained. High-pressure winter weather caused extremely low outputs of wind and solar electricity in Germany and surrounding countries during 2 periods in December 2016. Such weather events can persist for several days. The first lull lasted about 100 hours, the second about 50 hours. The energy supplied by the storage system to cover the entire 100-hour lull would be 100 hour x 1.1 x 91.2 GW = 10032 GWh, assuming a 10% discharge loss. Imports and exports would be minimal, as nearby countries also would have wind and solar lulls. The actual energy in the storage system would need to be about 20000 GWh, because we cannot assume the batteries to be fully charged and available at the start of the lull.
Helmut Frik says
Well, impoerts would not be minimlmal, since during that local lull wind powr generation in the north, west and east of europe was fine. power transport capacitys to these areas today are in the middle two digit GW numbers. Europe is not Australia, we have something called “grid”.
During a 100 hours lull each of the 40 million cars will be parked at a charging station (at home at work) for many many hours, since the average car is parked 23-23,5hours per day like this. So assuming a 10% share does not make much sense.
A lull like this, if it has some effect in a big grid, would raise power prices several days before arriving durin those days, which would encourage nearly all drivers of such cars to power up before lull as far as possible, and to skip loading during the high price time, thus removig the demand from transportation to a large degree. Same would happen with the heating area, with thermal storage – the thermal mass of the buildings, when heated with heat pumps, can store some TWh of electricity when 1° deviation (which is standard for good thermostates today, most have +/-2°) is allowed. And so on at many other places.
The 20 TWh of hydropower storage in the alps would release substantial amunts of water if a lull would drive up pices, as would do the scandinavians with their 112 TWh of useable hydropower storage.
If prices go very high, maybe some people will discharge their battery and sell the power in it.
On the homepage of entsoe you can see the grid expansions the european think neccesary for a 100% renewable power supply in 2050.
But maybe you think european utilities have no idea how to run a grid safely.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Helmut Frik – No need to bring Australia into this, however they used to have a good and reliable “grid” that included hydro before they started to experiment with wind & solar. FYI – I am not an Australian Citizen, I just happen to live there from time to time enjoying my retirement, I also live in other places. As a matter of fact I am a very global oriented individual. I do connect with many senior and respected engineers and business (non entrepreneurial) people in the global power generation and reticulation business. From what I can gather, you don’t work in the power generation or reticulation industry. If I am wrong in this please let me know.
Helmut Frik says
Well the last 3 blackouts in south australia – before the one caused by tornados – were caused by internal failures of the northern power station. A situation which should never cause a blackout when there is a grid which is worth this name.
By the way, you are wrong.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
I already mentioned that there is no need to bring Australia into this. Australia (bigger than Europe) apart from it’s east coast is sparsely populated.
Helmut Frik says
Check again the size of continents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent
And what happens in Australia is also relevant.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Helmut Frik – To compare the European Grid with the Australian grid is a nobrainer. The population of Australia is 24,641,662 with a density of 3 P/Km² verses the European population at 739,207,742 with a density of 33 P/Km².
Giving a link to continents does not help, so lets check on the size of Australia and Europe.
http://www.britzinoz.com/australia-in-size-comparison-to-uk-and-europe
Bob Wallace says
“they used to have a good and reliable “grid” that included hydro before they started to experiment with wind & solar”
That is so dishonest.
You know very well that the AU blackouts were due to grid failures totally not related to wind and solar.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Bob Wallace – you are such a truth twister. The Australian blackouts were due wind and solar failing to deliver capacity due to a number of prolonged heat waves. During a heatwave there is no wind and demand for elecricity is very high. Demand for electricity forced SA Power Networks to implement blackouts. South Australia’s electricity grid, relies on renewables for 45 per cent of its power. South Australia has a history of heatwaves, and there often is no wind at these times.
With many other states introducing ambitious renewable energy targets, there are warnings the same problems could soon spread to the rest of Australia. If wind power drops off, the network needs to get extra electricity from somewhere else to meet supply. In SA’s case this would normally come from its gas-fired power plants, solar or the inter-connectors that provide extra electricity from Victoria.
The statewide blackout on September 28 happened because the inter-connector wasn’t designed to provide that much extra electricity, causing it to overload and the system to shut down.
AEMO, which operates most of Australia’s gas and electricity markets, is running the electricity system “like it is a stock market” run by economists who make decisions based on price and the system doesn’t necessarily operate in a way that prioritises reliability of power. Furthermore there are no engineers sitting on the corporation’s board.
Nigel West says
Correct. Wind/solar promoters here are desperately trying to shift the blame elsewhere. Looks too late now, the damage is done.
Helmut Frik says
Well the blackut came when a gas fired plant ordered to get online dit not go online because they sold their gas supply. Solar worked as expected. Grid as usual was practically inexistent.
On the contrary solar rescued most of the day till the evening, but then conventional power stations caused the blaclkout.
About AEMO + others not making a good job we can agree. But as far as I have hearded someone else would have to improve transmission lines.
In NSW the near blackut was caused by internal problems of a coal fired plant and the inability of a gas fired plant to come online, also due to lack of gas. Situation was rescued due to a aluminium smelter stoping production.
Hans says
@moderator: I have been moderated for less. Please remove the insult directed at Bob.
@Henk: please provide some back-up for your claim that recent Australian black-outs where caused by renewables. To my best knowledge the most recent one was caused by transmission towers falling over, and previous ones by market manipulation.
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2017/02/13/calls-for-an-end-to-political-power-struggle.html
http://www.news.com.au/national/south-australia/rolling-blackouts-ordered-as-adelaide-swelters-in-heatwave/news-story/13394f19db1ee94a59f4036fccdc1ba7
Bob Wallace says
Storm damage to transmission lines caused disruptions around the grid on September 28.
The system had not been updated to deal with the wind generation that was present. I believe it now has.
Storm damage to transmission lines also caused blackouts on December 27.
There were blackouts on February 9, 2018 due to the failure to fire up ancillary generation. The gas plants were fueled up and ready to go but there was a problem with not sending an adequate price signal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_South_Australian_blackout
Now, do you have specific blackouts which were actually caused by wind or solar and not transmission or lack of communication?
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Bob Wallace – blackouts and forced load shedding due to heatwave. We all know that during a heatwave there is no wind and electricity demand is at it’s highest peak. This now with wind generation has been happening on a number of occasions along the East Coast and in particular in South Australia. This causes capacity problems in Queensland, NSW, and Victoria. The problem has not been resolved, there are now talks of adding pumped hydro to the Snowy Mountain Hydro System at a cost of some $2 billion and South Australia is recently showing an interest in the Canadian CANDU Nuclear Reactor technology.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/sa-loses-power-in-another-wind-farm-fail/news-story/8e5db34f658a3153f7f0a8d91a077b82
Bob Wallace says
OK, thanks.
You’ve got nothing. Didn’t think so.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Helmut Frik – following your advise, I looked around on the http://www.entsoe.eu website. I did also see the European grid map. However, nowhere did I see any references to a 100% renewable power supply by 2050. What I did read was that nuclear moves up after 2030 and will level out at some 30% in the generation mix.
Nigel West says
A near 100% renewables grid is only of interest to Germany. The UK and France are not planning on following Germany’s Energiewende experiment. Germany is alone. The EU target is 27% renewables. There are far more important matters to think about than dreaming about impossible and unnecessary over cooked renewables targets.
Bob Wallace says
We really don’t know what France will do going forward.
France is facing a problem of aging out reactors. They’re currently planning on closing a third and replacing them with wind and solar. If that works out for them then common sense would tell one that France will continue down the renewable route rather than greatly increase their cost of electricity.
Going forward all countries are going to face the same decisions when it comes to electricity generation.
1) Does it make more sense to replace worn out plants with nuclear or less expensive renewable energy?
2) Can we save money now by closing inefficient generators and replacing them with renewables?
Within five years new car buyers will probably be facing the decision to pay more for a fueled car and more to operate it or to purchase a cheaper and cheaper to operate EV.
Economics, not the love of atomic energy or the internal combustion engine will drive decisions.
Nigel West says
All France needs to do currently is refurbish and life extend most of their current reactor fleet which is more cost effective than new build. In the mean time EDF is maintaining their nuclear skills base by building Hinkley Point C. By the late 2020s new nuke capacity will be needed and EDF will be building EPR-NM plants in France.
Helmut Frik says
Expandiing renewables is already cheaper than refurbishing and repairing and ceaping alife of old nuclear which is falling apart.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Bob Wallace – I love it, can we save money now by closing inefficient generators and replacing them with renewables? Yes let’s replace them with unreliable renewables. Nigel West is spot on with his comment on France.
http://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/eco2mix-mix-energetique-en
Bob Wallace says
“I love it, can we save money now by closing inefficient generators and replacing them with renewables? Yes let’s replace them with unreliable renewables.”
Between 2008 and 2013 the US states that installed significant amounts of wind capacity saw the cost of electricity drop 0.5%.
The other non wind-using states say an almost 8% increase in electricity costs.
Bob Wallace says
“All France needs to do currently is refurbish and life extend most of their current reactor fleet which is more cost effective than new build.”
Yes, refurbishing is generally more cost effective than building new.
However France is now spending so much to operate their existing nuclear reactor fleet that they are starting the process of walking away from nuclear, not building more or maintaining.
“Production costs from the existing fleet are heading higher over the medium-term,” France’s Cour des Comptes said in a report to parliament published today.
The report, which updates findings in a January 2012 report, said that in 2012 the Court calculated the cost of production of the current fleet for 2010, which amounted to EUR 49.5 per megawatt-hour.
Using the same method for the year 2013 the cost was EUR 59.8/MWh, an increase of 20.6 percent over three years.
http://www.nucnet.org/all-the-news/2014/05/27/france-s-state-auditor-says-edf-s-nuclear-costs-are-increasing
Adding refurbishing costs to already too expensive reactors doesn’t make sense.
France just received permission from the EU to subsidize 17 GW of new renewable generation. This is France’s “training wheels” period in which they work through the first part of the renewable energy learning curve.
Nigel West says
The EU is not planning on a 100% renewables grid. The target is 27%. Germany’s Energiewende is not needed and not a model that France and the UK will be following for sure. So modelling a near 100% renewables grid is pointless. The purpose of the grid is to provide secure and economic supplies of electricity – a wind/solar dominated grid across Europe would fail on both accounts.
Bob Wallace says
Europe signed the Paris Accord.
The world does not achieve those goals without quitting the use of fossil fuels.
The issue will be renewables or nuclear as those are our only two routes to low carbon electricity.
The decision of which to build will be, in the long run, be based mostly on economics.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
The long terms decision after 2030 will be for renewables and nuclear with natural gas being phased out.
Bob Wallace says
That’s your opinion. Most everyone has one.
Yours? Not exactly plugged into reality, but enjoy it while you can.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Bob Wallace – I can’t find any, so can you give me a link to a credible report published in 2016 in support of your earlier comment that France is starting the process of walking away from nuclear, not building more or maintaining them.
Bob Wallace says
Changes may be underway in France now that there is a new president.
Macron has staid that he intends to cut French nuclear to 50% of total electricity, down from 75%, but the timeline might be extended past 2025.
“An official spokesman for Macron said the candidate would stick to the policy outlined in his campaign platform, which specifies he would respect the outgoing socialist government’s target to reduce the share of nuclear in French power production to 50 percent by 2025 from about 75 percent now.”
Macron has not said that France will build any new reactors but if it might turn out to be necessary some sort of special price support would be needed.
“He said that if France needed to build reactors to replace existing ones, it would have to consider new support systems because at current market prices no investor would put money into nuclear.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-election-macron-nuclearpower-e-idUSKBN17Z21B
I said nothing about France no longer maintaining reactors. I stated that the French government has revealed that maintenance costs are rising and making electricity costs from their Messmer Plan plants expensive.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
[…] I will be moving on to some other discussions. Thank you all for the comments made…
Hans says
A big chunk of the German renewable energy surcharge of 7 €cts are legacy costs: German feed-in-tariffs started in 2000 when renewable power production was still expensive. The feed-in-tariffs where proportionally high as well. The cost of renewable energy systems and thus also the feed-in-tariffs have since then come down spectacularly. However, for an individual system the feed-in-tariff was fixed for twenty years, so the high feed-in-tariffs are still paid out to those early systems. In 2020 the first of the legacy systems will drop out of the FiT-system and the surcharge will decrease.
Overall it is highly misleading to suggest that the 7 ct surcharge somehow represents the costs of current technology, or that countries starting with renewable energy will face similar cost. Germany did the heavy lifting by accelerating the passage through the learning curve. Other countries can now profit from the German investment.
Bob Wallace says
The world owes German citizens a great thanks for creating the market for solar panels that brought down their cost so extremely and so rapidly.
And give some love to Spain, Italy, Australia and the US as well.
Over a ~30 year period the cost of solar panels has dropped from around $100/watt to now under $0.50/watt. Something around a 200x price decrease.
That would have been extremely unlikely to have happened without some people stepping up and subsidizing solar costs in order to greatly grow manufacturing and creating economies of scale and encouraging more innovation.
Are Hansen says
Don’t forget China. When they got on the wagon, that’s when it really started to change
Bob Wallace says
China certainly brought down panel cost. But that was after a few other countries created the market.
The first set of Germany’s 20 year FiT subsidies will be aged out in a couple of years. China had no significant solar installation before 2010. Germany hit 300 MW installed about six years before China did.
But, hooray for all countries that have strong renewable programs. They’re showing other countries how it’s done.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Bob Wallace – Excluding hydro – On a global scale, I can’t see much of this renewable wind & solar electricity generation. I noticed that Germany is still generating almost twice as much electricity by nuclear power as by wind after such eye-watering investment in wind power!
GLOBAL LIVE POWER USEAGE: http://data.reneweconomy.com/LiveGen
Currently global wind generation capacity is estimated at 6% and global solar generation capacity at 2%. Global nuclear generation capacity is estimated at 12%. Now when you start to apply the capacity factor for wind being 34.7% and for PV solar being 27.2% and both being not dispatchable and unreliable, whilst the capacity factor for nuclear is 92.5% the answer is very clear..
Helmut Frik says
Worldwide capacity factor of nuclear was 75% when I last looked for the number. 92,5% ist about the ideal number for a perfectly working plant without a single damage. Not reachable with a fleet of more or less aging plants. Especially not when they run on paper thin margins.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Helmut Frik – The published (US EIA) capacity factors for electricity generation in the USA for 2016
Nuclear – 92.5%
Wind = 34.7%
PV Solar = 27.2%
Solar Thermal = 22.2%
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_6_07_b
Helmut Frik says
The US are not the world. There have been some lucky years in germany toow ith number in the 90’s but other years were not so good. you can find similar (worser) years in US data too, if you go a bit back as far as I remember.
Bob Wallace says
If one looks back to the 1970s and 1980s in the US nuclear CF record the numbers fall mostly in the 50% to 60% range.
In the 1990s US nuclear CFs averaged in the 60% to 70% range.
US CFs didn’t move to the 90% area until the year 2000.
And those CF numbers are pushed that high because early retirement and long term outages are not charged against reactor performance.
Bob Wallace says
The 34.7% CF for wind is a bit misleading if one is talking about current technology and additional capacity that might be built.
Currently new wind farms are returning CF numbers in the mid 40% area with some over 50% CF. The DOE has identified over 200,000 km2 where, using 140 meter hub heights, we will be able to produce CF numbers of 60% or higher.
The 34.7% has a lot of older, much less efficient wind farms averaged in.
The nuclear CF is higher because some of the crappiest, least reliable reactors have been closed. US nuclear CFs have been creeping up over the last few years.
US nuclear reactors are so close to economic failure than reactors that have higher repair problems just get closed.
Bob Wallace says
Most recent US nuclear CF is 92.5%. That’s due to three reasons…
1) US reactors do not load follow. They run full out as much as possible.
2) US reactors have priority access or drop their selling price, sometimes to zero or less in order to not be forced out of the market.
3) When a reactor “breaks” during a year and doesn’t come back online the EIA retroactively reduces the US nuclear capacity back to the date the reactor last performed.
France has a much lower nuclear CF. France load follows with nuclear. To the extent that they sometimes shut down reactors when demand is going to be low over extended periods.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
France’s nuclear are used in load-following mode (see section below) and are even sometimes closed over weekends, so their capacity factor is low by world standards, at 77.3%. However, availability is almost 84% and increasing. I see a trickle of wind and zero solar at the moment. Helmut Frik mentioned, some people in retirement don’t know how things work the right way, well let me tell him, that we had electricity generation under control, something I can’t see today. The only places in Europe where I see a grid work well with renewables in their generating mix is Denmark and the UK.
Build by now retired engineers. http://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/eco2mix-mix-energetique-en
Helmut Frik says
Well, reliability in germany and danmark of the grid is better today than it was at ealier times. French nuclear pwoer plants can do as little load following as the german ones, they can adjust the output slightly between 80-100%, everything below 80% is more and more getting a pain in the as. Compared to lignite plants, they can’t really ramp, and lignite plants are not really famous for ramping here.
You can anslo see this in the french export statistic. France exports during time of low demand at practcally any price, so the average export price of french electricity is well bleow the export price for german electricity.
Bob Wallace says
Ever hear about a European country called “Portugal”?
In 2016, 58% of power produced in Portugal came from renewable sources. Portugal has had stretches as long as four days when 100% of their electricity came from renewables.
How about their neighbor, Spain? In Spain renewable generation grew to 41.1% in 2016.
Are Hansen says
You seem to forget Norway. 100% renewable from hydro.
In Sweden more than 50% of total energy use (not just electricity) is from renewable source, mainly biofuels and hydro
http://www.svebio.se
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Bob Wallace – Ever hear about a European country called Portugal – how funny. Portugal has a good renewable energy mix with plenty of hydro. Gas is apparently the backup capacity for next few years.
https://twitter.com/energodock
So what about their neighbour, Spain? Wind and Nuclear at 23% are about equal. There are also days that Wind is much less. Government commitment to the future of nuclear energy in Spain has been uncertain, but has firmed up as the cost of subsidising renewables becomes un-affordable.
Bob Wallace says
Spain, like other countries, did a somewhat poor job designing their renewable subsidy program back when wind and solar were much more expensive.
Now wind has become cheap and solar very affordable. Both are firmly on the path to becoming even cheaper. There’s no need for massive subsidy programs any longer.
Countries with underdeveloped wind and solar installation industries may need some temporary subsidies in order to kickstart installation, but the vast reductions in hardware costs are now behind us.
Bob Wallace says
I suppose if you look for a day in Germany when the wind was down you’d find nuclear at about 2x. But let’s look at a year’s data. In 2016 –
Nuclear 13.1%
Wind 12.3%
Solar 5.9%
Why don’t you check this graph so you can see what is happening in Germany?
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/lightbox_image/public/images/factsheet/fig2-gross-power-production-germany-1990-2016.png?itok=g2Jep3Vm
Nuclear – going down
Lignite – going down
Hard coal – going down
Natural gas – going down
Renewables – going up
On a global scale one has to look at places which have had renewable programs long enough for results to show. Look at US states like California, Texas, and Iowa. Look at the European countries which have been more aggressive with renewables.
You can’t see much if you don’t filter out the countries that have only recently started their transition.
In 2015 nuclear generated about 11% of the world’s electricity. Wind generated 3.1%. Solar produced 1.1% (almost doubling in two years).
But if one actually looks at what is happening they will see that nuclear is declining globally. Nuclear hit peak global market share at 17.6% in 1996 and has been dropping since, falling to 10.7% in 2015. Nuclear hit peak production in 2006 and is on the downslope.
On the other hand we see wind and solar production rapidly accelerating. China saw wind produced electricity start from almost zero and pass nuclear production in only six years.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Bob Wallace – Why don’t you check this graph so you can see what is happening in Germany?
If Germany had kept their Nukes going and invested more in new ones the graph would have looked a lot better. At a cost of about $0.45 trillion for nuclear plants (with almost no CO2 emissions), implementing the Energiewende would be about $4.03 trillion less costly, plus the environmental adversities of wind turbines, solar panels and associated transmission lines would be significantly less intrusive. German electricity generation would be about 90% free of CO2 emissions by 2050 (as bio-electricity in the mix has CO2 emissions). There can be no hope of achieving that without nuclear plants, and with continued operation of coal, oil and gas plants.
Bob Wallace says
“If Germany had kept their Nukes going and invested more in new ones the graph would have looked a lot better”
I agree. I think everyone agrees.
But you ignore the facts. Germans wanted to lower their exposure to a potential nuclear disaster. That meant speeding up their reactor closure schedule.
(And you know the facts.)
Nigel West says
To allay public concerns a more pragmatic approach would have been to accelerate closure of the remaining BWRs in Germany – same tech. as Fukushima. That then leaves 6 modern PWR reactors dating from the late 1980s that are safe and are being closed prematurely. They could easily be life extended and updated while even safer designs are developed.
Siemens may regret pulling out of their partnership with Areva on the EPR design. Germany should now be building next generation and even safer EPRs.
When the Energiewende experiment falls apart, if Germany is serious about reducing carbon emissions new nuclear will be the only alternative.
Helmut Frik says
@Nigel West, be sure everybody at Siemens is very happy to have withdrawn from the EPR in time and makes three crosses when thinking of the possibility they would still have that business tired to their leg.
And I do not see how a PWR Design would have helped significantly in Fukushima.
(And the problem with Fukushima is not what exactly happened, but that something hapened which was not covered by specification of the system.)
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Bob Wallace – A Fukushima or Chernobyl type accident would never happen in Germany. It was a mass panic reaction from the Germans led by the greens. Perhaps something that they one day will regret. Anyhow it’s interesting to see Germany with full support of Angela Merkel spending a lot of money on the Wendelstein 7-x Stellarator Fusion Reactor. If renewables was to be such a fantastic thing, how come they keep looking for other answers.
Helmut Frik says
Hendrik, you really have no idea how germany works. We always look at all alternatibves. And Mrs Merkel is not a member of the green party. But one of the very rare politicians in the world who could explain you in detail how a nuclear reactor works.
Bob Wallace says
” A Fukushima or Chernobyl type accident would never happen in Germany. ”
I envy your time machine that lets you visit an alternative reality where all German reactors are allowed to operate until they are no longer able to do so.
Only by doing that can one say assuredly that a German reactor would never go sour.
Obviously the citizens of Germany haven’t shared the use of your time machine and decided to take the safe route forward.
Bob Wallace says
“When the Energiewende experiment falls ”
Thing is, the Energiewende experiment is not failing.
There was a short interruption stating in 2011 when the nuclear closure calendar was sped up and fossil fuel use bumped up by about 4%.
That was all over by 2014. Not only had the 4% increase disappeared 2014 fossil use was about 4% lower than in 2011.
Germany has work to do. Additional transmission lines are a big need. But with the rapidly falling cost of offshore wind there will probably be additional willingness to get the transmission built.
And, jeeze, why are not large solar farms being built in Greece? Greece needs income sources and has sunshine to burn. It’s not even a thousand miles to Munich. Great UHVDC application.
—-
Germany’s abandoning of nuclear energy really gives some of you guys a significant butthurt, doesn’t it?
—
Fusion? Sure, spend some money on research. It’s always great to learn new things.
The odds that we’ll have usable fusion in time to help us avoid significant global warming?
Roughly zero.
The potential for fusion as a low cost, low carbon electricity source 50 years from now?
Not very high. But who knows. Perhaps someone will figure out how to lower the cost if a fusion reaction can be sustained long enough to be useful.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Bob Wallace – you as a USA citizen would do better to focus on the consequences of global warming your country will face, in the current century and beyond, that will have it’s effect on electricity generation. Renewable electricity generation is affected by, heatwaves, hurricanes, storm surges and high tides, sea level rise and land subsidence. The effects of climate change will not stop in 2100 because the planet will take a very long time to respond to warmer conditions at the Earth’s surface. Ocean waters will continue to warm and sea levels will continue to rise for many centuries at rates equal to or higher than that of the current century.
Now as to your remark on nuclear energy and the withdrawal of some countries using this form of electricity generation really gives some of us guys a significant butt-hurt. Let me tell you that it does not hurt my butt, but it makes me question on what your agenda is. It’s my prerogative supported by others to see decentralised underground constructed Generation IV SMR Nuclear energy as a superior secure source, able to withstand the predicted damaging effects of climate change.
Now back to the German Energiewende – At present, it appears plausible that the EU target architecture will be reduced to a single emissions reduction target after 2020 with a low level of ambition – even below the “40 percent domestic” level proposed by the Commission. If this happens, Germany’s key Energiewende targets will be affected in very different ways. While such a decision on a European target would have no negative consequences for the German roadmap to phase out the use of nuclear energy, it might impede Germany’s expanded use of renewable energy. And it is highly likely to have a negative impact on emissions reduction policies. Even if Europe does not set a new renewable energy target in the same form as the current one, Germany could still set its own national target of achieving 30 percent renewable energy in total energy consumption by 2030. However, if this were perceived by the German public as “going it alone” within Europe, the project of ambitious energy system transformation would meet with substantially increased political opposition. Furthermore, public discussion of the overall costs is likely to flare up again and again in the years to come.
https://energy.gov/epsa/initiatives/us-energy-sector-vulnerability-report
Bob Wallace says
Hendrikus –
I live on Planet Earth.
I will keep my attention on the entire planet.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Bob Wallace – I will keep my attention on the entire planet. Good luck with that, if 100% wind and solar electricity generation was so fantastic there would not be any debate on this. Having said that this does not seem to be the case.
Bob Wallace says
One can easily point out that if nuclear was an acceptable answer then, after 60 years of installation, nuclear would dominate the world’s grids.
Instead nuclear topped out at 17.6% of electricity produced 20 years ago and has been declining since.
I’d say that the world gave nuclear an honest, large scale trial but found it lacking.
Nigel West says
Antis prevented nuclear’s share being larger and hence exasperated the carbon emission problem.
When demand was rising fast in a developing economy fossil plant had to be built, in half the time compared to nuclear, otherwise economic development would be held back.
Once demand is stable old firm capacity coal plants can be replaced with nuclear. China is doing this.
Bob Wallace says
China is replacing coal with wind, solar, and nuclear.
China is installing wind and solar in larger amounts than nuclear. Electricity production by wind surpassed nuclear a couple years ago even though nuclear had a 20 year head start.
No one argues that nuclear has a lower carbon footprint than coal. The issue is cost, time to install, and safety.
Hans says
You repeat yourself so I have to repeat myself:
The high cost that Germany paid is not relevant for today. Germany started investing in wind and solar when they where still expensive. This enabled the industry to learn by doing and to upscale, which brought down the cost for all of us.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
The cost for the German energiewende has not finished. German policymakers and some elected officials are very smart people. They are all familiar with the obstacles (if technically possible and at what cost) that need to be resolved, but for PR reasons cannot talk about them, because it would be a political disaster to admit Germany and others have been veering off in the wrong direction for about 15 years.
Helmut Frik says
Siemens and Vattenfall proposed to gherman gouvernment to tender more offshore farms and to accelerate the whole process, to get more merchant offshore farms which provide more subsidy free power renewable power, e.g. constant 7GW per year (resulting in about 30TWh extra renewable power per year from offshore). That’s very much cheaper than building new coal or gas fired plants, and much much cheaper than nuclear. Things work much better than expected. And Utilities complaining that “Energiewende” goes on too slow is also new, but welcome.
Math Geurts says
Also very much cheaper than solar.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Helmut Frik – Did I say anywhere that Angela Merkel is a member of the green party. And I know that she is a respected research scientist, but I don’t need her to explain to me in detail how a nuclear reactor works. One thing about Angela Merkel is that she described your country’s decision to close its nuclear plants as “absolutely wrong.” The words were her most forthright on the matter to date.
Your remark on that I don’t know on how Germany works. FYI – I had a professional relation for 32 years with some off Germany’s largest companies.
Bob Wallace says
Considering the rapidly dropping price of wholesale electricity in Germany your “wrong direction” claim is strange.
In your opinion Germany should instead be installing generation that makes their electricity more expensive to produce?
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Bob Wallace – “your wrong direction claim is strange”. It’s not my claim, it’s a claim made by German policymakers and some elected officials. However, I do agree with them. Me suggesting that Germany should be installing generation that makes their electricity more expensive to produce? It’s the opposite.
At a cost of about $0.45 trillion for nuclear plants, implementing the Energiewende would be about $4.03 trillion less costly, plus the environmental adversities of wind turbines, solar panels and associated transmission lines would be significantly less intrusive.
Bob Wallace says
You can make all the incorrect cost statements you like. Germany is through with nuclear power.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says
Not fair to call wind farms “subsidy free” when they have fixed feed-in tariffs, even when the spot market price is negative… And have full priotity on the network and use all the backup needed provided by conventional power plants (and their neighbours) when there is no/little wind and sun, but don’t pay a dime for this backup.
And cheaper prices? Maybe for the industry, the households pay the difference: after Denmark, the wind champion, the highest of Europe, if not the world…
Helmut Frik says
Full priority in the grid is given to renewables also by the econmic ruels, they simply have no fuel costs.
So even if nuclear keeps running at negative prices due to inability to ramp, this kills this technology on the economic side.
And backup is needed for every plant, be it wind power and solar at distant places, or another conventional power station somewhere. That’s standad grid operation, just the handling is slightly different for renewables.
Some people in retirement age don’t accept that this works by operating grids in the right ways, but that does not matter to practical operation.
With big solar now around 6ct/kWh and falling, onshore wind at or below 7ct/kWh and offshore below both, new renewable capacity comes online below the prices any new conventional capacity would need to eb built in germany.
So as sure as the amen in the church the EEG surcharge will come down with the end of high cost early renewable generation in a few years.
Since CO2 per kWh now commands to use more electricity and less direct burning of oil and gas, there are plans in serveral partys under way to reduce the taxes on electric power, and rais them for oil and gas. This will not happen before the election, but it looks like it will happen past the election.
Then you will see your argument about high electricity prices in germany vanish fast.
By the way, new renewables in germany cost less than what it costs to keep old nuclear running in france accourding to the coure de comptes.
I have not yet seen a analyst who could see a way how EDF should build new nuclear comming anywhere near to that price, or how they should earn the money to do so, or to pay decomissioning of their old plants on th market. But there are enough analysts who see EDF heading for a ocean of red ink.
Bob Wallace says
“merchant offshore farms ”
Those wind farms will sell into the market on a competitive basis. No subsidy. No guaranteed purchase.
When we calculate the price of generation we never include storage or backup. Do you ever see anyone include the cost of storage and backup when they talk about the price of nuclear or coal generation?
(Denmark and Germany have high retail electricity prices due to taxes. Not due to the cost of generating electricity. I think that’s the fourth time I’ve made that comment on this site in the last 24 hours.)
Nigel West says
I would add to that transmission reinforcement costs that electricity consumers pay, not the wind farm developer.
Nigel West says
“Do you ever see anyone include the cost of storage and backup when they talk about the price of nuclear or coal generation?”
That is not relevant because newly built CCGTs, coal-fired, nuclear capacity, hydro etc. has a c. 4% probability of not being available when needed at times of peak demand. That means the reserve requirement for new conventional capacity is not material.
Whereas for wind/solar the probability of not being available when needed is approaching 100% in northern Europe so the backup costs are very significant and material when looking at power plant economics.
Germany is a good example. They can’t shut lignite quickly because they need a parallel conventional fleet equivalent in size to their renewables fleet.
I am sure you do understand this but choose to obfuscate the issue as you promote wind/solar and criticise nuclear at every opportunity. But if you don’t, I must assume you simply do not understand how grids work…..
Bob Wallace says
There are transmission costs for nuclear, coal and hydro as well.
Wind can be higher than some others due to longer distances. Solar transmission costs are likely to drop to zero as we move to rooftop solar and solar farms build close to transmission lines which were built for no longer used coal plants.
Bob Wallace says
“That is not relevant because newly built CCGTs, coal-fired, nuclear capacity, hydro etc. has a c. 4% probability of not being available when needed at times of peak demand. ”
Hello?
New reactors tend to pop offline frequently when they are being fine tuned. There has to be available reserve capacity to cover that. And reactors go offline without notice. The grid can’t sit back and wait for a failed reactor to restart days later.
If reactors generate more than the minimum demand (assuming all other generation is already curtailed) then those reactors need storage or will have to load follow, which makes their output even more expensive.
I have a very good idea how grids work. And I’m familiar with realistic prices. More than I can say for a couple of people commenting here.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Maybe the world owes the Chinese a great thanks for creating the market and bringing the cost down for solar panels. China will plow $361 billion into renewable power generation by 2020, as the world’s largest energy market continues to shift away (unlike Germany) from dirty coal power towards cleaner fuels. China’s installed renewable power capacity including wind, hydro, solar and NUCLEAR power will contribute to about half of new electricity generation by 2020.
Helmut Frik says
China jumpt on the band wagon the last years , correct, and helps to push it along. But you forget that germany beside pahsing out nuclear reduces CO2 emissions from coal power continuously, too. China still builds new coal power plants, although they also reduce this to zero. Last coal power plant in germany came online some years ago, and only Datteln, nearly competed but sruck in legal fights for many years might follow in some time, if it really gets finished before being closed down. While continuously old plants go offline.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Helmut Frik – German carbon emissions rise in 2016 despite coal use drop. German energy-related CO₂ emissions rose almost 1 percent in 2016, despite a fall in coal use and the ongoing expansion of renewable energy sources, according to first estimates by energy market research group AG Energiebilanzen. A rise in overall energy consumption covered in parts by an increased use of natural gas and diesel for electricity, heat and transport further dented the chances that Germany will reach its 2020 climate targets. The head of Germany’s utilities lobby BDEW said that a stronger focus on natural gas could help to bring emissions down more quickly.
Helmut Frik says
Well, the problems are traffic, and partly buildings, as I have told many times before. BDEW is a bit late with theis wishes their members already start wanting faster deployment of renewables as it looks like.
Bob Wallace says
Germany may well miss its 2020 CO2 target.
Remember, that target was set before the Fukushima disaster.
In 2011 Germany decided that it wanted to decrease its nuclear risk faster which made it difficult to hit the CO2 target they had made years earlier.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Helmut Frik – China halted it’s nuclear power construction projects after the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear accident in March 2011, but began soon after the construction work on several nuclear power plants expected to start coming online in 2017. Further to this, China is restarting it’s nuclear power program in inland areas within the next four years. The statement came from Wang Yiren, Vice-Chairman of the China Atomic Energy Authority. He said that China has already decided where its inland nuclear reactors will be built. Further to this, China’s General Nuclear Chairman He Yu said, China is expecting to construct four to six Hualong One Reactors annually from 2020 to achieve an installed nuclear generating capacity of at least 150 GWe by 2030.
Wang Binghua, Chairman of State Power Investment Corp, and Wang Shoujun, President of the State-owned China Nuclear Engineering Group Co, also called for nuclear power plants to be a primary source of energy supply. He is a strong advocate of the Hualong One Reactor also known as the Advanced Gen III HPR1000 Reactor.
Helmut Frik says
Naturally, that’s their job. But in the end it counts how much money the state gouvernment allowes for this. And at which point they decide that it’s getting too expensive.
It’s already may, wind and solar have each brought the capacity of at least 2 reactors online this year, and keep going. Can nuclear compete with this?
Can it also reduce costs by 10% or more each year?
Bob Wallace says
I suspect it will take a few more years (less than five) for the Chinese government to reassess how they spend their new capacity money.
Wind and solar price decreases are such a recent development that there hasn’t been enough time reconsideration of the best route forward.
We’ve watched the large nuclear owning energy companies rework their plans over the last few years.
The CEOs of Entergy and Exelon, the two US companies that own the largest number of reactors in the US, stated a few years back that their companies would build no new reactors. It simply made no financial sense.
France has decided that it makes no sense to build new reactors. In fact, it will work best for them to close about a third of their existing reactors and install renewables. Reactor maintenance has become more expensive than new wind and solar.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Helmut Frik – Further to your remark on the Chinese government to reassess how they spend their new capacity money.
Germany’s Chinese investment problem European firms are being snapped up by China companies, and that’s causing headaches in Berlin. Beijing Enterprises buys German waste-to-energy group for €1.8bn including debt. News of the acquisition comes in the same week that ChemChina, the Chinese state-owned group, launched a $43.8bn bid for Swiss agribusiness Syngenta, in what would be China’s largest ever overseas takeover. China is set for a central role in Britain’s nuclear industry after the government gave the go-ahead for a new power station at Hinkley Point. Chinese Government owned State Grid Corporate and Hong Kong-listed Cheung Kong Infrastructure the two companies whose bid for NSW electricity distributor Ausgrid were blocked by Treasurer Scott Morrison already own significant shares in the Australian privatised state power distributors.
Electricity now flows across continents, courtesy of direct current. There is another possibility highlighted by Britain’s Financial Times: that is, that China’s proposed investment in long-distance, ultra-high voltage power transmission lines will pave the way for power exports from China to as far away as Germany. Liu Zhenya, chairman of State Grid, told reporters that wind and thermal power produced in Xinjiang could reach Germany at half the present cost of electricity there.
In China in particular, the construction of UHVDC lines is booming there.
http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20170114_STM945.png
Helmut Frik says
Exactly. And power will flow in the other direction, too.
Germany has a open economy, so chinese company are allowed to invest in most branches. In return germany urges for more access to the chinese market. (which has slowly some success.)
Bob Wallace says
Germany hit peak coal consumption in 1984. Since then Germany has cut their coal consumption by 48%.
China hit peak coal in 2013 and so far is down about 3%.
—
Non-hydro renewables are growing much faster in China than is nuclear. In terms of electricity generated.
Writing nuclear in all caps doesn’t make it bigger than it is.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Yes there will be a lot of new NUCLEAR coming online in China, starting this year. Like I keep on saying there is still only a small amount of Wind & Solar that I can detect. German coal plants are being replaced with natural gas (half as bad). Today, about half of Germany’s power comes from coal fired plants.
http://data.reneweconomy.com/LiveGen
Bob Wallace says
China has been producing more electricity with wind than with nuclear for the last few years.
I don’t know how you can get so excited about China’s nuclear program when China’s wind program has exceeded their nuclear program.
And nuclear had a 20 year head start in China.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
The 100% decarbonizing of the electricity sector, which is already about 45% decarbonized (if we add nuclear) would reduce total emissions by about another 25%. Yet Germany’s efforts to decrease emissions continue to concentrate on the electricity sector. Germany likely will not meet its 2020 and 2030 emissions reduction targets.
German Household Electric Rates: German household electric rates are the SECOND highest in Europe, about 28.69 eurocent/kWh in 2015; Denmark is the leader with about 30 eurocent/kWh. Both are RE mavens. France, about 80% nuclear generation, has one of the lowest.
Bob Wallace says
Keep pleasuring that barn fowl, Hendrikus.
You know that Germany’s high retail electricity rate is due to the government piling a lot of taxes on top of the cost of generating electricity while France subsidizes their electricity prices.
It appears that German car manufacturers are now starting to enter the EV business at a serious level. That’s what it will take to decarbonize personal transportation since Germans seem to largely buy German cars.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
The car manufacturers could still pivot to embrace fuel cells instead of batteries. Just look at the prototype BMW 5-series GT FCEV.
The German government ‘ s plan to invest EUR250mn towards the development of the country ‘ s hydrogen automotive industry will place the country at the forefront of the fuel cell electric vehicle market in Europe by encouraging automakers to invest in this technology and therefore providing a further step towards the mass market production of these vehicles.
With the German government having already invested around EUR1.4bn over the past decade in support of the hydrogen automotive industry, we believe that this fresh investment will place the country at the forefront of the FCEV market in Europe in the next 10 to 20 years.
Bob Wallace says
Car manufacturers could pivot to FCEVs. However doing so would probably lead them to bankruptcy in a few short period.
H2 FCEVs simply cannot compete with EVs. The laws of physics assure that. It takes far more energy to extract and compress H2 than to charge batteries.
Then one has to add the cost of a hydrogen extraction and distribution system to the cost per mile of FCEVs.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Bob Wallace – reading your comments you obviously don’t know your stuff. Do some real research on EV’s and FCEV’s. Royal Dutch Shell places bet on hydrogen cars going mainstream. Shell is already part of a public-private consortium planning 400 hydrogen filling stations across Germany by 2023, together with partners including its French rival Total. The Cobham facility marks the start of a wider effort to support growth of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in north-west Europe. Carmakers are also hedging their bets. General Motors last month expanded a partnership with Honda to invest $85m in hydrogen fuel cell manufacturing in Michigan, weeks after launching the US company’s Chevrolet Bolt battery car. BMW and Daimler are among other car-makers working on hydrogen technology.
Helmut Frik says
Daimler and BMW have been working for decades on fuel cells, and practically gave this topic up, since it’s still not clear where the hydrogen should come at competitive prices compared to direct charging. But if somwone would make it work somehow, the’y have the technology to go into that market too. But they won’t push anything any more.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Helmut Frik – you are so out of though and love to make up your stories. Do some serious research. I already stated that Royal Dutch Shell is constructing hydrogen refuelling stations and has placed a bet on hydrogen cars going mainstream. Shell is already part of a public-private consortium planning 400 hydrogen filling stations across Germany by 2023. I can provide many links, but would like to suggest that you do a Google on this. As a starter – BMW to produce a low-volume hydrogen fuel-cell car in 2021. 2017 Mercedes-Benz GLC F-Cell concept: hydrogen SUV confirmed for a 2017 production debut.
http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Fuel-Cells/Why-Are-Shell-And-Toyota-Backing-Hydrogen-Fuel-Cell-Vehicles.html
Bob Wallace says
“Today, energy prices in Germany are already the second highest in Europe.”
Only after taxes are added to the cost of generating electricity. German industrial electricity prices – without taxes and fees – are the 15th highest in the EU28.
At €0.0793 they are lower than the EU 28 average of €0.0801.
Denmark’s non-taxed rate for industrial electricity is only €0.0646.
Germany and Denmark pile taxes on top of the cost of electricity. Some countries such as France hide electricity subsidies and use tax revenues from other sources.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Bob Wallace – like I mentioned many times, it is what the consumer (the cost shown on the monthly bill) has to pay. You guys can run in a circle with statements on taxes and whatever… Like the fuel for my car, it also include taxes and whatever, do I now say the fuel itself is actually cheap.
Bob Wallace says
Of course it is what the consumer pays. No one disputes that.
What you refuse to acknowledge is that the high retail prices in Denmark and Germany are not due to the high cost of electricity in those two countries. The cost of electricity in those two countries is moderate and falling.
Europe buys petroleum at the same price as does the US, yet the cost of auto fuel is multiples of what US drivers pay.
Does that mean that fuel costs more in Europe or does it mean that European countries pile more taxes on the top of fuel costs?
Let’s just engage in a bit of plain talk, Hendrikus. You know very well that renewables are lowering the cost of electricity generation in Denmark, Germany, Texas, Iowa and other places where they are being installed in significant numbers.
You, and other nuclear advocates, keep bringing up the “electricity is expensive in Germany” arguement even though you know it is bogus.
That’s dishonest. It’s the equivalent of climate change deniers claiming that the planet isn’t warming because it was cold at their house during the winter.
If you want to discuss energy issues honestly then drop the bogus stuff.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says
Sorry Bob, the largest part of the taxes that households in Denmark and Germany (and in increasing way in Belgium and other countries) pay is for the subsidies spent on wind en solar electricity. Only to keep the wholesale price for the industry affordable, or they simply move away to other countries where energy is really cheaper like the US and China…
The US simply has real lower prices because of fracking, where the price of natural gas dropped to 1/3rd of the import price in Europe, even replacing coal as primary energy for power and at the same time reducing their CO2 emissions. The same is happening – at a lower speed – for petroleum, where the domestic sourcing in the US is expanding at the cost of their imports.
Bob Wallace says
Let’s look at how electricity costs break out for retail customers in Germany…
In 2013 the average household electricity rate was about 29 € cents / kWh according to the BDEW (Energy industry association).
The composition:
8.0 cent – Power Generation & Sales
6.5 cent – Grid Service Surcharge
5.3 cent – Renewable Energy Surcharge
0.7 cent – Other Surcharges (CHP-Promotion, Offshore liability,…)
In addition there are some taxes & fees that go straight into the government’s bank account:
2.1 cent – EcoTax (federal government)
1.8 cent – Concession fees (local governments)
4.6 cent – Value added tax (19% on all of the above) – (federal, state & local governments)
Renewable subsidies in 2013 were less than half of the tax/fee load.
It may be that the renewable subsidy tax will drift up a bit between now and 2020. After than, IIRC, the first generation FiT programs age out and their subsidies drop out.
The US has had lower electricity (and fuel) prices than most/all of Europe for a long time. Well before wind and solar came to the game. The US doesn’t tax energy like Europe does.
Right now we’re seeing the price of electricity dropping in the US states which have the most wind capacity installed.
It’s too early to see a price impact from solar. Wait a couple of years until we have more on the grid. Wind and solar are now cheaper than gas plants so when the wind is blowing or Sun shining we’re saving fuel money on CCNG plants.
Hans says
You are wrong about the surcharges in Denmark and Germany, in these countries normal taxes are significantly larger than the renewable energy surcharges.
From the household cost of electricity in Denmark 59% comes from “normal” taxes and only 9% from the renewable energy surcharge (PSO) [1].
In Germany normal taxes make up 42% of the price and the renewable energy surcharge 24% of the price [2]. As I noticed before this is mainly because of legacy cost and an unfair exemption for large industries.
Please check your data before you make such sweeping statements.
[1] http://csr.dk/afgiftsstruktur-g%C3%B8r-el-langt-dyrere-end-olie
[2] https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-households-pay-power
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Bob Wallace – So now we are back to climate change an unsettled science. On electricity cost, go and read-up on why this cost skyrocketed in Ontario Canada as an example.
Bob Wallace says
I’m not sure any science is truly settled. We constantly discover new stuff.
But when it comes to atmospheric greenhouse gases we’ve got the basics well nailed down.
—
I wasn’t aware of what might have happened in Ontario. I do know that they looked at building a new reactor in 2009(?) and the turnkey bid price was astronomical.
I just checked and see that it seems to be, overall, a case of bad management.
Ontario officials contracted to purchase more electricity than they needed and are having to sell off the surplus at a loss.
They did a poor design job with their wind and solar subsidy program and even after corrections are paying “double the market price for wind and 3½ times the market price for solar energy”.
There seems to be problem with price control from some non-wind/solar sourcing.
Their smart meter program has not driven down peak hour use as expected causing them to have to purchase more expensive electricity.
They’ve failed to control employee costs in the hydro facilities, “especially among top executives”.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-hydro-bills-1.3860314
“Other factors driving up prices include costly maintenance of aging nuclear power plants and debt payments.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/07/21/ontario-hydro-rates_n_11107590.html
So. Screwups upon screwups seems to be the reason that Ontario’s electricity prices are so high.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Bob Wallace – Yes, screw-ups upon screw-ups every-time there is wind and large solar implemented.
Ontario was doing fine before the greens and entrepreneurs got involved. Ontario’s prices are being driven up by a number of factors, including subsidies for the province’s green energy program, whilst wind & solar are just a small trickle.
https://www.cns-snc.ca/media/ontarioelectricity/ontarioelectricity.html
When it comes to atmospheric greenhouse gases we’ve got the basics well nailed down. Is that “we” as in you, your are not a climate scientist and neither am I. But from what I can read, not one of the climate models have been conclusive.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Interesting to see how hard coal, gas, and pumped hydro have to follow the unreliable wind and solar sources.
https://www.energy-charts.de/power_de.htm?source=all-sources&week=18&year=2017
Bob Wallace says
I gave you a long list of why electricity prices have increased in Ontario.
Being a nuclear shill you try to make it all about renewables.
Wind produces about 5% of Ontario’s electricity. Solar produces less than 1%. Even if the grid is paying 2x what it should for wind and 3.5x what it should for solar that would move the price point very little.
Toronto Hydro’s residential customers now pay 72% more per kWh than they did in 2006. Out of that 72% we could blame wind and solar for 6.8% and the other rises are to the other factors I listed.
Bad contracting for wind and solar (not wind and solar) accounts for just under 10% of the problem.
Bob Wallace says
“Interesting to see how hard coal, gas, and pumped hydro have to follow the unreliable wind and solar sources.”
Coal is not used as a fill-in for wind and solar.
Natural gas has a temporary role to play but will eventually be replaced by storage and low carbon dispatchable generation.
Obviously we should use wind and solar first, they have no fuel cost. NG should be used as a secondary, fill-in source since it has fuel costs.
These are very simple concepts which you should have mastered long ago.
One does not buy expensive tomatoes at the grocery when they have free tomatoes growing in their garden.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Bob Wallace – there was no need to give me your long list of why electricity prices have increased in Ontario. The province built Gas, Wind, and Solar plants than it did not need. In 2014, according to the Auditor-General, Ontario had the capacity to produce 30,203 megawatts of power, but only needs 15,959 on an average day. (Even on the busiest day of the year, the province only required 22,774 megawatts.) With the Ontario province massive surplus of generating capacity, tied up in private, 20-year contracts, Ontarians have to pay for all that electricity, whether they need it or not.
In 2015, Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk an officer of the legislature, calculated that Ontarians had paid $37-billion more than market price for electricity from 2006 to 2014 and would pay another $133-billion extra by 2032.
Here is another link to Ontario’s generation mix. http://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html
Bob Wallace says
“there was no need to give me your long list of why electricity prices have increased in Ontario. ”
Actually, I posted the list for others to see that you were presenting an incorrect argument when you tried to attribute the rise in electricity prices in Ontario to renewable energy.
I’ve arrived at the point at which I suspect you are completely unable to take on any facts which don’t support your belief that the world has to turn to nuclear energy. You appear to be a fact-proofed “true believer”.
I hate to see other people be mislead by inaccurate claims and statements. So I have been posting for their benefit.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Bob Wallace – Obviously we should use wind and solar first, they have no fuel cost.
I guess that’s when it’s available, which is not always the case.
Bob Wallace says
“Obviously we should use wind and solar first, they have no fuel cost.
I guess that’s when it’s available, which is not always the case.”
Correct.
The question is, as you know, which is the least expensive way to keep a grid powered 24/365?
1) A mix of nuclear + storage + backup?
2) A mix of renewables + storage + backup?
Math says: #2
Nigel West says
A completely false comparison that energy economists do not use. Only antis use distorted ones that no reputable economist would support.
Below is a real economic assessment.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/556917/3_-_Value_for_Money_Assessment.pdf
Helmut Frik says
@ nigel, that’s not a economic assessment. Thats just a list of either results or assumptions. Some look more like assumptions.
A economic assesment includes detailed calculations on piles of paper.
Beside that, since that “assesment” was made there are two, and maybee soon tree new holes in the floor – those places where the prices for solar and offshore wind have fallen threw the floor.
When those calculations were made, wholesaleprice was higher than now, at it was expected that it will rise. In fact it did fall, and does not look like it will become higher again. But sometimes politics does not like to adopt to a changing environment.
Bob Wallace says
“A completely false comparison that energy economists do not use. Only antis use distorted ones that no reputable economist would support.
Below is a real economic assessment.”
Inside that real economic assessment we find…
“comparable cost range of offshore wind (£81-
132/MWh)”
” the comparable cost range of large-scale solar Photovoltaics (PV)
(£65-92/MWh) and onshore wind (£49-90/MWh)”
Sorry, Charlie. When you bring an analysis that uses out of date data you bring nothing.
Bas Gresnigt says
Nigel,
The UK govt document you linked shows a lack of knowledge about the widely predicted continued price decreases for wind, solar and storage. Germany based its Energiewende in 2000 on those predictions!
Unbelievable that a £24B decision is made with such lack of knowledge & prejudice.
Though, it’s less strange when one considers that UK went to war because of a few implausible fantasies regarding Saddam’s capabilities.
Jeffrey Michel says
Having posted a recent article on a related lignite subject with a sum of zero readers’ comments to date recalls the old joke on the latest score from the Coliseum: “Lions 300, Christians 0”. This circumstance should concern us all, however, since the Energiewende originally proposed greater prosperity to people already employed in the fossil fuel industry. That promise has definitely not been fulfilled. It would have been logical to set up advanced technology factories near existing power plant sites, where schools, kindergartens, and football clubs already existed for the children of miners and plant personnel. The gradual abandonment of coal and lignite could have been effected as an effortless transition toward future job security. The fact that such a policy was consciously avoided makes it difficult to perceive any enduring human values linked with decarbonization, particularly since passionless software routines are becoming increasingly necessary for precluding power blackouts.
The Energiewende possibly requires a practiced reflex of irreconcilability with inherited economic priorities in order to remain enticing. Historical experiences, mathematical rigor, and linguistic consistency are routinely subjugated to an apostolic catalogue of inevitability, thereby sharing a common quality with majestic empires and political ideologies that have since been lost to the sands of time.
Contradictions are routinely conferred the status of doctrine. It was once asserted, for instance, that lignite power plants were incapable of ramping. The ascendency of solar energy usage is closely related to that fallacious appraisal. Once its inaccuracy had been confirmed by flexible generation retrofits, however, the error was not acknowledged, but instead erased from the Energiewende memory bank.
An indispensible premise singles out lignite as the Climate Killer Number 1, which is a geological impossibility. Without this claim, however, far fewer demonstrators might feel persuaded to occupy a handful of European surface mines that collectively contribute scarcely two percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Helmut Frik says
Such a promise was never given to workers on conventional power stations in germany. It’s a open labour market, and a market exonomy. Companies come and go, that’s it.
Mike Parr says
“Energiewende originally proposed greater prosperity to people already employed in the fossil fuel industry” – let me help on this one.
Most/many/probably not all – German buildings have poor/crap/hysterically funny (delete as you see fit) fabric from an energy point of view. Rennovation is, mostly, labour intensive. You are a bright person Mr Michel – I’ll leave you to join up the dots. Question: Germany is a vastly rich country with a huge trade surplus and I believe an overall government surplus – so why ain’t the gov doing something to erm… generate jobs in regions where lignite etc is going to take a walk & where housing (or indeed other buildings) from an energy perspective, ain’t exactly upto snuff. I have a few ideas on reasons – I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.
Jeffrey Michel says
The average age of motor vehicles and buildings in Germany is 9.3 and 50 years, respectively. With 2020 GHG emission targets now deemed unattainable, new technology development is preferred over the improvement of current standards that may soon prove irrelevant.
Because of the proliferation of taxes and surcharges, it makes increasingly little economic sense for a private household to reduce energy consumption. A representative of the Hamburg housing authority stated in 2016 that the city needed to construct 10,000 dwellings annually to keep up with population growth. Adhering to prescribed energy efficiency standards, he added, would reduce that number to 6,000. According to the final statistics, construction licenses for 12,471 homes and apartments were issued in Hamburg last year.
One multiple-story apartment building presently being completed at the end of my street has a highly insulated thick facade that visibly distinguishes it from the rest of the neighborhood. Knowledge of the Polish language is advisable for communicating with the construction workers, thus challenging any reduction of labor costs for private homeowners who are interested in renovation. I’ve never once asked by municipal authorities to participate in a building energy check. In the nearby city blocks served by district heating, better insulation would have no overall effect on Hamburg’s CO2 balance, since the dissipated thermal energy from the power plants might then simply heat the Elbe River at greater environmental detriment.
Hans says
“however, since the Energiewende originally proposed greater prosperity to people already employed in the fossil fuel industry. ”
Please tell us who made this promise at what time in history. I never heard of it.
In praxis in Germany lignite power stations do very little ramping.
By comparing the CO2 emission of any one source with global emissions, you can make anything look small and all actions as useless.
The reality is that Germany has to reduce its’ own CO2 emissions. And lignite power plants cause 18% of their total CO2 emissions.
Furthermore, from all the power sources lignite has the highest CO2 emission per kWh, so it is logical that it should go first.
Math Geurts says
The world has a climate change problem. Germany solves only its own nuclear problem.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Hans – that is why Germany would have been better off, if the had kept all their nukes running and phased out the ignite power plants first.
Bob Wallace says
Are you overlooking the amount of solar and wind Germany has installed and is installing?
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Bob Wallace – Overlooking the amount of solar and wind Germany has installed and is installing. This is why. https://www.energy-charts.de/energy.htm
Bob Wallace says
Wind and solar are increasing.
Conventional generation is decreasing.
Use the tool you linked and look back over the last few years.
Bob Wallace says
Germany would have been better off in terms of lowering CO2 emission levels. I’ve never seen anyone argue to the contrary.
Had Germany continued to operate reactors and experienced a nuclear disaster then Germany would have been worse, very much worse, off.
Germany citizens decided that they did not wish to live with the potential of a nuclear disaster. That is their decision and it was their right to make that decision.
I wish you nuclear fans would give up that ridiculous talking point. It does not support nuclear energy in any way or fashion. Obviously nuclear plants have a lower carbon footprint than coal and gas. But the planet is turning to renewables and not to nuclear for reasons.
Do I need to repeat those reasons for you?
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Bob Wallace – Germany solves only its own nuclear problem. Germany did not have a nuclear problem, it’s people that easily fall for propaganda were caught up in an unjustified fear fuelled by the Greens leading up to 1998 after the Chernobyl accident in 1986. Had Germany continued to operate reactors and experienced a nuclear disaster then Germany would have been worse, very much worse, off. All assumptions with a likelihood of never happening.
The biggest battles against new nuclear power stations and reprocessing plants had already been fought before the Chernobyl accident. So the German public was extremely sensitive to the news about Chernobyl, because the topic had already been debated and there was a lot of awareness of nuclear terms such as “Becquerel” and “Sievert”. It wasn’t until the government of Social Democrats and Greens came to power in 1998 that Chernobyl became a political argument for a nuclear exit within the federal government. By referring to Chernobyl, the government was able to appeal to very widespread, shared memories and feelings among the people about the threat of nuclear power.
I am in full agreement with the fact that the German citizens decided that they did not wish to live with the potential of a nuclear disaster. That is their decision and it was their right to make that decision. The irony in all of this is that their neighbours are running them full out and helping much better in controlling CO2 emissions.
I wish you wind & solar fans would give up that ridiculous talking point. The planet is turning to renewables and not to nuclear for reasons. My replay is, the planet is turning to a mix of renewables and nuclear.
Bob Wallace says
In the future, sometime after 2022, one of Germany’s neighbors or another country around the world may experience a nuclear disaster.
Germany won’t.
My assessment is that the probability of a nuclear disaster is low. But it’s higher than zero. Not having a reactor meltdown in one’s country is only guaranteed by having no reactors in that country.
Nigel West says
Germany unilaterally closing their reactors is pointless while the rest of Europe operates nuclear reactors. Germany will be surrounded by countries operating them for years and Poland may build nukes soon.
New nuclear reactors are designed with core catchers so worrying about meltdowns is silly. Compared to flying in a plane which most people do regularly so accepting a far far greater risk.
Helmut Frik says
There are two major differences: With nuclear those who bear the riscs are not the ones who get the benefit of the nuclear power station. And those who bear the risk of nuclear could not make the decisison if this risk is to high for them or not. Everybody can decide to fly by plane or not to do so. there are enough people who don’t like to fly.
Bas Gresnigt says
Near all countries around Germany are also finishing nuclear: NL, Belgium, CH. Dk and Austria don’t have nuclear.
France will close nearby Fessenheim next year and more thereafter.
Only the Eastern European countries not yet. But that will come too.
Bob Wallace says
“As of 2016, countries including Austria, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, and Portugal have no nuclear power stations and remain opposed to nuclear power.
(non European countries removed)
Belgium, Germany, Spain and Switzerland are phasing-out nuclear power.”
Wiki
France is planning on closing a third of its 58 reactors over the next few years.
Nuclear is dying out in Europe. It won’t happen overnight, but anyone looking at the facts can see it happening.
What some nuclear advocates can’t see to get their heads around is how inexpensive wind and solar have become and how much more their prices should drop before a new reactor could be built.
The price spread is enormous. And this is a very recent development.
The price differential has yet to penetrate the thinking of some governmental planners. Because of that they may undertake construction of a reactor but during the years it takes to build that reactor they will see neighboring countries enjoying lower electricity prices via renewables while they will be sticking their citizens with increasing electricity prices.
Nigel West says
“France is planning on closing a third of its 58 reactors over the next few years.”
Nope. Nuclear is alive and well in the countries that matter being France and the UK.
EDF will be life extending them. Only Fessenheim is up for closure and EDF is fighting the State over that and using delaying tactics. The unions will stop further closures if the State should try.
A couple of low priced offshore wind farms in shallow water where all the infrastructure is provided so just needs turbines erected and hooked up is no benchmark to site repeatedly. Your limited knowledge of power plant economics is very evident and not a neutral assessment.
Bob Wallace says
Sorry, Nigel. You aren’t keeping up.
“An official spokesman for Macron said the candidate would stick to the policy outlined in his campaign platform, which specifies he would respect the outgoing socialist government’s target to reduce the share of nuclear in French power production to 50 percent by 2025 from about 75 percent now.
“The reduction to 50 percent is a firm objective. What could change, depending on the resources invested, is the date,” the source said in an interview on Wednesday.
He said the 2025 date was “not cast in stone” and Macron would be “pragmatic” about how and when France would cut the share of atomic energy. But the source said it was essential for the country to reduce its reliance on one single energy source for reasons of security of supply.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-election-macron-nuclearpower-e-idUSKBN17Z21B
Nigel West says
Bob, I am keeping up because I have worked in Paris and know how they tick. The mindset of France is different to anglophiles. They have strong unions with seats on company boards. Jobs come first, costs second. Most major industries are at least part state owned. State bails them out if they fail.
EDF employs >100k people in generation who will strike if their jobs are threatened. The Government always backs off when the unions mobilise – that’s socialism. Macron will definitely have to be “pragmatic” I assure you!
They also have a ‘national champion’ mindset which means France’s industry comes first, competition second. They won’t be buying much German made kit either if it threatens their manufacturers.
France built the Rafael jet at great cost rather than buy the Eurofighter at a lower cost because it threatened their military industry. Same happened when the UK tried to develop a common destroyer design.
Arguments that renewables is cheaper nuclear is too expensive etc. etc. so nuclear should decline are not big drivers in France if it threatens national industries.
Why do you think Hinkley Point C has turned out on the high side and nuclear advocates are confident of it not being a benchmark?
Jeffrey Michel says
Note that before 1990 only the West Germans were against nuclear power. Many people in East Germany found it an acceptable means of reducing air pollution from the electricity sector.
Once lignite power plants had been modernized, however, opposition to nuclear reactors promised more environmentally tolerable jobs in mining and generation, thereby strengthening the trade unions.
The Chernobyl meltdown is incidentally the only reason that West Germany established a separate ministry for reactor safety and the environment in 1986. Otherwise, the ministry of the interior might still be discharging the respective administrative responsibilities.
Nigel West says
“The planet is turning to renewables and not to nuclear for reasons.”
Firm capacity will always be needed which renewables alone cannot provide. The range of renewables costs remains wide and varies throughout the world. The choice for a country between nuclear v. renewables is far more complex than price alone. Wind/solar is a complementary technology, not a replacement technology for nuclear or any other conventional generator.
It is irrefutable that new nuclear can be relied upon to be available at times of peak demand. PWRs operate at the bottom of the ‘bath tub’ curve for decades achieving >92% LF.
Wind/solar cannot be relied on. The intermittency problem in a high penetration scenario poses serious security issues and requires a TSO to have access to far more back-up and reserve capacity compared to conventional plant of any type. Transmission system capacity needs to be greatly increased too adding more cost and environmental issues as is now clear in Germany.
The only reliable and proven non fossil back-up technology at grid scale for wind/solar is expensive pumped hydro. That is not feasible in many locations on the scale required.
Wise countries like the UK will continue to build safe new nuclear plants. Safety is paramount and in Europe the oversight and requirements are such that the risks are very low and declining further.
Wind/solar’s major handicap is intermittency. That will not change even with higher LF offshore wind. Intermittent generators will always have the major drawback of only being able to displace output from dispatchable plants that must be retained to ensure supply security.
Helmut Frik says
That’s what Utilities have been thinking in the 1980’s. Thats more than three decades ago, and knowledge how to run a grid with high shares of wind and solar has been rising during this time.
But UK is free to build overpriceced nuclear, as long as they do not harm other countries with it.
Intermittency vanishes with the size and strength of the grids in which wind and solar are located. But to accept theat would mean to accept that there is little use for nuclear and fossil fuel in the grids of the future. Which is not possible for some people. That’s why some people ignore the existaence of grids, and insist that wind and solar have to be smoothed to constant output by storage.
Which is completely unneccesary.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Some senior German guy reported that Germany by 2030 can control the wind and sunshine. I think his name is Dr Patrick Graichen, the director of Agora Energiewende. This is how well it works at the moment, and play with some dates.
https://www.energy-charts.de/energy.htm
Bob Wallace says
Using data from your link –
From 2012 to 2016 Germany converted an average of 2% of conventional generation to wind and solar per year.
At that rate it would take 38 years to complete the move off conventional.
To go 100% renewable by 2030 would require roughly 6% a year.
I’m willing to bet that Germany will show an average change considerably higher than 2% per year between now and 2030. I wouldn’t bet on 6%, but I’d have to look at what that 2030 estimate is based on. Perhaps he has a convincing argument.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Bob Wallace – I just had a look again, still a long way to go.
https://www.energy-charts.de/energy.htm
Bob Wallace says
When you make a general statement and follow it up with a link no one knows what you mean.
I gave you data from that site. Germany has been transitioning off fossil fuels at a rate of ~2% per year.
To eliminate fossil fuels by 2030 Germany would need to average ~6% per year from now until 2030.
See, I included information pulled from your link and put in a form so that readers can understand my point.
—
Again. I’ll be surprised if Germany hits zero FF by 2030. I don’t think that’s a widely held prediction.
Nigel West says
Thermal power plant capacity in Germany has remained pretty static at about 100GW since 2002, despite 90GW of renewables being built. Proves that renewables are a complementary technology that can only displace thermal plant, not actually replace it.
https://www.energy-charts.de/power_inst.htm
Germany’s belt and braces approach means they will never rely on imports from other countries and not have conventional back-up. The grid reinforcement needed would be a huge and unnecessary cost and big environmental problem too that would entail unacceptable security risks. More so than nuclear in fact.
Helmut Frik says
Security risks of grids are low. A attack on them might produce some tons of scrap metal. Atacks on them with the target to cause a blackout in a renewable powered grid causes severe logistical and other problems. Because most of the time the grid is not vulnerable, the distribution of generation is too even to debalise it with a reasonabe amount of attacks. it might be neccesary to have a lot of teams read of attack for many years and be able to commit the attack in a few days of weather prediction. And then still load shedding and backup might keep the grid stable. Killing a dozend nuclear plants in one day is a easy task comparably.
Germany has no problems to rely on imports, but most likely germany will have enough diesel generators or similar installed everywhere at local emergency backup and global grid backup that it could ramp up enough GW at any moment if neccesary, since this costs nearly nothing.
Grid extensions are on the way and will enable to transport many more GW in all directions, and also across borders.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Helmut Frik – Killing a dozen nuclear plants in one day is a easy task comparably. They are all running on Microsoft Windows is it.?
Helmut Frik says
Or someon steals some howitzers like PZH 2000 and some amunition. The nuclear power plants are always there and can be attecked with the same success every day. The grids are vulnerable in a 100% renewable supply maybe ont day in 10 years or less, and at every other day a attack just produces some tons of scrap metal, and nothing more. (And even if you manage to hit that day, the results might only last hours or a very few days) Wind and solar pwoered big grids are extremely resilent.
Bob Wallace says
You linked capacity.
Let’s consider generation.
The site you linked gives generation back to 2010 (unless I looked on the wrong page).
In 2010 conventional technologies generated 367 TWh, in 2016 that fell to 354 TWh. That was a decrease from 88% of all electricity produced to 75% of production.
There is no way, using capacity/production data to prove or disprove whether renewables can fully replace fossil fuels. Until we see grids that have shut down all their FF plants.
(We’re seeing that happening on small grids such as ones found on islands.)
Nigel West says
Let’s not – that’s a diversion. Capacity is the issue here and associated costs. Clearly Germany shows that wind/solar requires a massive near 100% matching capacity parallel conventional back-up system. Orders of magnitude greater than that needed for a conventional thermal grid.
Helmut Frik says
Backup can be built at 150€/kWp, and getting most of this cost immediately payed back from the service of providing local backup for a place like a hospital, a sensitive production line, a computing center, airport, station etc…. Conventional power generation with coal would cost around 1700€/kWP, so 11 times higher, nuclear would cost >5000€/kWp, so 33 times higher. So at 3% of the cost of a nuclear power supply a full backup for wind and solar can be provided, and providing free local backup for a lot of sensitive infrastructure. (Or if the value of the local backup is included, costs for a full backup go down to about 1% of the costs of a nuclear pwoer supply (installation costs only)
Differences in LCOE-Costs of wind and solar+hydro and biomass on one side, and nuclear on the other side are far, far, far, far bigger than 1%.
Bob Wallace says
No, there is no need for conventional backup. We are now using conventional backup because that’s what we have.
Long term the conventional backup has to be replaced (almost totally replaced) by low carbon backup.
There is nothing thermal plants powered by fossil fuel and atomic energy can do that renewable sources can’t do.
Bas Gresnigt says
Nigel,
Generation by fossil didn’t change either (TWh/a):
2002: F;376 R;46 N;165 T;587
2016: F:375 R;188 N;85 T;648
F=total fossil fuel
R= total renewable
N= by nuclear
T= total produced
(AGEB info)
So:
– the Capacity Factor of the total fossil fuel capacity stayed the same.
– renewable increase displaced nuclear, in line with first priority Energiewende.
“unacceptable … risks“??
One/two good bombs on Hinkley (e.g by strong drones) with steady west wind may create the evacuation of London. Anyway the rich people will flee the city…
Alas even NL will suffer seriously as 500km away is not enough as the people in Bryansk Oblast still experience since Chernobyl.
Hans says
I agree that phasing out of lignite should have had priority over phasing out nuclear. I also think it would have been better that Trump would not have been elected, and that Franz Ferdinand should not have visited Serajevo.