Wind farm in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany
Science tells us that, to avoid devastating climate change, we must rapidly cut greenhouse gas emissions to zero. How fast is possible, asks Mark Diesendorf of the Cooperative Research Centre for Low Carbon at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) in Australia. He believes the sceptics may be wrong.
This article focuses on the transition of the electricity industry to 100% renewable electricity together with energy efficiency, for the following reasons:
- energy generation is the major contributor to emissions;
- energy efficiency together with renewable energy form the cheapest, safest and cleanest combination of energy technologies; and
- a renewable energy future is likely to be based mostly on renewable electricity, because electricity is the least difficult form of energy to transition.
So far two extreme viewpoints have characterised the debate. On one hand, the ground-breaking Zero Carbon Stationary Energy Plan set a decadal transition as its aspirational target.
However, the argument that this is possible appears to be based on two general points – Australia’s huge renewable energy and raw material resources, which no-one would deny, and the belief that Australia’s manufacturing industry has the capacity.
The time factor
While the report was strong and detailed on technological hardware, there was no analysis of the time needed to train the workforce, which is already overstretched by the growth of renewable energy.
It would take at least a decade to train just the first cohort of engineers and give them essential experience. Amateurs cannot design a manufacturing process or connect a wind or solar form to the grid.
Furthermore, the report didn’t address the challenge of rebuilding our declining manufacturing industry, or the long time it takes to build transmission lines, or the impact on energy prices of a rapid transition. So a decadal transition is unproven and unlikely.
At the other extreme, Vaclav Smil, an expert on historical energy transitions, argues in his book that ‘the process of restructuring the modern high-energy industrial and postindustrial civilization on the basis of non-fossil, that is, overwhelmingly renewable, energy flows will be much more challenging that [sic] was replacing wood by coal and then coal by hydrocarbons.’
If we start by considering what energy services we really need, we can integrate energy efficiency and conservation with renewable electricity, thus reducing the demand for end-use energy
To question Smil’s conclusions it’s sufficient to refute the assumptions underlying his key arguments.
A more extensive critique, in Section 6 of our recent peer-reviewed paper ‘The feasibility of 100% renewable electricity’, is available free upon request from m.diesendorf@unsw.edu.au.
One of Smil’s key arguments is that beliefs in the possibility of a rapid transition are inadequate because they are based on transitioning electricity alone.
Smil appears to be unaware that most scenarios for 100% renewable energy involve transitioning almost all transport and non-electrical heat to renewable electricity.
The main exceptions are long-distance rural road and air transport, which will need renewable fuels.
Putting the cart before the horse
Smil seems to be under the incorrect impression that we must focus on changing the fossil fuel primary energy inputs – coal, oil and gas – to renewable energy, presumably because the traditional energy flow diagram (see figure) starts with primary energy on the left, then flows through transformation processes (e.g. combustion in a power station) in the middle of the diagram – to provide on the right-hand-side, after substantial energy losses, the end-use energy and hence the energy services we demand: a warm home in winter, hot showers and cold beer.
This puts the cart before the horse.
However, if we start by considering what energy services we really need, we can integrate energy efficiency and conservation with renewable electricity, thus reducing the demand for end-use energy, which will be used mostly as electricity.
Then, when we reduce electricity use by a certain amount, we substitute for approximately three times that amount of energy in primary fossil fuels used for electricity generation.
This is because of the low efficiency of conversion of fossil fuels into electricity, as illustrated. A strategy that moves from right to left is much easier than the opposite.
Smil also asserts that the successful transition of a few countries is irrelevant to a global transition. Presumably he thinks that the rapid ongoing transition of Denmark, with 44% of its electricity in 2017 coming from variable RElec (wind), and Germany with 26%, are special cases.
To achieve 100% renewable electricity, wind and solar power must be scaled up
However, we can also consider the north German states of Schleswig-Holstein and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (100% net, mostly wind), South Australia (45%, wind + solar PV), Scotland (44% of consumption and over 60% of generation, mostly wind) and several states of the USA (each with 25-30%).
These successful examples are relevant as the pathfinders for other regions, demonstrating how reliability, security, affordability and environmental sustainability can be achieved with high and increasing contributions from variable renewable electricity.
They also continue to drive down the costs of renewable technologies for the rest of the world, which then experiences an easier transition than the pathfinders. Germany’s success in driving the market for solar PV, and so bringing down its costs, brought China into manufacturing PV, resulting in further reductions in costs.
Thus the successful examples are relevant both as symbols and in practice.
To achieve 100% renewable electricity, wind and solar power must be scaled up. Smil assumes incorrectly that this can only be done by increasing the size of wind turbines and their efficiency of conversion to impossible levels.
Supply chains are key
This overlooks the fact that wind and solar technologies (and batteries) are mass-produced in factories and so the principal increase in capacity and reduction in cost comes from rapidly producing more wind turbines and solar modules to meet the demand of an expanding market, and from improving supply chains.
Bigger, more efficient wind turbines and solar modules play a role in the scale-up, but it’s a minor one.
Because Smil’s assumptions are questionable to say the least, his argument that the transition to renewable electricity will take longer than historical energy transitions, is poorly based.
On the other hand, the facts that wind turbines, solar PV, CST, batteries and energy efficiency technologies can be mass produced rapidly and are less expensive per unit of electricity generated or saved than new fossil fueled and nuclear power stations, gives confidence that a rapid transition is technically and economically possible.
A future article will propose a transition scenario that’s much faster than Smil’s, but doesn’t assume the unrealistic decade.
Editor’s Note:
Dr Mark Diesendorf is Education Program Leader (part-time) at the Cooperative Research Centre for Low Carbon Living at UNSW.
This article was first published on Reneweconomy.com.au and is republished here with permission from the author.
[adrotate banner=”78″]
If Australia was to transition to 100% renewable electricity, from wind, solar and hydro power. This will result in failure and never be realised. The very nature of this energy sources are intermittent and are prone to failure due to the extreme weather conditions already experienced and further to be expected from climate change.
Currently we already see in South Australia a “Duck-Curve” in the system caused by the PV Solar supply falling away in the early evening. This is resolved by ramping up the gas generators or importing coal fired generated electricity from Victoria. This works for the moment. However, when the other states expand their electricity generation to renewable sources they will all have their own “Duck-Curve”. So where will the GRID get its power from.? From storage, that’s a pipe dream, do the math…
Be aware thet the duck gets killed by 3-4 hozrs of storage for a part of the generatio, and/or a frid which spans a similar amount of time zones and levels out demad and supply. Also be aware that wind power does not produce duck curves. Spread out over a big enough area it lowers the whole curve.
All nice assumptions seen in pipe-dreams… Be aware on the curve of wind energy, this is the reality.
http://anero.id/energy/wind-energy/2018/June
Wind power and duck curves are two totally different things. Nice try to jump to the next topic.
S. Au ‘s 5222 MW of wind for a mere three hours would exceed 15 GWh of storage. Elon Musk’s best battery proposal is something like 300 MW for an hour or two. There is in Virginia a pumped hydro plant of 3 GW or so, I’m not sure they give the storage capacity. But isn’t Australia pretty dry?
The duck curve is bad enough for a day. Look at the day to day variations, they are colossal.
What I would like to know about this cheap electricity electricity (negative or near zero (1cnt/KWh) from renewables, will anyone stay in the supply chain business, or will the investors walk away, when the subsidies are removed.
TESLA’s debt runs the gamut, convertible bonds, promissory notes, term loans, cash-equity debt, asset-backed securities. The SolarCity debt is mostly non-recourse, meaning Tesla doesn’t guarantee repayment; SolarCity does. That’s backed by cash flow and assets. It’s still included in Tesla’s overall debt, though, which is used to determine credit ratings and impacts borrowing costs. Of Tesla’s $10 billion of total debt outstanding, about $3 billion is non-recourse, most of which comes from SolarCity. And so the question becomes unavoidable. Has Musk, with his inimitable élon, gone from asset to liability?
Why waste money on storage PLUS intermittents when you can do far better with nuclear of a quarter of the same power ratings?
Are you too chicken to tell people to quit their fear of nuclear, or are you too stupid to know that more people have been actually burned to death or killed in some other way, by the puny amount of actual production of wind turdbines?
because variable wind+solar+ other renewables+gids +storages are far cheaprer than eyxpensive nuclear. So why bother with the risks of nuclear?
Albert. I will give you one piece of advice. If on a forum like this you call people stupid or chicken it probably means you have lost the argument.
Because in very few parts of the world is your statement in anyway true. Modern wind farms are reaching 45-55% CF, tracking solar and solar thermal 30-40%, whereas the best nuclear fleet in the world (the US) is 92%. so mixed renewables have about 40% of nuclear CF not 25%. Every nuclear powered nation on earth has large storage/import capacity to back up the nuclear, so then the question is how do you recharge the storage/balance imports with exports. Nuclear at $127/MWh (Akkuyu in Turkey) or Hinckley point at US$150+ in 2026 or Wind at $21 or solar at $20.
If you do need to build 2.5 times as much generation when solar is now about $1m /MW and wind $1.5m so a 50/50 mix x 2.5 is $3.1b per equivalent MW. Who can build a nuclear plant for anywhere near that price.
When you can show us a nuclear powered country with more than 20% nuclear that does not rely on massive storage or imports to support nuclear come back and call people stupid
Because intermttents are so much cheaper that even installing substantial overcapacity is much cheaper.
Storage is only needed when wind+solar produce >60%.
Against that time batteries are much cheaper than now, as well as PtG to cover long term periods without wind or sun.
So then the total solution with 100% renewable will be much cheaper than nuclear
Harry — exactly so! Spread out over a big enough area and time, it’s the back of a Bactrian camel half buried in the sand.
The article asserts as a fact that
“wind turbines, solar PV, CST, batteries and energy efficiency technologies can be mass produced rapidly and are less expensive per unit of electricity generated or saved than new fossil fueled and nuclear power stations”.
There Is No Such Fact.
Germany’s “Energiewende” is a dismal failure compared with France’s ongoing nuclear power production, IF the purpose is to produce either a reduction in poisonous and greenhouse gases, or even to reduce the cost of electric power.
Ontario’s production of power from hydro and CanDU nuclear has been severely damaged by the now ousted “Liberal” government’s enthusiasm for wind turbines, whose “priority scheduling” means that unreliable wind replaces reliable sources, and that gas turbines are essential to maintaining a grid.
As for battery or even pumped hydro storage, you must take into account the largest troughs where your intermittent “renewable ” energy sources ARE NOT THERE. to supply as much energy as the consumers demand. Elon Musk’s batteries are puny compared with the capacity of Dinorwig in Wales, or even the biggest such plant in Virginia, which has a power capacity of just over 3,000 MW, and storage for less than a day of that.
Look it up.
And get any honest record of even daily average delivery of power from wind devices.
This Ontarian can tell you that your comments about Ontario are incorrect. Some corrections for you:
– The liberal government recommissioned 1500 MW of nuclear power early in it’s mandate as part of a coal phase out. The coal phase out was support by all three parties and nuclear capacity and nuclear energy used has never been higher
– I work in the energy field and have never heard of priority scheduling. Someone’s making stories here.
Also using power prices from periods when renewables were much more expensive as an example of why they won’t work now is to not tell the whole story. The last wind auction in Ontario came in at C $ 6-8 cents / kWh. New nuclear is estimated at 12 cents / kWh. The price differential will pay for a great deal of intermitancy management while still leaving money in the consumers’ pockets.
In Toronto and Ottawa, electricity costs grew 53% and 46% from 2010 to 2017, compared to an average increase of 14% in other Canadian cities over that period. However, this increase in total electricity costs has coincided with a steady decline in hourly energy prices in Ontario, where he total commodity cost for electricity has grown from about 8¢/KWh in 2005 to 12¢/KWh in 2017, the hourly Ontario energy price has declined from roughly 9¢/KWh to less than 2¢/KWh.
So what’s behind the rising electricity costs in Ontario? The primary driver of increased electricity costs in Ontario has been the Global Adjustment (GA) charge, which is passed onto Ontario customers’ hydro bills. Energy providers impose GA costs to cover their costs of providing adequate generating capacity and conservation programs throughout Ontario. Generally, when the wholesale market price for energy is low, GA is higher to cover generation costs. The GA rate is also impacted when new conservation projects are launched, when contract payments take effect, and when electricity demand shifts in Ontario.
So far as I know, “intermittency management” is a kind fancy name for “spinning reserve” which if you’re lucky is hydro, but if not it is gas turbines spinning at least half idle, and meaning that more than 30% renewable (the production factor of wind in a favourable location) is impossible.
Do not forget that the existence of “fracking” implies that it has already become difficult to get that gas in the old ways.
Albert,
“spinning reserve” is needed for big power plants (incl. nuclear) as those can fail within a second.
Because wind & solar are many thousands of small units distributed over the country, the failure of a unit has little impact. So they don’t need expensive “spinning reserve”.
Though they also need a back-up as their production changes gradually with the weather/sun, which is predicted many days / hours before.
PV-panels, wind turbines, etc. production is gradually becoming automated. Installation, maintenance, operation and decommission does not require high level specialized engineers.
So expansion can be fast.
Fast nuclear expansion is difficult due to:
– the high numbers of well trained high level nuclear engineers that are needed, but not available.
– the 3 times higher investment per MW / MWh that nuclear needs.
Picking winners is not good policy. Australia should transition to a low carbon electricity system not solely based on renewables, which in any case would not be feasible or cost effective. New nuclear could be part of the low carbon mix just as it is in China where reactors are economic to build.
Energy efficiency has a role to play. However as Australia’s electricity prices are so high, e.g. S. Australia where renewables are dominant, there would not be much to gain as consumers have already been forced to cut consumption through affordability, including industry closing.
“…..Scotland (44% of consumption and over 60% of generation, mostly wind)………. successful examples are relevant as the pathfinders for other regions, demonstrating how reliability, security, affordability and environmental sustainability can be achieved with high and increasing contributions from variable renewable electricity.”
Scotland’s high penetration of renewables is not reliable or secure being based on intermittent wind. The lights remain on in Scotland thanks to back-up from dispatchable generation in England.
Academics who continue to promote the 100% renewables ideology only detract from the key issue of reducing carbon emissions.
“… China where reactors are economic to build.”
That was the situation until security demands increased after Fukushima (similar as in US and EU). With the advent of more secure nuclear, costs increased. In addition cost & construction period overruns became also common in China.
So wind & solar are now much cheaper in China.
In line with this, China has not approved a new reactor project for more than two years… (Reuters, March 7, 2018, WISE report).
“Academics who continue to promote the 100% renewables ideology only detract from the key issue of reducing carbon emissions.”
Not at all. E.g.
French govt institute ADEME executed in 2013-2015 simulations for the French grid, targeting the 2050 situation. They found that:
– 80% renewable was cheapest;
– 100% renewable was only 5% more expensive
No issue regarding reliability of supply…
Their report: https://goo.gl/CGQjuS
Their simulation model is online, so you can play with it:
http://mixenr.ademe.fr/en
So France installed 2 laws in 2015 targeting a fast increase of renewable (following Germany), and a fast reduction of nuclear.
Note that the Germans did many simulations. In USA Stanford university did. All showed that 100% renewable would be a non issue regarding reliability of supply neither regarding costs.
ADEME is an Environment institution so biased towards renewables. Stanford’s study hasn’t stood the test of academic scrutiny and the miffed author has taken to the courts to attack former academic colleagues who highlighted serious flaws.
100% renewables studies don’t stand up to scrutiny, e.g. because unfeasible/uneconomic amounts of storage are needed to deal with intermittency in most parts of the world, certainly northern Europe. Or, the wheeling of too much power across vast distances so undermining national security.
One reason France went for nuclear was to avoid the need for vast fossil fuel imports on economic grounds, but also energy security grounds. The later has not changed.
If France gives in to pressure from Germany to prematurely close their nukes their carbon emissions will rise as more gas will be needed to back-up intermittents. That would be good for the environment! Much of that gas would likely come from the east too which would not be good for European security.
Germany has 100% renewable capacity already but it’s not reliable due to intermittency so Germany maintains a fleet of conventional stations. France would have to build a fleet of new CCGTs too to back up intermittents to maintain reliability and security. So copying Germany would be costly for France and damage national security.
Apparently ADEME has such status that France implemented a fast reduction of nuclear and a fast increase of renewable in two laws!
France went for nuclear half a century ago when nuclear science told that nuclear disaster would occur less than once in ten million reactor years.
But reality showed to be >1000 times worse.
So they changed their minds and developed a more safe reactor which turn out to be far too expensive.
Hence now they are moving away from nuclear.
Better put is that France passed a law to halve the country’s energy consumption by 2050. Cut nuclear power from 75 to 50% by 2025 and reach it’s 32% target for renewable electricity by 2030. The law specifies that the 2015 fleet’s output is the maximum for the country.
The share of renewable electricity in France is growing by around one percentage point per year. At that rate, the country will have 35 percent renewable electricity in 2030. To accommodate for the drop in nuclear power, renewable electricity would have to reach 45 percent by 2025. France is not ramping up renewables fast enough, so it will not reach that target. Furthermore, it will not reach it’s target for the reduction in nuclear power, which is completely unrealistic, the country would have to shut down a third of its reactors over the next 10 years.
France is the world’s largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over €3 billion per year from this. France will detail at the end of 2018 how many nuclear reactors will close to meet a target on reducing atomic energy.
Frances President Emmanuel Macron has done a major reversal on his promise that has largely gone unnoticed. He realises that to meet the 2025 target, would increase France’s CO2 emissions, endanger the security of power supply and put jobs at risk. Macron himself said the 2025 target was not realistic, he stated that France will not follow Germany’s example of phasing out nuclear.
Macron said in a TV interview “I don’t idolise nuclear energy at all. But I think you have to pick your battle. My priority in France, Europe and internationally is CO2 emissions and (global) warming”. “Nuclear is not bad for carbon emissions, it’s even the most carbon-free way to produce electricity with renewables,”
Macron’s turn around on nuclear shows that, to be serious about fighting climate change, one needs all the tools in the toolbox to be available.
Macron added, “What did the Germans do when they shut down their nuclear reactors? They developed a lot of renewables but they also massively reopened thermal and coal. They worsened their CO2 footprint, it wasn’t good for the planet. So, I won’t do that”.
The figures show that Germany reduced nuclear and coal, as well as total fossil share.
They simply added far more renewable than the nuclear they closed!
Renewable share is now ~40%, nuclear share reduced ~20%, nuclear still delivers ~10%.
The fact is that Germany’s Energy mix is dominated by fossil fuels. Even 15 years after the beginning of their “Energy Transition”, the German energy mix remains stubbornly fossil: Almost 80% of the primary energy demand is met with oil, gas, hard coal and lignite.
Despite more than €20 billion being spent on the country’s green energy sector every year, coal still accounts for around 40% of Germany’s energy mix — that represents an only ~10% drop since 2000, despite all of the money and PR since then. still gets 40 percent of its energy from coal, being a bigger share than most other European countries. And much of it is lignite, the dirtiest kind of coal. As a result, Germany is set to fall well short of its CO2 reduction 2020 goal.
Harry,
The fact is that until now during this year, renewable produce more electricity than lignite+coal together.
Renewable: 123TWh (41%)
Lignite+coal: 115TWh (38%)
Check at <a href=data-charts.
So the role of coal (incl. lignite) is diminished by the increasing role of renewable.
France is exporting less electric power than Germany, and gets less money for it.
France also has big problems with the nuclear power stations becomeing more and more uneconomical due to high age.
As far as I remember atleast the repair of one reactor was delayed for a undefined peropd of time (posibly infinte time) because repairing it would be uneconomical.
Since market driven expansio of solar and wind in spain ortugal and taly is picking up steam, it could well be that french exports of power will drop further, and more french nuclear will be forced out of the market by being too expensive. Hard coal will die along with it.
France is not moving away from Nuclear and is not rapidly reducing nuclear capacity:
“In October 2014 the Energy Transition for Green Growth bill was passed by the National Assembly and so went on to the Senate. This set a target of 50% for nuclear contribution to electricity supply by 2025, with a nuclear power capacity cap at the present level of 63.2 GWe, meaning that EDF would have to shut at least 1,650 GW of nuclear capacity when its Flamanville 3 EPR starts commercial operation. The bill also sets long-term targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030 compared with 1990 levels, and by 75% by 2050; to halve final energy consumption by 2050 compared with 2012 levels; to reduce fossil fuel consumption by 30% by 2030 relative to 2012; and to increase the share of renewables in final energy consumption to 32% by 2030. The Senate early in 2015 amended the bill to remove the nuclear cap, but this was not accepted in the lower house. The National Assembly approved the bill including 970 amendments in July 2015, but with the 63.2 GWe nuclear cap and only 50% nuclear supply by 2025. In October 2016 the government postponed until after the 2017 presidential and National Assembly elections any decision on which, if any, reactors would close in order to reduce the nuclear share to 50%. In 2017 France postponed its 2025 target for reducing the share of nuclear to 50%. In December 2017 the French President stated that nuclear is “the most carbon-free way to produce electricity with renewables.”
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx
The consequences of reducing nuclear power. Swedish grid operator Svenska Kraftnat has warned that the country will have to import more electricity during the winter as it begins permanently shutting down its nuclear power reactors. For the next winter (if it’s a normal winter), they expect Sweden to import 400 MWe more than it exports during the hour with the highest consumption,” SVK electricity system analyst Erik Hellstrom was quoted as saying. Ringhals unit 1 and 2 are both set to close by 2020, taking 1700 MWe from the power system.
Moving away and being pushed hard by a government almost as smart as Germany..
Actually, nuclear is only expensive because its enemies and rivals have successfully lobbied to make it so. It has “safety” regulations piled and piled upon a level that was already far safer than anything else, even wind and PV solar.
There is not the slightest environmental or cost advantage in relieving a nuclear power plant of load that exists, using wind or solar.
Gen IV nuclear is demonstratedly load-following, and therefore nuclear capacity at 80% or 100% peak demand gets nothing from those “renewables”.
If your peak demand is 800 GW, and you have 800 GW of nuclear, you need no wind turbines. If you only have 640 GW of nuclear, what are the chances that enough wind will be blowing to give you 160 GW out of a forest of wind turbines rated at 320 GW or even 960 GW? To get 1/3 of the rated power of a wind turbine that starts to produce its rated power at 12 metres/second, the wind speed has to be 8.3 metres/sec, because wind power itself is proportional to the cube of the wind speed.
That’s a wind of more than 22 mph.
Correction: to get 160 GW out of a wind turbine forest of 480 GW, requires a wind speed of more than 22 mph.
If you have 1000 GW of wind farm, a wind speed of 14.7 mph will give you just over 161 GW of power.
What are the chances?
[…] To get 450 GW out of a 480 GW park of todays wind turbines, just 11m/s or 40km/h or 25 mph are neccesary. see here: https://www.enercon.de/fileadmin/Redakteur/Produkte/e-141-ep4/LK_E-141_EP4_4200kW_de.png
For 160GW 6,5m/s or 23,4km/h or 14,6mph are neccesary. Get your numbers right.
Nuclear became expensive when experience showed that existing nuclear was very unsafe.
Four reactors of the world’s ~400 reactors (~1%) ended already in disaster, creating huge exclusion zones, shifting the huge costs (a trillion$, a million deaths) to the population.
Hence safety has to be improved greatly.
Do you want a reactor in your neighborhood, even if the chance that it causes your permanent evacuation is only 0.1%?
The grid area of Australia is about 1.5 m square km i.e. the area within 30 km of a 22-500 kV transmission line. If we have the same density of wind turbines as Germany one every 15 square km that would be 100,000 wind turbines. New generation turbines are generating 12-18 GWh per year in typical Australian wind conditions so that is a wind potential of say 1,500 TWh without offshore wind and without extending the grid, using the deserts etc. We use 210 TWh so clearly we don’t have a shortage of suitable wind resources.
Similarly Germany has about 200 m solar panels or 550 per square km. again if we did the same in a 60/40 mix of tracking ground mount and rooftop we would generate about 1,000 TWh from solar PV.
So in effect if we pick the best 6 % of our wind sites and 30% of our roof area and 0.03% of our open country for solar farms we could generate all our current electricity needs.
So then there is the question of backup. We need about 23 GW/2,000-2,200 GWh in a very low wind week in winter to supply normal demand. Our existing hydro would supply 7 GW/800 GWh. Biomass waste to energy etc about 2 GW/100 GWh. Now there are about 12 m electricity customers in Australia. If 1/3rd of them install an average 5 kW/15 kWh battery that is 20 GW/60 GWh.
Then solar and wind farms will install storage to avoid curtailment and for arbitrage. With 60 GW of capacity and an average of 20% power, 3 hours storage that is another 12 GW/ 35 GWh.
All the above means that we can easily cover peak demand without new storage but we would be short about 1,200 GWh over a week. There are 8 or 9 small pumped hydro systems proposed (not including Snowy II) they will provide 15-20 GWh, 600 MW of solar thermal running at 20% another 20 GWh
We already have about 14 GW of gas capacity so if it was permitted to run at 15% CF that would supply 7% of our energy about 30% less than it does now. In a low wind winter week running at 50% it would supply 1,200 GWh
In other words we can easily eliminate coal and about 1/3rd of our current gas running hours without major new storage installations.
If, over the next 25 years, we electrify all ground passenger and light commercial transport as well as gas space heating and cooking we would increase electricity consumption by 30-45% still with only moderate investments in large scale storage. By that time renewable hydrogen, power to gas, power to heat/ice, energy efficiency, wave power tidal power, may all play a part
Your thoughtful note is interesting. Having spent a significant amount of time in Australia, I have been in homes around Sydney with no heating systems at all. In North America, the energy supply to homes and large buildings, where there is any winter (most), about 60% of the total energy arrives as Natural gas or a similar heating fuel. Cars in the US currently consume almost as much energy as the entire electric grid generates. That consumption will need to be included in any plan to use clean energy. It may not be quite as bad as it looks because many electrical loads have higher efficiency than fossil fuel loads. New generation is also somewhat more efficient than the older systems that use steam turbines to drive generators.
In calculations for my own home, day night storage, as you correctly point out, is easily and econiomically achieved with batteries. However, becasue most of the solar energy arrives in summer and most of our heating needs are in winter, I would need either access to a lot of wind (which we dont get) or about 3-4 MWh of storage. (My current consumption, with an electric car, is almost 2 MWh/Month (2,000 kWh). Based on 2025 battery costs, of about $100/kWh, that is about $300,000 – $400,000 and even at that, I dont necessarily achieve a high level of security. There are currently 3 hydro companies in Canada with very large hydro storage, and that would provide only a very small portion of the total storage needed.
We are seeing California currently paying utilities that have hydro capacity to take afternoon surplus solar, and then they are buying it back after dark. The daily peak capacity demand is continuing to grow, while the total electrical sales are actually declining slowly. That is leading to demand charges on electricity – something that will damage the economics of solar – and that is truely unfortunate. We need all of the solar and wind that we can get.
What I believe is badly needed is a cooperative approach, that includes natural gas utilities, renewable suppliers, homeowners, electrical utilities, AND the regulatory bodies to try to find the method that will provide clean heating, cooling, other electrical needs PLUS transportation. The current grid supplies only about 20% total energy needs. To change that will require a lot of cooperation between parties as well as a lot of engineering. . There needs to be reliability – at a reasonable cost. The public seems opposed to large scale construction of a large grid that will deliver at least 3x the energy currently required.
The study has to look at BOTH energy, as you have done as well as the daily power demand – for a system that can deliver far more than we currently use as electrical load. We may have to start with a very aggressive conservation program.
Most of the programs that I have seen to date have energy costs that have almost doubled – and that may be even worse. I did see reports of rural customers about 2 years ago in Ontario Canada, where there have been several $B spent on wind, that could afford to purchase either energy OR food – but not both..
We need to clean up our energy systems – but it needs to be sustainable for people as well as the environment. That will be a real challenge.
About buildings, US building sucks, they overheat during summer, they freeze immediately when it is cold. The USA should implement building standards from developed countries to cut their consumption. 75% down should be easy to be accomplished.
Dream on! This is the same in Canada with heavily insulated homes. Standards are well established. Have a look at the Energy Flow Diagrams – you use a lot of fossil fuel in the UE – resulting in a need for the use of Lignite, and a lot gas – in a huge new pipeline from Russia… My message – this is a big problem that will NOT be solved by wishful thinking and throwing rocks… Most politicians that are making decisions have little concept of the real issues. The EU moved before North America, but the results are a shambles…
There is no technical need for north stream II – the demand can be easily supplied with existing pipelines. The cause to build it is political, russia wants to be able to supply gas without cooperating with ukraine and poland/belarussia.
Which is not a wanted result for europe. But in europe such projects are gouverned by existing law, not by political wishes.
Ad changing lawas to fit to political wishes is often slower than building a pipeline.
Whether it is needed or not, Berlin has given political support to the building of the new, $11-billion pipeline to bring Russian gas across the Baltic Sea – Nord Stream 2, despite qualms among other EU states.
Germany’s energy policy will cause consumption of Russian gas to rise too:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davekeating/2018/07/19/how-dependent-is-germany-on-russian-gas/#6cd536343b48
So far gas use for power production is decreasing.
And political support is significant different to working according to the law. You could say as well that sweden and finnland support North stram II because they did not block the construction as well.
I am sure you have a much different environment in Canada but in Australia and even Germany seasonal balance of wind and solar is pretty good, more solar in summer more wind in winter. In most cases I don’t suggest people disconnect from the grid, the cheapest battery is the free one already connected to your house.
In some jurisdiction that have taken building energy efficiency seriously such as California peak demand is falling.
Another point is with transport, ignoring all the new transport modes but electrifying all ground transport, with Proterra/BYD busses, electric trains etc Tesla semi’s etc reduces fuel consumption by 2/3 rds because of the superiority of electric drives and energy saving through regenerative braking and zero idling.
I have calculated for example in Australia that while transport energy is roughly similar to electricity energy use, electrifying 95% of ground transport that would only require a 25% increase in electricity generation. As the average electricity use per person in Australia is already 35% more than Germany, we could power all our transport with efficiency savings in the rest of the economy
Your comment “the cheapest battery is the free one already connected to your house.
In some jurisdiction that have taken building energy efficiency seriously such as California peak demand is falling.” is not correct.
1. Utility storage is NOT free – they are paying for it…
2. California – energy sales are falling, there – and in many other locations, but peak demand – after dark is rising. This is leading to Demand Response systems, rate increases for everyone (including non solar homes) and demand charges – that damage the solar economics.
3. California, by the way has been selling surplus solar at NEGATIVE prices to other utilities that can take it… and they end up buying it back after dark when the peak occurs…
Malcolm,
1. Sorry for my sloppy terminology, until wind and solar become a major source of energy the existing system will cope without new storage, with gas and hydro providing the backup. Thus feeding power back into the grid when you have excess will directly reduce FF power so in effect feed it is at least as effective as home storage in reducing emissions and far more economical. Even when storage is required it is probably more economic to put a box near the local transformer or a couple of containers in every substation than a battery store in every house.
2. Peak demand is falling but I agree the peak is moving back a couple of hours so the after dusk demand may now be the grid peak and higher than it used to be at the same time. This is less of an issue in the East and South of Australia where solar is west of the load whereas in California the capacity is east of the load
3. Almost every market oriented grid in the world is experiencing negative power prices at some times these days. Queensland which had virtually zero grid scale renewables until recently (but a lot of rooftop solar) has experienced negative prices during the night. Negative prices are less of a problem for solar in some ways because the loss is the negative price. On a coal of CCgas plant the loss is the negative price + the operating costs
especially since solar can reduce the output to zero in one millisecond if prices become negative. Several conventional generators can not do this, which is the cause why negative prices exist while renewable producion is still far below demand.
Helmut, energy sales are based on schedule, not actual, and the schedule can change instantly at any time regardless of the generation source. Most rooftop owners that I have seen want ALL of their energy to be taken and paid for. Most fight hard against throttling them back..
You also appear to ignore the fact that electricity may become ALMOST the only means of delivering energy, so there will be a dramatic need to increase the availability to address EVs, and building heating. In most of the northern hemisphere this will require an addition of almost 2x the current electricity supply.
I also note that pumped storage seems to be suggested as a good solution. Interesting to note that pumped storage is at best about 70% efficient, and in the US where there are a number of large pump storage facilities that were built with the nuclear capacity in the 1970s, most are having a very tough time maintaining viability. (Their costs have been recovered) These systems were designed and intended to cycle at least daily. In places that experience winter, as most of us do, the need is for seasonal storage – in large amounts. This cannot be done with batteries or pumped storage.
Much of this current pushing of 100% renewable is based on wishful thinking.
We do need to clean up our energy supply , and I am a fan of renewables. Do I believe that we can do 100% at a price that wont hurt a lot of people – not a chance… The struggle that I see is the need to keep costs low enough so that people can afford to live well. I said this before. German electricity prices, among the lowest in the EU are now second highest, and they costs have doubled since 2000. The price increases are driven largely by renewable ancillary costs, but these will likely grow – not shrink, as more of the supply shifts from fossil to electricity.
powerig heating and traffic will require around 9800-850 TWh in germany according to Fraunhofer calculation, which is less than 200% of todays production.
Also today need for electricity in winter is higher, but by choosing the right amount of wind power this seasonality can be compensated in the design of the supply system. Also there is no need to run biomass all year round at constant output, this is a big waste, so it will be adopted to deliver peak output when needed.
Power prices in germany have not been among the lowest in EU, there were always significant costs for end users from the state on it. the costs from the state have been rising the last 2 decades, and are boud to fall again the next decade. Anyway they do not affect the german economy at all, e.g. employment in energy intensive industry was rising the recent years.
One year of Europe’s performance using the Electricity Map. Germany does not look good in this at all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6EOoC_kKI0
California, they have to import 35-40% of their electricity every night from their neighbouring states. https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false&countryCode=US-CA
you forget is that in the torthern west wind climate countrys, so those which we talk about here with the high heating demand, wind is much stronger in winter than in summer, removing the need for seasonal storage. This is also the cause why renewable share in germany does not drop in winter, but in tendency rises.
The northern hemisphere, as you know, experiences long Dunkelflaute periods in the winter when wind is negligible for days continuously, when it is also dark.
The amount of storage needed to cover that would not be feasible or cost effective. Hence the need for fossil back-up if one excludes nuclear power.
and in a nuclar fanboys world, something that is called “grid” commonly did not come into existance yet.
It is well known that shifting power along the two horizontal axis to balance out high and low power production is far cheaperthan shifting it along the time axis.
Well, as soon as it comes to swizerland in 2015, doing this power exchange along the two horizontal axis is suddenly possible again to balance out intermittend nuclear power production. Why not demand 10 TWh storage to back up each nuclear power station to balance such utages locally, as you do for renewable power production?
I did not forget anything – I just look at the evidence. The streaming electricity MAP showed that Germany did not look good for a whole year at all. During this whole year France stayed green, and Germany was yellow with periods of brown, indicating very high levels of carbon emissions. It appears on going by the colour change of Denmark that the windy period for the northern west, starts in the month of May and continues during the summer months, and not in the winter as you indicated.
That map doesn’t fit with reality. It’s biased towards renewable
Why use so many intermittent disparate technologies. For Australia, keep it simple with proven technology – Subject to removing the laws that prohibit the use on nuclear energy and the manufacture of nuclear fuel. Construct 6 Gen-III+ Nuclear Power Plants on the sites of existing coal plants. Include the capability to extend each NPP with an onsite closed nuclear fuel cycle. Running the construction concurrent in each state, such a project can be completed within 6 to 8 years. Desalination, Hydrogen, Industrial heat, it’s all better served with the advanced high temperature nuclear technologies currently being made available.
Simply because nuclear is too expensive and current technology is too big. In SA any single generator more than 300 MW is too big a risk to system security. In NSW you might get away with one or two generators. In Victoria and Queensland one or two, but even in Victoria minimum demand is heading for 3 GW, would you be crazy enough to have 2/3rds of grid supply coming from just two generators.
In any case it is far too expensive. Even using VVRs in a 4 unit plant in Turkey they are talking about $127/MWh.
In Australia peak demand is in summer where plant efficiency is lower, demand fluctuates over the year by 4-5:1, transmission distances are long, we have dismantled most of our very heavy engineering capacity required to build the plants so in effect we would probably be talking US$170-180 per MWh. We can build all the backup we need and get primary power from wind, solar and hydro for about US$55-70 per MWh
None of those intermittent disparate technologies are going to give any energy security with the predicted periods of extreme weather due to climate change. Comparing the Nuclear cost $/MWh with that of the intermittent disparate technologies is incorrect as those NPP will operate for 80 years. With the states interconnected those NPP will give you all the security you will ever need.
Australia needs to put nuclear energy as a low carbon, clean energy option in it’s energy policy, so that the long-term benefits can be presented. A group of good and well dedicated people are working on this so time will tell.
Hydro already represents 25% of peak demand and with a combination of energy efficiency and enhanced hydro (no new dams) it could reach 30-35%. Australia is 70% larger in area than the whole EU with 1/15th the electricity demand. Already wind is never zero although concentrated in one corner of the grid. When new High CF windfarms are spread throughout the grid, wind will never be less than 15% of capacity for more than 2 hours. If the generations system is designed on a conservative 40% CF. that means that wind will generate 0.15/0.4 times nameplate capacity i.e. 37% of nameplate or 13 GW from expected capacity of 35 GW. Enhanced hydro can get to 9-10 GW, solar PV 2-3 GW even in the late afternoon and solar thermal also 2-3 GW, biomass etc 2-3 GW++. i.e. 30 GW without new storage.
Peak demand in Australia always occurs when the hot nor westerly winds are blowing and the sun shining.
Unlike Europe very little of Australia’s hydro is run of the river so we can turn 90% of our hydro off for weeks of average wind in Spring and autumn when winds are stronger, sunlight pretty consistent and demand below average.
I know there are dedicated people working on nuclear for Australia, I know some of them. Unfortunately for them, fortunately for us the boat has sailed unless flexible nuclear can be built for about 1/3rd of current costs
This graph depicts performance of wind farms connected to the electricity grid in south-eastern Australia over a month. The default, capacity factor graph shows the output as a percentage of registered capacity. On average wind farms in south-east Australia operate at a capacity factor of around 30-35%. Alternatively, you may view the actual output in megawatts.
http://anero.id/energy/wind-energy/2018/July
How simplistic is this; “Australia is 70% larger in area than the whole EU with 1/15th the electricity demand”.
What is the point in comparing Australia with Europe. A country only habitable along it’s coastal regions. It’s population is about 25 million, whilst the European Union was estimated at 513 million people. Water storage and water run-off are very different in Europe than what is available in Australia.
For example, the 2016 six months long energy crisis was an ongoing energy storage situation in the state of Tasmania in 2016. Two years of high volumes of energy exported to Victoria via the Basslink HVDC cable, followed by low rainfall, and a fault which rendered the cable inoperable, resulted in record low storage levels in Tasmania’s hydro-electric system.
My important remark get swiped off the table by building a straw-man. There is plenty of evidence presented from Climate Scientists on predicted periods of extreme weather due to climate change. Politicians, policy makers and the wind, solar and hydro generating advocates have their heads down in the sand when it comes to the guarantee of energy security.
Australia has been shaped by floods, droughts, and blistering heat. How big and how intense these events were is poorly understood due to the limited historical and observational records. Recent Australian droughts may be the worst in 800 years. https://theconversation.com/recent-australian-droughts-may-be-the-worst-in-800-years-94292
Well one more classical attempt to keep the cake and eat it. but you can not have it both ways at the same time. You invent drougth to eliminate hydropower, but forget that solar provides plenty of power at scuh cloudless clear days, and depending on region wind power provides power at such days too (not everywhere) When talking about solar power , the whole year consists of a series of rainstorms with totally cloud coverd skies, forgetting that hydropower and wind power provide extra amounts of power in such weather. And always the weaher is constant over a whole continent, or even several conteinents, not to allow exchange of power by grid connections.
This does not make much sense.
Really, now I invent this; “You invent drought to eliminate hydro-power”. May I enlighten you that it is not just droughts, it is also floods.
I forget about Solar & Wind Power, I don’t forget anything, the problem is that I still don’t see much of this on a commercial scale.
Have a look again. right now Germany gets 1% of its electricity from Wind Energy and ZERO from solar as it is night. 3% from Hydro and 1% from Hydro storage. 9% from burning the questionable Biomass.
Here are 2 realtime sources verifying my comments.
http://data.reneweconomy.com/LiveGen
https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false&countryCode=DE
I guess that saying on nuclear energy; fortunately for us the boat has sailed, indicates that you are anti-nuclear. Furthermore, dropping remarks on; “flexible nuclear can be built for about 1/3rd of current costs”, indicates to me that you have got no understanding on what nuclear energy can do and what cost it has.
Anyhow, the cracks in the laws blocking nuclear energy in Australia have started to take place. “Decree No. 2018-586 of July 6, 2018 on the publication of the agreement between the Government of the French Republic and the Government of Australia on the reprocessing in Australia of irradiated nuclear fuel elements from Australia, signed in Canberra on November 23, 2017 “.
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000037161737&dateTexte=&categorieLien=id
I am not anti nuclear I am anti wasting money.
The reprocessing is from a small medical isotope research reactor. No Cracks I am afraid.
As for your comment on Tasmania, there are 4 ways Tasmania could have avoided their drought problem.
a) not running down their dams prior to the drought to win short term exports
b) build 300 MW of wind prior to going crazy with exports
c) started their CC gas generator when basslink went down instead of waiting 3 months with fingers crossed
d) encourage insulation and energy efficiency, and rooftop solar. Tasmanian households waste about 1/3rd of the energy they use.
Any one of these solutions would have cost less than $400 m and have saved them money allowed exports every year. All four combined with another basslink and another $1b spent on new wind would allow them to match the output of a 1GW nuclear plant for about 1/5th the cost and without 6 week downtime for refuelling.
[…]
You are anti nuclear, you know very well that your comparison another $1b spent on new wind would allow them to match the output of a 1GW for about 1/5th is simplistic and flawed. When going nuclear you take it serious and build a fleet not a single reactor.
Then we have; “There are 4 ways Tasmania could have avoided their drought problem”. Conclusion, It did happen. Is it the same with the recent Laos dam collapse. I guess everything is avoidable when they look back, the same can be applied to Chernobyl and Fukushima.
So you are telling me that the countries that are constructing and planning new nuclear reactors are wasting their money. How funny.
Again I put to all, as it appears to be a topic purposely avoided. My important question gets swiped off the table by building a straw-man not just here but on any energy discussion. There is plenty of evidence presented from Climate Scientists on predicted periods of extreme weather due to climate change. Politicians, policy makers and the wind, solar and hydro generating advocates have their heads down in the sand when it comes to the guarantee of energy security.
Yes, the reprocessing from spent nuclear fuel in Australia is from a not so small medical isotope production facility. That tripled since 2016 the production of molybdenum-99 (Mo-99) that positioned Australia as a global leader in the manufacture of nuclear medicine, able to supply up to 25-30% of global demand.
To reprocess the spent nuclear fuel requires a specialist facility and this is a step in the right direction, being a crack in the current law prohibiting this.
Peter, if you are proposing 100% renewables for Aus., I suggest you have at look at this review of a study by Prof. Blakers:
http://euanmearns.com/100-renewable-electricity-in-australia/
The relative costs of nuclear capacity v. renewables capacity is not really the issue here. Studies I have seen suggest that a renewables only strategy would require vast amounts of storage. This together with an expensive HVDC transmission system would push costs to prohibitive levels, above that of nuclear that doesn’t need extensive storage or an HVDC system.
What study? No solar, no hydro, no biomass no demand side response in this back of a envelope calculation, also excluded that wind generation should be spread over the whole area. So bit too much faults in the approach in such a little text.
I am not really fussed about 100% renewables, like most projects a Pareto curve applies. We can keep our current gas plants and run them at about 7% CF. that will cover 1/3rd of the demand in an extended winter low wind period and still reduce our emissions by 95%.
Who know in 10-15 years it may be bio-gas or renewable hydrogen or whatever.
I used to think Euan Mearns published useful stuff but this response to Prof Blakers study is almost childish. As for Scaling the output of wind and leaving out solar, waste to energy, biomass, enhanced hydro etc let alone the fact that new wind farms are in different wind zones and have much higher CF wind turbines means that about 2/3 rds of the generation has been left out of the study.
My estimates are that if we upgrade existing hydro which has about 130,000 GWh of storage behind it at capacity to 10-11 GW by upgrading generators, adding a few additional generators and adding low head hydro to existing dams that don’t have hydro, build 2-3 GW of solar thermal and 2-3 GW of new pumped hydro together with 10-20% x 3-4 hours at wind and solar plants and let our gas plants run 100-300 hours per year we will have heaps of backup. If we don’t prof blackers has identified 22,000 potential sites and since he did his study battery storage has fallen by half.
It now looks as though VPPs with on premises solar and batteries can supply suburban Australia for about 30% less cost than centrally supplied energy. Most free standing houses in Australia have roof capacity to generate more than double their annual energy use so in fact we got serious about energy efficiency and put solar on every suitable roof we could generate 90% of our energy within 20 km of the demand. Using the existing grid to provide inter-regional balancing and wind assisted hydro to provide winter backup would be more than adequate
What this intermittent energy can do for you; Utility SSE partly blamed low output from its renewable energy projects for its expected £80 million (€89.5 million) profit shortfall. https://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1488386/sses-profits-fall-due-lower-winds
So what should the swiss utilites say about nuclear, which produced zero output most of the year 2015? Nuclear is intermittend, wind and solar are variable power sources.
Helmut, how is that relevant? The Swiss import much of their electricity and are closing their few reactors.
Silly to argue that nuclear is intermittent because two old plants are running at low load factors. New nuclear plants are not intermittent and will run for almost two years before needing refuelling.
The UK is experiencing a long heat wave that has curtailed wind output significantly this summer. So wind generation is variable from year to year, and intermittent, needing matching fossil capacity back-up.
Well, they are as useful as a local production example as any local wind power production.
And when it comes to new nuclear power running flat out, plese interprete the following numbers:
Watts Bar 2, USA
50% of the year 2017 without power production
https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatis … urrent=700
Nowoworonesch 2-1, Russland
40 % of the year 2017 without power production
https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatis … urrent=898
Kudankulam 2, Indien
55 % of the year 2017 without power production
https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatis … urrent=853
According to your theory as new nuclear power plants they should run >95% of the time….
So you really think nuclear carries the same intermittent and variable issues that come with renewables!? That is anti-nuclear disinformation.
Watts Bar 2 is a new nuclear plant in its commissioning phase. Once the build defects are fixed, there is no reason why this new nuclear plant will not run at >90% for decades.
Much more important is the view of grid operators. E.g. the UK’s National Grid when forecasting generation availability to meet demand use ‘Effective Firm Capacity” which is based on historical plant data. EFC for nuclear is >80%, whereas wind is 17%. Wind’s poor EFC means Grid needs to carry much more fossil backup capacity to cover wind than any other generation.
I din say with no single word that the nuclear power stations carry the same variability issue like wind and solar. But they carry a significant intermittency issue, which could be seen in swizerland in 2015, and in France also in the recent years, with 20+ reactors being offline at the same time. Due to the smaller units and the less risky operation, the wind and solar power generation do not have this isue, at least not in this magnitude. I wrote this because you told that new reactors have a especially high availability, and only old reactors have the intermittency problem. Obviously this is not the case.
The intermittency of nuclear must be dealt with as it must be dealt with the variability of wind and solar. Meaning a sufficient ammount of spinning reserves, a sufficient ammount of backup.
With the experience of France in the recent years it can e safely assumed that a fleet ofroughly 60GW nuclear needs a backup of about 25GW to keep the lights on. France has a backup for a part of this, and uses the backup of the neighbouring countries for the rest.
Helmut
The links seem to lead to an error 404 could you check them please
Helmut – You are almost certainly using numbers that do not tell the real story. Canadian nuclear reactors, after more than about 20 years of life, undergo extensive overhaul and refit programs – and during that time they are not available. When they are running, the reliability is 90% or better.
You made a previous comment about reserves for loss of capacity. This has been addressed for many years by NERC (National Electricity Reliability Corp) in their operating requirements (They have ability to levy large fines for failures to comply.) Utilities in both Canada and the US are required to maintain operating reserves on a continuous basis to address any potential first contingency loss, and this not only covers the largest generator in the grid, but it also covers losses in transmission.
Finally, I think that you made a comment that the “grid” was formed after nuclear capacity – which is not correct. The use of interconnections on this content has been running since the 1950’s or before and was extensively used as utilities added generation that was only partially utilized at first. Growth rates were high, and several years were needed to take incremental energy added. We are now into an era where storage has very high value, and any generator that can be fully managed and can reduce and save fuel by reducing capacity is a form of storage. The largest storage facilities are large hydro facilities that exist in three general areas of Canada. These hydro facilities there have often taken several years to fill, and have capability to provide storage for seasonal or even annual shortages. For some years, BC Hydro that has large capacity hydro storage was a net importer of energy, but made more than $200M each year on trading energy. (Buy low and sell high) This was done to help others to meet peak daily capacity demands, while they were, at times paid to take energy at night. This is NOT pumped storage, but a simple hydro plant with a large reservoir. This is the only technology at present that I am aware of that will store for seasonal needs on a cost effective basis.
I note that some utilities are now making hydrogen with surplus energy, and blending it with natural gas – which can be stored. The idea of using a fuel cell to put electricity back into the grid generally has an overall return efficiency of well under 50% so it is not generally feasible.
We can certainly absorb a lot of renewable capacity, but when storage costs become excessive, it will stall. That is certainly higher than 20%, but nowhere near 100%.
When we convert cars to EVs and use electricity for heating, the requirement for electrical energy will grow dramatically. We are going to need all the energy from every clean source that we can find. This will have to include a full range from solar and wind (currently at about 5% of the total in North America) to nuclear.
Pretty moot cherry picking nuclear reactors that are still settling in after having just gone into operation.
The Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Capacity factor is 68.10% (2017)
73.45% (lifetime). 2017 is lower as they were bringing the new Unit 2, a Generation II reactor online that had some problems with a condenser.
The Gen-III+ VVER-1200/392M (AES-2006) Novovoronezh II-1 went into commercial operating on the 27th of February 2017.
Kudankulam 2 a Russian design, model VVER-1000/V-412 referred also as AES-92. Commercial operation started on 15 October 2016.
No, it was picking those reactors which were brand new and should have – according to the opinion of another participant in the discussion – a exceptional high reliability.
My question was how he explains the number of the named reactors. Well, explanation is, from you, the new ones are failing too.
As far as I remember average load facter over all reactors worldwide was between 70 and 80%. But some are cherrypicking then and choose countries where at that times reactors run exceptionally well, to show load factors of 90-95%. Which works sometimes at some places, but not always at all places.
You might want to chat with Vaclav Smil before faulting his concepts. I have done that – and the man is extremely well versed on the issues and problems ahead. I lost every argument that we got into – and I have more than 40 years experience – most in the energy industry – including both electrical utilities, and Shell.
I keep reading comments (mostly from the same people over and over again) their wish of having 100% renewable energy. Doing the research and math shows this by the required resource availability, manufacturing capacity and the intermittent nature of the energy not to be possible. Just look at where we are in real-time. Wind and the 4 types of Solar sit at the far right and have a long way to go. They will never reach the left side of the list… http://data.reneweconomy.com/LiveGen
The ultimate impossibility of “renewables” or anything other than nuclear to replace fossil carbon, lies in the fact that any graph of annual hourly or even daily energy production by wind and solar has huge troughs of energy needed and not being produced, to an extent that no imaginable storage can possibly cover.
I think that pumped hydro storage is about ten times as effective as batteries AND the necessary voltage inverters, but the largest in existence come nowhere near enough to fill these voids. If solar and wind devices were free, and had no environmental costs, the financial and environmental cost of that storage would still be prohibitive.
I have learned in my longish life to distrust people who say that something is “impossible”. Technology moves on, Mr. Rogers. You may be stuck in the past? You seem to think in terms of top-down decentralized systems, but a renewables-future is a decentralized, digitalized, responsive system. That may need much less storage than you seem to assume. Try this Australian report for a start https://reneweconomy.com.au/finkel-says-australia-can-and-should-be-world-leader-in-energy-storage-91277/
On battery storage, the Tesla installation in S. Australia can store about 130 MWhr with an endurance of c. 1 hour at peak output. Physically it is a large installation so deserves to be called ‘big battery’. But it’s tiny based on storage capacity relative to SA’s daily demand of around 35,000 MWh.
SA is blessed with near year round sun. Solar load factors are double those of northern Europe. Deployment of Tesla power walls and similar storage devices in homes is cost effective when combined with adequate solar PV capacity, relative to purchasing power from suppliers. SA consumer power prices are amongst the highest in the world at c. 0.4 AUS$/kWhr. Consumers who install solar PV and storage are avoiding high supplier energy costs. If SA’s power prices were more reasonable the economics of battery storage/solar PV would not be so attractive by far.
Karel Beckman, Look at the record for June 2018 of the total Wind Energy Production During June 2018 in south eastern Australia. It’s the black line. It has huge troughs that no amount of clever computer or transmission system juggling could possibly fix.
http://anero.id/energy/wind-energy/2018/June
But never mind that.
Try explaining why a technology that with three meltdowns, two of which killed NOBODY, world-wide, in the entire 60 or more years of civilian use, is something that you’re so afraid of that it’s worth covering great swaths of open country with such abominations as 600 foot high noisy bird-killing propellers.
Note that the flaws in these technologies are enough to persuade other shallow thinkers that the supposed reason for them, Global Warming and consequent drastic climate changes, is a concocted lie.
that I am so afraid of?
where does it say I am afraid of nuclear?
you are so eager to make your points you don’t even read what I write
Hey Karel – your statements about storage needs show that you are likely keen on renewables and hate central generation. The issue of storage is significant. Most people assume that the storage needed is for one day – day night and short term… That is needed, but winter – summer storage is another matter altogether. Australia has a warm climate,, and in my visits, I have stayed in homes that have no heating. In most of North America and Europe, people use a large part of their energy for heating – with more than half of that need in the winter months (Nov – Feb). That happens to be exactly when solar radiation is at its low for the year, and there are significant periods with almost none. I am working in this area, and in southern Canada, we need up to 3 MWh of storage for a single home – for winter heating. To try to do that with renewables and small storage is potentially foolish. The power system also needs inertia – to maintain stability. The best sources of inertia happen to be the nuclear plants… Solar and wind give almost none. (Wind may provide a little). This is a highly technical set of problems that has been pushed and driven by people who in reality have little idea of the issues behind our energy systems. Political decisions (Germany included) are costing huge amounts with poor results. I did find my data on Germany – in 2009 there was 908 MT of emissions – in 2016 it had dropped all the way down to 905 MT.. That sounds to me like a huge waste of money… with minimal results. Even your Ms Merkel has acknowledged that you will NOT meet your 2020 OR 2030 targets..
This is not just in Germany. It is in a lot of places. There is a real problem – I agree, but to have zealots driving decisions with little knowledge is crazy. […]
Albert, the problem is that your statement:
“three meltdowns, two of which killed NOBODY”
is not supported by science. Scientific estimates vary between 1000 and a million.
While at the same time major science follow LNT which states that any radiation increase create harm in humans. The harm being linear related to the height of the increase.
Worse for you:
That theory is confirmed by field research many times for very low radiation increases. Regarding health damage for increases of ~20% of natural background radiation (~0.3mSv/a), and regarding genetic damage to humans even far lower.
I’m not sure what is worse; health or genetic damage. Genetic damage not only delivers bigger chance on birth defects, etc. but that damage continues in next generations.
Germany closed its main nuclear waste dump (dry casks store) while it was still largely empty when due diligence research confirmed the found genetic damage to newborn up to 40km away.
The Flu kills that many people in a month… so what are we doing about it!!
I have seen very little peer reviewed science that supports your numbers – most of this is driven by pure fear.
As someone else said, a total switch to renewables works only in the minds of wishfull thinkers – and they all seem to forget about the huge amounts of fossil fuel that are used for non electric applications (much more than half of the US Primary Energy).. I have spent a lot of time on this – and as an engineer and I cannot achieve even close to 100% renewable capacity without a huge price increase that will hurt a lot of people. German electricity rates have doubled since 2000, and GHG emissions have gone almost nowhere since 2009. (908 – 905 MT between 2009 and 2016) I can see only 2 ways forward that will make a major difference by 2050. One is nuclear, the other is the use of natural gas in high efficiency applications.
Solar and wind can certainly meet the energy needs, but without massive amounts of storage, it wont meet demand for power when needed. California has about 300 MWh of storage installed – MY house – alone will need 3 MWh to store from summer to winter to heat and light my home and power my EV through the winter months. (Day – Night can be easily done with batteries) So they have enough for 100 homes.. (My house is small)…
I strongly support the need for clean energy, but this is a task that will require many people that normally never talk to each other – to work as a team. It is not going to be easy.
“I cannot achieve even close to 100% renewable capacity without a huge price increase”
Multi-disciplinary teams of top-scientists spent years on the subject, studying and discussing the optimum strategy.
Recently, in 2015, the French published a study which concluded that for the situation in 2015:
– 80% renewable will be cheapest;
– 100% and 40% renewable are only 5% more expensive.
They also published their calculation model such that anybody can change variables and see the effects: http://mixenr.ademe.fr/en
German think tank Agora published a range of similar studies, though their publications didn’t include the whole calculation model.
In USA Stanford University published several 100% renewable studies (coordinated by prof. Jacobson).
“German electricity rates have doubled since 2000, and GHG emissions have gone almost nowhere since 2009.”
Their emissions per KWh decreased 14%: From 569 in 2014 down to 489 gCO²eq/KWh in 2017.
Not much because they also reduced nuclear ~43% (it now produces 12% of all electricity).
Bas Gresnigt – Good old Prof Jacobson – Roadmap to nowhere: the myth of powering the nation 100% with renewable energy. You are missing in ths discussion. https://energypost.eu/roadmap-to-nowhere-the-myth-of-powering-the-nation-with-renewable-energy/
21 notable clean energy scholars led by grid researcher Chris Clack published a critique of Jacobson’s work in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the same prestigious journal that released Jacobson’s study.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608126/in-sharp-rebuttal-scientists-squash-hopes-for-100-percent-renewables/
In 2008, to satisfy the antinuclear minority, France decided to erect 19 GW onshore wind capacity. Then the regional authorities have worked on the windressource. The results was in the range 17-30 GW far under the meteorological maximum given by the french government antinuclear agency ADEME.
https://www.energie-crise.fr/What-did-Mark-Z-Jacobson-do-in-front-of-the-evidence-of-the-failure-of-his
According to UNSCEAR (2000), 134 liquidators received radiation doses high enough to be diagnosed with acute radiation sickness (ARS). Among them, 28 persons died in 1986 due to ARS. Other liquidators have since died but their deaths could not necessarily be attributed to radiation exposure. The latest UN report published confirms the known death toll – 28 fatalities among emergency workers, plus 15 fatal cases of child thyroid cancer – which would have been avoided if iodine tablets had been taken (as they have now in Japan).
In each case the numbers are minute compared with the 3,800 at Bhopal in 1984, who died as a result of a leak of chemicals from the Union Carbide pesticide plant.
Evacuations from Chernobyl and especially from Fukushima should have never happened, the population would have been safer if they had stayed in their own homes. The Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents led to major human suffering caused by the evacuation and other counter-measures. Radiation deaths from the Fukushima radiation is zero.
There are as may peer reviewed papers for and against the effects of DNA damage caused by radiation. Furthermore, the deaths caused from hydro dam accidents have been the worst in History. Did they ban Hydro. NO…
We have high level nuclear waste stored in dry casks at a nuclear reactor in suburbia (Lucas Heights) Sydney, no DNA damage to newborns has ever been reported there…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-19/the-tn81-cask-at-the-ansto-facility/8819464
UN WHO states at least 8,000 deaths. And they didn’t include the many death in regions which got less extreme radiation increases!
That is what the UN WHO stated before 2006; Recent reports from the UNSCEAR indicate that; “there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure two decades after the accident. There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates or in rates of non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure. The incidence of leukaemia in the general population, one of the main concerns owing to the shorter time expected between exposure and its occurrence compared with solid cancers, does not appear to be elevated. Although those most highly exposed individuals are at an increased risk of radiation-associated effects, the great majority of the population is not likely to experience serious health consequences as a result of radiation from the Chernobyl accident. Many other health problems have been noted in the populations that are not related to radiation exposure.
Wrong. UN WHO states now >8,000deaths. Check their WEB site and that of the UN WHO IAC (at least 9,000 deaths).
UNSCEAR changed into a pro-nuclear lobby organization since 1958 when it reported to the UN general assembly that any radiation increase creates increased genetic damage. Visible in the increased sex ratio of newborn.
It then even proposed to use that ratio for the detection of small increases in the background radiation. Such as those around nuclear facilities.
Harry,
No DNA damage is reported around many nuclear waste sites because no decent research was done.
Some reasons:
– few people live around so no significant results possible.
– no detailed & reliable birth registrations.
– no research money available. E.g. in USA stopped near all such research because govt redirected the budget.
An epidemiological study conducted in Spain; “The radiological impact of nuclear and radioactive sites on human health”. This study was done in co-operation with the Carlos III Health Institute. (It began in 2006 and the results were presented in May 2010). Overall, 1,000 municipalities and over 8 million people were analysed during the study’s time span (from the start of operation of each plant until 2003). The study concluded that nuclear sites do NOT affect the population’s risk of cancer. The result, presented in May 2010, is similar to results form other studies conducted in countries like the United States, France and England, and ratifies the previous study done by the Carlos III Health Institute in 1999.
Since the forties, hundreds of epidemiological studies have been carried out within the environments of nuclear power plants all over the world.
Epidemiological studies of nuclear power plants.
https://www.foronuclear.org/es/ask-the-expert/121594-epidemiological-studies-of-nuclear-power-plants
Harry, those studies. concern cancer under the general population.
The studies I linked concern significant increased levels of DNA damage under newborn.
Newborn and youth is far more sensitive to radiatin.
Using single variable analysis is always faulty. I could show you a grapph of Switzerland nuclear output for months in 2015 and it would be zero.
I am not afraid of nuclear but it doesn’t make financial sense. As you said the Anero graph is for South Eastern Australia. In fact mostly south Eastern SA and SW Victoria. New wind turbines being installed today generate 3-4 times the power at low wind speeds of the 8 year old models and the generation fleet is spreading to different regions so by the time we have 35 GW in place i.e. another 30 GW then the minimum supply for for an hour will be 3 GW and average supply even for this very low wind June, will be around 7 GW. With 35 GW of solar, June average supply will be about 3 GW and hydro can average 4 GW, thus without any long term storage, wind, solar and hydro will supply an average of 14 GW the average load in June is 19.5 GW. If winds behave as normal the wind solar hydro share would actually be around 20 GW and biomass/waste to energy etc can easily supply another 2 GW.
Albert,
Storage played a role in the German debate which led to the Energiewende decision in 2000. Parties used scientific studies, etc. It was won by the Greens.
Since then studies shifted towards optimization, finding combinations which solve the issue against minimal costs. Most coordinated by think tank Agora.
Some results:
1. Consumption adaptation is often cheapest.
– German alu smelters only operate when power is very cheap (and competed others off the market).
– In NL grid operator Tennet controls production (=electricity consumption) of a chlorine factory from AkzoNobel.
– With smart metering, controls can direct high consumption units (washer, dryer) of consumers… Our dish washer runs only at night. Electricity is then a few cents cheaper; an easy win.
2- grid extension is also rather cheap. The chance is much lower that there is no wind in a large area.
Note that the ~35 pumped storage units in Germany and CH don’t earn money while wind+solar produce >25% of all electricity. Price fluctuations on the spot market are (still?) too small due to the competition of cheaper compensation methods.
Long winter dips
Germany (and NL) store enough NG in deep earth cavities (~600m deep) to cover the winter. Nearly every country has those cavities.
So with the start of the Energiewende they started with research to improve Power-to-Gas (H²). Efficiency now ~70% improving towards 80%. PtG units often housed in standard sea-containers, so cheap factory series production. Many major pilots. Regular roll-out planned in 2024.
The H² can be stored in the cavities (now still injected in NG pipes).
Fuel cell assemblies can convert stored H² into electricity with similar high efficiency.*)
So even months of no wind & solar can be covered.
_______
*) I doubt whether Siemens will continue with its H² gas turbine development, as those have lower efficiency. Those have only a future as hydrogen jet engine to drive airliners.
The fact remains that France’s CO2 emissions, given their nuclear power, are far less than Germany’s, and as far as I know, Siemens could perfectly well devote their engineering cleverness to the far more generous energy content of massive fissile nuclei.
But Germany has a powerful fossil carbon lobby, and THEY know that “renewables” of the solar origin type are no threat to their existence.
Siemens nuclear was highly involved in the construction of the EPR in Finland. The high costs and losses, brought Siemens to the decision to stop with nuclear.
They put their cleverness now on more promising “zero carbon” fields such as:
Ammonia for energy storage for renewable.
Siemens Energy still refurbishes and upgrades turbine-generator units, including those used in the nuclear power plants.
… as long as it earns money. but they close down their steam turbine business step by step because of shrinking demand. Which means mechanicans have to travel longer and longer, spare parts too, so costs to maintain the equipment rises continuously.
While competitors without steam turbines lower their prices.
All moot stuff, now China, Japan, Russia and India manufacture steam turbine-generator units…
yes, from the market leader in Idia: https://www.triveniturbines.com/ you get up to 100 MW electrical, if you do not expect too much efficiency. So you expect the maintenace teams will then travel from india to europe, usa, Australia to keep the thermal power stations running, and that this will be cost efficient?
Indian manufacturer can handle up to 120 bar, I found a chinese one offering up to 140 bar, Datteln 4, if it ever comes online should operate with 274bar….
Who needs Siemens Germany for steam turbines. Siemens India has some 16,000 employees (including all group companies of Siemens in India). Siemens India manufactures steam turbines…
Japan has a number of large corporations that manufacture steam turbines for nuclear power plants.
The Chinese Harbin Turbine Company, manufactures 1000MW steam turbines for nuclear power plants.
I read some books and watched several presentations of Václav Smil. He is a walking encyclopedia and he is excellent in “what is” and “what was”. On the other hand, he is clueless in “what will be” and “what is possible”.
Just read his Energy Myths and Realities: Bringing Science to the Energy Policy Debate (2011) to see how terrible visionary he is while he is great in nuclear energy failure history description.
One short example:
Smil can present history of nitrogenous fertilizers and the revolution in food production they caused, amount of fertilizers consumed and amount of fossil fuels needed to produce them. His conclusion is food needs fertilizers, fertilizers need fossil fuels, you can’t get rid fossil fuels.
OTOH f.e. A.+H. Lonvins and P. Hawken (2001) were able to analyze the problem much much deeper:
– fertilizers are overused, it is just a waste which leads to severe pollution.
– there are lots of agricultural techniques with similar productivity without need of chemical fertilizers (+ dozen of successful real world examples)
My own (2018)
– you can source ammonia, fossil heave procursor of nitrogen-based fertilizers from surplus RE-electricity and air.
In my http://energy.skepticva.org I have a link to an earlier paper by Vaclav Smil, which is far more realistically doubtful about the prospects of so-called “renewables”.
When I first read it I thought it a pity that he hadn’t really studied the nuclear power options.
He still hasn’t.
The results tell the best story. German prices for electricity have more than doubles and emissions have not declined significantly in more than 10 years. In the US, utilities see falling energy (kWh)sales, but the daily peak after dark is continuing to grow. Some utilities are PAYING utilities that have large hydro storage to take surplus solar in the afternoons, and are then buying the energy back after dark. The system is not working well. Utilities see falling revenues but must expand to meet the peak, so many are now implementing a demand (peak kW) on residential users. This will make most solar installations without storage unfeasible… optimists continue to claim success. Clean energy is sertainly an important or even critical change that is needed, but a plan needs to be devised that will work. To date, we have seen a lot of optimists that are unrealistic and Politicians that are making crazy decisions. This entire picture needs careful thought by people with skilled ability in power systems. The problem may be real, but the dreams of the unaware are a big problem.
Actually, the electricity price has risen with 27% the last 10 years, not doubled as you have said. Furthermore, with their feed-in-tariffs Germany has pushed wind and solar along the learning curve. Because the way the system works this initial technology investment is still reflected in today’s electricity prices. This is however, not relevant for new investments in renewables. Cheap renewables are now available for everybody thanks to the investments of countries like Germany and Denmark.
Also German CO2 emission are decreasing continuously.
https://1-stromvergleich.com/strom-report/strompreis/
https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/klima/treibhausgas-emissionen-in-deutschland/kohlendioxid-emissionen#textpart-2
[…]
Sorry. Prices have doubled since 2000 and are now the second highest in the EU… you are now higher than HAWAII – highest in the US.
Emissions have gone up and down since 2008 and are munch less than1% below 2008.
We all watch… new coal plants burning lignite coal are on the way to offset nuclear. Sounds pretty sad to me…
Lignite plants are only closing down. No new lignite plants in planning or under construction.
Wholsaleelectricity prices has fallen in germany the last years, as well as power rices for larger industrial power users. Only residental (and similar) power prices have been rising significant, representig much less than half of the german electricity market. These power prices are bound to fall post 2020.
I have looked at the prices and agree that the residential users are paying more. You are partially correct in market prices. At night, wind often drives wholesale prices well down. In the US, night prices can go to well below zero because of tax credits for wind. But users don’t get the wholesale price. The total price paid by residential users is now made up largely of levies and charges -largely for renewables. I am not sure where you get the idea that prices will fall after 2020.germany will need a lot of storage when nuclear goes down, and that will potentially lead to even higher prices.
The graphs of daily wind electric power in Australia, at three hour sampling rates, reveal troughs of low power production of gigawatt size and multi-day duration.
Obviously one GW.day is 24 GWh. This is huge compared even with the world’s largest pumped hydro storage, let alone Elon Musk’s pathetic hundreds of MWh.
Germany does not need significant more storage when the last remainung nuclear will be phased out. So far storage is not needed, that’s why the pumped hydro plants loose money. once this changes there are plenty of in planning stage which can be built when there is some need for storage.
There is a big difference in storage needed between the simplistic “calculations” of some nuclear fanboys and the storage needed in the market in real life.
German grid operators see no relevant need for storage unless their share is approaching around 80%, with a lot of grid expansion this level can become higher.
Due to the financial crises the emissions in 2008 were much lower than years before. Taking this as reference point is dishonest cherrypicking.
You ignore that Germany financed the technology development of renewables via their FiT which is still visible in current consumer electricity prices. This is not relevant for current investments in renewables.
Technically it is possible to phase out lignite plants much faster, since Germany already exports 8% of their electricity, however since different levels of government and the lignite industry are intertwined in a number of ways, this is politically difficult to achieve.
Am I the only one who is getting tired of these endless exchanges between nuclear detractors and supporters? Why not see if there is common ground? Clearly the German problem from an emissions perspective is NOT that they built out renewables but that they at the same time phased out nuclear. Why is that so hard to acknowledge for renewables supporters? Don’t they realize they have a much stronger case if they acknowledged this simple fact? You can still argue about whether you should build NEW nuclear, that’s a different issue. And you could argue (I wouldn’t, but it’s possible) that German nuclear power stations present a threat and should be closed for that reason – but then it is clear you rank this threat as more serious than the threat of climate change.
Karel, I’m triggered by (dangerous) wrong facts that nuclear supporters promote. Such as:
– that Germany’s coal and/or fossil consumption and/or power plant capacity increased (because they prioritize all nuclear out). Especially since those declarations are easy to check at e.g. energy-charts.de
– that Chernobyl caused less expensive safety needed), cheap, absolutely needed to fight climate change, etc.
Similar worked during many decades for the tobacco and asbestos industries.
E.g. it took >50years before a ban on asbestos was implemented (in ~2000 in NL) while the disastrous health effects of asbestos fibers (even a few in the lung can be enough) were well known since the end of the thirties. Thanks to its very specific and easy to recognize type of lung cancer.
Even in ~2010 the Canadian asbestos industry asked its govt to force the WHO to minimize its estimation of ~100K/a asbestos deaths world wide by at least a factor 10.
So now no deaths estimation at the WHO fact sheet…
IMHO pro-nuclear hopes it will work for nuclear too.
And it does, at least partially…
Asbestos has nothing to do with nuclear power. Some day some one may find health problems from solar panels. What then?
If radiation is a problem in your view, fine. That’s your view. That should be discussed, only I don’t want that discussion on this website because it is a scientific discussion, not an energy discussion.
My point is you are also trying to deny that Germany’s nuclear phaseout is a problem from the perspective of climate. That’s just not credible.
If you deny that Germany has a coal problem, why did the German government establish a coal commission?
I used asbestos to show what good lobbying can establish. Low level asbestos fibers kill similar as low level nuclear radiation; with a 2 – 6 decades long delay (hence the total ban of asbestos).
A ~2010 Dutch promotion study estimates that it creates >1000 deaths a year in NL for the next decade despite the ban in 2000.
If similar problems as with nuclear radiation show with solar panels, we should ban those immediately.
Though PV solar may become a much cheaper method of electricity generation, it’s not cheaper if it creates substantial health damage to people.
Cheaper electricity generation & energy is a luxury which we shouldn’t want when it causes serious illness or deaths to innocent bystanders.
Discussions about energy almost always concern aspects of energy. Primarily price, but also environmental damage which concerns not only climate but also health.
Including climate but excluding health, invalidates energy discussions.
It implies that diesel cars should be promoted because those emit less CO² compared to petrol cars. Yet diesel cars are discouraged, sometimes forbidden in city-centers because of the higher health damage they create to bystanders.
It would turn your site into a nuclear promotion site such as Environmental Progress, Energy Matters (who censors comments), and once TEC (before you took over).
All costs should be accounted for in a correct evaluation of the many energy options; climate, health, etc. It also implies that subsidies should be taken into account:
– Direct visible subsidies. Such as investment subsidies. Guaranteed prices for production, etc.
– Less direct visible subsidies. Such as liability limitations, site preparation (as NL does regarding offshore wind with its sea bottom research, minimizing the risks for bidders), etc.
I give up. You are not responding to my arguments, you just ignore them.
Bas Gresnigt – It’s widely known that the Air pollution from Europe’s 300 largest coal fired power stations cause 22,300 premature deaths a year. Burning coal also costs companies and governments billions of Euro’s in disease treatment and lost working days. Following your argument, we should ban coal fired power stations immediately.
The research, from Stuttgart University’s Institute for energy economics and commissioned by Greenpeace International, suggests that a further 2,700 people can be expected to die prematurely each year if a new generation of 50 planned coal plants are built in Europe.
I spent then (~2014) substantial time on that study and concluded that it were extrapolations based on an old dirty coal plant, assuming that all other coal plants would have similar emission characteristics, which invalidates the study because modern coal plants are quite different (other burning process, filters).
But I’m not sure as I couldn’t find the original study publication.
Apparently it’s not accepted in any peer reviewed scientific journal, as google scholar delivered nothing.
Please can you show the publication in a peer reviewed scientific journal?
Until then I have to stick with my old conclusion that it’s a successful action report based on rumors. Successful because it’s conclusions were widely published.
Bas Gresnigt- Really; “in 2014 you spent a substantial time on that study and concluded that it were extrapolations based on an old dirty coal plant”.
How come there is nothing published on refuting this Greenpeace International publication, based on a report from the Stuttgart University. This Greenpeace publication, has 58 reputable citations in it’s end-note.
BAS SAYS; “IT WAS ONLY AN OLD DIRTY COAL PLANT”.
http://www.greenpeace.org/slovenia/Global/international/publications/climate/2013/Silent-Killers.pdf
“How come … nothing published on refuting this … publication”
Because it’s an action paper with assumptions stated as facts. It had little influence.
Decision makers were shown that modern coal plants with their circulating fluidized bed process in over-oxygenated environment and low burning temperatures together with advanced filtering, are totally different.
When you look at modern coal plants you see a low chimney which was unthinkable in the past, as the pollution (PM’s, NOx’s, etc) had to be spread over a wide area to prevent that the harm to people would become visible.
So the main argument against coal was and is CO² emissions…
Sorry, I forgot Germany:
“… you are also trying to deny that Germany’s nuclear phaseout is a problem from the perspective of climate.”
I agree that it’s a problem regarding climate as it slows the reduction of CO² emissions.
But others state that Germany increased its emissions, coal & fossil consumption due to electricity generation. That is not true. So I correct.
Furthermore I agree with Germany’s priorities. The most dangerous should be removed first.
“If you deny that Germany has a coal problem, why a coal commission?”
I don’t deny that problem. But I object statements that coal power is increasing as those are simply wrong.
Their coal problem concerns lignite which has extreme low cost price.
Other coal mines will be closed in 2019 due to the subsidy agreement of ~2008 with the unions which postponed mine closures ~10years. They see the subsidies as solving a debt of honor to the miners who helped them through miserable years.
The lignite problem has several facets, such as a.o.:
– Lignite power plants often act as CHP, heating cities around (also some coal plants burning imported coal).
– (Av.) power prices can decrease such low that all other fossil (gas) will stop, but lignite stays… While their grid will need the flexibility of (preferable renewable) gas with bigger wind & solar share.
– most lignite is in East Germany, which makes closures sensitive as the old communist area is still underdeveloped (higher unemployment, etc).
– lignite also has strong unions which are an important political factor. Those consider the long (~20years!) generous subsidies to the coal mines as leading precedent…
Coal generation is being ADDED using lignite coal. How can you claim that emissions from electricity is not going to go up…
You want to eliminate unsafe technologies… great idea -start with cars, and then find a cure for the flu. Both kill many people every year. The comparison of new nuclear reactors with old USSR reactors with no containment is ridiculous.
[…] There is currently NO technology that will store summer renewable energy surplus to provide necessary heat or light in the winter in a cost effective way.
Germany 2008 emissions 908 MT. And in 2018 — 905..where are results for all this cost?
In 2008 the emissions in germany were at 975MT, and went down to 905MT in 2018. see here: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/presse/pressemitteilungen/klimabilanz-2017-emissionen-gehen-leicht-zurueck
CO2 emissions in the power sector were at 292MT in 2017, down from about 330MT in 2008. Mainly due to less power production from hard coal.
Very embarrassing German figures compared to the UK. Over the 5 year period 2012 to 2017, UK carbon emissions fell from 500Mt to 388Mt – a 22% reduction. Whereas over the 10 year period of 2008 to 2017 Germany’s emissions have only gone down by 7%!
Note that Helmut does not acknowledge that their emissions will rise as new coal generation comes on line. 7% in 10years is pathetic, given the cost. My numbers came from The Economist. In the 10years since 2008, emissions have gone up some years, and down others. All changes are small.
The UK progress is too low, but a lot better at a lower cost to the users. Only Denmark has higher electricity costs (residential) than Germany now has.
I am not opposed to wind and solar, in fact, I am working on ways to make it work, but to just install it as Germany did, with almost no integration plan is a real waste. Germany seems to have no concept of where they will get power system inertia from. They will potentially have to buy it from France at a high cost… (I asked this question at a closed conference where a senior engineer from Germany presented a good paper on their grid. He had no answer..)
There is only one coal power plant which could ever come on line in germany, which is Datteln, which is delayed for a decarde, and might be scapped before coing online for a single hour. beside that the coal blocks go offline in germany one by one, without any new being planned or under construction.
Inertia can come from wind power, a genIV wind generator can supply more inertia to the grid than a same sized classical synchronus generator. As well as some battery systems have been built to supply this and similar grid services which they can supply cheaper tha thermal power plants. The costs of grid services is falling in germany.
The Energiewende became a success, because of their scenario research. Check at Agora Energiewende think tank.
At these pages you find many publications (~30/year). Most also have english versions.
Malcom,
“Coal generation … ADDED“???
In past 15years, so since 2002, total German electricity production went up 12% (most exported, net export went from 0% to 8%). However, production by hard coal decreased 31%, lignite decreased 7% (nuclear 54%).
(figures from: ag-energiebilanzen.de).
How can you think emissions from electricity go up??? Figures show a 25% decrease:
2002: 654 g/KWh;
2017: 489 g/KWh.
Figures from Umwelt Bundes Amt.
One USSR reactor, but three western reactors ended in disaster. Fukushima created less deaths mainly due to the very lucky winds which blew 97% of the radiation direct to the ocean. I’m not sure whether we should be proud.
“NO technology that will store enough to provide all needed in winter“???
Of course there is.
PtG (H²) with storage in deep earth cavities, and GtP in winter. It may increase the av. wholesale electricity price from ~3 to ~4cent/KWh only.
Check at the 100% renewable studies of:
– French ADEME (links in my comments above);
– AGORA think tank which involves Germany’s top scientists;
– Stanford university, one of US top universities;
– etc. One can find far more!
There is no nuclear phase out in the US yet the market is phasing out nuclear. Nuclear is the most economic to shut down when there is a surplus of power since you have to keep the decommissioning budget on your balance sheet. If Germany had not let nuclear powerplant close at their normal end of life, renewable would have been lower and emissions higher.
If there were an escrow required to decommission the outrageous amounts of concrete and service roads defacing what had been open moorland or even agriculture or forest. for wind turbines, NOBODY would build them.
Several pseudo-environmentalist opponents of nuclear power have openly written that the way to kill that trade is to demand ever increasing regulations to make it safe from entirely imaginary disasters.
“Imaginary”? Consider the UNSCEAR evaluation of the consequences of the ONLY meltdown that has killed anybody, Chernobyl, an RBMK reactor with a known instability that some official in his ignorance and relative safety (i.e. nowhere near the reactor) ignored.
They reckon fewer human deaths than are already on record from wind “turbines” totaling far less power capacity than that one reactor.
That’s not counting dead bats, falcons, and eagles.
Tilleul:
I wonder how you imagine that “renewable would have been lower and emissions higher” by not shutting down nuclear.
California’s emission rose immediately in 2012 when the San Onofre reactors were shut down.
That was for a leak of a tiny amount of a radioactive isotope, nitrogen 16, from one enclosed circuit to another, that had an effective lifetime of less than five minutes.
Its half life is under 7.13 seconds. In ten half lives, there is 1/1024th left of the radioactivity in any drop.
The standard practice for ensuring the supply of power response to demand, to the extent that the power is supplied by a non-dispatchable source as unreliable as wind, is “spinning reserve”. The usual kind of spinning reserve power is a very lightly loaded gas turbine, or even one that is only burning enough gas to be effectively synchronised with the grid. Unfortunately, like a vehicle standing at a light with its engine running, this costs quite a lot of gas.
It is correct thet the german decision to phase out nuclear first has slowed down coal phase out in germany. That far correct. On the other hand there are facts which some people ignore:
– renewable expansion was fast enough in germany to phase out substantial amounts (in TWh) of hard coal in germany. as well as allowing to export substantial amounts of electric power to other countries allowing them to phase out fossil fuels as well.
The renewable expansion to replace nuclear in germany did build up a supply chain for renewables which now allows to phase out coal fast and efficient. How fast this will happe is almost no technical or economical topic any mor, but a political topic.
The technologies developed in germany to phase out first nuclear then coal then gas allow all other countries to do the same and choose the succession they like, so also first coal, then nuclear, then gas, or first coal, then gas, then nuclear.
In the end it’s the question, if you first phase out pest, cholera or thyphus.
Helmut – if you check, you will likely see that exports take place in the afternoons when prices are low and the only buyers are utilities with hydro storage capacity. California has been doing this, and selling afternoon solar at NEGATIVE prices .. they are paying people to take it because the system must be balanced and they have few options that will allow them to meet the evening peak. This is exactly what I have meant by proper planning. Germany and others have implemented renewable capacity based on political decisions, and there is a big gap to do it in ways that really help. That is partially why rates have gone up so much.
Malcolm,
The coming series produced PtG(H²) units in ‘standard’ sea containers will become so cheap that it becomes economic to convert negative or near zero (1cnt/KWh) priced electricity into H². Even when those prices occur only a few hours a day.
Also, consumption will adapt in order to profit from very low prices. So those prices probably won’t become big while the share wind & solar increase. Similar as what we saw in Germany.
“Germany … implemented renewable capacity … there is a big gap to do it in ways that really help.”
Germany respects EU rule that electricity is a freely traded product which can be produced by everyone.
Increased production by new parties (wind, etc) creates price decreases. Producers with high cost prices may then stop which implies more wealth (it’s basic economy).
As far as I can see, they follow the optimum policy to introduce more renewable capacity. Don’t see what your problem is with that? What do you suggest?
Be aware that in the afternon demand is highest in germany as well as in france. Peak demand is _NOT_ in the early Evening like in California or Australia
This is why german pwer export prices are higher than the money France gets for exported power traditionally.
Helmut Frik, Not all bacteria, indeed a small minority of bacteria, are harmful. It would be a bad idea to kill off all bacteria.
Even if we leave out the fact that our own essential mitochondria are really obligatory symbiotic bacteria, our lives depend upon Rhizobium species on the entire pea and bean family, and even more so upon those that recycle dead matter. But your list “coal, gas, nuclear” to “pest, cholera, typhus” is more like “pest, cholera, mitochondria”
Fifty years from now, the world had better depend upon nuclear the way you and I depend upon our mitochondria.
Technically is possible to reduce emissions much faster by phasing out lignite faster. This is technically possible since these produce mostly for export. However, different levels of government own shares in the lignite companies, the mining provides jobs in economically weak regions, preserving jobs always gets preference of creating new jobs (in renewables), mining unions and the socialist party have long history together, etc. This makes it politically difficult to cut down lignite.