|
|
Post by David Walters on Jul 26, 2012 0:18:42 GMT 9.5
Folks, a recent document/essay by the architect of the German renewable program is here: reneweconomy.com.au/2012/the-end-of-baseload-it-may-come-sooner-than-you-\think-29425We need a response (again). Part of the essay: One of the principal architects of Germany’s push into renewable energy technologies, Hans-Josef Fell, believes that the country could achieve 100 per cent renewables in its electricity sector by 2030 – and may do it quicker. The rest of the world could follow soon after. Fell, a Greens politican and architect of the the feed-in-tariffs that have
helped the country already produce 20 per cent of its energy from wind, solar,
biomass and geothermal sources, and pushed it to the forefront of clean energy
technologies, says the growth of renewables will continue at an exponential
rate. This is partly because of the growing cost of conventional fossil fuels,
and partly because of their inability (part from gas) to balance the
intermittent nature of renewable energy generation.
In an interview with RenewEconomy, Fell says a 100 per cent renewables
electricity grid in Germany may be 40-50 per cent wind, 30-40 per cent solar,
with the rest coming from other sources. Balancing this generation, however,
would be the key challenge.
“This is not possible with baseload, because you cannot switch them on and off
very fast,” he said. “It was possible with gas-fired power stations, but peaking
gas stations these were also emissions-intensive, and European countries such as
Germany had to depend on gas imports from Russia. He said new smart grid
technologies and storage, where costs would also rapidly decline, would provide
the answer.
Fell is effectively echoing the scenarios painted by Australian researchers
David Mills, and from Mark Diesendorf and Ben Elliston at UNSW – along with
preliminary work by the IEA, which suggests the concept of baseload and peaking
power – the current model for electricity grids worldwide – will be replaced by
a system of flexible and inflexible energy sources.
The ability to provide dispatchable, cost competitive energy, will largely
decide the fate of the 100 per cent renewable goal, and of gas. Fell says there
is clearly resistance from the conventional electricity energy, which sees its
business model at risk, and which he says is fighting with “lies and
misinformation.”
The cost appears horrendous. Fell puts it at $US100 trillion over 20 years, if
the world was to transform to an entirely 100 per cent grid by 2030. It’s an
academic number – based around work done by Stanford and Davis Universities in
the US, but he says the world would be paying double that if it continued with
conventional fuel sources. And he says while feed in tariffs might cause higher
energy costs initially, these are quickly absorbed by the “merit order effect”,
and will deliver further benefit as the cost curves of falling renewable energy
sources and rising conventional sources intersect, as they have already done
with onshore wind and coal and gas in Europe.
Here are some edited highlights of the interview with Fell.
Q: How has the renewable energy debate evolved in Germany?
A: In Germany it began at local level, and after successful introductions in
villages and towns it came to the national level with the introduction of the
Renewable Energy Act into parliament in 2000. I wrote the draft for that act,
which was introduced by the Social Democrats and the Greens. We set a target
for renewable to double shares from 6% to 12% by 2010. We were told this target
was unrealistic and unachievable. But in 2011, we have already 20 per cent. The
feed-in-tariff has driven high investment and so much innovation – in wind power
and biogas and solar PV, that costs have dropped down very fast and solar PV is
now as cheap as grid electricity.
Q: But there has been a lot of criticism about the FiT and its costs.
A: This comes from the conventional energy producers because they fear for their
business models, and they make a lot of mis-information. In reality, in Germany
the wholesale price of electricity is going down. When we have a lot of wind and
sun, we can close down the most expensive electricity generation, and we get a
price which is cheaper than without renewables. Now, new investment in wind
power is cheaper than new coal fired power station, and it will continue to
fall. With oil and gas and coal and uranium, the prices will rise and rise and
rise.
|
|
|
|
Post by proteos on Jul 26, 2012 3:44:32 GMT 9.5
And he says while feed in tariffs might cause higher energy costs initially, these are quickly absorbed by the “merit order effect”, Let us begin with this argument. If there is a feed-in tariff, it means that the price for the subsidized source is higher than the market price. Or else, there would not be a need for it — or no one would use it. Thus the part produced by this particular subsidized means is more expansive than what it will replace. The merit-order effect can not absorb this. This effect remarks that some production is already provided by subsidized means. So the most expansive unsubsidized means stay put. As the price is the price of the last means of production called, the spot price appear to go down. But for the consumer, the price go up: in effect, the most expansive unsubsidized means have been replaced by even more expansive means of production. will deliver further benefit as the cost curves of falling renewable energy sources and rising conventional sources intersect, as they have already done with onshore wind and coal and gas in Europe. I'd be interested to see which means bar hydro have done this in Europe. I mean who exactly is building non-hydro renewable means of production for electricity without any subsidy, and where? It's not enough to be cheaper than some new builds. Renewables also have to compete against the installed base. That's especially important if you want to reduce consumption like in Germany. |
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on Sept 27, 2012 14:51:06 GMT 9.5
Very interesting discussion of the cost of integrating wind and PV into Eurpoean energy grids, including effects on cross-border power flows and negative effects on those neighbouring countries. www.europeanenergyreview.eu/site/pagina.php?id=3865There is also a good discussion thread, well worth reading. It seems that the EU is close to delivering a landmark report on this subject, perhaps due in October 2013. |
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Sept 28, 2012 10:25:31 GMT 9.5
singletonengineer --- Good find.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Tucker on Dec 13, 2012 13:37:45 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by proteos on Dec 16, 2012 21:24:35 GMT 9.5
Wind intermittency is a well known problem. See for example the website of PF Bach, a retired engineer who worked in the danish electricity sector. He made statistical surveys in the last of which he stated that wind power can not be considered a reliable source Europe-wide. Of course, being intermittent solar and wind will not allow any meaningfull reduction in fossil fired installed capacity. As errors of predictions in the wind output can reach 20%, grid operators will have to ensure they have standing capacity at hand round the year. They will also seek to expand the high voltage grid to slosh this intemittent power around, not to lose any. Right now, I do not think a lot of wind power is lost through forced disconnection or grid overload. Even if the price is negative, some user is generally found. However, this problem is increasing and will become a major problem with increasing market share of wind & solar. Storage being very expensive, operating facilities with very low capacity factors even more so, that will force some overflow of renewables to be thrown away, even if storage facilities develop at the envisionned scale. |
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 15, 2013 23:55:14 GMT 9.5
Just did some homework on the Bloombox justoldog has been spamming all over this board and it certainly doesn't look like it'll be the solution to our energy problems, at the very least the fuel cell industry does not have a history of profitability (and Bloom only claim they'll make a profit). At the very least what they are offering doesn't really seem all that new. The leafcell whilst interesting and potentially useful (if it turns out cheap enough) for synfuels and fertilizer production also doesn't appear as if it'll provide what we need, it certainly isn't a solution for Europe. Still seems like trying to use obsolete technology when we should be moving onto something new (or nuclear as the case may be  . MODERATOR Posts from jod deleted and member banned. |
|
|
|
Post by Ed Leaver on Sept 14, 2013 13:47:45 GMT 9.5
Its important alright. I've been collecting links to this very topic these past few months, and summarized them in a review of six such studies. The second and third I shamelessly lifted (with attribution) from BNC, but they may still be worth a glance. The last I found in Dennis Peterson's recent Climate CoLab entry on Cycling Carbon. Turns out RCP 4.5: Pathway for Stabilization of Radiative Forcing by 2100 was pretty much exactly what I was looking for to close out that chapter, and Dennis has my heartfelt thanks. Thanks, Dennis! If you think about it, non-dispatchable stochastic (wind) or strongly correlated (solar PV) intermittents must of necessity lose efficiency once their demand-mangled grid penetration exceeds their low-penetration marginal capacity factor. Beyond that in times of surplus one must either store the excess, or dump power. Both are inefficient and pricey. Moreover, I've seen no studies that demonstrated negative regional wind correlation even here in the States: correlation is either positive at lengths less than about 1000 km, or zero. Which means one must always have combined standby, storage, and demand management capacity sufficient to meet full grid load. No matter what the overbuild. I've also argued that U.S. regional wind distribution might possibly be negatively correlated: I just haven't seen an demonstration that it actually is. A relevant article that nicely complements your above collection is The intermittency statistics of wind power. That "Pathways for Stabilization of Radiative Forcing by 2100" link, by the way, might be of particular interest here at BNC, as it graphically demonstrates that least cost global solutions to the carbon problem require fairly ghastly contribution from nuclear power. Regrettably, that particular paper doesn't discuss just how least that cost is relative to an all-renewables-plus-ccs alternative. But from the looks of it, if you have to ask, you can't afford one. Ed |
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Feb 4, 2014 14:08:53 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by quokka on Feb 28, 2014 9:14:53 GMT 9.5
Some interesting developments: Those using their own solar generated electricity will be required to pay a €0.044kWh (US$0.060kWh) charge. The levy will only apply to new rooftop installations above 10kWp fitted from August this year.Germany approves solar self-consumption levyand The Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation (EFI), a panel appointed to make top-level recommendations to the German government, has suggested that state support for renewable energy should be curtailed.The article suggests the recommendation is more than curtailment and more like abandonment. Panel of experts recommends ending Germany’s renewable energy support |
|
|
|
Post by jagdish on Feb 28, 2014 21:03:37 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Mar 1, 2014 18:46:30 GMT 9.5
Jagdish, it is good news to hear that R&D for storage is moving in the direction of organic flow-through batteries. For a world that is drowning in its waste, it is much better (than eg, V or Pb) to have a biodegradable storage system. In the foreseeable future, I can imagine such storage systems powering remote towns in Kenya or Bolivia. However, German industry's energy needs requires political resolution, not R&D. |
|
|
|
Post by proteos on Mar 10, 2014 4:29:00 GMT 9.5
Self consumption levy appears to be an unfair taxation. No, it's not. I'll try to explain you why: - The grid is paid for by the end users more or less proportionnaly to the energy use
- Yet, the costs of the grid depends on the peak power used
- A self comsumer is not off the grid, and often his peak demand does not change. Therefore, he does not pay the full price for the service he's given
- In fact he may increase his load on the grid: often his production capacity can even be greater than his peak demand! If there are many (solar PV) self consummers in the same neighborhood, the electricity will have to be exported to the high voltage grid and the local grid will have to be upgraded to cope with this increased flow of energy.
In fact owners of solar pannels in Germany impose a cost on all others not only through the subsidy they receive but also through the public works on the grid they force. And as the retail price of electricity is higher than the price of electricity from solar PV, all those with the money at hand have a serious incentive to self consume. If you think about it, this can destroy the very idea of a reliable grid: people would be constantly and synchronously switching between asking power from the grid and exporting to the grid. Renewable energy is best generated and used distributed and stored. There are improvements in storage systems. Renewables resources are not really better distributed than other natural resources. They are more diffuse however than fossil fuels and you need vast swathes of land to produce the quantities required in the rich world. As production can vary widely in time and space, you also need to supercharge the grid or find solutions to store when overproducing. |
|
.
