|
Post by Barry Brook on Mar 22, 2013 15:26:43 GMT 9.5
A new post has been published on BraveNewClimate. Link here: bravenewclimate.com/counting-hidden-costs-of-energyIt is often claimed that introducing variable renewable energy resources such as solar and wind into the electricity network comes with some extra cost penalties, due to “system effects”. These system effects include intermittent electricity access, network congestion, instability, environmental impacts, and security of supply. Now a new report from the OECD titled System Effects of Low-Carbon Electricity Systems gives some hard dollar values for these additional imposts. The OECD work focuses on nuclear power, coal, gas, and renewables such as wind and solar. Their conclusion is that grid-level system costs can have significant impacts on the total cost of delivered electricity for some power-generation technologies. This BNC Discussion Forum thread is for the comments related to this BNC post.
|
|
|
Post by sod on Mar 22, 2013 20:27:46 GMT 9.5
Sorry, this report was done by the Nuclear energy agency. www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2012/system-effects-exec-sum.pdfAnd it comes to the conclusion, that nuclear is better for the grid than solar? surprise surprise! Does anybody have a link to the whole study? the executive summary does a lousy job in describing the methodology. i also have a problem with their definition: "The report defines grid-level system costs as the total costs (on top of plant-level costs) to supply electricity at a given load and given level of security of supply. These additional costs include the extra investment to extend and reinforce the grid, plus the costs for increased short-term balancing and for maintaining the long-term adequacy of electricity supply in the face of intermittent variable renewables."I also wonder, how a Fukushima type accident and the following loss of all nuclear power is factored into their calculations?!?
|
|
|
Post by Asteroid Miner on Mar 23, 2013 3:25:02 GMT 9.5
sod: The sum of the natural background radiation at Fukushima plus the radiation leak from the reactor is less than the natural background radiation where I live in Illinois. There was no reason for Japan to shut down all of their reactors. If the reactors at Fukushima had not been shut down, would they have continued to operate normally?
Where did natural background radiation come from? The universe started out with only 3 elements: hydrogen, helium and lithium. All other elements were made in stars or by supernova explosions. Our star is a seventh generation star. The previous 6 generations were necessary for the elements heavier than lithium to be built up. Since heavier elements were built by radiation processes, they were very radioactive when first made.
Our planet was made of the debris of a supernova explosion that happened about 5 billion years ago. The Earth has been decreasing in radioactivity ever since. All elements heavier than iron were necessarily made by accretion of mostly neutrons but sometimes protons onto lighter nuclei. Radioactive decays were necessary to bring these new nuclei into the realm of nuclear stability. That is why all rocks are still radioactive.
Radiation also comes from outer space in the form of cosmic rays. Cosmic rays come from supernovas that are very far away. There will always be cosmic rays.
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Mar 23, 2013 6:54:09 GMT 9.5
I also wonder, how a Fukushima type accident and the following loss of all nuclear power is factored into their calculations?!? The Fukushima accident only destroyed 60% of the generating capacity of the plant. Reactors 5 and 6 could be expected to be returned to service if not for political interference and these make up about 40% of the plants nameplate capacity. If you mean "on the day" losses... how will your magical fields of wind turbines and photovoltaic panels survive the huge wall of water that did in the cooling pumps at the reactors?
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Mar 23, 2013 13:30:34 GMT 9.5
The OCED executive summary is neither long nor difficult. The points raised are actual issues which each gird needs to resolve in a sensible way.
|
|
|
Post by sod on Mar 23, 2013 16:48:18 GMT 9.5
The OCED executive summary is neither long nor difficult. The points raised are actual issues which each gird needs to resolve in a sensible way. the problem is neither length nor difficulty. The executive summary does simply not contain a good explanation of how they calculate costs. It is simply pulling numbers out of nowhere. and the definition is highly problematic: "The report defines grid-level system costs as the total costs (on top of plant-level costs) to supply electricity at a given load and given level of security of supply. These additional costs include the extra investment to extend and reinforce the grid, plus the costs for increased short-term balancing and for maintaining the long-term adequacy of electricity supply in the face of intermittent variable renewables."The definition already declares extra costs for renewables. It does not do the same for nuclear. I also wonder, how positive effects of a stronger grid are factored in. I could not find the original study. does anyone have a link?
|
|
|
Post by tim bastable on Mar 23, 2013 18:11:15 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Mar 24, 2013 3:21:06 GMT 9.5
Per unit of energy produced renewables have received much more in the way of subsidies than fossil fuels. The executive summary does simply not contain a good explanation of how they calculate costs. It is simply pulling numbers out of nowhere. Of course, it's a summary. "The report defines grid-level system costs as the total costs (on top of plant-level costs) to supply electricity at a given load and given level of security of supply. These additional costs include the extra investment to extend and reinforce the grid, plus the costs for increased short-term balancing and for maintaining the long-term adequacy of electricity supply in the face of intermittent variable renewables."The definition already declares extra costs for renewables. It does not do the same for nuclear. Because those extra costs don't apply to nuclear and any others you think do are more likely to only exist in your imagination. I also wonder, how positive effects of a stronger grid are factored in. Higher prices (i.e. a grid which could handle majority unreliable renewables will cost more than one tailored for majority nuclear, hydro or fossil fuels).
|
|
|
Post by sod on Mar 24, 2013 5:37:51 GMT 9.5
Per unit of energy produced renewables have received much more in the way of subsidies than fossil fuels. Technical advances get subsidies during their beginning time. fossil fuel still gets massive support today (see keystone pipeline). your claim is irrelevant. again, i would like to see the main text. please ask the people of Japan. the costs are real. as is the cost of a bad old grid. i would argue the other way round: localised power production will reduce strain on the grid. this has to be factored in.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Mar 24, 2013 6:06:35 GMT 9.5
Technical advances get subsidies during their beginning time. But it is not beginning time for renewable energy, wind power has been used for thousands of years and photovoltaics is older than nuclear power. fossil fuel still gets massive support today (see keystone pipeline). Yes it does and it shouldn't, but that doesn't mean that renewable energy should also get massive support. please ask the people of Japan. Yes, I'm aware of the cost to them of unnecessarily shutting down nuclear power plants, I'm aware that they paid a lot more than they should have for their electricity, that they didn't have as much as they should have had, that their CO 2 emissions went up despite electricity demand being down and the extra air pollution has also killed more people than any nuclear accident. Most of the cost of a nuclear accident is not from the accident itself, but from the fearmongering by the anti-nuclear movement. as is the cost of a bad old grid. If a grid can handle nuclear or fossil fuels just fine then I wouldn't call it bad. Not that we couldn't benefit from a few HVDC upgrades, just that the option not to do it if the money could be better spent would exist if you use nuclear (I'm also sceptical as to whether grid upgrades could make renewables workable, as opposed to merely a smokescreen for fossil fuels). i would argue the other way round: localised power production will reduce strain on the grid. this has to be factored in. If localised power production involved putting an SMR in everyones' basement then yes, it would reduce strain on the grid. OTOH if it instead results in spreading out unreliable sources that can't be counted on then what you will find is that whenever a cloud comes in or the wind dies down that the places that used to be generating their own electricity will now need to be supplied electricity from wherever it is being generated. A common fantasy of renewable energy advocates is continent wide power grids based on the conjecture (since disproven) that if you make your grid that size than there will always be somewhere windy that can export power when the other areas are not windy.
|
|
|
Post by jagdish on Mar 24, 2013 10:59:49 GMT 9.5
The viable use of wind or solar power is only in isolated locations where the distribution costs are high. Storage can be built to replace the grid.
Low-cost but heavy lead-acid batteries can be used for a house level storage. 12V DC system is used in vehicles effectively. Appliances exist for lighting, ventilation, air-conditioning, radio, telephone, TV and computers. Wind can be used directly for water pumping and sunlight for water heating or solar cooking. Nuclear is the least environment disturbing for grid applications.
|
|
|
Post by sod on Mar 24, 2013 19:29:17 GMT 9.5
The viable use of wind or solar power is only in isolated locations where the distribution costs are high. Storage can be built to replace the grid. Low-cost but heavy lead-acid batteries can be used for a house level storage. 12V DC system is used in vehicles effectively. Appliances exist for lighting, ventilation, air-conditioning, radio, telephone, TV and computers. Wind can be used directly for water pumping and sunlight for water heating or solar cooking. Nuclear is the least environment disturbing for grid applications. you are totally wrong. and to give you just a single example, here is a post by Anthony Watts who decided to get soalr PV just to save money. wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/23/an-update-on-my-solar-power-project-results-show-why-i-got-solar-power-for-my-home-hint-climate-change-is-not-a-reason/In short, solar pays out, if you have high demand during high sun output times. This is true in many parts of the world. It is also obviously true, that a small addition of solar and wind will not harm the grid, so such an addition makes sense. (as both are cheaper than all other sources by now) -------------------------------- But let us get back on topic: Does anyone have a link to the full report? Her is my definition of a bad grid: It is a grid, that depends on a few power stations at few locations, which can be easily knocked out by a single catastrophic event. The full results of my investigation will be in my full report, but so far i can already tell you, that nuclear is doing at least 10 times worse than solar is, under that definition...
|
|
|
Post by quokka on Mar 24, 2013 22:16:05 GMT 9.5
Sod,
My definition of a bad grid is very simple - a grid that supplies high emission electricity. In Europe France, Sweden, Norway and Switzerland have good grids. Most of the rest - not so. Emissions are what matters - all the rest is just fluff.
Most sufficiently provisioned grids (ie the developed countries) are sufficiently reliable. Lack of reliability is not a driver for wholesale change and the considerable cost that incurs. Emissions are the driver for wholesale change.
Focus on the main game - not peripheral talking points that may or may not be true and are certainly contentious.
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Mar 24, 2013 22:28:54 GMT 9.5
Note that the article specifically states that this is only viable because of absurd subsidies for renewable power inflating that the entire cost of electricity in California..... And because of smart metering, it says more about the evils of smart metering and renewable power subsidies than anything else. It is also obviously true, that a small addition of solar and wind will not harm the grid, so such an addition makes sense. (as both are cheaper than all other sources by now) Then why are people demanding enormous subsidies that are often several times the net value of the electricity generated to install such systems? If they really are so cheap then everyone would be installing them. There would be solar power systems appearing all over the place. But let us get back on topic: Does anyone have a link to the full report? Her is my definition of a bad grid: It is a grid, that depends on a few power stations at few locations, which can be easily knocked out by a single catastrophic event. The full results of my investigation will be in my full report, but so far i can already tell you, that nuclear is doing at least 10 times worse than solar is, under that definition... Any reasonable grid will not be disabled by a single "catastrophic" event, unless this is something capable of disabling multiple turbine sets at multiple sites. Spinning Reserve in the form of pumped storage or quickly tripping industrial loads can make up for any reasonable fault condition. Meanwhile you don't have to pay enormous amounts of money for this benefit, unlike with solar power.
|
|
|
Post by sod on Mar 25, 2013 2:46:40 GMT 9.5
Folks, i was just trying to point out, how bad their definition is.
If my definition of a problematic grid is one, that produces nuclear waste,
then nuclear will look problematic and solar not.
This is exactly what they are doing in their definition:
"The report defines grid-level system costs as the total costs (on top of plant-level costs) to supply electricity at a given load and given level of security of supply. These additional costs include the extra investment to extend and reinforce the grid, plus the costs for increased short-term balancing and for maintaining the long-term adequacy of electricity supply in the face of intermittent variable renewables."
so all i want is the full report to see their methods. ( i assume that they are seriously inbalanced)
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Mar 25, 2013 2:54:58 GMT 9.5
Folks, i was just trying to point out, how bad their definition is. If my definition of a problematic grid is one, that produces nuclear waste, then nuclear will look problematic and solar not. That's a rather bad definition since it does not take into account waste that is not nuclear and the fact that non-nuclear waste is often (I'd go with usually) worse. If you take all waste into account then nuclear does quite a bit better than solar.
|
|
|
Post by sod on Mar 25, 2013 4:03:28 GMT 9.5
That's a rather bad definition since it does not take into account waste that is not nuclear and the fact that non-nuclear waste is often (I'd go with usually) worse. If you take all waste into account then nuclear does quite a bit better than solar. Ah, slowly we are getting somewhere. Now look at their definition: "The report defines grid-level system costs as the total costs (on top of plant-level costs) to supply electricity at a given load and given level of security of supply. These additional costs include the extra investment to extend and reinforce the grid, plus the costs for increased short-term balancing and for maintaining the long-term adequacy of electricity supply in the face of intermittent variable renewables."Whether this definition makes sense or not, depends on what they factor in. Will their definition see the advantages of a strong grid (Germany is proposing to build at least 2 north-south connections)? will these be factored into costs? (so you have a higher price, but you also have a better grid, so comparabel costs are cheaper) Or not. to solve this question, i need the full report. BNC MODERATOR To obtain the PDF of the full report, go back to the BNC Blog post and click on the blue "report" link (Now a new report from the OECD)at the beginning of the third paragraph.
|
|
|
Post by sod on Mar 25, 2013 11:04:22 GMT 9.5
BNC MODERATOR To obtain the PDF of the full report, go back to the BNC Blog post and click on the blue "report" link (Now a new report from the OECD)at the beginning of the third paragraph.[/quote] sorry, but this one is only the executive summary. It doesn t really say anything about methodology. www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2012/system-effects-exec-sum.pdf
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Mar 25, 2013 11:39:42 GMT 9.5
At the very end of the summary there are instructions for obtaining the full report. It is rather expen$ive.
|
|
peterc
Thermal Neutron
Posts: 30
|
Post by peterc on Mar 26, 2013 5:01:23 GMT 9.5
The OECD report looks as though it could be pretty significant, but as sod says, more details are needed. Among things it would be good to know, are how the storage and back-up questions are factored in. Another is, whether any of the scenarios includes a total penetration of renewables (wind and solar combined) beyond 30%. On this, I've heard it argued that the real problems with renewables start to kick in strongly when the penetration exceeds 25%, and the table in Barry's post seems to bear this out. They don't go beyond 30%, and I'd guess there's a good reason for that. sod : not so long ago you pointed to Germany's 5% solar electricity output last year as a triumph for renewables. Here you can see the result of that: www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/klimawandel-deutschland-steigert-co-ausstoss-1.1609316....an increase in Germany's CO2 output for the year. ...and while we're at it: "i would argue the other way round: localised power production will reduce strain on the grid. this has to be factored in." It would also have to be factored in that localised power production will involve lower efficiency and higher losses, which translates into more C02 per kwh.
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Mar 28, 2013 12:30:20 GMT 9.5
A traditional electricity grid is "tree-like"
These are far easier to design and make efficient than the "mesh-like" smart grid required for distributed generation.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Mar 29, 2013 7:16:15 GMT 9.5
The four grids in the USA and Canada are far from tree-like at the transmission level. At the distribution level ordinarily tree-like but there are exceptions.
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Mar 29, 2013 13:02:13 GMT 9.5
The four grids in the USA and Canada are far from tree-like at the transmission level. At the distribution level ordinarily tree-like but there are exceptions. Indeed, there is a mesh in the top couple of levels but towards the bottom, which is where the majority of transmission losses take place, the system traditionally switches to the tree. For instance the cost of the transport of electricity on the UK's top level 132/400kV 'National Grid' comes to about ~1 US cent/kWh. Transmission losses tend to occur in the ~400/230V segment in the UK, and to a lesser extent in the 11kV distribution system. (This does lead to an interesting argument for increasing the effective house supply voltage, especially if EV charging becomes widespread)
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Mar 29, 2013 15:26:33 GMT 9.5
Transmission losses tend to occur in the ~400/230V segment in the UK, and to a lesser extent in the 11kV distribution system. (This does lead to an interesting argument for increasing the effective house supply voltage, especially if EV charging becomes widespread) Wouldn't want to plug something expecting 230 V into 1000 V so I'd assume this would involve having transformers or whatever at every home.
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Mar 29, 2013 17:03:11 GMT 9.5
If the power supply to the front door (well, "to the fuse box" perhaps) was more efficiently delivered as 1000 V and then stepped down to the domestic voltage of 230 V or 110 V, another opportunity arises.
Perhaps the frequency too could be changed by the same black box that stepped the voltage down. Inside the house/premises, familiar circuitry would still be powering conventional appliances. But the same black box could also be supplying dedicated circuits, of say a few volts DC to charge the car and the household reserve battery for brownouts, a dedicated low frequency for a heavy duty motor such as a water pump, higher frequencies for workshop tools, perhaps a high frequency square wave for electronic devices around the site, and so on.
Conversely, an erratic supply from an ageing windmill might have its voltage and frequency cleaned here before being returned to the mains supply.
If such a frequency-changing device became standard, the mains supply would no longer need to supply 50/60 Hz, but could become DC or whatever frequency was best for distribution.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Mar 29, 2013 18:44:22 GMT 9.5
A solid-state cycloconverter could do that (it'd probably be implemented as a rectifier, then a DC to DC converter, then an inverter, unless the input in HVDC) though how much point there'd be is another matter. Mains supply frequency as I understand (mostly from here) is a compromise between transmission losses (higher frequencies mean more loss), equipment size (higher frequencies mean smaller equipment) and light flicker (sets a minimum frequency if you run lights straight off it, these days better fluorescent light ballasts have their own higher frequency power supply and LEDs have rectifiers).
|
|
|
Post by engineerpoet on Mar 30, 2013 12:58:57 GMT 9.5
A solid-state cycloconverter could do that (it'd probably be implemented as a rectifier, then a DC to DC converter, then an inverter, unless the input in HVDC) though how much point there'd be is another matter. Cycloconverters are AC-AC, by definition. They like a 3:1 frequency ratio or so. It would be hard to convert local distribution from AC to DC because of all the "pole pigs" that would have to be switched from transformers to inverters. Long-distance transmission lines are easier, because there are fewer interfaces to the distribution system which would need conversion equipment. New HV lines are easiest. A big two-circuit HV line needs 6 conductors as AC, but two conductors as DC; the DC line is far less obtrusive on the landscape and also needs less capital per mile.
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Mar 31, 2013 0:56:07 GMT 9.5
European grids don't tend to have that many pole mounted transformers, as our higher end voltage permits greater distance between the house's main breaker and the transformer, allowing them to be fitted in actual substations for the most part. (In the countryside you see pole mounted transformers but nowhere near as many as apparently exist in the US).
Either way.... it would probably become necessary to give houses three phase supplies as standard, even if no increase in delivered voltage is feasible. Otherwise there will be too many large unbalanced loads from staggered car charging.
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Apr 6, 2013 12:51:13 GMT 9.5
There is no real "rural niche" anywhere that consumes large amounts of electricity. Advances in power transport technologies have seen to that. One could also say that large consumers of electricity have only grown up near large supplies of electricity. If there is no grid nearby, then the would-be industry needs to bring in a power plant. It's in a "rural niche", in the terms above. Where I write, the nearest city of one million people is on an island in Indonesia, 1800 km away on the other side of a subduction trench. The nearest megapax Australian city is more than 2600 arid km away. A fairly large "rural niche", you must admit. It's a bit too far to run an extension cable or a gas pipeline or a coal-carrying railway, or a water pipeline. Even sealed roads are rare for diesel tankers. So fossil diesel is that much more expensive and the need for it to power desalination as well makes it more so. Remoteness appears to open a cost opportunity, an er... niche for nukes. Inside that radius, there are scores of mines on diesel. There are many more mineral deposits that don't have enough power and water to run a mine. And any number of the value-adding industries that could grow up around the fresh product, if they had enough power and water. This is where you would expect nuclear to trump diesel. It would for a mine that can thus grow big and its town become permanent. However small mines need a variable 20 MWe or so, can't supply cooling water and need most of the nuke to be transported out and in as operations close and re-open. By my reading of the tea leaves, that would need the nuke to heat air (not steam) to drive the turbine, its modules would need to be small enough to be trucked in and out, and its still-hot core small enough to be helicoptered away to its next place of work.
|
|
|
Post by Graham Palmer on Apr 6, 2013 16:18:30 GMT 9.5
This does lead to an interesting argument for increasing the effective house supply voltage, especially if EV charging becomes widespread Using Victoria as an example, if say, 500,000 EV's were being charged at the same time at say 5 kW, this equates to 2,500 MW. If this was done during off-peak night time with some degree of "smart charging" through integrated management, the existing network could probably easily cope and would likely create a market for baseload and vastly improve the system load factor.
|
|