|
Post by David B. Benson on Jan 16, 2020 9:24:47 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Jan 20, 2020 7:55:12 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Jan 20, 2020 13:42:27 GMT 9.5
Could Renewables Overtake Coal In China? The article quoted asserts that the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) is less for renewables than it is for natural gas and coal. However what is being costed here is each unit of energy that is successfully delivered to the consumer. The routine failure of renewables to deliver at all is not costed in. It would be very different if the LCOE was based on continuous power delivered to the grid, which would require the power supply from each wind generator to include its own backup (probably a gas turbine). Since the backup would provide most of the continuous power, the LCOE would never escape the ballpark of the LCOE of the backup, especially if it is a gas turbine. For the time being, wind generation remains parasitic on the dominant thermal generators, as in China. However, a wind operator might be required to buy spinning reserve from a nearby thermal (usually coal) power station. That is, the thermal generator undertakes not to produce electricity when the wind generators do, and to burst forth into production when the wind fails. That's expensive. Someone has to pay for the backup, so it should be appearing in the LCOE. The article is sales spin, churning out the fantasy until the suckers buy again.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Jan 20, 2020 14:56:58 GMT 9.5
Could Renewables Overtake Coal In China? ... The routine failure of renewables to deliver at all ... Someone has to pay for the backup, so it should be appearing in the LCOE. ... That is one way to view matters. Another way is the PJM style power market, which serves the same goals via a so-called free market. There is a thread here about it. In the application to the ERCOT power market the result so far has been wind and natural gas generators built about one for one. Coal burners lose and the nuclear power plants hang in there. Of course natural gas is much more expensive in China, but still I expect that especially solar panels will play a much more significant role in China's future, likely with some utility scale batteries to assist as the sun goes in.
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Jan 20, 2020 19:45:50 GMT 9.5
There is a thread here about it. Link?
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Jan 20, 2020 20:16:14 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by thinkstoomuch on Jan 20, 2020 23:01:49 GMT 9.5
That is one way to view matters. Another way is the MJP style power market, which serves the same goals via a so-called free market. There is a thread here about it. In the application to the ERCOT power market the result so far has been wind and natural gas generators built about one for one. Coal burners lose and the nuclear power plants hang in there. Of course natural gas is much more expensive in China, but still I expect that especially solar panels will play a much more significant role in China's future, likely with some utility scale batteries to assist as the sun goes in. Except even Texas natural gas is getting over run.
Wind generating capacity 27,217.9 MW, Natural Gas Fired Combined Cycle 40,933.5 MW, Natural Gas Fired Combustion Turbine 9,861.9 MW, Other Natural Gas 19,229.1 MW from:
Tables 6.2.b and c
I think natural gas was less expensive last year.
Please define "some utility scale batteries"? CAISO curtailment for solar was over 3% for last year(close to 900,000 MWH). Almost entirely for economic reasons. Some days over 30,000 MWH some none.
This month has already exceeded the total curtailment for the past 3 years in January(82,473 MWH). That is as of the 18th. For a system with less than 50 GW max with less than 13 GW of solar(not including small scale, I think). Capacity factor of ~27% for solar if my numbers are right.
Wind less than 7 GW installed had less than 50,000 MWH curtailed last year.
I compile the daily reported numbers to create the above.
My usual poorly communicated post,
T2M
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Jan 21, 2020 7:25:17 GMT 9.5
T2M, increasingly utility scale solar panel projects include a like amount of storage with 4 hour duration.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Jan 21, 2020 8:16:30 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by thinkstoomuch on Jan 21, 2020 11:10:12 GMT 9.5
T2M, increasingly utility scale solar panel projects include a like amount of storage with 4 hour duration. Which does not answer the question of how much is "some".
Yes the projects that make the headlines do include battery storage. Unfortunately that is a minuscule percentage of projects overall. Florida Power and Light is putting GWs of Solar and currently looking at one battery (less than a .5 GW, iirc, not part of a solar project anyway). Not worth looking up. Then again FPL has a huge amount of CCGT(10+ of GW Florida as a whole has 31.5).
In Oct the US had 32+(more than 4 in the last year) GW of Utility PV Solar and and 1 GW of of non-hydro storage. A long row to hoe to get to whatever you call "some".
Not even mentioning the 100 GW of wind.
T2M
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Jan 22, 2020 15:18:33 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Jan 22, 2020 16:17:08 GMT 9.5
Yes the projects that make the headlines do include battery storage. Unfortunately that is a minuscule percentage... T2M, thank you for questioning it – I also would like to know more about any wind/solar plant where battery storage really functions as a firming device. I get the impression from sponsored articles that massive battery storage is often proposed for a wind/solar plant – and makes a splash in the journal. However I suspect that the proposed storage is an optional extra that is so expensive that the RE operator never gets round to funding it. The insincere proposal then serves as a green camouflage for the usual noisy, parasitic RE that gets injected into the grid without first being firmed.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Jan 22, 2020 17:17:57 GMT 9.5
Roger Clifton --- After a wind farm was established up the power path towards the hydro, gas and coal powered generators, a one hour, nominal, utility scale battery was installed about 2 km from here. The effect of the additional "firming" was immediate. Always and forever before that installation lightening storms would cause flicker as the protective relays tripped and reset. Not any more as the battery smooths away the irregularities.
On a larger scale there is the success of the utility scale battery installed to great fanfare in South Australia. Some of the links are available here on the Australia Grid thread.
When a solar or wind power project states that there is to be an associated battery, that will happen as it is in the contract. The batteries are now quite inexpensive for what is obtained.
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Jan 24, 2020 12:07:16 GMT 9.5
When a solar or wind power project states that there is to be an associated battery, that will happen as it is in the contract. Sure, that's if it really is in the contract. True, we are reading stories about renewable plants with batteries to smooth out their contribution to the grid. However, those are promoted stories in trade journals. That is to say, they are primarily sales spin. They would not tell us if the battery is not locked into the contract. Seeing as we never get to hear of a functioning renewable plant that generates nothing but firmed power, we should smell a rat. I bet that examination of the contracts will show these batteries to be optional extras, or something to be added "later". We should assume we are being lied to. Let's believe it when we see it. In South Australia, we have seen the connection (with much political fanfare) of the world's biggest battery. Renewables fans continue to proclaim loudly that South Australia's 1800 MW of wind are fully smoothed out by the battery. They also believe that all of the wind power generated in South Australia is consumed there, making up 50% of its consumption of ~1300 MW. (In fact SA is connected to the 20x larger national grid. At the same time, realist engineers are delighted to make this otherwise useless object do useful things, such as FCAS and fault recovery.) You see, nobody actually checks out the specifications of the battery. If ever filled up, its total capacity is only 130 MWh. That would be only one tenth of one hour of SA's power consumption, even if it could deliver the ~1300 MW. (In fact only 30 MW are made available for firming.) Some backup! The articles we read speak only of the number of hours that this or that battery will last, not of how much power is delivered when the wind don't blow etc. Not much for sure, so we are again being cheated in the fine print. How much should we require? Well, a 100 MW capacity wind farm generates an average of 30% of that capacity, or 30 MW averaged across an average day. That power is intermittent and not welcome on the grid, so it should be firmed with a battery that can supply continuously across the average day. That would require the battery to have a capacity of 30 MW-days, or 720 MWh. That's more than five times bigger than "the biggest battery in the world", and cost several times more than all the turbines on the wind farm. Clearly we are being lied to, being fed with fiction that our greenies desperately want to believe.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Jan 24, 2020 13:01:32 GMT 9.5
Roger Clifton, you misunderstand the function of utility scale batteries. Maybe bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/386/utility-scale-batterieswill be of assistance. I already wrote about the one not 2 km north of me. Also, I have no difficulty finding information about batteries in use elsewhere. Mostly, batteries provide ancillary services. Read in the PJM style power market thread previously linked about that. Batteries are not suitable for so-called backup. Nobody knowledgeable thinks so.
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Jan 25, 2020 11:34:54 GMT 9.5
Batteries are not suitable for so-called backup. Nobody knowledgeable thinks so. Thank you for spelling it out for everybody. This is the categorical statement that the hopefuls who wrote to " Utility scale batteries" need to know, no matter how disappointing it is. To them, a utility scale battery is one that stores energy when it arrives and delivers it when it is needed, an essential tool to convert a nation to 100% renewable power. However, as you say, it can't be done. Not guilty - I do know how the engineers in South Australia turned their windfall toy into useful service, with frequency control and ancillary services. However, its negotiation (on Twitter!) and purchase was entirely politically driven, vindicating the true believers. In that eventuation, it had already served the politicians. Believers in renewables everywhere now are able to point triumphantly to this battery as an examplar for their fantasy future that has no need for either fossil fuels or nuclear energy. They believe each other, but by the time the kiddies sit in judgement, they won't be fooling anybody.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Mar 5, 2020 17:00:27 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Mar 28, 2020 3:14:35 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Apr 2, 2020 7:04:18 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Apr 17, 2020 9:13:15 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Apr 17, 2020 11:11:04 GMT 9.5
"U.S. Nuclear Industry Shaved Generating Costs" -- Average was $30.42/MWh. From the linked article – "The NEI says that the 2019 total generating cost includes an average total operations cost of $18.55/MWh; $5.72/MWh capital cost; and $6.15/MWh in fuel cost. " I am so used to seeing estimates for initial costs of a new reactor in the ballpark of 100 $/MWh that these figures for established reactors are a pleasant surprise. Since many of them have already paid off their capital cost, the remaining amortization of ~6 $/MWh looks almost trivial. The low figure of 6 $/MWh for fuel costs is worth remembering as favouring nuclear vs gas generation – which is dominated by gas fuel costs. On the other hand, such a low cost for fresh fuel created from raw uranium speaks against the deployment of the much more fuel-efficient fast reactors, whose hot fuel requires expensive recycling. Perhaps just as we should require fossil fuel generators to pay heavily for their wastes, we should require LWR operators to pay as much to store their once-used fuel as it would cost to recycle it.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Apr 19, 2020 14:08:39 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Apr 26, 2020 8:10:08 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Apr 30, 2020 12:39:30 GMT 9.5
What's the Cheapest New-Build Power Technology? Aaron Larson 2020 Apr 29 Power Magazine www.powermag.com/whats-the-cheapest-new-build-power-technology/Using LCOE and installed capacity, it seems that on-site wind and solar PV win. However, something must be added for new transmission as well as appropriate backup.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on May 10, 2020 20:12:15 GMT 9.5
What's the Cheapest New-Build Power Technology? Aaron Larson 2020 Apr 29 Power Magazine www.powermag.com/whats-the-cheapest-new-build-power-technology/Using LCOE and installed capacity, it seems that on-site wind and solar PV win. However, something must be added for new transmission as well as appropriate backup. That’s an understatement; that “something” costs more than the wind and solar itself! Plus costs of that “something” rise the more wind and solar is added to a grid. What is more honest is to look at the total system cost of a hypothetical renewables only grid. Because if we want to meet ghg emissions targets we will need to all but eliminate fossil fuels. Talking about LCOE when you get 5% of your energy from solar and the other 95% being fossil fuel is obfuscation at best.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on May 14, 2020 13:33:07 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on May 14, 2020 14:47:46 GMT 9.5
Another opinion not backed up by facts - or even its own content. "Taiwan has been a regional leader on climate policy, with plans to roll out 27 gigawatts of renewables to supply 20 per cent of total electricity needs by 2025. " Translation: Taiwan is a renewables leader in Asia and won't get 80% of its power from renewables even years from now. Power (electricity) is at most a quarter of total primary energy demand, so we can be sure that renewables leader Taiwan will get less than 10% of its primary energy from renewables years from now. Then there is the usual spin on "10x as much solar capacity". 10x a trivial amount is still a small amount. If I have $1 and increase my money ten-fold, I have $10. Whopping! There is nothing in the linked article that suggests that Asia is transitioning to renewables. There is everything to suggest the contrary, and that renewables enthusiasts are still the intellectual lightweights they were decades ago. The one thing that has changed is we use enormously more fossil fuels today than decades ago.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on May 14, 2020 15:08:29 GMT 9.5
Does this look like a renewable energy transition to anyone?
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on May 14, 2020 15:26:12 GMT 9.5
Another myth is that of the "energy transition". Very common - we moved from biofuels to coal, then the oil age, then gas and nuclear. And in the future we will be solar powered! The history of energy "transitions" actually has a different lesson: in absolute terms, there are no energy transitions. When we discover a new energy source (or find better ways to use an old source) we don't throw away the old. We use the new energy source, in addition to the old, and the old keeps growing along with the new. Before the Industrial Revolution the world was a miserable place powered mainly by biofuels. With the steam engine improvements of the Industrial Revolution, coal came into dominance. Or did it? We use more biofuels today than we did before the Industrial Revolution. Similarly when oil became important around the 1920's, did we stop using coal? No. Indeed coal consumption continued to increase. And then when natural gas became important after WWII, did coal and oil diminish? No, they continued to grow. And then, nuclear power became important in the 1970's. Again, no surprise, biofuels, coal, oil and gas all increased alongside. Now we have a supposed "renewables revolution". Guess what will happen? Will the renewables replace previous energy sources? What does 200 years of history tell us?
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on May 15, 2020 12:29:40 GMT 9.5
|
|