Renewable Energy

[dlen]

The problem is, that we have a sort of negative scaling effect with renewables, which counteracts the decreasing cost of pv/wind installations. The more we have of them, the more expensive the accompagnying measures become. There is no such thing as one tipping point - there is only one for each degree of scale (and for each yearly insolation time/rated wind speed time for that matter). This is because with low market penetration, virtually no energy storage/long distance transport is necessary, but with high percentages of renewables, very considerable storage/transport/demand-control facilities have to be built.
The German energy export pointed out by You is feasible only until all the neighbour countries have their own noon PV surplus peaks.
Of course storage technology will evolve with time, too. It will become cheaper. Interestingly, with storage facilities, costs per kwh depend very strongly on storage frequency. Weekly storage is roughly seven times more expensive then daily storage of the same energy amount, because the capital costs of the storage facility has to be carried by 1/7th of the energy. And with rising renewables penetration, the need for longer time storage will increase too.

[domen_]

but with high percentages of renewables, very considerable storage/transport/demand-control facilities have to be built.

How high is "high percentage"? Germany has 25% of renewables, Denmark has 30% wind, and they both don't have any significant hydro power.

[dlen]

I don't know what Denmark does with its excess wind power, but Germany's 25% is definitely already in the range, where storage/transport investments start to be significant. As Satire showed, this is somewhat due to the high percentage of brown coal usage. Without that, a lot more variation could be compensated for by quick reacting gas power stations.
So I forgot one thing to mention: quick reacting kinds of power stations. Yes, we can use them, as long as we have still a mixed electricity economy. But their load factor becomes smaller with each wind farm connecting to the grid, which in turn increases their capital costs per kwh. But I think, for the time beeing, this is the way to go: lots of gas power stations, which can be started or throttled within an hour or so. Not cheap! But provenly feasible. And more effective in terms of GHG emissions.
There is a row going on in Germany about the big north-to-south power lines already necessary to connect the northern wind farms to the southern industries.

[SATire]

but with high percentages of renewables, very considerable storage/transport/demand-control facilities have to be built.

How high is "high percentage"? Germany has 25% of renewables, Denmark has 30% wind, and they both don't have any significant hydro power.

Denmark allready has a power line to Norway - their large hydro power stations act as green "battery". In 2015 the NorGer line between Germany and Norway will be ready, that will help a lot.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/08/renaissance-for-pumped-storage-in-europe
Right now Germany uses e.g. Netherlands gas turbines as "battery" and exports a lot of PV power. That has to change of course. Next to batteries in cars power-to-gas is a good storage possibility. We have storage capacities for gas for about 3 month in German - that would do the job in future.

[SATire]

I have just realized, that a feed-in tarif like in Germany is quite common in more than 60 countries allready. It looks like renewables are internationaly the accepted future for energy. That really gives some hope and there is no reason anymore to feel lonesome. Here is a nice overview: http://www.ren21.net/REN21Activities/GlobalStatusReport.aspx

[dlen]

An interesting article on the cost of adjusting not only the grid but also the companies, which run it:

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21587782-europes-electricity-providers-face-existential-threat-how-lose-half-trillion-euros

[JimD]

Solar Dominates New US Generating Capacity

The monthly energy infrastructure report from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [PDF], which tracks utility-scale projects, shows that through October, 190 solar units totaling 2,528 megawatts in installed capacity had been added in 2013. That’s more than double the 1,257 MW for the same period in 2012, and constitutes 21 percent of all new electrical generating capacity this year....

..That said, for the year, natural gas remains the king in new capacity brought online, accounting for 6,625 MW of the overall total 12,327 MW added. Wind, still bouncing back from last year’s production tax credit scare, has seen 1,027 MW of new capacity come online. The industry appears headed for its weakest year since 2004, but expects to benefit next year from a pipeline now filling up with projects....

Not too bad.  But it still means coal grew by about 2100 MW.   But I am sure that it used to be much worse.

http://www.earthtechling.com/2013/11/solar-dominates-new-us-generating-capacity/

[ggelsrinc]

The problem is, that we have a sort of negative scaling effect with renewables, which counteracts the decreasing cost of pv/wind installations. The more we have of them, the more expensive the accompagnying measures become. There is no such thing as one tipping point - there is only one for each degree of scale (and for each yearly insolation time/rated wind speed time for that matter). This is because with low market penetration, virtually no energy storage/long distance transport is necessary, but with high percentages of renewables, very considerable storage/transport/demand-control facilities have to be built.
The German energy export pointed out by You is feasible only until all the neighbour countries have their own noon PV surplus peaks.
Of course storage technology will evolve with time, too. It will become cheaper. Interestingly, with storage facilities, costs per kwh depend very strongly on storage frequency. Weekly storage is roughly seven times more expensive then daily storage of the same energy amount, because the capital costs of the storage facility has to be carried by 1/7th of the energy. And with rising renewables penetration, the need for longer time storage will increase too.

Of course, we have a sort of negative scaling effect with renewables and it will only get worse as our current damns (sp) lose glacier fed water. Wind and solar can't do the job, so only safe nuclear can. There are ways to provide energy and not pollute our planet, though they aren't in vogue. What is?

[domen_]

In Germany new products are starting to appear on the market which boost self consumption a lot.

It works like this (a house with rooftop PV): when Sun is shining and you don't need electricity, you heat water and store it in hot water tank (which you need anyway). If some device turns on (lets say refrigerator) then you reduce water heating so that electricity from PV is also used for refrigerator. When refrigerator doesn't need electricity anymore, then you ramp up water heating again. This way house is using practically 100% of electricity that solar generated (if size is not too big) with very little integration costs.

[domen_]

If anyone interested, this seems to be the way storage will be dealt with: converting excess power to methane, store it, and then use it later when Sun isn't shining/wind isn't blowing. It's a carbon neutral process.

Methane (or methanol) can also be used for transportation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_to_gas

There are several pilot projects up and running, Audi also has one commercial one.

http://www.powertogas.info/

[ccgwebmaster]

If anyone interested, this seems to be the way storage will be dealt with: converting excess power to methane, store it, and then use it later when Sun isn't shining/wind isn't blowing. It's a carbon neutral process.

Methane (or methanol) can also be used for transportation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_to_gas

There are several pilot projects up and running, Audi also has one commercial one.

http://www.powertogas.info/

That's interesting - I didn't even realise it was possible to produce methane like that - however I'm not sure it would be easy to make it carbon neutral - wouldn't it be very difficult to scavenge enough carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?

Sure enough Wikipedia describes the process behind it as a low CO2 option rather than carbon neutral - and even as a low CO2 option I think it's still predicated on fossil fuel power plant exhausts...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction#Energy_storage

[ggelsrinc]

If anyone interested, this seems to be the way storage will be dealt with: converting excess power to methane, store it, and then use it later when Sun isn't shining/wind isn't blowing. It's a carbon neutral process.

Methane (or methanol) can also be used for transportation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_to_gas

There are several pilot projects up and running, Audi also has one commercial one.

http://www.powertogas.info/

The methanol economy is a suggested future economy in which methanol replaces fossil fuels as a means of energy storage, ground transportation fuel, and raw material for synthetic hydrocarbons and their products. It offers an alternative to the proposed hydrogen economy or ethanol economy.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_economy

[wili]

dom and ccg, that's all fine and good, as long as the methane doesn't end up escaping directly into the atmosphere. Good to see yet another technique being developed though to handle the intermittency issue (though this was never as damning a problem as the ff/nuke folks claimed).

[ccgwebmaster]

dom and ccg, that's all fine and good, as long as the methane doesn't end up escaping directly into the atmosphere. Good to see yet another technique being developed though to handle the intermittency issue (though this was never as damning a problem as the ff/nuke folks claimed).

Oh, I wasn't really saying I thought it was a good answer for energy storage for wind turbines per se (I favour flywheels personally as most sensible, with compressed air a distant second) - as it has a key issue in the sourcing of the carbon dioxide, but nonetheless it's interesting. Possible applications for transport fuel? Also if an organised scheme was undertaken to sequester carbon dioxide from biochar - one could combust some of the biomass to provide the energy to create the biochar and use the carbon dioxide from that for gas creation for vehicle fuels (I appreciate liquid methane won't have the same energy density as gasoline but it's still probably easier to handle than hydrogen).

Although methane is a potent greenhouse gas it isn't as threatening as carbon dioxide at low levels of release due to the short residence time. My primary concern with it in relation to submarine clathrates is the potential for a rather large and nasty positive feedback. In terms of atmospheric methane from human activities that's actually an area that - theoretically - could be addressed pretty fast to reduce forcings (much faster than carbon dioxide).

[ggelsrinc]

dom and ccg, that's all fine and good, as long as the methane doesn't end up escaping directly into the atmosphere. Good to see yet another technique being developed though to handle the intermittency issue (though this was never as damning a problem as the ff/nuke folks claimed).

Oh, I wasn't really saying I thought it was a good answer for energy storage for wind turbines per se (I favour flywheels personally as most sensible, with compressed air a distant second) - as it has a key issue in the sourcing of the carbon dioxide, but nonetheless it's interesting. Possible applications for transport fuel? Also if an organised scheme was undertaken to sequester carbon dioxide from biochar - one could combust some of the biomass to provide the energy to create the biochar and use the carbon dioxide from that for gas creation for vehicle fuels (I appreciate liquid methane won't have the same energy density as gasoline but it's still probably easier to handle than hydrogen).

Although methane is a potent greenhouse gas it isn't as threatening as carbon dioxide at low levels of release due to the short residence time. My primary concern with it in relation to submarine clathrates is the potential for a rather large and nasty positive feedback. In terms of atmospheric methane from human activities that's actually an area that - theoretically - could be addressed pretty fast to reduce forcings (much faster than carbon dioxide).

The most sensible answer I've seen so far for grid storage are sodium sulfur batteries, because the materials are cheap. Getting enough lithium by mining or using nuclear reactors is another option. Most large hydro facilities are regulated to store energy. Smaller hydro can add some additional energy, so look into it! A three foot or one meter drop with minimal equipment is all that is needed to make energy.

[JimD]

An interesting article on Europe's energy situation and the potential for problems going forward.

Note: the source is an oil industry publication of which one has to retain a certain amount of suspicion of intent.

Europe and Its Slippery Energy Slope

....The narrative is that energy is what is dragging Europe down – not low birthrates and pervasive social-safety networks, but increasing dependence on expensive energy imports and hopelessly tangled markets.....

...many had comments about the energy dependence across Europe; its labyrinthine regulations in nearly all 28 countries, its inability to form capital for large projects like nuclear, and governments intruding into the market....

...The result is a patchwork of contradictions, counterproductive regulations, political fiats and multiple objectives that leave Europeans paying more for energy than they need to and failing to develop indigenous sources, such as their own shale gas deposits in Ukraine and Poland. It also leaves countries dependent on capricious and expensive gas from Russia....

....Germany and other countries are dealing with what is called “loop flow” – when the renewables aren't performing, either because the wind has dropped or the sun has set, fossil fuels plants have to be activated. This means that renewable systems are often shadowed by old-fashioned gas and coal generation that has to be built, but which isn't counted toward the cost of the renewable generation.

With increasing use of wind, which is the most advanced renewable, the problem of loop flow is increased, pushing up the price of electricity.
...

So?  Oil industry push back and an attempt to set the stage for influencing policy shifts, or what?

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Europe-and-Its-Slippery-Energy-Slope.html

[wili]

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/03/3016441/solar-competitiveness-natural-gas/

Solar Will Achieve Near-Global Competitiveness With Natural Gas By 2025

Solar power may be well on its way to near-global cost competitiveness with natural gas by 2025, according to new numbers from Lux Research. And rather than acting purely as market competitors, the two energy sources could form a symbiosis with the construction of hybrid plants that make use of both.

Lux Research used a “bottom-up system cost model” to analyze the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for solar, natural gas, and hybrid systems using both sources. In plain terms, the LCOE is the cost per kilowatt-hour of a given energy source, accounting for all the costs involved across its life cycle. Lux’s analysis covered 10 global regions through 2030, and ran through three different scenarios: a “Low Gas Price Scenario,” a “High Gas Price Scenario,” and a “Likely Gas Price Scenario.”

The result was that under both the Likely and High scenarios, the LCOE of solar — unsubsidized by any government program — met or dropped below natural gas’ LCOE in virtually every region of the world by 2025.

[ghoti]

It seems that the cost effectiveness of reducing peak demand price is often overlooked when considering solar competitiveness. I just ran into an example of solar with storage is commercially cost effective in California. See SolarCity's latest offering. http://t.co/rvXBzQXbsc

[wili]

Good point, fish. That's what I find myself often trying to remind people of. Someone should be selling air conditioning units that run on DC (DC-AC?) and are fed directly by attached solar panels. If the house is well insulated and shaded (by solar panels!) enough, the house itself can act as a storage unit of 'cold' for a while. And then in extremely hot areas you could have backup ac's for those relatively rare times when it gets very hot while very cloudy.

[ghoti]

Coolerado demos (or at least they used to) their air conditioning system at outdoor events by running it on the power from a couple of solar panels.

[JackTaylor]

Thalassothermics -- throwing an additional term for renewable's

A hospital in Saint-Pierre, Réunion, will soon be air conditioned using… sea water.
http://pulse.edf.com/en/sea-water-air-conditioning-making-waves/

Let's help the oceans warm while we cool !!!

[wili]

LOL, for some reason I first read that as 'thanato-thermics' which would have meant something like "heating (or cooling?) with dead people"!

[TerryM]

Jack


Toronto does something similar for cooling - and heating!


Terry

[JackTaylor]

LOL, for some reason I first read that as 'thanato-thermics' which would have meant something like "heating (or cooling?) with dead people"!

LOL - dead people - when our "gut feelings" pan out we may be doing plenty of heating with dead people.

Do crematoriums emit excessive GHG's ?

thanato-
a combining form meaning “death,” used in the formation of compound words: thanatophobia.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/thanato?s=t

thalasso-
a combining form meaning “sea,” used in the formation of compound words: thalassocracy.
Origin:
combining form representing Greek thálassa  sea
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Thalasso?s=t

Should have added links in first post, as I am not a Greek Scholar.

[wili]

Thanks for the etymological links.

We will need those 'tipping points' to tip pretty soon and pretty steeply if we are to avoid extreme cutbacks in energy supply while still having any hope of avoiding catastrophic CC:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/South-Scores-11th-Hour-Win-on-Climate-Loss-and-Damage_IPS.html

To have a good chance at staying under two degrees C, industrialised countries need to crash their CO2 emissions 10 percent per year starting in 2014, said Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Manchester.

[wili]

Interesting debate on oil/gas vs renewables:

http://www.treehugger.com/energy-policy/amory-lovins-vs-charles-c-mann-future-oil.html

[JimD]

I urge readers to read all the links in wili's above post.  They present a great view of the various issues and really highlight our problem with getting the burning of oil and gas eliminated. 

[domen_]

Stoping burning coal and gas for making electricity is certainly well within reach. It's just a matter of time when people will realize that renewables have become cheaper. The same goes for energy efficiency in buildings. In next couple of years renewables will take off like crazy.

Transportation (cars, ships, planes) is a bit more difficult. There are some electric cars available, but they're not yet competitive. Maybe in a couple of years. But I don't see any real solution for ships and planes anytime soon. There's some work to do there.

[wili]

By and large, that's true, domen. But as the some of discussion in my above link makes clear, storage is, in fact, an issue that become more pressing as renewables reach up to the high percentage of the energy mix.

But I do think that many are thinking about this in rather the wrong way.

We (at least in industrialized countries) got our expectations for both the quantity and consistency of electricity we use from a background of ff generation (mixed with some hydro and nukes).

The problem those had (especially coal and nukes) that people struggled with early on was base load--what do you do with all the extra energy generated at night and at other times when people didn't really need it. This was 'solved' by (among other things) lighting up the night sky so that the once 'dark' face of the earth now looks like another star from afar.

Now not having base load is seen as a problem. But if we rethink our need to constantly light everything up, it will seem less so.

Similarly we have the habit of expecting electricity 24/7 unless there is a storm or something. But if we can adjust our expectations to those natural events, we should also be willing to adjust our expectations to using much less or no electricity when there is neither sun nor wind.

The expectation that we should not have to be sensitive and accommodating to the ebbs and flows of nature is exactly part of the modern sickness that use of ff had infected us with.

But this represents a rather deep difference in mindset that will take a while (generation at least) to get used to--to see as just a different relationship to energy and the earth, rather than a horrible deprivation and lowering of quality.

[JimD]

wili those are good points, but there is another factor which complicates the situation.  While we certainly could do a lot more to conserve on electricity usage and modify our use and expectations (I live a development which has no street lights for instance - each house has a very low wattage bulb mounted above the mail box) it is much more difficult for industry to manage efficient production when there are outages or brownouts.

This industry issue is one reason that there are a significant number of German factories relocating to the US right now.  Especially to Texas.  Reliable power is critical for many industries.

Of course if we were already scaling back the world economy as we should be it would not be much of a problem to deal with either.  We could also leave out the robots and give people jobs to I suppose.  But where would the fun be in that.

[wili]

Nicely put, and I don't mean to minimize the difficulty of the transition--just that part of it is a mind change thing.

Your point about industry pretty much makes my larger point. Industrial society grew up with, and largely because of, access to large quantities of cheap fossil fuels.

So of course industries expectations/requirements are to have more of the same. One would think that the argument would be one of 'sunk costs'--that industry could not radically rework it's processes to accommodate intermittent electric availability because its too expensive to rebuild everything. But these companies are not only willing to rebuild everything, but to move production nearly half way around the world.

So sunk costs aren't exactly the issue in these cases, and is likely in part at least a failure of imagination, imho, to rethink what it means to do industry as if we were actually on the planet we are on and were not in the process of madly rushing to its, and our own, demise.

Ultimately, though, we do have to face the question of what if anything post ff 'industry' can look like, if anything. If it is to exist at all, I think it is going to have to start looking very different than industry of the last 200 years or so that could work 24/7. Even hydro, which provided primary energy for mills well into the industrial civilization, will become less reliable as we move toward a world where the hydrological cycles have been knocked completely off kilter.

"We could also leave out the robots and give people jobs to I suppose."

You radical luddite, you!

[JimD]

I am sort of a Luddite.  Pretty funny since I was trained as an engineer.  I hate robots.

One thing about hydro as a renewable.  If we don't do something about the silt build up behind the dams throughout the country they will be useless for producing power in another few decades to half a century.  Just in time for collapse.  All that silt which was supposed to be deposited on the potential farm land is being caught behind the dams and they are filling up.  It needs to be flushed out or we will lose the ability to generate power from them.  How do we fix that?

I have read that China's new Three Gorges Dam will silt full in just a few decades as the river it is on is one of the most heavily sedimented there is.  The tangled web we weave.

[wili]

My bro wrote his masters thesis on 3gorges way back in the early '80s when it was just in planning stages. These and other problems were very well understood by the technocrats. It actually caused a bit of a rupture in that class, with some for the first time recognizing the environmental consequences of development as a real concern. Of course, that didn't stop the damn thing ( from going through, nor many others since. But there is at least some level of environmental awareness starting to spread across the top echelons, and my bro (at least) traces the beginnings of that to resistance against this mega-project.

[domen_]

This industry issue is one reason that there are a significant number of German factories relocating to the US right now.

This is not correct. It's quite the opposite. German grid has become even more stable in past 5 years and lower prices for industry (not households) are attracting ever more industry in Germany.

http://energytransition.de/2013/08/energiewende-separating-fact-from-fiction/

Be careful about what media says about renewables. Always check for facts. Fossil fuel companies have launched massive anti-renewables campaign, it's like a twin of climate change denial. There's all sorts of deliberate misinformation out there.

[JimD]

domen

You are mistaken on this point about German (and other European) industry not moving to the US.  There is quite a bit of it going on and a lot more planned for the next few years.  The financial press has had many articles about this during the last year.  This is not to say what Germany and other European countries are doing re: alternate energy supplies is not a good idea, but there are consequences.  And others will take advantage of them.  The US intends to grab a bunch of that business and our having lower energy costs, lower labor costs, laxer regulations and a very business friendly operating environment means (temporarily to be sure) that many businesses will take advantage of those circumstances.

...•Airbus is building an aircraft assembly plant in Mobile, Alabama.  It will produce A320 jets for the American market.  Der Spiegel noted that Airbus “could save on manufacturing costs compared to its plants in Hamburg, Germany, and Toulouse, France.”
•Siemens, a German multi-national engineering and electronics company, is making turbines for fossil fuel power plants in Charlotte, North Carolina.
•BASF, the German chemical company, has opened a $33 million facility expansion in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
•Michelin, the French tire producer, is developing a $750 million facility in Greenville, South Carolina.
•BMZ GmbH, a German company, opened its U.S. facility in Virginia Beach, Virginia for research, development, assembly and distribution of lithium ion rechargeable batteries.
•SO.F.TER Group, an Italian plastics compounding company, is building a new plant in Lebanon, Tennessee.
•Prufrex Innovative Power Products, a German producer of digital ignition systems and electronic control units, is spending  $7.3 million to build a manufacturing plant in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
• Thomas Magnete GmbH provides engineering services and hydraulic equipment for the automobile, agricultural and construction industries, and it will be opening a manufacturing facility in Brookfield, Wisconsin.
•Wacker Polysilicon, which makes hyper-pure poly-crystalline silicon, is opening a $5 million pilot plant and training center in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
•Kayser Automotive, a German producer of metal and plastic components for cars, will build a $1.5 million manufacturing facility in Fulton, Kentucky.
• British-based Rolls Royce decided against expanding a plant in the U.K. and instead built a plant in Prince George County, Virginia for producing engine parts.
• The Kűbler Group, a German manufacturer of motion sensors, opened a U.S. production facility in Charlotte, North Carolina.
•The Austrian steelmaker Voestalpine AG is building a $715 million plant near Corpus Christi, Texas.
• Royal Dutch Shell, headquartered in the Netherlands, announced it would build a multi-billion dollar petrochemical plant in Pennsylvania.
•Dow Chemical closed facilities in Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and the U.K., while  opening a plant in Texas.
...

...The German government tried to stem the outflow of investment capital and jobs by making electricity available to aluminum, chemicals, steel and other big energy-intensive German companies at subsidized low rates.  Naturally, many more companies began lobbying for those subsidized low rates, and the government expanded eligibility by changing the official definition of  “energy-intensive” from those using more than 10 gigawatt-hours annually to those using more than 1 gigawatt-hour annually....

...If, as seems likely, the European Commission strikes down Germany’s subsidized electricity rates, German businesses will be hit hard.  German Chancellor Angela Merkel has acknowledged  that subsidies will have to be cut.  Sharply higher electricity costs could accelerate the  de‑industrialization of Germany,...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowell/2013/09/19/how-europes-economy-is-being-devastated-by-global-warming-orthodoxy/

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/56f252aa-4adf-11e3-8c4c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2nlKbU25N

https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/lean_manufacturing_sourcing_procurement_behind_american_export_surge/

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100993061

[wili]

Something that may help on the storage and grid problems?:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/18/3080751/solarcity-tesla-storage-solution/

The system is called DemandLogic, and it involves batteries produced by Tesla Motors — “about the size of a small refrigerator” — combined with a solar array and software that communicates with the wider grid, responding to changes in rates and electricity demand and balancing those with what the solar array and the battery can provide.

The industry refers to the process as “load leveling.” It not only provides customers with a more reliable stream of power, it also helps out utilities by smoothing out demand peaks. That means they don’t have to fire up extra plants as often to fill in supply gaps, which saves them costs as bringing those plants on and offline is inefficient. Plants for covering those demand peaks also tend to be fired by fossil fuels, so cutting down on their usage benefits the environment through fewer carbon emissions.

Solar arrays are also well-suited to this kind of peak demand management, since they’re generating the most power when the sun is shining, which also tends to be when air conditioning use is at its highest.

But...there's always a 'but':

But while it looks good on paper, the system still needs to prove its feasibility. “It’s not a no-brainer,” said Sam Jaffe, a senior research analyst at Navigant Research. “You still have to have the exact right combination of rates and demand charges and the cost of that equipment.”

ETA: And there's more from TP on innovations in alternative energy this year here:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/18/3060131/13-clean-energy-breakthroughs-2013-2/

Of special note wrt the intermittency issue currently under discussion now, #3:

The next generation of wind turbines is a gamechanger. May of 2013 brought the arrival of GE’s Brilliant line of wind turbines, which bring two technologies within the turbines to address storage and intermittency concerns.

An “industrial internet” communicates with grid operators, to predict wind availability and power needs, and to optimally position the turbine.

Grid-scale batteries built into the turbines store power when the wind is blowing but the electricity isn’t needed — then feed it into the grid as demand comes along, smoothing out fluctuations in electricity supply.

It’s a more efficient solution to demand peaks than fossil fuel plants, making it attractive even from a purely business aspect. Fifty-nine of the turbines are headed for Michigan, and two more will arrive in Texas.

[SATire]

domen
You are mistaken on this point about German (and other European) industry not moving to the US.

JimD,
I am quite sure that domen did not deny that German companies are expanding also to US (as they do towards China). But to blame non reliable electricty supply in germany is very strange. Most of the companies just move towards their markets and not due to renewables - that is a myth.

If, as seems likely, the European Commission strikes down Germany’s subsidized electricity rates, German businesses will be hit hard.  German Chancellor Angela Merkel has acknowledged  that subsidies will have to be cut.  Sharply higher electricity costs could accelerate the  de‑industrialization of Germany,...

How could de-industrialization in Germany could accelerate? De-industrialization is just not happening right now. Of course, if EU would force Germany to kill its industry, that could happen. But maybe EU will not force Germany to kill its industry. That would not be beneficial for anybody in the world.
The industry is not strong due to cheap energy but due to well educated poeple - those can not be found somewhere else easily. The main effect of rising energy prices have been innovations...

[JimD]

SATire

..Most of the companies just move towards their markets and not due to renewables - that is a myth. ...

The issue certainly is complex but energy costs are a big part of doing business for industrial firms.  This issue about energy costs is not my opinion.  I have read it many times in the financial press.  It is given as a prime reason that some German and other European companies are building factories in the US.  Other factors are the low US labor costs, lower taxes, etc.  There is no way this is just phony press.  These are real issues. 

But let us not miss the point that, while the drive in Germany to develop alternative energy is certainly a good idea, there are consequences.  I am not praising the fact that the US is taking advantage of the stress that German energy policy puts on industrial companies.  I am just pointing out that they are.  By the US doing this there will be consequences for us as well.  Some will be perceived here as good; higher employment, economic growth, improved trade figures, marginally improved tax receipts, etc.  There will be downsides as well of course; mostly long-term and somewhat hidden in AGW data but more destabilizing than if the work was performed in Germany.

This situation points out our critical need for consistent policy on an international basis.  If one country tries to do what is right (Germany in this case) but another country, which ignores its responsibilities (the US), takes advantage of the situation to advance its short-term economic interests it makes it very difficult for progress to be made on the overall solution.  It may also blow back onto Germany's energy policy and impact their internal politics. 

[tombond]

In 1999 Germany generated 193 TW of electricity or 35% from non carbon sources, mainly nuclear and hydro.   At that time Germany’s total GHG emissions were about a billion tonnes annually.
That year it made the political decision to replace nuclear power with renewable energy, wind, solar and biomas.   
By 2012 it had installed 66GW of wind and solar plus 8 GW of biomass at a capital cost of about 150B euros.  This capital cost is repaid by an annual feed in tariff guaranteed for 20 years.  By 2012 the annual feed in tariff repayments had risen to 20B euros. 
In 2012 Germany generated 230TW or 38% from non carbon sources. 
•   66GW of wind and solar supplied 73TW or 12%.
•   11GW of hydro and biomas supplied 62TW or 10%
•   12GW of nuclear generated 94TW or 16%.
In 2012 Germany commissioned the first of 10GW of coal burning power plants by the opening of a 2.2GW facility.   http://www.greencarcongress.com/2012/08/rwe-20120816.html
In 2012 after the closure of 6 nuclear plants Germany’s GHG emissions rose by 1.6% and are set to rise again in 2013 as more coal plants come on line.
By 2022 Germany plans to;
•   Close the remaining nuclear power capacity.
•   Reduce electricity demand by 20% by efficiency measures to about 500TW.
•   Generate 200TW of electricity or 42% from renewable sources mainly from 60GW of wind (including 13GW of offshore) and 54GW of solar. 
•   Complete 10GW of coal burning capacity.

After 23 years and a capital expenditure of say 250B euros (feed in tariff repayments will be much higher) Germany’s electricity production from non carbon sources is almost unchanged from 1999 at about 200TW and less than the 230TW generated in 2012 with 300TW still generated from fossil carbon sources.

Germany is often cited as an emissions reduction model for other nations to follow.  However this model, even if copied world-wide does not give me any confidence that the requirements of RCP 2.6 by 2100 will be met.

The next ten years will indeed show if renewables have reached a tipping point. 

[Neven]

By the US doing this there will be consequences for us as well.

Yes, if you don't stop fracking, you will all be speaking German soon. 

[SATire]

Germany is often cited as an emissions reduction model for other nations to follow.  H

You know, that most of Germanys reduction in CO2 since 1990 are do to breakdown of east Germanys inefficient industry - that breakdown was our biggest "success".

The big costs you mentioned were paid to scale renewables by mass production. That was not seen possible 10 years ago but now they are quite competetive and will become more competetive every day in future.

There was not a big effort undertaken to reduce CO2 in the electricity market - that goal was changed to exit nuclear faster (double U-turn after change to exit slower). By no means Germany can be considered as example for CO2 efficiency - instead efficiency is worse than in most other countries. But ist can be considered as example how to scale renewables faster than expected - and as an example how to prevent CO2 reductions while boosting renewables - also some kind of a miracle ;-).

[SATire]

Since we are allready discussing German politics, I would like to let you know some news from our new German government.

Maybe you realized that we had elections in September and before that date a lot of misleading stories about German "Energiewende" and mainly about its costs were spread.

Now the negotiations between CDU and SPD are done and we have a new government since the beginning of this week. The greatest surprises are directly related to "Energiewende" (energy turnaround):

The vice-cancellor Sigmar Gabriel (SPD) will lead the newly combined "super" ministery for economy and energy. His challenge is the Energiewende - if he can not do that, his party SPD will have no chance for future governments. But if he can do that, chances are good for him to become the next cancellor (media are telling allready now).

Secondly, the ministery for environment is also lead by SPD (Barbara Hendricks). In history and especially the last 4 years, it was typical that environment and economy were ruled by rival ministeries from different parties (e.g. economy from liberal and environment from christian) - that rivalry resulted in a lot of stalemate.
Today both are from the same party and one of them (Gabriel) is even the head of the party.

Thirdly, although green party is not part of the government, a state secretary from green party was choosen! That makes it much easier to get the states in the boat, which are often run by green party.
Especially the state secretary of economy&energy is a sensation: Rainer Baake http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainer_Baake is surely the best person to do the job "Energiewende" - he also managed the real one 1999-2002. A comment: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/kuenftiger-staatssekretaer-baake-gabriels-gruener-1.1844462
And the place where R. Baake developed the latest plans is this think-tank: http://www.agora-energiewende.org/

You may find an english explanation of ideas for a future Energiewende here: http://www.agora-energiewende.de/fileadmin/downloads/publikationen/Impulse/12_Thesen/Agora_12_Insights_on_Germanys_Energiewende_web.pdf )

To conclude: I see hope for the future. The artificial opposite between industry and renewables could come to an end. Renewables are industry - next to efficiency the only one future-proof. And it fits to the hype around production 4.0, digital production and "economy with sense". I even started a new tech-company myself because those needs are real and the climate is very good for future-proof innovations. I know I am sounding very optimistic - it is just the right time to be optimistic and to do the transitions into the future now.

[JimD]

A bit off topic but related to our last few posts.

For our non-US readers this is how the US beats European entities on industrial wage costs.

...The more recent influx of European- and Japanese-owned nonunion factories to the South has had a similar effect. In their homelands, Mercedes, Volkswagen, and Toyota work closely with unions, and the German companies pay their workers as much as or more than the most highly paid American autoworkers. When such companies move into the American South, however, they go native, not only paying their workers far less than they do in Europe or Japan but also opposing their efforts to form a union. (Under pressure from the German autoworkers union, however, Volkswagen has recently committed itself to establishing a consultative works council at its Tennessee plant. Such councils are standard at Volkswagen plants in Germany and other nations; in the U.S., the particulars of American labor law require that the company recognize the UAW as the workers’ representative.)

One way these factories reduce workers’ wages is not to employ them directly. By the estimate of one former manager, roughly 70 percent of the workers at Nissan’s plant in Smyrna, Tennessee, aren’t Nissan employees but rather are under contract to temporary employment-service companies that pay them roughly half the hourly wage of Nissan’s own employees. One academic survey found that while just 2.3 percent of manufacturing workers in 1989 were temps, by 2004 the number had risen to 8.7 percent.....

The link to the quote above I am going to post in the Empire thread as it more belongs there.

[Neven]

To conclude: I see hope for the future. The artificial opposite between industry and renewables could come to an end. Renewables are industry - next to efficiency the only one future-proof. And it fits to the hype around production 4.0, digital production and "economy with sense". I even started a new tech-company myself because those needs are real and the climate is very good for future-proof innovations. I know I am sounding very optimistic - it is just the right time to be optimistic and to do the transitions into the future now.

Thanks for this, SATire. I'm also slightly optimistic, but for completely subjective reasons, having installed 5.25 kWp on my home last month, and plans to add a combination of a 10 kWh battery system and 80%water/20%air wood oven to really push the limits on how far you can go building an eco-house with standards that are very much acceptable to most people.

I watched some documentaries and discussions about the Energiewende on Youtube a while back, and was soon convinced that a lot of the propaganda smearing the Energiewende is wrong, although of course nothing is perfect. But I highly respect the Germans for what they're trying to do. If you want to do this (get rid of nuclear and fossil fuels), this is how it's done.

[Shared Humanity]

Just back from the liquor store where I've purchased some Meyers dark rum, straight bourbon and Baileys. I believe I've reached a tipping point.

Happy Holidays everyone.

[JimD]

Good job!  You too!

[wili]

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/giant-battery-can-store-renewable-energy-16852


Giant ‘Battery’ Can Store Renewable Energy

...Norwegian reservoirs could be constantly recharged with water delivered by electricity generated by surplus wind power, with the water power used as a “green” battery in times of shortage.

“If this large wind project is to succeed, we must secure stable electricity supplies”, says Daniel Huertas-Hernando at SINTEF. “Today, forecasts of wind velocities provide the only information which gives us any indication of power generation levels from wind farms for the next 24 hours.

“If these prognoses turn out to be wrong, or if bad weather makes generation from the turbines impossible, we will need an effective stand-by source which can fill the energy supply gap at short notice.
“This is exactly what Norwegian hydropower can do, because it makes it possible to store energy which can then be released on tap as and when it is needed,” he said.

By refurbishing existing plants and installing pump storage, the research shows, the potential of Norwegian hydropower plants could be increased by between 11 and 18 gigawatts, enough to provide adequate backup.

I guess I had assumed that they had already been doing this for some time.

[JimD]

Wili

It is going to get much bigger but it pretty small still along the lines of the Norwegian plant.

There are quite a few pumped storage facilities out there as this idea has been implemented for about 100 years.  Ones that are primarily set up to store wind or solar do not seem very common yet, but many are being planned I believe.  Locations are a big issue.  If your wind and solar generating sources are not located close of an existing hydro plant you need to build a generating facility with an upper and lower reservoir or locate on an existing river and dam it up.  Issues as they say, pop up.  Cost becomes a big factor.  Energy efficiencies are good at hydro facilities where it can be as high as 80%.

... In the U.S., there are 40 existing pumped storage projects providing over 22,000 MWs of storage, with largest projects in Virginia, Michigan and California (Bath County, Ludington and Helms, respectively).  Additionally, there currently are 51,310 MWs representing over 60 pumped storage projects in the FERC queue for licensing and permitting.    Globally, there are approximately 270 pumped storage plants either operating or under construction, representing a combined generating capacity of over 127,000 megawatts (MW). As a proven technology, it been shown to be cost effective, highly efficient, and operationally flexible....

Here is a list of large power plants (1000MW+) that use pumped storage but it does not say what type of power generation is being pumped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroelectric_power_stations

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/11/pumped-storage-hydropower-projects-attractive-means-of-storing-excess-energy-stanford-study-says

www.hydro.org/wp-content/.../NHA_PumpedStorage_071212b1.pdf‎

http://www.fairfaxclimatewatch.com/blog/2013/07/is-pumped-storage-hydro-power-the-answer-to-storing-wind-and-solar.html

[SATire]

It is going to get much bigger but it pretty small still along the lines of the Norwegian plant.

JimD - you are right with this point - most hydro power plants in Norway are not pump storage plants today and power lines are missing. But there is a good chance for the future as I will explain later.

[...]  Energy efficiencies are good at hydro facilities where it can be as high as 80%.

... In the U.S., there are 40 existing pumped storage projects providing over 22,000 MWs of storage, with largest projects in Virginia, Michigan and California (Bath County, Ludington and Helms, respectively).  Additionally, there currently are 51,310 MWs representing over 60 pumped storage projects in the FERC queue for licensing and permitting.    Globally, there are approximately 270 pumped storage plants either operating or under construction, representing a combined generating capacity of over 127,000 megawatts (MW). As a proven technology, it been shown to be cost effective, highly efficient, and operationally flexible....

JimD, those numbers look very tiny: 22,000 MWs are only 6 MWh - could you have mixed up seconds and hours maybe?

In Germany (about 1/4 population of USA - so in USA following numbers should roughly be scaleable by about 4 times) the hydro pump storage plants have a capacity of 40 GWh (=40,000 MWh= 144,000,000 MWs) and can deliver a peak power of 7 GW http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumpspeicherkraftwerk . That numbers sound huge - but it is a very small capacity if we rely on renewables and if there are 2 weeks without wind in winter:
Since Germany consumes during a working day about 70 GW all the pump storage plants can deliver 10% of that demand for 6 hours  (40 GWh/7GW)- then the "battery" is empty.

So pump storage is very usefull to substitute several gas turbines to meet typical peak demand in the morning and evening hours (the time, when PV output is low but demand is high because poeple are working) - but domestic pump storage (which is build allready close to its natural limits and poeples acceptance - maybe a factor of 2 could be possible in best case) will never bring us through the cold days of winter. Together with Norway it could be feasible in future - I want to explain that in a following post.

[johnm33]

On a smaller scale, these storage systems, for either domestic, pv, or small scale wind turbines could go a long way to providing for peak demand, or storing overnight wind power to sell into the morning peak.
  http://www.williamsf1.com/AdvancedEngineering/Stationary-Flywheel-Systems/
  http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/energy-solutions/power-storage-flywheels
adding impetus to this trend http://www.testosteronepit.com/home/2013/12/23/clean-energy-presents-perfect-storm-for-utilities.html