Renewable Energy

[Tom_Mazanec]

So Gero's chart has a very long way to go.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a first step.

[interstitial]

On one hand we get people who say. Renewables are not an acceptable solution until we solve how to replace 100% of the grid. On the other hand some say the solutions to the last 10% are a waste until we get to 90%. I am probably overstating a bit but come on we are working on the last 10% now. So it will be ready.
For the crowd who say what is being done is not enough. I agree but we start where we are not where we want to be. I know everyone wants zero fossil fuel plants built right now as do I. Given the globe is not run by a single dictator it is a transition. A 15 years ago the only renewable energy projects were token publicity stunts. By 10 years ago wind was being built for mostly economic reasons. Wind started having an impact on generation then. Ten years ago solar was built for publicity and by individuals. By early 2019 it was being built primarily for economic reasons. Solar generation is starting to have an impact on generation now.
Many of you have been following renewable energy for decades and is still a fraction of fossil fuels. Until about 13 years ago in wind and 18 months ago in solar those projects were mostly publicity stunts. These numbers are for utility projects individual solar is not included.
My local coal plant shuts down one of two burners by the end of 2020. The original plan was to convert the coal burners to natural gas. Lately there has been talk of not converting to natural gas. Many coal plants have announced early retirements this year. While those shut downs are not immediate most are within the next five years.
90% of new capacity this year is renewable energy. Already the average capacity factor of Coal plants is approaching 50%. Individual coal plants tend to shut down when they get to that point. 
The graph is the monthly average in terra watthours averaged over a year. These are actual generation so not effected by capacity factors. The first approximately 20 TWH is hydro. 

[interstitial]

Record wind installations this year. Source eia

[oren]

Thanks for the above posts interstitial, putting things in perspective. I am aware of this but patience sometimes runs thin.

[gerontocrat]

In August, China+India produced more electricity from coal than all the 41 countries of the OECD combined did from coal plus natural gas.

Yes. the pace of change is accelerating in the OECD countries, but it is Asia that matters most. Yes, we have a promise from Xi Jing (but let's wait for the 5 year plan announcements in March to see what is planned to happen in this decade).

I cannot see +1.5c or even +2.0c as a possible outcome for GMSTA increase. It's gotta be more. We have too much evidence of continued investment in fossil fuels and too many Governments that will not bite the bullet. Do you know any Government that will break existing contracts for energy from fossil fuels (as is required to reach the much-trumpeted 2030 target for emission reductions) ?

That is not to say the change to renewables should not happen as fast as seizing every opportunity allows.

But it is to say that where one can plan (for oneself or one's kids), plan for a much hotter remainder of the 21st century.

[Général de GuerreLasse]

At the end of 2019, the wind farm in Germany reached a power of 61.4 GW connected to the grid, in the night of November 11th the electricity production was 3 GW. Fortunately for the Germans that they still have their coal-fired power plants and even worse their lignite power plants, otherwise they would have frozen to death in the night. Sorry guys but it is not yet for tomorrow that our energies will be clean. Only sobriety will save us, not the Corucopian dreams.
 

[interstitial]

China or India represent significant portions of CO2 emissions. In China every  other announcement on coal is about growth in coal.  The other announcements are all no new coal plants will be built and capacity factors for Chinese coal plant are really low. Something like the empty cities that were built. In India some coal guy had the president in his pocket and pushed through some long term contracts. Corruption charges were made. With covid19 many people saw how much better the air could be. Neither country has settled what path they are on. Market forces favor clean energy. Vested interests favor coal but clean energy interests are increasing. The largest PV manufacturer globally is Jinko in China and they seem to be expanding production constantly. As do many of their competitors. In an effort to increase the capacity of India's solar industry the government offered the first year of production from new Indian PV capacity. Admittedly coal interests have been pushing back. I fully expect clean energy to displace coal the only real question is how quickly it happens.

[interstitial]

At the end of 2019, the wind farm in Germany reached a power of 61.4 GW connected to the grid, in the night of November 11th the electricity production was 3 GW. Fortunately for the Germans that they still have their coal-fired power plants and even worse their lignite power plants, otherwise they would have frozen to death in the night. Sorry guys but it is not yet for tomorrow that our energies will be clean. Only sobriety will save us, not the Corucopian dreams.
 
 

Estimates from your map
7gw nuc 5 gw biomass 28 gw coal 3 gw wind 2gw hydro 5 gw pump hydro 12gw nat gas 62 gw
Numbers from nov 15 2020 with similar (roughly) temperatures.
6.3 nuc 5.1 bio 6.6coal 33.3 wind 1.3 hydro 0.6 pump hydro 3.1 natural gas 56.3gw
9.49gw outflow to other countries
First off you cut off the part of the map that shows inflows and outflows of electricity. Unless they were balanced that is relevant. I checked for nov 15 which appears to have similar weather. 9.5 gw was sent to other countries at 56.3 gw produced. That means Germany used 46.8 gw. Subtract that from 62 gw to give 15.2 gw of exported power on your map. This is an estimate because I don’t have exact numbers for your map. The map appears to be from 2020 not 2019. So of the 28 gw of coal they only needed 13 gw.
Your electricity map shows almost 10 gw of coal could be natural gas. That is not ideal but it means only 3 gw of capacity filled by coal was needed.  A single battery plant in California stores 250 mw for 4 hours or 1 gwh. Larger projects are being built. Other US Plants planned finished may 2022 650mw, under construction finish 2023 531mw 2125 mwh. Under construction finish 2021 409mw 900mwh, under construction finish 2021 400mw this site is built with 1.2 gw HVDC converter for offshore wind. There are many other projects being planned and built outside of the US as well. 
Germany bought their solar earlier than most. We should be grateful they pushed the technology along. Now solar is usually coupled with 4 to 6 hours of storage at nameplate capacity. This is enough battery storage to get through the night at a bit less than nameplate capacity.
Siemans offers a turnkey conversion of coal plants into energy storage. They build a well insulated container full of rocks. Heat is stored in those rocks. To release the energy water is sprayed on the rocks to produce steam for the existing turbine. Nameplate capacity is the same as the steam turbine. Overall storage amount determined by the amount of rocks stored.
Gravity storage with concrete is available. Looking for first major project.
Battery storage is available.
There are a number of other options in development which are close. Hydrogen storage a full size facility is starting construction now. In my opinion a better solution is the burning of Iron powder. Burnt Iron is rust which is readily converted back to iron. A brewing will be using it heat bear. First electricity plant is still a few years away.
In summery most of the coal production was exported outside of Germany. So you have to consider regional capacity. Battery storage is available to fill what deficit is left. Finally a number of other storage solutions are competing to offer better storage. Some solutions are available today others in the next few years. The only thing limiting greater adoption of renewable energy today is resistance from vested interests in fossil fuels. Sorry but you have been fed a line of shit(intermittency is readily solvable today).

[Sciguy]

The IEA (which consistently underestimates the pace of the energy transition) now projects that wind and solar electrical generation capacity will exceed that of fossil fuels within five years.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/11/iea-wind-solar-gas-coal-oil-renewables-climate-change-environment/

IEA: Wind and solar capacity will overtake both gas and coal globally by 2024

- Wind and solar capacity will exceed coal and gas in less than five years, according to a new report by the International Energy Agency.
- The increase will mean wind and solar will overtake gas capacity in 2023 and coal in 2024.
- The report also showed how renewables had proved to be resilient during the COVID-19 pandemic, unlike other commodities.

Wind and solar capacity will double over the next five years globally and exceed that of both gas and coal, according to a new International Energy Agency (IEA) report.

The Paris-based intergovernmental agency anticipates a 1,123 gigawatt (GW) increase in wind and solar that would mean these power sources overtake gas capacity in 2023 and coal in 2024.

The continued growth of wind and solar means renewables, including hydro and bioenergy, would displace coal as the largest source of the world’s power by 2025, says the IEA’s report.

In its main case, the IEA has wind, solar, hydro and other renewable sources accounting for 95% of the increase in the world’s electricity generating capacity over the next five years.

Its report forecasts renewables meeting 99% of the increase in electricity demand over the next five years. This can be seen in the chart below.

In the US and Europe, renewable increases are expected to far exceed demand as they are brought in to replace ageing fossil fuel infrastructure.

The graph for India in the above article illustrates how IEA underestimates the pace of renewable energy installations.  India is on pace to achieve the Government's goal of 175 GW of new renewable energy capacity by 2022.  It would only need to install another 25 GW between 2023 and 2025 to meet the numbers projected by the IEA.  However, the Government has a stated policy of installing 450 GW of renewables by 2030.  That would be an average of 45 GW annually in the 2020s. 

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/10/22/green-india-energy-climate/

India has set its own ambitious renewable-energy goals—and is exceeding even them. Its fossil-fuel power-generation capacity is presently about 230 gigawatts (GW), of which 205 GW come from coal. When, in 2015, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced plans to build 175 GW of new renewable-energy capacity by 2022, the announcement was met with skepticism. After all, India at the time only had renewable generating capacity of 34 GW. According to Amitabh Kant, CEO of the government policy think tank NITI Aayog, India has already installed 89 GW of renewable power capacity and will achieve Modi’s 175 GW target as planned.

And Modi has further raised the stakes: At the September 2019 United Nations Climate Action Summit, he announced a new target of 450 GW of renewable energy capacity by 2030. Motivating him are the deadly pollution in Indian cities, the threat of devastating impacts from climate change, and the high bill for energy imports.

It's interesting to see that the other Asian countries are still planning to install more expensive electricity sources than the developed countries.  Perhaps this will give the developed countries an opportunity to reclaim some of their share of the global manufacturing market as the Asian countries will lose their cost advantages.

[Sciguy]

Toshiba has joined Siemens and General Electric in no longer building new coal-fired power plants and instead focusing on new renewable power plants.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Environment/Toshiba-stops-taking-orders-for-coal-fired-power-plants

Toshiba stops taking orders for coal-fired power plants

Company plans to boost renewables investment fivefold as Japan targets zero emissions
Nikkei staff writers
November 10, 2020

TOKYO -- Toshiba will stop taking orders for new coal-fired power plants, moving in line with a global shift toward reducing carbon emissions, Nikkei learned on Tuesday,

Shifting its priority in the energy business to renewables, the Japanese industrial group will increase annual investment in them roughly fivefold to 160 billion yen ($1.52 billion) by fiscal 2022.

Overseas industrial groups are also scaling back their presence in coal power. Siemens Energy, the electricity and gas unit of Siemens spun off in April, said Tuesday that it will stop participating in new tenders for coal-only power plants effective immediately. It will continue to provide maintenance and supply replacement parts for existing plants.

Before Toshiba and Siemens, General Electric in September said that it will stop building new coal-fired power stations and supplying facilities. The U.S. company will shift its focus from the building of new power stations to maintenance and other services.

[blu_ice]

The only thing limiting greater adoption of renewable energy today is resistance from vested interests in fossil fuels. Sorry but you have been fed a line of shit(intermittency is readily solvable today).

But is it really that simple? I'm not saying it cannot be done but I doubt it is that easy. 

Yes, there are a number of technologies available to tackle the intermittency issue, but they all have a cost and they all waste energy during conversion.

Data shows us wind & solar are growing rapidly in developed economies where demand growth is slow and available (fossil) backup capacity plentiful. Developing countries OTOH are building lot of wind & solar AND fossil fuels. Maybe this is all caused by vested interests or maybe the economics of wind & solar  + grid scale storage aren't yet attractive enough.

The future is obviously non-fossil but are we getting there fast enough?

[Général de GuerreLasse]

At the end of 2019, the wind farm in Germany reached a power of 61.4 GW connected to the grid, in the night of November 11th the electricity production was 3 GW. Fortunately for the Germans that they still have their coal-fired power plants and even worse their lignite power plants, otherwise they would have frozen to death in the night. Sorry guys but it is not yet for tomorrow that our energies will be clean. Only sobriety will save us, not the Corucopian dreams.
 
 

Estimates from your map
7gw nuc 5 gw biomass 28 gw coal 3 gw wind 2gw hydro 5 gw pump hydro 12gw nat gas 62 gw
Numbers from nov 15 2020 with similar (roughly) temperatures.
6.3 nuc 5.1 bio 6.6coal 33.3 wind 1.3 hydro 0.6 pump hydro 3.1 natural gas 56.3gw
9.49gw outflow to other countries
First off you cut off the part of the map that shows inflows and outflows of electricity. Unless they were balanced that is relevant. I checked for nov 15 which appears to have similar weather. 9.5 gw was sent to other countries at 56.3 gw produced. That means Germany used 46.8 gw. Subtract that from 62 gw to give 15.2 gw of exported power on your map. This is an estimate because I don’t have exact numbers for your map. The map appears to be from 2020 not 2019. So of the 28 gw of coal they only needed 13 gw.
Your electricity map shows almost 10 gw of coal could be natural gas. That is not ideal but it means only 3 gw of capacity filled by coal was needed.  A single battery plant in California stores 250 mw for 4 hours or 1 gwh. Larger projects are being built. Other US Plants planned finished may 2022 650mw, under construction finish 2023 531mw 2125 mwh. Under construction finish 2021 409mw 900mwh, under construction finish 2021 400mw this site is built with 1.2 gw HVDC converter for offshore wind. There are many other projects being planned and built outside of the US as well. 
Germany bought their solar earlier than most. We should be grateful they pushed the technology along. Now solar is usually coupled with 4 to 6 hours of storage at nameplate capacity. This is enough battery storage to get through the night at a bit less than nameplate capacity.
Siemans offers a turnkey conversion of coal plants into energy storage. They build a well insulated container full of rocks. Heat is stored in those rocks. To release the energy water is sprayed on the rocks to produce steam for the existing turbine. Nameplate capacity is the same as the steam turbine. Overall storage amount determined by the amount of rocks stored.
Gravity storage with concrete is available. Looking for first major project.
Battery storage is available.
There are a number of other options in development which are close. Hydrogen storage a full size facility is starting construction now. In my opinion a better solution is the burning of Iron powder. Burnt Iron is rust which is readily converted back to iron. A brewing will be using it heat bear. First electricity plant is still a few years away.
In summery most of the coal production was exported outside of Germany. So you have to consider regional capacity. Battery storage is available to fill what deficit is left. Finally a number of other storage solutions are competing to offer better storage. Some solutions are available today others in the next few years. The only thing limiting greater adoption of renewable energy today is resistance from vested interests in fossil fuels. Sorry but you have been fed a line of shit(intermittency is readily solvable today).

If you knew how much I wish you were right!!!!! Everything would be simpler and wonderful. Unfortunately we have never seen one energy replace another, it's just a stacking, the new energies are added to the old ones. Look at what is happening in Germany, new energies do not replace others, they just allow Germans to consume more and more energy and resources. This system is crazy and unsustainable.

Replacing the existing energies by wind turbines or photovoltaics is impossible because it is too resource intensive. We must move towards a world where we consume less, a world of sobriety, it is the only solution if we want our children to have a future. We must mourn our expensive lifestyles for the planet. Science can help, but science alone will not save us.
Sooner or later the energy transition will impose itself on us. It is up to us to know whether it will be with us or against us. It is our sobriety or our greed that will decide.

ps: When someone disagrees with me, I don't think what they say is bullshit.

[interstitial]

Fast enough? some already think it is too late. IDK
Renewable energy is only a piece of the puzzle. We need to make other changes too. We consume to much. It is too difficult to repair things. Things are designed to break. The list is long much longer than I will post.


The argument that for a few hours on a specific day renewables are producing very little is a problem. It needs addressing. The argument that because of that renewables don't work ignores the many solutions available. Some of the ideas have not been proven. I read about another one today. Liquify air they are building a 1 mw pilot plant with 150mwh of storage. I don't know which technology will make the most sense at least one of them will be successful. Technology won't solve all of the problems. I don't claim it will. I gave a list of ways to deal with the problem some are available now and some in the near future.
The argument presented was without coal Germans would freeze to death. I called that argument shit. Some things are mostly a matter of opinion and I may disagree with but I can see the argument. Other things are just not true and I try to point those out. Perhaps my language could be more diplomatic but their are many other choices it is not limited to coal or freeze to death. That is the argument that started this. It is not true.


New energies do replace others it is just happening slowly (too slowly). Power plants are built to last a really long time. In the past 12 months there was a net increase of 17.9 gw of renewable energy and a net loss of 7.8 gw of fossil fuels. Their was 1107 gw of capacity total. That is not just stacking new energy with old energy. So that argument does not hold up to investigation. Replacing existing energies with renewable energy is occurring now. Even in fast growing China renewables are replacing fossil fuels.

[NeilT]

The argument that for a few hours on a specific day renewables are producing very little is a problem. It needs addressing. The argument that because of that renewables don't work ignores the many solutions available.

If it were that simple, then it would be solved, right now.  But that is not the problem.  The problem is that for up to 7 days, continuous, more than once a year, very little power is delivered by renewable systems.

Grid scale storage solutions for the whole grid do not exist and will not exist short of countries going onto a war footing for infrastructure build and expenditure on that infrastructure.

The very best possibility, at present technology levels, is to fully transition to EV and use the entire EV base as a flexible grid storage.

But that would require EV's to contain at least twice what owners need for a week or even more.  Allowing owners to share half their charge/discharge capability with the grid.

Jim is absolutely right about that.  The problem is people who keep thinking we _only_ need batteries in our vehicles that do a little less than we really need and can be rapidly topped up.

V2G would be a wonderful solution if every vehicle had a 500 mile range and only did 15 miles a day.

It does nobody any good minimalising the problem then suggesting that we already have solutions.  The problem is Huge and the solutions don't yet exist.  However, if we face up to the problems, at the very least we have a chance of solving them.

[John Batteen]

Unfortunately we have never seen one energy replace another, it's just a stacking, the new energies are added to the old ones.

I think the distinct lack of horsedrawn carriages and farm equipment in the modern day proves this point wrong.

And Neil, it's simply an engineering problem, and it is well on its way to being solved.  Look at the Hornsdale battery in Australia.  Ten years ago people were saying that things like that were impossible.  Now, here we are.  Give them time, the system is growing and evolving rapidly.  All life on earth save for deep sea thermal vents is ultimately dependent on solar energy, which is highly intermittent.  If random chance and natural selection can do it, surely human scientists can too.

[crandles]

If you knew how much I wish you were right!!!!! Everything would be simpler and wonderful. Unfortunately we have never seen one energy replace another, it's just a stacking, the new energies are added to the old ones. Look at what is happening in Germany, new energies do not replace others, they just allow Germans to consume more and more energy and resources. This system is crazy and unsustainable.

Replacing the existing energies by wind turbines or photovoltaics is impossible because it is too resource intensive. We must move towards a world where we consume less, a world of sobriety, it is the only solution if we want our children to have a future. We must mourn our expensive lifestyles for the planet. Science can help, but science alone will not save us.
Sooner or later the energy transition will impose itself on us. It is up to us to know whether it will be with us or against us. It is our sobriety or our greed that will decide.

ps: When someone disagrees with me, I don't think what they say is bullshit.

>never seen one energy replace another

cars didn't replace horses when the economics were right?
electric didn't replace gas lamps?
...

Prior to the economics being right cars were novelty item that had their niche and existed with horses but when the economics favoured it, the transition could happen fairly fast.

The economics have only just moved to favouring renewables and perhaps not yet there if a lot of storage is required. Before the economics have swung and while ff plants have long remaining life and insufficient renewables there is a place for both.

>impossible because it is too resource intensive.

Too resource intensive for what? If it is becoming cheaper than what we have done in the past then it takes less resources not more.

I suspect you are saying it is too slow to wait for ff plants to reach the end of their lives. I accept that we are not just going to close them all before we have enough renewables generation and this may be too slow for the climate response we would like to see.  However this makes the transition too slow rather than "impossible" as you suggest.

Some ff plant will close because their fuel is too expensive and they go bust trying to compete with new renewables though some efficient ff plants will survive until there is enough renewables generation. Are such losses too large to cope with? I suggest such things are happening all the time and we can easily cope. Whether it is fast enough for the climate is a different question.

[interstitial]

The argument that for a few hours on a specific day renewables are producing very little is a problem. It needs addressing. The argument that because of that renewables don't work ignores the many solutions available.

If it were that simple, then it would be solved, right now.  But that is not the problem.  The problem is that for up to 7 days, continuous, more than once a year, very little power is delivered by renewable systems.

Grid scale storage solutions for the whole grid do not exist and will not exist short of countries going onto a war footing for infrastructure build and expenditure on that infrastructure.

The very best possibility, at present technology levels, is to fully transition to EV and use the entire EV base as a flexible grid storage.

But that would require EV's to contain at least twice what owners need for a week or even more.  Allowing owners to share half their charge/discharge capability with the grid.

Jim is absolutely right about that.  The problem is people who keep thinking we _only_ need batteries in our vehicles that do a little less than we really need and can be rapidly topped up.

V2G would be a wonderful solution if every vehicle had a 500 mile range and only did 15 miles a day.

It does nobody any good minimalising the problem then suggesting that we already have solutions.  The problem is Huge and the solutions don't yet exist.  However, if we face up to the problems, at the very least we have a chance of solving them.

Please read my earlier posts were I outlined several solutions. In the example germany was exporting around 15 gw that they did not have to.  Having renewables in more than one region is another way to reduce the problem. Since the transmission lines could send 15 gw out they could import at least that much probably a lot more. The UK plans to massively overbuild wind. Spain could build solar. Again solar is now building enough battery storage to get through the night. No one tool gets the job done but add them together and it can be done. Their is no need to be able to run the grid on a battery for a week. The list of solutions is long. How about Iron flow batteries. Weight is not an issue and the materials are cheap. Additional storage can be added by adding another tank of electrolyte. The solutions are available. Dig deep geothermal wells virtually anywhere for baseload power. LCOE for that is around the price of coal.

[gerontocrat]

King Coal fights back... and Big Finance is there to help.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/nov/12/thermal-coal-firms-climate-pledge-report-paris-goals
Almost half of thermal coal firms set to defy climate pledge – report
Report identifies 935 firms finance industry needs to blacklist to meet Paris goal

longer post on the coal thread

[oren]

Converting some of the demand to dispatchable could also make the problem smaller. Dead cloudy days should mean unnecessary demand gets pushed back. Wait with laundry. Don't charge your e car or your home battery. If electricity price is jacked up during dead times and reduced during clear windy days, individuals and firms will find their own way to shift their patterns.
Governments should also offer free or discounted home insulation projects, to reduce heating demand during those dead times.

[Sciguy]

Longer post in the coal thread.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Coal/How-Fast-Will-The-Electric-Industry-Exit-Coal.html

How Fast Will The Electric Industry Exit Coal?
By Leonard Hyman & William Tilles - Nov 17, 2020

It looks more and more as if the question is not whether but how fast the electric industry will exit fossil fuels

[NeilT]

Please read my earlier posts were I outlined several solutions. In the example germany was exporting around 15 gw that they did not have to.  Having renewables in more than one region is another way to reduce the problem. Since the transmission lines could send 15 gw out they could import at least that much probably a lot more. The UK plans to massively overbuild wind. Spain could build solar. Again solar is now building enough battery storage to get through the night. No one tool gets the job done but add them together and it can be done. Their is no need to be able to run the grid on a battery for a week. The list of solutions is long. How about Iron flow batteries. Weight is not an issue and the materials are cheap. Additional storage can be added by adding another tank of electrolyte. The solutions are available. Dig deep geothermal wells virtually anywhere for baseload power. LCOE for that is around the price of coal.

I also posted about the internconnects. They don't exist at this scale and, whilst there are new connects in the pipleine for the UK to the mainland, they are totally insufficient to cover the shortfall when renewables are low.

This is equally true throughout the EU.  Germany may overproduce wind, but it has a big problem exporting it with the current interconnects in place.

On top of this, average figures are fine for a month, but reality is that the UK has high levels of wind and when the UK is becalmed, large portions of the EU are also becalmed. So when the uK is short, it is highly unlikely that there will be free power from outside to fill the gap.

The problem is scale.  Hornsdale was mentioned.  But Low renewables for a week in the UK would take a Hornsdale costing some A$3bn.  But that is only part of the problem.  When we have a week of very low renewables, the weeks before and after are usually lower too. Which means that you would need more capacity than just that one week and the capacity would not refill for a significant period of time.

With the UK's 40 million vehicles transitioned to EV and some £1.2tn paid by the consumers, we would have enough V2G to survive 3 or 4 days of being becalmed and still have power to drive.

Solutions to this problem need to recognise reality.  The scale is bigger than building the great pyramid with copper tools, human power and hemp ropes.

Only by treating the scale of the problem with respect will we be able to resolve it.  Treating it with contempt ends in disaster.

I use the UK as an example because I know where to get these data.  The problem with the US is many times greater.

[Iain]

There is a study underway to assess the use of the depleted Rough gas field in the N Sea for H2 storage.

Days, weeks, Years worth could be stored there.

Offshore infrastructure and onshore gas grid already in place

[Général de GuerreLasse]

If you knew how much I wish you were right!!!!! Everything would be simpler and wonderful. Unfortunately we have never seen one energy replace another, it's just a stacking, the new energies are added to the old ones. Look at what is happening in Germany, new energies do not replace others, they just allow Germans to consume more and more energy and resources. This system is crazy and unsustainable.

Replacing the existing energies by wind turbines or photovoltaics is impossible because it is too resource intensive. We must move towards a world where we consume less, a world of sobriety, it is the only solution if we want our children to have a future. We must mourn our expensive lifestyles for the planet. Science can help, but science alone will not save us.
Sooner or later the energy transition will impose itself on us. It is up to us to know whether it will be with us or against us. It is our sobriety or our greed that will decide.

ps: When someone disagrees with me, I don't think what they say is bullshit.

>never seen one energy replace another

cars didn't replace horses when the economics were right?
electric didn't replace gas lamps?
...

Prior to the economics being right cars were novelty item that had their niche and existed with horses but when the economics favoured it, the transition could happen fairly fast.

The economics have only just moved to favouring renewables and perhaps not yet there if a lot of storage is required. Before the economics have swung and while ff plants have long remaining life and insufficient renewables there is a place for both.

>impossible because it is too resource intensive.

Too resource intensive for what? If it is becoming cheaper than what we have done in the past then it takes less resources not more.

I suspect you are saying it is too slow to wait for ff plants to reach the end of their lives. I accept that we are not just going to close them all before we have enough renewables generation and this may be too slow for the climate response we would like to see.  However this makes the transition too slow rather than "impossible" as you suggest.

Some ff plant will close because their fuel is too expensive and they go bust trying to compete with new renewables though some efficient ff plants will survive until there is enough renewables generation. Are such losses too large to cope with? I suggest such things are happening all the time and we can easily cope. Whether it is fast enough for the climate is a different question.

Where do you see one energy replacing another? It is the uses that can change but not the energies.

When I talk about resources I'm not talking about money or dollars, I'm talking about the resources of the planet.

In the future Corucopians, the notions of primary and secondary energies are also blithely mixed. Hydrogen is also often presented to us as a solution. In my opinion all this is part of the problem and not the solution.

[crandles]

Solar $37/MWh falling ~7.5%pa
Wind $40/MWh falling ~2.5%pa
Gas CC $59/MWh flat or rising
Gas peaker $175/MWh flat

90% from solar & wind, 10% gas peaker to deal with becalmed conditions, gives an average price of $53.5/MWh which is less than gas combined cycle at $59/MWh. This difference wouldn't be enough to pay for enough batteries for daily cycling so wouldn't currently work. However, we are a long way from this situation and the prices are moving to make it continue to look attractive to keep adding more renewables til we get to this 90% ff free grid.

In becalmed conditions, renewables still produce some energy: When there is little wind over Britain in general, there are still onshore/offshore winds caused by differential heating of land and sea. Cloud cover has to be thick to stop solar completely and so on.

Batteries are too expensive to cover more time than daily cycling but battery prices are falling rapidly. Also note that wind and solar are cheap. There will be limits to how low costs go, but it looks like it will become possible to build twice as much wind and solar as normally required and still be cheaper than gas cc price. This may well cover the weeks before and after that becalmed week and while this won't produce all the power needed in that awkward becalmed week, it will produce a substantial proportion of the demand. Some nuclear. hydro... and we might produce over half of what is needed during that becalmed week. Some more of those cheaper batteries and we might be down to using gas peaker plants for just 1% of our electric.

Then we might be able to use some of the surplus energy at good times for flow batteries and air capture to fuel processes and store it for use in converted gas peaker plants during that awkward week.

The scale of the problem is daunting and deserves respect ... but so is what we have been doing to generate our electric from fossil fuels.

Scale in US is greater ... but there is also more area per person and plenty of desert areas where land is unused and solar is pretty reliable.

[Général de GuerreLasse]

100% renewable electricity at no extra cost, a piece of cake?

And here we're only talking about the production of electricity, not the overall consumption of energy in France.

https://jancovici.com/en/energy-transition/renewables/100-renewable-electricity-at-no-extra-cost-a-piece-of-cake/

[crandles]

>never seen one energy replace another

cars didn't replace horses when the economics were right?
electric didn't replace gas lamps?
...

Where do you see one energy replacing another? It is the uses that can change but not the energies.

When I talk about resources I'm not talking about money or dollars, I'm talking about the resources of the planet.

In the future Corucopians, the notions of primary and secondary energies are also blithely mixed. Hydrogen is also often presented to us as a solution. In my opinion all this is part of the problem and not the solution.

The examples I gave were for the same uses, sorry I didn't name them as transport and lighting, I thought that was obvious enough. Thus the end use is the same but the process and energy used did change. Electric was generally generated by coal at that time, I think. Both fossil fuels but still a change. Electric or fossil fuel replacing horsepower seems a change of energy to me. If you don't see that as "one energy replacing another" then I don't really see why you are struggling to see this.


Money is quite good as a proxy for general amount of effort needed but it is generalised. As such it could miss effect on some particular resource(s) that can be limited. You didn't name a particular resource and perhaps that speaks volumes? I am sure there will be some resources where we will have to devote more effort. Rare earths including nickel comes to mind with Musk suggesting mining companies mine more nickel. These are recyclable so while we put more effort into mining these while we convert transport to electric there is then less effort recycling it than mining it. More effort mining rare earths but this is probably more than offset by less mining of fossil fuels. Solar PV main ingredient is sand and there is plenty of that. Wind need lots more wind towers than ff plants but these are a lot simpler.

Based on cost it seems like it is generally less effort needed. There could be some pinch-point resource that I am missing and if so please tell me what it is. Otherwise I am inclined to think that if we knew of such a resource limit it would be talked about very specifically and frequently rather than a very general 'resources are finite'.

I am of the view that the planets resources are finite and we may well reach the limits of what we can do. However, this time need not be soon and the indications seem to be that it could well be some way off.

[Sigmetnow]

BP to Develop Green Hydrogen Project in Germany
The company's plan to foster renewable energy just took a step forward.
November 11

Estimating that the world reached peak oil demand last year, BP (NYSE:BP) has articulated considerable interest in renewable energy. Of the various niches associated with nontraditional energy sources, the company is focusing its efforts on hydrogen. Yesterday, BP announced that it's partnering with the Danish energy company Orsted to develop a wind-powered solution to generate green hydrogen at the Lingen refinery in Germany.

Initially, BP expects the project, scheduled to begin in 2024, will consist of a 50 megawatt (MW) electrolyzer that will split water into hydrogen and oxygen gases, generating one metric ton of renewable hydrogen per hour. Should the project prove successful, it may grow considerably. Speaking with Reuters, Louise Jacobson Plutt, BP's senior vice president for hydrogen, said that "the project could be expanded to up to 500 MW at a later stage to replace all of Lingen's fossil-fuel-based [‘blue’] hydrogen."

While BP is excited about the green hydrogen-generation project, it's unlikely that it will move the needle on the company's finances. Instead, investors may have to wait another 10 years before they see an impact. On the company's recent Q3 2020 conference call, CEO Bernard Looney said:

I think more broadly, I think hydrogen is a core part of what we believe in for the future. Hydrogen is a business that will materialize for BP, probably in the 2030-plus time frame, not in the here-and-now time frame. But we will look to build that business out over the coming decade, and I think the potential to become material in the period after 2030 and we'll be looking at it on two main dimensions, on the heavy industry and power side, it will be a mix of green and blue hydrogen.

This project is one of what may be many for BP, since the company has stated a target of gaining 10% of global hydrogen market share.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/11/11/bp-to-develop-green-hydrogen-project-in-germany/

[Général de GuerreLasse]

A very interesting documentary by Arte: The hidden face of green energies - available online today and broadcast on Arte on Tuesday, November 24th at 8:50 pm.
It mainly deals with electric cars, wind turbines and solar panels.
The extraction of graphite and rare earths in China, copper mines in Chile generate soil and water pollution and threaten the health of the inhabitants.
These mines also require electricity (produced by coal-fired power plants in these countries), oil for machinery and transportation.
This shows the incoherence of this extractivist system, which sacrifices entire areas to allow others to have the luxury of producing green energy or driving around in electric cars. The case of Norway is very telling (around 40').

sorry it's in french

https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/084757-000-A/la-face-cachee-des-energies-vertes/?fbclid=IwAR0Nf06XZzJ4zmk2MvFoPvpryDJfIaDiE7BpqAw8KQ0QAUaKrn9digVrS9o

[crandles]

This shows the incoherence of this extractivist system, which sacrifices entire areas to allow others to have the luxury of producing green energy or driving around in electric cars.

And fossil fuels aren't at all extractivist?

Yes I am sure there are and will continue to be problems with rare earth extraction. Lots of coal miners died too before safety standards rose. Is the program an argument for raising safety standards or for stopping completely (i.e. give up on transition?) ?

[NeilT]

The scale of the problem is daunting and deserves respect ... but so is what we have been doing to generate our electric from fossil fuels.

Scale in US is greater ... but there is also more area per person and plenty of desert areas where land is unused and solar is pretty reliable.

That's my whole thing.  I don't like to hear "Oh we can just".  I prefer to hear that we must and we can, so long as we think far enough ahead and clearly enough about what we need to do.

It will be long, difficult and we have to take in to account all the issues as we work to resolve them.

For the UK we have protracted periods where we would need a 10x build of renewables to avoid peaker plants or prohibitive battery roll out.

Even if we had prohibitive battery roll out, we'd need at least a 4x oversupply for peak renewables to ensure we could recharge the batteries after draining them.

Perfect planning prevents piss poor performance.  Good planning we can live, we would be better with perfect, we cannot live with poor planning.

Wishful thinking is poor planning.

[Général de GuerreLasse]

This shows the incoherence of this extractivist system, which sacrifices entire areas to allow others to have the luxury of producing green energy or driving around in electric cars.

And fossil fuels aren't at all extractivist?

Yes I am sure there are and will continue to be problems with rare earth extraction. Lots of coal miners died too before safety standards rose. Is the program an argument for raising safety standards or for stopping completely (i.e. give up on transition?) ?

I am deeply opposed to the use of carbon-based energies (coal, oil and gas). I simply don't believe in the miracles of renewable energy that greenwashers sell us. We must first practice sobriety in the use of the planet's resources. My dear Crandles, I am very grateful to you for bringing me the contradiction in this exchange, I really appreciated it. I add below an article that will rectify somewhat the ARTE report on the use of rare earths in renewable energies. Unfortunately, even if it is not really rare earths, the environmental result is worrying.

However, Ademe's assessment shows that the renewable energy sector uses little or no renewable energy.

Rare earths are mainly used in the permanent magnets of offshore wind turbines, these earths are neodymium and dysprosium. Land-based wind turbines can also use them - this is the case for 3% of installations in France - but alternatives exist. For example, it would be possible to manufacture asynchronous generators or synchronous generators without permanent magnets, which would reduce, or avoid, the use of these lands. Otherwise, in the next ten years, they could represent 6% of annual neodymium production and more than 30% of annual dysprosium production, considering that global offshore wind capacity will reach 120 GW.

In the battery sector, the study states that rare earths are not included, or only in very small quantities (possibly as an additive), in their composition. Only nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) batteries include a rare earth alloy at the cathode. However, compared to lithium-ion batteries, their cost is very high and "their use will remain very marginal in the energy transition," Ademe estimates.

In the field of photovoltaics, Ademe concludes that the technologies currently on the market do not use rare earths. "The Syndicat des énergies renouvelables is pleased that Ademe brings concrete and factual elements to this discussion on rare earths, a subject on which many untruths circulate today in the public debate," says Jean-Louis Bal, the president of the Syndicat des énergies renouvelables.

However, this should not lead us to conclude that, since they do not contain any rare earths, the components of solar modules are all harmless. Potentially critical metals such as tellurium, cadmium, indium or silver used in thin-film technologies are not rare earths.

https://www.pv-magazine.fr/2019/11/27/quelle-est-la-part-des-terres-rares-dans-les-panneaux-photovoltaiques/?fbclid=IwAR0Nf06XZzJ4zmk2MvFoPvpryDJfIaDiE7BpqAw8KQ0QAUaKrn9digVrS9o

and that too

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-05/a-glass-shortage-is-threatening-china-s-solar-power-ambitions?fbclid=IwAR0nebkLDkxZdEsvczVacNbIyTEv-y-y0HxlFdUfPxHvHeixSDHV9lZQ9fA

[BeeKnees]

When we have a week of very low renewables, the weeks before and after are usually lower too. Which means that you would need more capacity than just that one week and the capacity would not refill for a significant period of time.

Can you give some examples where renewables were low for several weeks please.

[Sciguy]

An Arkansas (USA) school district switched to solar energy and saved so much money that they raised teacher salaries.

https://mymodernmet.com/school-solar-energy/

Arkansas School Installs Solar Panels to Save Millions On Energy and Pay Teachers More
By Madeleine Muzdakis on November 17, 2020

Public school districts across the nation are facing massive budget deficits. As districts tighten their fiscal belts, art classes are cut, teacher salaries stagnate, and it grows harder to attract (and keep) talented staff. The way out of large deficits may seem daunting, but the economic success of one Arkansas school district offers a guiding example for many others. The Batesville School District switched to solar power in 2017; and, as a result, it has since climbed out of its $250,000 budget deficit. Beyond recouping losses, the district has accumulated $1.8 million in budget surplus from energy savings—a surplus which goes towards raising underpaid teachers' salaries.

[Sciguy]

Since renewable energy became cheaper than fossil fuels a few years ago, more than $2 billion has been invested in renewable energy projects in Alberta (Canada).

https://globalnews.ca/news/7466530/southern-alberta-witnessing-unprecedented-surge-in-renewable-energy-projects/

Southern Alberta witnessing ‘unprecedented’ surge in renewable energy projects
Taz Dhaliwal Global News
Posted November 16, 2020

The energy sector in southern Alberta looks very promising according to experts, especially with over $2 billion worth of renewable energy projects being built in the region.

SouthGrow Regional Initiative, an economic development organization based in Lethbridge, says this boom in renewables took flight about three years ago as the price of installations and equipment dropped low enough that incentive-free builds suddenly made more business sense.

Construction on the Travers Solar project is slated to start early next year. Balaban adds, the ability for such projects to generate considerable amounts of money for municipalities is one that needs to be underscored.

“There’s a hauling out of municipal tax revenues from the slowdown of oil and gas activity, and [there’s] the tax holiday the provincial government has offered,” he said. ”

“The renewable energy opportunity in Alberta is a great way for municipalities to shore up their balance sheets.”

[oren]

100% renewable electricity at no extra cost, a piece of cake?

And here we're only talking about the production of electricity, not the overall consumption of energy in France.

https://jancovici.com/en/energy-transition/renewables/100-renewable-electricity-at-no-extra-cost-a-piece-of-cake/

It's all in the assumptions, a very biased article, pro-nuclear, anti-renewables.
Modern wind and solar have higher capacity factors than 20% and 14% respectively, which is what he assumes based on existing average factors (from 2016). Of course, for nuclear he uses 75% while current average is 69%, without any reasoning at all.
The requirement for 100% solar or 100% wind (their combination is an afterthought) is very harsh, change it to 99% solar and wind with fossil fuel backup and you get a very different result, with nearly the same emissions.
Imports are not allowed at all, thus missing out on the residual differential of winds and clouds between countries even when weather is correlated, and on the variability and availability of hydro within countries.
Existing hydro (20% of installed capacity) cannot be used at all, artificially upping the needs for solar or wind renewables.
Focus on pumped-up hydro as the main storage solution. Batteries are an afterthought. Costs per kw are 5000-6000 Euros, much more than batteries, and the charge-discharge efficiency is 70%, much less than batteries. OTOH assumes battery manufacturing would eat up 20%-30% of the total stored lifetime energy.
Assumes lifetime of nuclear is rather long while that of wind and solar and of batteries is rather short, compared with reasonable assumptions.
Grid must be upgraded to support max (overbuilt) capacity, in essence assuming solar and wind cannot be curtailed at source.
Assumes for every dollar into renewables, another dollar into grid/power lines. IMHO much too much.
Assumes crazy assumptions about storage sizing, rather than calculating via charge-discharge simulation the actual storage required.
"Proves" the crazy resulting cost for renewables by looking at the German system, built when renewables cost way above their current cost.
Assumes nuclear does not need any backup from other sources, "as a proxy for the existing system", in effect allowing nuclear the benefit of the 20% hydro and the fossil fuel backup for free. Ignores the need to overbuild nuclear in order to meet peak loads, having required that from renewables. Ignores the need to build new nuclear, assumes cost is only "reconstruction" of existing facilities, although existing nuclear is not enough to support the whole grid. Assumes very cheap cost for dismantling. Ignores need to deal with radioactive waste. Assumes operating costs for nuclear are as low as renewables. Assumes nuclear is dispatchable and has no uncontrolled changes in output due to sudden maintenance needs or bad weather such as too-warm rivers (not to mention potential accidents). Assumes France is a good proxy for other countries, that do not have the existing nuclear installed base.
And I didn't even get to the end to find all the biased assumptions, couldn't stomach to read more of this.

If this is what you read, no wonder these are your conclusions.

[BeeKnees]

It's sad to see the same inaccuracies rolled out every time this is discussed. 

The whole of Europe and the waters around Europe do not experience the same weather at the same time.
Wind and solar installations do not have the same performance as 5-10 year old installations.
Wind and solar ramp up and down quickly, cloudy becomes sunny, a low pressure system moves into an area over a few hours.  There is no ramp up/down over days/weeks.
Higher solar in the summer offsets lower wind and the reverse is true in the winter.
It is extremely rare for an area to experience low wind for more than 3-4 days.
Storage can only become viable once there is an excess of renewables to harness
EVs are significantly more efficient than FF and provide an asset to load shift energy usage on the consumer side.

The argument revolves around how much can renewables meet without significant storage, my view based on models is that if the total capacity factors of renewables reaches 100% of demand  and the UK keep 5GW Nuclear then 85% of demand will be met in realtime with 22% curtailment. 

So the reality is storage and interconnectors need to utilise this 22% that would be curtailed to meet the remaining 15%.  There is no single solution but what is clear is the supply is sufficient to feed into imports\exports, load shifting, short term batteries, medium term storage and longer term gas storage. 

This does not seem insurmountable, the bit that concerns me for the UK is getting rid of domestic gas.

[NeilT]

Oren,  the figures are way off.  Mainly because the article was published in 2018, probably written in 2017 and seems to be based on 2010 reports.

Still, many of the challenges and conclusions in the article are correct.

The main issue for the avid renewable energy fan, with France, is that France already has the bulk of their energy via Nuclear, has the cheapest power in the EU and also has extensive hydro covering just about every possible major hydro source in the country.

Coal and Gas in France are minimal, most power is Nuclear which does not generate CO2 at the point of use and the CO2 emission profile is lower than anything other than wind, solar or hydro.  It is, effectively, lower than biomass.

The conclusions that the entire grid will have to be replaced, that overpowering the nameplate power by at least 2 - 4 times existing grid generation levels and that extensive storage will be required are correct.

The conclusions that wind and solar energy lulls are common to most EU countries are correct.  They may not be the same and they may not be as low, but they will be and that constricts the available cross country power reserve.

The conclusions that existing surplus power will not be available cross border in the EU are correct in the mid term.

The conclusions that pumped storage will be required is incorrect.  It is ludicrous, you would need a power source the size of the three bridges dam for just one country and most countries in the EU would need one too.  Whilst people in the US may not realise just how little "free" space there is in Europe, Europeans understand that this space simply doesn't just jump up and ask to be used.  It is simply not there.

Flow batteries may be a salvation of a sort in the end, but you still need to charge them and you also need to run the grid whilst doing it.  Great whilst they are charged, but, in deep winter, after a week's lull in renewables, the grid has to power normal peak capacity as well as charging the storage.  Doubling load at the very least and requiring a doubling of the capacity of the grid carrying load.

The assumptions on lifetimes for renewables are backwards.  Solar is 50 years, wind is 25 years, tops.  Flow batteries are guaranteed for 20 years but after that degrade.  Hornsdale is guaranteed for 15 years!

If you look at Hinckley point C, the build is for a 60 year reactor.  If it follows the current reactors in use today, that will be reviewed after 60 years and then extended in 20 year chunks with a 100 year life span being quite likely.

The article and I have not even talked interconnects.  Or grid capacity to carry interconnect power.  Just imagine Germany pushing out max wind but also having to be the carrying capacity for 6 different countries excess energy as it transits the EU!  Just how large are they going to have to make the grid and are German customers going to have to foot the bill for quintupling the capacity of the backbone of the German grid.

I have said, many times now, that this is possible for CO2 neutral power generation.  But I have also said that it requires a marked level of pragmatism.  100% renewable, for massive developed economies, with current infrastructure, without considering, or even nodding to, the challenges, is not pragmatism, it is rocket propelled idiocy.

The best thing to do with this article is to take it to pieces, fix the old or inaccurate data and assumptions and then present a realistic and viable alternative solution which reduces Nuclear power, removes Coal and gas and brings France much closer to the model required for 21st century power generation.

Everyone might learn from that exercise.

Please note.  I'm not saying "DONT GO RENEWABLE" and I'm not saying "We must go Nuclear".  What I'm saying is don't just dismiss valid concerns just because the supporting data is not up to date or that the assumptions on power storage do not include the latest developments.

Transitioning the grid is probably the hardest thing humans will do in the next century.  It is pretty close to being as hard and expensive as to wage a major world war.

Unless we accept that and move forward with knowledge and determination, this argument will rage on and the general public will block the very moves we need today.

On other forums I'm having a hard time explaining to people that the UK's decision to ban fossil fuelled vehicles from 2030 means the UK has 25 years to solve the charging infrastructure and grid energy changes.

If we can't solve these problems in 25 years, with clear warning, we're never going to.  But, because of patently ridiculous statements of how 100% renewables will work, normal, sober, sensible people, with or without engineering degrees, simply refuse to believe it is possible.

And they have a VOTE.

[NeilT]

The whole of Europe and the waters around Europe do not experience the same weather at the same time.

No but very large swathes of it are similar.  You only have to look at the weather maps for major blocking events to see that.  Blocking high's often cover the entire EU.

It is extremely rare for an area to experience low wind for more than 3-4 days.

The UK experiences this once or twice a year for 4 to 7 days.  It is a recorded phenomena and has been in the news more than once.

It only has to happen "once" for the grid to have to accommodate it.  I also tracked the renewable power into and out of the last one.  It was low on both sides.

We have been talking about all that "excess" renewable energy.  Well first we need to put in Excess capacity then we need to use the normal and provide the excess over the same grid to power storage.  Grid upgrades needed for that as our grids are not made for it.

Storage can only become viable once there is an excess of renewables to harness

Indeed and it must be charged "before" and "after" it is used and before it can be used again.  Two minor lulls in a row, no storage.

EVs are significantly more efficient than FF and provide an asset to load shift energy usage on the consumer side.

No argument.  But I did that calculation.  If all 40m UK EV's averaged 50kw/h and gave half their power to the grid, then we'd cover half of the shortfall for a 4 day lull, where the UK renewables were generating, on average, 2.5gw of power.

So those vehicles use half their power, give up the other half to power the grid and, on day 5, do what?  Charge?

And where does the other half of the energy required come from?

These are the things we have to be able to model and allow for.

The argument revolves around how much can renewables meet without significant storage, my view based on models is that if the total capacity factors of renewables reaches 100% of demand  and the UK keep 5GW Nuclear then 85% of demand will be met in realtime with 22% curtailment. 

Could be.  But you have to remember, the vast majority who are shouting for 100% renewables are 100% opposed to Nuclear!

So the reality is storage and interconnectors need to utilise this 22% that would be curtailed to meet the remaining 15%.  There is no single solution but what is clear is the supply is sufficient to feed into imports\exports, load shifting, short term batteries, medium term storage and longer term gas storage. 

This does not seem insurmountable, the bit that concerns me for the UK is getting rid of domestic gas.

No the reality is that the interconnects don't exist, nobody wants to pay for them and it is going to take decades to fix the interconnects and the grids to be able to support them.

Meanwhile we keep on removing baseload power and replacing it with variable power.

A car crash waiting for it to happen.  My concern is that the first time it happens the word Renewable will become a pariah and will destroy everything that has been built to date at the very worst possible time when we need it the most.

Hence, pragmatism.

As for UK gas.  Yep, that is the difference between France at 50gw and the UK at 30gw.  We have gas fields and France doesn't.  It has to go, but that just makes the problem even bigger.

[BeeKnees]

No but very large swathes of it are similar.  You only have to look at the weather maps for major blocking events to see that.  Blocking high's often cover the entire EU.

I do and they don't.  It is impossible for the same weather system to be impacting Spain, Scotland, Finland and Greece.

The UK experiences this once or twice a year for 4 to 7 days.  It is a recorded phenomena and has been in the news more than once.

It only has to happen "once" for the grid to have to accommodate it. I also tracked the renewable power into and out of the last one.  It was low on both sides.

I've asked you for dates to support this but you have failed to do so.  You are claiming several weeks of below average generation with a 4-7 day lull in the centre of it.

The most recent example daytime current renewable generation was over 10GW the day before the lull of 5th-9th November and over 10GW the day after, dropping from typical levels within 48 hours and rising back to typical levels within 48 hours.
During the lull 10GW was still reached occasionally due to solar. 

From the 22nd October to the 3rd November and from the 11th November renewables averaged over 10GWh each day which is typical, I can see no significant lull in the figures.

We have been talking about all that "excess" renewable energy.  Well first we need to put in Excess capacity then we need to use the normal and provide the excess over the same grid to power storage.  Grid upgrades needed for that as our grids are not made for it.

Our grid is handling 20% lower demand than it did only 5-10 years ago.  It's has capacity to carry higher loads already

Indeed and it must be charged "before" and "after" it is used and before it can be used again.  Two minor lulls in a row, no storage.

What percentage of total demand does this represent and what period of charge for long term gas storage are you looking at over the year ?

No argument.  But I did that calculation.  If all 40m UK EV's averaged 50kw/h and gave half their power to the grid, then we'd cover half of the shortfall for a 4 day lull, where the UK renewables were generating, on average, 2.5gw of power.
So those vehicles use half their power, give up the other half to power the grid and, on day 5, do what?  Charge?

And where does the other half of the energy required come from?

These are the things we have to be able to model and allow for.

This was not the point I was making, EVs will predominantly charge when the demand would normally be low so will not unduly add pressure to the grid.  They are not a solution for grid side generation storage, but rather an aid to load shifting demand away from peak.

Could be.  But you have to remember, the vast majority who are shouting for 100% renewables are 100% opposed to Nuclear!

It doesnt matter whether they are or are not, UK Nuclear power will still be with us for several decades at least and there is no sound reason to halt them in order to use fossil fuels while we are still ramping up renewables to meet demand.

No the reality is that the interconnects don't exist, nobody wants to pay for them and it is going to take decades to fix the interconnects and the grids to be able to support them.

Meanwhile we keep on removing baseload power and replacing it with variable power.

A car crash waiting for it to happen.  My concern is that the first time it happens the word Renewable will become a pariah and will destroy everything that has been built to date at the very worst possible time when we need it the most.

Hence, pragmatism.

As for UK gas.  Yep, that is the difference between France at 50gw and the UK at 30gw.  We have gas fields and France doesn't.  It has to go, but that just makes the problem even bigger.

interconnects do exist and more are being built as we speak.  Variable wind, solar and water is showing itself to be far less variable than those opposed to the idea want to admit. 

Decarbonising domestic gas is an increase in scale but it's still the same base problem.

[NeilT]

I've asked you for dates to support this but you have failed to do so.  You are claiming several weeks of below average generation with a 4-7 day lull in the centre of it.

Go check out 2019 04/30 to 05/21 on gridwatch.co.uk.

It varies, but there is serious low power with no way of generating enough to compensate on either side of the centre.

I said it only has to happen Once.

For weather you don't have to impact 100% of the EU, only 50% of it and you completely screw any chance of cross EU power sharing.  Because the draw is too high and the excess is too low.

Please stop trying to be absolute about this.  It doesn't help the case.  It just drives the skeptics to further excess.  You just need an average low point across a large swathe of the EU and plans for a bright renewable future lie in the dust.  Unless that it accepted and catered for, then the 100% renewable target will never be met.  Or attempted.

I know we need to get a much higher balance of renewables or we're screwed.  But it is not me you have to convince.  If you can't convince me that 100% renewables can replace all other power sources, then you don't have a cat in hells chance of convincing someone who only looks at climate news now and again (the vast majority).

[crandles]

I said it only has to happen Once.

High gas using businesses have regulations and procedures in place to stop using gas if there is a shortage so domestic customers can continue using and pilot lights don't go out.

If it is rare and similar put in place for electric, would this being used occasionally be a huge disaster?


A little more overbuild of renewables to reduce frequency may be sensible and relatively cheap.

I don't imagine 22% curtailment would be enough to supply 15% gap as BeeKnees sugests. However overbuild renewable by 50% so it is more like a potential 48% curtailment and that will be able to supply more of the 15%. This is a while off yet, time for the economics to improve and gain further info on how to do it best before we have to start taking critical decisions. For the moment more renewables can be accomodated and are being added.

[oren]

I am happy with planning for 99% emission-free, rather than 100%, which makes the problem much easier to solve. It's the 80/20 rule but extended to 99/1. Fossil fuel backup, using gas (or even coal) plants that already exist and will need to be kept in readiness after they are no longer used daily, will solve the one, two or even three week gap. And since winds and clouds are predictable several days in advance, readiness needs not be on a hot-swap basis. On a total production scale I am quite certain this can be kept to a 1% total contribution, using grid-tied batteries for daily cycling and smoothing of solar and wind, and using the current capabilities of hydro and pumped-up storage and nuclear where it already exists. Add some dispatchable loads such as EV charging and some industrial uses, and the problem can be solved. Just need to get off our collective asses and start doing it, increment by increment, and stop dragging our feet.
The last 1% will go away at some point, but it would be much less urgent.

[BeeKnees]

Go check out 2019 04/30 to 05/21 on gridwatch.co.uk.

It varies, but there is serious low power with no way of generating enough to compensate on either side of the centre.

I said it only has to happen Once.

For weather you don't have to impact 100% of the EU, only 50% of it and you completely screw any chance of cross EU power sharing.  Because the draw is too high and the excess is too low.

Please stop trying to be absolute about this.  It doesn't help the case.  It just drives the skeptics to further excess.  You just need an average low point across a large swathe of the EU and plans for a bright renewable future lie in the dust.  Unless that it accepted and catered for, then the 100% renewable target will never be met.  Or attempted.

I know we need to get a much higher balance of renewables or we're screwed.  But it is not me you have to convince.  If you can't convince me that 100% renewables can replace all other power sources, then you don't have a cat in hells chance of convincing someone who only looks at climate news now and again (the vast majority).

You've had to go back 18 months to find a supposedly twice a year event.  Doesn't that tell you something?

Even then what we see is low wind offset by high solar.

I think your accusations are false.  I do not say all EU is covered by a single weather system, I do not say renewables produce no electricity for days.  These are your absolute claims.

I have already shown you that low carbon sources alone can meet 85% without storage.
As far as I know the UK has 12-14TWh worth of natural gas in storage during winter months.  This is the kind of reserve that green hydrogen and biogas can utilise over 12 months, the argument that there is no way to generate these kinds of reserves when you could have 20% curtailment waiting to generate it is just simply shortsighted

[BeeKnees]

I don't imagine 22% curtailment would be enough to supply 15% gap as BeeKnees sugests. However overbuild renewable by 50% so it is more like a potential 48% curtailment and that will be able to supply more of the 15%. This is a while off yet, time for the economics to improve and gain further info on how to do it best before we have to start taking critical decisions. For the moment more renewables can be accomodated and are being added.

To be clear, I agree with you. 
I was making the point that if renewables were not overbuilt then you would already have curtailment to contribute to those periods when there is a shortage.  The idea that you need to overbuild tenfold just doesnt add up

[kassy]

We can easily use what we have and do not want to use to plug gaps in such emergencies.
How much gas plants would be needed?

[crandles]

We can easily use what we have and do not want to use to plug gaps in such emergencies.
How much gas plants would be needed?

Umm, a ever declining amount as we build more renewables to supply larger %.

[Général de GuerreLasse]

As far as the climate is concerned, in order to limit the rise in global temperature below 2°C, which is the objective of the Paris agreement, global greenhouse gas emissions must be divided by 3 by 2050, i.e. a decrease of about 4% per year (starting today) over the next 30 years. And you want to do this with wind turbines, photovoltaic panels and electric batteries? You know that your program is going to require you to burn a lot of coal and oil to try to make these tools, that you will cause serious pollution to extract and transform the necessary metals, and you won't be able to do it. I'm going to watch you do it and carefully note the progress you will make every year, I remind you of the challenge: minus 4% per year from now on, GO!

[interstitial]

I have seen the argument repeatedly if this one technology say batteries isn't used to solve 100% of the gap then the solution is no good.


interconnects there may not be enough to move all the energy you want from one area to another but moving 15 gw puts a dent in the problem. New lines are built all the time a new 2 gw hvdc line from the UK was just announced. The interests who want to move the power will pay for it either through per mwh fees or building the infrastructure themselves

[oren]

As far as the climate is concerned, in order to limit the rise in global temperature below 2°C, which is the objective of the Paris agreement, global greenhouse gas emissions must be divided by 3 by 2050, i.e. a decrease of about 4% per year (starting today) over the next 30 years. And you want to do this with wind turbines, photovoltaic panels and electric batteries? You know that your program is going to require you to burn a lot of coal and oil to try to make these tools, that you will cause serious pollution to extract and transform the necessary metals, and you won't be able to do it. I'm going to watch you do it and carefully note the progress you will make every year, I remind you of the challenge: minus 4% per year from now on, GO!

A. I actually think this should be done over 20 years instead of 30. We do not have that much time and environment left. But note I am not saying this will be done, just that it can be done. Political and social reasons (and human stupidity) probably mean that it will not be done.
B. Humanity's industrial machine keeps on humming, to make LCD screens and Barbie dolls and what have you. I'd rather the same machine make solar panels and wind turbines and batteries instead. Redirecting of resources, same costs and pollutions.
C. As electricity in general becomes cleaner, the marginal GHG cost of further production of renewable generation components (and other products of energy, including screens and dolls) will drop. The right thing to do is to transform first the grids of industrial nations chiefly involved in making these components, especially China, so that any increase in industrial output due to demand for such components will be served by cleaner energy.
D. Maintenance of the system and replacement of components after initial completion will use clean energy.
E. As the grid becomes cleaner, humanity should also undertake the conversion of transportation, mining and industrial processes that are directly powered by fossil fuels to be powered by electricity instead.
F. Of course, humanity should reduce consumption to enable a faster transition and reduce the burden on the carrying capacity of the planet. Humanity should also reduce reproduction, at least temporarily. I doubt it will do either of these measures though, for political and social reasons (and human stupidity).

[crandles]

you want to do this with wind turbines, photovoltaic panels and electric batteries? You know that your program is going to require you to burn a lot of coal and oil to try to make these tools, that you will cause serious pollution to extract and transform the necessary metals, and you won't be able to do it.

When the alternative is to burn a similar amount of ff in building ff replacement plants even before they start to burn ffs?

if the lifetime of ff plants is 30 years then electric generation transition will get done in less time than that. Getting it done in just 20 years instead may require some political will that is lacking at the moment.

Do solar PV, wind turbines and batteries solve all climate change issues? Of course not, but it makes a big dent in the problems. Climate will be worse by the time it is done and continue to get worse for decades after.

The share of renewables in global electricity generation jumped to nearly 28% in Q1 2020 from 26% in Q1 2019.

So I doubt 4% in next year. Still if the growth covering 2% a year continues to grow exponentially for a while longer...