Energy Storage Replace Gas Plants

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

25 minutes ago, nsdp said:

Hornsdale also collapsed and blacked out the entire South Australia grid.  

The reason they(Hornsdale) did not get paid was the reactive was not dynamic reactive power able to perform through a voltage collapse.   Walter Heisenberg proved that won't happen.  something to do with Quantum Mechanics and electrons and order of multiplication inside the Matrix. .

Please see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_South_Australian_blackout

Hornsdale Power Reserve was unable to maintain power through that event, because it was not built until the next year. The event was caused by massive disruption on multiple transmission lines as the same time in an exceptional weather event. it caused several wind farms to go offline, including the Hornsdale wind farm, not the Hornsdale battery. Turbines would not have done any better.

Who is "Walter Heisenberg"? If you were attempting to refer to Werner Heisenberg, you need to do some research.

 

Edited May 6, 2020 by Dan Clemmensen
I messed up the timing.

[nsdp + 449]

1 hour ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

Mr. McKinsey 

Glad you tracked down that table.

Shows open minded perspective coupled with willingness to 'dig in' and find out for yourself.

My initial $7/Mwh post was specifically addressing the capital cost of the new CCGPs.

That 1a table is a wealth of comparative data for so many reasons, the vulnerability of offshore wind being one.

Getting back to onshore wind/CCGP operational cost comparisons, I was unable to pin down the EIA's fuel cost (listed under 'variable O&M') despite extensive research throughout the EIA's cross linking references. Lazard pegs natgas cost at $3.45/mmbtu, which is currently about $1.35 above Henry Hub.

When one looks at the near equal operational cost of wind versus CCGP,  the dispatchability along with the late afternoon/early evening peak demand should show clear advantages for the CCGPs.

I realize a strong point you are attempting is to address the reliability along with peak demand provided via low cost batteries.

What I, and many others ... including Mr. Market, are saying is that the implementation of Renewable power generators is an extremely expensive, unreliable source of electricity and will continue to be shown as such.

 

Assessing the Economic Value of New Utility-Scale Renewable Generation Projects 

https://www.eia.gov/conference/2013/pdf/presentations/namovicz.pdf 

This is why you use LACE instead of LCOE.   LCOE ignores situations whhich have declining marginal costs for each added kwh.   That is the reason why 7 out of 8 invesor onwed utilities in Texas have gone bankrupt since I started work in 1971.

The “levelized avoided cost of energy” or LACE is based on the system value of a generation resource–Derived from the “avoided cost” or cost of displaced energy and capacity–Presented in “levelized” terms; that is on average cost per MWh of generation,   This works additional cost of marginal addtional kwh is <current cost. .In Texas the wholesale cost has dropped prom $67/mwh to $27 in 2019.  Break even without Tax credits is currently $15/mwh with new turbine designs.  Unless NG is less than $1mmbtu  Combined Cycle plants are losing money in shoulder hours and only run if needed between 2300 and 0500 hours in ERCOT. 

Edited May 6, 2020 by nsdp

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 hour ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

The efficiency numbers for combined cycle and solar measure two completely different things and are not comparable. combined cycle efficiency is a measure of actual electrical energy output versus chemical  energy input. Solar cell efficiency is a measure of electrical energy output versus photonic energy input.  But the photons are free and the gas is not, so the comparison is meaningless. instead, you must compare the cost of capital and the cost of operations for the same electrical output at the system level.

Wow. Read carefully, because apparently what I'm about to say wasn't obvious.

I'm talking about how the energy efficiency translates to percent return on invested capital. In order for solar to match the returns of combined cycle, it will need to reach efficiencies somewhere in the order of 30%-40%.

Do you want me to lay out the math?

Looks like @Jay McKinsey didn't understand this either. "great reply" my ass. 

Edited May 6, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

2 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Wow. Read carefully, because apparently these things aren't obvious. 

I'm talking about how the energy efficiency translates to percent return on invested capital. In order for solar to match the returns of combined cycle, it will need to reach efficiencies somewhere in the order of 30%-40%.

Do you want me to lay out the math?

Looks like @Jay McKinsey didn't understand this either. "great reply" my ass. 

As a simple thought experiment, consider two solar collectors, one with 20% photonic efficiency and a cost of $10/MW and another with 40% photonic efficiency and a cost of $50/MW. The "less efficient" collector gives me lower capital cost if the cost of land is low enough.  the correct metric is on photonic efficiency, but cost/MW, unless you have other constraints. This is why we use expensive high-efficiency solar cells on satellites, but not necessarily out in the desert.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

10 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Wow. Read carefully, because apparently what I'm about to say wasn't obvious.

I'm talking about how the energy efficiency translates to percent return on invested capital. In order for solar to match the returns of combined cycle, it will need to reach efficiencies somewhere in the order of 30%-40%.

Do you want me to lay out the math?

Looks like @Jay McKinsey didn't understand this either. "great reply" my ass. 

Should also have been obvious since combined cycle is 55% efficiency and I claimed that 40% was on par with this. Hmm.. must have been something missing there eh? Maybe read the first post I made where I laid out the 20 year return?

 

 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 minute ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

As a simple thought experiment, consider two solar collectors, one with 20% photonic efficiency and a cost of $10/MW and another with 40% photonic efficiency and a cost of $50/MW. The "less efficient" collector gives me lower capital cost if the cost of land is low enough.  the correct metric is on photonic efficiency, but cost/MW, unless you have other constraints. This is why we use expensive high-efficiency solar cells on satellites, but not necessarily out in the desert.

The biggest thing supporters have got going is that the Feds pay for 22% of it through tax credits, and you get to deduct depreciation. Without these it doesn't look very fun to me... yet. 

[nsdp + 449]

19 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Please see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_South_Australian_blackout

Hornsdale Power Reserve was unable to maintain power through that event, because it was not built until the next year. The event was caused by massive disruption on multiple transmission lines as the same time in an exceptional weather event. it caused several wind farms to go offline, includinow aboutg the Hornsdale wind farm, not the Hornsdale battery. Turbines would not have done any better.

Who is "Walter Heisenberg"? If you were attempting to refer to Werner Heisenberg, you need to do some research.

 

No I meant who I said.  Apparently you do not know much about Heisenberg's relationship with the NAZI party.   Heisenberg was referred to as "White Jew " and "Walter Heisenberg" was a alias for Walter White (Weiss) in Breaking Bad.   Joke went over your head. https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Walter-choose-Heisenberg-as-his-alias-in-“Breaking-Bad”-How-is-Walts-character-related-to-the-real-Heisenberg-and-his-uncertainty-principle?share=1

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

53 minutes ago, nsdp said:

You need to ignore the sales pitches that sales engineers put up on the web.  Pay attention to IEEE spectrum for what  meets the reserve requirements of N-1 conditions of NERC standards.

"

Severe voltage drops, for example, hobble SVCs, whose reactive power output drops at double the rate of line voltage. In contrast, a synchronous condenser’s spinning rotor keeps on pumping out reactive power. It will also generate real power if needed, moderating the drop in AC frequency that would result, say, from shutting down a power plant.

And the condenser’s output can briefly handle several times its rated capacity for tens of seconds as its metal components heat up temporarily—behavior that is not possible for devices relying on comparatively fragile silicon switches. “Because they’re iron and copper, they have a lot of overload capability. You can’t overload silicon significantly,” says Nicholas Miller, a power systems expert with GE Energy Consulting, in Schenectady, N.Y.  https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/zombie-coal-plants-reanimated-to-stabilize-the-grid  and

To emulate the inertial behavior of massive rotating equipment, a renewable generator must somehow find extra power quick. Québec's wind turbines do so through a collaboration between the turbines' solid-state power electronics and their moving parts. "When the wind turbines see an imbalance between load and generation that causes a frequency deviation on the system they’re able to … extract some kinetic energy that is stored in the rotating masses of the wind turbines,” explains Aubut.

 

 

 

During a December 2015 transformer failure that took more than 1,600-MW of power generation offline, synthetic inertia kicked in 126 MW of extra power to arrest the resulting frequency drop. Quebec’s AC frequency bottomed out at 59.1 hertz – well below its 60-hertz standard – but Aubut and his colleagues estimate that it would have dropped a further 0.1-0.2-hz without the synthetic inertia. And they estimate that this was roughly the same contribution that conventional power plants would have provided.

"If we had had only synchronous generation instead of wind with the same event and operating conditions, we’d have had about the same deviation,” says Aubut.

 

The trouble, says Aubut, is what happens after the frequency drop. In all but the strongest wind conditions providing synthetic inertia will slow a wind turbine's rotor. Re-accelerating to optimal speed thereafter absorbs some of the wind power that the turbine can export to the grid. Data from ENERCON shows power reductions of up to 60 percent in some turbines.

This energy recovery phase delays the grid’s frequency recovery. After Québec’s December 2015 transformer event, for example, the system frequency flat-lined for several seconds at 59.4 Hz before additional power reserves could push it back to 60. Under different conditions, says Aubut, that post-inertia recovery could have actually caused a “double-dip” in system frequency, increasing the risk of triggering protective relays at substations and causing blackouts. 

Hydro-Québec is revising its synthetic inertia to minimize the risk of a double-dip. It plans to limit power reduction during recovery to no more than 20 percent of a wind turbine’s capacity. Turbine manufacturers are already testing second-generation synthetic inertia systems that comply with the new standard. 

 

ENERCON presented an upgraded synthetic inertia control scheme at last year’s Wind Integration Workshop. Whereas the first generation of ENERCON Inertia Emulation revved rotors back to their optimal speed as quickly as possible, the new scheme uses power estimation and closed-loop control to enable smooth and tunable re-acceleration. https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/renewables/can-synthetic-inertia-stabilize-power-grids

 

Markus Fischer, ENERCON’s Montreal-based regional manager for grid integration, says the upgraded scheme showed "promising results" in tests on full scale turbines and commercial rollout is “expected to happen in the near future.” Retrofitting its first generation machines, he says, will require no added hardware. 

 

Synthetic inertia requirements, meanwhile, may be spreading. Grid operators in Ontario and Brazil have already joined Hydro-Québec’s lead, and Fischer says the first harmonized grid code for European generators, which entered into force earlier this year, “opens the doors to European system operators to ask for inertial response from wind.”https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/renewables/can-synthetic-inertia-stabilize-power-grids

Currrent NERC reliability regulations don't allow synthetic inertia due to the double dip and the 2X rate of voltage collapse.

 

 

 

 

 Synchronous condensers appear to be completely compatible with a solar, wind, battery grid. If they are needed then by all means add them in. In regard to NERC it appears to just be an issue of appropriate regulation: 

"Inverter-based resources pose benefits as well as challenges for the BPS,3 and the industry is faced with a growing penetration of these resources connected to the BPS. Inverter-based resource response to grid conditions is dominated by advanced controls programmed into the inverters and plant-level controls. These controls are configurable and capable of providing similar essential reliability services (ERSs) as synchronous generating resources. However, the challenge centers on ensuring clear and consistent performance specifications for these resources since their response is driven predominantly by controls rather than the physical design of the equipment.4 Past BPS disturbances that involved solar photovoltaic (PV) resources5 highlight the need for flexible yet clear requirements for inverter-based resources that ensure coordinated and effective interconnection of these resources in conjunction with other transmission-connected devices and synchronous generation.

Fast Frequency Response As the penetration of inverter-based resources continues to increase, the rate of change of frequency (ROCOF) following loss of generation or load disturbances will also continue to increase assuming that the magnitude of the disturbance remains the same and the inverter-based resources do not support system frequency response.51 This reduction in responsive system inertia (i.e., higher instantaneous penetration of nonresponsive inverter-based resources) drives the need for faster responding resources to arrest and stabilize grid frequency. The fast response of resources that provide additional energy to the grid to help with this arrest and stabilization is commonly referred to as FFR. There are many different types of sources of energy that can provide this capability, including but not limited to the following: • Rotating inertia of a synchronous machine • Fast-responding frequency response capability from inverter based resources (e.g., some wind, solar PV, and battery energy storage) • Automatic load tripping • Nonsustained energy extracted from the rotor of a wind turbine generator These types of FFR include both sustained forms of energy injection (i.e., fast-responding frequency response from solar PV and batteries) as well as nonsustained forms of energy injection (i.e., wind-based energy extraction from the rotor and synchronous inertia). Both types of FFR support grid reliability and are used in different situations based on each interconnection’s needs and capabilities. Interconnection studies should identify system needs for FFR, and the TO should ensure the capability is available for grid where FFR may be needed. Requirements should be clear in stating whether nonsustained forms of FFR are acceptable and any additional requirements pertaining to the timing aspects of FFR. The NERC IRPTF will be further analyzing FFR and will provide additional guidance on the subject."

https://www.nerc.com/comm/PC_Reliability_Guidelines_DL/Reliability_Guideline_IBR_Interconnection_Requirements_Improvements.pdf

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

10 minutes ago, nsdp said:

No I meant who I said.  Apparently you do not know much about Heisenberg's relationship with the NAZI party.   Heisenberg was referred to as "White Jew " and "Walter Heisenberg" was a alias for Walter White (Weiss) in Breaking Bad.   Joke went over your head. https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Walter-choose-Heisenberg-as-his-alias-in-“Breaking-Bad”-How-is-Walts-character-related-to-the-real-Heisenberg-and-his-uncertainty-principle?share=1

Thanks for the reference. I know quite a bit about Werner Heisenberg, including his relationship with the NAZI party, which was quite complicated. Have you seen the play "Copenhagen?" I knew nothing about Walter White, since I do not watch TV, so yes any joke there went right over my head. According to Wikipedia, he was never called "Walter Heisenberg", just "Heisenberg", which is why my search for the name before I made my comment did not find him.

[nsdp + 449]

20 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

 Synchronous condensers appear to be completely compatible with a solar, wind, battery grid. If they are needed then by all means add them in. In regard to NERC it appears to just be an issue of appropriate regulation: 

"Inverter-based resources pose benefits as well as challenges for the BPS,3 and the industry is faced with a growing penetration of these resources connected to the BPS. Inverter-based resource response to grid conditions is dominated by advanced controls programmed into the inverters and plant-level controls. These controls are configurable and capable of providing similar essential reliability services (ERSs) as synchronous generating resources. However, the challenge centers on ensuring clear and consistent performance specifications for these resources since their response is driven predominantly by controls rather than the physical design of the equipment.4 Past BPS disturbances that involved solar photovoltaic (PV) resources5 highlight the need for flexible yet clear requirements for inverter-based resources that ensure coordinated and effective interconnection of these resources in conjunction with other transmission-connected devices and synchronous generation.

Fast Frequency Response As the penetration of inverter-based resources continues to increase, the rate of change of frequency (ROCOF) following loss of generation or load disturbances will also continue to increase assuming that the magnitude of the disturbance remains the same and the inverter-based resources do not support system frequency response.51 This reduction in responsive system inertia (i.e., higher instantaneous penetration of nonresponsive inverter-based resources) drives the need for faster responding resources to arrest and stabilize grid frequency. The fast response of resources that provide additional energy to the grid to help with this arrest and stabilization is commonly referred to as FFR. There are many different types of sources of energy that can provide this capability, including but not limited to the following: • Rotating inertia of a synchronous machine • Fast-responding frequency response capability from inverter based resources (e.g., some wind, solar PV, and battery energy storage) • Automatic load tripping • Nonsustained energy extracted from the rotor of a wind turbine generator These types of FFR include both sustained forms of energy injection (i.e., fast-responding frequency response from solar PV and batteries) as well as nonsustained forms of energy injection (i.e., wind-based energy extraction from the rotor and synchronous inertia). Both types of FFR support grid reliability and are used in different situations based on each interconnection’s needs and capabilities. Interconnection studies should identify system needs for FFR, and the TO should ensure the capability is available for grid where FFR may be needed. Requirements should be clear in stating whether nonsustained forms of FFR are acceptable and any additional requirements pertaining to the timing aspects of FFR. The NERC IRPTF will be further analyzing FFR and will provide additional guidance on the subject."

https://www.nerc.com/comm/PC_Reliability_Guidelines_DL/Reliability_Guideline_IBR_Interconnection_Requirements_Improvements.pd

you are hitting about  180X the cost of hydrogen storage built using current oil field technology.  A Hydrogen powered turbine    You have cherry picked the NERC Rules and ignored the N-1 system reliability standards which are not permissible for multiple reasons.  I can tell that NERC regs are uncharted waters for you and it is about as dangerous  to use Google search on them as using Google search on the United States criminal code.  Let me know when you take the course , pass the test and get the certificate below.

IEEE04082018.pdf

Edited May 6, 2020 by nsdp

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

Mr. McKinsey 

Glad you tracked down that table.

Shows open minded perspective coupled with willingness to 'dig in' and find out for yourself.

My initial $7/Mwh post was specifically addressing the capital cost of the new CCGPs.

That 1a table is a wealth of comparative data for so many reasons, the vulnerability of offshore wind being one.

Getting back to onshore wind/CCGP operational cost comparisons, I was unable to pin down the EIA's fuel cost (listed under 'variable O&M') despite extensive research throughout the EIA's cross linking references. Lazard pegs natgas cost at $3.45/mmbtu, which is currently about $1.35 above Henry Hub.

When one looks at the near equal operational cost of wind versus CCGP,  the dispatchability along with the late afternoon/early evening peak demand should show clear advantages for the CCGPs.

I realize a strong point you are attempting is to address the reliability along with peak demand provided via low cost batteries.

What I, and many others ... including Mr. Market, are saying is that the implementation of Renewable power generators is an extremely expensive, unreliable source of electricity and will continue to be shown as such.

 

I think they greatly underestimate offshore wind.

Lazard's sensitivity to fuel prices provides a 25% cost reduction for fuel so that works out to $2.59 for gas and LCOE of $38. So looks like $2.10 for gas would work out to LCOE of about $34. The market is changing fast.

[nsdp + 449]

8 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Thanks for the reference. I know quite a bit about Werner Heisenberg, including his relationship with the NAZI party, which was quite complicated. Have you seen the play "Copenhagen?" I knew nothing about Walter White, since I do not watch TV, so yes any joke there went right over my head. According to Wikipedia, he was never called "Walter Heisenberg", just "Heisenberg", which is why my search for the name before I made my comment did not find him.

I have not seen Copenhagen.   You might be interested in this book. https://www.rawstory.com/2018/11/german-diary-nazi-era-can-teach-us-today/ 

Pastor Niemoeller  I met at a Lutheran convocation in Weisbaden in 1978. My grandfather went back to Germany one last time before he died and I went with him. .  He and his brother were lucky, they left Germany just before the US Immigration Act of 1924 started closing the doors.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 hours ago, nsdp said:

you are hitting about  180X the cost of hydrogen storage built using current oil field technology.  A Hydrogen powered turbine    You have cherry picked the NERC Rules and ignored the N-1 system reliability standards which are not permissible for multiple reasons.  I can tell that NERC regs are uncharted waters for you and it is about as dangerous  to use Google search on them as using Google search on the United States criminal code.  Let me know when you take the course , pass the test and get the certificate below.

IEEE04082018.pdf 361.93 kB · 1 download

I see the real issue, you're a hydrogen fanboi! 🙄 I can tell that economics are uncharted waters for you. You cherry picked one cost metric of storage and ignored the rest of the value chain. Batteries are around 90% efficient, are already scaling and are optimal for daily load shifting. This means they will be generating revenue every day. Green hydrogen production is expensive (70% efficiency and high capital costs) and turning it back into electricity is expensive (40% efficient and high capital costs). Round trip efficiency of about 30%! 100% hydrogen turbines aren't even on the market yet. It's only advantage is for long term storage. So what will that market look like? They will spend spring, summer and fall making hydrogen that will be used in winter to make up for the seasonal shortfall in solar and wind, which won't be nearly as much as you think it will be. It's a niche market! Even this guy who is building his future on hydrogen admits it: Asked how the technology will compete against advancements in battery storage, Browning said, “We think lithium-ion batteries will probably be the right choice if you want to store electricity for shorter periods of time.” The economics of hydrogen “are going to work no matter how long you store it,” he noted. https://www.powermag.com/high-volume-hydrogen-gas-turbines-take-shape/

I have a JD, googling the criminal code is easy, its the case law that is a problem. I don't buy your NERC deflection one bit, any reliability issues are being resolved in a reasonable manner. Just a little research and you will find that California is adding synchronous condensers across the grid for the purpose of solving this system reliability issue. That makes this a non-issue.

Edited May 6, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[NickW + 2,714]

22 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Damn!!! I think I agree with Marcin! Might be time for a good head shake...😂

Nope - its the same tried and tested (and failed) 'one turbine / solar farm - one battery' equation that simply does not translated to an integrated energy grid spread over a country or region.

Edited May 6, 2020 by NickW

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

7 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I see the real issue, you're a hydrogen fanboi! 🙄 I can tell that economics are uncharted waters for you. You cherry picked one cost metric of storage and ignored the rest of the value chain. Batteries are around 90% efficient, are already scaling and are optimal for daily load shifting. This means they will be generating revenue every day. Green hydrogen production is expensive (70% efficiency and high capital costs) and turning it back into electricity is expensive (40% efficient and high capital costs). Round trip efficiency of about 30%! 100% hydrogen turbines aren't even on the market yet. It's only advantage is for long term storage. So what will that market look like? They will spend spring, summer and fall making hydrogen that will be used in winter to make up for the seasonal shortfall in solar and wind, which won't be nearly as much as you think it will be. It's a niche market! Even this guy who is building his future on hydrogen admits it: Asked how the technology will compete against advancements in battery storage, Browning said, “We think lithium-ion batteries will probably be the right choice if you want to store electricity for shorter periods of time.” The economics of hydrogen “are going to work no matter how long you store it,” he noted. https://www.powermag.com/high-volume-hydrogen-gas-turbines-take-shape/

I have a JD, googling the criminal code is easy, its the case law that is a problem. I don't buy your NERC deflection one bit, any reliability issues are being resolved in a reasonable manner. Just a little research and you will find that California is adding synchronous condensers across the grid for the purpose of solving this system reliability issue. That makes this a non-issue.

Yes, power-to-gas has an inefficient round-trip efficiency, but you are using excess solar or wind power to make the gas. Therefore, you "only" need to recover the capital costs for this to make sense. (Of course you use battery for daily load-shifting). I prefer power-to-CH4 instead of power-to-H2. It has even worse round-trip efficiency, but it leverages the existing CH4 infrastructure so the incremental capital costs are much lower, and the transition from today's use of NG to green CH4 is seamless. The existing CH4 infrastructure includes massive existing storage capacity and installed generation capacity. At least as important: gas can be (and is) transported over very long distances with very low energy loss. This makes up for some of the efficiency loss compared to battery or hydro, where the transmission loss can be significant. The entire infrastructure (generation, storage, pipelines, and LNG carriers, and trained workforce) is in place today. To use H2 instead of CH4, will require either a large new infrastructure or conversion of the existing infrastructure, which is like replacing the engines of an airliner in flight.

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Mr. McKinsey 

Although it is somewhat outdated information, the 2015 article "London Array Turns Two" provides outstanding insight into 'Real World' conditions regarding offshore wind.

Careful reading reveals numerous aspects that are not so widely touted in promotional efforts.

Going from memory ... ~350 Megawatts average output (tiny, tiny amount), fleet of 5 boats, over 90 full time technicians, construction cost over the  2 billion bucks (that amount could buy ya 2,000 Megawatts from CCGPs ... almost 6 times the amount from the London Array), inherent intermittentcy with night time production most plentiful (coinciding with lowest demand).

 

If you wish to "take the plunge" into one of Gail Tverberg's typical "War and Peace" like presentations (good Gaia, that woman offers  a thousand words when ten would suffice), you might find her August 31, 2016 piece pinpointing the practical problems of renewable/intermittent energy sources highly informative. All the moreso as her analysis has already been proven in South Australia and - seemingly - on the cusp of being validated in Germany.

Her bottom line thesis (as touched upon above in nsdp's comments referencing LACE/LCOE), is when sun/wind inputs exceed 10 to 15 per cent of a grid's design, huge imbalances start to arise as the marginally incresed production becomes astronomically expensive as well as potentially disruptive.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Yes, power-to-gas has an inefficient round-trip efficiency, but you are using excess solar or wind power to make the gas. Therefore, you "only" need to recover the capital costs for this to make sense. (Of course you use battery for daily load-shifting). I prefer power-to-CH4 instead of power-to-H2. It has even worse round-trip efficiency, but it leverages the existing CH4 infrastructure so the incremental capital costs are much lower, and the transition from today's use of NG to green CH4 is seamless. The existing CH4 infrastructure includes massive existing storage capacity and installed generation capacity. At least as important: gas can be (and is) transported over very long distances with very low energy loss. This makes up for some of the efficiency loss compared to battery or hydro, where the transmission loss can be significant. The entire infrastructure (generation, storage, pipelines, and LNG carriers, and trained workforce) is in place today. To use H2 instead of CH4, will require either a large new infrastructure or conversion of the existing infrastructure, which is like replacing the engines of an airliner in flight.

The problem with relying on using free excess electricity is that it only happens for a couple hours a day and all storage technologies will be competing for that free power, which means it won't be free anymore. Ultracapacitors are the best tech for rapidly absorbing that excess energy. The electricity will then be made available through the day for all other demands and at a market price.

Electricity only has a 5% energy loss in transmission and distribution so gas doesn't make up much for its low efficiency in that regard. And it will suffer from the same distribution losses, so the recovered efficiency will only be for the transmission part of the equation. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3

We do need long term storage for system reliability backup and some seasonal shifting. But this won't be a booming market sector. I suspect that the solution we settle on for powering heavy transport and flight will also be the most economical solution for electrical backup because of industry scale.

 

 

 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

7 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The problem with relying on using free excess electricity is that it only happens for a couple hours a day and all storage technologies will be competing for that free power, which means it won't be free anymore. Ultracapacitors are the best tech for rapidly absorbing that excess energy. The electricity will then be made available through the day for all other demands and at a market price.

Electricity only has a 5% energy loss in transmission and distribution so gas doesn't make up much for its low efficiency in that regard. And it will suffer from the same distribution losses, so the recovered efficiency will only be for the transmission part of the equation. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3

We do need long term storage for system reliability backup and some seasonal shifting. But this won't be a booming market sector. I suspect that the solution we settle on for powering heavy transport and flight will also be the most economical solution for electrical backup because of industry scale.

 

 

 

That "5%" is for fairly short haul, not transcontinental or intercontinental. If you want to do solar in the Sahara and generate electricity in Europe, or solar in Australia and electricity in China, or wind and solar in Texas and electricity in Europe then LNG carriers will be more efficient than a transmission line. If you want to do solar in Arizona and electricity in New York, pipelines will be more efficient.

Seasonal shifting makes economic sense because when you build enough solar to handle Summer air conditioning load, you will have a whole lot of excess in Spring.

All of these qualitative comparisons are meaningless without estimates of the capital costs, so we need to look at some studies. You may wish to start with the references at
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 hours ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

Mr. McKinsey 

Although it is somewhat outdated information, the 2015 article "London Array Turns Two" provides outstanding insight into 'Real World' conditions regarding offshore wind.

Careful reading reveals numerous aspects that are not so widely touted in promotional efforts.

Going from memory ... ~350 Megawatts average output (tiny, tiny amount), fleet of 5 boats, over 90 full time technicians, construction cost over the  2 billion bucks (that amount could buy ya 2,000 Megawatts from CCGPs ... almost 6 times the amount from the London Array), inherent intermittentcy with night time production most plentiful (coinciding with lowest demand).

 

If you wish to "take the plunge" into one of Gail Tverberg's typical "War and Peace" like presentations (good Gaia, that woman offers  a thousand words when ten would suffice), you might find her August 31, 2016 piece pinpointing the practical problems of renewable/intermittent energy sources highly informative. All the moreso as her analysis has already been proven in South Australia and - seemingly - on the cusp of being validated in Germany.

Her bottom line thesis (as touched upon above in nsdp's comments referencing LACE/LCOE), is when sun/wind inputs exceed 10 to 15 per cent of a grid's design, huge imbalances start to arise as the marginally incresed production becomes astronomically expensive as well as potentially disruptive.

2015 isn't somewhat dated, it is positively neolithic 😀 the scalable future for off-shore wind is floating! Check out this webinar from NREL: https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2020/floating-offshore-wind-rises.html

I'll check out Gail's article and get back to you. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,135]

19 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

2015 isn't somewhat dated, it is positively neolithic 😀 the scalable future for off-shore wind is floating! Check out this webinar from NREL: https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2020/floating-offshore-wind-rises.html

I'll check out Gail's article and get back to you. 

Quoting a white paper made by a bunch of ignorant academics is so humorous as to be laughable.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

28 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

That "5%" is for fairly short haul, not transcontinental or intercontinental. If you want to do solar in the Sahara and generate electricity in Europe, or solar in Australia and electricity in China, or wind and solar in Texas and electricity in Europe then LNG carriers will be more efficient than a transmission line. If you want to do solar in Arizona and electricity in New York, pipelines will be more efficient.

Seasonal shifting makes economic sense because when you build enough solar to handle Summer air conditioning load, you will have a whole lot of excess in Spring.

All of these qualitative comparisons are meaningless without estimates of the capital costs, so we need to look at some studies. You may wish to start with the references at
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas

Yes continental transmission is less efficient but not by that much.  UHVDC is  93% efficient: https://www.ee.co.za/article/losses-costs-associated-hvdc-uhvdc-transmission-lines.html

I agree that using an existing pipeline certainly makes for a compelling capital argument. But New York isn't going to need much solar from the southwest. Floating off shore wind is going to generate more electricity in New England than solar in the southwest.

LNG might be competitive for Australia to China but Africa to Europe and Arabia to India are fairly short distances. I'll look more into the capital costs.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

58 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

We do need long term storage for system reliability backup and some seasonal shifting. But this won't be a booming market sector. I suspect that the solution we settle on for powering heavy transport and flight will also be the most economical solution for electrical backup because of industry scale.

 

 

 

This is another point in favor of CH4. LNG is already in use for new cruise ships and container ships, and NG is used as a chemical feedstock, for energy-intensive industrial processes, and for commercial operations including kitchens. It is also a feedstock for synthetic fuels, although these have not really escaped the lab except on aircraft carriers. Again, replacing NG with green CH4 requires no infrastructure changes.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

7 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

This is another point in favor of CH4. LNG is already in use for new cruise ships and container ships, and NG is used as a chemical feedstock, for energy-intensive industrial processes, and for commercial operations including kitchens. It is also a feedstock for synthetic fuels, although these have not really escaped the lab except on aircraft carriers. Again, replacing NG with green CH4 requires no infrastructure changes.

I will agree with you that CH4 definitely makes up for its slightly lower efficiency than H by using existing infrastructure and tech. I will look into it more.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

27 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Quoting a white paper made by a bunch of ignorant academics is so humorous as to be laughable.

Aren't you late for your flat Earth conference?

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

4 hours ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

If you wish to "take the plunge" into one of Gail Tverberg's typical "War and Peace" like presentations (good Gaia, that woman offers  a thousand words when ten would suffice), you might find her August 31, 2016 piece pinpointing the practical problems of renewable/intermittent energy sources highly informative. All the moreso as her analysis has already been proven in South Australia and - seemingly - on the cusp of being validated in Germany.

Her bottom line thesis (as touched upon above in nsdp's comments referencing LACE/LCOE), is when sun/wind inputs exceed 10 to 15 per cent of a grid's design, huge imbalances start to arise as the marginally incresed production becomes astronomically expensive as well as potentially disruptive.

Gail's conclusion: even if wind turbines and solar PV could be built at zero cost, it would not make sense to continue to add them to the electric grid in the absence of very much better and cheaper electricity storage than we have today.

In 2016, when she wrote the article, battery costs were $600 MWh. Today they are $150. In ten years they will be $15.

Edited May 6, 2020 by Jay McKinsey