HVDC Cheaper Than Low-carbon Natural Gas

[BradleyPNW + 282]

"By comparing the lifetime costs of 15 different renewable energy carriers such as electricity and vanadium, Lux’s analysis shows that across all renewable energy carriers, low-cost solar energy can be delivered to resource-constrained regions at 50% to 80% lower cost than generating that solar energy locally under less favourable conditions."

LOHC [liquid organic hydrogen carriers] 

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Developing-The-Low-Carbon-Trade-Route-Of-The-Future.html

[BradleyPNW + 282]

Here's the Lux report. 

https://www.luxresearchinc.com/hubfs/2020 Executive Summaries/1 - 2020 Executive Summaries - Press Versions/Lux Research - Decarbonizing the Global Energy Trade Executive Summary - press.pdf

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

I would take all of this with a pinch of salt, to say the least, At this moment, for example when they say that the electricity cost of solar is cheaper than that of offshore wind turbines, you kinda get the idea of the problems of the report

The best type of solar powerplant, in the best place to put a solar powerplant, the Ouarzazate Solar Power Station costs aproximately around 2.5 billion U$S and has an installed capacity of around 510MWh, and they expect to generate around 1470GWh a year, which is around 168MWa, or a capacity factor of 33% in pretty much the sahara desert, among best places in the planet to put a solar powerplant, so the cost of building a solar powerplant that would be able to generate 1GW in the sahara would be around 14.9 Billion U$S, across the 30 years of its lifespan

How does that compare with imported natural gas and oil power generation? Let's say that we gonna make 1GW using a CCGT powerplant with a lifespan of 30 years, the average cost of building a CCGT ´powerplant is around 790U$S per KW, with 60hz turbines, 50Hz turbines make 30% more power from the same size, but for the sake of argument let's stick with 790U$S/KW, now lets suppose that either you import Natural Gas at around 10 U$S per MMBtu, with is around 520 U$S a Ton, or in par with oil at 80U$S a barrell, if you run a new GE or Siemens or Mitsubishi large scale CCGT, that can have efficiencies of 67% you would need 97tons of fuel per GWh or 856,379 tons per GWa (year) which in a span of 30 years combined with the capital costs of the powerplant it would be around 14.2 Billion U$S a year, so my question is, how is exctly cheaper for lets say, Italy to import solar electricity from Algeria, Libya, or Egypt, instead of buying a CCGT powerplant and then buying crude or lng? is more or less the same price

I'm gonna ad some things 

-Yes, i i know that capital and fuel costs are not all of the costs of a combined cycle powerplant, but neither buildings costs is all the cost of a CSP powerplant, but is around 80-85% of the lifecycle costs of a solar thermal powerplant

-The reason i compared the natural gas powerplant along with the CSP, instead of PV is because a powerplant like Ourzazate has it's own energy storage system thanks to molten salt in insulated tanks, and because thermal powerplants are more efficient and cheaper than  PV, you use steel covered in mirrors, that move a old-fashion steam turbine, no inverters, no batteries, no overcomplicated wiring, or toxic chemicals used in the manufacturing or the solar panels themselves, just old fashion stainless steel. 

-I used the CSP example because while isn't an apples-to-apples comparison is better than an apples to oranges one, since a CSP plant has more or less the same lifespan expectancy as a CCGT, i could have used Hornsea-1 as a reference, and i would get the same numbers, Hornsea-one will generate more or less 480MWa, cost 5.2 billion U$S and last 20 years, if it generated 1GWa it could cost like 10.4 billion U$S, and if it had to last 30 years could cost, 15.6 Billion U$S more or less the same costs

-Yes, i also know that there are extra costs in transporting nat gas to the powerplants, but if the idea of solar is putting panels in a ideal spot and then transporting electricity, wouldn't be the same as putting the powerplant close to the LNG regasification plant and using powerlines to transporting the electricity?

Edited May 29, 2020 by Sebastian Meana

[notsonice + 1,069]

14 hours ago, BradleyPNW said:

"By comparing the lifetime costs of 15 different renewable energy carriers such as electricity and vanadium, Lux’s analysis shows that across all renewable energy carriers, low-cost solar energy can be delivered to resource-constrained regions at 50% to 80% lower cost than generating that solar energy locally under less favourable conditions."

LOHC [liquid organic hydrogen carriers] 

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Developing-The-Low-Carbon-Trade-Route-Of-The-Future.html

As the western US becomes saturated with renewable energy, HVDC lines running from the west coast to the east coast will be used to sell excess cheap electricity when the sun sets on the east coast. Peak power will be met with no need for nat gas peaking plants

[BradleyPNW + 282]

8 minutes ago, notsonice said:

As the western US becomes saturated with renewable energy, HVDC lines running from the west coast to the east coast will be used to sell excess cheap electricity when the sun sets on the east coast. Peak power will be met with no need for nat gas peaking plants

I agree but watch the linked video. As the share of renewables grow they begin to lose value. Based strictly on market forces I don't think renewable schemes would replace natural gas. However, I think government intervention will probably adjust the market so we build a national HVDC grid powered by renewable schemes that eliminate natural gas. 

To be clear, I'm not against government intervention. Under certain circumstances government is necessary to make a free market efficient. For example, if GHG emissions cause negative externalities that aren't accurately captured by the market then government will need to intervene in order to correct the inefficiency. 

 

[notsonice + 1,069]

11 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said:

I agree but watch the linked video. As the share of renewables grow they begin to lose value. Based strictly on market forces I don't think renewable schemes would replace natural gas. However, I think government intervention will probably adjust the market so we build a national HVDC grid powered by renewable schemes that eliminate natural gas. 

To be clear, I'm not against government intervention. Under certain circumstances government is necessary to make a free market efficient. For example, if GHG emissions cause negative externalities that aren't accurately captured by the market then government will need to intervene in order to correct the inefficiency. 

 

I don't think renewable schemes would replace natural gas. ?????? That is what the Coal miners thought. PS I worked deep coal both sections and longwall.  I never thought the coal powered power plants would disappear as they have in the past 5 years.

[BradleyPNW + 282]

5 minutes ago, notsonice said:

I don't think renewable schemes would replace natural gas. ?????? That is what the Coal miners thought. PS I worked deep coal both sections and longwall.  I never thought the coal powered power plants would disappear as they have in the past 5 years.

Natural gas is a direct substitute for coal. Renewables aren't a direct substitute for NG. That's why it's different in this case. A renewable scheme (portfolio of technologies supporting renewable power) is capable of removing natural gas from the energy grid. I'm not using scheme in a pejorative sense, I'm using it in a positive sense to imply intent and planning.