China's Renewables Boom Hits the Wall

[markslawson + 1,058]

9 hours ago, Marcin said:

Nearly every (I do not have knowledge about all countries, but definitely true for US and China. More for US than China, China is more reasonable) is favouring renewable generation.

Marcin - I don't really disagree with much of your post but, like every renewable energy proponent, you have played up the advantages and ignored the disadvantages to arrive at a favourable conclusion. China has a mixed record in renewable energy to say the least. When last heard of they were building coal plants like nobody's business. Here is an extract from a report issued in late 2018.. "Like an approaching tsunami triggered by a distant earthquake, a massive cohort of hundreds of new coal-fired power plants is on course to be added to the already overbuilt Chinese coal plant fleet. This wave of new capacity—comparable in size to the entire U.S. coal fleet—is the consequence of a little reported surge in permit approvals at the provincial level from late 2014 to early 2016."

Now I'm becoming tired of repeating these same points. China's power station building trends has nothing to do with Western obsession with carbon but with internal party political factors. As for developed countries, sure a lot of renewables generation has been built. That's  because activists have been shrieking at governments about it - not because they are of any use.

Now turn to your calculations. Again I don't disagree but you've simply assumed that 12 GW of wind power in one place can be transported to be equivalent of 12 GW in another. Nope. Sorry. Wind towers typically have an effective output of one third of rated capacity. So to get 12 GW you need three lots of 12 GWs worth of wind farms, all in different localities (so that when wind goes down in one area its up somewhere else) with two connected by these long transmission lines. Even then you could not be sure that the network would deliver power 24/7. In fact most of the time it wouldn't deliver 12 GW so you still need conventional power to fill the gaps, plus maybe a battery or two to tide the network over any shortfalls. That's all a gross over-simplification, but I trust you get the idea. The DC transmission lines are an enormous additional cost required to make supposedly cheap green electricity deliver anything like the power it should.  

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

9 hours ago, Marcin said:

@remake it @markslawson

UHV DC line 1100 kV 12 GW losses rough estimation is 2% per 1000 km transmission distance.

Highest voltage line in US is 500kV DC 3 GW line loss is 10% per 1000 km transmission distance.

According to you and your pull numbers out of your backside...., AC lines are vastly superior to DC lines.....

2% and 10% ......

UHVAC loses about 3% over same length as DC

I notice you did not do the conversion factor at the UHVDC to AC where another BIG loss is incurred.  UHVAC to AC on the other hand has a SMALL loss and has built in cheap breakers for EMP problems etc whereas DC does not.  Likewise AC can have multitude of branches, DC cannot realistically and why no one does. 

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

According to you and your pull numbers out of your backside...., AC lines are vastly superior to DC lines.....

2% and 10% ......

UHVAC loses about 3% over same length as DC

I notice you did not do the conversion factor at the UHVDC to AC where another BIG loss is incurred.  UHVAC to AC on the other hand has a SMALL loss and has built in cheap breakers for EMP problems etc whereas DC does not.  Likewise AC can have multitude of branches, DC cannot realistically and why no one does. 

You have a chance to provide your sources, as it seems you are telling half truths given that the transmission industry knows that over long distances UHVDC/HVDC is more advantageous than AC transmission technologies.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

4 hours ago, remake it said:

You have a chance to provide your sources, as it seems you are telling half truths given that the transmission industry knows that over long distances UHVDC/HVDC is more advantageous than AC transmission technologies.

One day, you will read and think before replying. 

[remake it + 288]

16 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

One day, you will read and think before replying. 

In other words you only know that AC is advantageous over short distances and just made up the rest because it is actually untrue for distances typically greater than 400 miles. 

[Boat + 1,324]

On 10/2/2019 at 4:34 PM, ronwagn said:

I have fallen prey to the thinking that a top down government often works more efficiently, as in the trains run on time. That may be true but it depends on the overall culture, leadership at all levels, means etc. Actually a free economy is more effective unless it is mismanaged. That mismanagement is often caused by politicians who buy votes through overspending with funny money. That leads to economic collapse. 

Our military spending is a perfect example. They haven’t been able to do an audit for decades although several presidents have tried.

You can have programs that grow or shrink slowly over time and stay relativity efficient. But politics to often starves a problem and then dumps way to much money in all at once. 
 
Our system of two parties changes spending patterns where money is spent in concert with the ideology of the latest winning party.

[Marcin + 519]

8 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

According to you and your pull numbers out of your backside...., AC lines are vastly superior to DC lines.....

2% and 10% ......

UHVAC loses about 3% over same length as DC

I notice you did not do the conversion factor at the UHVDC to AC where another BIG loss is incurred.  UHVAC to AC on the other hand has a SMALL loss and has built in cheap breakers for EMP problems etc whereas DC does not.  Likewise AC can have multitude of branches, DC cannot realistically and why no one does. 

I am not engineer, so when I am using knowledge that I do not comprehend I usually use reliable sources or challenge the data with third parties providing them. Both data are for DC lines, from a good paper.

Losses in conversion (per Siemens for their stuff) for modern transformers is 0.7% at each side of AC/DC DC/AC.

1100 kV lines have sense for long distances, per this paper over 2500km, like this one 3400 km in China (by the way line has 3 bests in the world: best in efficiency=smallest losses, largest capacity, longest distance. Since Great Wall and Great Canal these Chinese are real pests always proving their ego against other nations).

At that distance 1.4% is not that important in whole comparison for 3400 km distance (this was loose comment at internet forum for enthusiasts, not anything real, like you take economic decisions) so was included in average and number rounded to whole.

 

[Marcin + 519]

For energy ethusiast like myself China is the very thing to watch.

Latest 15 years in China is the single event in the history of humanity of such a co-ordinated buildup of electricity generation capacity and power grid on such a vast scale. Nobody did it before and nobody will do this in the future. These are 100% facts.

Actually above is true/partially true in many aspects of recent activity of Chinese economy (definitely every aspect of physical infrastructure). China has of course many drawbacks.

Without any hype it is simply beautiful (but real & great threat for US led current world order) from economic point of view to watch such a co-ordinated meritocracy at work.

Back to renewables:

- China has 1.9 TW (1000 GW=1 TW) of generation capacity. Its electricity hunger was and is so vast that China is the largest builder of new generation capacity (latest 15 years) in the following areas: coal, nuclear, hydropower, wind and solar power. China generated 7100 TWh in 2018. Nobody knows what would be the number in 2030, maybe 10000 Twh or 11000 Twh. Estimation from 2010, was that in 2030 it will be 7500 TWh (!). US Generation is flat for 20 years at 4200 TWh. Fukushima LEVEL 7 EVENT in 2011, later problems with French and US designs, US embargo slowed development of nuclear power. So China was, is and still will be building coal plants, not 100-120 GW a year as in the past but substantial.

- Renewables work well with variable base load sources (you can change output in time). So hydro, pump-hydro, coal, natural gas are great, in France they also do this with nuclear. Availability of these sources (or like in Europe transborder connections) AND state of transmission grid defines potential for renewables capacity.

- Personal view: Renewables (apart from Hydropower) are and will be additional source of generation, above mentioned restrictions mean no more than 20-30% share at best conditions. Unless you are mountainous country and have unlimited funds for pump-hydro, in this special scenario it can be higher. Hydropower is location based: large flows of rivers at mountainous terrains are in not many countries.

- So green future means nuclear future. You are rich, short-sighted, less green it means natural gas. You are petro state it means natural gas. You are less rich/national security fears and coal deposits/long-term planning/too poor for ecology/society fears nuclear: it means coal. You are Iceland it means geothermal. These are options.

 

[NickW + 2,714]

On ‎11‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 11:31 PM, markslawson said:

Remake - you seriously need to do some reading.. the price pools run by western grids actually favours renewable energy. The response by some grids to renewables messing up the price pools is to start a capacity market. As for your assertion that these market mechanisms are an unnecessary complication I am at a loss for words. In fact the Western grids now can't do without them.. 

You also assert that there are significant cost trade offs in this transmission grids. That is not evident at all. You're talking about building DC lines over very substantial distances - potentially costing hundreds of billions - in order to overcome the problem of renewable generation being in one area and the power consumption in another. Conventional power plants built close to the consumers would be far cheaper, even after the cost of fuel is taken into account. Now that's enough.. time to move onto other topics. 

Assuming the fuel isn't available locally how does it get to the power station?

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

3 hours ago, Marcin said:

 

Personal view: Renewables (apart from Hydropower) are and will be additional source of generation, above mentioned restrictions mean no more than 20-30% share at best conditions. Unless you are mountainous country and have unlimited funds for pump-hydro, in this special scenario it can be higher. Hydropower is location based: large flows of rivers at mountainous terrains are in not many countries.

I agreed with you entire post except for above. I personally think that renewables can achieve about 40 - 50 % share of generation and still be competetive. Cost of renewables going down, cost of various sotrage solutions going down. Smart solutions for evening out consumption...

Also - a lot of niche technologies coming up. Such as combining hydropower with waste-water treatment plants. 

[Marcin + 519]

2 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I agreed with you entire post except for above. I personally think that renewables can achieve about 40 - 50 % share of generation and still be competetive. Cost of renewables going down, cost of various sotrage solutions going down. Smart solutions for evening out consumption...

Also - a lot of niche technologies coming up. Such as combining hydropower with waste-water treatment plants. 

Totally agree. In further discussion I mean renewables as without hydro which is country specific source. % share of renewables in any country could be presented as a function of price of electricity (on x axis you have price on y axis you have % share of renewables). With technological breakthroughs resulting in cheaper generation costs and storage costs whole curve goes up. Electricity generation (electricity is energy in joules, some people confuse this with power in watts, 1 W = 1 J / 1 s) from renewable sources is more expensive than from fossil fuels (including nuclear).

So if you want to pay higher price for electricity % share of renewables can naturally increase. Like in Germany a rich country and democracy  so people decided to pay higher prices, introduced a lot of renewables and are phasing out nuclear. Share of renewables increased.

I will give exaggerated example. Envisage rich, post-industrial ecological society, service based economy. With prices 4 times current ones (so finansing significant investment in pump-hydro, peak gas generation, accepting significant curtailment of renewables) you can achieve even 70-80% of renewables share in generated electricity. At the end of the day it is the choice of society.

Edited November 15, 2019 by Marcin
typo

[Marcin + 519]

On 10/2/2019 at 11:34 PM, ronwagn said:

I have fallen prey to the thinking that a top down government often works more efficiently, as in the trains run on time. That may be true but it depends on the overall culture, leadership at all levels, means etc. Actually a free economy is more effective unless it is mismanaged. That mismanagement is often caused by politicians who buy votes through overspending with funny money. That leads to economic collapse. 

Market forces in free economy work basing on the premise of maximum economic efficiency (maximum income).

Government is needed in areas where externalities are important and thus market forces are useless in making good decisions.

Mechanism of government choice should be maximization of efficiency but understood as sum of economic efficiency plus externalities.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

5 hours ago, Marcin said:

Market forces in free economy work basing on the premise of maximum economic efficiency (maximum income).

Government is needed in areas where externalities are important and thus market forces are useless in making good decisions.

Mechanism of government choice should be maximization of efficiency but understood as sum of economic efficiency plus externalities.

That depends on who is deciding the importance of the externalities and what is most efficient. Free, fair markets are my choice. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

6 hours ago, Marcin said:

Totally agree. In further discussion I mean renewables as without hydro which is country specific source. % share of renewables in any country could be presented as a function of price of electricity (on x axis you have price on y axis you have % share of renewables). With technological breakthroughs resulting in cheaper generation costs and storage costs whole curve goes up. Electricity generation (electricity is energy in joules, some people confuse this with power in watts, 1 W = 1 J / 1 s) from renewable sources is more expensive than from fossil fuels (including nuclear).

So if you want to pay higher price for electricity % share of renewables can naturally increase. Like in Germany a rich country and democracy  so people decided to pay higher prices, introduced a lot of renewables and are phasing out nuclear. Share of renewables increased.

I will give exaggerated example. Envisage rich, post-industrial ecological society, service based economy. With prices 4 times current ones (so finansing significant investment in pump-hydro, peak gas generation, accepting significant curtailment of renewables) you can achieve even 70-80% of renewables share in generated electricity. At the end of the day it is the choice of society.

German energy use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

That depends on who is deciding the importance of the externalities and what is most efficient. Free, fair markets are my choice. 

Define free market.  Note: historically capitalism says nothing about being fair in any way.  Competitive advantage - often called "moat" - was something to brag about.

USA used to want a globalist, free-market economy because they though they could out compete the world.  Hence free-trade deals and little banking regulation. 

Now it has morphed into nationalist, protectionism with tariffs etc.  Can't really support both sides.

Edited November 15, 2019 by Enthalpic

[markslawson + 1,058]

10 hours ago, NickW said:

Assuming the fuel isn't available locally how does it get to the power station?

Nick - good question. That is in fact another consideration to take into account in designing these networks. In Australia the now being phased out brown coal plants were typically built right next to brown coal pits but those pits were, in turn, often not so far from the capital cities where all the consumers were and you don't want power stations close to urban areas anyway.. But the key point about transporting coal or gas is that there are no substantial transportation losses. Energy is expended in getting the fuel to where it should be, but these would be trivial compared to the energy transported. That said, you would have to build your conventional power plant where there is convenient access to fuel. The point about solar/wind energy is that it has to be transported over long distances with these DC lines and to get any real complementary in the system (wind up in one place, down in another), you have to build several lines out to different regions..  

[remake it + 288]

59 minutes ago, markslawson said:

Energy is expended in getting the fuel to where it should be, but these would be trivial compared to the energy transported

Transporting electrons is cheaper than transporting coal.

50 minutes ago, markslawson said:

That said, you would have to build your conventional power plant where there is convenient access to fuel.

And then build an electricity grid to "transport" the energy, so you have the costs of ongoing mining and generation operations versus the cost of collecting "free energy" from further away.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

5 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Define free market.  Note: historically capitalism says nothing about being fair in any way.  Competitive advantage - often called "moat" - was something to brag about.

USA used to want a globalist, free-market economy because they though they could out compete the world.  Hence free-trade deals and little banking regulation. 

Now it has morphed into nationalist, protectionism with tariffs etc.  Can't really support both sides.

Dream on.  Had everything to do with Bretton woods and bribing up an alliance to fight the cold war till a bunch of greedy assholes got hold of the reigns after 1991. 

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Dream on.  Had everything to do with Bretton woods and bribing up an alliance to fight the cold war till a bunch of greedy assholes got hold of the reigns after 1991. 

Well that pretty much answers any concerns about your credibility on economic matters, and they seem to be as good as your contributions on energy... muchas gracias.

[NickW + 2,714]

9 hours ago, markslawson said:

Nick - good question. That is in fact another consideration to take into account in designing these networks. In Australia the now being phased out brown coal plants were typically built right next to brown coal pits but those pits were, in turn, often not so far from the capital cities where all the consumers were and you don't want power stations close to urban areas anyway.. But the key point about transporting coal or gas is that there are no substantial transportation losses. Energy is expended in getting the fuel to where it should be, but these would be trivial compared to the energy transported. That said, you would have to build your conventional power plant where there is convenient access to fuel. The point about solar/wind energy is that it has to be transported over long distances with these DC lines and to get any real complementary in the system (wind up in one place, down in another), you have to build several lines out to different regions..  

Quite - Traditionally in the UK Coal fired power stations were built on the coal fields - hence KIlowatt Valley (Trent Valley) unless they were reliant on imported coal. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

On 11/15/2019 at 1:53 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

One day, you will read and think before replying. 

He’s still searching for that lonely brain cell...

[ronwagn + 6,290]

19 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Define free market.  Note: historically capitalism says nothing about being fair in any way.  Competitive advantage - often called "moat" - was something to brag about.

USA used to want a globalist, free-market economy because they though they could out compete the world.  Hence free-trade deals and little banking regulation. 

Now it has morphed into nationalist, protectionism with tariffs etc.  Can't really support both sides.

Fair trade would include balanced trade with your trading partners. Common sense to me. China does not play fair, Trump is fixing that. 

[markslawson + 1,058]

22 hours ago, remake it said:

And then build an electricity grid to "transport" the energy, so you have the costs of ongoing mining and generation operations versus the cost of collecting "free energy" from further away.

As I said there are many considerations to take into account in building a grid but as I also pointed out earlier this business about "free energy further away" is nonsense. Building a grid with a host of long distance lines so that the "free" energy from geographically diverse regions will go some way towards supplying a 24/7 grid in one area, and still have to use some conventional energy is not exactly cost effective is it? If you want to build a grid so that carbon production is reduced then find - assuming that there is an overall gain once all the building is done - then fine. But you can't then claim its going to be as cheap, or cheaper than a network built to minimise costs. The deal, within broad parameters, is less carbon more cost. Now I will leave it with you.  

[remake it + 288]

9 minutes ago, markslawson said:

As I said there are many considerations to take into account in building a grid but as I also pointed out earlier this business about "free energy further away" is nonsense. Building a grid with a host of long distance lines so that the "free" energy from geographically diverse regions will go some way towards supplying a 24/7 grid in one area, and still have to use some conventional energy is not exactly cost effective is it? If you want to build a grid so that carbon production is reduced then find - assuming that there is an overall gain once all the building is done - then fine. But you can't then claim its going to be as cheap, or cheaper than a network built to minimise costs. The deal, within broad parameters, is less carbon more cost. Now I will leave it with you.  

The bit you can overlook as long as you like is the fact that if the energy (in whatever form) is there to be transported elsewhere, the most cost effective way over long distances is using HVDC, so maybe you can take your ideas to Siemens and see what they reckon.

Edited November 16, 2019 by remake it
added (in whatever form)