Germany’s overdose of renewable energy

[Marcin2 + 724]

So 300 million EUR per 1 GWh

my estimations for Germany are about 5 TWh of energy storage at minimum needed, we can of course calculate how much Storage needed at given quantity of back up fossil capacity.

If the fossil fuel gap larger - capacity needs to be larger .

So 300 billion EUR per 1 TWh

So 1.5 trillion EUR per 5 TWh.

Edited January 30, 2020 by Marcin2
Typo

[Marcin2 + 724]

4 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I am not 100 %, but I believe a lot of gas in Germany is used by industry. 

83 TWh 2018, so they used about 20-25% of consumption for electricity generation in Germany.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

4 hours ago, Marcin2 said:

So 300 million EUR per 1 GWh

my estimations for Germany are about 5 TWh of energy storage at minimum needed, we can of course calculate how much Storage needed at given quantity of back up fossil capacity.

If the fossil fuel gap larger - capacity needs to be larger .

So 300 billion EUR per 1 TWh

So 1.5 trillion EUR per 5 TWh.

Let me quote myself from previous post in previous thread:

Lets look up Germany's actual wind/solar output in January 2019 instead of playing in "perfection" make believe world of "potential" as Germany is a very large place.  So real data provide by the German government: https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?source=all-sources&year=2019&week=

Solar capacity is ~45GW currently

Wind capacity is ~60GW currently( I think this is a bit high, but hey)

2019 January wk by week.  Wmin = Wind min GW; Smin = solar min GW

1. Wmin = 4GW  ~1.5 days; Smin 0(22 out of 24 hrs) ~ wk ave ~2GW ~2hrs
2. Wmin = 3.5GW  ~1 days; Smin 0(22 out of 24 hrs) ~ wk ave ~2GW ~2hrs
3. Wmin = 0.6-->3GW ~3+ days; Smin 0(20 out of 24 hrs) ~ wk ave ~7GW ~4hrs/day
4. Wmin = 0.6-->4GW ~3+ days; Smin 0(20 out of 24 hrs) ~ wk ave ~5GW ~4hrs/day

End of wk 3 coincides with beginning of wk 4 for a total of one week, just like I said in previous post when a standard winter high moves in.  No wind/No Solar.  Fine, you wish to quibble and call less than 5% capacity factor "power", uh, you go dude.  Somehow I prefer looking at the 95% of reality where needing power is required. 

Look at the surrounding months.  They all have week/weeks when wind/solar are very low to non existent. 

Note: Germany ~80Million ppl; ~70/80GW required every second; Add ~25% more to electrify transportation and another 35% more to get off NG used for heating/pwr even before we talk pumped hydro storage inefficiencies, lets just call it 100GW when add in population increase before heating consideration.  This jumps to 150GW required with heating considerations in winter for maximum load.

So, One Week ~zero wind, ~zero solar.  This is standard.  Several weeks are the largest.  You build for worst case, not average.

Capacity factor 75% of battery available at best and average capacity of battery will be 75% so, by nameplane capacity ~50%

Germany requires 75GW daily and if transporation goes electric ~100GW * 14 days *24 hours = battery required is 33,600 GWh of battery is required * capacity = 67,000 GWh. 

Biggest battery factory in the world: TESLA makes 50GWh/yr.....  And cannot expand because the minerals are not available even though everyone is begging for their batteries. 

So, JUST FOR GERMANY: Tesla has to build batteries for 67,000/50 = 1340 YEARS

[Boat + 1,315]

17 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

This is exactly the type of scenarios that the Climate Panic crowd deliberately ignore.

I really do get annoyed with the obtuseness of those who demand to magically convert the entire world to so-called "renewable" energy while they ignore the simple fact that these "renewable" energy systems require backup hydrocarbon energy systems.

Double the cost, having both hydrocarbon systems and "renewable" energy systems.

 

Germany’s overdose of renewable energy

Germany now generates over 35% of its yearly electricity consumption from wind and solar sources. Over 30 000 wind turbines have been built, with a total installed capacity of nearly 60 GW. Germany now has approximately 1.7 million solar power (photovoltaic) installations, with an installed capacity of 46 GW. This looks very impressive.

Unfortunately, most of the time the actual amount of electricity produced is only a fraction of the installed capacity. Worse, on “bad days” it can fall to nearly zero. In 2016 for example there were 52 nights with essentially no wind blowing in the country. No Sun, no wind. Even taking “better days” into account, the average electricity output of wind and solar energy installations in Germany amounts to only about 17% of the installed capacity.

The obvious lesson is: if you want  a stable, secure electricity supply, then you will need reserve, or backup sources of electricity which can be activated on more or less short notice to fill the gaps between electricity demand and the fluctuating output from wind and solar sources.

The more wind and solar energy a nation decides to generate, the more backup capacity it will require. On “bad days” these backup sources must be able to supply up to 100% of the nation’s electricity demand. On “good days” (or during “good hours”) the backup sources will be used less, or even turned off, so that their capacity utilization will also be poor. Not very good economics.  ...

 

Yes Tom, that argument has been around for decades. But here is the rub. Renewable electricity sells for a lower price when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. So who makes very little profit to losing money? Yea FF. 
As time goes by the market and investors will figure out what’s cheaper at what percentage of saturation. This will be a bean counters decision. 
Backup for renewables will become is a secondary market. What’s cheaper. My guess is that coal and nuclear will get very little base load market. At this time nat gas seems to be the clear winner for backup. As suggested before this process of change will happen over decades. 

Btw, this is the market talking where the sun shines and the wind blows. Other places FF will continue to dominate. Especially overpopulated countries where business supersedes health.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Boat

[NickW + 2,714]

4 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Let me quote myself from previous post in previous thread:

Lets look up Germany's actual wind/solar output in January 2019 instead of playing in "perfection" make believe world of "potential" as Germany is a very large place.  So real data provide by the German government: https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?source=all-sources&year=2019&week=

Solar capacity is ~45GW currently

Wind capacity is ~60GW currently( I think this is a bit high, but hey)

2019 January wk by week.  Wmin = Wind min GW; Smin = solar min GW

1. Wmin = 4GW  ~1.5 days; Smin 0(22 out of 24 hrs) ~ wk ave ~2GW ~2hrs
2. Wmin = 3.5GW  ~1 days; Smin 0(22 out of 24 hrs) ~ wk ave ~2GW ~2hrs
3. Wmin = 0.6-->3GW ~3+ days; Smin 0(20 out of 24 hrs) ~ wk ave ~7GW ~4hrs/day
4. Wmin = 0.6-->4GW ~3+ days; Smin 0(20 out of 24 hrs) ~ wk ave ~5GW ~4hrs/day

End of wk 3 coincides with beginning of wk 4 for a total of one week, just like I said in previous post when a standard winter high moves in.  No wind/No Solar.  Fine, you wish to quibble and call less than 5% capacity factor "power", uh, you go dude.  Somehow I prefer looking at the 95% of reality where needing power is required. 

Look at the surrounding months.  They all have week/weeks when wind/solar are very low to non existent. 

Note: Germany ~80Million ppl; ~70/80GW required every second; Add ~25% more to electrify transportation and another 35% more to get off NG used for heating/pwr even before we talk pumped hydro storage inefficiencies, lets just call it 100GW when add in population increase before heating consideration.  This jumps to 150GW required with heating considerations in winter for maximum load.

So, One Week ~zero wind, ~zero solar.  This is standard.  Several weeks are the largest.  You build for worst case, not average.

Capacity factor 75% of battery available at best and average capacity of battery will be 75% so, by nameplane capacity ~50%

Germany requires 75GW daily and if transporation goes electric ~100GW * 14 days *24 hours = battery required is 33,600 GWh of battery is required * capacity = 67,000 GWh. 

Biggest battery factory in the world: TESLA makes 50GWh/yr.....  And cannot expand because the minerals are not available even though everyone is begging for their batteries. 

So, JUST FOR GERMANY: Tesla has to build batteries for 67,000/50 = 1340 YEARS

Could you point us to where German economic policy is to run the entire Country exclusively on wind and solar? 

The idea that they would need 14 days storage capacity from Batteries is ridiculous when you consider they have:

Hydro (and could retrofit some as pump storage) 

Biomass (ideally with CHP)

Waste to energy (ideally with CHP). Especially since many European countries are to ban the export of recycled plastic

Biogas which can utilise the gas grid for storage. There is huge potential here. The UK is estimated to have a potential resource of 150 Twh so Germany's is going to be 30-50% bigger)

Geothermal. Germany has several hot spots and little exploitation so far. 

Large offshore wind fleet. You can start building in  a baseload factor here - 5% of capacity conservatively

Enormous interconnection with other states. North and South of Germany Countries with export capacity Hydro. West - night term Nuclear surplus from France. Interconnections with Benelux / UK / Poland. 

I think Germany's renewables only plan is fanciful so I'd concede in the absence of Nuclear baseload they are going to need Coal / gas as part of their network unless they want to be completely reliant on interconnectors. 

 

[NickW + 2,714]

Another potential method of soaking up surplus wind / solar power and converting into storable energy. Turn into Hydrogen and inject into the gas grid (Up to 15% by vol without any modification) 

https://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1672228/france-launches-first-wind-powered-hydrogen-plant

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

4 hours ago, NickW said:

Could you point us to where German economic policy is to run the entire Country exclusively on wind and solar? 

The idea that they would need 14 days storage capacity from Batteries is ridiculous when you consider they have:

Hydro (and could retrofit some as pump storage) 

Biomass (ideally with CHP)

Waste to energy (ideally with CHP). Especially since many European countries are to ban the export of recycled plastic

Biogas which can utilise the gas grid for storage. There is huge potential here. The UK is estimated to have a potential resource of 150 Twh so Germany's is going to be 30-50% bigger)

Geothermal. Germany has several hot spots and little exploitation so far. 

Large offshore wind fleet. You can start building in  a baseload factor here - 5% of capacity conservatively

Enormous interconnection with other states. North and South of Germany Countries with export capacity Hydro. West - night term Nuclear surplus from France. Interconnections with Benelux / UK / Poland. 

I think Germany's renewables only plan is fanciful so I'd concede in the absence of Nuclear baseload they are going to need Coal / gas as part of their network unless they want to be completely reliant on interconnectors. 

 

I suggest MATH.  Not pontification

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

I suggest MATH.  Not pontification

Ok on your terms if it makes it more simple:

2 weeks demand minus

• Hydro Output (11.3GW)
• Pump storage power in store (6.8GW of capacity) 
• Biomass (at highest sustainable output over 2 weeks) (45 TWH annual production)
• Waste to Energy  (6 TWH annual production)
• Baseload capacity for wind (5% of gross capacity  5-6GW) 
• Minimum level of Interconnector support (some of which will be fossil) 
• Biogas
• Geothermal

Equals the amount of Battery / CCGT / OCGT capacity needed. 

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

100GW*10 days = 24,000 GWh

Germany's Hydropower never goes over +3GW in 2019... Max capacity is one thing: Dry river beds used for barge traffic of all heavy industry goods Reality is another. 

Pumped Hydro storage?  Your numbers are WAY off by 2X.  Why?  Because round trip EFFICIENCY in your numbers is not accounted for.  If you look at link I gave and added up THEIR numbers from their own map, it amounts to ~half of the energy sucked down to create said potential.  Good, make 100GW more... of course, how many hours does this run?  A tiny lake surge(what Germany currently has) doesn't mean much other than time to start slower coal fired power plants.  Pumped Hydro is excellent surge protection. 

What is top soil?  Do you need it to grow crops etc? 

So, turning all of your biomass into energy instead of top soil does what to the top soil?

If your answer is to make greenhouses everywhere, ok(Here I agree); otherwise biomass is a short term solution and a long term desert horror.

Waste to Energy is what? 0.5GW?

Biogas IS biomass.  Where a good chunk of Germany's biomass energy comes from.

PS: Nearly 100% of that biomass should be turned into biochar for improved top soil. 

EDIT: Germany is already IMPORTING their neighbors trash to do waste to energy.....  You don't suppose their neighbors will want that if they go "green" eh?

 

Edited January 31, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[NickW + 2,714]

32 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

100GW*10 days = 24,000 GWh

Germany's Hydropower never goes over +3GW in 2019... Max capacity is one thing: Dry river beds used for barge traffic of all heavy industry goods Reality is another. 

Pumped Hydro storage?  Your numbers are WAY off by 2X.  Why?  Because round trip EFFICIENCY in your numbers is not accounted for.  If you look at link I gave and added up THEIR numbers from their own map, it amounts to ~half of the energy sucked down to create said potential.  Good, make 100GW more... of course, how many hours does this run?  A tiny lake surge(what Germany currently has) doesn't mean much other than time to start slower coal fired power plants.  Pumped Hydro is excellent surge protection. 

What is top soil?  Do you need it to grow crops etc? 

So, turning all of your biomass into energy instead of top soil does what to the top soil?

If your answer is to make greenhouses everywhere, ok(Here I agree); otherwise biomass is a short term solution and a long term desert horror.

Waste to Energy is what? 0.5GW?

Biogas IS biomass.  Where a good chunk of Germany's biomass energy comes from.

PS: Nearly 100% of that biomass should be turned into biochar for improved top soil. 

EDIT: Germany is already IMPORTING their neighbors trash to do waste to energy.....  You don't suppose their neighbors will want that if they go "green" eh?

 

You might observe that at the bottom of my post I state the inevitable need for CCGT / OCGT or other storage. I am simply pointing out that your 100% back up for 2 weeks is incorrect. The reality is it might be 60/70/80% but its definitely not 100%. 

On the subject of Pumped storage their capacity is around 7GW. I'll assume that gives about 8 hours output flat out. 

I'm not a great fan of Biomass either but I don't see any difference in terms of effect on soils of planting crops and then removing them to eat. At least with dedicated Biomass the ash & fly ash can be returned to the soil. 

Biogas is often produced from materials not readily suitable for biomass gasification & burning. This includes wet sludges, wet faecal matter, food factory wastes etc. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

On 1/30/2020 at 7:07 AM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Tom, 

You are so biased that you cannot see the forest for the trees. The above situation is real; the money invested in renewables in Germany is a sunk cost. This mean they will double down on storage... 

I am surprised somebody with your experience can't see this... 

You're assuming there's even enough energy to begin with. Next, all of the second rate morons seem to think that batteries and hydrogen are the proper way to store electricity. It's as if none of these idiots have heard of synthetic fuel. GTL technology has existed forever, yet for some reason we're pouring millions into big boxes filled with precious metals giving pathetic power output and efficiency. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

2 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

You're assuming there's even enough energy to begin with

Fair point. 

2 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Next, all of the second rate morons seem to think that batteries and hydrogen are the proper way to store electricity.

I am happy to concede that I know very little about science. I however understand business, finance and the European politics. I am sorry if I came across as being scientific person.

[SERWIN + 749]

On 1/30/2020 at 8:06 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

But apparently you cannot fathom Tom’s point. The Germans have ‘sunk’ a ton of money into renewables, which apparently cannot keep a suitable, constant supply of electricity on the grid. They now need to ‘sink’ more cash into fossil fuel powered back up systems.

Why would the Germans ‘sink’ so much money into a power system they knew could not provide constant power year round without addressing the storage issue in tandem with the installation?

The only reason I can think of is that they were mislead by promises of storage technology which was ‘right around the corner’ but has yet to materialize.

Because they;

1) Don't have a national defense cost, that has been provided by the horrible Imperialistic USA for decades...

2) the politicians that have done this are idiots and/or have investments in the companies that made and installed these systems so they could make a bunch of retirement money...

3) Do not as of yet have enough money invested in backup/storage systems so they won't be willing to put the money into that until they get their portfolios updated...

4) No one bothered to explain to them that they are in a bad area to be trying to use "renewables" 

[NickW + 2,714]

4 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

You're assuming there's even enough energy to begin with. Next, all of the second rate morons seem to think that batteries and hydrogen are the proper way to store electricity. It's as if none of these idiots have heard of synthetic fuel. GTL technology has existed forever, yet for some reason we're pouring millions into big boxes filled with precious metals giving pathetic power output and efficiency. 

if we reach a position of having so much surplus intermittent electricity that its converted into Hydrogen a better use for that is to make Ammonia and displace the natural gas that is currently used. Norway has a stranded Hydro plant that basically makes Ammonia from the electricity produced. 

[SERWIN + 749]

On 1/30/2020 at 6:26 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

I did. She asked what ‘fluctuating output’ meant.

You told her that it means some days you pee harder than others, right?

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

if we reach a position of having so much surplus intermittent electricity that its converted into Hydrogen a better use for that is to make Ammonia and displace the natural gas that is currently used. Norway has a stranded Hydro plant that basically makes Ammonia from the electricity produced. 

This is a fair point, but at the moment the only thing you can do with extra power is to generate hydrogen for the haber-bosch process, which is what they're doing in Norway. Norway is a good example since hydroelectric power is actually reliable. I don't think we can currently run ammonia synthesis with only electric input, and if you could point me to current production models where this is happening *PLEASE DO because I'm very interested.

I suppose the last issue would be that despite the massive volume demand for ammonia, there IS a limit, and currently there would be lots of competition with other chemical majors using traditional WGS tech. 

*Ammonia production is a huge point of interest in my upcoming career. I want to make it a major investment decision when the time is right, so keeping up with the best methods in the chemical industry is critical. 

Edited January 31, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[SERWIN + 749]

On 1/30/2020 at 4:40 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

The more wind and solar energy a nation decides to generate, the more backup capacity it will require. On “bad days” these backup sources must be able to supply up to 100% of the nation’s electricity demand. On “good days” (or during “good hours”) the backup sources will be used less, or even turned off, so that their capacity utilization will also be poor. Not very good economics.  ...

 

So this all boils down to the question I was asking on another thread, why go entirely green if you have to build backup power generation and/or crazy expensive backup storage? Where is the logic in that now? That was what I was trying to get an answer to on the other thread...

[SERWIN + 749]

On 1/30/2020 at 10:26 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

Natural Gas is a Renewable Natural Resource.

For example, Cow farts are that Renewable Hydrocarbon called Methane which the Climate Scaremongers get hysterical about.

As I read this I had a visual. Picture this, cows tied to a railing, gas collection devices strapped to their asses, mooing away from the indignity of it all. Farmer yelling "Come on babies, daddy need to fill up the truck and go to town!!" LMOA. So how would one collect what they burp up? Cover the mouth and they can't eat, therefore can't produce more gas....

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

21 minutes ago, SERWIN said:

So this all boils down to the question I was asking on another thread, why go entirely green if you have to build backup power generation and/or crazy expensive backup storage? Where is the logic in that now? That was what I was trying to get an answer to on the other thread...

The backup stuff is already built, it's just called the primary source now.  No reason they have to torn down right away during transition.

Around here most of the coal plants have been retrofitted to nat gas which is a good start.

[SERWIN + 749]

Just now, Enthalpic said:

The backup stuff is already built, it's just called the primary source now.  No reason they have to torn down right away during transition.

Around here most of the coal plants have been retrofitted to nat gas which is a good start.

That is an excellent start, I do remember them having the massive digger in the coal mine with the coal fired plant that it was feeding right next door. What a huge amount of energy expended just to keep the fires going. However, why not be satisfied with using natural gas and just keeping it that way. I do believe we still have a long way to go until we can build a system fed by green energy sources and not have to keep the old plants up and running for a backup. Still doesn't make much sense to me.....

[SERWIN + 749]

As a side note, what is fueling the price on oil right now. Is it a combination of the China virus and the impeachment farce going on right now? Is there something else driving the price down?

 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

10 minutes ago, SERWIN said:

However, why not be satisfied with using natural gas and just keeping it that way. I do believe we still have a long way to go until we can build a system fed by green energy sources and not have to keep the old plants up and running for a backup. Still doesn't make much sense to me.....

I live far enough north that we will be dependent on natural gas for the foreseeable future - for both heat and electricity.  Plus I live in the Texas of the north (Alberta) so we have lots of the stuff and many pro-oil people in government. 

We have several wind farms but large scale solar is less feasible around here due to all the snow and short daylight hours in winter.

 

Edited January 31, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

57 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

 I don't think we can currently run ammonia synthesis with only electric input, and if you could point me to current production models where this is happening *PLEASE DO because I'm very interested.

I suppose the last issue would be that despite the massive volume demand for ammonia, there IS a limit, and currently there would be lots of competition with other chemical majors using traditional WGS tech. 

*Ammonia production is a huge point of interest in my upcoming career. I want to make it a major investment decision when the time is right, so keeping up with the best methods in the chemical industry is critical. 

You certainly can with just water, air, and electric heat (or arc).  Probably not done because it is not the most economical way.

In the future I suspect genetically modified organisms or nano-particles will be used. Cyanobacteria, Ryzombium, and Azotobacter can already fixate atmospheric nitrogen at low temperatures.  Just need to amplify some of those genes and maybe add some other catalysts.

Brute force energy will be the way of the past.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Enthalpic

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

31 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

You certainly can with just water, air, and electric heat (or arc).  Probably not done because it is not the most economical way.

In the future I suspect genetically modified organisms or nano-particles will be used. Cyanobacteria, Ryzombium, and Azotobacter can already fixate atmospheric nitrogen at low temperatures.  Just need to amplify some of those genes and maybe add some other catalysts.

Brute force energy will be the way of the past.

To break the nitrogen bond will always take over 900 KJ per mole. The means by which we do this are irrelevant. I seriously doubt that microorganisms will be able to support the demand in a timely fashion. Besides, can you guarantee that efficiency will be higher than the current 65%? 65 isn't too far from the theoretical limit. I have no interest in lowering pressure or operating temperature of this process.

 

EDIT: To clarify, the means by which we do this only matters in terms of efficiency. For us to use the weak microorganism system, it needs to be exceedingly efficient and easy to scale up. All of these "SMALL SCALE PRODUCTION IS THE FUTURE OF AMMONIA" moron articles need to shut up. There's nothing wrong with mass production, and you don't change efficiency much by localizing fertilizer. 

Edited January 31, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

17 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

To break the nitrogen bond will always take over 900 KJ per mole. The means by which we do this are irrelevant. I seriously doubt that microorganisms will be able to support the demand in a timely fashion. Besides, can you guarantee that efficiency will be higher than the current 65%? 65 isn't too far from the theoretical limit. I have no interest in lowering pressure or operating temperature of this process.

 

EDIT: To clarify, the means by which we do this only matters in terms of efficiency. For us to use the weak microorganism system, it needs to be exceedingly efficient and easy to scale up. All of these "SMALL SCALE PRODUCTION IS THE FUTURE OF AMMONIA" moron articles need to shut up. There's nothing wrong with mass production, and you don't change efficiency much by localizing fertilizer. 

The delta H doesn't matter nearly as much as the activation energy.  The reaction with hydrogen is exothermic. Fancy catalysts (nano or enzyme) are the answer IMO.

Large scale will of course persist (for other industrial applications) but field application of fixating bacteria will continue to increase as will fertilizer coatings that reduce demand (right now much of the applied nitrogen is wasted).  Not shipping hazardous anhydrous ammonia would be a nice upside.

I'm just a B.Sc chemist not an engineer.