Germany’s overdose of renewable energy

[markslawson + 1,042]

On 2/2/2020 at 10:00 PM, NickW said:

Here we go again - its like whack a mole here. 🙄

They last a lot longer than that. The reason most smaller ones are taken down after 15-20 years is that the sites can be used for much larger and more efficient turbines.

15-20 for turbines is right. Read the other posts. I dunno where you got the idea the smaller turbines would  be reused, or would last longer than that. Go to the link you give in the the post for used wind turbines. Click on the first one and it says it was originally installed in 2012  - eight years ago.  The second one was installed 11 years ago. You will find that turbines will last longer if reconditioned. There would certainly be a limited market for used turbines but on factory sites? If you have any link pointing to a turbine in use on a factory site I'd be most interested. I looked at the PV link too.. the first one the panels were installed 10 years ago and you misunderstood the warranty information they give.. its 25 years for 90 per cent performance from the original installation.. not from the second sale .. but good quality panels can last 25 years which is longer than I thought but if they are well made then good..   

[markslawson + 1,042]

On 2/2/2020 at 11:50 PM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Sunk cost is exactly the term to be used. The money invested are invested. The utility can either write them off or maximize the investment. In many cases it makes sense to maximize the investments. 

Hmmm! Well, okay, that's a more sensible comment that the original.. however, it would still have been better not to bother with renewables at all.. 

[Geoff Guenther + 317]

This thread is great because we're actually seeing converging opinions.  Refreshing, as most threads end up with "agreeing to disagree".

In a nutshell, we now have lots of energy options whose prices are comparable and which have vastly different capabilities

• some are zero carbon
• some are good for baseload
• some are good for intermittent storage
• others for mid-term storage
• some are not dependent on Russian gas - many European gas plants become unprofitable if they rely on LNG

The UK and Germany are great studies in balancing needs in a rapidly changing market.  The UK has almost replaced all coal with renewables and while power prices are becoming less predictable, the market is still functioning.  Pumped storage and other long-term storage is lagging in the market and the country is still depending on LNG terminals for its longer-term shortage requirements.  Note that the LNG terminals failed during "the Beast from the East" weather event so it's unclear that strategy is a good one.

Proposals put forward do include interconnecting all of Europe and northwest Africa in a power grid.  That would allow African solar to supply power in the day.  Norwegian pumped storage would become a mid-term storage solution.  Batteries have to be a part of this solution, but a workable market mechanism needs to be in place.

[NickW + 2,714]

5 hours ago, markslawson said:

15-20 for turbines is right. Read the other posts. I dunno where you got the idea the smaller turbines would  be reused, or would last longer than that. Go to the link you give in the the post for used wind turbines. Click on the first one and it says it was originally installed in 2012  - eight years ago.  The second one was installed 11 years ago. You will find that turbines will last longer if reconditioned. There would certainly be a limited market for used turbines but on factory sites? If you have any link pointing to a turbine in use on a factory site I'd be most interested. I looked at the PV link too.. the first one the panels were installed 10 years ago and you misunderstood the warranty information they give.. its 25 years for 90 per cent performance from the original installation.. not from the second sale .. but good quality panels can last 25 years which is longer than I thought but if they are well made then good..   

This Uk firm have a portfolio of work

https://global.mwpsworld.com/case-studies-i/

Most turbines <500KW are going to be 1990's vintage.

 

Factory / industrial sites / Farms / other  sites - WT deployments

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagenham_wind_turbines

https://www.businessgreen.com/news/2453478/ecotricity-debuts-kings-lynn-nhs-wind-turbine

http://www.windmillworld.com/news/item521.htm

https://www.potatopro.com/companies/mccain-foods-gb-ltd-whittlesey

[NickW + 2,714]

9 hours ago, Uvuvwevwevwe Onyetenyevwe Ugwemuhwem Osas said:

I'm not an environmentalist but the solution is simple.  And no batteries required.
Connect as many countries as possible to the same electric grid.
When one country has no sun and no wind, some other distant country might have sun and/or wind and/or nuclear.
There will need to be a lot of over capacity in solar/wind. but it could work ... most of the time.

The best strategy is to reduce energy/power consumption.
Once energy/power consumption drops to a lower level, it will be easier to implement backups/redundancy./storage.

Works in places like Europe with dense populations but in other locations transmission losses and cost of copper far too high.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

6 hours ago, Geoff Guenther said:

This thread is great because we're actually seeing converging opinions.  Refreshing, as most threads end up with "agreeing to disagree".

In a nutshell, we now have lots of energy options whose prices are comparable and which have vastly different capabilities

• some are zero carbon
• some are good for baseload
• some are good for intermittent storage
• others for mid-term storage
• some are not dependent on Russian gas - many European gas plants become unprofitable if they rely on LNG

 

Indeed! And some are good for nothing! 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

I'm convinced that we're going to pay dearly in about two decades if we keep up mass installation of green energy. Economies don't see major issues immediately, which is why Venezuela survived on socialism for a period before falling off a cliff. We'll have a mass of expensive, low output renewable arrays that don't last long enough and are difficult to maintain. They'll take up lots of space, destroy my view of the skyline, and prevent me from running my chemical plants at full throttle. 

I saw something amusing at a big ammonia conference. Under the list of objectives for "Renewable Ammonia", one of the items was "variable plant load". To me, this translates to "you know, full power won't be available when you need it to be, so prepare to throttle down your production". 

[markslawson + 1,042]

11 hours ago, NickW said:

This Uk firm have a portfolio of work

https://global.mwpsworld.com/case-studies-i/

Most turbines <500KW are going to be 1990's vintage.

The first link is meaningless the others however, I grant you, point to a few wind turbines used on or around industrial/commercial sites - not building sites, please note. You will note from the pictures they are all in remote locations, except for hospital one which is quite old. That is the problem. Getting planning permission for a turbine on any factory in Australia would be impossible I would say, unless the factory is remote to begin with - basically you can't place them anywhere near residences, within several kilometers as I seem to recall. There would be similar, if less stringent requirements now in place in Europe. The last Dagenham wind turbine was built in 2011 and would be in a remote place.. even so, getting planning permission now would be a real problem. So there's not much scope for this market for second hand turbines you are championing, although there would be some activity. A more likely scenario is entire wind farms being sold and the turbines reconditioned, to extend their life. Anyway my original point stands but thanks for the links.. interesting..   

[NickW + 2,714]

8 minutes ago, markslawson said:

The first link is meaningless the others however, I grant you, point to a few wind turbines used on or around industrial/commercial sites - not building sites, please note. You will note from the pictures they are all in remote locations, except for hospital one which is quite old. That is the problem. Getting planning permission for a turbine on any factory in Australia would be impossible I would say, unless the factory is remote to begin with - basically you can't place them anywhere near residences, within several kilometers as I seem to recall. There would be similar, if less stringent requirements now in place in Europe. The last Dagenham wind turbine was built in 2011 and would be in a remote place.. even so, getting planning permission now would be a real problem. So there's not much scope for this market for second hand turbines you are championing, although there would be some activity. A more likely scenario is entire wind farms being sold and the turbines reconditioned, to extend their life. Anyway my original point stands but thanks for the links.. interesting..   

Strange as it may seem I didn't intend to spend all day finding examples but simply posted a few out of interest. 

As for firms - well there are several across Europe which specialise in take down, refurb and redeployment. 

Here are two more examples 

https://www.boythorpewindenergy.co.uk/gallery/

https://www.hitwind.com/used-wind-turbines/

[NickW + 2,714]

6 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

I'm convinced that we're going to pay dearly in about two decades if we keep up mass installation of green energy. Economies don't see major issues immediately, which is why Venezuela survived on socialism for a period before falling off a cliff. We'll have a mass of expensive, low output renewable arrays that don't last long enough and are difficult to maintain. They'll take up lots of space, destroy my view of the skyline, and prevent me from running my chemical plants at full throttle. 

I saw something amusing at a big ammonia conference. Under the list of objectives for "Renewable Ammonia", one of the items was "variable plant load". To me, this translates to "you know, full power won't be available when you need it to be, so prepare to throttle down your production". 

Except its not a zero sum game of one or the other. We realise there will be an ongoing need for gas to provide a proportion of back up for intermittent renewable systems and industrial economies, especially cold climate ones will need some baseload.

None of the above is actually backed up in reality. Solar panels are solid state and will still be operational in 40-50 years. Wind turbines have shorter life span but there are still plenty of 1990's vintage turbines going strong. 

Take up loads of space -

nope in most cases apart from Biofuels (which most in the Green movements dislike anyway) 

You can still farm around wind turbines - loads of examples in the UK and elsewhere. Offshore take up no space, provide reefs for the fish and best of all prevent trawling so the farms are sanctuary's for fish. 

Roof top solar and floating PV takes up no space. Deployed panels usually go on marginal land or on land which can still be used for agriculture - grazing, horticulture etc. Infact in hot climates many crops / fodder benefit from the shade panels provide from the midday sun. Its also a practical way to rest exhausted land for a couple of decades. 

 

 

[notsonice + 1,080]

12 hours ago, NickW said:

Works in places like Europe with dense populations but in other locations transmission losses and cost of copper far too high.

You do realize all electricity when transmitted long distances it moved up to high voltages to reduce losses and they use Aluminum not copper???

High voltage (HV; subtransmission less than 100 kV; subtransmission or transmission at voltages such as 115 kV and 138 kV), used for sub-transmission and transmission of bulk quantities of electric power and connection to very large consumers.

Extra high voltage (EHV; transmission) – from 345 kV, up to about 800 kV,[2][page needed] used for long distance, very high power transmission.

Ultra high voltage (UHV) – higher than 800 kV. The Financial Times reported UHV lines are a "game changer", making a global electricity grid potentially feasible. StateGrid said that compared to conventional lines, UHV enables the transmission of five times more power, over six times the distance.[3]

The most common conductor in use for transmission today is aluminum conductor steel reinforced (ACSR). Also seeing much use is all-aluminum-alloy conductor (AAAC). Aluminum is used because it has about half the weight and lower cost of a comparable resistance copper cable. It does, however, require a larger diameter than copper because of lower specific conductivity^[1].

Transmitting electricity at high voltage reduces the fraction of energy lost to resistance, which varies depending on the specific conductors, the current flowing, and the length of the transmission line. For example, a 100 mi (160 km) span at 765 kV carrying 1000 MW of power can have losses of 1.1% to 0.5%. A 345 kV line carrying the same load across the same distance has losses of 4.2%. Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 6.6% in 1997,^[26] 6.5% in 2007^[26] and 5% from 2013 to 2019. A 1000 kV UHV-AC line will economically transmit power distances of up to 2,000 km (1240 miles), more than twice as far as a typical 500 kV AC line . An 800 kV UHV-DC power line can economically transmit power over distances of up to 3,000 km (1,860 miles).

 

[NickW + 2,714]

10 minutes ago, notsonice said:

You do realize all electricity when transmitted long distances it moved up to high voltages to reduce losses and they use Aluminum not copper???

High voltage (HV; subtransmission less than 100 kV; subtransmission or transmission at voltages such as 115 kV and 138 kV), used for sub-transmission and transmission of bulk quantities of electric power and connection to very large consumers.

Extra high voltage (EHV; transmission) – from 345 kV, up to about 800 kV,[2][page needed] used for long distance, very high power transmission.

Ultra high voltage (UHV) – higher than 800 kV. The Financial Times reported UHV lines are a "game changer", making a global electricity grid potentially feasible. StateGrid said that compared to conventional lines, UHV enables the transmission of five times more power, over six times the distance.[3]

The most common conductor in use for transmission today is aluminum conductor steel reinforced (ACSR). Also seeing much use is all-aluminum-alloy conductor (AAAC). Aluminum is used because it has about half the weight and lower cost of a comparable resistance copper cable. It does, however, require a larger diameter than copper because of lower specific conductivity^[1].

Transmitting electricity at high voltage reduces the fraction of energy lost to resistance, which varies depending on the specific conductors, the current flowing, and the length of the transmission line. For example, a 100 mi (160 km) span at 765 kV carrying 1000 MW of power can have losses of 1.1% to 0.5%. A 345 kV line carrying the same load across the same distance has losses of 4.2%. Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 6.6% in 1997,^[26] 6.5% in 2007^[26] and 5% from 2013 to 2019. A 1000 kV UHV-AC line will economically transmit power distances of up to 2,000 km (1240 miles), more than twice as far as a typical 500 kV AC line . An 800 kV UHV-DC power line can economically transmit power over distances of up to 3,000 km (1,860 miles).

 

I'm well aware of the benefits of high voltage and switch to DC. 

I'd be interested to see a comparison in costs between Copper and Aluminium interconnectors. 

Don't get me wrong I think I?/C's are great but they economic distances are limited by material costs and transmission losses. 

[notsonice + 1,080]

the only place you will see copper is inside homes, Aluminum is less than half the cost and does not have the problem with bandits who used to down poles to get the copper. Transmission losses on long distance lines are less than 5 percent. A small price to pay to access lower cost power supplies on the grid or to be able to sell your excess power to others. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,135]

2 hours ago, notsonice said:

the only place you will see copper is inside homes, Aluminum is less than half the cost and does not have the problem with bandits who used to down poles to get the copper. Transmission losses on long distance lines are less than 5 percent. A small price to pay to access lower cost power supplies on the grid or to be able to sell your excess power to others. 

The downing of poles happened for a very short period of time when Copper scrap prices exploded when China wanted it as Peru's copper mines had not come online.  Will it go back to copper?  Doubt it.  Vastly more aluminum in this world than copper.

Edited February 5, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,135]

3 hours ago, notsonice said:

Transmitting electricity at high voltage reduces ....

A 1000 kV UHV-AC line will economically transmit power distances of up to 2,000 km (1240 miles), more than twice as far as a typical 500 kV AC line .

And your stats are almost accurate for once.... what you failed to take account of is the step up/step down inefficiency losses.  For DC to AC this is much greater than AC to AC.  Roughly 50% worse, but vastly more expensive installation.  Likewise failed to mention DC is cheaper to string as only 2 lines are required instead of 3 for AC. 

Technically we can transmit power around the world without the voltage level dropping to zero.  Same reason pumped hydro storage/battery is only sparingly done.

Edited February 5, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[NickW + 2,714]

7 hours ago, notsonice said:

the only place you will see copper is inside homes, Aluminum is less than half the cost and does not have the problem with bandits who used to down poles to get the copper. Transmission losses on long distance lines are less than 5 percent. A small price to pay to access lower cost power supplies on the grid or to be able to sell your excess power to others. 

I can assure you there is plenty of it in the railway system (and yes we have issues with pikeys nicking the stuff). In the UK there is also about £15bn worth in the phone network although this is being stripped out, replaced with fibre, the value of the copper part subsidising this. 

Anyway heres to longer Aluminium based interconnectors. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

12 hours ago, NickW said:

 

None of the above is actually backed up in reality. Solar panels are solid state and will still be operational in 40-50 years. Wind turbines have shorter life span but there are still plenty of 1990's vintage turbines going strong. 

Take up loads of space -

nope in most cases apart from Biofuels (which most in the Green movements dislike anyway) 

You can still farm around wind turbines - loads of examples in the UK and elsewhere. Offshore take up no space, provide reefs for the fish and best of all prevent trawling so the farms are sanctuary's for fish. 

Roof top solar and floating PV takes up no space. Deployed panels usually go on marginal land or on land which can still be used for agriculture - grazing, horticulture etc. Infact in hot climates many crops / fodder benefit from the shade panels provide from the midday sun. Its also a practical way to rest exhausted land for a couple of decades. 

 

 

Something I like to do is take a theoretical scenario in which solar panels are 60% efficient. Then I calculate how many square meters would need to run at rated output to support these three:

1. Ammonia plant: 10 MW/h per ton of anhydrous ammonia ~ 17,000 square meters of 60% efficient solar panels running at max output for one hour. FOR ONE TON

2. Caustic soda plant: 1 ECU requires 3 MW/h, which would take 5000 square meters of panels running at rated output. Wonder how we're going to make a few hundred tons a day like this... 

3. Truck rated at 450 hp running at 300: 223,000 W equivalent takes 371 square meters of panels running at rated output.

Boy this sure sounds exciting. I can't wait to pay for the current cost of solar and sell my tonnage at zero profit. I also can't wait for the panels to operate normally... you know... when they're at half of rated output. Better yet, we could redo the math with 40% efficiency, because sixty is unrealistic for a long time.

Edited February 5, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

Nick, I want you to give me the price per watt of solar power. Right now I'm going to say that it's $3 per installed watt. You can correct me, or I'm going to use this to calculate the capital cost of a solar ammonia plant rated for 1000 tons per day. 

Edited February 5, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[NickW + 2,714]

2 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Nick, I want you to give me the price per watt of solar power. Right now I'm going to say that it's $3 per installed watt. You can correct me, or I'm going to use this to calculate the capital cost of a solar ammonia plant rated for 1000 tons per day. 

Probably less for a large commercial installation. I believe $3 a watt is typical of domestic roof top systems. 

Anyway I won't bite - if you want to do 'Lego set' 1 solar  / wind installation (rather than supply from a mixed integrated system) supplying a factory  knock yourself out. 

[NickW + 2,714]

3 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Something I like to do is take a theoretical scenario in which solar panels are 60% efficient. Then I calculate how many square meters would need to run at rated output to support these three:

1. Ammonia plant: 10 MW/h per ton of anhydrous ammonia ~ 17,000 square meters of 60% efficient solar panels running at max output for one hour. FOR ONE TON

2. Caustic soda plant: 1 ECU requires 3 MW/h, which would take 5000 square meters of panels running at rated output. Wonder how we're going to make a few hundred tons a day like this... 

3. Truck rated at 450 hp running at 300: 223,000 W equivalent takes 371 square meters of panels running at rated output.

Boy this sure sounds exciting. I can't wait to pay for the current cost of solar and sell my tonnage at zero profit. I also can't wait for the panels to operate normally... you know... when they're at half of rated output. Better yet, we could redo the math with 40% efficiency, because sixty is unrealistic for a long time.

How about batch produce the Nitrogen and Hydrogen when electricity prices are very cheap and hold a quantity in short term storage but run your simplified Haber process plant 24/7? 

Say you want to produce 2000 tonnes per week. That's 350 tonnes of H and 1650 tonnes of N if you want to hold a weeks feedstock in hand. 

[NickW + 2,714]

4 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Something I like to do is take a theoretical scenario in which solar panels are 60% efficient. Then I calculate how many square meters would need to run at rated output to support these three:

1. Ammonia plant: 10 MW/h per ton of anhydrous ammonia ~ 17,000 square meters of 60% efficient solar panels running at max output for one hour. FOR ONE TON  Or two Haliade X offshore turbines operating at 50% capacity and just displacing a bit of seawater with some power left over.

2. Caustic soda plant: 1 ECU requires 3 MW/h, which would take 5000 square meters of panels running at rated output. Wonder how we're going to make a few hundred tons a day like this...     Or half a Haliade X offshore wind turbine operating at 50% capacity and just displacing a bit of seawater with some power left over.

3. Truck rated at 450 hp running at 300: 223,000 W equivalent takes 371 square meters of panels running at rated output.

At that power requirement one Haliade operating at 50% capacity will fuel 29 trucks 24/7 . Whats the diesel requirement?

Boy this sure sounds exciting. I can't wait to pay for the current cost of solar and sell my tonnage at zero profit. I also can't wait for the panels to operate normally... you know... when they're at half of rated output. Better yet, we could redo the math with 40% efficiency, because sixty is unrealistic for a long time.

in bold

Edited February 5, 2020 by NickW

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

25 minutes ago, NickW said:

in bold

Nick, I find this to be incredibly irritating. I was complaining about solar power.  What makes you think that changing the subject to wind energy is a proper response? 

Also, if I decide to do wind turbines it doesn't look much better. Pretty soon I'll put a word wall in here that examines how much it would cost to power an ammonia plant with solar, but I might go ahead and just rewrite it with wind. Take care to note that the two plants need to have their tonnage multiplied by 1500.

Edited February 5, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

Probably less for a large commercial installation. I believe $3 a watt is typical of domestic roof top systems. 

Anyway I won't bite - if you want to do 'Lego set' 1 solar  / wind installation (rather than supply from a mixed integrated system) supplying a factory  knock yourself out. 

Energy is energy. If you want to use solar power, this is the situation you face. The ammonia plant won't simply disappear. It's still drawing from the grid, therefore those panels need to be installed somewhere and somebody is going to pay dearly for it. 

[NickW + 2,714]

33 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Nick, I find this to be incredibly irritating. I was complaining about solar power.  What makes you think that changing the subject to wind energy is a proper response? 

Also, if I decide to do wind turbines it doesn't look much better. Pretty soon I'll put a word wall in here that examines how much it would cost to power an ammonia plant with solar, but I might go ahead and just rewrite it with wind. Take care to note that the two plants need to have their tonnage multiplied by 1500.

As no one is proposing to run an economy solely reliant on solar power  your scenario is purely hypothetical. 

I see these daft posts quite frequently equating the difficulty in running society on a singular source of power as if it has any basis in reality. 

 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

26 minutes ago, NickW said:

As no one is proposing to run an economy solely reliant on solar power  your scenario is purely hypothetical. 

I see these daft posts quite frequently equating the difficulty in running society on a singular source of power as if it has any basis in reality. 

 

You want a daft post? How about all of the claims that you're arguing against that I'm not making. I understand that a mix of renewables is the desired outcome, but I can effectively demonstrate why one of these sources is unreliable. You clearly think that a varied application for solar power somehow justifies its shortcomings. It doesn't. If wind is a better source overall, you want to capitalize on that source. If nuclear beats them both, we want to capitalize on that instead. Areas where the sun shines hot and long? Sure, we could do with a little solar. But in the end application isn't as relevant as you think it is. Pick *the best* source, in terms of cash and reliability. 

I want you to think very carefully about this one:

Since solar is less efficient than the other options, we should try to use it as LITTLE as possible, except for where it is clearly justified. 

The wind blows in this area, but there's plenty of roof space. Which is the more efficient option? One big wind farm, or wind farm with solar panels on the roofs. It's option two, because if you're using solar you're losing efficiency. 

That's my argument. 

Edited February 5, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior