Germany’s overdose of renewable energy

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

23 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

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. 

Bioreactors are easily scaled up, sometimes as easy as using a pond.

I like classical synthetic organic chemistry but if you look at pharma companies as an example they convert processes to bio-reactors as fast as possible.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

2 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

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.

I'm confused. The activation energy for this reaction is a measly 96KJ whereas the deltaH is over 900. I understand that on paper it's exothermic, but when someone puts a zero over the N2 they're technically lying to themselves. It looks to me like splitting that bond requires a massive amount of power, so where am I incorrect in my thinking? 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

10 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

I'm confused. The activation energy for this reaction is a measly 96KJ whereas the deltaH is over 900. I understand that on paper it's exothermic, but when someone puts a zero over the N2 they're technically lying to themselves. It looks to me like splitting that bond requires a massive amount of power, so where am I incorrect in my thinking? 

You get a lot of that bond breaking energy back (Hess's law).  So much of the reaction is under kinetic control not thermodynamic control (the rate of reaction is more important than end state energies).

This confuses a lot of people when an intermediate can rearrange into two products, and the less-thermodynamicaly stable compound is the major product (k2 of the major >> k2 of minor)

Edited February 1, 2020 by Enthalpic

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

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. 

Electricity and Water.

Electrolysis to split the Water into oxygen and Hydrogen

Electricity to compress, chill and separate out the Nitrogen. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland–Eyde_process

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

However little point doing this currently because virtually all renewable energy can be absorbed into electricity grids. 

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 1/30/2020 at 8:40 PM, 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.  ...

 

That is precisely why Australia is investing heavily in batteries and pumped hydro Tom! Much cheaper than natural gas.

 

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 1/31/2020 at 12:06 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.

Doug, if you have read all the articles on this site concerning climate change technology, you will know that Tesla has developed a new cathode which will double the life-span of it's batteries from 1 decade to 2 decades. That means the cost is just about to fall by 50%!

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 1/31/2020 at 1:08 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

Incorrect calculation of cost.

The correct calculation of cost is "renewables" + storage + fossil fuels (for when "renewables" fail to produce energy.)

So ...  the cost choice is:

A) use the existing fossil fuel systems.

B) use the existing fossil fuel systems +  graft on additional "renewable" energy systems + the cost of huge batteries for temporary storage of electricity + plus the cost of paying tax incentives to those companies providing "renewable" energy systems.

Hmmmm, is option A or option B more cost effective 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

 

P.S.

Obviously option B is the best over 20 years! Just ask your utility provider, they have done the math and made up their mind. The Net Present Value of renewables is now even greater than US natural gas, despite the incredibly low gas price.

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 1/31/2020 at 2:26 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

Agreed, "renewable" energy at present can supplement, but not replace, hydrocarbons.

Trying to convert the entire world to electricity powered by "renewable" energy would mean seriously expensive upgrades of electrical grid systems worldwide, as oil pipeline and natural gas pipelines get banned, and electric cars presumably take over the world.

Note that I view Natural Gas (Methane) as a Renewable Hydrocarbon, which is a point obtusely ignored by the solar and wind and dam crowd. 

Natural Gas is a Renewable Natural Resource.

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

Tom, did you know that Australia is building a 20GW solar farm which will connect to Singapore (via 2000 mile undersea DC cable), to produce 20% of their electricity? The International power grid is coming whether you like it or not

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

58 minutes ago, NickW said:

Electricity and Water.

Electrolysis to split the Water into oxygen and Hydrogen

Electricity to compress, chill and separate out the Nitrogen. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland–Eyde_process

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

However little point doing this currently because virtually all renewable energy can be absorbed into electricity grids. 

Right, but attaining desired temperatures is the hurdle here. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 hour ago, Enthalpic said:

You get a lot of that bond breaking energy back (Hess's law).  So much of the reaction is under kinetic control not thermodynamic control (the rate of reaction is more important than end state energies).

This confuses a lot of people when an intermediate can rearrange into two products, and the less-thermodynamicaly stable compound is the major product (k2 of the major >> k2 of minor)

There we go. Exactly the explanation I needed. I'm one year out of high school, and my education so far is insufficient to understand the mechanism. (or maybe it is, but I'm just not remembering) 

[Wombat + 1,028]

58 minutes ago, NickW said:

Electricity and Water.

Electrolysis to split the Water into oxygen and Hydrogen

Electricity to compress, chill and separate out the Nitrogen. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland–Eyde_process

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

However little point doing this currently because virtually all renewable energy can be absorbed into electricity grids. 

Not always. In Western Australia, major wind/solar/electrolysis plant being built to supply H2 into Asia using ammonia with conversion method developed by CSIRO. Govt expects it to be $100bn industry by 2050 so Australia is good place to start your job search in a few years. We simply have the best solar and wind resources on the planet and will also be exporting renewable electricity directly to Asia before long via DC cable.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

3 hours ago, Wombat said:

Doug, if you have read all the articles on this site concerning climate change technology, you will know that Tesla has developed a new cathode which will double the life-span of it's batteries from 1 decade to 2 decades. That means the cost is just about to fall by 50%!

Really! Where is this cathode and batteries as we speak? What’s the cost? Are they interchangeable with the present crap batteries?

[Wombat + 1,028]

3 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Really! Where is this cathode and batteries as we speak? What’s the cost? Are they interchangeable with the present crap batteries?

I think u will find that in a few years, the present crap batteries will be recycled, making the new super-batteries even cheaper! Who will want 2b connected to the grid? Not me. Electricity in Australia twice the cost as US due to low-density living. That is why we have highest penetration of rooftop solar on planet. All new homes must be fitted with either solar hot water or heat pumps. Up until 15 years ago, we had cheap electricity  but due to excessive immigration and tight land-zoning laws, we have had severe urban sprawl and it costs a fortune to expand the grid these days. $30m per sub-station in each new suburb! In Australia, u would be mad not to have solar on your roof if u can

I also hear that California electricity tariff much higher than Texas but their average bill slightly lower due to better household efficiency?

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 1/31/2020 at 1:40 AM, Rob Plant said:

The problem with existing electricity storage systems ie batteries is that they are inefficient not only when charging but also when discharging.

I honestly dont think renewables are an effective replacement for hydrocarbons at present, they can supplement but not replace. Maybe get a much more efficient energy storage system and then that's a game changer for renewables.

I like renewables supplemented with nukes and clean gas power stations. As of today that's our best option IMO.

That is what I thought until recently, until I did the math. Turns out, in most countries, solar + batteries will be cheapest solution within just 12 months. I will be "off the grid" within 24 months

[NickW + 2,714]

9 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Right, but attaining desired temperatures is the hurdle here. 

But if you have a genuine surplus of electricity then the hurdles drop because the cost is neglible.

 

9 hours ago, Wombat said:

Not always. In Western Australia, major wind/solar/electrolysis plant being built to supply H2 into Asia using ammonia with conversion method developed by CSIRO. Govt expects it to be $100bn industry by 2050 so Australia is good place to start your job search in a few years. We simply have the best solar and wind resources on the planet and will also be exporting renewable electricity directly to Asia before long via DC cable.

As a dual Citizen I may move back😁

Ammonia has often been touted as the answer to utilising stranded renewable assets because Ammonia is relatively easy to manufacture and transport. 

Back in the Oil Drum (peak oil days) Ammonia production was a discussion point in mid west scenarios using stranded wind assets to supply local farms with fertiliser. Also converting diesel engines to run on Ammonia is quite straight forward. Its half as dense as diesel but an adequate fuel in either transport or static use (there is your back up fuel) 

With floating wind now a possibility the potential to utilise the winds in the Bight are enormous. Too far for HVDC into Asia but could form the basis of  an Ammonia industry

[NickW + 2,714]

3 hours ago, Wombat said:

I think u will find that in a few years, the present crap batteries will be recycled, making the new super-batteries even cheaper! Who will want 2b connected to the grid? Not me. Electricity in Australia twice the cost as US due to low-density living. That is why we have highest penetration of rooftop solar on planet. All new homes must be fitted with either solar hot water or heat pumps. Up until 15 years ago, we had cheap electricity  but due to excessive immigration and tight land-zoning laws, we have had severe urban sprawl and it costs a fortune to expand the grid these days. $30m per sub-station in each new suburb! In Australia, u would be mad not to have solar on your roof if u can

I also hear that California electricity tariff much higher than Texas but their average bill slightly lower due to better household efficiency?

I'm a dual citizen. One thing that shocked me when I lived in Oz was the poor build quality of houses. Every place we rented we shivered in the winter and boiled in the summer unless we had the AC on. 

Every place we rented - single glazed leaky windows, little or no loft insulation, 1980's type gas water heaters that had a freaking pilot light. 

Glad to hear some things are changing

Solar and ASHP's are a superb combination in domestic situations in OZ because you can set the ASHP on a timeswitch to make best use of what the solar panels are kicking out. The pump is also most efficient in the day time heat. 

[Otis11 + 551]

10 hours ago, Wombat said:

Doug, if you have read all the articles on this site concerning climate change technology, you will know that Tesla has developed a new cathode which will double the life-span of it's batteries from 1 decade to 2 decades. That means the cost is just about to fall by 50%!

That's not how NPV works... due to the time value of money (also called cost of capital), doubling from one decade to two really only increases you value (or alternatively decreases your cost) roughly 20% +/- 5% depending on assumptions.

 

Still a great improvement though!!!

3 hours ago, Wombat said:

 

I also hear that California electricity tariff much higher than Texas but their average bill slightly lower due to better household efficiency?

It's not better efficiency, per say, but a better climate. Easy to be efficient when 82 is a heat wave and anything below 55 is a cold snap!

(For record I lived all over both states in the last decade... LA, Bakersfield, SF, Midland, San Antonio,  Dallas, Austin and Houston. Yes,  I move a lot. Occupational hazard.)

And you better believe I use less electricity when my marginal rate was 30c/kwh (freaking tiered power rates) than I do when my marginal rate is 6c/kwh... even if everything else is constant.

[Wombat + 1,028]

15 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

That's not how NPV works... due to the time value of money (also called cost of capital), doubling from one decade to two really only increases you value (or alternatively decreases your cost) roughly 20% +/- 5% depending on assumptions.

 

Still a great improvement though!!!

It's not better efficiency, per say, but a better climate. Easy to be efficient when 82 is a heat wave and anything below 55 is a cold snap!

(For record I lived all over both states in the last decade... LA, Bakersfield, SF, Midland, San Antonio,  Dallas, Austin and Houston. Yes,  I move a lot. Occupational hazard.)

And you better believe I use less electricity when my marginal rate was 30c/kwh (freaking tiered power rates) than I do when my marginal rate is 6c/kwh... even if everything else is constant.

Trust me Otis, I won the Australian Mathematics competition and have degrees in Physics and Business. The NPV and doubling of life-time are two separate issues. The doubling of the lifetime immediately reduces the cost per annum by 50% AND inflation helps by 10-20% over life-time, depending on real interest rate. In other words, real reduction in price over 20 years more like 70%! I think we need someone to adjudicate:)

 

[Wombat + 1,028]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

But if you have a genuine surplus of electricity then the hurdles drop because the cost is neglible.

 

As a dual Citizen I may move back😁

Ammonia has often been touted as the answer to utilising stranded renewable assets because Ammonia is relatively easy to manufacture and transport. 

Back in the Oil Drum (peak oil days) Ammonia production was a discussion point in mid west scenarios using stranded wind assets to supply local farms with fertiliser. Also converting diesel engines to run on Ammonia is quite straight forward. Its half as dense as diesel but an adequate fuel in either transport or static use (there is your back up fuel) 

With floating wind now a possibility the potential to utilise the winds in the Bight are enormous. Too far for HVDC into Asia but could form the basis of  an Ammonia industry

Sun Cable (the company spending $20Bn on HVDC to Singapore), reckon combined battery + transmission losses only 15%. If you are electrical engineer, can you give me hard data to the otherwise? As a physicist, all I know is that P = IV = I2R so losses proportional to I2 and that is the whole point of HV? I also here that UK will be importing geo-thermal from Iceland (some 1500km).

[Wombat + 1,028]

1 minute ago, Wombat said:

Sun Cable (the company spending $20Bn on HVDC to Singapore), reckon combined battery + transmission losses only 15%. If you are electrical engineer, can you give me hard data to the otherwise? As a physicist, all I know is that P = IV = I2R so losses proportional to I2 and that is the whole point of HV? I also here that UK will be importing geo-thermal from Iceland (some 1500km).

My vision is for East Coast of OZ to be connected to Fiji to supply their evening peak, Fiji to Hawaii etc... WA to India (time-shifted with aid of battery), and NT to Jakarta and East Timor.

[Wombat + 1,028]

Tom, my understanding is that an old grid without renewables still relied on gas peaker plants, but only on the 2-3 hottest days of the year. Talk about expensive! Sure, more renewables might require more FF backup (say 50-60 days per annum), but if that is combined-cycle gas turbine then both the economy and the environment win? All technological revolutions require vast sums of capital and have "disruption costs", but because the new technology is superior it wins?

[NickW + 2,714]

19 minutes ago, Wombat said:

Sun Cable (the company spending $20Bn on HVDC to Singapore), reckon combined battery + transmission losses only 15%. If you are electrical engineer, can you give me hard data to the otherwise? As a physicist, all I know is that P = IV = I2R so losses proportional to I2 and that is the whole point of HV? I also here that UK will be importing geo-thermal from Iceland (some 1500km).

I was specifically quoting a link between the bight and SE Asia if floating offshore wind was developed. Its got to be 5000Km to Jakarta and 6500km to Singapore 7000km to KL. Aside from the amount of steel and Aluminium needed think of all those Traditional Land Owner claims to negotiate and pay😉

From WA / NT its still 2500km to Jakarta but I guess doable but the source power is going to have to be cheap enough to justify the expenditure on Cables and transmissions losses. 

RE the UK a link with Iceland would be useful. Less so if we develop more Nuclear power stations as the UK won't have the need for baseload. I would anticipate a HVDC line that distance is only going to be viable if its transmitting 100% 24/7. 

[NickW + 2,714]

28 minutes ago, Wombat said:

My vision is for East Coast of OZ to be connected to Fiji to supply their evening peak, Fiji to Hawaii etc... WA to India (time-shifted with aid of battery), and NT to Jakarta and East Timor.

The only one I can see there as being realistic is highlighted in bold and that's assuming its going be in 24/7 high load operation either one way or both ways. . The distances of the others are immense. Even if the electricity was free that's still huge quantities of copper to build the interconnectors. Also has anyone build interconnectors over deep ocean. I know phone cables are but they are much smaller? 

[Wombat + 1,028]

4 minutes ago, NickW said:

I was specifically quoting a link between the bight and SE Asia if floating offshore wind was developed. Its got to be 5000Km to Jakarta and 6500km to Singapore 7000km to KL. Aside from the amount of steel and Aluminium needed think of all those Traditional Land Owner claims to negotiate and pay😉

From WA / NT its still 2500km to Jakarta but I guess doable but the source power is going to have to be cheap enough to justify the expenditure on Cables and transmissions losses. 

RE the UK a link with Iceland would be useful. Less so if we develop more Nuclear power stations as the UK won't have the need for baseload. I would anticipate a HVDC line that distance is only going to be viable if its transmitting 100% 24/7. 

WA wind resources just as good as the Bight. Have u heard of "the Roaring Forties"? Next generation of wind turbines gonna be even larger (and power output proportional to square of blade size), so I think WA to India will happen in about a decade. Main cost at this stage is the batteries.

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Really! Where is this cathode and batteries as we speak? What’s the cost? Are they interchangeable with the present crap batteries?

You say crap batteries but that is based on the misconception that they can only be recharged a couple of thousand times. This is based on 100% discharge and 100% recharge cycles. This simply isn't how people who drive EV's operate them. The ideal is to not run below 20% and not charge over 80%. This extends the effective life of the battery by 2-3 times. 

A friend has been running a Nissan Leaf as a commute Vehicle for about 6 years - about 25 miles a day. He charges to 80%. The commute uses about 25% of the charge. Recharges slowly overnight so 99% of the time the battery sits in a charge state between 55 and 80%. If he has a longer journey he will charge to 100%. They also have a plug in Prius so that is available for longer journeys outside the range of the Leaf but still runs predominantly on electric on a day to day basis as the 9 Kwh battery gives about 35 miles range.