Germany’s overdose of renewable energy

[NickW + 2,714]

5 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

115,000 turbines studied: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20171106005106/en/Aging-Wind-Energy-Fleet-Driving-Surge-Operating

"Our study found that one-quarter of all turbines’ gearboxes need replacement during just the first decade of operations."  ERGO my previous comment about turbines sited too close together and turbulence.  Turbulence be it the wind itself, or turbulence off other wind turbines is absolutely brutal on the gear boxes. 

Per year MW maintenance = $50,000-->$60,000/yr @ 10-15yrs of age...

Unlike Wind turbines, NG power plants last half a century or longer

But need no maintenance?

They may last 50 years but often get mothballed in less than 20. Example below

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King's_Lynn_Power_Station

Most wind turbines built in the early 1990's are still operational. Many get redeployed as explained in my previous post to free up prime sites for more modern, larger units. 

Edited February 2, 2020 by NickW

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

7 hours ago, markslawson said:

Sunk cost? Nope - wind turbines last maybe 15-20 years - PVs maybe about the same if they are well made, less if they are not. The connections/approvals and bits of infrastructure for renewable plants mostly don't have to be renewed. However, coal plants can be made to last 80 years or so, again depending but you still have to build conventional plants to back up the renewable stuff and the bulk of the cost is the capital investment required to build these things. So I dunno if sunk cost is really an arguement to use in these circumstances.. 

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. 

Oil is not going away any time soon; we need it for transportation & pet-chem. But the domino effect on Renewables has started. Look at the cost curves. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

22 hours ago, Marcin2 said:

Marcin2 is the same user as Marcin (if I will manage to restore Marcin I will not use Marcin2).

Rasmus,

The thing is I do not understand sentences like: it is probably, it much more, it less than, good, bad, in my opinion, most people say.

So I just asked wherever battery storage is viable using core battery storage metrics.

It is a very precise question. I looked up and an hour later got an answer:

300 million EUR per GWh in 100MWh range intallations.

It can be 200 million EUR in cheapest intallations but not less at present.

So the answer is at 300 or 200 million EUR per GWh it is not a viable solution.

It is cheaper to have backup gas stations and pump hydro (becasue they are at least magnitude cheaper, at least 10 times cheaper).

I do not have any agenda and bias, I just think in 90%+ of discussions the main source of divergent opinions is lack of common language or knowledge about the subject.

 

Marcin, 

We are talking about 2 different things. I am trying to point out that wheels have been set in motion and renewables are no longer just political unicorn project(s). It might be that batteries will not be the storage tech for renewables. And it might be that renewables is not the most economic option. But both will happen. We will still be using oil & gas for many, many years to come, though. Just less. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

3 hours ago, 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. 

Oil is not going away any time soon; we need it for transportation & pet-chem. But the domino effect on Renewables has started. Look at the cost curves. 

You win my award for intelligent post of the day.  Well done.

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 1/30/2020 at 7:25 AM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

In theory, yes. But as you know we live in reality and not college class rooms. 

The renewable capacity in germany is already there. And FID decisions on loads more projects already made. They've crossed the point of no return. 

It really is as simple as a satelite development being easier and cheaper than a brand new field development. 

I know you are aching to critize renewables, but ignoring reality doesn't help. sorry. 

The natural gas, coal, and nuclear are also already there. I am against coal, but not against nuclear until it has lived out its lifespan for the existing plants. Natural gas is the answer IMHO but Europe decided fracking was somehow evil so has little of its own. They are using biogas. So they are paying twice as much for energy. The Democrats in America would have us follow their mistakes and pay double also. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

6 hours ago, NickW said:

But need no maintenance?

They may last 50 years but often get mothballed in less than 20. Example below

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King's_Lynn_Power_Station

Most wind turbines built in the early 1990's are still operational. Many get redeployed as explained in my previous post to free up prime sites for more modern, larger units. 

What's the cost of maintenance in an NG plant vs maintenance for 1000 turbines? 

Edited February 2, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[NickW + 2,714]

3 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

What's the cost of maintenance in an NG plant vs maintenance for 1000 turbines? 

Dunno - you tell me. 

What the cost of fuel for an NG plant v the wind turbines? 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

7 hours ago, NickW said:

Dunno - you tell me. 

What the cost of fuel for an NG plant v the wind turbines? 

People who advocate for renewables are suggesting the change, and therefore you have the burden of proof. You're the one who needs to demonstrate that wind and solar farms are effective. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 hour ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

People who advocate for renewables are suggesting the change, and therefore you have the burden of proof. You're the one who needs to demonstrate that wind and solar farms are effective. 

True, but you know wind and sunlight are free.  Common knowledge is rarely called upon in a debate. Telling me the local cost of coal or gas is on you.

[Wombat + 1,028]

16 hours ago, NickW said:

A 2GW cable assuming it can be run 24/7 will deliver 17.5Twh a year . Its 3000km straight line to Singapore so the cost on parity with the European project is going to twice the price at  5 Bn Euros equivalent. (5.5bn USD)

17.5 Twh at a purchase price of 5c/kwh is $875 million. 

Then you have to build the wind farms / solar farms and batteries if you want to stablise the supply on a 24/7 basis. 

It is 3GW at 10c/kwh, which is 10% cheaper than Singapore pays for LNG power. Construction cost of solar farm minimised by modular design. Largest cost is batteries. Pls see "Sun Cable" website for more info

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 hour ago, Enthalpic said:

True, but you know wind and sunlight are free.  Common knowledge is rarely called upon in a debate. Telling me the local cost of coal or gas is on you.

The fact that wind and sunlight are "free" doesn't excuse the need to validate the issues with power output, capital cost, lifespan, and other issues. If you want to change, you need to explain why it's better. I can give you the cost figures for gas or coal, but you really should know them already since you're suggesting that we switch energy methods. How can you be in a strong argumentative position for renewables if you aren't even familiar with the cost of traditional systems?

[NickW + 2,714]

6 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

People who advocate for renewables are suggesting the change, and therefore you have the burden of proof. You're the one who needs to demonstrate that wind and solar farms are effective. 

 

3 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

The fact that wind and sunlight are "free" doesn't excuse the need to validate the issues with power output, capital cost, lifespan, and other issues. If you want to change, you need to explain why it's better. I can give you the cost figures for gas or coal, but you really should know them already since you're suggesting that we switch energy methods. How can you be in a strong argumentative position for renewables if you aren't even familiar with the cost of traditional systems?

The drivers for that switch are not primarily cost driven and include desires to lower carbon emissions, improve local air quality, enhance energy security by reducing reliance on imports, and create local jobs. The last two are particular to net energy importers.

By all means make a comparison on cost but on a level playing field you also need to compare coal and gas against the above. 

[NickW + 2,714]

4 hours ago, Wombat said:

It is 3GW at 10c/kwh, which is 10% cheaper than Singapore pays for LNG power. Construction cost of solar farm minimised by modular design. Largest cost is batteries. Pls see "Sun Cable" website for more info

Interesting. I hope its a runner. Its just a lot of capital required up front before the project turns a dime. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

14 hours ago, ronwagn said:

The natural gas, coal, and nuclear are also already there. I am against coal, but not against nuclear until it has lived out its lifespan for the existing plants. Natural gas is the answer IMHO but Europe decided fracking was somehow evil so has little of its own. They are using biogas. So they are paying twice as much for energy. The Democrats in America would have us follow their mistakes and pay double also. 

Ron, 

Germany is very anti coal https://www.dw.com/en/as-germany-phases-out-coal-villages-still-forced-to-make-way-for-mining/a-48017253

and also anti-nuclear due to fukushima; this may be irrationel, but it is reality. Most of the gas that Germany imports is used in industry. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

7 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

True, but you know wind and sunlight are free.  Common knowledge is rarely called upon in a debate. Telling me the local cost of coal or gas is on you.

FIne: I will not be lazy for you.  My previous post showed yearly maintenance cost per 1MW of wind nameplate capacity was $50,000 or greater. So, ~9k hours/yr =+$6/MWh energy produced in maintenance.  Combined cycle gas is ~$2.5/MWh for large installations and sub $2 for Very large installations.  Peakers are +$8.5.  So, high variability of wind requires high peaker NG maintenance costs as well.  Numbers taken from Table 1 EIA:https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf

So, how much NG is available for ONLY the maintenance costs of Wind.  NG is under $2 MMBtu...  $50k-->60K/$2 = 2500-->3000 MMBtu of fuel cost   ~9k hours/year = 0.3MMbtu of NG available. per 1MW of wind turbine maintenance. 

0.3MMbtu = how many KWh? 

Well ~0.3Mbtu = 1 KWh

0.3MMbtu = 1MWh

So, for the maintenance cost of Wind by itself(not its operational cost), one can run a NG gas turbine all year. 

Of course said NG turbine creates 9000MWh of power while the Wind turbine creates ~40%CF(best sites) = 3500MWh of electricity.  True, have to put the NG efficiency in there, so NG efficiency is over 50% for the very large installations and many are claiming 60%.  SO, NG by itself for only the maintenence cost of Wind, can run continuously for 1.5 years on same cost as 1 year of Wind maintenance.

All this before we talk UPFRONT costs(50% more) and having to buy expensive peaker power when YOUR wind turbines are NOT turning. 

PS: Cost of HVDC lines and Piping is a wash as far as I am concerned.  Only difference is everyone has the NG piping infrastructure as it uses common cheap steel and the HVDC require a vast importation of copper for everyone on earth.  NG is found ~everywhere on earth for the most part. 

Edited February 3, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com
Slight Number screwup on maintenance

[NickW + 2,714]

3 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

FIne: I will not be lazy for you.  My previous post showed yearly maintenance cost per 1MW of wind nameplate capacity was $50,000 or greater. So, ~9k hours/yr =+$6/MWh energy produced in maintenance.  Combined cycle gas is ~$2.5/MWh for large installations and sub $2 for Very large installations.  Peakers are +$8.5.  So, high variability of wind requires high peaker NG maintenance costs as well.  Numbers taken from Table 1 EIA:https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf

So, how much NG is available for ONLY the maintenance costs of Wind.  NG is under $2 MMBtu...  $50k-->60K/$2 = 2500-->3000 MMBtu of fuel cost   ~9k hours/year = 0.3MMbtu of NG available. per 1MW of wind turbine maintenance. 

0.3MMbtu = how many KWh? 

Well ~0.3Mbtu = 1 KWh

0.3MMbtu = 1MWh

So, for the maintenance cost of Wind by itself(not its operational cost), one can run a NG gas turbine all year. 

Of course said NG turbine creates 9000MWh of power while the Wind turbine creates ~40%CF(best sites) = 3500MWh of electricity.  True, have to put the NG efficiency in there, so NG efficiency is over 50% for the very large installations and many are claiming 60%.  SO, NG by itself for only the maintenence cost of Wind, can run continuously for 1.5 years on same cost as 1 year of Wind maintenance.

All this before we talk UPFRONT costs(50% more) and having to buy expensive peaker power when YOUR wind turbines are NOT turning. 

PS: Cost of HVDC lines and Piping is a wash as far as I am concerned.  Only difference is everyone has the NG piping infrastructure as it uses common cheap steel and the HVDC require a vast importation of copper for everyone on earth.  NG is found ~everywhere on earth for the most part. 

Sorry doesn't add up and you appear to be comparing very old apples with new oranges

For starters a MMBTU is 1 million BTUs (1055J) or 293 Kwh. (This may help https://www.inchcalculator.com/convert/million-btu-to-kilowatt-hour/)

Lets compare using the same data and not conveniently select from different sources

This states O&M costs for different technologies at a set point in time (Yes I know O&M will increase for older wind turbines but it will do so for older CCGT plant too)

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf

So CCGT is $14010 per MW

Wind is $26,220 per MW

I accept wind has a lower capacity factor than gas. This states capacity factors for different plant in the US

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183680/us-average-capacity-factors-by-selected-energy-source-since-1998/

CF for CCGT 57.6%

CF for wind 37.4%

So to convert wind to the equivalent you apply a conversion factor of 1.54 to the winds O&M costs therefore:

O&M costs for wind are $40,379

Now lets look at the cost of fuel. We are assuming a capacity factor of 57.6% and an overall conversion efficiency of 55%.

1000000 x 3600 x 24 x 365 x 0.57 /0.55 = 33.027 TJ

Conversion to cost at $2 MMBTU

33.027TJ  / 1055 / 1000000 = 31305 MMBTU

31305 x 2 $62610

Wind O&M = 40379 to generate 4.99 Gwh

Gas O&M +fuel = 76620 to generate 4.99 Gwh

I accept there is a premium on the dispatchable gas generated electricity and wind has a moderately higher capital outlay but on a kwh for kwh basis wind is coming in cheaper even at $2 a MMBTU

 

 

Edited February 3, 2020 by NickW

[NickW + 2,714]

4 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

 

All this before we talk UPFRONT costs(50% more) and having to buy expensive peaker power when YOUR wind turbines are NOT turning. 

 

The reality is you don't. Weather forecasting allows for pretty accurate estimations of wind generation in the short term (upto 7 days) which means if low wind days are predicted producers are asked to have online older CCGT plant (held in reserve) that they wouldn't operate as a first choice call.

Peaking plant is there generally to deal with unexpected peaks in demand or as a supplemental reserve if large generating units unexpectedly drop out of the pool of generators. A lot of peaking plant is there anyway to allow power stations to restart in black start scenarios - in the meantime the operators simply use it as an additional power source when  needed.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

7 hours ago, NickW said:

 

The drivers for that switch are not primarily cost driven and include desires to lower carbon emissions, improve local air quality, enhance energy security by reducing reliance on imports, and create local jobs. The last two are particular to net energy importers.

By all means make a comparison on cost but on a level playing field you also need to compare coal and gas against the above. 

The need to make additional comparisons in areas other than cost doesn't remove the burden of proof. 

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

The need to make additional comparisons in areas other than cost doesn't remove the burden of proof. 

Well there is a fairly detailed financial analyse a few posts back.

And the point stands - the drivers for wind, solar and renewables go beyond financial. These include public health, global warming, energy security and local job creation.

The fact that increasingly wind and solar is reaching parity or better with the cost of conventional generation is an added bonus.

 

Edited February 3, 2020 by NickW
addition

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

I'm honestly a lot more annoyed that they're closing nuclear plants. I'd like to start a nuclear discussion on another thread at some point, simply for the sake of watching people forget about Gen IV technology every time it's explained. 

Edited February 3, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

10 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

So, how much NG is available for ONLY the maintenance costs of Wind.  NG is under $2 MMBtu...  $50k-->60K/$2 = 2500-->3000 MMBtu of fuel cost   ~9k hours/year = 0.3MMbtu of NG available. per 1MW of wind turbine maintenance. 

0.3MMbtu = how many KWh? 

Well ~0.3Mbtu = 1 KWh

0.3MMbtu = 1MWh

Was thinking something was not right.  Gah, highlighted in red...

Going dyslexic!  1mbtu = 0.3KWh not the other way around.  1MMBtu = 0.3MWh is the standard in my head... arg!  Reversed it. 

So, run the numbers again and you get Wind maintenance =~50% of the year. 

[NickW + 2,714]

27 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

I'm honestly a lot more annoyed that they're closing nuclear plants. I'd like to start a nuclear discussion on another thread at some point, simply for the sake of watching people forget about Gen IV technology every time it's explained. 

I'd agree. A country with an economy the size of Germany going fossil fuel free but also dropping Nuclear looks undoable to me. They simply haven't got the space or the right resources to develop a renewables only economy. 

[Uvuvwevwevwe Onyetenyevwe Ugwemuhwem Osas + 96]

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.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 hour 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.

Doesn't work.  Electrical transmission losses would be huge.

[markslawson + 1,057]

On 2/2/2020 at 9:34 PM, Enthalpic said:

People, please stop with this crap - the conventional plants are already built!  The F'ing computer you are reading this is running off those plants.

Your comment is so clever I don't understand it.. what are you saying is "crap"..