Germany’s overdose of renewable energy

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

No, ‘crap batteries’ refer to the ones presently installed while this new cathode/battery technology matures making the old ‘crap’ batteries obsolete.

[NickW + 2,714]

6 minutes ago, Wombat said:

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.

Yes - I lived in Perth for 5 years. Right upto Exmouth the wind resource is superb. 

The next target for offshore wind turbines are the 15-20MW mark. Ive no idea what the eventual upper limit is going to be? Will be limited by the practicality of ship and crane size. I assume these turbines will be in Floating options as I think these will be better for offshore WA. 

Onshore turbines getting bigger too - typically 4-5MW. 

Bigger obstacle in WA is the cost of getting anything done and wading through layers and layers of local, state, and Federal Govt Admin. 

Why Batteries though? 

[pfarley@bigpond.net.au + 41]

In fact last year Germany produced 46% of its electricity from renewables and power costs are lower than they were in 2008. If demand response, pumped hydro, biomass and variable control of existing hydro were not available then backup could be a problem but all of those sources are available + power trading with Denmark, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, France and Norway will allow them to balance renewable output up to about 60% with very little new backup.

The bulk of Germany's 30,000 wind turbines have capacity factors between 15 and 30%. The newest onshore machines are reaching 40%+ and offshore 50-60%. This means that the hours when backup is needed fall and minimum generation rises. Then smart charging of EVs (most EVs can be charged for about an hour a day or 6-8 hours sometime during the week from a standard single phase charger) so by 2030 Germany will probably need about 50% of peak demand from gas or other backup. Given its ongoing reduction of demand through energy efficiency, storage in cars and widespread domestic level demand response it will get by with about the same level of gas capacity that it has, but running it at about 20% annual capacity factor.

The best utilisation that Germany's coal and gas plants achieved in 2007 when wind and solar were negligible was 63% for coal and 30% for gas. Peaking gas plants in the US have averaged about 4-6% in the last few years so even an all fossil fuel system has substantial underutilisation

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

6 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!

You are entitled to your own opinion.  Until you can provide independently verifiable facts that support your assertion, it remains just a hopeful opinion.

For example, I have a collection of Flat Earth memes, which I collect for amusement.  If I post these (obviously incorrect) Flat Earth memes as fact, the burden of proof falls on me to prove my assertion that the Earth is flat.  It is a fallacy for other to try to prove this is not true (i.e. trying to prove a negative).

While your hopeful opinion is indeed hopeful, I have not seen sufficient evidence to support your assertion.

This the part where you are free to step in to offer evidence that supports your hopeful opinion.

In the absence of you offering evidence, I remain free to dismiss your hopeful assertion out of hand, in much the same way as I laugh at Flat Earth memes which falsely claim to be factual and true.

Another example - I can claim that CO2 levels will drop by 50% by 2050 because government taxes will fund scientific research to reduce CO2 levels.  If I don't provide any evidence whatsoever to support my assertion, many people will simply dismiss my hopeful claim out of hand.  The ones who actually believe me - with zero evidence provided - would be the type of person I generally try to avoid, unless I am trying to sell them a bridge in Brooklyn.

Back over to you.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

2 hours 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.

When I was living in Malaysia, an idea was repeatedly floated, to hook up hydro powered electricity from East Malaysia (Island of Borneo) to Peninsular Malaysia.  It was a pipe dream.  Dismissed.  Unworkable.

Hooking up a huge copper cable to transfer "renewable" powered electricity from Australia to Singapore is a pipe dream.

[pfarley@bigpond.net.au + 41]

On 1/30/2020 at 9:40 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.  ...

 

This is not your usual standard Tom. Any system needs redundancy. Typical system wide Capacity factors including hydro and peaking plants are around 50% nuclear 70-90% coal 45-65% Gas 5-55%. While wind and solar are obviously lower they are now cheaper to build and operate so you build more of them. As for location if Germany pulled out its oldest 15,000 wind turbines which average around 1 GWh/y over the next 15 years and replaced them with 10,000 new units which generate 12-20 GWh/y each wind would be producing 60% of its electricity.

Peak demand is not at night and there is hydro biomass and imports to provide some backup so there is no need for a 100% hydrocarbon backup even if storage and demand response were impractical 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Just now, pfarley@bigpond.net.au said:

This is not your usual standard Tom. Any system needs redundancy. Typical system wide Capacity factors including hydro and peaking plants are around 50% nuclear 70-90% coal 45-65% Gas 5-55%. While wind and solar are obviously lower they are now cheaper to build and operate so you build more of them. As for location if Germany pulled out its oldest 15,000 wind turbines which average around 1 GWh/y over the next 15 years and replaced them with 10,000 new units which generate 12-20 GWh/y each wind would be producing 60% of its electricity.

Peak demand is not at night and there is hydro biomass and imports to provide some backup so there is no need for a 100% hydrocarbon backup even if storage and demand response were impractical 

Currently "renewable" energy can generally augment, but not replace, fossil fuel energy.

 

"Any system needs redundancy"

Um, what fossil fuel system requires redundancy?  Not quite sure I understand here.  Clearly, wind and solar will require fossil fuel backup (redundancy) for when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine.  But I fail to see the same redundancy can be required for fossil fuel systems, which are generally not impacted when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,135]

33 minutes ago, pfarley@bigpond.net.au said:

This is not your usual standard Tom. Any system needs redundancy. Typical system wide Capacity factors including hydro and peaking plants are around 50% nuclear 70-90% coal 45-65% Gas 5-55%. While wind and solar are obviously lower they are now cheaper to build and operate so you build more of them. As for location if Germany pulled out its oldest 15,000 wind turbines which average around 1 GWh/y over the next 15 years and replaced them with 10,000 new units which generate 12-20 GWh/y each wind would be producing 60% of its electricity.

Peak demand is not at night and there is hydro biomass and imports to provide some backup so there is no need for a 100% hydrocarbon backup even if storage and demand response were impractical 

Not true.  Why?  Old Wind turbine spacing are too close together.  Wind velocity drops. Creates turbulence and offset load(high-low blade).  You can't just plop turbines down.  If you ever look at a wind farm and wonder why only SOME are turning... well now you know.  The few producing a little power drop the velocity to the point it is not cognizant to turn the others on.  Obviously as the wind speed increases, more and more can be turned on. 

[NickW + 2,714]

47 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

When I was living in Malaysia, an idea was repeatedly floated, to hook up hydro powered electricity from East Malaysia (Island of Borneo) to Peninsular Malaysia.  It was a pipe dream.  Dismissed.  Unworkable.

Hooking up a huge copper cable to transfer "renewable" powered electricity from Australia to Singapore is a pipe dream.

The 2GW Euro - Asian Interconnector which is the longest project in the World is costing 2.5 billion Euros and is 1200km long. I think that's similar to the sort of distances the above would involve. 

I am sure it can be done but whether its economical is another question. If you have dams that can operate 24/7 2GW is a lot of power you stick down that I/C (17-18 Twh)

[NickW + 2,714]

45 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Currently "renewable" energy can generally augment, but not replace, fossil fuel energy.

 

"Any system needs redundancy"

Um, what fossil fuel system requires redundancy?  Not quite sure I understand here.  Clearly, wind and solar will require fossil fuel backup (redundancy) for when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine.  But I fail to see the same redundancy can be required for fossil fuel systems, which are generally not impacted when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine.

Any reliable system (irrespective of source) needs sufficient spinning reserve* to  be able to absorb at least the biggest generator suddenly dropping out of the network. 

*Can be supported by batteries and demand management - temporary cuts in supply to large users such as cold stores / Al smelters etc. 

Following that the system needs sufficient short term operative response (STOR)  to quickly replace that output (Hydro, Pump Storage, OCGT, Batteries, Stationary gen sets) 

Following that a certain amount of replacement reserve as the STOR is exhaustible (fire up older CCGT sets, Coal plant, run peaking plant 24/7 to replenish pump storage & take strain off Hydro ) 

[NickW + 2,714]

26 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Not true.  Why?  Old Wind turbine spacing are too close together.  Wind velocity drops. Creates turbulence and offset load(high-low blade).  You can't just plop turbines down.  If you ever look at a wind farm and wonder why only SOME are turning... well now you know.  The few producing a little power drop the velocity to the point it is not cognizant to turn the others on.  Obviously as the wind speed increases, more and more can be turned on. 

The bigger turbines are much taller so they capture wind energy that wasn't captured before which is where most of the extra energy comes from. Wind speeds are higher with less turbulence. 

This interactive map shows how wind speeds increase at 50,100,150 amd 200 metres above the ground across the entire globe. 

https://globalwindatlas.info/

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

5 hours ago, NickW said:

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

 

 

The problem isn't energy amount, it's how to effectively concentrate that energy into 400 centigrade. There are of course obvious methods and concepts, like the electric arc furnace, but implementing these into chemical reactors is a challenge. Remember the Birkeland-Eyde process used in Norway? 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

You are entitled to your own opinion.  Until you can provide independently verifiable facts that support your assertion, it remains just a hopeful opinion.

 

One thing people don't seem to realize is that there will be no "super batteries". Hydrocarbons will always have greater volumetric energy density than batteries and fuel cells. Some batteries come close IN THEORY, but in practice it's impossible. 

[Otis11 + 551]

4 hours ago, Wombat said:

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:)

 

Would you care to enlighten me?

Sure, NPV may not be the correct metric for the case you're discussing, that's likely LCOS (like LCOE except for storage). Here it still seems to me that doubling the life - because of the time value of money - decreases, not increases, the impact (aka doubling life doesnt half annualized costs).

This is because batteries as storage require high upfront capital costs which is the driving factor. If you look at LCOE for renewables such as Solar and Wind you get the same thing where increases in effective life (or conversely decreases in the capacity factor loss rate) is sub linear. 

If you do this for something like a NG Peaker plant where capital outlay is minimal and operational costs trump the cost calculation, you are indeed correct as inflation eats away your future costs that you haven't paid yet faster than it eats away future profits to cover spent capital.

That said, I didn't win Australian awards or accolades...

 

(but seriously, if I'm wrong here I'd really like to go issue a correction on some old papers and let a few people know what I overlooked as they're overlooking it too. But to do that I need to understand what I missed.)

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

When I was living in Malaysia, an idea was repeatedly floated, to hook up hydro powered electricity from East Malaysia (Island of Borneo) to Peninsular Malaysia.  It was a pipe dream.  Dismissed.  Unworkable.

Hooking up a huge copper cable to transfer "renewable" powered electricity from Australia to Singapore is a pipe dream.

Have we considered aluminum? Or maybe only a 'massively large' cable instead of jumping all the way to huge?🤣

Joking aside,  I wouldn't be terribly surprised if a technology breakthrough came along that made this economical... power transfer is an interesting beast and hasn't been disrupted in a long while. (Yes, I know physics. I'm aware of the laws and limits so laugh if you want, but I'll come back in 20-30 years.)

[Marcin2 + 725]

On 1/30/2020 at 8:51 PM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

@Marcin / @Marcin2

You both have really good macro-level analysises. But on this one I just think that you are focusing too much on the macro and overlooking the micro dynamics that are driving macro developments. 

Germany is a perfect example. They have lots of renewables and lots comitted FIDs on renewables projects. They need to make storage work in order to utilize the build out capacity they already have... It is simply cheaper than building new back-up capacity. 

https://www.siemensgamesa.com/products-and-services/hybrid-and-storage/thermal-energy-storage-with-etes

Add to this 

1) German (and European) car indstry really want battery tech / capacity. 

2) As a tech and the supply chain matures the cost go down. 

I hope that explains. 

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.

 

[Otis11 + 551]

28 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

One thing people don't seem to realize is that there will be no "super batteries". Hydrocarbons will always have greater volumetric energy density than batteries and fuel cells. Some batteries come close IN THEORY, but in practice it's impossible. 

Is that strictly true? (I agree with you in principle, just trying to think if that's just our limitations based on what we know now or if there's some physical boundary there...)

Both of these are simply exothermic reactions - the difference is our current use of hydrocarbons depends on the volumetric expansion of the reaction to harness its energy rather than the electrical potential between dissimilar 'metals'. (Commonly termed as metals, however there are batteries harnessing the non metal portion of the periodic table, so take that term loosely)

So I see no reason why the storage density (in volume or mass) MUST remain in favor of hydrocarbons - what am I overlooking? 

 

Then there's also the harnessing side of the equation - while hydrocarbons store a lot of energy, for any mobile application they're only going to be 35% efficient, and that's a pretty optimistic case. Even for large stationary applications this only approaches 60%. Sending the same methane through a (albeit expensive) fuel cell doesn't seem to do any better, and likely worse - but I have little background with these, so please correct me.

With batteries, this extraction efficiency is as high as high 90%s. Now you have to add in the motor efficiency to make this apples to apples and get motive force, but those are in the 90% range too, so over 80% total.

So it seems to me if we can get batteries to even 50 or 60% the energy storage density and maintain that discharge efficiency, the battery might have higher useful density, no?

[NickW + 2,714]

49 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

The problem isn't energy amount, it's how to effectively concentrate that energy into 400 centigrade. There are of course obvious methods and concepts, like the electric arc furnace, but implementing these into chemical reactors is a challenge. Remember the Birkeland-Eyde process used in Norway? 

After electrolysing your water to collect Hydrogen and fractional distilling of air to get Nitrogen you then use the Haber process to combine the two. Electricity is the sole power source needed included any input heat.

 

 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

2 minutes ago, NickW said:

After electrolysing your water to collect Hydrogen and fractional distilling of air to get Nitrogen you then use the Haber process to combine the two. Electricity is the sole power source needed included any input heat.

 

 

Right, I understand where the materials are coming from. I'm asking for the method by which we take electricity and heat the gas mixture to the desired temperature. Are there coils that can do this? The gases are initially heated when they enter the reactor by taking heat coming from the catalyst bed (around where the ammonia product and unreacted gases leave for processing) but the input gases need a boost in temperature before they enter the iron bed. On diagrams this is simply labeled "heater". It's at the bottom of the vessel.That's where the issue is. These heaters are natural gas burners. Can industrial electric heaters reach these temperatures in a manner that's compatible with a bosch reactor? 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

22 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

Is that strictly true? (I agree with you in principle, just trying to think if that's just our limitations based on what we know now or if there's some physical boundary there...)

Both of these are simply exothermic reactions - the difference is our current use of hydrocarbons depends on the volumetric expansion of the reaction to harness its energy rather than the electrical potential between dissimilar 'metals'. (Commonly termed as metals, however there are batteries harnessing the non metal portion of the periodic table, so take that term loosely)

So I see no reason why the storage density (in volume or mass) MUST remain in favor of hydrocarbons - what am I overlooking? 

 

Then there's also the harnessing side of the equation - while hydrocarbons store a lot of energy, for any mobile application they're only going to be 35% efficient, and that's a pretty optimistic case. Even for large stationary applications this only approaches 60%. Sending the same methane through a (albeit expensive) fuel cell doesn't seem to do any better, and likely worse - but I have little background with these, so please correct me.

With batteries, this extraction efficiency is as high as high 90%s. Now you have to add in the motor efficiency to make this apples to apples and get motive force, but those are in the 90% range too, so over 80% total.

So it seems to me if we can get batteries to even 50 or 60% the energy storage density and maintain that discharge efficiency, the battery might have higher useful density, no?

No need to include the motor output, we're focusing on the energy density of batteries. It's as simple as this: Fluorine and Lithium have the highest potential voltage of any other combination on the periodic table. If you made a battery that had strictly these elements occupying all of the space (with no electrodes or any equipment) you get energy density on par with hydrocarbons. The problem? First of all, making a battery with fluorine is a nightmare because of its reactivity. Next, find out how much space your electrodes and other equipment take up, and consequently reduce the volume for fuel to occupy. Finally, these electrodes won't operate at 100% efficiency. (that's technically a motor output argument so maybe just ignore it)

Put all of these factors together, and the best possible battery doesn't come very close to hydrocarbons. A fuel cell (if these will ever be viable) burning synthetic hydrocarbons is a much better idea since you cancel the inefficiency of either ICE or the Brayton Cycle. 

This is why I hold the opinion that synthetic hydrocarbons should be the storage medium. At peak demand, they can be burned in a small peak facility. The combustion products would go back through the cycle during times of low demand. (though it would be easier to just use new water each time, there's only value in collecting the C02)

To verify my stance as well, I hold the opinion that solar and wind are totally unreliable. Hydroelectric, geothermal, and nuclear energy are much more capable of running this chemical process, and we should focus on how to be efficient with THAT energy instead of these worthless alternatives. 

Edited February 1, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[NickW + 2,714]

28 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Right, I understand where the materials are coming from. I'm asking for the method by which we take electricity and heat the gas mixture to the desired temperature. Are there coils that can do this? The gases are initially heated when they enter the reactor by taking heat coming from the catalyst bed (around where the ammonia product and unreacted gases leave for processing) but the input gases need a boost in temperature before they enter the iron bed. On diagrams this is simply labeled "heater". It's at the bottom of the vessel.That's where the issue is. These heaters are natural gas burners. Can industrial electric heaters reach these temperatures in a manner that's compatible with a bosch reactor? 

500 deg C is the top end temperature required. I'm fairly certain you can do this with an electrical heater. 

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

One thing people don't seem to realize is that there will be no "super batteries". Hydrocarbons will always have greater volumetric energy density than batteries and fuel cells. Some batteries come close IN THEORY, but in practice it's impossible. 

A battery doesn't need to have anywhere near the same volumetric energy density because electricity can be used much more efficiently than a gaseous or liquid fuel that has to be combusted and turned into mechanical energy. 

A battery with a energy density of 40% of that of gasoline will be like for like.

Also EV's are inherently more efficient because they use little power when idling and can recover a proportion of the braking energy. The one counter to this is in cold climates the waste heat from the engine is used as cabin heat  without placing any additional draw on the fuel reservoir. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

Just now, NickW said:

A battery doesn't need to have anywhere near the same volumetric energy density because electricity can be used much more efficiently than a gaseous or liquid fuel that has to be combusted and turned into mechanical energy. 

A battery with a energy density of 40% of that of gasoline will be like for like.

Also EV's are inherently more efficient because they use little power when idling and can recover a proportion of the braking energy. The one counter to this is in cold climates the waste heat from the engine is used as cabin heat  without placing any additional draw on the fuel reservoir. 

I'm not arguing that point. I'm arguing against the idea that super batteries are possible. Chemically, they are NOT. 

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

I'm not arguing that point. I'm arguing against the idea that super batteries are possible. Chemically, they are NOT. 

Ok but its still a useful general point to make  to the batteries have to be the energy density equivalent crowd on here. 

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Right, I understand where the materials are coming from. I'm asking for the method by which we take electricity and heat the gas mixture to the desired temperature. Are there coils that can do this? The gases are initially heated when they enter the reactor by taking heat coming from the catalyst bed (around where the ammonia product and unreacted gases leave for processing) but the input gases need a boost in temperature before they enter the iron bed. On diagrams this is simply labeled "heater". It's at the bottom of the vessel.That's where the issue is. These heaters are natural gas burners. Can industrial electric heaters reach these temperatures in a manner that's compatible with a bosch reactor? 

According to this the global annual production of Ammonia through the HB process is 450 million tonnes. That's about 80 million tonnes of Hydrogen . 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process#Large-scale_technical_implementation

It sees to me that if we have situations with large supplies of intermittent electricity then processes like these are the obvious ones to soak up the surplus as the atmosphere distillation units / HB reactors can be ramped up and down accordingly with supply of electricity. In many locations (WA included) desalination plants are run like this. 

This then frees up large quantities of natural gas to use as back up for solar and wind. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

2 hours ago, NickW said:

Ok but its still a useful general point to make  to the batteries have to be the energy density equivalent crowd on here. 

Then the next logical step is to calculate economic advantage of the following:

Syngas and a standard Brayton Cycle

Or a battery farm.

Cost? Overall efficiency? I'm not going to do the math. Durability is another concern.