This post updates my January 2015 Wind blowing nowhere post using 2016 rather than 2013 data. The 2016 data show the same features as the 2013 data, with high and low wind conditions extending over large areas and a decreasing level of correlation with distance between countries. The post also quantifies the surpluses and deficits created by high and low wind conditions in January 2016 in gigawatts. The results indicate that wind surpluses in Western European countries during windy periods will be too large to be exported to surrounding countries and that wind deficits during wind lulls will be too large to be covered by imports from surrounding countries. This casts further doubt on claims that wind surpluses and deficits in one region can be offset by transfers to and from another because the wind is always blowing somewhere.
2016 Wind Generation:
The wind and other data used in this post are from the P-F Bach data base used in “wind blowing nowhere”. Three of the countries for which 2013 data were available – Finland, Ireland and Belgium – have no 2016 data, but three countries that had no 2013 data – Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands – do. As a result we now have a contiguous block of nine countries that extends from Gibraltar to North Cape, a distance of 4,400km, and which has a width of up to 1,900 km (Figure 1). The total area covered by the nine countries is 2.66 million sq km:
Figure 1: Countries with 2016 wind generation data
Wind capacity factors by country are shown in Figure 2 (click to enlarge). Capacity factors instead of actual generation values are plotted to avoid swamping countries with low levels of wind generation with generation from large producers, and daily rather than hourly data are shown for readability. Capacity factors are adjusted for capacity additions during the year:
Figure 2: Capacity factors by country, daily means, 2016. Note that daily means significantly smooth the plots. They would be a lot more “spiky” if hourly generation were plotted.
Figure 2 shows a number of cases where wind capacity factors are closely correlated between countries, such as between Germany and Denmark, and others where they are not, such as between Sweden and Spain. Such results would, however, be expected given that Germany and Denmark are next to each other while Sweden is a long way from Spain. I confirmed a correlation-distance relationship for the 2013 data in a graph posted in a comment on “wind blowing nowhere” and got the response shown in Figure 3. It shows the correlation coefficient (R) going asymptotic to zero (i.e. no correlation) at a separation distance of somewhere around 4,000 km:
Figure 3: XY plot of correlation coefficient (R) against distance between countries, 2013 data, reproduced from “wind blowing nowhere” comment
Repeating the exercise using 2016 data gave similar results, but the response was linear:
Figure 4: XY plot of correlation coefficient (R) against distance between countries, 2016 data
According to Figure 4 the correlation goes negative at separations of greater than 2,250 km, indicating that adding wind generation from countries more than 2,250 km away will begin to offset rather than reinforce wind spikes and troughs. However, the level of offset will be minimal at low R values. It would be necessary to import power from countries at least 3,000 km away before the offsets became in any way significant, which in practical terms means that Germany would have to import wind power from Siberia, Kazakhstan or Iran to smooth its wind output even minimally.
Figure 5 plots wind capacity factors for the two hourly periods in January 2016 where wind deficits and surpluses were largest, as discussed in the next section. The January 20 plot shows capacity factors below or well below average over all of Western Europe, further confirming that when the wind isn’t blowing somewhere it isn’t necessarily blowing somewhere else. The January 30 plot shows capacity factors above or well above average except in Spain, suggesting that when the wind is blowing hard somewhere it will probably be blowing hard in most other places too.
Figure 5: Wind capacity factors, percent, January 20, 2016 deficit period and January 30, 2016 surplus period
But neither plot provides any information on the magnitude of the deficits and surpluses or which countries contribute the most to them. So on to the next section.
Quantifying wind surpluses and deficits:
To perform this work I inevitably had to make some assumptions regarding the green, renewable Europe of the future. My basic assumption was that 50% of each country’s electricity generation would be supplied by a combination of wind and hydro. This resulted in wind providing 50% of generation in countries with no significant hydro (Denmark, Germany, UK, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands), proportionately lower percentages in Spain (8% hydro), France (12%) and Sweden (41%), and a very low percentage in Norway (95% hydro).
I then selected January 2016 as a sample month and proceeded as follows:
- Adjust the P-F Bach hourly load data so that they account for 50% of total generation in each country during January.
- Adjust the hourly wind and the percent hydro values so that total wind + hydro generation during January equals total adjusted load as calculated in step 1.
- Subtract 1 from 2 to obtain wind surpluses and deficits.
The results for January 2016 segregated by country are summarized graphically in Figure 6. There are occasions where the wind surpluses and deficits balance out (area above the zero line = area below) but for most of the time the plot is in surplus or in deficit. Summing the data for all nine countries shows the largest surplus (115.7 GW) occurring at 7 am on January 30 and the largest deficit (112.3 GW) at midday on January 20:
Figure 6: Hourly wind surpluses and deficits by country, January 2016
Figure 7 shows individual country surpluses and deficits, in gigawatts, during these two periods:
Figure 7: Country deficits and surpluses during January 20, 2016 deficit period and January 30, 2016 surplus period, gigawatts
As would be expected the three largest economies (Germany, France and the UK) contribute much more to the deficits and surpluses than the six smaller ones – between them they account for 81% of the January 30 surplus and 72% of the January 20 deficit. The key issue, however, is magnitude. Could wind surpluses and deficits exceeding 110 GW in Western Europe be balanced out by transfers of wind power to and from the smaller economies of Central and Eastern Europe? Almost certainly not. And if not the January 30 surplus would have to be curtailed, and unless enough backup dispatchable capacity were available the January 20 deficit could black out parts of Western Europe. Note also that the maximum surpluses and deficits would be even higher if intervals shorter than one hour were used.
A second assumption I had to make in order to isolate the wind contribution was that the 50% of generation that comes from sources other than wind and hydro is constant. This of course would not be the case in a green, renewable Europe, where it would be dominantly solar. But a European grid powered almost exclusively by wind and solar is not going to work without some magical technological breakthrough that eliminates the impacts of intermittency, so I felt at least some justification in assuming that the generation would be dominantly nuclear. A 50% nuclear Europe is of course unlikely to materialize at any time in the foreseeable future, but there are no definitional obstacles standing in nuclear’s way. Under the ambiguous criteria adopted in 1987 by the Brundtland Commission nuclear could already be defined as “sustainable” (it’s at least as sustainable as large-scale biomass burning and it doesn’t emit CO2), and if breeder reactors can be commercialized at scale there would be no doubt about it.
The message that emerges from these results is that wind surpluses and deficits in Europe and probably elsewhere are too large to be offset by grid transfers, and adding solar would probably make things worse. This undermines a key assumption made by all “100% renewables” studies except arguably the 2018 Jacobson study, which “assume(s) all-distance transmission.” Via the global solar interconnector, one imagines.
Roger Andrews, again an earned well done.
As a quibble, I recommend using the term fast reactor rather than breeder as the reactor designs allow for varying ratios of production or consumption of plutonium.
Of course, it is possible to abandon wind power partially or totally. An interesting choice is to place a thermal store between the reactor as heat source and the electricity generating equipment. See
Energy storage: improving fast reactor economics
Cal Abel & Bojan Petrovic
American Nuclear Society
Annual meeting, 2013 June.
It seems that the scaling choice of 50% from wind and hydro doesn’t match very well reality for Norway. Instead of scaling back Norwegian wind production it would be more meaningful to scale it up (even though that means wind and hydro produce more than 100% of Norway consumption). Wind projects are being planned and built in Norway based on the expectation that the resulting energy surplus will be exported. Norwegian politicians have plans to function as Europe’s green battery.
Norway is a major investor in UK offshore wind projects, where it has locked into generous subsidies. The Norwegian plan seems to be to be able to play off as many different countries as possible in order to secure dumped surplus generation at the lowest price and secure a bidding war for supply when the wind isn’t blowing.
@It doesn’t add up…
Norway’s crush of customers in such a bidding war is why the UK ought to build its own pumped hydro – at Strathdearn or elsewhere.
https://scottishscientist.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/worlds-biggest-ever-pumped-storage-hydro-scheme-for-scotland/
I’d much prefer to be supporting Norway’s inspiring plans for profitable electricity arbitrage trading that can make a 100% renewable energy electricity grid work across large parts of the European Plain –
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/European_plain.png
– than reluctantly to be doing my painful scientific duty to cast doubt on Norway’s other plan for Carbon Capture and Storage or “CCS-LEAK” as I somewhat contemptuously dismiss that dodgy enterprise.
@Roger Andrews
“some magical technological breakthrough that eliminates the impacts of intermittency”
“The seawater pumped hydro potential of the world” Posted on April 18, 2018 by Roger Andrews
http://euanmearns.com/the-seawater-pumped-hydro-potential-of-the-world/
I didn’t take Roger for a “magician” but rather for a prolific energy blogger.
Also the simple solution of keeping bio-fuel burning power station on stand-by, ready to fire up to supply power to fill any gaps in intermittent renewable generation is hardly “magic”.
There is no applied science issue with building enough energy storage to keep the lights on while the bio-fuel power stations are brought up to full power.
See –
“Modelling of wind and pumped-storage power”
https://scottishscientist.wordpress.com/2015/04/03/scientific-computer-modelling-of-wind-pumped-storage-hydro/
There is no applied science issue with building enough energy storage to keep the lights on while the bio-fuel power stations are brought up to full power.
Oh dear.
Bio power? Let’s start with that. An energy density of around 0.1-0.2W/sq m. In terms of captured sunlight.
Compared with 1-2W/sq m for a windmill or 100-200W/sq m for solar.
You pay a high price for dispatchability.
Energy storage?
Don’t make me laugh. Even if the peak flows could be maintained, the biggest pumped storage we have is enough to run the country for only a few minutes.
Thermal plant takes HOURS to bring on line.
Batteries? Whose BS are you believing?
The trouble with Scottish SCIENTISTS is they don’t seem to be able to Do Sums and have no idea of the cost of anything, in either cash or energy terms.
Well. they wouldn’t would they? being academics living off taxpayers money, especially in Scotland…where renewable energy subsidies from English taxpayers essentially keep Scotland and the SNP viable..
A more interesting exercise would be to calculate – assuming you can calculate – the net subsidy income derived from Scottish exports of uneconomic renewable energy to England, that would be lost should Scotland become independent…
..and have to compete with other forms of energy on price.
@Leo Smith
“Bio power? Let’s start with that. An energy density of around 0.1-0.2W/sq m. In terms of captured sunlight. Compared with 1-2W/sq m for a windmill or 100-200W/sq m for solar. You pay a high price for dispatchability.” – Leo Smith
The cost per square metre of woodland, wind farm and solar farm are all different. Therefore equating area with price is erroneous and those who make that error are actually the ones who “don’t seem to be able to Do Sums and have no idea of the cost of anything, in either cash or energy terms”
“Energy storage? Don’t make me laugh. Even if the peak flows could be maintained, the biggest pumped storage we have is enough to run the country for only a few minutes.” – Leo Smith
“A few minutes” now admittedly but it is possible to build lots more pumped storage, for hours, days, perhaps a week or so. Didn’t you check out this link before answering?
“The seawater pumped hydro potential of the world” Posted on April 18, 2018 by Roger Andrews
http://euanmearns.com/the-seawater-pumped-hydro-potential-of-the-world/
“Thermal plant takes HOURS to bring on line.” – Leo Smith
My modelling at this link assumed 3 hours to bring back-up power on-line. I got that to work by beginning the power up when the energy store drops to 75% of maximum capacity.
“Modelling of wind and pumped-storage power”
https://scottishscientist.wordpress.com/2015/04/03/scientific-computer-modelling-of-wind-pumped-storage-hydro/
Although my modelling didn’t assume this, much faster startup back-up power from cold can be had when necessary using internal combustion generators burning bio-diesel or bio-gas – reciprocating or Wankel engines starting faster than combustion turbines.
Those internal combustion generators can run for as many hours as it takes to get external combustion generators, fired up, steam pressure up and generating on line.
“Batteries? Whose BS are you believing?” – Leo Smith
I’m somewhat of a battery sceptic because of the expense per unit energy storage capacity.
See – “The Pumped Hydro Elephant in the Room”
“Pumped hydro stores MUCH more energy than batteries”
https://scottishscientist.wordpress.com/images-index/pumped-hydro-elephant/
There are more promising large scale energy storage technologies such as power to gas, making hydrogen fuel gas by electrolysis of water. Power to gas is most useful as a farm-scale energy storage where pumped storage is not an option locally.
“English taxpayers essentially keep Scotland and the SNP viable” – Leo Smith
English taxpayers can keep their tax – the Scottish economy does not require subsidy from England, thank you – but Scots really ought to ask for our savings back from the UK – the Scots’ net private savings that the SNP government of Nicola Sturgeon isn’t yet “viable” enough to borrow to invest in Scotland (due to timid SNP leadership in refusing to demand from the UK the appropriate £ fiscal powers and in refusing to establish a new Scottish currency and central bank) but which Scots’ savings have long been borrowed by the UK government to fund its fiscal deficits and borrowed, even more wastefully, by the Bank of England to fund its loose monetary policy.
Meanwhile, English electricity consumers seem content to pay for Scottish generated wind power.
“..and have to compete with other forms of energy on price.” – Leo Smith
Governments which take their climate change responsibilities seriously are imposing fossil fuel carbon taxes and subsidising renewable energy generation so that renewables can compete on price with fossil fuels.
Nice try but using discontinuous data is not correct.
Would agree overbuilding PV not optimal unless storage becomes very cheap and plentiful.
Gregor Czisch whilst at Kassel doing his PhD, modeled a renewable
energy network based on a HVDC super grid for Europe. This modeled a
number of different scenarios based on today’s technologies to arrive
at an economic cost via mathematical optimization. A CO2 neutral system
based on renewables was found to be the lowest cost option for Europe.
http://kobra.bibliothek.uni-kassel.de/handle/urn:nbn:de:hebis:34-200604119596
http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:hebis:34-200604119596
and english translation may be purchased at the IET Institute for
Energy Technology
http://www.theiet.org/resources/books/renewable/scenarios.cfm
futher papers
http://transnational-renewables.org/Gregor_Czisch/projekte/LowCostEuropElSup_revised_for_AKE_2006.pdf
http://transnational-renewables.org/Gregor_Czisch/projekte/Risoe200305.pdf
http://transnational-renewables.org/Gregor_Czisch/projekte/awea_2001_czisch_ernst.pdf
https://transnational-renewables.org/Gregor_Czisch/folien/magdeb030901/overview.html
A renewable scenario should not be compared using existing demand data. All the various renewable scenarios have implemented serious demand reductions, allowing smaller generating capacity to meet future demands. This is sensible as it reduces cost and is normally one of the most cost effective solutions.
Further for the UK retaining existing and building new gas OCT turbines using bio-sourced low carbon gas, within CCC emission limits, for the occasional low renewable day or week in winter is probably a low cost option.
The gas can come from renewable sources –
– gasification of biomass (eg. BG Lurgi process) With some CO2 capture and use of biomass + coal you can even have low to neutral CO2 emissions. BECCS biogenic carbon capture and storage (and use). CO2 then has an economic value.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenergy/529/529we10.htm
http://decarbonizingfires.com/Heating%20Gas%20-%20Carbon-neutral%20Heating%20Gas.pdf
– biogas from biomethanisation from plant and or animal wastes with possible upgrading to hythane (gas with higher energy content), see
http://www.methan.dk/tech_appl.html
– capturing methane from industrial process’s, landfill gas,…with possible upgrading to hythane (P2G process)
– P2G renewable power to gas using excess renewable electricity to electrolyse water to produce hydrogen. Hydrogen can be injected into the gas network at up to 10 à 15%, or 50% like town gas after changing burners, used directly in CHP fuel cells and converted to gas (methane) via the Sabatier process for the gas grid. CO2 can come from CCU (Carbon Capture and Utilisation currently pre-capture techniques are more efficient). High cost /low efficiency but surplus renewable electric can be stored for later use.
Storing potential electrical energy is high cost with diminishing returns in round trip efficiency. An all electric scenario will also require massive and costly upgrading of the HV, MV and LV grid.
Better to use other storage vectors such as heat or cold that are lower cost in an energy systems approach, and then use higher cost but valuable electrical storage with short to long term storage capacities and availabilities as needed eg. storing heat for District Heating (excess renewable energy stored using MW heat pumps on the HV grid with inter-seasonal low cost insulated pond storage) is the lowest cost storage. Near 50% of our energy needs in temperate climates is for heating.
JRC District Heating report
http://setis.ec.europa.eu/system/files/JRCDistrictheatingandcooling.pdf
Love it “A renewable scenario should not be compared using existing demand data. “.
No we should make it up instead.
I also loved this part ” All the various renewable scenarios have implemented serious demand reductions”.
And yet all Engineering scenarios show increasing demand, especially when factoring in the other Unicorn wishes of Electric Vehicles, ElectricTransportation and Electric home heating.
You couldn’t make it up, oh but they do LOL.
It seems many renewable advocates have a worrying penchant for ignoring real world data when it doesn’t suit them
They have to – otherwise they wouldn’t be renewable advocates.
By George, I think he’s got it!
Full Marx to that man!
At present demand response consists of paying companies to shut down when the grid runs short of electricity.
The only demand response program I know of that works is on the island of Eigg in Scotland, where your electricity is automatically cut off if your usage exceeds a certain level (5 kW for a household and 10 kW for a business). Then you have to pay to get it reconnected.
http://euanmearns.com/eigg-a-model-for-a-sustainable-energy-future/
Last year I reviewed the Lappeenranta study, which also used a “model” to estimate cross-border electricity transfers in a 100% renewable Europe. Any resemblance between the model results and reality was coincidental.
http://euanmearns.com/the-lappeenranta-renewable-energy-model-is-it-realistic/
I just heard that they have built two wind turbines in Lanazarote right next to the main desalination plant, and are using them to power the plant.
Not sure how accurate this information is, but it certainly does seem an excellent instance of demand side response.
Do you have a link?
And Rottnest Island, Australia (Hydro Tasmania project) uses a desalination plant also to soak up excess… system designed to use 45% renewables. Another real time app for you to enjoy.
https://www.hydro.com.au/clean-energy/hybrid-energy-solutions/success-stories/rottnest-island
The Danes will also use excess renewables in the future with their District Heating (close to 50% energy demand is for heating) ie large MW heat pumps on the HV grid with very large District Heat (solar) storage ponds (or aquafier stores), 120,000 m3 at a cost of 40 Euros/MWth, Gram, Denmark
https://stateofgreen.com/en/profiles/ramboll/solutions/large-scale-solar-heating-and-seasonnal-heat-storage-pit-in-gram
The Suisse have been studying using refrigerated cold stores to soak up excess renewables.
This the one
http://www.aedie.org/papers/11416-asensio.pdf
Alex:
it certainly does seem an excellent instance of demand side response.
Using wind turbines to power a desalination plant (when the wind blows) reduces diesel consumption but doesn’t result in any reduction in demand.
Roger – I don’t think there is much scope for “Demand Side Reduction”. What people really mean is “Demand Shifting”,
Desalination plants are a good example where that could be deployed – anywhere where the capacity is cheaper than the energy, and operations can be flexible.
You are probably right that the desalination plant won’t reduce demand in times of “no wind”, unless there is a capacity market mechanism to incentivise them to do so.
Roger,
“The only demand response program I know of that works…”
Almost all real world demand-side response initiatives merely that in name – they are not about reducing demand at all, but merely involve switching from grid supply to off-grid supply (i.e. reduce apparent, not actual demand).
If a power-hungry factory can recoup the capital and operating costs of standby diesel generators from a demand-side response contract (fee for providing the service, plus a premium rate for the electricity not consumed when the grid is stretched) then it is economically advantageous to install the plant. As far as I’m aware the overwhelming majority of demand-side response contracts issued in the UK are essentially of this configuration.
There is absolutely wrong with any of this, except for the claims that it contributes to the ‘greening of the grid’ or is a rational or efficient way of doing things (other than being rational in the context of perverse incentives).
The other demand-side response system that definitely works is embodied in the relay fitted to all new electricity meters. The system works as follows: –
1. The government introduces successive rounds of legislation that ensure that the electrical grid becomes ever more expensive, inefficient and incapable.
2. This results in ever-rising prices for consumers.
3. A growing proportion of said consumers can no longer afford the prices. After reducing their consumption as much as they practically can, and finding they are still unable to pay their bills, they are in due course cut off by the demand-side response relay – thereby shedding the load of ‘those who cannot afford to pay for it”.
4. Eventually the infallible law of supply and demand will balance out the two in a state of stable equilibrium.
You are so right.
https://twitter.com/energyutilities/status/1060184255358222336
2.55 Million in Fuel Poverty in the UK.
That 5 kW limit for domestic use is quite restrictive. I’d wager that no-one on Eigg uses an induction hob. Those things can be pretty demanding on full power. Just one electric fan heater and an electric kettle could put you over that limit. Or perhaps a hair dryer, the washing machine and a kettle.
Click! Kerching!
It would be interesting to see how many cookers/hobs/ovens on Eigg run on bottled gas.
Playing around on Google, suggests that’ll be rather common!
“For example, our Consumer Power scenario suggests that EVs will create an extra 18GW of demand by 2050 – that’s equivalent to an extra 30% on top of today’s peak demand”
https://www.nationalgrid.com/group/case-studies/electric-dreams-future-evs
We can economise 30% by adopting best practices.
We should though be investing in building efficient public transport such as very light rail electric trams eg trampower.co.uk in our urban centres.
If you are designing cities from scratch you may have the luxury of incorporating sensible tram routes. There are good reasons why all the tram tracks were ripped up in London, and why Blackpool and Douglas IoM are famous for theirs which run along the sea esplanades.
However what you are really seeking to do is control people’s lives and limit their economic opportunities. That is unacceptable.
France has built 25 tram lines in the last 33 years through historic town centres.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_tramways_de_France
The rich will be able to afford private electric cars, the less well off will struggle as they do now if they own a car. Electric self-driving taxis risk maintaining traffic congestion and do not have the efficiencies of steel wheel to rail. Over a quarter of households do not own a car in Great Britain.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/fivefactsaboutcars/2016-09-22
We should of course have integrated transport land use planning.
“Over a quarter of households do not own a car in Great Britain.”
And a quarter have more than one, some up to 5 or 6.
We should of course have integrated transport land use planning.
You can always tell a Marxist by the way everything is prefixed with ‘We should’ and the implication is that of course a benevolent but unelected government of elitist Marxist philanthropists are just the chaps to do it, and he would be happy to advise them for a nice dacha, equipped with ‘Natashas’ and a ZIL…for the Zil lanes.
But who will bell the cat?
“We should though be investing in building efficient public transport such as very light rail electric trams eg trampower.co.uk in our urban centres.”
Worked well for Edinburgh. 3/4 of a billion quid for 9 miles of tram line.
EVs should be one of the easiest things to charge up OFF PEAK – at least if “off peak” is defined as “at night” (or in sunny places “early afternoon”) rather than “when it’s windy”.
We should though be investing in building efficient public transport such as very light rail electric trams eg trampower.co.uk in our urban centres.
We should not.
We should be investing in education that makes the ability to Do Basic Sums a REQUIREMENT for being allowed to vote, or hold public office. And we should be investing in compulsory engineering training and qualifications for anyone involved in political decision making about energy.
I heard an apocryphal story…about the late Professor Mackay’s time at DECC and the election of the coalition, and the Huhnatics entrance into DECC. Full of renewable energy ideas he had promised the electorate. David gave a one hour presentation of the facts in ‘without the hot air’ showing how renewable energy was – whilst admirable in principle – a total washout in reality. Huhne apparently stormed out and was not seen in the ministry for a fortnight…
..I remember asking David at a party of very left, very green people given by his publisher, what he intended to do about intermittency. He leant towards me and whispered ’60GW of nuclear power stations’.
I never got around to asking him why, if we had 60GW of nuclear power stations we would need any solar panels or windmills at all.
“There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon emissions and more adverse environmental impact, by adding intermittent renewable energy to them.”
Unfortunately, the idiots already run the asylum, and education has been replaced by indoctrination and everyone gets full Marx.
Civilisation was nice, while it lasted.
The best comment I’ve seen in long while, Leo!
Totally agree.
It fits nicely in with UN Agenda 21, 2030 and Sustainability.
Brainwash the Kids and dumb down everybody else.
“A renewable scenario should not be compared using existing demand data. All the various renewable scenarios have implemented serious demand reductions, allowing smaller generating capacity to meet future demands. ”
Actually that should read that
The renewable energy scenario(s) discussed in the above PhD, require significant demand reductions.
Further it requires biomass gasification/biogas, which while maybe useful, will have problems with European demand, unless the demand reductions come true (assuming biomass comes from Europe). That is because there just is not enough biomass/landfill gas to go around to fulfil all users.
I guess I’m confused – On the one hand we have hard data saying this can’t work…on the other we have a study that says, oh sure, it can.
So far it hasn’t worked. Where wind and solar have achieved high market penetration, rates have increased dramatically. This has caused there to be serious demand reductions. The comment is confusing cause and effect. Demand reductions are not making renewables viable, expensive renewables are forcing demand reductions.
Sigh. An imaginary way to supply imaginary energy in an imaginary scenario.
If only we could actually have an alternative reality, – a sort of B-Ark – where all these ‘renewable’ people could go and do what they so confidently propose and actually have to suffer the consequences of it.
Hand wavey qualitative methane producing bovine excrement.
Did Professor Mackay die in vain?
This modeled a number of different scenarios based on today’s technologies to arrive at an economic cost via mathematical optimization. A CO2 neutral system
based on renewables was found to be the lowest cost option for Europe.
Oh really? I bet it did.
Probably the same modelling techniques that said we would never see snow in the UK again, that we would be under 5 feet of water, and that Orkney would be suitable for growing pineapples by 2018…and that the banking crash could never happen…or the Titanic sink…
Did he even know how much HVDC lines COST? At a given length its cheaper to build a nuclear power station at the far end instead.let alone the fossil energy required to build and install such…
The great thing about PhD studies and other academic meanderings is how much of the real world you can choose to ignore.,..and the sad truth about real world engineering is how little…
Free markets are the way in which natural economic feedbacks are allowed to operate and produce ‘economic cost via mathematical optimization’.
If renewable energy, batteries and HVDC networks will do that, then remove all subsidies and let them do it, by being better and cheaper.
Not by being promoted by special interest groups and forcibly subsidized with taxpayers money.
I note that the PhD you cite dates from 2006, when to say the least of it, real data on wind and solar generation was somewhat sparse, with some three quarters of European wind capacity accounted for by just Germany, Spain and Denmark, and 87% of the solar by Germany. Using modelled data you can of course assume away a lot of the real problems with the real world.
Nowadays, the European countries have different conditions. Using ENTSO-E Statistical Fact Sheet 2017 for the Net Generation Capacity / Highest Load: France 1.4; Spain 2.5; Germany 2.6; Great Britain 1.5. First conclusion: those that invested more in renewables need to rely in huge installed capacity in relation to peak load. Using the same source for the Renewable Net Generation (including hydroelectric) / Lowest Load: France 1.6; Spain 2.5; Germany 3.1; Great Britain 1.7. Second conclusion: it is not a surprise being Germany with the highest problems in managing excess of renewables (negative spot prices, forcing the neighbours to install phase shift transformers to avoid uncontrollable exports).
Effectively, intermittent renewables cause four problems: during low natural resource availability, there is a strong need of back up (in Spain only 7% of wind and 0% of PV installed capacity is considered firm power); during excess of generation it is necessary to manage its curtailment or storage (exporting to other country can solve the problem if the neighbours are not in a similar situation and they have thermal generation that can be reduced); it creates new integration costs mostly related with much more flexibility needed (ancillary services, electrical and gas network reduced usage); ruin the energy only market due to zero marginal cost to the others technologies.
The political aim for electrical sector decarbonisation and the cost reduction in the LCOE of wind and PV (below the variable cost of a CCGT) originates a strong pressure for new solutions. Nuclear as base load plants could be an alternative, but the Germany case do not point to that (hydrogen and synthetic gas manufacturing to absorb excess of renewables?)
The political aim for electrical sector decarbonisation and the cost reduction in the LCOE of wind and PV (below the variable cost of a CCGT) originates a strong pressure for new solutions.
Sadly the LCOE of renewables as highlighted by the capacity auctions in the UK is about 3-8 times the LCOE of thermal plants. There is no “cost reduction in the LCOE of wind and PV (below the variable cost of a CCGT) “. So your whole argument is based on a false premise. Or a deliberate lie. Take your pick.
Its only by tilting the playing field to a vertical position that people are able to claim that windmills plus solar panels plus batteries plus interconnects plus pumped storage plus demand reduction is actually cheaper than a coal fired power station.
Sorry. LIGNITE fired power station, in the land of the Energiewende…
…Did you know that Germany has:
– more coal power stations than the UK
– more nuclear power than the UK
– the highest per capita CO2 emissions in Europe
– the highest total CO2 emissions in Europe
– the highest per MWh CO2 emissions in Europe.
– among the highest electricity prices in Europe
And possibly the most stupid greens in Europe…
Germany, leading the way in showing what renewable energy can do. And cannot do. And te power of political hypocrisy applied to a stupid electorate.
The Green Führers New Clothes…
And it is all to mitigate a non existent AGW problem to boot.
The time of expensive LCOE for wind on shore (and even offshore in certain cases) and PV is over and we are going to enter in a PV boom, at least in southern European countries. I was referring to grid scale costs, European markets and CCGT variable cost including CO2 (below there is a link to LCOE US estimates). Of course, it is necessary to take into account the increase in renewables integration costs.
I am a realistic person with a strong experience in power systems and I am just showing facts and respectable studies.
https://www.lazard.com/media/450773/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf
Pingback: Quantifying wind surpluses and deficits in Western Europe – Climate Collections
Synoptic charts covering the whole of Europe over recent decades are readily available online, providing a good and scary estimate of total wind power lulls in winter, such as this one:
https://climanrecon.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/rrea00119811217.gif?w=640&zoom=2
At least in winter I see zero RE ‘surplus’ once heating demand is taken into account.
Historically ‘renewable’ clipper ships – capable of speeds of over 30 mph, were wiped out by coal powered tramp steamers, often operating at less than 10mph.
Why? Being able to do 30mph depended on the wind and a massive crew to trim the sails on a minute by minute basis. The Doldrums are a fact.
A few stokers and a hold of coal instead…overall got you there faster and at lower cost.
Of course today we would subsidise the sailing ships, and put sails on nuclear submarines…
Oh the relevance? becalmed ships – expensive ships, with expensive crews – are a good example of ‘demand management’.
Again it;s typical centralised planned economy Marxist thinking. Let us not build a society that suits your needs, let us instead indoctrinate you to accept the society that we will try (but fail) to build for you…
Ideology should determine infrastructure, not pragmatism.
Pingback: 100 % Vindkraft i Europa |
You may be interested to know that the German technical association VGB PowerTech has just published the second part of its study on wind energy in Germany and Europe (press release and study are only available in German so far, but an English version will probably be available soon):
“VGB PowerTech analysed data on wind power production in Germany and 17 European countries to determine whether there are sufficient possibilities in the European grid system to compensate for the significant periods of low wind power generation in the existing system. The analysis is based on freely accessible time series of the transmission grid operators for wind power generation in Europe. With a share of 11.6%, wind energy is now clearly the second most important renewable energy source in EU electricity generation after hydropower.”
Indeed, the authors confirm your findings
“An intuitively expectable significant smoothing of this wind fleet output to an amount, which would allow a reduction of backup power plant capacity, however, does not occur. In contrast, a highly intermittent wind fleet power output showing significant peaks and minima is observed not only for a single country, but also for the whole of the 18 European countries.
In the years from 2015 to 2017, the total time series of the total wind power production of the European countries under consideration show average lows of the available capacity between 6,000 and 8,000 MW. Despite the fact that wind turbine locations are distributed throughout Europe, this corresponds mathematically (without grid losses) to only 4 to 5 % of the total installed nominal capacity of all wind turbines of around 170,000 MW in the 18 countries. For the transport and distribution of electrical energy from generation to the consumer, grid losses of almost 7 % within one country alone must also be taken into account. This means that the already manageable mutual compensation possibilities between very far-flung European countries will be further reduced.”
The study itself can be found in the current issue of the VGB PowerTech Journal (currently only in German, however, the figures should be straightforward to understand). Here is the link to the download
https://www.vgb.org/vgbmultimedia/PT20110LINNEMANN.pdf
In their study, the authors also estimate the grid losses that will occur when transporting electricity between distant countries,
Danke Karl-Heinz
The plots of wind generation in Germany, Germany + 7 other countries and Germany + 17 other countries are sufficiently interesting that I’ve reproduced them below:
The 18 countries extend from Greece to Ireland and from Portugal to Finland.
I did these plots a while back from the data collected by Kaj Luuko at his now defunct site mylly.hopto.me:
Wind and solar daily totals across 20 European countries in 2016
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2d016b56defbd182eed5d112b26a2ef5a7f598add0e542eee5974d1f821a91c1.png
Wind by country
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/299a16b711c550d558abacd71da89ad95c4991579bdda2151a3b7936d47bbbf0.png
The spikiness is quite evident.
Thanks IDAU. More evidence rolling in from all sides.
We’ll give you screen time too:
Pingback: Energy And Environmental Newsletter – December 3rd 2018 | PA Pundits - International