Green Energy, and the German Grid, from: Kiev Is Burning

[jmsaari]

4 hours ago, Josh said:

Renewables alone will never be able to run a complete frid, or at least not in the foreseeable future. But they still can play a role in offsetting total energy needs. They one of the many different solutions the EU will have to adopt to become largely energy independent from Russia.

5 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

The problem with renewables is their high price compared to traditional sources of energy.

Not so much the price, land-based wind on a good site is currently the cheapest way to produce a kWh of electricity, but the inability to load-follow. Reservoir hydro and biomass can load-follow, but thats it, and eventually variable renewable energy will cannibalize it's own profitability by driving down the prices when it's windy/sunny and production goes up. There's a lot of wind farms and solar PV to be built on reasons of cost and profit alone before that limit comes up in most places, though.

Clear majority of countries can probably deal with power generation without Russian NG without too much trouble. Electricity prices will go up, though maybe not even too badly. Bigger problems will be a) how to heat those central/eastern european homes that have gas heating, and b) how much NG will be left for chemical industry users that can't subsitute it after the domestic heating needs are covered.

Edited June 14, 2022 by jmsaari

[Huba]

14 hours ago, jmsaari said:

Clear majority of countries can probably deal with power generation without Russian NG without too much trouble. Electricity prices will go up, though maybe not even too badly. Bigger problems will be a) how to heat those central/eastern european homes that have gas heating, and b) how much NG will be left for chemical industry users that can't subsitute it after the domestic heating needs are covered.

The second part is the real issue here AFAIK. Taking look at Germany as the most prominent example:

Less than 50% of German gas comes from RU, rest is NL or NO. In 2021, buildings (residential, services, and agriculture) accounted for 44% of the gas consumption; this is trailed by the industrial (30%) and power sectors (21%)(link).

If Russia stops gas supplies, it is first the chemical industry that is screwed, and second, there might be some problems with electricity supply due to dependence on gas - a necessary backup/ peak power  source without which wind/ solar just doesn't work.

Edited June 15, 2022 by Huba

[Josh]

26 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

The concern I have is that the hopes for renewables will not pan out, and that the current strategy of placing the EU's neck on Saudi Arabia's chopping block will prove just as stupid as overreliance on Russia.  

Renewables are already panning out. In many cases they are competitive with new hydrocarbon based power production, especially coal. Renewables are already 12% of US total energy and 20% of electrical generation; that jumps to 40% for Germany*. My favorite example right now is ruby red Texas, operating on its own grid, which is currenting suffering a heat wave and generating 40% of its electricity from renewables despite whatever noise the local GOP makes about them not being a solution.

The bigger probable that someone else pointed out is that gas is also a major input to industrial processes and electricity cannot fill that need. Ultimately that likely will have to fall on local EU sources and LNG from places like the US or Qatar.


*EDIT: I'm assuming those numbers also cover hydroelectric, but never the less the increase in solar/wind has been fairly profound as generation prices have gone down.

Edited June 15, 2022 by Josh

[Markus Becker]

52 minutes ago, Josh said:

Renewables are already panning out. In many cases they are competitive with new hydrocarbon based power production, especially coal. Renewables are already 12% of US total energy and 20% of electrical generation; that jumps to 40% for Germany*. My favorite example right now is ruby red Texas, operating on its own grid, which is currenting suffering a heat wave and generating 40% of its electricity from renewables despite whatever noise the local GOP makes about them not being a solution.

The bigger probable that someone else pointed out is that gas is also a major input to industrial processes and electricity cannot fill that need. Ultimately that likely will have to fall on local EU sources and LNG from places like the US or Qatar.


*EDIT: I'm assuming those numbers also cover hydroelectric, but never the less the increase in solar/wind has been fairly profound as generation prices have gone down.

The 40% for Germany need to be taken with a bucket of coal and plutonium because power generation by wind and sun is random, it can't be stored, so you need 100% conventional backup. 

[Josh]

I'll assume 40% is a  maximum level, but 100% conventional backup implies that every part of the renewable part of the grid can't provide energy at once which also seems unlikely. A better percentage would probably be total power generation over a full year to incorporate all seasonal changes, but peak load times are a big consideration. The larger you distribute a grid across production, the easier it is to smooth out interruptions - the US is effectively two very large grids plus Texas by itself; it is probably easier to moderate drops in renewable production at that scale.

[Huba]

42 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

The 40% for Germany need to be taken with a bucket of coal and plutonium because power generation by wind and sun is random, it can't be stored, so you need 100% conventional backup. 

Is it possible that we have, on this humble forum, an extremely rare specimen of endangered specie, which is a pro-nuclear German ?🤯

Pulling your leg of course, but as you said, renewables while being great overall, have a host of inherent limitations, and for countries without big enough hydro or geothermal resources, there's a limit which can't be reliably crossed.

On top of that, some "green" technologies like biomass really don't scale well and tend to have a huge ecological impact of their own.

And then there's the issue of fuels and chemical industry, for which there are hardly any viable solutions at the moment 😕

Edited June 15, 2022 by Huba

[ex2cav]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

Renewables are already panning out. In many cases they are competitive with new hydrocarbon based power production, especially coal. Renewables are already 12% of US total energy and 20% of electrical generation; that jumps to 40% for Germany*. My favorite example right now is ruby red Texas, operating on its own grid, which is currenting suffering a heat wave and generating 40% of its electricity from renewables despite whatever noise the local GOP makes about them not being a solution.

The bigger probable that someone else pointed out is that gas is also a major input to industrial processes and electricity cannot fill that need. Ultimately that likely will have to fall on local EU sources and LNG from places like the US or Qatar.


*EDIT: I'm assuming those numbers also cover hydroelectric, but never the less the increase in solar/wind has been fairly profound as generation prices have gone down.

Green energy=blackouts

https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110941/witnesses/HHRG-116-CN00-Wstate-ShellenbergerM-20200728.pdf

[Markus Becker]

23 minutes ago, Huba said:

Is it possible that we have, on this humble forum, an extremely rare specimen of endangered specie, which is a pro-nuclear German ?🤯

 

😕

Actually most of us have become somewhat pro nuclear. In light of energy prices keeping the three remaining power stations running is approved by a majority. 

With the green stuff, the gap between installed power and what you actually get is massive. Solar runs at full capacity just 10% of the year, wind 20%. 

 

[BansheeOne]

24 minutes ago, Huba said:

Is it possible that we have, on this humble forum, an extremely rare specimen of endangered specie, which is a pro-nuclear German ?🤯

Pulling your leg of course, but as you said, renewables while being great overall, have a host of inherent limitations, and for countries without big enough hydro or geothermal resources, there's a limit which can't be reliably crossed.

On top of that, some "green" technologies like biomass really don't scale well and tend to have a huge ecological impact of their own.

And then there's the issue of fuels and chemical industry, for which there are hardly any viable solutions at the moment 😕

Public opinion in Germany about nuclear power has always been succeptible to the impact of major events. Mostly negative in the form of nuclear disasters, but even before the Ukraine War, the energy crisis manifesting over the previous year led towards more positive attitudes towards nuclear power playing at least some part in the energy mix; since the war, even Green ministers are talking about an "unbiased assessment" of its future role.

[jmsaari]

15 minutes ago, Josh said:

I'll assume 40% is a  maximum level, but 100% conventional backup implies that every part of the renewable part of the grid can't provide energy at once which also seems unlikely. A better percentage would probably be total power generation over a full year to incorporate all seasonal changes, but peak load times are a big consideration. The larger you distribute a grid across production, the easier it is to smooth out interruptions - the US is effectively two very large grids plus Texas by itself; it is probably easier to moderate drops in renewable production at that scale.

Germany should be close to 50% if you count all renewables, or around 35% if counting only the variable VRE (sun & wind)... and part of how Germany is solving that is exactly with a big grid, specifically buying Danish wind, Norwegian hydro, French nuclear and Polish coal when they're short, and dumping their wind to said neighbours when the opposite is the case. It's been over a decade now since prices first hit negative in Ger, and momentary renewable production figure went over 100% of german needs. 

So it does start to come to the point though that it's starting to cost, because the grid will need major investments if it's not to become a major bottleneck for "it's always windy somewhere" to help, and the more you increase the VRE fraction, the faster the costs will grow. Depends a lot on many things, what sorts of reserves you have available (hydro, cheap NG), what sort of wind conditions, etc, but roughly speaking first 1/3 of most countries power generation will be easily replaced by wind, 2nd one will start to add notable system costs, and the last 1/3 if you really insist on 100% VRE generation will be ridiculously expensive.

Cheap NG was supposed to be how this was supposed to work out until power-to-gas would (hopefully) come along as affordable solution, but so much for that now. And the nuclear phase-off is now far enough in germany that it would be difficult to reverse even for the still-existing plants from even technoeconomic perspective, even if it wasnt politically completely impossible. Which it unfortunately seems to be.

[Huba]

1 minute ago, BansheeOne said:

Public opinion in Germany about nuclear power has always been succeptible to the impact of major events. Mostly negative in the form of nuclear disasters, but even before the Ukraine War, the energy crisis manifesting over the previous year led towards more positive attitudes towards nuclear power playing at least some part in the energy mix; since the war, even Green ministers are talking about an "unbiased assessment" of its future role.

Thanks for that chart, it is quite telling.
For where I live, I was always wondering what a solution to city district heating would be if we were to phase out fossils altogether - and only sensible solutions seems to be nuclear, probably of SMR variety. AFAIK this is a problem that most of northern/ central European countries face.

[jmsaari]

8 minutes ago, ex2cav said:

Green energy=blackouts

https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110941/witnesses/HHRG-116-CN00-Wstate-ShellenbergerM-20200728.pdf

Depends on how you do it and what counts as green. You CAN have even 100% wind+solar system... but if you want it without blackouts, there will be few zeroes added to electricity prices... realistically, if you count nuclear as green and have a bit biomass and/or hydro resources available, it's not too hard or expensive. But if green means also no nuclear and not burning anything, then it's either ridiculous prices (as in truly ridiculous, not just high), or frequent blackouts, pick one. 

[BansheeOne]

Actually the problems to short-stop quitting nuclear power at this point are more technical than political. The three remaining plants have optimized operation to burn down the last fuel rods as much as possible until year's end, operators have contracted for dismantling over the next decades, key personnel has locked in new jobs, etc. You can't blame operators for in fact being quite annoyed at the latest zigzag in being asked whether they could extend power production.

The possible upside is, if Germany should get back into the nuke business, it will likely be through brand-new next-generation reactors while everyone else is dragging around less efficient and increasingly expensive legacy plants. Sorta like German industry got an edge out of being almost completely rebuilt from the destruction and reparations of WWII.

[jmsaari]

2 minutes ago, Huba said:

Thanks for that chart, it is quite telling.
For where I live, I was always wondering what a solution to city district heating would be if we were to phase out fossils altogether - and only sensible solutions seems to be nuclear, probably of SMR variety. AFAIK this is a problem that most of northern/ central European countries face.

Depends a lot on the country and local conditions and resources. Up here were humans are few and trees and mooses are many, biomass is almost half as it is and there's potential for increase, though not too much. 

The big problem with district heating is always that your winter peak is about 10 x the summer minimum so there's going to be need for different types of generation. SMR nuke would probably fill in the base load nicely but i doubt even the most economically optimized, series-produced, hot-water-only SMR is ever going to be cheap enough to run half a year, let alone less, so you're going to need some sort of cheap boilers that cost little to buy, even if fuel is expensive. Over here the peak load / reserve plants are starting to be mostly wood pellets, with various biocoal, boi-oil etc being tried but not really catching on yet at least. Heat pumps will take slice as well, and probably everyone will want to have simple electric boilers just because it costs next to nothing to have and you will likely have times when electricity price is around zero, possibly below. 

[Gavin-Phillips]

I must say that TankNet never fails to amaze me.  I was following this discussion to better understand the movements of the front lines, how Russian BTG's actually work and what overall effect NATO-supplied weapons would have but now I'm getting a brilliant education on renewable energy sources and how effective/ineffective they might be.  And no, I'm not being sarcastic either, I'm genuinely impressed here.

Without wishing the drag the discussion too far off-topic (which of course has never happened in the entire history of TankNet), I was told a few years back that one of the main reasons we have issues with biomass being used as a power source is that it was never meant to be used alone, but rather burnt alongside other fuels as well.  Is this true?  As I understand it, the plantations for the trees are being cut down and burnt much faster than they can be replaced.

Finally, regarding the blown bridges around Sievierodonetsk; there seems to be much confusion about who blew these bridges.  A real 50/50 of it being the Russians and the Ukrainians from the news reports and videos I've looked through.  How on Earth are you supposed to know what's real or not these days...  

[Huba]

33 minutes ago, jmsaari said:

Depends a lot on the country and local conditions and resources. Up here were humans are few and trees and mooses are many, biomass is almost half as it is and there's potential for increase, though not too much. 

The big problem with district heating is always that your winter peak is about 10 x the summer minimum so there's going to be need for different types of generation. SMR nuke would probably fill in the base load nicely but i doubt even the most economically optimized, series-produced, hot-water-only SMR is ever going to be cheap enough to run half a year, let alone less, so you're going to need some sort of cheap boilers that cost little to buy, even if fuel is expensive. Over here the peak load / reserve plants are starting to be mostly wood pellets, with various biocoal, boi-oil etc being tried but not really catching on yet at least. Heat pumps will take slice as well, and probably everyone will want to have simple electric boilers just because it costs next to nothing to have and you will likely have times when electricity price is around zero, possibly below. 

Ha, in Poland all the major district heating facilities are of cogenerating type, I didn't even consider pure heat. AFAIK it should be possible to have SMR that plugs right into existing infrastructure instead of the furnace. Still the economics if that must be interesting. 

[RETAC21]

9 minutes ago, seahawk said:

The public opinion in Europe does not matter, not even the amount of renewables installed does matter. What matters is that suddenly money is available for wind powered CO2 neutral gas or fuel production in Patagonia or solar powered one in North Africa or Arabia. And at the current price levels, they are competitive. The problem for Russia is, that once the technology matures conventional fuel does not have a chance against the e-fuels. They are cleaner, easier to produce and the supply is practically unlimited.

Mebbe Russia should have thought about that and waht they could have done with that soft power before invading Ukraine and forcing the "West" to look itself into the mirror of peak oil.

[JWB]

 

[Yama]

1 hour ago, Markus Becker said:

Actually most of us have become somewhat pro nuclear. In light of energy prices keeping the three remaining power stations running is approved by a majority. 

Really? In the past, nuclear power has been Satan for German public, to the point of even sabotaging nuclear projects in other countries.

[glenn239]

59 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

With the green stuff, the gap between installed power and what you actually get is massive. Solar runs at full capacity just 10% of the year, wind 20%. 

 

I did a bit of Google searching.  Here,

Germany’s energy consumption and power mix in charts | Clean Energy Wire

It breaks down the gigawatt capacity for the German electric grid at about 225 gigawatts in 2021.  Elsewhere, it says that Germany wants to have 8 million electric vehicles on the road on 2030.  So here,

Gallon of Diesel Oil [US] to Gigawatt Hour Converter (hextobinary.com)

It says that the gigawatt power generation of 32 million litres of gas is 304 gigawatt hours.  Am I doing this wrong?  It seems to suggest that Germany is going to have to add at least 100 gigawatts of capacity, maybe 200, to support the intended electric vehicle fleet? 

[ex2cav]

1 hour ago, jmsaari said:

Depends on how you do it and what counts as green. You CAN have even 100% wind+solar system... but if you want it without blackouts, there will be few zeroes added to electricity prices... realistically, if you count nuclear as green and have a bit biomass and/or hydro resources available, it's not too hard or expensive. But if green means also no nuclear and not burning anything, then it's either ridiculous prices (as in truly ridiculous, not just high), or frequent blackouts, pick one. 

Nothing is for free. A lot of what I heard from the "green" folks is that sustainable will essentially be free for the environment. Both wind and solar have lots of down time outside our ability to control. Dams and nuclear are the best bets.  Dams in the US seem out of reach due to environmental regulations, and so to with nuclear. Hydro power and nuclear tend to be much cheaper than solar and wind to due lots of supply. Solar and wind begin with a limited supply.

Part of the issue is the intelligentsia of the left seems to want higher prices for energy so people will be coerced into using less of it. 

[ex2cav]

15 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

Mebbe Russia should have thought about that and waht they could have done with that soft power before invading Ukraine and forcing the "West" to look itself into the mirror of peak oil.

I did a quick search of e-fuels, and the infrastructure needed for that is decades away. A transition to that will be akin to the transition to oil. What the brains forget is there was oodles of $$$ to be made in oil immediately, so investors flocked to it. E-fuels are sold as a replacement for oil, but better use is unproven. $$$ are being made now, why risk billions into an unproven and unneeded concept? Private investment will be limited, gov't will have to pony up billions to make that feasible. Companies will be created to milk the gov't cash cow. See Solandra.

More importantly e-fuels demand energy by siphoned off wind and solar, so that will further decrease supply for general use. $$$$ going out the door for the consumer. 

[ex2cav]

Green energy is a solution in search of a problem. Energy availability had not been an issue until the introduction of green energy into the grid. There was an is enough oil, coal, hydro, nuclear to run the world for centuries. Green energy began as a political concept to undermine the west. Solar and  wind might make sense for a homeowner, but to run a modern economy is insanely backward IMO.

If a transition is truly needed, smart money will find it. If the west doesn't commit suicide by eating the green energy lotus, future generations will go nuclear. 

[Markus Becker]

19 minutes ago, Yama said:

Really? In the past, nuclear power has been Satan for German public, to the point of even sabotaging nuclear projects in other countries.

Yes, and the sabotage was done by activists and politicians, the public was just scared by anti nuclear fear mongering. 

[Markus Becker]

20 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

I did a bit of Google searching.  Here,

Germany’s energy consumption and power mix in charts | Clean Energy Wire

It breaks down the gigawatt capacity for the German electric grid at about 225 gigawatts in 2021.  Elsewhere, it says that Germany wants to have 8 million electric vehicles on the road on 2030.  So here,

Gallon of Diesel Oil [US] to Gigawatt Hour Converter (hextobinary.com)

It says that the gigawatt power generation of 32 million litres of gas is 304 gigawatt hours.  Am I doing this wrong?  It seems to suggest that Germany is going to have to add at least 100 gigawatts of capacity, maybe 200, to support the intended electric vehicle fleet? 

So all the electric cars need electricity and the green generating capacity in nowhere near in sight? 

Realists have been saying that for a long time but they are excluded from the debate.