tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post2144113544922067963..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: The Marginal Cost of ElectricityEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-25910907354133328982018-11-02T08:35:27.043-04:002018-11-02T08:35:27.043-04:00Cheapest Gas Supplier and Zero Standing Charge on ...Cheapest Gas Supplier and Zero Standing Charge on Gas Prices<br />Cheap Gas Supplier on LLOYD ENERGY. Switch Gas Everyday for cheaper Gas Prices + Zero Standing Charge on Gas Prices<br /><a href="http://www.lloydenergy.co.uk/cheapest-gas-supplier.php" rel="nofollow">Cheapest gas Supplier for Small Business in UK</a><br /><a href="http://www.lloydenergy.co.uk/cheapest-gas-supplier.php" rel="nofollow">Cheap Business gas Suppliers</a><br /><a href="http://www.lloydenergy.co.uk/cheapest-gas-supplier.php" rel="nofollow">Small Business gas Suppliers</a><br /><a href="http://www.lloydenergy.co.uk/cheapest-gas-supplier.php" rel="nofollow">Small Business gas Prices</a><br /><a href="http://www.lloydenergy.co.uk/cheapest-gas-supplier.php" rel="nofollow">Business Energy Suppliers in UK</a><br /><a href="http://www.lloydenergy.co.uk/cheapest-gas-supplier.php" rel="nofollow">Micro Business gas Comparison</a>iamashishgillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16254185853607224522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-58797703355847818522018-11-02T08:33:55.494-04:002018-11-02T08:33:55.494-04:00Cheapest Electricity Supplier for Small Business, ...Cheapest Electricity Supplier for Small Business, Top Energy Supplier<br />LLoyd Energy can help you find Cheapest Electricity Supplier for Small Business. The Best Energy Supplier in UK. By Biggest UK Supplies EON etc. 100% utility<br /><a href="http://www.lloydenergy.co.uk/cheapest-electricity-suppliers.php" rel="nofollow">Cheapest Electricity Supplier for Small Business in UK</a><br /><a href="http://www.lloydenergy.co.uk/cheapest-electricity-suppliers.php" rel="nofollow">Cheap Business Electricity Suppliers</a><br /><a href="http://www.lloydenergy.co.uk/cheapest-electricity-suppliers.php" rel="nofollow">Small Business Electricity Suppliers</a><br /><a href="http://www.lloydenergy.co.uk/cheapest-electricity-suppliers.php" rel="nofollow">Small Business Electricity Prices</a><br /><a href="http://www.lloydenergy.co.uk/cheapest-electricity-suppliers.php" rel="nofollow">Business Energy Suppliers in UK</a><br />iamashishgillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16254185853607224522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-83680623647520557012017-12-19T14:59:30.991-05:002017-12-19T14:59:30.991-05:00Intermittency is not yet a problem though is it.
...<i>Intermittency is not yet a problem though is it.</i><br /><br />I was not discussing intermittency mate, I was saying what I said. The scale of the problem we faces is that about 80% of all the energy we use has to be replaced with non-CO2 emitting forms of generation. <br /><br />Build all the wind and solar we can in the next 15 years and we are still short. <br /><br />Build all the nukes we can in the next 15 years and we are still short. <br /><br />Cut back on power availability (conservation and rationing) and we are still short. <br /><br />The German Greens in particular take a serious cussing from this NZ Green every time I consider their sick failure to understand what they are "accomplishing". The shutdown of nuclear in Germany is an indication of their political power but I find them opposing hydro power schemes and onshore wind as well and they are damned effective in that. What little power we have as Greens should not be misused.<br /><br /><b>The answer is NOT to prescribe or proscribe a technology!!!</b> The answer is to put a price on the emission/introduction of fossil Carbon into the environment that is so high that the only things that nuclear, wind, geothermal, tidal, solar and conservation are competing with are each other. That's when you can claim that one is not economical. Yet at that price for Carbon and given the demand we have to satisfy, they <b>all</b> are. The market does work if it is given a clear cost signal to respond to. The currently subsidized price of fossil fuels in generation and transportation is a disgrace.<br /><br />Worried about waste? You should not be, it can be fuel for the molten salt reactors we are apt to be building in as little as 5-10 years. Moreover, the waste is a LOCAL problem when the threat is to human civilization... globally. <br /><br /><br />bjchiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09064437293931256675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-23420009353805533952017-12-19T12:04:30.817-05:002017-12-19T12:04:30.817-05:00Beakers
Intermittency is not yet a problem thoug...Beakers<br /><br /><i> Intermittency is not yet a problem though is it.</i><br /><br />Because W&S are free riders on existing spare FF capacity as I have pointed out to you before. This free ride will stop once W&S scale beyond the ability for existing capacity to compensate for intermittency. Since the object of the exercise is to remove coal and scale back gas while expanding W&S, there will come a point when quite large amounts of non-FF reserve need to come online in order that the decarbonisation process does not stall. That's why the build-out of PHES needs to start now. Because only in magic bunny land can something like the existing gas infrastructure be maintained in reserve in the face of dwindling revenues. <br /><br />And will you please stop bullshitting about batteries. I asked you to back your hand-waving up in your next comment here and instead, you just repeat it - because <b>there is no support</b>. Here is what I wrote:<br /><br /><i>Go find me anything that backs up the claim that battery storage on the order of 1200GWh* is technically or economically feasible. With particular emphasis on the latter. Seriously. Post it in your next response.</i><br /><br />Repeating stuff doesn't magically stop it being nonsense. And it looks like bad faith. <br /><br />You need to rethink your position from the ground up. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-80336380511163298002017-12-19T10:54:36.012-05:002017-12-19T10:54:36.012-05:00"The grid helps but does not SOLVE the interm..."The grid helps but does not SOLVE the intermittency problem and I really wish that advocates of "pure" renewables would get a handle on the scale of the problem that they are waving their arms about." Intermittency is not yet a problem though is it. Just the same way that nuclear inflexability is not a problem for virtually all grids that use it as they keep its penatration below baseload. France had this 'problem' so invested in lots of trading and transitioning other energy consumers to electricity - problem solved plus additional benefits gained. <br />As for the 'advocates of pure renewables' who are they? Do they have any meaningful control over energy management or policy? Germany certainly is not pure as they routinely soak up French (and other) nuclear excess to further displace their own fossil fuel use. South Australia is far too far behind with nuclear to bother trying to catch up, but can usefully continue down the 'pure renewables' route without that purity being an end in itself. Beakershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00683069153321019158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-71989970322193917082017-12-19T10:25:18.109-05:002017-12-19T10:25:18.109-05:00"Yup. All of everything, starting yesterday.&..."Yup. All of everything, starting yesterday." Some of everything that works, but for the projects like nuclear, big dams and PHES, take care in getting over reliant by such Grands Projets (the ones politicians love to be photographed cutting a ribbon in front of) that take so long to commission, they risk being partially stranded once eventually delivered. Less of a risk for generation as we are confident we can always find a productive use for more, and because geography plus nuclear civ.eng. capacity limit our ambition. But a massive PHES rollout risks facing minimal use as other storage tech is faster to deploy, more flexible (many smaller ones embedded in distribution grids and fewer larger ones on high voltage grids) and cheaper - not least because you dont have to start paying to build it a decade before you think you may need a fraction of its total capacity.Beakershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00683069153321019158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-8376925777526705572017-12-19T10:05:12.970-05:002017-12-19T10:05:12.970-05:00"They use the least amount of land and other ..."They use the least amount of land and other resources." The problem facing us regarding energy is not the space taken up by infrastructure or the scarcity of concrete. When it comes to decarbonising, the limited resources we worry about first are cash and time. For Nuclear, an additional limiting factor is the capacity of the nuclear engineers to build the reactors needed (Westinghouse/Toshiba having crawled off to lick its wounds, EDF wishing it did not have its existing build and maintenance commitments never mind additional ones). <br />So yes add new nuclear to the generation mix to at least maintain existing nuclear capacity, but dont bet the farm on it as it is expensive, slow to deploy and highly vulnerable to long delay and budget blowouts. <br />I think the 'all the waste is collected' is a bit of a reach. No doubt if I said what about wind and solar waste, Canman would start off on rare earth metal mining contamination claims. If so, is the sourcing of raw material for construction and acquiring nuclear 'fuel' really so pristine? Beakershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00683069153321019158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-62975709338879055072017-12-18T17:50:58.597-05:002017-12-18T17:50:58.597-05:00As long as nuclear plants don't melt down, the...As long as nuclear plants don't melt down, they're better than pretty much every other form of electricity generation in every respect. They use the least amount of land and other resources. Waste is really a nonissue. There's a tiny amount of it that is shielded in big indestructible cylinders. It may even become an important source of energy for new reactor designs. Michael Shellenberger has pointed out that nuclear is the only source of energy where all the waste is collected.Mike Dombroskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14722885486530482844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-72512942646793461982017-12-18T07:39:50.417-05:002017-12-18T07:39:50.417-05:00The grid helps but does not SOLVE the intermittenc...<i>The grid helps but does not SOLVE the intermittency problem and I really wish that advocates of "pure" renewables would get a handle on the scale of the problem that they are waving their arms about.</i><br /><br />You and me both. <br /><br /><i>This isn't going to be solved with wind and solar alone. It isn't going to be solved by nukes and austerity alone. It isn't in fact, tractable without all of them together and a global effort not dissimilar to the effort that goes into a world war. </i><br /><br />Yup. All of everything, starting yesterday. <br /><br />BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-78326653105535603162017-12-17T22:20:20.573-05:002017-12-17T22:20:20.573-05:00The grid helps but does not SOLVE the intermittenc...The grid helps but does not SOLVE the intermittency problem and I really wish that advocates of "pure" renewables would get a handle on the scale of the problem that they are waving their arms about. <br /><br />This isn't going to be solved with wind and solar alone. It isn't going to be solved by nukes and austerity alone. It isn't in fact, tractable without all of them together and a global effort not dissimilar to the effort that goes into a <br /><br />world war. <br /><br />This is necessarily going to come out of the profits of a certain class of individuals who are used to collecting economic rent from every other person on the planet and who believe that their immense net worth is due to some intrinsic quality that they alone possess, rather than a bit of work and a LOT of dumb luck. <br /><br />Which is why they are fighting so hard to prevent the masses from knowing just how bad this problem might well be, and how much is really at risk. <br /><br />Arguing about how much of what to build is dumb when the problem space is such that if you build all you can of everything you can think of you are still more likely than not to fall short enough to have a partial failure of human civilization and a measurable chance of completely forking the pooch. I remember South Australia. The sun hits it like a hammer on an anvil. Big empty spaces. Burning coal. <br /><br />There isn't a choice involved here. Every damned thing we can think of is the minimum we need to be doing. Naomi Klein says "this changes everything" but it could be that it changes things in a manner that not only ends the current consumption based pseudo-capitalism but also our current civilization and (oh by the way) half or more of our species population... with the survivors living a medieval existence and wondering WTF happened. Either way the "pseudo-capitalism" ends. The only variable is who survives the event. bjchiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09064437293931256675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-34213399231079058612017-12-16T14:35:26.533-05:002017-12-16T14:35:26.533-05:00Mal
You know (I think/hope) that I'm in no do...Mal<br /><br />You know (I think/hope) that I'm in no doubt about the urgent need for decarbonisation and that I'm equally clear that wind and solar are the renewable technologies with by far the largest potential to scale. They can, must and will be used as big levers in decarbonisation. <br /><br />But.<br /><br /><i>The notion that those two words refute anything is refuted with four: "Continental-scale smart grids". </i><br /><br />This just will not do. My geographic perspective is UK and Ireland and Western Europe. What I say *may* not be true for Australia or the US but I would expect similar large-scale windspeed lulls to occur from time to time. <br /><br />Here in N Europe in winter we get prolonged, large area windspeed lulls because of winter anticyclonic conditions. These really do knock down national wind output for days at a time, in winter, when solar output is also at its annual minimum. This year's event in Germany was a real doozy: <b>ten consecutive days</b> of very low wind (and solar) output, <a href="https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?week=3&year=2017&source=conventional" rel="nofollow">15 - 25 Jan</a> (click >> to view week 4). This <b>happens</b>. It cannot be denied. It *is* a problem and it needs a solution (and you know what I think about that, if you've read this far). Far, far too much is riding on making this work to settle for old stock phrases about continental-scale grids. Consider also the assumption in that meme - that there will <i>always</i> be an export surplus available on the supergrid sufficient to meet even prolonged and profound wind output dropouts like the one in Germany this year. Even the more common 3 - 5 day events would require very large import spikes to cover. But what if the nations of Europe are all scraping by on their wind (not solar) capacity during winter? Which seems to be the likely case. <br /><br />We need to address these issues, not pretend that they do not exist. <br />BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-18226256419002301622017-12-16T14:00:46.038-05:002017-12-16T14:00:46.038-05:00Canman: The notion that the problem of intermitten...<a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-marginal-cost-of-electricity.html?showComment=1513110639172#c9058515946830580635" rel="nofollow">Canman</a>: <i>The notion that the problem of intermittency is a myth, can be refuted with two words: "Calm nights".</i><br /><br />The notion that those two words refute anything is refuted with four: "Continental-scale smart grids".Mal Adaptedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06123525780458234978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-34643995263892339462017-12-16T05:24:43.457-05:002017-12-16T05:24:43.457-05:00Le 'usband,
South Australia had high electric...Le 'usband,<br /><br />South Australia had high electricity prices long before it had renewables. The prices were jacked up when a former conservative government privatised electricity generation. The generation companies have been gaming the system by creating artificial shortages in order to hike the prices they bid into the network.<br /><br />But in the past year the wholesale electricity prices have been depressed by the large amount of wind power (>50%) and rooftop solar, which is preventing the gas generators from effectively gaming the system. The new Tesla Batter will help this further, as will a lot more wind and large-scale solar generation that will be installed in the next few years.<br /><br />South Australian wholesale prices are now comparable to the coal-dominated states of New South Wales and Queensland: See details here: http://reneweconomy.com.au/charts-week-busting-electricity-market-myths-87178/<br /><br />There are more details about all this here: http://reneweconomy.com.au/busting-more-myths-about-south-australias-wind-and-solar-61495/Craig Allenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03856401669036430143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-46700043722072438692017-12-15T20:37:59.375-05:002017-12-15T20:37:59.375-05:00I still regard the aluminium battery format as bei...I still regard the aluminium battery format as being significant. These things <br /><br />https://www.newscientist.com/article/2142693-nano-aluminium-offers-fuel-cells-on-demand-just-add-water/<br /><br />... "but they're not rechargeable"<br /><br />No... but if you ship the used battery back to the smelter the aluminium oxide is able to be re-used, re-smelted and turned into a new battery, 10 x more potent than a Lithium Ion? Like you ship them out and when you stop at the gas now battery station you swap them out and you are on the road in minutes, as now. Hmmmm.... <br /><br />Thing we need is storage. I could have a couple of charged up energy blocks in my house for the times when the earthquakes turn the lights off. <br /><br />Musk is doing wonders, and the other tech is waiting, but we haven't solved anything and we seriously need to get on with it. As someone said up-thread. We are unlikely to ever be embarrassed by a surplus of clean energy. This is something most people would agree with, but the reason why is interesting. Real Money represents work done. That clean energy is work done, and adds, always, to the economy of the country that has it. <br /><br />The problem is that the CO2 price isn't paid at present, it is accumulating as environmental debt, and anything we can do to get that CO2 price in place is what we need to do. Soon as that happens, the market can start working for us, instead of against us. <br />bjchiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09064437293931256675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-67819471156040866692017-12-15T17:25:33.073-05:002017-12-15T17:25:33.073-05:00One of Jacobson's early proposals called for 3...One of Jacobson's early proposals called for 387 CSP's for the sunny state of ... New York! They didn't survive his subsequent plans for all 50 states.Mike Dombroskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14722885486530482844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-34865621101424684482017-12-15T15:57:28.435-05:002017-12-15T15:57:28.435-05:00About 90% of Jacobson et.al.'s planned propose...About 90% of Jacobson et.al.'s planned proposed storage for 100% renewably generated electricity in the continental USA, by the way, is not pumped hydro, it's Concentrated Solar Power stored in a Phase Change Material (CSP-PCM). This is pie in the sky squared. The Moroccan large concentrated solar power plant that came on line this year, for example, only has a few hours of energy storage and it's not phase change.DeWitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06921810076159914432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-88851134281714228392017-12-15T06:40:38.281-05:002017-12-15T06:40:38.281-05:00Actually no, they are all scaleable, so you can bu...<i>Actually no, they are all scaleable, so you can build a massive capacity store</i><br /><br />This is basically crap, Beakers. Go find me anything that backs up the claim that battery storage on the order of 1200GWh* is technically or economically feasible. With particular emphasis on the latter. Seriously. Post it in your next response. Batteries are for short-term compensation, hours not days. Everybody else knows this and recognises that PHES is the way to deal with longer periods of intermittency, so I'm puzzled that you keep on suggesting otherwise.<br /><br />*1200GWh is the approximate reserve required to compensate for a 5 day windspeed lull affecting a 30GW UK wind fleet (capfac 30%). <br /><br /><i>"gas extraction is a continuous process" better go tell Grangemouth as they have that offshore pipeline they are about to repair at great expense, not knowing that by suspending production during repairs, the well is stuffed and the repair pointless - unless... </i><br /><br />Oh boy. It's costing them a fortune in lost production. If they don't get the pipeline fixed - and quickly - then the operation would indeed go tits up. Because... the notion of large-scale but intermittent gas production is make-believe. Look, you <b>cannot</b> run a business with large and continuous operating overheads but ever-declining revenues. Unless... you subsidise it year-round to cover its costs. Which would mean <b>paying twice</b> - once for renewables and then again for gas. And you still can't deep-decarbonise until you pay <b>thrice</b> - for the PHES you should have invested in in the first place. <br /><br />BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-89003537398576200502017-12-15T04:34:26.104-05:002017-12-15T04:34:26.104-05:00Bernard, China is post Marxist. Post Marxism invol...Bernard, China is post Marxist. Post Marxism involves the gradual disappearance of state ownership of the means of production, and replacement by private ownership, foreign investors, and native capitalists. China began this process in the 1970's when the Chinese leadership realized that communism just didn't work and caused poverty. They chose to move gradually towards a more capitalist economy with tight central control. This puts them today more on the neofascist camp. If we look at them closely (I worked in China and my daughter worked and lived there for years) we can see they are nationalist, somewhat racist, imperialist, have a centralized dirigiste economy, and seem to be aiming at controlling the world in a very subtle fashion. In other words, they are more simile to Nazi Germany than to the USSR or Mao's China. <br /><br />Communism is an enormous threat because all of its outcomes are awful. Communist regimes evolve into hereditary dictatorships such as Cuba or North Korea, Neo Nazi clones like Chna and to some extent Russia and other former soviet nations, or Narcostates ruled by a blend of communists and criminals like Venezuela. And these guys don't stop, in a sense they are like a virus, a disease that strikes anywhere and anytime, destroys a society and installs a hellish nightmare. I think they can be stopped, but it won't happen if the USA is focused so much on protecting Natanyahu's interests and is run by idiots like the last four presidents. Fernando Leanmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16085680730729620836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-53045938135802720762017-12-14T17:00:40.257-05:002017-12-14T17:00:40.257-05:00"But at orders of magnitude less than require..."But at orders of magnitude less than required to meet ~50% of UK or German national demand for a week." Actually no, they are all scaleable, so you can build a massive capacity store, you can deploy lots of smaller stores embedded in local DNO grids, you can build a store that you progressively increase the size of as the demand evolves, or even all of the above. Pumped storage is great but now we also have a diversity of other storage tech that offer advantages in cost, scalability, speed of deployment and flexibility. <br />"gas extraction is a continuous process" better go tell Grangemouth as they have that offshore pipeline they are about to repair at great expense, not knowing that by suspending production during repairs, the well is stuffed and the repair pointless - unless...Beakershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00683069153321019158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-66440627672252828562017-12-14T10:06:04.892-05:002017-12-14T10:06:04.892-05:00Flow cells, Sodium Sulphur batteries, ammonia - th...<i> Flow cells, Sodium Sulphur batteries, ammonia - these, as you know, are all storage techs that we know already work, can deploy at a variety of scales</i><br /><br />But at orders of magnitude <b>less</b> than required to meet ~50% of UK or German national demand for a week. Once again, you simply dodge the point when you hit a hard problem. <br /><br /><i>The UK has gas storage that is sufficient for approximately 2 weeks demand. Also remember that massive recent gas leak in California, that was a store, not a well. Your doubt is misplaced.</i><br /><br />Which *again* completely dodges the point, so I will repeat it: gas extraction is a <b>continuous</b> process and requires <b>continuous demand</b> for it to be economically / logistically / technically feasible. <br /><br />You keep on doing this dodge thing. You did it last time around when confronted with hard problems. It doesn't inspire confidence. <br />BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-7292163949725738152017-12-14T09:10:58.804-05:002017-12-14T09:10:58.804-05:00"Since only PHES will provide the necessary s..."Since only PHES will provide the necessary storage capacity to compensate for week-long W&S dropouts, we will need a lot of it which means we need to start building it now in order to be able to phase out gas by, say 2050. You didn't get this last time so I know you won't get it now, but it remains true all the same." Flow cells, Sodium Sulphur batteries, ammonia - these, as you know, are all storage techs that we know already work, can deploy at a variety of scales, can deploy in a distributed and embedded manner around the grid adapting to changes in the grid, and are additional storage that we do not yet need while their cost of deployment is falling. <br />Add to that for ammonia, we already have to convert its production to nuclear and renewables because we can not continue burning gas for fertiliser. <br />"Furthermore, a gas reserve capable of meeting something like 50% (or quite possibly more) of Germany's national demand for a week cannot be maintained for free. In fact I doubt it can even exist." The UK has gas storage that is sufficient for approximately 2 weeks demand. Also remember that massive recent gas leak in California, that was a store, not a well. Your doubt is misplaced. Beakershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00683069153321019158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-79959880626255062322017-12-14T08:33:44.609-05:002017-12-14T08:33:44.609-05:00then progressively cut the frequency and duration ...<i>then progressively cut the frequency and duration of intermittent generation, mothballing and decommissioning gas plant in managed decline. This latter step will be partly achieved through storage - storage that we dont yet need as we currently have sufficient, and the cost of several of the new storage options is falling. </i><br /><br />This latter step will *entirely* depend on storage since we will not be able to make the sun shine or the wind blow at will. Or get rid of NH winter. Since only PHES will provide the necessary storage capacity to compensate for week-long W&S dropouts, we will need a lot of it which means we need to start building it now in order to be able to phase out gas by, say 2050. You didn't get this last time so I know you won't get it now, but it remains true all the same. <br /><br />Furthermore, a gas reserve capable of meeting something like 50% (or quite possibly more) of Germany's national demand for a week cannot be maintained for free. In fact I doubt it can even exist. Gas extraction is a continuous process and requires a continuous demand for it to be economically sustainable, never mind feasible from an engineering standpoint. As I said last time around, I think you ideas are unrealistic, to be kind about it. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-83052385548482944252017-12-14T07:04:18.389-05:002017-12-14T07:04:18.389-05:00"This won't last if the FF capacity is re..."This won't last if the FF capacity is removed and W&S increased over time." Renewables and nuclear do not require the dynamiting of existing fossil fuel plants. There is no one in one out rule on the grid. If you add a wind turbine to a grid, the existing gas plant and its eventual end of life replacement is still there - but burns less gas. This cuts gas consumption, cuts CO2 emissions, extends the life of existing gas reserves, reduces electricity market sensitivity to gas price volatility and much else beside. It has no significant impact on the fixed cost of the gas plant, but spend less on gas. If you dont add the wind turbine, the existing gas plant and its eventual end of life replacement is still there with no discernible difference in fixed costs, but it burns more gas with all the additional costs that entails. <br />Priority 1 is cutting fossil fuel use. Nuclear, wind and solar achieve this. Wind and solar have significant advantages in cost and speed of deployment, but if you have an existing nuclear sector, it still makes sense to maintain and replace that capacity as we need everything and are unlikely to ever be embarrassed by excess production. <br />Getting rid of gas capacity is way down the priority list. It will be achieved not for its own sake, but will happen as we progress along the cost curve. First we will displace gas from routine generation, then progressively cut the frequency and duration of intermittent generation, mothballing and decommissioning gas plant in managed decline. This latter step will be partly achieved through storage - storage that we dont yet need as we currently have sufficient, and the cost of several of the new storage options is falling. Beakershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00683069153321019158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-87078515049610397502017-12-14T06:30:24.845-05:002017-12-14T06:30:24.845-05:00Nigel Franks
And can we finally lay to rest the m...Nigel Franks<br /><br /><i>And can we finally lay to rest the myth that intermittency is a problem: any grid has to cope with fluctuating demand and supply. Germany's grid is extremely robust</i><br /><br />The reason Germany manages okay at the moment is that it has enough conventional FF capacity to <a href="https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?week=3&year=2017&source=conventional" rel="nofollow">compensate for W&S intermittency</a>. This won't last if the FF capacity is removed and W&S increased over time. Eventually, you have to pay twice: once for the W&S and again for the FF reserve that takes over when W&S occasionally drop out in tandem for a week or more at a time during winter. Or you could subsidise a huge gas reserve to stand mainly idle except when needed. But this is still paying twice. So this double cost needs to be included in the true cost of a W&S-heavy energy mix. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-72628530409348725182017-12-14T06:21:15.304-05:002017-12-14T06:21:15.304-05:00Eli: one strategy to cope with demand approaching ...<i>Eli: one strategy to cope with demand approaching maximum is decreasing demand. </i><br /><br />Not likely to happen. Decarbonisation means a shift from FFs to electricity, so <i>increasing</i> electricity demand. <br /><br />And then there's the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/11/tsunami-of-data-could-consume-fifth-global-electricity-by-2025" rel="nofollow">data monster</a> guzzling ever more power:<br /><br /><i>Global computing power demand from internet-connected devices, high resolution video streaming, emails, surveillance cameras and a new generation of smart TVs is increasing 20% a year, consuming roughly 3-5% of the world’s electricity in 2015, says Swedish researcher Anders Andrae.<br /><br />In an update to a 2016 peer-reviewed study, Andrae found that without dramatic increases in efficiency, the ICT industry could use 20% of all electricity and emit up to 5.5% of the world’s carbon emissions by 2025. This would be more than any country except the US, China and India.<br /><br />He expects industry power demand to increase from 200-300 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity a year now, to 1,200 or even 3,000TWh by 2025. Data centres on their own could produce 1.9 gigatonnes (Gt) (or 3.2% of the global total) of carbon emissions, he says.<br /><br />“The situation is alarming,” said Andrae, who works for the Chinese communications technology firm Huawei. “We have a tsunami of data approaching. Everything which can be is being digitalised. It is a perfect storm. 5G [the fifth generation of mobile technology] is coming, IP [internet protocol] traffic is much higher than estimated, and all cars and machines, robots and artificial intelligence are being digitalised, producing huge amounts of data which is stored in data centres.”<br /><br />US researchers expect power consumption to triple in the next five years as one billion more people come online in developing countries, and the “internet of things” (IoT), driverless cars, robots, video surveillance and artificial intelligence grows exponentially in rich countries.<br />Advertisement<br /><br />“There will be 8.4bn connected things in 2017, setting the stage for 20.4bn internet of things devices to be deployed by 2020,” says the leading internet analyst firm Gartner.</i><br /><br />But of course, baseload demand is a myth.BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.com