Economics of Renewable Power, simplified.

[WetEV]

Spanish Island - 'first' in the world powered solely by wind and water

http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/print/volume-20/issue-5/articles/pumped-storage/creating-a-hybrid-hydro-wind-system-on.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Realistically, however, about 65% of island's total annual energy demand will be covered by the hybrid hydro-wind plant.

"Solely" is about 65%?

 

[RegGuheert]

Spanish Island - 'first' in the world powered solely by wind and water

http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/print/volume-20/issue-5/articles/pumped-storage/creating-a-hybrid-hydro-wind-system-on.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Realistically, however, about 65% of island's total annual energy demand will be covered by the hybrid hydro-wind plant.

"Solely" is about 65%?

I read that, too. But then I have read many other sources which says they will get to 100%. What to believe?

Apparently they will be turning this thing on any day now and will start at 50% of load from renewables and gradually move toward 100%. (I'm guessing that six months is needed mainly to pump enough water into the reservoir to have a large amount of energy stored for future use.) I will be interested to watch its progress closely.

 

[TimLee]

... (I'm guessing that six months is needed mainly to pump enough water into the reservoir to have a large amount of energy stored for future use.)...

That seems a bit unlikely.
US pumped storage volume at TVA and Virginia Power is at most a few days.
If reservoir is also for irrigation, might be weeks but six months seems unlikely.

 

[GRA]

Spanish Island - 'first' in the world powered solely by wind and water

http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/print/volume-20/issue-5/articles/pumped-storage/creating-a-hybrid-hydro-wind-system-on.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Realistically, however, about 65% of island's total annual energy demand will be covered by the hybrid hydro-wind plant.

"Solely" is about 65%?

I read that, too. But then I have read many other sources which says they will get to 100%. What to believe?

Apparently they will be turning this thing on any day now and will start at 50% of load from renewables and gradually move toward 100%. (I'm guessing that six months is needed mainly to pump enough water into the reservoir to have a large amount of energy stored for future use.) I will be interested to watch its progress closely.

Having designed a few hybrid (PV/Wind or PV/Hydro) off-grid systems that had to achieve 100% capacity, I'm going with WetEV here. They're a lot more expensive, especially as the storage and/or peak load requirement rises, than including a genset. PV and wind costs have dropped dramatically since I was doing this, but storage costs haven't. Unlike in this case, in the systems I was designing the operator and user were one and the same, which allowed for major cost reductions owing to the owner's willingness and ability to practice extreme load shifting and demand reduction when necessary, i.e. waiting several days to do the laundry until the wind was blowing/sun was shining and the batteries were topped off. That level of compromise is unlikely to be possible with a grid, although ToU rates and/or a smart grid can help.

I'd consider 65% excellent for a grid, 80% about the upper limit, and the customers would likely be marching on the utility headquarters with their pitchforks if they had to pay for 100% RE at current prices. And pumped storage is currently as cheap as it gets.

 

[RegGuheert]

They're a lot more expensive, especially as the storage and/or peak load requirement rises, than including a genset. PV and wind costs have dropped dramatically since I was doing this, but storage costs haven't.

For pumped storage, the size of the battery is controlled by the size of the reservoirs. Let's see how big of a battery they have.

In this case, both of the reservoir sizes have been reduced, with the lower reservoir ending at 150,000 m^3. Assuming you have access to all of that water at 700 meters of height, you have a storage potential of:

Energy stored = (150,000 m^3 * 1000 liters/m^3 * 1 kg/liter) * 9.8 m/sec^2 * 700 m = 1 TJ * 1 MWh/3.6GJ = ~290 MWh

Assuming about 50% efficiency can be converted into electricity, that provides a battery of about 150 MWh.

So, how long can that much energy run the island? According to the article, the peak power is about 7.5 MW and minimum power is about 3 MW. Let's assume the average power level is 5 MW. So the storage on the island is enough for about 30 hours of storage with NO WIND.

If you can drain the lower pool, then perhaps you could use most of the water in the top pool, which would double this amount to 60 hours. Perhaps higher efficiencies are possible, maybe getting you to a maximum of four days. That's probably the outside edge of the total storage if the upper reservoir is full.

So, I'll have to agree this is a fairly small amount of storage to try to achieve 100% renewable generation.

... (I'm guessing that six months is needed mainly to pump enough water into the reservoir to have a large amount of energy stored for future use.)...

That seems a bit unlikely.
US pumped storage volume at TVA and Virginia Power is at most a few days.
If reservoir is also for irrigation, might be weeks but six months seems unlikely.

Let's remember that this water is being pumped uphill by wind power with a MAXIMUM output of 11.5 MW and the ability to pump up to 6 MW when the wind blows. After supplying half of the island's needs, lets assume that there is an average amount of power left over for pumping of 3 MW. So, how long would it take to pump 380,000 m^3 of water at 66% efficiency?

Energy to fill lake = (380,000 m^3 * 1000 l/m^3 * 1 kg/l) * 9.8 m/sec^2 * 700 / 0.66 = ~4 TJ * 1 MWh/3.6GJ = 1100 MWh

At 3 MW, that would take 365 hours or about 15 days.

So, you are correct, it only takes weeks. The six months must be for the purposes of testing and learning to operate the system (or some other purpose).

Anyone see any math or physics errors in the above?

BTW, at Smith Mountain Lake, they can generate up to 600 MW and they can lower the lake level a couple of feet in just a few minutes! I've only ever seen it used for a few minutes at a time.

 

[WetEV]

Assuming about 50% efficiency can be converted into electricity, that provides a battery of about 150 MWh.

This efficiency is too low. I'd assume more like 90% generation, 80% round turn.

US average was about 80% for round turn.

In 2011, pumped storage plants produced 23 billion kilowatthours (kWh) of gross generation—roughly as much as petroleum-fired generation in that year. Pumped storage plants, however, consumed 29 billion kilowatthours (kWh) of electricity in 2011 to refill their storage reservoirs, resulting in a net generation loss of 6 billion kWh.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=11991" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[RegGuheert]

This efficiency is too low. I'd assume more like 90% generation, 80% round turn.

US average was about 80% for round turn.

O.K. Thanks!

So four days is probably about right. Five may be possible if they can completely drain the upper reservoir.

So, you are correct, it only takes weeks. The six months must be for the purposes of testing and learning to operate the system (or some other purpose).

One more thought on this six month period. I'm betting they do not run this system on sea water. Perhaps it takes some months to fill the reservoirs with fresh (rain) water?

 

[electricfuture]

Renewable energy sources coupled with nuclear power plants are by far the most economical way to generate power for the foreseeable future - even better if Thorium reactors or fusion power plants get built and here is why:

The costs of "natural disasters". The Government has increased the budget an average of $1.3 billion per year and yet has had a shortfall every year. Greenhouse gas related climate change (the science has proven this beyond a doubt to rational people) has already caused more disasters than "anticipated" by the naysayers, worse the government forecast are based on 5 year averages and eliminate huge disasters i.e. New Orleans as anomalies.

As the climate swings more wildly there will be an exponential increase in disasters. So considering these cost versus renewable cost there is no comparison. Then you can add the cost of human life and money to the on going "oil wars" not to mention disaster and air quality related deaths from air pollution. Also oil and gas production is far less efficient when all costs are consider. You never see the full cost of the chain from the well heads to your car or house, but everyone talks about the cost of putting a solar panel on your house or battery costs.

Over the years I have worked as an engineer/designer on utility size nuclear, fossil fuel, large hydro, gas turbine, wind farm, transmission and distribution - and in oil and "natural" gas production. I also live under So. Cal." SDG&E incredibly high electric cost - going up 10% this year. They are in business to make a profit not to provide electric power - that is just the means. So don't expect the cost of electricity to go down as the proportion of renewables increase if you have a "for profit" utility company.

 

[RegGuheert]

The costs of "natural disasters". The Government has increased the budget an average of $1.3 billion per year and yet has had a shortfall every year.

Worldwide weather related disasters as a proportion of GDP have dropped over the past quarter century.

Greenhouse gas related climate change (the science has proven this beyond a doubt to rational people) has already caused more disasters than "anticipated" by the naysayers, worse the government forecast are based on 5 year averages and eliminate huge disasters i.e. New Orleans as anomalies.

:?: :?: :?: The disaster in New Orleans had NOTHING to do with climate change and was very publicly predicted several years before it happened. U.S. hurricanes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1990. There has been no trend, up or down, in the number of tropical cyclones, both strong and weak since 1970. Currently, the U.S. is in the longest drought (over 8.5 years) of major hurricanes (Cat 3 through 5) since records began around the time of the Civil War. U.S. Floods have not increased in frequency or intensity since 1950 and losses have decreased 75% since 1940. Tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or damage since 1950. The fraction of the globe in drought has gradually dropped over the past 30 years.

They are in business to make a profit not to provide electric power - that is just the means. So don't expect the cost of electricity to go down as the proportion of renewables increase if you have a "for profit" utility company.

I suspect you are correct here.

 

[AndyH]

Spanish Island - 'first' in the world powered solely by wind and water

http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/print/volume-20/issue-5/articles/pumped-storage/creating-a-hybrid-hydro-wind-system-on.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Realistically, however, about 65% of island's total annual energy demand will be covered by the hybrid hydro-wind plant.

"Solely" is about 65%?

News flash, Wet - your linked article was from 2012, mine was from 2014. On this planet time, plans, and progress flows from the smaller date to the larger.

1 May 2014:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/01/3433002/spanish-island-renewable-energy/

With the opening of a new wind farm next month, El Hierro, population just over 10,000, will become the first island in the world to be fully energy self-sufficient through combined wind and water power.

 

[AndyH]

Additional info for you, TimLee - more support for the report that Germany's coal generation increase was little more than a speed bump.

http://www.renewablesinternational.net/coal-down-renewables-up/150/537/79063/

German utilities organization BDEW has published its data for Q1 2014, showing that power from hard coal was down by 17.4 percent, while power from lignite was down by 4.8 percent. The biggest loser, however, continues to be natural gas, which was down by 19.7 percent.

The figures confirm Fraunhofer ISE’s data provided based on preliminary figures last month – and forecast in January. In addition to the downturn in power from fossil fuels, nuclear power was down by 4.6 percent – almost exactly the same level as lignite, a clear indication that those two power sources are roughly equally inflexible.

Power from biomass grew by 5.4 percent. Solar power production was up by 82.5 percent, compared to 20.6 percent increase in onshore wind. Power from offshore turbines group from a negligible level by 33.5 percent.

Overall, the share of renewables was up as a share of total power consumption from 23.4 percent last year to 24.7 percent in Q1. As a share of domestic demand (excluding exports), the share of renewables rose from 25 percent to 27 percent. (Craig Morris)

Results in Germany last year don't look too good :shock:

In 1990, Germany's bown coal-fired power stations produced almost 171 billion kilowatt hours of power. At the time, many old eastern German plants were still in operation.

Yup - that was expected. Remember that Germany cut something like 27% off their CO2 emissions prior to 2013. It appears that renewables took a big bite out of gas generation in 2013 and is expected to take a bit out of coal this year.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/germany-decline-of-fossil-fuel-generation-is-irreversible-75224

German energy giant RWE has taken a massive loss of €2.8 billion – it’s first loss in 60 years – after admitting it got its strategy wrong, and should have focused more on renewable and distributed energy rather than conventional fossil fuels...

Conventional power stations are being driven out by solar PV, particularly during peak load, and the huge expansion of renewables has pushed the market price of electricity to less than €37 per megawatt-hour, where it is virtually impossible to operate conventional power stations economically.

The question is what to do now. Terium says it is not all bad news, because much of the new plant that has been installed is highly flexible; designed to fit in and around a renewables-dominated grid. For instance, he said, the entire 10,000MW capacity of power stations in the Rhenish region can be reduced and increased again by about 5,000 megawatts within 30 minutes. (Interestingly, RWE cut is Co2 emissions from generation by 9% in the last year).

http://www.renewablesinternational....er-consumption-to-drop-in-2014/150/537/75788/

The main caveat to this list is that coal power production may nonetheless remain stable or even rise slightly despite the lower demand for it in Germany because Germany’s neighbors are increasingly buying inexpensive coal power from Germany (a situation I described here). In other words, carbon emissions from the German power sector might increase because of consumption in the Netherlands, France, etc.

More importantly, a minor dip in carbon emissions in a particular year is less crucial than the overall trend. Don’t expect carbon emissions from the German power sector to go down dramatically until Germany starts a phaseout of coal power, which Industry Minister Gabriel says cannot happen at the same time as the nuclear phaseout – which ends in 2022.

 

[GRA]

Spanish Island - 'first' in the world powered solely by wind and water

http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/print/volume-20/issue-5/articles/pumped-storage/creating-a-hybrid-hydro-wind-system-on.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Realistically, however, about 65% of island's total annual energy demand will be covered by the hybrid hydro-wind plant.

"Solely" is about 65%?

News flash, Wet - your linked article was from 2012, mine was from 2014. On this planet time, plans, and progress flows from the smaller date to the larger.

1 May 2014:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/01/3433002/spanish-island-renewable-energy/

With the opening of a new wind farm next month, El Hierro, population just over 10,000, will become the first island in the world to be fully energy self-sufficient through combined wind and water power.

Andy, what has changed in the interim? The 2012 article quotes the system designer who made the 'realistically, 65%' statement, and the only changes that seem to have been made since then were to reduce the size of the upper and lower reservoirs, for environmental/safety reasons. According to the article you quote, the max. output and presumably the average load haven't changed, so who exactly is claiming 100%? That number appears in the article you link, but it doesn't appear to be a quote from the designer; there's no attribution at all.

 

[RegGuheert]

Andy, what has changed in the interim? The 2012 article quotes the system designer who made the 'realistically, 65%' statement, and the only changes that seem to have been made since then were to reduce the size of the upper and lower reservoirs, for environmental/safety reasons. According to the article you quote, the max. output and presumably the average load haven't changed, so who exactly is claiming 100%? That number appears in the article you link, but it doesn't appear to be a quote from the designer; there's no attribution at all.

The information that we do not know are the characteristics of the wind resources. With a 11.5 MW capacity and a 5 MW average load, the absolute minimum capacity factor for these wind generators needs to be about 50%, which seems to be quite doable in these days. But with storage that tops out at 5 days max, maybe less, the capacity factor will need to be quite a bit higher than 50%. Perhaps 75% would be needed? If there was two weeks of storage, I would think this would be pretty doable...

 

[GRA]

Andy, what has changed in the interim? The 2012 article quotes the system designer who made the 'realistically, 65%' statement, and the only changes that seem to have been made since then were to reduce the size of the upper and lower reservoirs, for environmental/safety reasons. According to the article you quote, the max. output and presumably the average load haven't changed, so who exactly is claiming 100%? That number appears in the article you link, but it doesn't appear to be a quote from the designer; there's no attribution at all.

The information that we do not know are the characteristics of the wind resources. With a 11.5 MW capacity and a 5 MW average load, the absolute minimum capacity factor for these wind generators needs to be about 50%, which seems to be quite doable in these days. But with storage that tops out at 5 days max, maybe less, the capacity factor will need to be quite a bit higher than 50%. Perhaps 75% would be needed? If there was two weeks of storage, I would think this would be pretty doable...

I think there was a mention of max. wind resources earlier in the thread, but haven't looked for it. Last I checked, even the newest systems were running about 50% max.: http://cleantechnica.com/2012/07/27/wind-turbine-net-capacity-factor-50-the-new-normal/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Without knowing more details of the local wind resources, turbine heights etc., it's hard to say. And of course, basing capacity factor estimates on brand new turbines overstates long term numbers, which will be lower due to wear and tear and the required maintenance.

 

[RegGuheert]

I think there was a mention of max. wind resources earlier in the thread, but haven't looked for it. Last I checked, even the newest systems were running about 50% max.: http://cleantechnica.com/2012/07/27/wind-turbine-net-capacity-factor-50-the-new-normal/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Without knowing more details of the local wind resources, turbine heights etc., it's hard to say. And of course, basing capacity factor estimates on brand new turbines overstates long term numbers, which will be lower due to wear and tear and the required maintenance.

The article says

El Hierro has a total available wind energy resource of 49.6 GWh, ...

, so they have plenty of resources available to get to 100%. Of course the cost goes up as they add more wind generators.

 

[AndyH]

Andy, what has changed in the interim? The 2012 article quotes the system designer who made the 'realistically, 65%' statement, and the only changes that seem to have been made since then were to reduce the size of the upper and lower reservoirs, for environmental/safety reasons. According to the article you quote, the max. output and presumably the average load haven't changed, so who exactly is claiming 100%? That number appears in the article you link, but it doesn't appear to be a quote from the designer; there's no attribution at all.

Nothing has to have changed in the interim, at least as far as the topic of the hydroworld article. Why? Because that's only one phase of the project and the hydro component was not scheduled to start at 100% capacity. They're also installing solar thermal hot water (replacing electric water heating) and adding anaerobic digesters to produce biogas and fertilizer (though those are additional savings/generation capability).

They apparently have between 156% and 3x the wind they need to run the island before water heating load reduction and the addition of biogas-fueled generation. They have enough surplus to desalinate water for domestic use and agriculture (formerly 20% of their electricity demand), and to replenish water lost in the hydro system due to evaporation. The hydro system has storage for seven days.

The folks 'claiming' 100% are the guys at the top of the 'chain of command.' They're leading this parade, not a contractor reporting only on his project.

http://www.unescocan.org/pdf/HierroProject.pdf
http://www.unescocan.org/100reshierroeng.htm
http://www.expatdailynews.com/2011/05/energy-island.html
http://phys.org/news/2014-04-spanish-island-fully-powered.html
(The above links, by the way, are via the links already provided in earlier posts...)

 

[AndyH]

Having designed a few hybrid (PV/Wind or PV/Hydro) off-grid systems that had to achieve 100% capacity, I'm going with WetEV here. They're a lot more expensive, especially as the storage and/or peak load requirement rises, than including a genset. PV and wind costs have dropped dramatically since I was doing this, but storage costs haven't. Unlike in this case, in the systems I was designing the operator and user were one and the same, which allowed for major cost reductions owing to the owner's willingness and ability to practice extreme load shifting and demand reduction when necessary, i.e. waiting several days to do the laundry until the wind was blowing/sun was shining and the batteries were topped off. That level of compromise is unlikely to be possible with a grid, although ToU rates and/or a smart grid can help.

I'd consider 65% excellent for a grid, 80% about the upper limit, and the customers would likely be marching on the utility headquarters with their pitchforks if they had to pay for 100% RE at current prices. And pumped storage is currently as cheap as it gets.

I've got some systems design time under my belt as well in combinations of generator only, PV/generator, PV/wind/generator, and PV only for single off-grid dwellings. Storage at that scale is battery - not pumped water or compressed air or H2. Generation is limited to the immediate vicinity where drought, clouds and/or calm can bring generation to a halt.

My focus in this and other threads however is not for a single off-grid building but rather for scales of city to country. I have no idea what Wet's focus is (other than promoting nuclear, repeatedly suggesting there's not enough biomass available, and that 100% renewables is too expensive). That's why I've been posting things as I find them that shows that 100% renewables is possible and is increasingly cost effective even without a price on carbon and with no regard to the environment.

Wet has stated in other threads that he has zero affiliation with the power industry. This rules him out as an 'expert witness'. His problem has no bounds or indications of scale. He references a single paper from a 2012 conference that uses an unknown MatLab model. This is all less than exciting. Is Wet trying to analyze a country with zero power generation or distribution system? Or a developed country with infrastructure in place? Just one example of an error in the post is his insistence that wind and solar is variable and that each can drop to zero generation. I'd agree with regards to a single PV array or a single wind turbine. This is absolutely incorrect, however, when a grid is populated by geographically dispersed wind and PV collection assets.

By comparison, we have The Solutions Project, based on Mark Jacobson's work at Stanford. Over the course of years of research, many peer-reviewed papers, and studies, he's shown that the entire USA can be powered (electricity, heat, hot water, industry, and transportation) with 100% of the energy supplied by wind/wave/sun. This has been shown for the entire USA, a five-state zone in the NE USA, and the state of NY. The project breaks the numbers down by state, provides a cost accounting compared with our current system, and shows that 100% renewables does not require storage other than that provided by concentrating solar and V2G BEV and FCEV. We have the Third Industrial Revolution plan as well. This plan also includes hot water, heating, and transportation across an entire country and region. It's been created with input from industry and governments and is being deployed in various countries in Germany, the EU, the developing world, and China. This program, too, is less expensive than business as usual and results is lower energy prices. And finally, we have Reinventing Fire. This too is a plan designed around current tech, requires no intervention from any politician, and is done by business for profit. This is the only plan of the three that is not 100% renwable as it retains a significant natural gas percentage (about 75% of the volume of gas used in our country prior to the fracking boom). It is designed to support a ~150% larger economy and results in not only a capital cost savings of many $billions over business as usual but also provides lower electricity prices. This and the TIR are being deployed in various parts of the US.

These three plans are developed by experts in their respective areas of expertise, are either being deployed or are deployable across an entire country, and all three show that the premise of the original post in this thread is erroneous.

 

[GRA]

Andy, what has changed in the interim? The 2012 article quotes the system designer who made the 'realistically, 65%' statement, and the only changes that seem to have been made since then were to reduce the size of the upper and lower reservoirs, for environmental/safety reasons. According to the article you quote, the max. output and presumably the average load haven't changed, so who exactly is claiming 100%? That number appears in the article you link, but it doesn't appear to be a quote from the designer; there's no attribution at all.

Nothing has to have changed in the interim, at least as far as the topic of the hydroworld article. Why? Because that's only one phase of the project and the hydro component was not scheduled to start at 100% capacity. They're also installing solar thermal hot water (replacing electric water heating) and adding anaerobic digesters to produce biogas and fertilizer (though those are additional savings/generation capability).

They apparently have between 156% and 3x the wind they need to run the island before water heating load reduction and the addition of biogas-fueled generation. They have enough surplus to desalinate water for domestic use and agriculture (formerly 20% of their electricity demand), and to replenish water lost in the hydro system due to evaporation. The hydro system has storage for seven days.

The folks 'claiming' 100% are the guys at the top of the 'chain of command.' They're leading this parade, not a contractor reporting only on his project.

http://www.unescocan.org/pdf/HierroProject.pdf
http://www.unescocan.org/100reshierroeng.htm
http://www.expatdailynews.com/2011/05/energy-island.html
http://phys.org/news/2014-04-spanish-island-fully-powered.html
(The above links, by the way, are via the links already provided in earlier posts...)

Haven't been following this thread closely, so thanks for the links. But personally, I'm more likely to rely on the word of the people who actually get into the nitty gritty and do the design tradeoffs, i.e. looking at what's practical rather than what's ideal, than those 'at the top of the chain of command', who are more likely to skate over the details if they're even aware of them. Kind of like the Nissan execs who assured everyone that the battery was good for 5 years/80% even in Phoenix. I suspect that the Engineers were much more cautious.

I look forward to seeing how the well the reality matches up with the claims. Smallish islands that have to import fuel are just about the ideal location for an RE Grid. BTW, does the hydro system _still_ have storage for seven days, seeing as how they had to reduce its size, or was that the storage as originally designed?

 

[GRA]

Having designed a few hybrid (PV/Wind or PV/Hydro) off-grid systems that had to achieve 100% capacity, I'm going with WetEV here. They're a lot more expensive, especially as the storage and/or peak load requirement rises, than including a genset. PV and wind costs have dropped dramatically since I was doing this, but storage costs haven't. Unlike in this case, in the systems I was designing the operator and user were one and the same, which allowed for major cost reductions owing to the owner's willingness and ability to practice extreme load shifting and demand reduction when necessary, i.e. waiting several days to do the laundry until the wind was blowing/sun was shining and the batteries were topped off. That level of compromise is unlikely to be possible with a grid, although ToU rates and/or a smart grid can help.

I'd consider 65% excellent for a grid, 80% about the upper limit, and the customers would likely be marching on the utility headquarters with their pitchforks if they had to pay for 100% RE at current prices. And pumped storage is currently as cheap as it gets.

I've got some systems design time under my belt as well in combinations of generator only, PV/generator, PV/wind/generator, and PV only for single off-grid dwellings. Storage at that scale is battery - not pumped water or compressed air or H2. Generation is limited to the immediate vicinity where drought, clouds and/or calm can bring generation to a halt.

My focus in this and other threads however is not for a single off-grid building but rather for scales of city to country. I have no idea what Wet's focus is (other than promoting nuclear, repeatedly suggesting there's not enough biomass available, and that 100% renewables is too expensive). That's why I've been posting things as I find them that shows that 100% renewables is possible and is increasingly cost effective even without a price on carbon and with no regard to the environment.

Wet has stated in other threads that he has zero affiliation with the power industry. This rules him out as an 'expert witness'. His problem has no bounds or indications of scale. He references a single paper from a 2012 conference that uses an unknown MatLab model. This is all less than exciting. Is Wet trying to analyze a country with zero power generation or distribution system? Or a developed country with infrastructure in place? Just one example of an error in the post is his insistence that wind and solar is variable and that each can drop to zero generation. I'd agree with regards to a single PV array or a single wind turbine. This is absolutely incorrect, however, when a grid is populated by geographically dispersed wind and PV collection assets.

Okay, I take it you're talking now generally about a fairly large country, and not a small island like El Hierro? Because that's almost certainly too small an area to see much benefit from dispersed PV or wind production sources. Assuming, of course, that they don't have an eruption or major earthquakes that damage the systems, especially the storage reservoirs. El Hierro had some major earthquake swarms in 2011. BTW, I haven't yet read all the links, but how are they planning to clean the reservoirs and keep them from silting up? Aside from local dirt and dust, the Canaries are downwind from the Sahara dust storms that reach all the way across the Atlantic. I don't know how much of that get's deposited there and if the amount is even an issue, just wondering. Dredging would damage the plastic liners, so are they planning to use some kind of flitration system, or are they just going to drain the reservoirs periodically and vacuum the silt out?

By comparison, we have The Solutions Project, based on Mark Jacobson's work at Stanford. Over the course of years of research, many peer-reviewed papers, and studies, he's shown that the entire USA can be powered (electricity, heat, hot water, industry, and transportation) with 100% of the energy supplied by wind/wave/sun. This has been shown for the entire USA, a five-state zone in the NE USA, and the state of NY. The project breaks the numbers down by state, provides a cost accounting compared with our current system, and shows that 100% renewables does not require storage other than that provided by concentrating solar and V2G BEV and FCEV. We have the Third Industrial Revolution plan as well. This plan also includes hot water, heating, and transportation across an entire country and region. It's been created with input from industry and governments and is being deployed in various countries in Germany, the EU, the developing world, and China. This program, too, is less expensive than business as usual and results is lower energy prices. And finally, we have Reinventing Fire. This too is a plan designed around current tech, requires no intervention from any politician, and is done by business for profit. This is the only plan of the three that is not 100% renwable as it retains a significant natural gas percentage (about 75% of the volume of gas used in our country prior to the fracking boom). It is designed to support a ~150% larger economy and results in not only a capital cost savings of many $billions over business as usual but also provides lower electricity prices. This and the TIR are being deployed in various parts of the US.

These three plans are developed by experts in their respective areas of expertise, are either being deployed or are deployable across an entire country, and all three show that the premise of the original post in this thread is erroneous.

Andy, we already know that we disagree on the difference between what could be done technically and what's realistic, given the interplay between social, political, economic and environmental factors and their interest groups. I regard all such plans as aspirational goals, which will inevitably take far longer or only be achieved partially in the real world. Germany being a case in point; you say that even if the top down end of things is currently faltering, the bottom up will continue. I say the reason that the top changed is because the bottom changed first and altered their votes, and there's no guarantee that they will continue to support personal shifts to AE if they have to pay more to do so. AIUI, the change eliminated all subsidies for PV arrays above 10 kW and taxed them at 4.4 Eurocents/kWh, so home systems would still be immune, but small commercial and industrial users would be hurt. Whether that continues to be the case remains to be seen.

 

[AndyH]

Having designed a few hybrid (PV/Wind or PV/Hydro) off-grid systems that had to achieve 100% capacity, I'm going with WetEV here. They're a lot more expensive, especially as the storage and/or peak load requirement rises, than including a genset. PV and wind costs have dropped dramatically since I was doing this, but storage costs haven't. Unlike in this case, in the systems I was designing the operator and user were one and the same, which allowed for major cost reductions owing to the owner's willingness and ability to practice extreme load shifting and demand reduction when necessary, i.e. waiting several days to do the laundry until the wind was blowing/sun was shining and the batteries were topped off. That level of compromise is unlikely to be possible with a grid, although ToU rates and/or a smart grid can help.

I'd consider 65% excellent for a grid, 80% about the upper limit, and the customers would likely be marching on the utility headquarters with their pitchforks if they had to pay for 100% RE at current prices. And pumped storage is currently as cheap as it gets.

I've got some systems design time under my belt as well in combinations of generator only, PV/generator, PV/wind/generator, and PV only for single off-grid dwellings. Storage at that scale is battery - not pumped water or compressed air or H2. Generation is limited to the immediate vicinity where drought, clouds and/or calm can bring generation to a halt.

My focus in this and other threads however is not for a single off-grid building but rather for scales of city to country. I have no idea what Wet's focus is (other than promoting nuclear, repeatedly suggesting there's not enough biomass available, and that 100% renewables is too expensive). That's why I've been posting things as I find them that shows that 100% renewables is possible and is increasingly cost effective even without a price on carbon and with no regard to the environment.

Wet has stated in other threads that he has zero affiliation with the power industry. This rules him out as an 'expert witness'. His problem has no bounds or indications of scale. He references a single paper from a 2012 conference that uses an unknown MatLab model. This is all less than exciting. Is Wet trying to analyze a country with zero power generation or distribution system? Or a developed country with infrastructure in place? Just one example of an error in the post is his insistence that wind and solar is variable and that each can drop to zero generation. I'd agree with regards to a single PV array or a single wind turbine. This is absolutely incorrect, however, when a grid is populated by geographically dispersed wind and PV collection assets.

Okay, I take it you're talking now generally about a fairly large country, and not a small island like El Hierro? Because that's almost certainly too small an area to see much benefit from dispersed PV or wind production sources. Assuming, of course, that they don't have an eruption or major earthquakes that damage the systems, especially the storage reservoirs. El Hierro had some major earthquake swarms in 2011. BTW, I haven't yet read all the links, but how are they planning to clean the reservoirs and keep them from silting up? Aside from local dirt and dust, the Canaries are downwind from the Sahara dust storms that reach all the way across the Atlantic. I don't know how much of that get's deposited there and if the amoutn is even an issue, just wondering. Dredging would damage the plastic liners, so are they planning to use some kind of flitration system, or are they just going to drain the reservoirs periodically and vacuum the silt out?

Pessimist much? I haven't changed my position here - when I talk about TIR, Reinventing Fire, or the Solutions Project I'm absolutely talking about them in at least a US state context. I agree about El Hierro - it's a smaller project in the overall scheme of things. I'm simply using it and other smaller projects like this as mile-posts on our transition out of the fossil fuel age. I wouldn't think this project would need filters, though I don't expect the pump inlets in the bottom 'lake' to be placed right on the liner. They probably have an overflow configured for the bottom lake and could probably siphon silt if they needed as part of a refurb process. I haven't seen anything on the project that goes into this level of detail, however, so this is just a guess.

By comparison, we have The Solutions Project, based on Mark Jacobson's work at Stanford. Over the course of years of research, many peer-reviewed papers, and studies, he's shown that the entire USA can be powered (electricity, heat, hot water, industry, and transportation) with 100% of the energy supplied by wind/wave/sun. This has been shown for the entire USA, a five-state zone in the NE USA, and the state of NY. The project breaks the numbers down by state, provides a cost accounting compared with our current system, and shows that 100% renewables does not require storage other than that provided by concentrating solar and V2G BEV and FCEV. We have the Third Industrial Revolution plan as well. This plan also includes hot water, heating, and transportation across an entire country and region. It's been created with input from industry and governments and is being deployed in various countries in Germany, the EU, the developing world, and China. This program, too, is less expensive than business as usual and results is lower energy prices. And finally, we have Reinventing Fire. This too is a plan designed around current tech, requires no intervention from any politician, and is done by business for profit. This is the only plan of the three that is not 100% renwable as it retains a significant natural gas percentage (about 75% of the volume of gas used in our country prior to the fracking boom). It is designed to support a ~150% larger economy and results in not only a capital cost savings of many $billions over business as usual but also provides lower electricity prices. This and the TIR are being deployed in various parts of the US.

These three plans are developed by experts in their respective areas of expertise, are either being deployed or are deployable across an entire country, and all three show that the premise of the original post in this thread is erroneous.

Andy, we already know that we disagree on the difference between what could be done technically and what's realistic, given the interplay between social, political, economic and environmental factors and their interest groups. I regard all such plans as aspirational goals, which will inevitably take far longer or only be achieved partially in the real world. Germany being a case in point; you say that even if the top down end of things is currently faltering, the bottom up will continue. I say the reason that the top changed is because the bottom changed first and altered their votes, and there's no guarantee that they will continue to support personal shifts to AE if they have to pay more to do so. AIUI, the change eliminated all subsidies for PV arrays above 10 kW and taxed them at 4.4 Eurocents/kWh, so home systems would still be immune, but small commercial and industrial users would be hurt. Whether that continues to be the case remains to be seen.

Sorry man - I still think you should pull back to a broader view. Germany started their bottom-up energy transition in the 1990s. They started their top-down TIR transition in the early 2000s. They are not slowing from these programs - they are meeting goals well ahead of schedule (they've already exceeded their 2020 goals) and are accelerating on all fronts. They are slowing the PV expansion because they are miles ahead for this pillar - they need to expand H2 generation and BEV/FCEV to regain balance. They haven't slowed their nuke or coal phase-out. The German people are much more aware of the environment than we are (hell, most of the rest of the world is more aware than we are...) and they have significant peer pressure from all of their neighbors in and out of the EU (also advancing the TIR). Barring a meteor impact, I think Germany will be the first in the world to fully deploy all five pillars of the Third Industrial Revolution plan. It's in their laws, it's in their long-range plans, and it's an expanding part of their industry and jobs growth progress.

Time will tell, Guy, but I think betting against their progress is a sure loser.