From the LAPPEENRANTA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY the department of neo-models comes this model that seems overly simplistic. Perhaps they should talk to the people that tried this experiment on a smaller scale in South Australia first.
Simulation brings global 100 percent renewable electricity system alive for the first time
A new model developed by Lappeenranta University of Technology (LUT) shows how an electricity system mainly based on solar and wind works in all regions of the world. It shows the functioning of an electricity system that fulfils the targets set by the Paris agreement by using only renewable energy sources.
The global Internet of Energy Model visualizes a 100 percent renewable energy system (100%RE) for the electricity sector for 2030. It can do this for the entire world which, in the model, has been structured into 145 regions, which are all visualised, and aggregated to 9 major world regions.
“With the simulation, anyone can explore what a renewable electricity system would look like. This is the first time scientists have been able to do this on a global scale.” says Christian Breyer, LUT Solar Economy Professor and a leading scientist behind the model.
The model is designed to find the most economical solution for a renewable electricity system. The model shows how the supply of electricity can be organised to cover the electricity demand for all hours of the year. This means that best mix of renewable energy generation, storage and transmission components can be found to cover the electricity demand, leading to total electricity cost roughly between 55 and 70 euros per megawatt-hour for all 9 major regions in the world.
But the story does not end here. The researchers have ambitious goals to develop the model further. Future upgrades will go from looking only at the electricity sector to showing the full energy sector, including heat and mobility sectors. The model will also describe how to transition from the current energy system towards a fully sustainable one.
According to the researchers the model debunks myths about what renewables can and cannot achieve. One of the myths is that a fully renewable energy system cannot possibly run stable for all hours of the year, due to the intermittent character of solar and wind energy. Another myth is the idea that without large base load generation capacities, such as coal or nuclear plants, an electricity system cannot work. According to the researchers, both of these are incorrect and the facts can be checked from the model.
“My hope is that we can finally stop debating about these myths. The visualisation shows exactly how a fully renewable electricity system operates. So let’s just build it,” emphasizes Pasi Vainikka, Principal Scientist from VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd.
Transparency of the data and research is very important for the researchers. Anyone can download the result data for further inspection. The publications based on the data are available online.
“We want the model to give every citizen the chance to familiarise themselves with a renewable energy system. Increased knowledge usually lowers the resistance towards new developments,” says Vainikka.
Researchers hope that this can facilitate fact-based discourse on global energy transition.
“Every country in the world has to find pathways to achieve the Paris agreement targets and to avoid stranded assets. This model can provide the help for policy-makers, industrial decision-makers and societal stakeholders to do that,” emphasizes Breyer.
Professor Breyer will present the simulation for the first time on Friday the 4th at the World Clean Energy Conference (WCEC) hosted by the United Nations in Geneva.
###
The model was done as part of the Neo-Carbon Energy research, which is funded by the Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation, Tekes, and is carried out collaboratively by Lappeenranta University of Technology (LUT), VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd and University of Turku, Finland Futures Research Centre.
Simulation: http://neocarbonenergy.fi/internetofenergy/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Too complicated. I have a model that turns magical thinking directly into gold and ice cream.
I would like to purchase 68 of those models please.
What are your Nigerian Bank Account details?
For purposes of marketing my very special concensus-supported model, I use a mail box at UN headquarters in NY, but for reasons beyond my understanding the box has been shutdown by fraud investigators since Wednesday. Must have got the wrong guy!
This is all nice but has any thought been given to the “latest” terrorist group that says “lets blow up some interconnectors or distribution lines?”
World wide interconnected power distribution sounds nice, but you are also placing your bets on world wide power problems. Local generation and distribution means local problems and is much safer.
All it really takes is some despot in a sunny (or windy) country to declare that they are going to remove “their” power plants from the grid unless some other country (like the US) does X, Y, or Z. Think OPEC has leverage now? Just wait until the have the ability to disrupt the entire world interconnected electrical grid. No thanks.
A proposal like this requires a one world government with total control for security reasons. Agenda 21/2030.
Jim,
That would not happen, because these folk are from the religion of peace. Oh Bummer said so.
Oh the terrorists won’t blow anything up because, to actually get this overly complicated green wet-dream to work, you will need a one world government and we KNOW that everything will be peaches and cream at that point.
You know, I’m reminded of a DOS game from the early 90s. Balanced Budget Simulator or something similar, where it showed just how easy it was to balance the federal budget. It was literally a line-item breakdown of the federal budget. Raise a few taxes and cut a few programs, and boom, long term crisis averted. See how easy that was?
Interesting how that well that worked in the real world. It’s easy to tell the tale you want in a fictional tale. Reality isn’t so forgiving or easily managed.
Once again someone mistakes a model for reality. There seems to be an epidemic of this type of disorder.
225,000 wind turbines provided about 3% of world power in 2015.
Only 6.75 million more turbines required!
http://www.care2.com/causes/7-most-impressive-wind-farms-and-turbines-in-the-world.html
http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/renewable-energy/wind-energy.html
“One of the myths is that a fully renewable energy system cannot possibly run stable for all hours of the year, due to the intermittent character of solar and wind energy. Another myth is the idea that without large base load generation capacities, such as coal or nuclear plants, an electricity system cannot work. According to the researchers, both of these are incorrect and the facts can be checked from the model.”
LOL!
So you make a model that assumes that these “myths” are incorrect. And viola, your model (not surprisingly) shows that the “myths” are incorrect. In other words the computer is regurgitating what you programmed it with.
If someone is writing computer code and doesn’t understand that if you program an assumption into the computer then the computer output will show your assumption, then they deserve to be fired. Unless they are in climate science or renewable energy, then they will get more funding.
The only way this model can be believed is if you can demonstrate that the model can predict when and where clouds will form on a minute by minute basis.
So the U.S. will need an extension cord to the Sahara?
Douglas-Martin screens we ain’t got (See “Let There Be Light” by Robert A. Heinlein)
“Shipstones” we ain’t got ( See “Friday” by Robert A. Heinlein)
Until we got both, whatever those yo-yo’s been smokin’, I want some 😉 😉
Then we can also build the rolling roads to reduce transport fuel use
‘Solar Economy Professor’ No mention of the key word ‘Engineer’ as in somebody who knows how generating systems and grids work. Next!
Most things are technically possible, ultimately any good idea only survives if it is economically viable, and that could apply to society as well, something that appears to have been lost by those in their rush to condemn coal.
And implementation of good ideas takes time, something the rush to wind, solar, biomass, etc. doesn’t allow.
Does the modelling include provision for long haul trains such as those that cross Australia, Melbourne/Sydney to Perth and back, or roadtrains carrying cattle from Victoria to Queensland, or back down when droughts hit?
I would love to see an electric powered 2AB quad cattle truck belting along the Tanami or a farmer in the wheat belt plowing his padddocks with a 8 kilometre long extension cord trailing behind.
The real dirty little secret about ANY of this ‘renewable’ garbage is that, if they actually did come up with some sort of ‘dilithium crystal’ energy source, perfect in every way, the next day someone would be protesting it, and trying to ban it.
It’s what activists do. That’s why there’s no point in indulging them. If they get everything they want, they’ll have a new list tomorrow.
Technically, matter/antimatter reaction is the energy source. Dilithium is the magical-sciencey regulator that keeps the reaction under control. :GEEK:
That really is the progressive activist MO. Feeling morally superior is a drug to them, and protesting against an injustice, real or imagined, is how they get their fix. “X is WRONG. We protest X, therefore we are GOOD. Only BAD PEOPLE refuse to protest X.” Should X be redressed, they must quickly find a Y to stave off withdrawal. And then a Z. Each new WRONG thing more convoluted than the last.
This doesn’t mean real injustice should go unredressed, but don’t do something about it just because the outrage junkies want you to.
If we could manage to run industry, transport and our homes on simulated electricity, then this day-dream might be practical. However, experience tells us that like many other green pipe-dreams, this will not work in practice. Consideration of the fact that the concept is based on no scientific Climatic evidence, would be the next logical step.
The only dreams I have ever enjoyed were dreamed up by Star Trek’s writers and actors. They knew the difference between science and science fiction and had the imagination to play with it.
And one terrorist with a RPG could bring a country to its knees.
These guys are brilliant. They can tell us how much renewable power will cost without knowing how much power will need to be stored or how much will need to be stored. And they can calculate that costs without mentioning the grid needed to transport electricity to customers from places that are rich in renewable energy.
“Energy Storages and demand flexibility are ultimately needed in an energy system based on solar and wind
Different types of storages are needed:
The fastest reacting storages can provide so called grid support i.e. balancing on sub-second level the between wind and solar production and instantaneous consumption. The amount of energy stored in the family of these technologies can be small but the storage can be charged and discharged at high rate.
These short term storages will shift energy within a day over minutes to hours.
Storages that shift energy for weeks and months are also needed. They are called seasonal energy storages. Their main purpose is to maintain the energy system during longer low wind periods.
THE AMOUNT OF STORAGE AND COMBINATIONS OF STORAGE NEEDED IS UNDER RESEARCH AT THE MOMENT.
System flexibility, i.e. how other production technologies and energy consumption can balance the variable solar and wind production is also needed.”
http://www.neocarbonenergy.fi/solution/#storage
Wind production can be shut down at each turbine within seconds. The wings can be turned around 90° so you can build a overcapacity of about 20% and so leveling the balance. There is no need to storage all wind power if you have too much. When you see a wind farm in Germany, about 10-20% of the turbines stand still. So if you have some overcapacity there is a lot less need to storage. But yes, storage is the main problem.
When I was driving through Germany from the Duesseldorf area all the way to Bremen and Hamburg this last summer, I saw huge windmills, there were many small groups of 6 or so along the Autobahn, most standing still, just a few barely moving. In Germany the electricity cost is about three times higher than here in the US. No wonder. Such intermittent energy carries a huge price tag. In the beginning I was laughing at the article but then reading through the posts it got me really scared, this Prof. Breyer is insane, he believes his own modeling more than facts (his modeling software can check the facts, LOL!) Next some politician takes him for real and we know already where that leads to. Maybe we need a new medical classification or term for this type of ‘green insanity’?
‘demand flexibility’
That’s where someone else decides whether you get electricity or not. See: Smart Meters.
If this simulation is that good, why not just simulate global warming (or whatever) out of existence. Problem solved.
That’s the problem with computer models. You know if it works when it happened, like AGW models. I think RE will solve some problems, but I don’t think it solves every problem. Sure wind and solar will not be the only way, There is biomass, water,cogeneration planst, oil and gas, And I think a regional solution with small interconnectors from one region. to another are preferable because there is much less energy to transport. The main problem now is the storage of the needed additional energy.
Yes marty.
And there’s fracking; and nuclear, especially thorium; and in situ coal gasification; and ocean floor methane clathrates. Between them, we have enough fossil fuels to give us 24/7/365 energy for millennia to come.
So there is no need whatsoever to bugger about with massively expensive environmentally unsound ‘unreliables’ that require every last milliwatt to be backed up with real thermal plant, is there?
One thing that these 100% renewable loons need to be called out on, is the massive requirements of rare earth metals and it’s not just neodymium. The most critically limited one appears to be dysprosium (Dy). Blair King has an excellent post on this:
https://achemistinlangley.wordpress.com/2015/06/18/deconstructing-the-100-fossil-fuel-free-wind-water-and-sunlight-usa-paper-part-ii-what-about-those-pesky-rare-earth-metals/
Christian Breyer looks like just the latest in a long line starting with Amory Lovens. The one to really watch is Mark Jacobson, who’s being touted and tweeted all over the place by such luminaries as Mark Ruffalo and Naomi Klein. His 100% renewable plans call for things like 387 conscentrating solar plants in the sunny state of New York and cryogenic hydrogen airplanes. Steve McIntyre has likened him to a laetrile promoter:
https://achemistinlangley.wordpress.com/2016/01/07/more-on-100-wind-water-and-sunlight-and-the-council-of-canadians-100-clean-economy-by-2050-goal/#comment-633