Even worse, its growing problems with wind and solar spell trouble all over the globe
Oddvar Lundseng, Hans Johnsen and Stein Bergsmark
More people are finally beginning to realize that supplying the world with sufficient, stable energy solely from sun and wind power will be impossible.
Germany took on that challenge, to show the world how to build a society based entirely on “green, renewable” energy. It has now hit a brick wall. Despite huge investments in wind, solar and biofuel energy production capacity, Germany has not reduced CO2 emissions over the last ten years. However, during the same period, its electricity prices have risen dramatically, significantly impacting factories, employment and poor families.
Germany has installed solar and wind power to such an extent that it should theoretically be able to satisfy the power requirement on any day that provides sufficient sunshine and wind. However, since sun and wind are often lacking – in Germany even more so than in other countries like Italy or Greece – the country only manages to produce around 27% of its annual electric power needs from these sources.
Equally problematical, when solar and wind production are at their maximum, the wind turbines and solar panels often overproduce – that is, they generate more electricity than Germany needs at that time – creating major problems in equalizing production and consumption. If the electric power system’s frequency is to be kept close to 50Hz (50 cycles per second), it is no longer possible to increase the amount of solar and wind production in Germany without additional, costly measures.
Production is often too high to keep the network frequency stable without disconnecting some solar and wind facilities. This leads to major energy losses and forced power exports to neighboring countries (“load shedding”) at negative electricity prices, below the cost of generating the power.
In 2017 about half of Germany’s wind-based electricity production was exported. Neighboring countries typically do not want this often unexpected power, and the German power companies must therefore pay them to get rid of the excess. German customers have to pick up the bill.
If solar and wind power plants are disconnected from actual need in this manner, wind and solar facility owners are paid as if they had produced 90% of rated output. The bill is also sent to customers.
When wind and solar generation declines, and there is insufficient electricity for everyone who needs it, Germany’s utility companies also have to disconnect large power consumers – who then want to be compensated for having to shut down operations. That bill also goes to customers all over the nation.
Power production from the sun and wind is often quite low and sometimes totally absent. This might take place over periods from one day to ten days, especially during the winter months. Conventional power plants (coal, natural gas and nuclear) must then step in and deliver according to customer needs. Hydroelectric and biofuel power can also help, but they are only able to deliver about 10% of the often very high demand, especially if it is really cold.
Alternatively, Germany may import nuclear power from France, oil-fired power from Austria or coal power from Poland.
In practice, this means Germany can never shut down the conventional power plants, as planned. These power plants must be ready and able to meet the total power requirements at any time; without them, a stable network frequency is unobtainable. The same is true for French, Austrian and Polish power plants.
Furthermore, if the AC frequency is allowed to drift too high or too low, the risk of extensive blackouts becomes significant. That was clearly demonstrated by South Australia, which also relies heavily on solar and wind power, and suffered extensive blackouts that shut down factories and cost the state billions of dollars.
The dream of supplying Germany with mainly green energy from sunshine and wind turns out to be nothing but a fading illusion. Solar and wind power today covers only 27% of electricity consumption and only 5% of Germany’s total energy needs, while impairing reliability and raising electricity prices to among the highest in the world.
However, the Germans are not yet planning to end this quest for utopian energy. They want to change the entire energy system and include electricity, heat and transportation sectors in their plans. This will require a dramatic increase in electrical energy and much more renewable energy, primarily wind.
To fulfill the German target of getting 60% of their total energy consumption from renewables by 2050, they must multiply the current power production from solar and wind by a factor of 15. They must also expand their output from conventional power plants by an equal amount, to balance and backup the intermittent renewable energy. Germany might import some of this balancing power, but even then the scale of this endeavor is enormous.
Perhaps more important, the amount of land, concrete, steel, copper, rare earth metals, lithium, cadmium, hydrocarbon-based composites and other raw materials required to do this is astronomical. None of those materials is renewable, and none can be extracted, processed and manufactured into wind, solar or fossil power plants without fossil fuels. This is simply not sustainable or ecological.
Construction of solar and wind “farms” has already caused massive devastation to Germany’s wildlife habitats, farmlands, ancient forests and historic villages. Even today, the northern part of Germany looks like a single enormous wind farm. Multiplying today’s wind power capacity by a factor 10 or 15 means a 200 meter high (650 foot tall) turbine must be installed every 1.5 km (every mile) across the entire country, within cities, on land, on mountains and in water.
In reality, it is virtually impossible to increase production by a factor of 15, as promised by the plans.
The cost of Germany’s “Energiewende” (energy transition) is enormous: some 200 billion euros by 2015 – and yet with minimal reduction in CO2 emission. In fact, coal consumption and CO2 emissions have been stable or risen slightly the last seven to ten years. In the absence of a miracle, Germany will not be able to fulfill its self-imposed climate commitments, not by 2020, nor by 2030.
What applies to Germany also applies to other countries that now produce their electricity primarily with fossil or nuclear power plants. To reach development comparable to Germany’s, such countries will be able to replace only about one quarter of their fossil and nuclear power, because these power plants must remain in operation to ensure frequency regulation, balance and back-up power.
Back-up power plants will have to run idle (on “spinning reserve”) during periods of high output of renewable energy, while still consuming fuel almost like during normal operation. They always have to be able to step up to full power, because over the next few hours or days solar or wind power might fail. So they power up and down many times per day and week.
The prospects for reductions in CO2 emissions are thus nearly non-existent! Indeed, the backup coal or gas plants must operate so inefficiently in this up-and-down mode that they often consume more fuel and emit more (plant-fertilizing) carbon dioxide than if they were simply operating at full power all the time, and there were no wind or solar installations.
There is no indication that world consumption of coal will decline in the next decades. Large countries in Asia and Africa continue to build coal-fired power plants, and more than 1,500 coal-fired power plants are in planning or under construction.
This will provide affordable electricity 24/7/365 to 1.3 billion people who still do not have access to electricity today. Electricity is essential for the improved health, living standards and life spans that these people expect and are entitled to. To tell them fears of climate change are a more pressing matter is a violation of their most basic human rights.
____________
Oddvar Lundseng is a senior engineer with 43 years of experience in the energy business. Hans Konrad Johnsen, PhD is a former R&D manager with Det Norske Oljeselskap ASA. Stein Storlie Bergsmark has a degree in physics and is a former senior energy researcher and former manager of renewable energy education at the University of Agder.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This leads to major energy losses and forced power exports to neighboring countries (“load shedding”) at negative electricity prices, below the cost of generating the power.
If they sell excess renewable-generated electricity at a negative price – i.e. pay neighbors to take it – isn’t it a tad redundant to say that such a negative price is “below the cost of generating the power”?
I can’t see how cost of generation could also be negative. Maybe Griff could help us with that?
“I can’t see how cost of generation could also be negative.”
It’s a propaganda smokescreen helped by the fact that the entire electricity pricing and subsidy system is a complicated nexus.
Coal, nuclear and gas power plants can sell their electricity at market prices that usually hover around 3 Ct/kWh. Wind and solar farms get prices defined in a law, how much they get depends on technology and year of installation, but usually at double digit Cent/kWh. However, this wind/solar electricity is also traded at market prices. The difference of (whatever the market price is), and the price fixed in the law, is paid by end consumers as part of their electricity bill.
So superficially wind and solar can “compete” at market prices — because someone else is made to pay the bulk of their actual costs against their will. Which green advocates usually forget to mention.
Another regulation is that solar and wind electricity must be bought even at times when the load is not high enough. In those times there is defacto overproduction mandated by law, and the grid management has to shed power to prevent the system from collapsing. So they pay money to next door countries just to get rid of the surplus power, that only exists because wind/solar farms enjoy privileges and inflated subsidies. In market economy terminology that’s a “negative price”.
What I don’t understand is why is Germany doing all this Green nonsense. It must affect their manufacturing of goods at a price that the world is prepared to pay. So why is their no pressure from the big business lobby.
Having experienced at first hand the myth of Communism following WW2, why are they heading down the road of a repeat of the Weimer republic following WW1. That lead to WW2.
Hitler and the NAZI party did “Save ” them from Communism in the 1930 tees but at a terrible cost, but these Green ideas are now doing the same thing, all over again.
If you cannot learn from the past, then you are doomed to repeat them.
MJE
See comment below and learn, if you dare.
The announcement many dream to perform:
-Ladies and Gentlemen, this your captain speaking, may I have your attention please ?
We are now overflying the area once known as “Borkum North” scattered with countless wind turbine wrecks.
Now preserved by the UNESCO as a memorial to the consequences of organized international large scale intellectual terrorism, corruption and crime against humanity.
On behalf of our crew I wish you a pleasant flight.
If/when these developments get commercialized, they’ll make renewables less absurdly over-priced and risky.
From “The Electrochemical Society (ECS)” at https://www.electrochem.org/redcat-blog/hondas-battery-breakthrough/?utm_source=Informz&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=ECS+Website:
Honda’s Battery Breakthrough
Posted on December 13, 2018 by Jennifer Ortiz
The search for the next level, new, and improved electric vehicle battery is an ongoing one. And it’s one Honda may have found. According to The Drive(http://www.thedrive.com/tech/25354/honda-claims-breakthrough-in-new-battery-tech-that-offers-longer-range-greener-operation), the Japanese automaker claims to have developed a new battery chemistry called fluoride-ion that could outperform current lithium-ion batteries.
Honda says fluoride-ion batteries offer 10 times greater energy density, meaning more storage and range for electric vehicles, thanks to the low atomic weight of fluorine that makes fluoride-ion batteries’ increased performance possible.
According to Left Lane News (https://www.leftlanenews.com/honda/honda-announces-promising-new-battery-tech/), chief scientist at the Honda Research Institute Christopher Brooks says, “Unlike Li-ion batteries, FIBs do not pose a safety risk due to overheating, and obtaining the source materials for FIBs creates considerably less environmental impact than the extraction process for lithium and cobalt.”
It’s not exactly a new idea; the benefits of fluorine were previously known. However, it required temperatures of around 302 degrees Fahrenheit to work, which presented a problem when putting into everyday use.
But now, thanks to a new fluoride electrolyte developed by researchers, Honda says they’ve found a way that allows the batteries to operate at room temperature. Results have proven successful within the lab, the question now is will it work in the real world and will the technology be commercialized?
For now, the future seems a bit unclear, but Honda is working hard at making FIBs a reality, as they believe it’s the future of not only electric vehicles but of smaller power products.
—————
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Dark-Horse-In-Battery-Tech-Could-Beat-Tesla.html
Dark Horse In Battery Tech Could Beat Tesla
By Jon LeSage – Dec 19, 2018, 5:00 PM CST
Battery maker 24M just received funding for its SemiSolid lithium-ion battery that could have Tesla and other electric carmakers beat in energy storage and electric vehicle driving range.
The company, made up of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) scientists and a former A123 Systems co-founder, secured nearly $22 million that will take the battery pack to a commercial plant next year with delivery of batteries available in 2020. That funding goes to battery technology with more energy density and storage capacity than what Tesla offers.
Headquartered in Cambridge, Mass., a few blocks away from MIT, 24M brought in two Japanese companies to lead the funding round. That backing comes from ceramics and electronics giant Kyocera Group and Itochu, a textiles and trading business.
Tesla’s electric vehicles use battery technology that carries electrode current into and out of a battery cell. They’re arranged in a series of layers that become wound up into what auto engineers call a jelly roll. The way 24M’s battery varies is that it uses different materials that are four-to-five times thicker than what Tesla and other automakers offer. The SemiSolid can immediately pair up the anodes and cathodes together in a cell.
This will speed up the manufacturing process by cutting out a number of steps typically used in EV battery production. Li-ion batteries typically go through a multistep process that involves mixing, coating, drying, and recovering a solvent that eventually fills the battery with electrolyte. 24M’s battery uses the electrolyte as the solvent to deposit that ingredient onto both sides of the battery, cutting out the typical time and cost needed for production.
It also cuts down the need for inactive materials such as copper, aluminum, and plastics. That will bring down the battery’s costs and the amount of energy needed to charge it up. The company’s process also helps guarantee that more of the electrodes go to storing energy — helping 24M enter another profitable market segment that Tesla thrives in through its Tesla Energy unit.
A123 guy?
Is that for real?
Well there you go.
Lets let him fleece us again, eh?
Hey, what happened to the compact fusion reactor that fits in the back of a pickup truck and was a few years away several years ago?
Let me see if I have this straight. It is your contention that once renewables stop being subsidized, they will get cheaper.
BTW, I love the way EV advocates take every positive press release as proof that nirvana is just around the corner.
I realize that there have been many false dawns regarding battery breakthroughs. But these two are very recent and hence newsworthy, and they sound more credible than earlier ones. So we here should be aware of them. They would make EV cars more affordable, but I doubt that they’d replace the need for backup spinning reserve for large-scale renewables.
Having worked for Honda in the mid-1990’s if Honda have developed this new battery I can believe it. Honda binned their F1 business as well as Rover to free up money for investment elsewhere. If you want to see what happens to the EV market watch what Honda does.
As one reader mentioned windmill are usually a long way from the users, so that means long and expensive transmission lines. So what are the energy losses of the flow of the electrons from the windmill to the users.
All of this has to be added to the cost of running windmills, distance and the , cost of the transmission . In the big blackout in SA, it was said to be a 1 in a 100 year weather event . Not mentioned was the flimsly construction of the towers from the windmills to the main grid, look at the photos of the towers.
The measurement of the energy from windmills should be at the point where it meets the main grid, not at the site of the windmill.
MJ E
+10
Thanks!
South Australia is no Germany. If the Germans can’t do it, then tell me what are others going to be bringing to the problem that will. Chances are products of Siemens Electric of Germany are to be found in South Australia, too, as they are in Canada and other Western Countries.
This note is valid for much of the world. Can you imagine the Third World trying to cope with the insoluble issues that wiped out the “dream” (cauchemar in French and Russian – кошмар) having no experience with even conventional reliable grids? Germany definitely is the canary in the renoobles coal mine.
Whenever Energiewende is mentioned, my thoughts turn to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0DVAtYp0-E
BBC viewers wonder how such a thing is allowed to appear on a German pubic service channel. You won’t see anything like this on the BBC.
Germany’s WBGU, World in Transition – A Social Contract for Sustainability, was run by Dr. John Schellnhuber, the decarbonizer, awarded his Commander of the British Empire, CBE, in 2004 personally by the Queen at the Berlin Embassy.
The WBGU has succeeded with the Morgenthau Plan which intended the complete de-industrialization of Germany after WWII. The Marshall Plan and the KfW Reconstruction Credit Corp, based on FDR’s New Deal methods stopped that until the EU, Maastricht and the CBE finished the job.
The irony in all this is the deindustrialization of Britain itself brought Brexit down on their own heads. Look at the spectacle at Westminster! They really played the sorcerer’s apprentice of Goethe’s famous poem.
The Commander is an apprentice.
A solution would be to store the excess energy and only take energy when needed from secondary circuit. Such as the Lievense plan, which stores energy by pumping water from one lower lake (A) to another higher (B) and which has electro-generating turbines between B and A to release the water back to the lower lake and generate electric energy.
You need a pretty big lake of course, and some hefty dykes. I think I know a few people who could build it 🙂
https://books.google.nl/books?id=qq6GBPoHQpAC&pg=PA85&dq=dutch&lr=&as_pt=MAGAZINES&ei=g93JSum2B6XEzgTIl6WRBA&hl=nl&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=dutch&f=false
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Lievense
For those who do not read Dutch:
Plan Lievense was a plan for energy storage with the aid of a water buffer in the Markermeer when the intention to impolder to Markerwaard was off the track. In 1981, L.W. Lievense an alternative plan for the Markerwaard. The core of the plan was to make the Markermeer a buffer for the production of electricity. This lake should be filled with water in times of low demand and a large supply of electricity. The overcapacity that then exists in electricity production had to be used to raise the water level in the lake. When there was little supply and a lot of demand, the turbines of the lake would supply electricity. This plan was devised in connection with the problems of electricity generation with wind energy. The supply of electricity by wind turbines is erratic due to the greatly varying wind speeds and has little to do with the demand. Lievense hoped to overcome this problem by constructing this reservoir.
Capacity
In the plan a many meters high ring dike would be constructed in the Markermeer where 400 wind turbines with a capacity between 1 and 1.5 MW of power would be installed. If the lake is filled to a height h, a water level rise can increase Δh of energy
{\ displaystyle \ Delta E = \ rho \ cdot g \ cdot A \ cdot h \ cdot \ Delta h} {\ displaystyle \ Delta E = \ rho \ cdot g \ cdot A \ cdot h \ cdot \ Delta h}
be stored in which
ρ: density of water [~ 1000 kg / m³]
g: gravitational acceleration [~ 9.81 m / s² in the Netherlands]
A: surface of the lake [m²]
If this expression (in the form E = ∫ ρ · g · A · h dh) is integrated from height zero to height H, then follows:
{\ displaystyle E = \ textstyle {\ frac {1} {2}} cdot \ rho \ cdot g \ cdot A \ cdot H ^ {2} \ approx 5 \ cdot 10 ^ {3} AH ^ {2}} {\ displaystyle E = \ textstyle {\ frac {1} {2}} cdot \ rho \ cdot g \ cdot A \ cdot H ^ {2} \ approx 5 \ cdot 10 ^ {3} AH ^ {2}}
This means that 350 TJ can be stored at an area of 700 km² and a head of 10 m. This is 35% of the average daily national electricity consumption, which is 275 GWh (≈ 1000 TJ). For one day of electricity the lake would have to be pumped up to about 17 meters above NAP.
Objections
There were serious reservations against the plan due to the landscape implications and the possible ecological consequences for the Markermeer.
In the end two considerations were decisive, on the one hand the price but also the safety. A dike breach of a filled Lieven basin would flood Amsterdam. TU Delft still uses the case study of the Lievense plan in its hydraulic engineering course as an example in the category of water disasters. A “reverse reservoir” (see below) prevents this danger.
Revival
By two hydraulic engineering students, it was again calculated in 2006 by the ChristenUnie Flevoland whether the Plan Lievense is now feasible with the new techniques. [1]
The result is a design with two basins on both sides of the ring dike, of which the part on the Markermeer side covers about 60 km2, a small 10% of the total area of the Markermeer, surrounded by a dyke of about 20 meters high. Such a reservoir has an energy capacity of roughly 120 TJ.
Reverse reservoir
Bureau Lievense, together with KEMA, presented a new plan in 2007, in which the idea is reversed: the water is not pumped into the reservoir, but rather out of it, to a depth of 40 m below sea level. [2] At a surface of 40 km² and a water depth varying between 32 and 40 m below sea level, about 20 GWh (≈ 70 TJ) can then be stored. If the plan is implemented in the form of an island off the coast, there is no danger of a possible flooding of Amsterdam.
Jaap, no one seems to consider that it costs plenty, especially from non robust sources of power to even operate the pumped storage and then run it through turbines. There would be frequent times whent the cost would double the already 80 cent/kwh. You would see the need for back-up carbon power for it on many days!!
The energy theatrics smell of a giant ENRON, the Houston Ranch at the Crooked E, EU style. Enron’s accounting firm, Arthur Anderson, making everything shady legal, dissolved as the scam broke shunting its experts to PwC.
All this energy discussion is missing the point – what flows today is money, derivatives, spot prices, all needing high speed creative accounting, and a bank naturally. Considering Deutsche Bank’s numerous shady deals since it was taken over by London’s Morgan-Grenfell, it would be worth checking it’s role in energy laundering.
>> TU Delft still uses the case study of the Lievense plan in its hydraulic engineering course as an example in the category of water disasters.
LOL.
And trust me those guys know their *sh*t*…
littlepeaks,
you would be amazed coming bach to Flensburg today.
They just build large solar parks along the Autobahn just south of Flensburg.
Just trust the German government, they know what they do…
The article says:
“Construction of solar and wind “farms” has already caused massive devastation to Germany’s wildlife habitats, farmlands, ancient forests and historic villages.”
Devastated? Really? Exactly what does that mean? Perhaps someone can point me at some examples of this “devastation”?
Are they talking about devastation like an open cut coal mine in good farmland, or does wind turbines in a paddock count?
+10
Looks like the farms are doing fine.
Can you explain exactly what your point is? What is your definition of devastation?
Wind farms and solar cells are totally pointless. They cost a lot, they consume resources for their production that cannot be used for production of useful goods, but they save nothing because they can’t replace a single conventional power plants. We still depend on those and no further expansion of wind or solar can change that. The whole endeavour is nothing but waste. If Germany decided today to shut down all conventional power plants, it would mean immediate nationwide blackout and total chaos. If Germany decided today to shut down all wind turbines and solar farms, everything would go on as normal. Nobody would even notice, except electricity prices would suddenly drop about 1/3rd and with any luck we’d have a slight economical boom and unemployment would drop a few months later, thanks to lower energy costs for all companies.
Their ugliness is really just a footnote, but an ironic one given that greenies pretend they care so much for the environment when in reality their policy has really industrialised the countryside and wasted lots of agricultural land for nothing.
that’s the sad truth! —Except, they would not drop prices, rather tax the crap out of the fossil fuel energy to recoup the great losses caused by the boondoggles of wind and solar generation.
You didn’t answer the question. You made no reference to devastated farms.
“Wind farm” is a technical term that means a group of co-located wind turbines. They use up surface, usually reassigned agricultural land that can now not be used to grow crops (thus increasing food prices). This is all subsidy driven, there is no intrinsic profit for the entrepreneur or the national economy. There is no legal limit to the number of wind turbines by area, by entrepreneur, or nationwide, therefore this pseudo-growth goes on uncapped, and the rest of us pay for it through our ever increasing electricity bills for no benefit at all. This results in reassigning of large areas to totally pointless windmills, use of lots of surface, disturbance of wildlife, and spoilage of the scenery, especially so in Germany’s coastal regions. If the photos I posted don’t mean anything to you I don’t know what will.