Can renewable provide 100% of grid power reliably?

RedPlanet

Scientists of the University of Kassel in Germany prove that the entire country can be powered by renewables only. They connected biogas, wind and solar power in a distributed way and show it can deliver both baseloads and peakloads.

http://climatechangeaction.blogspot.com/2008/01/can-renewable-provide-100-of-grid-power.html
Very nice short documentary there.
For your viewing pleasure.

Lennoxschips

What exactly is biogas? It sounds like something that displaces food production. Or does it run off sewerage gas?

RedPlanet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogas

SeanW

Scientists of the University of Kassel in Germany prove that the entire country can be powered by renewables only. They connected biogas, wind and solar power in a distributed way and show it can deliver both baseloads and peakloads.

Somebody might want to point that out to Angela Merkel.

RedPlanet

But doesn't anybody think its FANTASTIC, that a large-scale experiment proves that Germany can be powered via renewables only?
Or is it that some of us are so partisan to their pro-nuclear positions that they'd rather just not hear about the success of renewables?
Which in my mind confirms that the choice is either nuclear or renewables, because investing in nuclear will squash any real pursuit of using renewables.

SeanW

RedPlanet wrote: »

But doesn't anybody think its FANTASTIC, that a large-scale experiment proves that Germany can be powered via renewables only?
Or is it that some of us are so partisan to their pro-nuclear positions that they'd rather just not hear about the success of renewables?
Which in my mind confirms that the choice is either nuclear or renewables, because investing in nuclear will squash any real pursuit of using renewables.

Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. I would LOVE to see something like this working. It would kick ass. I looked at that video and was quite impressed and I like what they're doing.

The problem, as I've demonstrated, is that the German's themselves don't believe it. So why the hell should I?

Germany, as I've shown time and time again, is plunging head first, irreversibly into a new Coal Age. For a nation that normally has a stellar track record for environmentalism this doesn't make sense. Time and time again, I have asked the anti-nuke camp to explain why. I am almost certain that I know, but I keep hoping that your side will be able to give me explanation that proves me wrong.

Yet every time I do, I am either ignored, or someone has a go. Same old, same old, it seems.

Finally, I have said consistently that I support a multi-pronged non-fossil strategy that includes renewables, nuclear, biofuels and conservation measures. I do not know how I can be more clear about this. Each has a significant role to play. I am just not keen push any one or two of these components as "the answer" since I believe it's an 'all hands on deck' kind of thing.

probe

RWE's CO2 scrubbing process is only 90% efficient when extracting CO2 from coal fuelled stations - which leaves about 90 g/kWh of CO2. They need to get it up to 97% efficiency to make it as CO2 clean as wind.

http://www.rwe.com/generator.aspx/konzern/fue/strom/co2-freies-kraftwerk/language=en/id=268960/co2-page.html

And it looks as if it will only be available around 2014. The CO2 emissions should be taxed accordingly.

The recent announcements from the EU might force Germany/RWE to re-visit the proposals. However, I doubt it. Whenever France or Germany wants something, the EU jumps and enforces it on the other states. Even Britain has managed to get the EU to enforce Britain's nasty, intrusive (and unnecessary outside of Britain, Israel and the US) airport security regulations on the rest of us.

.probe

probe

RedPlanet wrote: »

http://climatechangeaction.blogspot.com/2008/01/can-renewable-provide-100-of-grid-power.html
Very nice short documentary there.
For your viewing pleasure.

The bottom line is that there IS NO ALTERNATIVE. At the end of the day, oil, gas, coal and uranium will be all gone.

The world will have to become totally reliant on renewables - and the sooner it achieves this, the better. National power grids can be managed to balance the various sources of green energy as this video attempts to demonstrate.

Add continent-wide and global interconnection of national grids into the equation, and 100% renewable energy living is perfectly doable.

Aviation is the one area where it will take some time.

.probe

RedPlanet

SeanW wrote: »

Germany, as I've shown time and time again, is plunging head first, irreversibly into a new Coal Age. For a nation that normally has a stellar track record for environmentalism this doesn't make sense. Time and time again, I have asked the anti-nuke camp to explain why. I am almost certain that I know, but I keep hoping that your side will be able to give me explanation that proves me wrong.

Do you expect me to know someting about the political decision making in Germany?
I honestly know next to nothing about German politics. I can think of a few hypothetical scenarios off the top of my head, but it would be pure guess-work on my part.
You claim to be almost certain of the reason, why not tell us?

SeanW

OK, here's how I understand it. The previous German government was led by the main left-wing party, the SPD. This party opposes nuclear power and decided to phase out Germany's nuclear power plants (accounting for approximately 33% of its electricity supply) by 2020 and not allow any replacements.

In the most recent elections of 2005, the SPD and the CDU (Christian Democratic Union) both polled very highly, each getting about 40% of seats in the Reichstag. Since neither party could form a coalition on their own, the two main parties had little choice but to form a grand coalition.

One of the red line issues for the SPD was that there is no reversal of the last governments decision to phase out nuclear energy. The direct consequence of this has been the spree of coal-plant building outlined in the Der Spiegel article above.

Now, the video talked about both the elimination of nuclear energy, but it also asserted that Germany was to phase out coal mining, and the video focused heavily on "the lights going out in Germany." Which is a bit ridiculous since if the grid collapsed in Germany, it would also go down throughout Continental Europe, and that would not be allowed to happen. Obviously, something has changed since that video was made.

So the video is either years old, is somehow logically insolvent, or both, and nothing has happened, except that the government has resorted to default measures to keep the lights on. That means one of 3 things:
1) The government doesn't know about the Kassel experiment.
2) They looked at it, but concluded it was not feasable to repeat on a large scale.
3) They ignored it for political reasons.

Which it is, I honestly do not know. What I do know, is that Germany is going hell-for-leather into a new Coal Age (with the full backing of its environmentalists), brought on almost exclusively by its decision to abandon nuclear electricty, and for whatever reason renewables are completely unable to fill any of the void.

RedPlanet

SeanW wrote: »

....the video focused heavily on "the lights going out in Germany." Which is a bit ridiculous since if the grid collapsed in Germany, it would also go down throughout Continental Europe, and that would not be allowed to happen. Obviously, something has changed since that video was made.
So the video is either years old, is somehow logically insolvent, or both, and nothing has happened, except that the government has resorted to default measures to keep the lights on. That means one of 3 things:
1) The government doesn't know about the Kassel experiment.
2) They looked at it, but concluded it was not feasable to repeat on a large scale.
3) They ignored it for political reasons.

Respectfully SeanW, i think you've read too much into the introduction of that video. Look at it again. The part you are talking about occurs in the first 30 seconds of the video and appears to me, to be sensationalist.
Nowhere else in the video is a possiblity of "lights going out in Germany" dicussed.

Here is a link to a site for the experiment:
http://www.kombikraftwerk.de/index.php?id=27
October 2007?

Lennoxschips

The German electricity market has been highly privatised, so Angela Merkel has very little say in what goes on.

As long as coal and other carbon based fuels are cheap to burn private companies will continue to burn it in order to turn a profit.

probe

Germany is a large, diversified, democratic, federal country, with a constitution and a robust efficient court system, working from a modern, codified civil law system.

Merkel is not a Hitler style dictator who can decide a single route for energy policy and “enforce” her will on the states.

The Kassel University energy management trial is an attempt at an holistic approach to managing the nation’s energy production to meet demand in as green a way as is possible. Probably one of many projects of this type in Germany.

There is no reason why “clean coal” power plants run by RWE and others can’t fit into the Kassel strategy. Their output can be taxed based on CO2 intensity. RWE is still up against three realities:

1) Coal is a finite resource
2) There is only storage space for about 40 years of CO2 sequestration in Germany
3) CO2 taxation

The transition to carbon free energy systems will be gradual and has to be managed. Carbon intensive energy systems can’t be allowed to trample over green energy producers – otherwise a country will end up in an energy crunch situation where energy prices will be going through the roof and supplies dwindling, and no alternatives are in place. That transition will take place surprisingly fast - probably as fast as the "celtic tiger" died.

Germany has been good at managing the transition. They have over 21 GW of installed wind capacity, producing 30 billion kWh – the highest in the world. Spain is second with 12 GW. (Denmark has 3GW). Germany plans to triple its wind energy production to 90 billion kWh.

Cheap nuclear power has killed wind energy in France (French installed wind capacity is a paltry 1.6 GW, which is only about twice that of Ireland).

Ireland is in the worst position of all from the point of view of its dependence on imported fossil fuels and the absence of a cast in stone strategy to move from an almost totally fossil economy to a totally renewable economy. Ireland is whinging about the EU’s proposal for it to become 20% renewable energy based by 2020. Sweden plans to be 49% renewable by the same date.

There is enough on and offshore wind energy in Ireland to power four or five Irelands….. Not to mention wind, wave, tidal, un-exploited hydro, etc etc.

Never before has a country had so much and achieved so little.

A truly fossilised country!

.probe

SeanW

Lennoxschips wrote: »

The German electricity market has been highly privatised, so Angela Merkel has very little say in what goes on.

Read the article. There is a lot politics going on behind the scenes, and the entire government has been absolutely crystal clear - it explicity encourages Germany's energy industry to expand the use of coal power.

"Merkel has explicitly encouraged energy companies to invest in coal-burning: "Germany has considerable natural resources in the form of brown coal which we shouldn't downplay," she told an audience of businesspeople last year."

As long as coal and other carbon based fuels are cheap to burn private companies will continue to burn it in order to turn a profit.

Exactly. That's why those of us who care about the enviornment must support ALL reasonable alternatives.

probe wrote:

Merkel is not a Hitler style dictator who can decide a single route for energy policy and “enforce” her will on the states.

FFS did either of you ready the article? I'm tempted to remind you of Godwin's Law.

"But there isn't much local politicians can do to stop construction of the new power plants. By German law, the authorities normally have no choice but to authorize the construction of any new power plant that meets the legally prescribed standards. It would only be possible to change this procedure quickly if the governing coalition were to change the law at the federal level."

Cheap nuclear power has killed wind energy in France

But it's done a much better job at killing the fossil-fuel electricity sector in France, nuclear only amounts to ~80% of electricity production.

About ~15% is hydroelectric.

Lennoxschips

FFS yourself.

It doesn't matter what Angela Merkel tells them to do, tell them to burn coal or not to burn coal, they'll still do what they want, as they are private companies operating in a private market. They are choosing to burn coal because that is the most financially attractive option, not because Angela Merkel said something at a speech somewhere.

Only the EU can influence these power companies' trends through a carbon tax which would make burning coal unattractive. Of course, Germany and Angela Merkel have significant influence over the EU and could press for such a carbon tax at EU level.

But politicians have no interest in the environment, this is not new. Look at Ireland even with the Greens supposedly in power. If we were to enforce an 80 km/hr speed limit (the most efficient speed) on all motorways and dual carriageways the fuel consumption rate on those roads would be reduced by some 40% when compared to 120 km/hr. You'd have a very sizeable reduction in CO2 emissions overnight. Of course such a speed limit would be extremely unpopular amongst the electorate so they won't do it.

Capt'n Midnight

Lennoxschips wrote:

If we were to enforce an 80 km/hr speed limit (the most efficient speed) on all motorways and dual carriageways the fuel consumption rate on those roads would be reduced by some 40% when compared to 120 km/hr. You'd have a very sizeable reduction in CO2 emissions overnight. Of course such a speed limit would be extremely unpopular amongst the electorate so they won't do it.

We have far too many new regulations to cover stuff that is only a problem because existing laws aren't enforced

If we were to enforce the current speed limits, especially on trucks...
If we were to enforce the ban on unaccompanied L drivers to ease congestion..
If we were to enforce driving in Bus Lanes so buses would not get delayed...

If we were to put flashing amber on traffic lights on side roads off peak
If we were to provide more buses and allow CIE to reclaim routes that private companies own but don't provide a service on.

If we did like England where you have to use condensing boilers
If we were to increase the tax on heating oil / gas / coal BUT with 100% of the proceeds to be be spent on impovements like insulation grants / double glazing (but only where other improvements have been carried out first) / condensing boilers etc.

If we were to allow people to claim milage on bikes like they do for cars
If we were to allow people tax rebates on buying bikes
If we were to tax car parking spaces as BIK based on the cost of providing them or say 75% of the cost of nearby on street or commercial parking .

Lennoxschips

That's exactly it, all we get is lip service instead.

Or a new CO2-related car tax that will only apply to new cars and not retrospectively... essentially encouraging people to buy new cars. Even though 2/3s of a car's lifetime emissions are in the production stage.

I don't doubt this German study, it's just that it will never come to fruition in any country in the current political system. The awareness that would need to be generated for it to filter through to the voters would only be the kind of awareness that is generated when it's already too late... e.g. Cork city centre flooded and the DART falling into the sea.

SeanW

Lennoxschips wrote: »

It doesn't matter what Angela Merkel tells them to do, tell them to burn coal or not to burn coal, they'll still do what they want, as they are private companies operating in a private market.

Nonsense. They use whatever generation method they're told they can use. If, for example, black coal were to be taxed while brown coal was banned, two things would happen, but with policy to support renewables and a continued nuclear programme.

1) The Kassel experiment would start to look more attractive to the private sector.
2) Nuclear would be a serious contender to pick up whatever supply the renewables were unable to supply.

They are choosing to burn coal because that is the most financially attractive option, not because Angela Merkel said something at a speech somewhere.

They are choosing to burn coal because that's what government is telling them to do, both through legislation and incentives.

If we were to enforce an 80 km/hr speed limit (the most efficient speed) on all motorways and dual carriageways the fuel consumption rate on those roads would be reduced by some 40% when compared to 120 km/hr.

Yet again, you and the German SPD are singing from the same hymn sheet - since they want to put a blanket speed limit on the Autobahn of 130kph (around half of the German Autobahnen have no speed limts at present).

Of course such a speed limit would be extremely unpopular amongst the electorate so they won't do it.

And therein lies the problem. Neither this nor any of the other changes you would like to force on people will be popular.

So the attention must, therefore, turn to what is actually realistic. And it at this point that I have had a higher tendancy to limit my arguments.

ga2re2t

Getting back to the original question:
Can renewables provide 100% of grid power reliably?

and only having read quicky through this thread, here are my two cents:

No, I believe that, as it stands, renewables cannot provide 100% of grid power reliably. However, if the technology existed to store very very large amounts of energy in an efficient manner, then the question would be less of an issue. Some interesting concepts for storing energy are flywheel energy storage, superconducting magnetic energy storage, compressed air and supercapacitors

Lennoxschips

They are choosing to burn coal because that's what government is telling them to do, both through legislation and incentives.

When, since energy privatisation, has the German government actively legislated for the use of coal?

Yet again, you and the German SPD are singing from the same hymn sheet - since they want to put a blanket speed limit on the Autobahn of 130kph (around half of the German Autobahnen have no speed limts at present).

It's a different hymn sheet, they are proposing 130 km/hr, which is higher than any limit in Ireland and 50 km/hr higher than what I just proposed earlier.

And therein lies the problem. Neither this nor any of the other changes you would like to force on people will be popular.

So the attention must, therefore, turn to what is actually realistic.

The USA had a federally mandated national 55 mph (=88 km/hr) speed limit for nearly 20 years. So it is has been shown, even in the home of car culture, to be a feasible and realistic proposition.

The Amsterdam and Paris ring roads both have 80 km/hr limits.

It's such a blindingly simple measure, drive a bit slower and use nearly half the fuel.

SeanW

I will write a full response to your latest post in a new thread later since we are digressing from the topic here.

Two questions about the reserve-power technologies in the Kassel experiment.

1) Is it feasable to find enough up mountain basins to store pumped hydro water, for the purposes of covering 100% renewables.
2) Can the biogas system be expanded, or does it suffer from the same issues as biodiesel, i.e. needs lots of land to do it on a larger scale?

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

Can the biogas system be expanded, or does it suffer from the same issues as biodiesel, i.e. needs lots of land to do it on a larger scale?

Biogas can be produced using any form of biodegradable waste, e.g. silage, domestic food waste or even sewage - basically, anything that can be digested anaerobically.

RedPlanet

ga2re2t wrote: »

Getting back to the original question:
Can renewables provide 100% of grid power reliably?

and only having read quicky through this thread, here are my two cents:

No, I believe that, as it stands, renewables cannot provide 100% of grid power reliably. However, if the technology existed to store very very large amounts of energy in an efficient manner, then the question would be less of an issue.

Why not actually watch the video?
What are you basing your opinion on?
"Conventional wisdom"?
In the video the Kassel experiment proves they can handle base-load and peaks via renewables only.

ga2re2t

RedPlanet wrote: »

Why not actually watch the video?

I will, I promise! I'm just a lil lazy! I also just want to express my views before watching the video. I'll see if my views change after watching it, it's more interesting that way

What are you basing your opinion on?
"Conventional wisdom"?

Hmmm, what exactly is "conventional"? Actually, my opinions are based on much reading on the subject, whether in the press, science articles, or internet. I'm also of the opinion that one should be realistic and should separate what is technically feasible from what is polically feasible. Again, maybe I'll change my mind after watching the video.

In the video the Kassel experiment proves they can handle base-load and peaks via renewables only.

Looking forward to watching the video then