3 ms·

> Of course, but what is your point? That you can't compare two requirements when the consequences for failing to meet them are so different. To make an iffy c

by pyrale 4y ago

> Of course, but what is your point? That you can't compare two requirements when the consequences for failing to meet them are so different. To make an iffy comparison, you don't need brakes on a skateboard just as much as you need brakes on a car, even if a skateboard would stop a bit faster with brakes. Incidentally, a few remarks on some unrelated points that were brought up: > Not through centralized planning but by making sure we have a market where we pay for people to provide what is needed. And we're seeing how well it's going. > How to make sure that everything that is needed in order to have sufficient production capacity in all scenarios is also built is not in the responsibility of TSOs. No, but as coordinators of the grid, TSOs have a lot to say about the impact and viability of production choices. There's a reason why TSOs publish their own studies on this topic. > much more so than the hypothetical issue of under-supply in 10-20 years that you raise for which the basic organisational mechanisms are in place I don't remember raising that point. Long-term supply volume decisions are a political choice, on which TSOs have no unique insight. > Finally: As to the idea that energy systems are optimized for reliability first, and that renewables threaten this somehow You keep bringing renewables in the discussion, I really don't know why.

Certhas 4y ago
I am not sure I see the point of continuing this. Other than I initially thought you clearly are knowledgeable, yet you refuse to cleanly argue your point. You attacked me directly for bringing up that storage has a role to play in nuclear as well as renewables, and now you claim that renewables are not the point. I never claimed that they played the same role either. Again, why is that an issue? That said, the point of storage for nuclear is exactly also that you don't build out the peak load, so if large scale storage failure leading to undersupply is your worry (as you indicate elsewhere), then that is a concern for this scenario as well. But again, why? Storage backed energy grids are already a reality: we were running Europe on stored Gas for much of the winter. We are not talking about hypothetical batteries but about storing methane/H2 and operating gas power plants in these scenarios. Nothing in this tech stack is unproven by now, it is primarily a question of economics. You insinuate (without clarifying) that markets arent working, yet we have fantastically reliable grids in Europe. Finally, the degree to which economics trumps reliability can be seen very directly in the energy-only vs capacity market debate. Energy only puts the critical safety decisions in the hand of market actors. Negative and very high positive prices in the market are supposed to incentivise building a base load that will only run for a few weeks a year and feeding it with flexibly produced gas/storage. Capacity markets put the decision how much of this to build I. The hands of the planners and engineers instead. Much to the horror of most engineers and planners I know energy-only markets won the political debate a few years ago. It seems politicians really hate giving engineers money to spend on reliability directly. This debate probably would work if we were at a bar or conference, but it's not really clear it makes sense here...
- pyrale 4y ago
  > yet you refuse to cleanly argue your point. It's not a very large point, and I believe I fleshed it enough already. > so if large scale storage failure leading to undersupply is your worry (as you indicate elsewhere) I don't remember mentioning that. If we work under the hypothesis that we have large scale power supply available at reasonable cost, then yes, there is no reason not to use them. Currently, pumpable hydro is the closest we have, and it's more or less capped out here. > But again, why? Storage backed energy grids are already a reality: we were running Europe on stored Gas for much of the winter. This is the first time I hear someone mention gas as storage, in the context of a power grid. If you forget emissions, then, I guess, why not. But if you forget emissions, 90% of the public discourse on the european power grid stops making sense. To date, I have knowledge of no large-scale environmentally viable way to produce this fuel in a renewable way. > You insinuate (without clarifying) that markets arent working, yet we have fantastically reliable grids in Europe. The grid was already working well before the introduction of markets. Since then, in my neck of the woods we have seen a complete failure of investment in the production side. In other countries that already had a built grid like us, renewal was only possible with heavy public subsidies. I would welcome an explanation on what you believe markets brought to an already working grid.
  - Certhas 4y ago
    Power2Gas has been a major topic. And the idea that this will become highly relevant in about a decade is behind the idea to allow Gas infrastructure investment as Green in Europe. This means Hydrogen but also synthetic natural gas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas Methanation and methane storage is at the same level as Hydorgen storage in optimal models. This here has 500 citations: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.05290.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.05290.pdf They also cite something I haven't personally read, but which goes back all the way to 2009, again with hundreds of citations: M. Sterner, Bioenergy and renewable power methane in integrated 100% renewable energy systems, Ph.D. thesis, Kassel University (2009). Of course as the roundtrip efficiency is better, its preferable to store Hydrogen directly if that is feasible (and this is why a pure electricity sector optimization model will never show methane). But fundamentally the idea has been for a long time to run Gas power plants on carbon neural gases. This is an explicit point in the EU Taxonomy of labeling Gas investments as green. They can only do so if they retrofitted to running on carbon free gas from 2035 onwards. Siemens is selling their stuff as H2-ready for that exact reason [1]. Pumped hydro can not be meaningfully expanded, its only a small part of the overall solution. [1] https://www.siemens-energy.com/global/en/news/magazine/2022/hydrogen-ready.html https://www.siemens-energy.com/global/en/news/magazine/2022/...

by pyrale 4y ago

Certhas 4y ago

I am not sure I see the point of continuing this. Other than I initially thought you clearly are knowledgeable, yet you refuse to cleanly argue your point. You attacked me directly for bringing up that storage has a role to play in nuclear as well as renewables, and now you claim that renewables are not the point. I never claimed that they played the same role either. Again, why is that an issue? That said, the point of storage for nuclear is exactly also that you don't build out the peak load, so if large scale storage failure leading to undersupply is your worry (as you indicate elsewhere), then that is a concern for this scenario as well. But again, why? Storage backed energy grids are already a reality: we were running Europe on stored Gas for much of the winter. We are not talking about hypothetical batteries but about storing methane/H2 and operating gas power plants in these scenarios. Nothing in this tech stack is unproven by now, it is primarily a question of economics. You insinuate (without clarifying) that markets arent working, yet we have fantastically reliable grids in Europe. Finally, the degree to which economics trumps reliability can be seen very directly in the energy-only vs capacity market debate. Energy only puts the critical safety decisions in the hand of market actors. Negative and very high positive prices in the market are supposed to incentivise building a base load that will only run for a few weeks a year and feeding it with flexibly produced gas/storage. Capacity markets put the decision how much of this to build I. The hands of the planners and engineers instead. Much to the horror of most engineers and planners I know energy-only markets won the political debate a few years ago. It seems politicians really hate giving engineers money to spend on reliability directly. This debate probably would work if we were at a bar or conference, but it's not really clear it makes sense here...

pyrale 4y ago
> yet you refuse to cleanly argue your point. It's not a very large point, and I believe I fleshed it enough already. > so if large scale storage failure leading to undersupply is your worry (as you indicate elsewhere) I don't remember mentioning that. If we work under the hypothesis that we have large scale power supply available at reasonable cost, then yes, there is no reason not to use them. Currently, pumpable hydro is the closest we have, and it's more or less capped out here. > But again, why? Storage backed energy grids are already a reality: we were running Europe on stored Gas for much of the winter. This is the first time I hear someone mention gas as storage, in the context of a power grid. If you forget emissions, then, I guess, why not. But if you forget emissions, 90% of the public discourse on the european power grid stops making sense. To date, I have knowledge of no large-scale environmentally viable way to produce this fuel in a renewable way. > You insinuate (without clarifying) that markets arent working, yet we have fantastically reliable grids in Europe. The grid was already working well before the introduction of markets. Since then, in my neck of the woods we have seen a complete failure of investment in the production side. In other countries that already had a built grid like us, renewal was only possible with heavy public subsidies. I would welcome an explanation on what you believe markets brought to an already working grid.
- Certhas 4y ago
  Power2Gas has been a major topic. And the idea that this will become highly relevant in about a decade is behind the idea to allow Gas infrastructure investment as Green in Europe. This means Hydrogen but also synthetic natural gas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas Methanation and methane storage is at the same level as Hydorgen storage in optimal models. This here has 500 citations: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.05290.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.05290.pdf They also cite something I haven't personally read, but which goes back all the way to 2009, again with hundreds of citations: M. Sterner, Bioenergy and renewable power methane in integrated 100% renewable energy systems, Ph.D. thesis, Kassel University (2009). Of course as the roundtrip efficiency is better, its preferable to store Hydrogen directly if that is feasible (and this is why a pure electricity sector optimization model will never show methane). But fundamentally the idea has been for a long time to run Gas power plants on carbon neural gases. This is an explicit point in the EU Taxonomy of labeling Gas investments as green. They can only do so if they retrofitted to running on carbon free gas from 2035 onwards. Siemens is selling their stuff as H2-ready for that exact reason [1]. Pumped hydro can not be meaningfully expanded, its only a small part of the overall solution. [1] https://www.siemens-energy.com/global/en/news/magazine/2022/hydrogen-ready.html https://www.siemens-energy.com/global/en/news/magazine/2022/...