4 ms·

This model thinks that 5 hours gets us to 97%: https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-grid-is-well-within-reach-and-with-little-storage/ ht

by pydry 3y ago

This model thinks that 5 hours gets us to 97%: https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-grid-is-well-within-reach-and-with-little-storage/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-g... 5 hours is pretty doable with batteries and pumped storage. It's a lot and very expensive but not an impossible amount and there aren't any cheaper/quicker alternatives that I'm aware of. I think Australia will be almost half way to 5 hours already once Snowy 2 is finished. That's just one pumped storage plant & studies show that the geography to build more is plentiful. That last 3% can probably be eventually provided with via hydrogen, which, unlike the other two, is inefficient to roundtrip (~45%) but it lets you store large amounts of power for long durations easily.

pfdietz 3y ago
Glad to hear someone else beating the hydrogen (or some e-fuel) drum for that last few percent.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
  I do not understand why there is not more focus on fuel synthesis. If electricity becomes “free” for hours a day, even crummy roundtrip efficiency seems like a great option to soak up extra capacity and get long term (seasonal?) storage.
  - ftth_finland 3y ago
    Can you run fuel synthesis profitably purely on intermittent renewable power and scale up and down in real-time? Capital costs are high and utilization will be low.
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      The key is sufficiently cheap electrolysers. They are below $300/kW now. The other steps (if any) have higher capital cost/energy cost ratios, so they can be done when energy is more expensive.
      - ftth_finland 3y ago
        Can you explain how the costs pencil out? Today, in Finland, renewables produced between 0,2 GW and 1,5 GW. Does that mean I would need $450M (1,5 GW * $300/kW) in electrolysers to soak up all that power? For simplicity's sake, let's say output averages 1GW over 24 hours? What do I get for the day with my $450M electrolysis plant?
        pfdietz 3y ago
        There's a tradeoff between the cost of excess solar/wind and the capacity factor of the electrolysers. You can get a handle on where the tradeoffs lie by looking at optimizations using historical weather data. https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/ For Finland, the 2030 assumptions number (for "synthetic baseload" from renewables + storage) is just under their "EPR" number (which may be a bit optimistic, given your experience with an EPR). As I said, Finland is a tough case for renewables. The solution has > 400 MW each of solar and wind, and 110 MW of electrolysers (to provide 100 MW of synthetic baseload).
        ftth_finland 3y ago
        That's a very interesting site. I got Average system cost [EUR/MWh]: 101.9 which is more than nuclear, when solving for renewables + storage + hydrogen.
        pfdietz 3y ago
        As I said, Finland is one of the worst locations for renewables. There, nuclear remains at least within spitting distance of being competitive. But as I also said elsewhere in these comments, this just means Finland (and other nearby countries at high latitude and without good wind resources) will become energy ghettos. They will lose their energy intensive industries. You will not be able to compete in such industries with countries where solar seasonality is low and insolation is very high. This means your energy consumption per capita will be depressed. Can a nuclear industry survive powering a handful of such disadvantaged countries? Maybe they'll just import energy from elsewhere (hydrogen can be piped like natural gas; while it has less energy per unit volume it also has considerably lower viscosity, reducing pumping costs.)
    - pydry 3y ago
      Sort of. Doing that would still be cheaper than nuclear power whose capital costs are insane. Does that count as profitable? It would be cheaper still to throw pumped storage and batteries into the mix.
      - ftth_finland 3y ago
        > Sort of. Doing that would still be cheaper than nuclear power whose capital costs are insane. Does that count as profitable? Yes. What do I get for $15B? How many GWh of storage and electricity generation? > It would be cheaper still to throw pumped storage and batteries into the mix. What pumped storate? Everybody is already about maxed out on hydro capability. What batteries? The world is barely producing enough for EVs and other stuff, there aren't enough GWhs available for utility storage.
        pfdietz 3y ago
        > What pumped storate? Everybody is already about maxed out on hydro capability. You are making the common mistake of assuming pumped hydro must, like primary hydro, be built on rivers. But pumped hydro just requires two reservoirs near each other with a vertical offset (although one can imagine repurposing an existing on-river reservoir by adding a separate off-river reservoir nearby at a different altitude; any reservoir with a sizeable hill nearby would do.) They could be built anywhere that isn't flat, even in deserts. This web site uses geographical data to find PHES opportunities around the world. The possibilities are enormous. https://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/global/ https://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/global/ As an example, here's a facility being built near Ely, Nevada. Look how arid the area is. This facility is sized to provide 1000 MW of output for 8 hours. At $2.5B, the cost of the project is ~$316/kWh of storage capacity. https://www.powermag.com/major-pumped-hydro-storage-project-moves-forward-in-nevada/ https://www.powermag.com/major-pumped-hydro-storage-project-... > What batteries? The world is barely producing enough for EVs and other stuff, there aren't enough GWhs available for utility storage. You are again making a foolish argument that production of things cannot be increased. Please stop. One would almost begin to think you're arguing in bad faith here.
  - _hypx 3y ago
    You are describing e-fuels. Hydrogen from excess renewables is the same idea. The critics are simply not paying attention to the fact that green energy is nearly free and therefore fuels made from it can also be nearly free.
    - ftth_finland 3y ago
      The plants aren't free.
      - _hypx 3y ago
        Same issue with wind and solar. Sure, you have to build them first, but afterwards it's a continuous stream of virtually free energy.
        ftth_finland 3y ago
        How much is virtually free? How much will each kWh generated from synthetic fuels cost?
        _hypx 3y ago
        As free as green electricity itself. You're just reusing the same attacks that were used against wind and solar.
        ftth_finland 3y ago
        Asking questions is attacking, now is it? What are we, snowflakes? Can you please answer the question with dollars and cents? Or if you don't know, say so. Green electricity isn't free. Neither will synthetic fuels be.
        _hypx 3y ago
        Is green electricity suppose to be nonviable now? If you can accept that green electricity, which will be the dominate source of unexpected cost, is going to be very cheap, then anything predominately made from it will also be very cheap. This is a repeat of the anti-wind and solar attacks because it is the same general principle. Basically an appeal to the unknown that the new green technology couldn't possibly be cheap, despite plenty of evidence that cost is dropping or that there is no expensive supply chain.
- ftth_finland 3y ago
  "Combustion turbines for 100% hydrogen are not commercially available today." https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus/ https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-e... How are you going to use hydrogen to generate electricity without generating CO2 and other emissions? How are you going to make e-fuel or other synthetic fuels cost effectively? Even if electricity is free, the plants aren't.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Industrial combustion turbines have been available for decades that burn hydrogen (in waste gases from various industrial processes, and also in jet engines adapted to burn hydrogen). It's just a matter of designing a combustor that works with the gas. This is known to be a solvable problem. If a particular high end gas turbine that's available today doesn't yet have a hydrogen combustor, that just means this solvable problem has to again be solved in this case.
    - ftth_finland 3y ago
      How is your comment different from: "Combustion turbines for 100% hydrogen are not commercially available today."
      - pfdietz 3y ago
        It rejects the insinuation that this is somehow an obstacle to using hydrogen burning turbines in the future. And that insinuation is there, or else why did you bring that up?
        ftth_finland 3y ago
        > It rejects the insinuation that this is somehow an obstacle to using hydrogen burning turbines in the future. There is no insinuation, it's just a statement of fact. Combustion turbines for 100% hydrogen are not commercially available today. We literally cannot burn 100% hydrogen at scale to provide utility power today. We may be able to do so in the future, which would be great. Even better if we can do so without emissions and cheaper than other alternatives. But we cannot do so today. Siemens thinks we can do 100% combustion turbines in about a decade or so. Time will tell. There may be obstacles or maybe everything goes swimmingly. > And that insinuation is there, or else why did you bring that up? I brought it up because it is a pertinent detail. Hydrogen is touted as being the solution to storage for renewables. We are still far from that. According to https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/ it might not be such an affordable solution. And even with 100% hydrogen combustion turbines there is the question of storage. Salt caves are cheap, steel storage tanks aren't.

by pydry 3y ago

pfdietz 3y ago

Glad to hear someone else beating the hydrogen (or some e-fuel) drum for that last few percent.

0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
I do not understand why there is not more focus on fuel synthesis. If electricity becomes “free” for hours a day, even crummy roundtrip efficiency seems like a great option to soak up extra capacity and get long term (seasonal?) storage.
- ftth_finland 3y ago
  Can you run fuel synthesis profitably purely on intermittent renewable power and scale up and down in real-time? Capital costs are high and utilization will be low.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    The key is sufficiently cheap electrolysers. They are below $300/kW now. The other steps (if any) have higher capital cost/energy cost ratios, so they can be done when energy is more expensive.
    - ftth_finland 3y ago
      Can you explain how the costs pencil out? Today, in Finland, renewables produced between 0,2 GW and 1,5 GW. Does that mean I would need $450M (1,5 GW * $300/kW) in electrolysers to soak up all that power? For simplicity's sake, let's say output averages 1GW over 24 hours? What do I get for the day with my $450M electrolysis plant?
      - pfdietz 3y ago
        There's a tradeoff between the cost of excess solar/wind and the capacity factor of the electrolysers. You can get a handle on where the tradeoffs lie by looking at optimizations using historical weather data. https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/ For Finland, the 2030 assumptions number (for "synthetic baseload" from renewables + storage) is just under their "EPR" number (which may be a bit optimistic, given your experience with an EPR). As I said, Finland is a tough case for renewables. The solution has > 400 MW each of solar and wind, and 110 MW of electrolysers (to provide 100 MW of synthetic baseload).
        ftth_finland 3y ago
        That's a very interesting site. I got Average system cost [EUR/MWh]: 101.9 which is more than nuclear, when solving for renewables + storage + hydrogen.
        pfdietz 3y ago
        As I said, Finland is one of the worst locations for renewables. There, nuclear remains at least within spitting distance of being competitive. But as I also said elsewhere in these comments, this just means Finland (and other nearby countries at high latitude and without good wind resources) will become energy ghettos. They will lose their energy intensive industries. You will not be able to compete in such industries with countries where solar seasonality is low and insolation is very high. This means your energy consumption per capita will be depressed. Can a nuclear industry survive powering a handful of such disadvantaged countries? Maybe they'll just import energy from elsewhere (hydrogen can be piped like natural gas; while it has less energy per unit volume it also has considerably lower viscosity, reducing pumping costs.)
  - pydry 3y ago
    Sort of. Doing that would still be cheaper than nuclear power whose capital costs are insane. Does that count as profitable? It would be cheaper still to throw pumped storage and batteries into the mix.
    - ftth_finland 3y ago
      > Sort of. Doing that would still be cheaper than nuclear power whose capital costs are insane. Does that count as profitable? Yes. What do I get for $15B? How many GWh of storage and electricity generation? > It would be cheaper still to throw pumped storage and batteries into the mix. What pumped storate? Everybody is already about maxed out on hydro capability. What batteries? The world is barely producing enough for EVs and other stuff, there aren't enough GWhs available for utility storage.
      - pfdietz 3y ago
        > What pumped storate? Everybody is already about maxed out on hydro capability. You are making the common mistake of assuming pumped hydro must, like primary hydro, be built on rivers. But pumped hydro just requires two reservoirs near each other with a vertical offset (although one can imagine repurposing an existing on-river reservoir by adding a separate off-river reservoir nearby at a different altitude; any reservoir with a sizeable hill nearby would do.) They could be built anywhere that isn't flat, even in deserts. This web site uses geographical data to find PHES opportunities around the world. The possibilities are enormous. https://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/global/ https://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/global/ As an example, here's a facility being built near Ely, Nevada. Look how arid the area is. This facility is sized to provide 1000 MW of output for 8 hours. At $2.5B, the cost of the project is ~$316/kWh of storage capacity. https://www.powermag.com/major-pumped-hydro-storage-project-moves-forward-in-nevada/ https://www.powermag.com/major-pumped-hydro-storage-project-... > What batteries? The world is barely producing enough for EVs and other stuff, there aren't enough GWhs available for utility storage. You are again making a foolish argument that production of things cannot be increased. Please stop. One would almost begin to think you're arguing in bad faith here.
- _hypx 3y ago
  You are describing e-fuels. Hydrogen from excess renewables is the same idea. The critics are simply not paying attention to the fact that green energy is nearly free and therefore fuels made from it can also be nearly free.
  - ftth_finland 3y ago
    The plants aren't free.
    - _hypx 3y ago
      Same issue with wind and solar. Sure, you have to build them first, but afterwards it's a continuous stream of virtually free energy.
      - ftth_finland 3y ago
        How much is virtually free? How much will each kWh generated from synthetic fuels cost?
        _hypx 3y ago
        As free as green electricity itself. You're just reusing the same attacks that were used against wind and solar.
        ftth_finland 3y ago
        Asking questions is attacking, now is it? What are we, snowflakes? Can you please answer the question with dollars and cents? Or if you don't know, say so. Green electricity isn't free. Neither will synthetic fuels be.
        _hypx 3y ago
        Is green electricity suppose to be nonviable now? If you can accept that green electricity, which will be the dominate source of unexpected cost, is going to be very cheap, then anything predominately made from it will also be very cheap. This is a repeat of the anti-wind and solar attacks because it is the same general principle. Basically an appeal to the unknown that the new green technology couldn't possibly be cheap, despite plenty of evidence that cost is dropping or that there is no expensive supply chain.
ftth_finland 3y ago
"Combustion turbines for 100% hydrogen are not commercially available today." https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus/ https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-e... How are you going to use hydrogen to generate electricity without generating CO2 and other emissions? How are you going to make e-fuel or other synthetic fuels cost effectively? Even if electricity is free, the plants aren't.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Industrial combustion turbines have been available for decades that burn hydrogen (in waste gases from various industrial processes, and also in jet engines adapted to burn hydrogen). It's just a matter of designing a combustor that works with the gas. This is known to be a solvable problem. If a particular high end gas turbine that's available today doesn't yet have a hydrogen combustor, that just means this solvable problem has to again be solved in this case.
  - ftth_finland 3y ago
    How is your comment different from: "Combustion turbines for 100% hydrogen are not commercially available today."
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      It rejects the insinuation that this is somehow an obstacle to using hydrogen burning turbines in the future. And that insinuation is there, or else why did you bring that up?
      - ftth_finland 3y ago
        > It rejects the insinuation that this is somehow an obstacle to using hydrogen burning turbines in the future. There is no insinuation, it's just a statement of fact. Combustion turbines for 100% hydrogen are not commercially available today. We literally cannot burn 100% hydrogen at scale to provide utility power today. We may be able to do so in the future, which would be great. Even better if we can do so without emissions and cheaper than other alternatives. But we cannot do so today. Siemens thinks we can do 100% combustion turbines in about a decade or so. Time will tell. There may be obstacles or maybe everything goes swimmingly. > And that insinuation is there, or else why did you bring that up? I brought it up because it is a pertinent detail. Hydrogen is touted as being the solution to storage for renewables. We are still far from that. According to https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/ it might not be such an affordable solution. And even with 100% hydrogen combustion turbines there is the question of storage. Salt caves are cheap, steel storage tanks aren't.