Navitron Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum

General Renewable Topics => Inventions, Ideas, Innovation, Bodges etc => Topic started by: Gnadt1990 on November 18, 2016, 11:44:48 PM



Title: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: Gnadt1990 on November 18, 2016, 11:44:48 PM
Dear community members,

Within the context of a research seminar by the Institute of Technology and Innovation Management at the Helmut-Schmidt-University Hamburg, we are investigating the potential of online communities as an instrument for the prediction of future developments and trends in the renewable energy sector. Undoubtedly some passionate practitioners like you, have a deep knowledge of current developments, feasible technological improvements and imaginable future developments of technology, society and politics concerning the renewables. Therefore, we hope to win you over as participants of a lively discussion.


THE PROCEDURE

First phase
What will renewable energy generation look like in the year 2030?

This phase is a brainstorming on the future development of the renewables. There are no limits set, so feel free to present any idea or thought which you consider possible, practicability will be discussed later. You may bring up every subtopic that is the most interesting for you, be it a specific technical change on a turbine, the future renewable energy mix in general or an expectation of coming governmental incentives. 

Second phase
Depending on the number of presented ideas, we may cluster them regarding specific topics as far as possible. Subsequently we will discuss the presented ideas and concepts aiming to deepen and evolve them collaboratively towards comprehensive future scenarios.


CONFIDENTIALITY
We want to encourage you to participate without doubts and assure you that every posted idea or concept will only be used for academic analysis without any commercial exploitation by the moderators.


We are looking forward to your discussions!
The stage is yours!


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: desperate on November 19, 2016, 12:26:42 AM
The technology is all in place, all we need to do is get the politicians on board, at the current rate of progress we should achieve that in a couple of thousand years if we are lucky.

Desp


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: M on November 19, 2016, 09:07:37 AM
Hello and welcome.

TBH I'm with Desp, the technology already exists, it's political policy that is now needed.

Looking at the UK, we have on-shore wind and PV already able to generate profitably at around £70/MWh*. That is perfectly acceptable (economically), matches the NAO predictions for average wholesale price in 2027, and costs are still falling.

Off-shore wind is falling in price rapidly, and both it and new nuclear** (Hinkley Point C) are about £100/MWh, making them cheaper than gas/coal when pollution and CO2 emissions are taken into account.

Tidal looks to be expensive at the Swansea Tidal Barrage if it gets permission, but is expected to lead the way to a far, far cheaper scheme at the 10x larger Cardiff Tidal Barrage.

Whilst we need to reduce gas generation, we already have a large amount of capacity, which provides back up for more RE rollout, and gas storage as a form of storage whilst other types are developed further and costs fall, such as the LAES system at Highview.

Obviously on top there is hydro, bio-gas, bio-mass etc etc.

So what we really need is some political interest in expanding our current stagnating deployment of technologies.

On a personal level, I'd like to see schemes to encourage the deployment of demand side battery storage, with support (not subsidies) from all parties that benefit financially (government - CO2 reductions, electricity suppliers - reduced supply of high price electricity in the evenings, DNO's - reduced maintenance costs with reduced peak loads).

* UK CfD prices are behind the curve now, given the reductions in cost since the last CfD auction nearly 2 years ago.

** This is not an endorsement of nuclear, I'm simply pointing out that the insanely expensive HPC (compared to RE) is economically acceptable within context.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: dhaslam on November 19, 2016, 10:20:20 AM
I am not so sure that there has been enough development  yet to make renewable energy secure and the politicians are not so far away from   making logical decisions.  The main problem is that not enough funding has gone into developments like deep water wind farms, storage systems and deep geothermal.   All these developments have to come before real progress is made and it is not happening nearly fast enough.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: billi on November 19, 2016, 05:08:58 PM
Servus , hello

The German energy transition  was started by the Green party in coalition  with the Social Democrat Party   , of course , forced by a public s   growing awareness to move away from coal , oil , Nuclear and other fossil fuels

First Feed-in regulation / law was active on 1 .1 1991  so about 26 years back ...

Pretty sad what the  voted government in Germay does right now , its a fist in the face to all those who started the renewable  energy idea , when it was  as a quite pricey powersource  , and  due to that movement towards more renewables  worldwide,   prices are now down to below other Fossil  ideas  , so absolutely irrational  to slow down renewable energy growth  now , cause nowadays renewables  can compete without subsidies
So , there is another structure  that  influences the RE  growth and i think its pure capitalism , and "hore house" politics   of old fashioned energy providers and conservative governments  to  let them  longer run dirty   powerplants

There is a movement in Germany  that say 200 GW of PV is  possible ( about 40 GW now)  and   i find it a crime that they do not   force their 80-100% renewable stradegy faster right now

Storage is a part of it ,and new age capitalists like Elon Musk just ride a wave to promote his products and his person (but to  fair he is on the good side )  , whats needed is  to see the whole pic    and thats my fear that the bureaucracy is too slow to adopt the changes
I mean  that ongoing  debate about interconnectors  stands in discrepancy with decentralized  ideas   and that people  in some areas of Europe/America have to pay tax on their own  sun power  or are even not allowed to go  off grid  is  not helping , and shows  the  structure of a system that  cannot  target the real problem

So again Germany ( i know.... , am boring talking about it) 

2 weeks of  el.  production  this year  one in June one week  now    shows that wind and sun   can do a lot and even decentralized without big powerlines and  off shore wind


It has to be made cristal clear to Jo puplic  that  we have to act  and  while   the world  is turning ,  monsters are elected ,  dictators supported ... the planet  will terminate   all !

I have no idea   what they are waiting for ! and the current tendency in politics is a politic of denial of our needs for that planet  and  Europe  should address that

Billi





Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: Stig on November 19, 2016, 05:43:22 PM
Quote
What will renewable energy generation look like in the year 2030?

I suspect most of the increase will be wind and solar, I can't see hydro increasing much in that timescale in Europe at least (lack of suitable sites due to economic and environmental reasons).  I'd very much hope to see a big increase in tidal generation for the UK at least as its predictability should make it more valuable that wind & solar - the UK has some of the best potential here so should lead the way.  I can't see wave generation getting much above the token level.  I think there will be some deployment of battery storage to help smooth the intermittent nature of wind & solar but that depends a lot on how much these increase.  It looks like oil price volatility is likely to continue so that should help steer investment into the more stable ROI of renewables.

I wouldn't like to guess at a figure for the percentage of RE generation though


Title: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: Gnadt1990 on November 22, 2016, 09:01:39 PM
Thank you for these extensive comments. It seems as if in your eyes, we don't have to expect much technology development any more in the RE and it's rather the government that has to lead us towards a higher RE rate. However, does somebody support the opinion, that there will be significant improvement in technologies within the next 15 years? Would you expect any of the technologies (solar, wind, hydro) surpass or displace the others?


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: billi on November 23, 2016, 12:19:29 AM
Hi again


Quote
However, does somebody support the opinion, that there will be significant improvement in technologies within the next 15 years?

Hmm ,    look at the price drop of   PV per installed kW  data ( only  to 2014)    ....


(http://www.photovoltaik-guide.de/images/0_bilder/wp/Photovoltaik-Preisindex%20-%20Photovoltaikumfrage.de%20-%20photovoltaik-guide.de%20-%202009%20bis%202014.jpg)




Photovoltaik-Preis-History:

Monat    PV-Preis
Januar 2009    € 4.110
Februar 2009    € 3.930
März 2009    € 3.820
April 2009    € 3.740
Mai 2009    € 3.500
Juni 2009    € 3.500
Juli 2009    € 3.390
August 2009    € 3.230
September 2009    € 3.110
Oktober 2009    € 3.050
November 2009    € 2.950
Dezember 2009    € 3.060
Januar 2010    € 3.040
Februar 2010    € 2.970
März 2010    € 3.030
April 2010    € 2.930
Mai 2010    € 2.890
Juni 2010    € 2.840
Juli 2010    € 2.580
August 2010    € 2.610
September 2010    € 2.540
Oktober 2010    € 2.500
November 2010    € 2.510
Dezember 2010    € 2.470
Januar 2011    € 2.480
Februar 2011    € 2.390
März 2011    € 2.350
April 2011    € 2.390
Mai 2011    € 2.370
Juni 2011    € 2.300
Juli 2011    € 2.210
August 2011    € 2.170
September 2011    € 2.120
Oktober 2011    € 2.090
November 2011    € 1.960
Dezember 2011    € 1.950
Januar 2012    € 1.990
Februar 2012    € 1.960
März 2012    € 1.990
April 2012    € 1.900
Mai 2012    € 1.870
Juni 2012    € 1.740
Juli 2012    € 1.720
August 2012    € 1.630
September 2012    € 1.610
Oktober 2012    € 1.600
November 2012    € 1.570
Dezember 2012    € 1.590
Januar 2013    € 1.520
Februar 2013    € 1.500
März 2013    € 1.570
April 2013    € 1.590
Mai 2013    € 1.570
Juni 2013    € 1.530
Juli 2013    € 1.560
August 2013    € 1.510
September 2013    € 1.480
Oktober 2013    € 1.450
November 2013    € 1.500
Dezember 2013    € 1.380
Januar 2014    € 1.420
Februar 2014    € 1.370
März 2014    € 1.450
April 2014    € 1.400
Mai 2014    € 1.340
Juni 2014    € 1.300
Juli 2014    € 1.350
August 2014    € 1.310
September 2014    € 1.290
Oktober 2014    € 1.300
November 2014    € 1.250
Dezember 2014    € 1.240


So  this is an significant improvement same with wind power ,   and perhaps töo with inter-connectors , no need to question renewables  anymore  they won the game ! In relation to energy supply   , RE ideas get more cheaper while FF ideas get expensive  (look at Nuclear)
Consumption in a growing capitalist society  would be a other question , the more important one  

Billi


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: dhaslam on November 23, 2016, 02:11:33 AM
Geothermal power is the one that is most likely to develop in the next few decades.  Presently it is hard to drill deeper than 5000 metres  and about twice that depth is needed to reach viable temperatures. 


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: desperate on November 23, 2016, 06:48:39 AM
Thank you for these extensive comments. It seems as if in your eyes, we don't have to expect much technology development any more in the RE and it's rather the government that has to lead us towards a higher RE rate. However, does somebody support the opinion, that there will be significant improvement in technologies within the next 15 years? Would you expect any of the technologies (solar, wind, hydro) surpass or displace the others?

Most of the technologies are relatively mature now, although as Billi points out the costs are still dropping fairly quickly but I think these cost reductions will slow down now. Even if we envisage a massive improvement in efficiency or costs though we still need pretty large amounts of land area to provide a significant proportion of our energy with renewables, and we need continent sized grids to share loads and storage, all of which is possible today, bar one very big problem......co-operation, which politicians among others seem to be getting worse at on a daily basis.

We also need to be wary I think of chasing perfection and overlooking the capacity we have now, we could spend years wringing a few percent increase in efficiency from PV for example rather than installing the stuff. I think we as voters need to send a message to get on with it and stop faffing about bombing each other in the persuit of oil and power.

How long have we been saying this??

Desp


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: M on November 23, 2016, 09:57:19 AM
Thank you for these extensive comments. It seems as if in your eyes, we don't have to expect much technology development any more in the RE and it's rather the government that has to lead us towards a higher RE rate. However, does somebody support the opinion, that there will be significant improvement in technologies within the next 15 years? Would you expect any of the technologies (solar, wind, hydro) surpass or displace the others?

Hiya. I'm not being pedantic nor difficult, but it depends on how you interpret your questions. For instance regarding technologies displacing others, that will depend on location. In the UK I can't see how any one technology can succeed on it's own, or to be more clear, generate a significant amount of energy whilst working with other non-RE technologies. They all stand together, or fail individually.

The technologies are always open to the abuse that "wind doesn't always blow", "the sun doesn't shine at night" etc. So PV is no good in the winter, and wind (and hydro) is weak in the summer, and so on. Also storage is important. But put them together, add in tidal, bio-gas, bio-mass, storage etc, and they start to work pretty well. Accept that gas capacity is needed for quite some time but gas generation will reduce, and the picture looks reasonable.

I agree with Desp that current technology levels are good enough to deliver what we need, but advances will occur, but these need to be economical. I suspect we'll see changes in PV (in particular) with Perovskite being advanced. This could give us a big increase in efficiency, but with reduced costs. This is more important than just cost as it opens the door to PV in locations that are currently marginal - small rooves, shaded rooves, off-south rooves, wall mounting, etc. I'm focusing on PV in particular as it's becoming economic on the demand side, which means regardless of government policies, it will gain momentum once the 'economic point' is breached. This carries an additional linked benefit, that demand side storage will increase as that too reaches economic viability.

Whilst I love wind, I know less about it, but assume that the technology doesn't have a lot of efficiency room left, however reduced costs, or taller turbines (improved wind quality) should continue to allow for cheaper output costs. The off-shore industry seems to be reducing costs rapidly at the moment as they continue to develop and perfect install procedures. I also understand that around 40% of the cost relates to the base installs and electricity infrastructure, suggesting that if the bases can be re-used when the existing turbines reach end of life, then replacement turbines would have far lower costs and reduced electricity output prices.

Around the world, given the problems many people have with lack of access to national grids, then I assume PV will be the big winner, though storage is still a crucial related issue, but all seems to moving in the right direction, and now, not in the distant future, such as this scheme - Solar plus storage systems being installed in 25 villages in Mali (http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/solar-plus-storage-systems-being-installed-in-25-villages-in-mali_100026984/#axzz4QlT5AVEc) - which generates electricity at a much lower cost than diesel.

I'm not certain that UK tidal will be a UK winner, but I'd probably risk a bet on it. Hopefully the Swansea Tidal Scheme will get the ok, and the construction should quickly prove the viability, well before the scheme is completed. In which case the 10x larger Cardiff Tidal Scheme could begin, which is expected to be far cheaper (perhaps £70/MWh).

Taking all my ponderings and mental wanderings together, I'd suspect that nuclear (not quite what you asked) will be the big loser going forward, unless far cheaper contracts can be agreed. I don't see how the current £102/MWh cost of Hinkley C can be justified with on-shore wind and PV at £83, off-shore wind headed for sub £100 by 2020, tidal cheaper, storage improving etc etc.

So for the UK, I predict more of everything, with nuclear being rowed back if economic storage and better integration (including European interconnectors) is achieved.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: DaveF on November 23, 2016, 01:28:35 PM
Hi Gnadt,

Personally, I think it is equally as important to manage demand or over production as develop the technologies we already have.

I would like to perhaps see the fabled 'smart meters' come online with price increases and decreases throughout the day and night based on level of supply and demand along with some sort of universal interface which would allow 'power hungry' appliances to decide when they would switch themselves on if they were not urgently needed.

Managing over production is another issue. I think householders and small scale producers should be allowed to export varying amounts to the grid at different times of the day-again, smart metering or similar system needed with the option for the Network operator to disconnect your household PV from the grid at times of over production but them give you free electricity until the period of over production passes. As PV can be shut down with no ill effects, my opinion would be that as well as looking at storage we should look at ways to manage over production.

Regards,

DaveF


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: GarethC on November 24, 2016, 10:49:27 AM
Air source heat pumps (if they qualify as RE). In the UK, eventually we will have to replace our natural gas boilers with something greener. I think that must be heat pumps, but currently the capital and installation cost is too high, and the performance isn't quite good enough.

Mind you, the proposed ban on HFCs might thump the latter.


Title: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: Gnadt1990 on November 27, 2016, 01:14:17 PM
Thank you for your continuous participation. Most of you consider the energy storage a key to higher rates of renewables in the energy mix. In contrast to some of the more mature RE generations, the energy storage problem is still unsolved and subject to huge research efforts. Billi already mentioned the battery packs, promoted by Elon Musk, other further developed methods are compressed air storage or flywheels in vacuum.  Which storage solution do you expect to arise next or develop best?


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: dhaslam on November 27, 2016, 01:47:03 PM
The flywheel  option seems to be better for small scale applications, either domestic  or  at district level, particularly where there is  a lot of PV.   The  compressed air storage seems better for long term storage  of wind power.      The multi layered undersea  storage bag seems ideal  but no one seems to want to  make the first one.    There are  problems in maintaining pressure in a  seven layer   storage bag at  several hundred  metres depth but the system promises to be very  effective in storing energy from offshore wind farms for days or  even weeks. 


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: desperate on November 27, 2016, 05:20:16 PM
For me EVs make the most sense as we will be able to kill several birds with one stone. Reduce the carbon footprint of vehicles, reduce air particulate pollution, smooth loads and demands on the grid, and provide a sink for excess wind or PV production.

Desp


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: brackwell on November 27, 2016, 06:09:45 PM
Desperate  +1


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: M on November 27, 2016, 06:27:52 PM
Which storage solution do you expect to arise next or develop best?

I think they all have roles that depend on location and use, and scale. However, I'm very interested in the Highwire LAES (http://www.highview-power.com/) (liquid air energy storage system), as it's operational already and can be scaled up simply as it is modular. They are ready and willing to build a 200MW/1,200MWh plant and expect efficiencies of 60%.

It seems to me that something like this, built to mop up excess wind or nuclear generation would work very well. Other technologies could then piggyback off the deployments, such as tidal or PV, since differing peaks / generating periods (daily or seasonal) would allow for the sharing of storage capacity, rather than any duplication.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: RIT on November 27, 2016, 09:09:01 PM
Thank you for your continuous participation. Most of you consider the energy storage a key to higher rates of renewables in the energy mix. In contrast to some of the more mature RE generations, the energy storage problem is still unsolved and subject to huge research efforts. Billi already mentioned the battery packs, promoted by Elon Musk, other further developed methods are compressed air storage or flywheels in vacuum.  Which storage solution do you expect to arise next or develop best?

Flywheels in a vacuum have some major limitations that may cause them to stay as a solution for applications where a large amount of energy has to be reclaimed and released over short periods of time. Because they store rotational energy there is a risk that during a failure all the energy is going to be released instantly with the results not being much different to letting of a bomb. The result is that large scale deployment requires care and often the installation of each flywheel into a pit or a lot of reinforced concrete. Such deployment causes a higher fixed cost that is not able to fall over time compared to many other storage solutions that are still benefiting from ongoing research.

Current research reports and future projections both keep indicating that battery storage costs will keep falling at a very fast rate, the result is that far less is spent on researching other storage solutions. The projections are also killing off any investment in alternatives that may currently be cheaper to deploy as the projections indication that current solutions will become cost ineffective during their lifetime and so it is not possible to make an overall rate of return.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: billi on November 27, 2016, 11:48:50 PM
More public transport  makes sense to me , the individual car does not 

, no idea what a 30,000 and more  GBP   battery EV individual car does ,  for a renewable future 

simple get a gas driven one and safe 20,000 GBP  and invest in PV

Or structure the transport system differently


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: RIT on November 28, 2016, 12:05:07 AM
Or structure the transport system differently

That is the vision of driver less cars is all about. Once they are truly automated why own a car if you can just call one to your door when needed.

This idea will end up with a tax based feedback loop - as cars go electric and the numbers drop as people have access to automatic taxis, governments will have to raise car taxes to make up for the reduced amount of tax raised by fuel and car tax. As the car tax rises even more people will decide its time to stop owning a car.

One report in the USA put forward figures that indicated that there could be a 50% reduction in the number of cars sold each year.

So without any central planning we can expect a major change in the transport system over the next 10-20 years.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: billi on November 28, 2016, 12:17:20 AM
... i know and used  car sharing ideas since  decades ,  when studied with the SMA Guys in Kassel ,  i had a 1 year ticket for public transport  in the area  paid via the study fee  and for longer  travels  i got a  shared car  or the train /bus

Not sure why one wants his own car in a  city  whistle


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: Gnadt1990 on December 01, 2016, 11:30:14 PM
The projections are also killing off any investment in alternatives that may currently be cheaper to deploy as the projections indication that current solutions will become cost ineffective during their lifetime and so it is not possible to make an overall rate of return.

We just got several promising storage technologies presented and earlier Mart and billy argued that RE can already be profitable and should at least partially be scalable. Combined with a good storage solution, would you doubt a future of the renewables because of their lifetime or would you rather expect more intense research in lifetime increase of current RE generation?

@ RIT: You seem to be the first in this thread to question a positive long term development of the renewables. Would you mind to back your opinion on some figures or studies?


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: M on December 02, 2016, 09:21:36 AM

We just got several promising storage technologies presented and earlier Mart and billy argued that RE can already be profitable and should at least partially be scalable. Combined with a good storage solution, would you doubt a future of the renewables because of their lifetime or would you rather expect more intense research in lifetime increase of current RE generation?

Not quite sure what you mean? Are you referring to the life expectancies of RE, or their replacement by 'better' versions of themselves?

I like to compare the costs of generation, eg £83/MWh for on-shore wind or PV farms, v's £102/MWh for Hinkley Point C (HPC). By comparing unit costs, we are already taking into account lifetime. [Perhaps of interest is the similarity of subsidy periods - 15yrs for wind (with perhaps 20yr lifetimes for off-shore and 25yr for on-shore), 15yr for PV farm (with perhaps 30yr lifetimes), 35yrs for HPC (with a stated 60yr lifetime) - so subsidy to lifetime appear similar.]

If we're talking about self replacement, then that seems fine to me too. When the PV FiT was launched in 2010, normal efficiency PV was around 14% (225Wp panels for example), whereas today they are around 17.5% (285Wp panels). That seems reasonable and natural, and doesn't (yet!) warrant the replacement of older panels before they naturally expire. [Perhaps of interest normal efficiency PV is already massively ahead of the 10% figure Dr Mackay gave (for 'typical' domestic rooftop efficiency), which he went on to claim would probably never require significant revision!]

Whilst I would naturally be pleased in an increase in life expectancy, it may well be a mathematical trick/delusion, where we miss the bigger picture, for example:-
Taken to the extreme, would PV generation at £80/MWh with a 50yr life expectancy, be better than PV generation at £70/MWh with a 1yr life expectancy*?

*Assuming no negatives for recycling and replacements.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: Rooster on December 02, 2016, 11:54:49 AM
I've always had a liking for the potential of hydrogen based solutions.

In terms of Hydrogen production the solar panels that directly create hydrogen intrigue me most. If those working on the development of these panels can get the efficiency improved enough it could be a good add in to the mix.

Imagine some roof mounted panels on a home, much as solar PV at the moment but directly producing hydrogen, a hydrogen Combined Heat and Power Unit producing electricity and heat. Some form of hydrogen store, some form of heat store and some form of electrical store. In addition the household could have a vehicle capable of running on hydrogen supplied from the hydrogen store.

That technology is all available today but some is in its infancy and would need significant improvements to make the model viable. I'd like to see it done though.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: M on December 02, 2016, 12:09:29 PM
There's a guy in the US (ex NASA or aeronautical engineer) who did exactly this about 5 or 10 years ago. He built it all, and converted his car to an EV with a fuel cell. He stores the H2 in several large, low pressure tanks outside, nothing special. I recall that as the storage is low pressure it's pretty safe, plus any H2 leak would go straight up (in the nice way, not the bad way).

It was his pet project, so not economically viable (perhaps $250,000) but shows what's possible.

Edit: I don't think this is the guy I'm thinking off, but it could be:

Inside the Solar-Hydrogen House: No More Power Bills--Ever (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hydrogen-house/)

Michael Strizki's Fantastic Solar Hydrogen Home (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vel9LH57RII)


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: Rooster on December 02, 2016, 12:48:19 PM
I remember reading about the one you mention in a thread on here years ago, he had numerous LPG tanks in his garden for storage.

However he, and others like him, are using solar PV to generate electricity then using electrolysis to generate hydrogen. I was thinking of the panels that generate hydrogen directly.

I seem to recall there was a uk research project working on improving the efficiency to useful levels. I think it's currently used as a form of self cleaning glass.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: TheFairway on December 02, 2016, 01:02:15 PM
Solutions like https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/jul/22/cheap-and-clean-australian-company-creates-hydrogen-with-near-zero-emissions (https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/jul/22/cheap-and-clean-australian-company-creates-hydrogen-with-near-zero-emissions) are bringing down the cost and CO2 footprint of hydrogen production and potentially beneficial side effects to the process.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: RIT on December 02, 2016, 01:44:58 PM
The projections are also killing off any investment in alternatives that may currently be cheaper to deploy as the projections indication that current solutions will become cost ineffective during their lifetime and so it is not possible to make an overall rate of return.

We just got several promising storage technologies presented and earlier Mart and billy argued that RE can already be profitable and should at least partially be scalable. Combined with a good storage solution, would you doubt a future of the renewables because of their lifetime or would you rather expect more intense research in lifetime increase of current RE generation?

@ RIT: You seem to be the first in this thread to question a positive long term development of the renewables. Would you mind to back your opinion on some figures or studies?


I'm not questioning the positive outcome of the long term development of renewables and storage. Rather I'm pointing out the problems caused by the speed of improvements that are currently taking place with most of the options.

As an example lets take the Tesla Powerwall, this is a fast changing produce with 2 versions being delivered in a 14 month time period. Due to the cost of electricity in parts of Australia it is being reported that a deployment of the new Powerwall 2 may have a payback of just 6-7 years for consumers, which makes it a solution that can be justified on purely financial terms. The question that anyone now planning to install a Powerwall 2 has to now ask is how much will the Powerwall change between the current version and the next version (if there is one). This leads to uncertainty and maybe no investment being made as the 'possible' improvements may have more value than the savings made over the time frame. Even if there is no technical improvement in the next version that the installer requires there is a good chance that the product's cost will fall faster than they accrue savings from having deployed a system today.

This problem is far larger for industrial scale deployment and in many countries resolved by government backed payments that allows for the deployment of today's solutions while it is known that more advanced solutions are due in time. The best example of this is the deployment of wind turbines. Each deployed generation (5,6,8 MW) has it production costs under cut by the next generation, which would make them obsolete due to their higher generation costs in an open market  unless the fixed payment were in place.

This also introduces a 'chicken and egg' situation as new generations of turbines would not be developed unless the previous generation was sold and so the payments are required to drive the market. This now becomes a positive feedback loop where a technology such as wind turbines advance at a far greater rate than their alternatives. Basically we have now invested so much in turbines that they are becoming the only affordable option as we have made no real investment in advancing other possible options.

Personally, I see these issues being resolved over the next 10 years or so as the speed of improvements reduces. This will allow business based decisions to be made with a far higher level of certainty.






Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: dhaslam on December 02, 2016, 03:33:02 PM
At least some of the worries  about the viability of  alternative energy  will be allayed by  oil price being  on the move again, more than 10% increase in a few days and that is after just a modest planned decrease in production from OPEC countries.   It seems to be frequently forgotten that  there are two urgent reasons for  the replacement of fossil fuels but rising price of oil will  make alternatives more financially viable.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/opec-production-deal-keeps-global-oil-prices-buoyant-1480560119


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: M on December 02, 2016, 03:49:07 PM
Thanks RIT, that was so simple, clear and well written that it slapped me right in the face. Makes perfect sense. It also points out the failures of some of this government's funding schemes - they need to be more consistent rather than switching the taps on and off too quickly.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: RIT on December 05, 2016, 01:04:09 AM
Thanks RIT, that was so simple, clear and well written that it slapped me right in the face. Makes perfect sense. It also points out the failures of some of this government's funding schemes - they need to be more consistent rather than switching the taps on and off too quickly.

if you think about it, one of the problems our government (and just about any other government) has is it's very hard to make any investment in other solutions as funding for things like wind turbines is now world wide. I think this is one of the reasons why little has happened regarding wave powered generation. Very few countries have any reason to provide funding and when they have it is always for a local design/solution. The result being a small investment in a small trial of a small system, which ends up generation power at to high a cost. Over the period of the trial there is a good chance that the size of available wind turbines has increased by at least another 10%.

The speed of wind turbines innovation is somewhat amazing as they have gone for <100kW at the start of the 80s to plans to soon build 20MW units. At the same time the industry is so certain of its future it has started to talk about 50MW units which could be placed in the path of hurricanes.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: Gnadt1990 on December 08, 2016, 09:50:38 PM
Rather I'm pointing out the problems caused by the speed of improvements that are currently taking place with most of the options.

Your argumentation is completely comprehensible but the phenomenon of rapidly sinking costs of developing technologies like the Powerwall in your example is typical and will only slow down as soon as we get closer to the maximum performance of the technology, at least as long as they find enough investment capital for their research.

This may be the perfect opportunity to look a little further in the future. Wind, water and solar power generation seem already to become basic technologies. Extremes like the idea of a 50MW unit you mentioned can be proof of that. But where would you place such a wind turbine? Due to the unpredictable character of hurricanes, most of the time the unit would stand still or run at minimum output. Could it be designed as a mobile wind turbine? Is size the only observable development or can we expect more specialized or simplified solutions for home owners or less developed countries?


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: RIT on December 08, 2016, 11:16:51 PM
Rather I'm pointing out the problems caused by the speed of improvements that are currently taking place with most of the options.

Your argumentation is completely comprehensible but the phenomenon of rapidly sinking costs of developing technologies like the Powerwall in your example is typical and will only slow down as soon as we get closer to the maximum performance of the technology, at least as long as they find enough investment capital for their research.

This may be the perfect opportunity to look a little further in the future. Wind, water and solar power generation seem already to become basic technologies. Extremes like the idea of a 50MW unit you mentioned can be proof of that. But where would you place such a wind turbine? Due to the unpredictable character of hurricanes, most of the time the unit would stand still or run at minimum output. Could it be designed as a mobile wind turbine? Is size the only observable development or can we expect more specialized or simplified solutions for home owners or less developed countries?

Until the rate of change does slow down you end up in a situation where it makes sense deferring your investment as next year's cost of a solution will be lower than this year's cost - the savings you make over the year. At government level investment is being driven by the CO2 agreements rather than simple cost vs savings calculations. The current risk to the market seems to come from the USA - if they pull out of the agreements and stop their investments for say the next 4 years they will gain an investment 'saving' while the rest of the world pays for the ongoing improvements. This could cause others to do the same thing.

There is far to little info regarding the 50MW idea to say what their real plans are, but the key thing is that they can cope with hurricanes, rather than they need hurricanes to operate. This is key if you wish to site turbines where hurricanes (and typhoons) happen and not have your wind farms shut down as each storm passes by (or destroyed). There was even a letter published in Nature that put forward the idea of using wind farms to extract some of the near-surface energy in a hurricane to reduce the possible damage it may cause. I've no idea if it would work, but building wind farms rather than sea walls seems a nice idea.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: heatherhopper on December 09, 2016, 12:54:52 PM
Quote
Is size the only observable development or can we expect more specialized or simplified solutions for home owners or less developed countries?

Perhaps this is backtracking a little to the First Phase descibed in the opening post but I think some consideration could be given to the promotion of micro grids - nothing new about the idea but we seem to think it only belongs elsewhere in the world. We are fixated with macro solutions designed to provide unlimited supply to urban populations - essentially bigger is better on all counts. The mindset is understandable (if rather "more of the same that got us into this position to start with") for the developed world but exporting our self-induced difficulties to the developing world is not entirely fair. I suspect that our coveting of their potential as benevolent excess RE generators for our own over-inflated usage is fanciful or politically naive, at least in the next few decades.

When referring to micro grids I am talking about the creation of discrete communities, self sufficient in both heat and power with net exporting capability linked individually and ,ultimately, collectively to the main grid (if appropriate). Existing small to medium scale technologies in Wind, Hydro, CHP, Biomass, A&GHS etc, mixed as appropriate to location, alongside domestic Scale PV would be perfectly adequate and would also provide the leg-up these technologies now need for further development and price rationalisation. These grids would most likely be, although not exclusively, rural since this is where the basic renewable supplies are best harvested and also at the extremities of existing grid infrastructures. I accept that in the developed world creation of net exporting micro-grids has a relatively small potential impact but it could still provide a useful contribution. Removing whole sections of the population (albeit small ones) from the grid demand side, tapping into otherwise unused sources at a micro level, cutting transmission losses and establishing self sustainability as an achievable position are some of the benefits. Using a similar model for the developing world where the infrastructure is less established makes even more sense.
There are, of course, significant and quite diverse hurdles to overcome in paving the way for micro grids and it is likely this would only be possible under government auspices - a major creditability problem in itself. Just properly scoping the possibilities would be quite a task.  I can not see where private enterprise with a profit focus would be a good fit. This could not be about making a quick buck for someone whether individual or organisation since the aim is sustainability.
This is unashamedly the perspective of an off-gridder. Of course I don't understand or appreciate the national energy system - that's why I got off the grid.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: brackwell on December 09, 2016, 06:25:50 PM
http://www.renewableuk.com/news/321174/New-wind-energy-record---an-early-Christmas-clean-energy-bonus.htm


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: Gnadt1990 on December 19, 2016, 09:04:09 PM
I can not see where private enterprise with a profit focus would be a good fit. This could not be about making a quick buck for someone whether individual or organisation since the aim is sustainability.

Please excuse my absence last week. Am I getting you right that you don’t consider the creation of micro grids an economical opportunity?  It may look like cannibalization if the big energy companies build them, but wouldn’t you think there is still a lot of money to make as system supplier or in the service around the grid? Looking at just one small community, the impact may seem small, but considering how many people even in industrialized countries still live in small cities and rural areas, the effects could be impressive.

My question here would be how do we need to change our power grid to enable those multidirectional electricity distributions and who should finance it, now that the big energy companies are continuously losing power generation to the consumers?  And how do we guarantee a stable main grid when more and more people and even megacities try to get more or completely self sufficient?

@heatherhopper: You said you were completely off grid, perhaps you could tell about the difficulties to do so?    How do and will politics react to the autonomy efforts of single users or whole cities?

Using a similar model for the developing world where the infrastructure is less established makes even more sense.

Micro grids seem to be ideal to electrify the rural areas in developing countries, which often lack infrastructure including no or insufficient electrical grids, oil or gas supply, since they don’t need a huge number of customers to pay off, as our big power plants. Anyway there are still some problems to overcome. How do you organize transport, construction, service and maintenance of more complex units, e.g. solar panels, in those regions? The power demand may be very low in the beginning, so how do you create scalability and how will the acceptance of the technology be in areas that barely have any energy supply now?


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: RIT on December 19, 2016, 10:50:22 PM
I can not see where private enterprise with a profit focus would be a good fit. This could not be about making a quick buck for someone whether individual or organisation since the aim is sustainability.

Please excuse my absence last week. Am I getting you right that you don’t consider the creation of micro grids an economical opportunity?  It may look like cannibalization if the big energy companies build them, but wouldn’t you think there is still a lot of money to make as system supplier or in the service around the grid? Looking at just one small community, the impact may seem small, but considering how many people even in industrialized countries still live in small cities and rural areas, the effects could be impressive.

My question here would be how do we need to change our power grid to enable those multidirectional electricity distributions and who should finance it, now that the big energy companies are continuously losing power generation to the consumers?  And how do we guarantee a stable main grid when more and more people and even megacities try to get more or completely self sufficient?

@heatherhopper: You said you were completely off grid, perhaps you could tell about the difficulties to do so?    How do and will politics react to the autonomy efforts of single users or whole cities?

Using a similar model for the developing world where the infrastructure is less established makes even more sense.

Micro grids seem to be ideal to electrify the rural areas in developing countries, which often lack infrastructure including no or insufficient electrical grids, oil or gas supply, since they don’t need a huge number of customers to pay off, as our big power plants. Anyway there are still some problems to overcome. How do you organize transport, construction, service and maintenance of more complex units, e.g. solar panels, in those regions? The power demand may be very low in the beginning, so how do you create scalability and how will the acceptance of the technology be in areas that barely have any energy supply now?


Microgrids are a nightmare to providers in 'First' world countries as they make most of the current infrastructure dated/obsolete, while in the rest of the world they offer the opportunity to deploy a service in a very piece meal fashion. The best example I have seen so far compares the future of electricity against that of phones. In the past the 'First' world countries deployed vast land line phone networks that other countries could not match due to the capital cost of such systems. Now they have gained all the advantages, but few of the fixed costs by deploying mobile phone networks. While 'First' world countries now have the cost of maintaining both fixed and mobile networks.

As for the issue of how to handle scalability, it's not like the 'First' world countries started to build their networks to a grand plan, in the USA the first power stations provided power to just a few city blocks, they then grew and merged over time. While it's not the most cost effective way of doing something it does result in a solution. It helps if government can set rules and regs at the start and I guess it would be a major advantage if they can plan for a national grid, even if such a grid is not deployed for many years.

For us in the UK there is still one major issue that no one seems to want to address when it comes to cost allocation. Currently the standing charges added to bills are a number created by the marketing team, rather than the true cost of the standing infrastructure required to provide gas and power. Until this becomes a fixed amount based on supply region (and maybe even master fuse size) it's very hard for consumers to understand the cost of enabling a service. It may be that this is resolved with smart meters as then energy costs can be varied based on time of day usage. So if you use energy between 6pm and 9pm you will pay the extra required to provide all the standby generation equipment to support peak demand.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: phoooby on December 20, 2016, 12:31:52 AM
Quote
and maybe even master fuse size

I take it your talking about the personal fuse size, the 100a (or smaller) on the meter. That would make it interesting, cheaper standing charge but you may need a battery to get you through peak demand times. Having said that, it would have to be quite a reduction from 100a (24 kw) to make a difference. I have an OWL system which logs you max power draw. The most I have seen is about 16 kw with the EV charging, oven on, TD on, and someone boils a kettle. You could half that for houses without an ev to 8 kw. Who is going to accept a 30a supply unless it is vastly cheaper ?. Standing charges seem to max out around 30p per day which is only £100 pa. Not much of a saving for a potential headache. 30 min TOU with a feedback of the current rate and perhaps the next 30 min rate might change usage patterns more. You would of course encourage people to cook and eat later so it could further accelerate the obesity issue the UK has  banghead:


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: billi on December 20, 2016, 02:03:22 AM
what are u talking about ?  

Wind and PV  are competitive  ,  and   start taxing  FF   cause ending resources  to finance other ideas ,     what alternatives are  there ?

Does money  count .... not much i think /know , as we cant eat it

Billi


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: RIT on December 20, 2016, 02:13:59 AM
Quote
and maybe even master fuse size

I take it your talking about the personal fuse size, the 100a (or smaller) on the meter. That would make it interesting, cheaper standing charge but you may need a battery to get you through peak demand times. Having said that, it would have to be quite a reduction from 100a (24 kw) to make a difference. I have an OWL system which logs you max power draw. The most I have seen is about 16 kw with the EV charging, oven on, TD on, and someone boils a kettle. You could half that for houses without an ev to 8 kw. Who is going to accept a 30a supply unless it is vastly cheaper ?. Standing charges seem to max out around 30p per day which is only £100 pa. Not much of a saving for a potential headache. 30 min TOU with a feedback of the current rate and perhaps the next 30 min rate might change usage patterns more. You would of course encourage people to cook and eat later so it could further accelerate the obesity issue the UK has  banghead:

Yes, it would introduce an interesting dynamic to the market where households would save money by limiting the maximum they can draw from the grid at any one time. Our current 100/63A connections come from a time where energy was going to be "too cheap to meter".  Until I guess the 80s people had few items that could draw much current, but as we move to EVs and people install every more powerful electric showers and replace gas with electric solutions our peak demains will grow. I think instead they will wait until they can play with smart meter based tariffs from 2021, so rather than E7 we end up with E7/10/7 - so 3 price ranges over each 24 hour period.

As you say currently the standing charge is between 20-40p for both gas and electricity (I was once quoted £2 per day by one company who was offering very low unit charges and Ebico still charges 0p), the problem is that this does not cover the fixed costs of the networks. This is already becoming a battle in parts of the USA where electricity suppliers are trying to charge fixed fees to PV homes to cover the fixed 'costs' that the household is avoiding due to their lower energy bill. So a 'standing charge' just for PV owners., which is not going down well.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: ringi on December 20, 2016, 09:46:08 AM
Having only a 100A mains fuse as standard results in more energy being used for DHW, as 300A is needed for an effective instant in-line electrical water heater.   Solar water heating becomes so much easier if you can use a thermal store that is only heated by solar (thermal or PV), boosting the DHW with a in-line heater when needed.

(Yes a gas combi can be used for it, but if you have mains gas, solar water heating is questionable.)

Time of day pricing makings a lot of sense, provided it is done in a way to change behaviour of everyone, and not just a option that can be “cherry picked” by  people who already use most of their power at off peak times.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: M on December 20, 2016, 09:47:41 AM
I think Italy has different Amp limits based on fees. Sounds interesting, but perhaps the timing is now wrong as we want to move folk towards EV's and perhaps heat pumps.

Regarding leccy prices, I'm all in favour of the 'petrol forecourt price' option, which like EBICO has all of the cost in the unit charge. The argument against is that low users benefit from the whole network, but pay less for it, but I'd argue that they are still paying proportionately to their use of the product.

There are many advantages to an all in one price. Firstly it doesn't mean an increase in the total cost of leccy, low users pay less, average users pay the same, and high users pay more, but total payments and receipts are the same. However, it encourages demand reduction, efficiency purchases and micro-generation, as the value of each unit consumed has been increased, thus increasing the savings from importing less.

I think the daily costs are around 30p-40p (on average), about 10p for transmission charges (National Grid) and around 20p-30p for distribution costs (District Network Operators). At 30p/day a low user (2,000kWh pa) is paying an extra 5.45p/kWh, whilst a high user (6,000kWh pa) is paying 1.8p/kWh. In a normal economic market, it might seem fair to charge a lower rate to higher users (better customers), but since energy supply is now an issue, and a luxury not a right, perhaps higher users should pay more for placing a higher demand on the service.
 


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: brackwell on December 20, 2016, 10:04:31 AM
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-15/world-energy-hits-a-turning-point-solar-that-s-cheaper-than-wind


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: brackwell on December 20, 2016, 10:22:43 AM
Mart,
I agree with everything you say but i do not see any evidence that particularly high end users could care a fig leaf and even less what to do about it if they did.  When i have been faced with people who do not understand their leccy bill and ask what is a KW !! even people running businesses
---
People are continuously focusing on methods of production and not on methods of achieving the same for less.  HUGE peak lopping advantages could be achieved by turning off for 1/2hr say industrial fridges, air con units,EV charging. But how price sensitive are industrial users?
Ken


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: M on December 20, 2016, 10:36:04 AM
Hiya Ken. You may well be right about higher users, but at least they'll end up funding the network more.

Hopefully a 3p/kWh price increase - I'm guessing 30p/day and an average consumption of 3,600kWh pa - would encourage many to reduce waste. It would also speed up the payback on any efficiency spending. And of course, it improves the income (leccy savings) for micro-gen such as PV.

Not so great for folk with leccy heating though.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: Stig on December 20, 2016, 11:10:32 AM
---
People are continuously focusing on methods of production and not on methods of achieving the same for less.  HUGE peak lopping advantages could be achieved by turning off for 1/2hr say industrial fridges, air con units,EV charging. But how price sensitive are industrial users?
Ken

I don't think industrial users always have the information required.  Apparently my employer has a contract whereby they pay a lower unit price but might get charged significantly (i.e. 100x) more on a couple of days a year if there's very high demand.  They're told a day in advance that "tomorrow might be one of these days" and roughly which hours it'll apply for.  Of course tomorrow might not be one of those days after all.  As it's a rare occurrence the only visible mechanism is an email gets sent round asking us to switch off anything we don't need.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: smegal on December 20, 2016, 11:22:46 AM
---
People are continuously focusing on methods of production and not on methods of achieving the same for less.  HUGE peak lopping advantages could be achieved by turning off for 1/2hr say industrial fridges, air con units,EV charging. But how price sensitive are industrial users?
Ken

I don't think industrial users always have the information required.  Apparently my employer has a contract whereby they pay a lower unit price but might get charged significantly (i.e. 100x) more on a couple of days a year if there's very high demand.  They're told a day in advance that "tomorrow might be one of these days" and roughly which hours it'll apply for.  Of course tomorrow might not be one of those days after all.  As it's a rare occurrence the only visible mechanism is an email gets sent round asking us to switch off anything we don't need.


This is what you'll be describing.

http://www.npower.com/business-solutions/buying-energy/demand-management/triadwarningservice/


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: RIT on December 20, 2016, 01:06:33 PM
Regarding leccy prices, I'm all in favour of the 'petrol forecourt price' option, which like EBICO has all of the cost in the unit charge. The argument against is that low users benefit from the whole network, but pay less for it, but I'd argue that they are still paying proportionately to their use of the product.

The issue is that not all delivered units of energy cost the same. The UK has 2 cycles that increase the amount of demand - firstly the daily cycle that increases demand during the evening and secondary the yearly seasonal cycle that increases demand Oct - Mar. The result this year is that we have had a (very brief) low demand of just ~20GW and much longer periods of ~50GW demand. As such our average 'demand' across the whole year must be around the 35GW mark.

At some point cost per unit is going to have to reflect the at time of use cost of electricity so that all the 'peak' equipment costs can be correctly covered and so that all consumers are pushed in the direction of controlling their peak demand. A simple example is that of the slow ongoing PV roll out. Currently there does not seem to have been any CfD signed in the last few months for PV so it's hard to know what the UK strike price would be, but at some point PV is likely to become the cheapest energy source during summer daytime hours. Storing it for peak usage will add maybe 3-5p per KWh, while during winter months we will depend on other energy sources. Due to the very wide variance in generation cost a single per kWh charge (with, our without a standing charge) becomes more and more of a problem.


As a side note there is one other elephant sitting in the corner that everyone seems to be avoiding. Currently there is 'some' focus on what the roll out of EVs will mean to electricity demand, but it all seems to be based on the issue of homes gaining a single EV at some point. I don't know about you by when I look out of the window I see homes (2-3 bedroom homes) with 2-3 cars each. Now connecting 2-3 cars up to charge at just 13A is going to have a major impact on energy draw in maybe just 10 years time.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: ringi on December 20, 2016, 03:17:33 PM
As a side note there is one other elephant sitting in the corner that everyone seems to be avoiding. Currently there is 'some' focus on what the roll out of EVs will mean to electricity demand, but it all seems to be based on the issue of homes gaining a single EV at some point. I don't know about you by when I look out of the window I see homes (2-3 bedroom homes) with 2-3 cars each. Now connecting 2-3 cars up to charge at just 13A is going to have a major impact on energy draw in maybe just 10 years time.

First good news is that an EV charged at home is hardly every empty at the start of the charge.   Even less likely to have all the EV in a household empty on the same day.
A EV is also one of the base cases for shifting demand by a few hours, as the home owner can just tell the EV when it needs to be fully charged, and the EV can use its internet connection to decide when best to charge.

Even just giving anyone that makes an effort to use power at off peak times a £100 per year rebate may be enough.   The rebate could be given to the 75% of people who electrical usage collates least with peak time.   (Or maybe 3 bands of rebates at £50, £75 and £100.)


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: RIT on December 20, 2016, 04:07:29 PM
As a side note there is one other elephant sitting in the corner that everyone seems to be avoiding. Currently there is 'some' focus on what the roll out of EVs will mean to electricity demand, but it all seems to be based on the issue of homes gaining a single EV at some point. I don't know about you by when I look out of the window I see homes (2-3 bedroom homes) with 2-3 cars each. Now connecting 2-3 cars up to charge at just 13A is going to have a major impact on energy draw in maybe just 10 years time.

First good news is that an EV charged at home is hardly every empty at the start of the charge.   Even less likely to have all the EV in a household empty on the same day.
A EV is also one of the base cases for shifting demand by a few hours, as the home owner can just tell the EV when it needs to be fully charged, and the EV can use its internet connection to decide when best to charge.

Even just giving anyone that makes an effort to use power at off peak times a £100 per year rebate may be enough.   The rebate could be given to the 75% of people who electrical usage collates least with peak time.   (Or maybe 3 bands of rebates at £50, £75 and £100.)

That's missing the issue - we do not have the infrastructure to supply such a demand. ukpia states for 2015

     "Demand for road transport fuels equates to 45 million litres of petrol and a little over 77 million litres of diesel per day."

If you just consider the petrol usage that's equivalent to 430GWh of electricity per day used to just power petrol-based vehicles. Trying to force consumers to spread even a small percentage of that total (and totally forgetting diesel) across the whole day is going to involve pricing structures that are well beyond a few pence a day. Or major changes to company parking so that companies are forced to provide charging point for all their staff who use EVs, this way cars would not all end up being charged overnight at home.

When you start to look at the raw numbers you find that the numbers become worrying very quickly. The real issue is that between the government and current energy providers there does not seem to be any focus on how quickly the UK energy market could change in the next 10-15 years just due to electric cars. In 15 years time, we only need 3m electric cars to be plugged in via slow 3kWh chargers at the same to add a 9GW demand to our grid.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: TheFairway on December 20, 2016, 04:12:51 PM
Sign up (http://www.electricnation.org.uk/apply-now/) to the Electric Nation trial of the solution to that problem.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: M on December 20, 2016, 04:26:34 PM


That's missing the issue - we do not have the infrastructure to supply such a demand. ukpia states for 2015

     "Demand for road transport fuels equates to 45 million litres of petrol and a little over 77 million litres of diesel per day."

If you just consider the petrol usage that's equivalent to 430GWh of electricity per day used to just power petrol-based vehicles.

I had a go at some numbers a while back on the Guardian discussion comments, and I thought our existing generating capacity could just about cope, given how much gets ramped down at night. This is what I came up with:

Quote
Firstly if demand goes up, then more electricity capacity will be built.

Secondly, assuming most charging is done over night, then we already have plenty of spare capacity. Gas generation currently drops from around 25GW to 10GW (day to night). Taking a conservative figure of a spare 10GW for 10hrs = 100GWhs per day, or 36.5TWh pa. Of course, demand is even lower in the summer.

Thirdly, wind generation is expanding, which generates more at night.

Fourthly, refining a gallon of petrol takes about 6.5kWh of leccy, with refineries currently supplied by coal power stations. 6.5kWhs would give you around 20 miles in an EV, so that alone covers half the distance that the petrol supplies.

Fifthly, doing some quick calcs, and using numbers from the net (which may not be precise) we have 29m cars averaging about 8,000 miles. At 3m/kWh we'd need an extra 77TWhs pa (about 22% more than today). Taking points 2 & 4 together suggests we are already about there.

In reality of course, not all cars will become EV's, there my be petrol and diesel still, hydrogen, LPG, perhaps CNG for heavy freight, but if I've gotten the numbers right, then 77TWh's seems ok(ish) today, but of course we are decades away from having a majority EV situation, and that almost certainly means we'll also have some sort of grid scale storage system too.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: RIT on December 20, 2016, 06:55:39 PM


That's missing the issue - we do not have the infrastructure to supply such a demand. ukpia states for 2015

     "Demand for road transport fuels equates to 45 million litres of petrol and a little over 77 million litres of diesel per day."

If you just consider the petrol usage that's equivalent to 430GWh of electricity per day used to just power petrol-based vehicles.

I had a go at some numbers a while back on the Guardian discussion comments, and I thought our existing generating capacity could just about cope, given how much gets ramped down at night. This is what I came up with:

Quote
Firstly if demand goes up, then more electricity capacity will be built.

Secondly, assuming most charging is done over night, then we already have plenty of spare capacity. Gas generation currently drops from around 25GW to 10GW (day to night). Taking a conservative figure of a spare 10GW for 10hrs = 100GWhs per day, or 36.5TWh pa. Of course, demand is even lower in the summer.

Thirdly, wind generation is expanding, which generates more at night.

Fourthly, refining a gallon of petrol takes about 6.5kWh of leccy, with refineries currently supplied by coal power stations. 6.5kWhs would give you around 20 miles in an EV, so that alone covers half the distance that the petrol supplies.

Fifthly, doing some quick calcs, and using numbers from the net (which may not be precise) we have 29m cars averaging about 8,000 miles. At 3m/kWh we'd need an extra 77TWhs pa (about 22% more than today). Taking points 2 & 4 together suggests we are already about there.

In reality of course, not all cars will become EV's, there my be petrol and diesel still, hydrogen, LPG, perhaps CNG for heavy freight, but if I've gotten the numbers right, then 77TWh's seems ok(ish) today, but of course we are decades away from having a majority EV situation, and that almost certainly means we'll also have some sort of grid scale storage system too.


I don't disagree with most of your figures, with the only real difference I would raise is the availability of the electricity being used currently for the refining process. I don't know what the situation is for petrol, but for Diesel we got to the point in 2014 of importing about 50% of our refined Diesel and so basically importing the energy used in the refining process. This came about because the UK refineries were design back in the day for petrol production and the fact that a few have shut down in the last few years as the EU built up a glut of petrol production as drivers were directed to use Diesel cars by governments.

All of my comments are about the likely changes that will be needed to force people to spread their usage of electricity over each 24 hour period without there being a need for massive energy storage. Otherwise we will all end up paying a large premium due to the amount of storage that will need to be deployed. Or as I think most members of this forum plan - to be come as independent as possible and then fall back to the grid when our PV and storage can not meet our demands.

As for the number of EVs in 15 - 20 years, it's very much a guessing game, but this short report puts forwards numbers that could indicate a 'lot' in a very short time frame. Especially if the UK government sticks to its vision of Nuclear saving the day anytime soon.

    https://about.bnef.com/blog/electric-vehicles-to-be-35-of-global-new-car-sales-by-2040/


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: M on December 20, 2016, 07:16:43 PM
Demand and supply will probably evolve. I can picture a leccy version of all the water towers and underground reservoirs we used to use to keep water pressure up, by filling them through the night. The US looks similar with the ubiquitous giant water tower in almost every small town scene.

So we'll probably see some of sort of local storage that acts as a buffer through the day. Or even subsidised rollouts of domestic storage, to share the costs over multiple beneficiaries.

I don't know if my numbers are right, they are kind of 'back of an envelope' jobs, but it does look like our current capacity is okish. However, good point about the diesel, I'd forgotten about that, didn't we used to ship refined petrol to the states, whilst they shipped refined diesel to us? So many things are going to change, and it's so much fun to be able to watch it happen.

Can I throw this idea out there - personally, I don't see any long term scenario that doesn't involve some form of overcapacity of wind generation. And so long as it's pretty cheap, that's possibly the simplest solution to get us through the bottom 6 months, with lower demand (and hence greater excess FF generation) in the better 6 months.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: RIT on December 20, 2016, 09:27:27 PM

I don't know if my numbers are right, they are kind of 'back of an envelope' jobs, but it does look like our current capacity is okish. However, good point about the diesel, I'd forgotten about that, didn't we used to ship refined petrol to the states, whilst they shipped refined diesel to us? So many things are going to change, and it's so much fun to be able to watch it happen.

Can I throw this idea out there - personally, I don't see any long term scenario that doesn't involve some form of overcapacity of wind generation. And so long as it's pretty cheap, that's possibly the simplest solution to get us through the bottom 6 months, with lower demand (and hence greater excess FF generation) in the better 6 months.


I know we use to ship refined petrol out of the UK, but that I think that was in the day that we were also a net exporter of oil based products. With the reduction in North Sea production we became a net importer of oil and so our production costs started to rise.

Its the final cost of the CfD for things like wind that is going to decide the future. As consumers we can't expect to keep paying 12p per kWh if CfD prices are agreed at 7-8p and then additional storage costs of 2-4p per kWh have to be added on top. As prices rise it will also cause more people to move to PV (and maybe home storage) to reduce their need for electricity for much of the year, which in turn could result in even more overcapacity during the times that the PV can operate. While not required this excess energy will still be paid for via the CfD agreements.

The next 15 odd years are not going to be dull when it comes to energy supply.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: desperate on December 20, 2016, 09:49:57 PM
As a side note there is one other elephant sitting in the corner that everyone seems to be avoiding. Currently there is 'some' focus on what the roll out of EVs will mean to electricity demand, but it all seems to be based on the issue of homes gaining a single EV at some point. I don't know about you by when I look out of the window I see homes (2-3 bedroom homes) with 2-3 cars each. Now connecting 2-3 cars up to charge at just 13A is going to have a major impact on energy draw in maybe just 10 years time.

First good news is that an EV charged at home is hardly every empty at the start of the charge.   Even less likely to have all the EV in a household empty on the same day.
A EV is also one of the base cases for shifting demand by a few hours, as the home owner can just tell the EV when it needs to be fully charged, and the EV can use its internet connection to decide when best to charge.

Even just giving anyone that makes an effort to use power at off peak times a £100 per year rebate may be enough.   The rebate could be given to the 75% of people who electrical usage collates least with peak time.   (Or maybe 3 bands of rebates at £50, £75 and £100.)

That's missing the issue - we do not have the infrastructure to supply such a demand. ukpia states for 2015

     "Demand for road transport fuels equates to 45 million litres of petrol and a little over 77 million litres of diesel per day."

If you just consider the petrol usage that's equivalent to 430GWh of electricity per day used to just power petrol-based vehicles. Trying to force consumers to spread even a small percentage of that total (and totally forgetting diesel) across the whole day is going to involve pricing structures that are well beyond a few pence a day. Or major changes to company parking so that companies are forced to provide charging point for all their staff who use EVs, this way cars would not all end up being charged overnight at home.

When you start to look at the raw numbers you find that the numbers become worrying very quickly. The real issue is that between the government and current energy providers there does not seem to be any focus on how quickly the UK energy market could change in the next 10-15 years just due to electric cars. In 15 years time, we only need 3m electric cars to be plugged in via slow 3kWh chargers at the same to add a 9GW demand to our grid.


Don't forget though that our total energy consumption should go down, the oil rather than being refined to diesel and petrol can be used to generate the electricity needed, hopefully to be gradually replaced by wind and PV. It is a big reorganisation job but one that we have to undertake sooner or later.

Desp


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: RIT on December 20, 2016, 09:58:40 PM

Don't forget though that our total energy consumption should go down, the oil rather than being refined to diesel and petrol can be used to generate the electricity needed, hopefully to be gradually replaced by wind and PV. It is a big reorganisation job but one that we have to undertake sooner or later.

Desp

M. made the same comment, I pointed out that currently 50% of the diesel we use in the UK is imported so it's not a clear 100% transfer of energy from fuel production to electricity usage.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: smegal on December 20, 2016, 10:24:05 PM
As a side note there is one other elephant sitting in the corner that everyone seems to be avoiding. Currently there is 'some' focus on what the roll out of EVs will mean to electricity demand, but it all seems to be based on the issue of homes gaining a single EV at some point. I don't know about you by when I look out of the window I see homes (2-3 bedroom homes) with 2-3 cars each. Now connecting 2-3 cars up to charge at just 13A is going to have a major impact on energy draw in maybe just 10 years time.

First good news is that an EV charged at home is hardly every empty at the start of the charge.   Even less likely to have all the EV in a household empty on the same day.
A EV is also one of the base cases for shifting demand by a few hours, as the home owner can just tell the EV when it needs to be fully charged, and the EV can use its internet connection to decide when best to charge.

Even just giving anyone that makes an effort to use power at off peak times a £100 per year rebate may be enough.   The rebate could be given to the 75% of people who electrical usage collates least with peak time.   (Or maybe 3 bands of rebates at £50, £75 and £100.)

That's missing the issue - we do not have the infrastructure to supply such a demand. ukpia states for 2015

     "Demand for road transport fuels equates to 45 million litres of petrol and a little over 77 million litres of diesel per day."

If you just consider the petrol usage that's equivalent to 430GWh of electricity per day used to just power petrol-based vehicles. Trying to force consumers to spread even a small percentage of that total (and totally forgetting diesel) across the whole day is going to involve pricing structures that are well beyond a few pence a day. Or major changes to company parking so that companies are forced to provide charging point for all their staff who use EVs, this way cars would not all end up being charged overnight at home.

When you start to look at the raw numbers you find that the numbers become worrying very quickly. The real issue is that between the government and current energy providers there does not seem to be any focus on how quickly the UK energy market could change in the next 10-15 years just due to electric cars. In 15 years time, we only need 3m electric cars to be plugged in via slow 3kWh chargers at the same to add a 9GW demand to our grid.


Don't forget though that our total energy consumption should go down, the oil rather than being refined to diesel and petrol can be used to generate the electricity needed, hopefully to be gradually replaced by wind and PV. It is a big reorganisation job but one that we have to undertake sooner or later.

Desp

We'd just import less oil and generate more electricity using CCGT and fr*cking. Way better for the planet than whave now (with gas being displaced by renewables).


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: desperate on December 20, 2016, 11:16:45 PM

Don't forget though that our total energy consumption should go down, the oil rather than being refined to diesel and petrol can be used to generate the electricity needed, hopefully to be gradually replaced by wind and PV. It is a big reorganisation job but one that we have to undertake sooner or later.

Desp

M. made the same comment, I pointed out that currently 50% of the diesel we use in the UK is imported so it's not a clear 100% transfer of energy from fuel production to electricity usage.

Sorry I didn't spot Marts contribution,

agreed, but only if we are discussing the UK in isolation, I'm not convinced we should do that though.

Desp


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: M on December 21, 2016, 09:04:38 AM

Its the final cost of the CfD for things like wind that is going to decide the future. As consumers we can't expect to keep paying 12p per kWh if CfD prices are agreed at 7-8p and then additional storage costs of 2-4p per kWh have to be added on top. As prices rise it will also cause more people to move to PV (and maybe home storage) to reduce their need for electricity for much of the year, which in turn could result in even more overcapacity during the times that the PV can operate. While not required this excess energy will still be paid for via the CfD agreements.

Now, this is where I get really frustrated .... CfD's! As you can tell I love numbers, and whilst 'assuming' is a dangerous game, we can draw some conclusions, but all of my references are getting old now, as RE moves so quickly. Currently I have these figures in 2016 monies (original contract price):
HPC £102/MWh (£92.50)
Off-shore wind £120/MWh (£115)
On-shore wind £83/MWh (£80)
PV farms £83/MWh (£80)

But:-
I only have one type of nuclear, which may not be representative.
Off-shore costs seem to be falling fast, with UK estimates of sub £100 by 2020(ish) and simpler Dutch installs as low as €50, though these don't include all infrastructure costs.
On-shore wind is presumably cheaper now, unless the best sites have been cherry picked.
PV contracts in Germany were also about £80 early last year (when the UK CfD's were issued) but are now £60, suggesting costs have tumbled.
The NAO has revised future wholesale prices down, with a peak of £70 in 2027, falling to about £60 in 2035 (again 2016 prices).
The European MIP is distorting PV prices.

So what we really need now is a new round of CfD auctions so that we can re-assess the current position, as the 2-4 year old info is surprisingly unreliable already as a reference point. We may already be at a point where on-shore wind and PV are actually below future wholesale prices. So I've got loads of numbers, facts, figures, and assumptions spinning around in my head, but without a CfD reset, it's hard to know where we actually are today, though I assume it's much better than we realise.

I'm also watching storage carefully, and it looks really promising, but I don't know if it's safe yet to draw any conclusions (or even assumptions) till we see the industry grow a bit larger, but I suspect the normal economic processes of supply and demand will make great use of storage going forward, but I've no idea when the scale will become significant.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: brackwell on December 21, 2016, 09:44:46 AM
Mart,
I understand and agree with what you are saying but you have fallen into the usual trap of comparing chalk and cheese again. Renewables,FF,solar and wind etc cannot be compared with each other as their characteristics are very different.
I know you know this but why do you continue to make this meaningless comparison?  The whole is greater than any individual parts. Even if one part cost zero, so what, as its completely useless at 100% utilisation.

Ken


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: M on December 21, 2016, 09:59:13 AM
Mart,
I understand and agree with what you are saying but you have fallen into the usual trap of comparing chalk and cheese again. Renewables,FF,solar and wind etc cannot be compared with each other as their characteristics are very different.
I know you know this but why do you continue to make this meaningless comparison?  The whole is greater than any individual parts. Even if one part cost zero, so what, as its completely useless at 100% utilisation.

Ken

No idea where that came from? What do you mean by 'continue to make'?

I'm fascinated by the whole package of RE, I actually waffled on longer about the Swansea and Cardiff tidal lagoons and the possible Ice-Link, but deleted it all as I realised I was going on.

Why on earth do you think I'm selecting a single RE technology? I've often stated that individually they all fail, but collectively they seem to deal with most issues (with the addition of storage and gas generation back up (for now)).

I could point out that you've fallen into a trap by saying that a technology at zero cost is still not a solution. Your mistake being that you are looking at the wrong end of the price curve. For RE to prosper it doesn't need to be free, but it has to be less expensive than the alternative (not necessarily cheap, though the cheaper the better). My point is to show that RE is now cost competitive.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: brackwell on December 21, 2016, 10:05:04 AM
I smile when people say EVs could be a problem. They are not the problem but the solution. Electricity production gets built on the ROI (return on investment) and two major factors are initial cost and capacity factors (CF).  For eg nobody is going to build anything, without subsidies, if it can only be relied upon to be used a few hours a day and then not at max capacity ie low CF.  By EVs filling in the trough the capacity factor will increase and more capacity of all kind will get built. This process will also allow more of our beloved renewables which are limited by the amount of reliable flexible (FF,hydro,storage,etc) production in the system.

Ken


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: brackwell on December 21, 2016, 10:33:03 AM
No point in telling me how the cost of apples compare with oranges if its apples i want and further no point in telling me the price of Braburns if i want Cox.  Horses for Courses is what this game is about and i am pleased to see that the UK seems to have taken this aspect on board and we do not have too many eggs in any one basket.

No point in saying this bad, that good, but i would like to see more pumped hydro and this may well happen due to the reprieve of the remaining Scottish aluminium smelter.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: dhaslam on December 21, 2016, 01:36:33 PM
It should be possible  to  use technical innovation to  greatly improve efficiency of storage.    Enerergiestro are claiming to have made  a low cost  flywheel system using concrete.  They claim that  their product suitable for PV  farms in developing countries.   They should also be suitable for covering peak period demand in developed countries.   

http://www.energiestro.net/


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: ringi on December 21, 2016, 03:47:03 PM
It should be possible  to  use technical innovation to  greatly improve efficiency of storage.    Enerergiestro are claiming to have made  a low cost  flywheel system using concrete.  They claim that  their product suitable for PV  farms in developing countries.   They should also be suitable for covering peak period demand in developed countries.   

http://www.energiestro.net/

I think this will help on the sale of at most hours, the issue we have in the UK is weeks with little wind and little PV.    So it will help with the evening peak but not that much else.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: desperate on December 21, 2016, 07:08:01 PM
Mart,
I understand and agree with what you are saying but you have fallen into the usual trap of comparing chalk and cheese again. Renewables,FF,solar and wind etc cannot be compared with each other as their characteristics are very different.
I know you know this but why do you continue to make this meaningless comparison?  The whole is greater than any individual parts. Even if one part cost zero, so what, as its completely useless at 100% utilisation.

Ken

Further to that, why do renewables always have to be cost competetive or cheaper than FF's,  they're better so therefore why shouldn't they be more expensive?
Just the same as if I go out and buy a cheapo breaker it's pants, but I buy a Kango and it lasts forever.

Lets forget all this CFD and strike price BS and provide a quality service for what it costs.

Desp


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: M on December 22, 2016, 08:56:38 AM
Mart,
I understand and agree with what you are saying but you have fallen into the usual trap of comparing chalk and cheese again. Renewables,FF,solar and wind etc cannot be compared with each other as their characteristics are very different.
I know you know this but why do you continue to make this meaningless comparison?  The whole is greater than any individual parts. Even if one part cost zero, so what, as its completely useless at 100% utilisation.

Ken

Further to that, why do renewables always have to be cost competetive or cheaper than FF's,  they're better so therefore why shouldn't they be more expensive?
Just the same as if I go out and buy a cheapo breaker it's pants, but I buy a Kango and it lasts forever.

Lets forget all this CFD and strike price BS and provide a quality service for what it costs.

Desp

Wow Desp. I was genuinely shocked at that attack by Ken, falsely claiming I was promoting a singular solution, but I'm even more surprised that you've had a go too?

IF the costs are BS, then how do we sell RE to the public? What if RE cost twice as much as nuclear, would the populace still support RE, or want bill reductions (prevent bill increases)?

My post, which I thought was a friendly waffle about energy generation costs, was to show that armed with the cost information we can sell RE to everyone, even the biggest doubters. My want/interest in newer auctions and CFD updates is simply to be able to drive the battle forward. The HPC CfD in particular supports on going subsidies for domestic PV as we can displace 1MWh of gas generation from the grid by paying households £66 (or £85 if we want the industry to flourish). But what use is that figure or argument in 'selling' a subsidy scheme to the public without being able to point out that it's comparable (even cheaper) than HPC at £102.

It may be a hard pill to swallow, but what we think on here is important to us, but almost meaningless on a national scale. The general populace need to won over and convinced, and I believe that we now have the tools to do that thanks to the cost comparisons of RE v's FF and nuclear.

What exactly did I say that appears to be so controversial, having read it through again, it seems entirely benign and optimistic? I may appear to be obsessed with the economics, but that's only because I see them as a weapon now to promote RE, whereas before the economics worked against RE, as folk couldn't see the bigger picture.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: brackwell on December 22, 2016, 09:48:29 AM
Mart, Sorry but cannot always agree completely.

___

Every poll seems to suggest the majority in favour of RE and anti fracking.

People dont even understand their bill never mind about how the individual parts make our Nat Grid. As for CfD -no chance. All they understand is the size of the bill and some will only be happy if it was free !

What even cave man understands is that when the wind dont blow and ............  they dont work.  Of course we on here understand a lot more but i have to say the intellectual argument is not even won never mind the general public.  In the meantime individuals keep battling away with the visions they have and i think Dale Vince of Ecotricity is such a man for eg

RE great for reducing CO2 etc and lets have more of it but it will never run the Nat Grid.    We are paying a high price for nuclear because we need to, regardless of the price of apples.

The low RE CfD prices abroad are the product of no EU protectionist policies and increased Capacity Factors.

Ken


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: M on December 22, 2016, 11:27:52 AM
Mart, Sorry but cannot always agree completely.

I'd neither expect that nor want it, but I still don't understand why my 'chat' was "continue to make this meaningless comparison"?

If you'd read it properly, you wouldn't have stated


The low RE CfD prices abroad are the product of no EU protectionist policies and increased Capacity Factors.

Nope. I gave comparisons to Germany and the Netherlands, to suggest PV and off-shore wind are advancing really fast, and I believe they have similar CF's to us, in fact off-shore wind in the UK is probably better. So your criticism seems entirely wrong and based on a false assumption, an assumption that was unnecessary as I gave the required information.


Every poll seems to suggest the majority in favour of RE and anti fracking.

Yes, something I harp on about way too much, with references to the 19 (so far) qtr DECC surveys. I'd also add that support for nuclear is also low. But I still don't see how celebrating lower costs for RE and promoting that fact can be anything but good news for RE.


People dont even understand their bill never mind about how the individual parts make our Nat Grid. As for CfD -no chance. All they understand is the size of the bill and some will only be happy if it was free !

What even cave man understands is that when the wind dont blow and ............  they dont work.  Of course we on here understand a lot more but i have to say the intellectual argument is not even won never mind the general public.  In the meantime individuals keep battling away with the visions they have and i think Dale Vince of Ecotricity is such a man for eg

Ken

Isn't that exactly what I was talking about? Having the financial argument to overcome any financial concerns of the public, and a personal desire for more RE CfD auctions so that I can update my knowledge on the various comparisons which today make RE look good, but the evidence I'm interpreting from Europe (yes Europe!) suggests that a round of auctions today would improve the argument no end.

Yet when I say it, it's a meaningless comparison, and suggests the promotion of a singular solution! Did you mis-read what I wrote, how on earth could anyone find it offensive, or argumentative? Boring waffle yes, but how did you manage to read it as a negative.

I'm still totally baffled by what has happened here.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: heatherhopper on December 22, 2016, 02:03:24 PM
Gnadt missed your reply amongst all the other debate going on!

Quote
Am I getting you right that you don’t consider the creation of micro grids an economical opportunity?  It may look like cannibalization if the big energy companies build them, but wouldn’t you think there is still a lot of money to make as system supplier or in the service around the grid? Looking at just one small community, the impact may seem small, but considering how many people even in industrialized countries still live in small cities and rural areas, the effects could be impressive.

My question here would be how do we need to change our power grid to enable those multidirectional electricity distributions and who should finance it, now that the big energy companies are continuously losing power generation to the consumers?  And how do we guarantee a stable main grid when more and more people and even megacities try to get more or completely self sufficient?

@heatherhopper: You said you were completely off grid, perhaps you could tell about the difficulties to do so?    How do and will politics react to the autonomy efforts of single users or whole cities?
I am initially talking about taking small communities off the grid - very micro sized grids - which usually have the least efficient and extensive grid supply and are the biggest legacy users of FF. I am not talking about town or city sized grids - scenarios like that simply bring you back to square one since you would be again dealing with the problems of intermittent renewable supply much debated on this forum, problems that are less pronounced once you remove the largely none-contributing urban/commercial "sink" from the equation. Once you have such self-sustaining communities you can move on to take advantage of their export potential - I have no expertise here but I imagine the closer to the central grid the point of injection the easier it is.
I believe that Micro grids are indeed an economic opportunity or rather a series of opportunities. It is who should benefit and in what way that would concern me. I completely agree that system suppliers (those who develop and produce micro renewable system components) and local service suppliers (emphasis on local here and preferably embedded in the communities) would be associated beneficiaries but this would need to be a sustained relationship of ongoing supply and demand, not one that encourages engagement simply to gobble up set-up capital or incentives.
There is little difficulty in individually going off-grid - the issues increase with size. You require only the will to do so and the capital to set up - in the UK anyway. If primarily renewables based you also need a modicum of space and access to the resources and this is usually (but not exclusively) only available outside urban areas. There are a variety of regulatory problems certainly but usually they have not been created in association with off-grid scenarios but for larger scale or entirely unconnected considerations.
Sadly all this would need to start with political effort and finance - not popular in todays world but nevertheless the only conduit for exclusively social benefit. I think it could be best promoted under local government as some form of regional development that also has a national payback (albeit small) if there is an upsurge in micro generation. Goodness knows there are an awful lot of such efforts in diverse areas already that result in no tangible result other than moping-up public money. From small acorns.... as they say.
As a very simplistic example I ask you to consider the following:
I am off-grid as are my nearest neighbours. We are both potential net exporters. In my case to the extent of perhaps 5,000 kWh p/a, the neighbours maybe a tenth of that. Since we are in an upland area our production is predominantly from wind and as such is neither daylight nor season dependent as with PV. We both have storage capacity (FLA) for about 24 hrs in winter. We both have diesel generators for back-up. I use around 60-100 lts of diesel p/a and the neighbours about 2-3 times that. I have biomass heating and the neighbours have oil. With obvious restrictions imposed by inverter capacity and renewable generation my household operates very similarly to a comparable grid-tied property, the neighbours with a smaller set-up less so but still comfortably. There are two other neighbours within half a mile who are grid-tied at the end of the line. Neither has wind or PV although at least one could easily accommodate both at least to the same level as myself, one has FF heating, the other Biomass. All properties use propane for cooking. Importantly all properties are in close proximity to potential micro (<10kWh) hydro sources (mostly seasonal).
It would not be difficult or prohibitively expensive to combine the four properties into one self-sustaining micro-grid with export potential. The addition of some hybrid renewable generation, small storage and backup would be enough to raise the four properties to self sufficient level. This would take two households off the grid and provide net export potential. Widen the catchment area to around 0.75 of a mile and a further 26 properties could be included either as a series of linked micro grids or collectively as appropriate. All of these are grid connected at the next furthest extension of the grid supply. Two have PV, two Biomass heating and there are also a couple GS and AS heat pumps in there somewhere otherwise they are all served by some combination of oil, LPG and propane. All have the potential for PV, most wind and a fair proportion hydro. Included are a couple of "hamlets"  where several properties are closely grouped together making greater opportunity for shared resources (CHP).
For each similar widening of the catchment area and roughly following the grid "upstream" the number of properties increases exponentially. It is five miles before you reach the nearest gas grid and FF usage decreases. By that point you are halfway to the nearest large town and have encompassed thousands of people - numerous small areas, self sustaining in energy (a very high perentage of which would be renewable) and potentially exporters to the wider population. This pattern of habitation, access to hybrid resources and remoteness from the central grid is repeated (in very general terms) many times either side of the Pennines which form the spine of the country. It will also be mirrored to some extent in other areas where there is a similar disconnection between uplands (or just simply rural areas) and the conurbations.
There is, of course, no incentive for any of us living in these areas to join such a venture, and therein will always be the problem - the perennial "what's in it for me". Personally,  you can have my surplus for way below market prices, but I'm obviously just a dreamer anyway.
Although there are probably many examples of micro grids the Isle of Eigg is worth a look. Big difference is that this was created from an already off-grid community who had everything to gain. There will also, no doubt, be some negatives lurking somewhere under all the published positive reporting.
Miro grids for the developing world is probably a subject on it's own but their adoption in the developed world should have a positive impact on the possibilities.
Apologies for the long winded answer but keeps me out of the weather.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: desperate on December 22, 2016, 06:39:38 PM
Mart,
I understand and agree with what you are saying but you have fallen into the usual trap of comparing chalk and cheese again. Renewables,FF,solar and wind etc cannot be compared with each other as their characteristics are very different.
I know you know this but why do you continue to make this meaningless comparison?  The whole is greater than any individual parts. Even if one part cost zero, so what, as its completely useless at 100% utilisation.

Ken

Further to that, why do renewables always have to be cost competetive or cheaper than FF's,  they're better so therefore why shouldn't they be more expensive?
Just the same as if I go out and buy a cheapo breaker it's pants, but I buy a Kango and it lasts forever.

Lets forget all this CFD and strike price BS and provide a quality service for what it costs.

Desp

Wow Desp. I was genuinely shocked at that attack by Ken, falsely claiming I was promoting a singular solution, but I'm even more surprised that you've had a go too?

IF the costs are BS, then how do we sell RE to the public? What if RE cost twice as much as nuclear, would the populace still support RE, or want bill reductions (prevent bill increases)?

My post, which I thought was a friendly waffle about energy generation costs, was to show that armed with the cost information we can sell RE to everyone, even the biggest doubters. My want/interest in newer auctions and CFD updates is simply to be able to drive the battle forward. The HPC CfD in particular supports on going subsidies for domestic PV as we can displace 1MWh of gas generation from the grid by paying households £66 (or £85 if we want the industry to flourish). But what use is that figure or argument in 'selling' a subsidy scheme to the public without being able to point out that it's comparable (even cheaper) than HPC at £102.

It may be a hard pill to swallow, but what we think on here is important to us, but almost meaningless on a national scale. The general populace need to won over and convinced, and I believe that we now have the tools to do that thanks to the cost comparisons of RE v's FF and nuclear.

What exactly did I say that appears to be so controversial, having read it through again, it seems entirely benign and optimistic? I may appear to be obsessed with the economics, but that's only because I see them as a weapon now to promote RE, whereas before the economics worked against RE, as folk couldn't see the bigger picture.



Mart Mart Mart, please please do not think I am having a go at you, that's the last thing on my mind. For what it's worth I agree with your view as much as Kens, I do differ though in the obsession with the economics, not so much yours you understand but rather this crazy market led system we have all become slaves to. It is just a scheme to syphon off as much profit as possible while giving us the poorest service they can get away with, and that grinds my gears.

That's my beef, not with you or your well thought out posts, sorry to cause you any angst.

Desp


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: M on December 22, 2016, 08:26:58 PM

Mart Mart Mart, please please do not think I am having a go at you, that's the last thing on my mind. For what it's worth I agree with your view as much as Kens, I do differ though in the obsession with the economics, not so much yours you understand but rather this crazy market led system we have all become slaves to. It is just a scheme to syphon off as much profit as possible while giving us the poorest service they can get away with, and that grinds my gears.

That's my beef, not with you or your well thought out posts, sorry to cause you any angst.

Desp

No probs, and sorry for getting upset. Clearly something in my 'CfD' post got lost in translation.

The funny thing is, I'm very much of the view (too) that money shouldn't be the deciding factor here, and I'd hope that peoples goodwill towards RE would 'win the day'. However, folk (on average, as on here we are of a different mind set) aren't necessarily driven by the environment, and worry about their bills. But even that is an important point as worry over bills isn't irrational.

Were I come in, with my excitement over the economics, is that that seems to have been won too. So whilst I may give the impression all I care about is the money/economics it's actually my way of saying let's use the positive news to win over the financially scared. As it seems to me that the economics shifted massively by 2015, as reflected in the wind and PV contracts.

My wish for more CfD contracts is simply impatience, as my gut suggests that the numbers are now far better (in just 2 years) than many may have realised, and I'd like those new numbers, especially an off-shore figure closer to £100/MWh in order shut up the last of the 'RE is too expensive' trolls.

They started with on-shore wind, then moved to PV, then moved to off-shore wind, and are already setting their eyes on tidal (as the Dutch off-shore deals have clearly gotten them scared).

Lastly, and I apologise if this upsets anyone, but despite my constant criticism of the HPC deal, I'm still not 100% against nuclear. I think HPC should be scraped as the cost is insane, however, if other forms of nuclear powerplant can generate at a more reasonable price, then it may be acceptable as a low CO2 source of leccy that has predictable generation. I'd rather we managed without nuclear, and I'm close to being completely against it, but I won't lie and say I'm completely there today.

Anyway back to the good news, RE is popular, it's relatively cheap, and I suspect it's even cheaper now (in the UK) than we realise. So the future of RE is good, very good.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: Gnadt1990 on January 02, 2017, 02:00:25 PM
Thanks for asking heatherhopper. Seems as if most of you already thought a lot over the infrastructure. Talking about capacities and storage with EVs, I really like your numbers and the idea to cover current petrol demand and the balancing of energy usage which they might cause at night. Taking into account your source with about 35% new EVs of global production in 2040 and automotive suppliers like continental calculating with about 10% of newly produced Vehicles are EVs and 15% Hybrids in 2025 (http://www.wiwo.de/unternehmen/auto/continental-chef-degenhart-wer-zu-frueh-dran-ist-der-verbrennt-milliarden/14980836.html), we will need an additional long time storage, if those expectations are roughly correct. Especially the example of RIT, with only low demand in the summer months where we probably reach the PV-Peaks might be a challenge. To your knowledge, are there any promising storage technologies or ideas that could cover such capacities for about half a year?

As the posted price comparison caused such a discussion; Even though polls show that the environmental awareness grows, most people still seem to buy the cheapest electricity they get. Would you expect the latter to change or is the only way to reach the people through prices that beat the fossil fuels, as Mart stated? How will our society influence the RE development in the future?

Returning to heatherhoppers micro-grids. What you are describing is mainly developing micro grids at the “edges” of our grid, isn’t it? Looking at our dense population in (Western) Europe and the ongoing urbanization, to which degree would that change our current supply situation, also taking into account the failing efforts in local governments that you mentioned? Assuming the small communities become net exporters this way and we can develop the necessary storage capacity, how would the main grid have to change/improve to cope with the new situation (and the other prosumers all over the cities) to avoid RITs concerns of developing redundant infrastructure and therewith exploding cost by also maintaining the current grid?


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: RIT on January 02, 2017, 02:49:40 PM
To your knowledge, are there any promising storage technologies or ideas that could cover such capacities for about half a year?

Currently, just the process of generating of methane or hydrogen gas(which can be added to methane based supplies). While the round trip energy conversion is very poor, much of the world is geared up to storing, shipping or piping methane so we already have the tech available. There would just be a need to expand the storage capacity, Germany already has storage space for 80 days of winter supply, so it is doable. The UK seems to currently have little storage space as in the past it had a constant supply from the North sea and now seems to have the simple plan of purchasing from the spot market at whatever the cost(as and when needed). It would not take much central government focus to change the UK situation as plans have been put forward in the past regarding storage.

The most likely configuration would be that countries nearer the equator would expand their plans to be net exporters of electricity over time to include gas generation as they will have the advantage of very low overall per kWh solar generation costs.



Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: ringi on January 02, 2017, 05:29:41 PM
The UK seems to currently have little storage space as in the past it had a constant supply from the North sea.

It is not hard to store gas in old gas wells.....    We have just had no need to do so yet.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: M on January 02, 2017, 06:35:27 PM
As the posted price comparison caused such a discussion; Even though polls show that the environmental awareness grows, most people still seem to buy the cheapest electricity they get. Would you expect the latter to change or is the only way to reach the people through prices that beat the fossil fuels, as Mart stated? How will our society influence the RE development in the future?

I think it's all good news actually. But we need to tell people. RE is already cheaper than FF if you add on the cost of pollution (shortened life, NHS costs etc), and the costs of CO2 (storm damage, changing seasons etc) in the UK, and far worse consequences for other countries.

People need to know that any bill increases are offset by tax expenditure, so RE is the cheaper option, particularly in the long run.

It's also the old joke - "What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" (http://www.gocomics.com/joelpett/2009/12/13/)

Looking at the NAO figures, we will only see a moderate increase in our leccy bills, with an expected wholesale price of £70/MWh in 2027 (see page 40 (https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Nuclear-power-in-the-UK.pdf)), and £60/MWh by 2035 (all in 2016 monies).

That means that even with the extremely low prices at the moment (around £40/MWh) thanks to low oil prices and the link to gas prices, we will 'only' see an increase of 3p/kWh  and even that will fall back to 2p. So with import rates now at around 10-15p, perhaps 15p (12p-18p including standing charges (is that fair?)), we'll see a 20% increase from 15p to 18p.

That isn't exactly terrible. I'm not belittling the impact of leccy price rises on the poor, but I don't think it's that bad. In fact I seem to recall wholesale prices being higher around 2008/9, so we've already been there. Also a 20% increase in prices from today's relative low, can probably be offset by a 20% reduction in demand with improved efficiency, and reduced waste.

I genuinely believe that the cost message is actually a good one, whilst many people who probably support RE, but are scared of the bills think there's a massive increase on the way.

Last year (or was it 2015) there was a study asking people how much they thought PV and wind added to their bills. The people remained supportive of RE, but massively overestimated the cost, I think they believed on average that it was £200+, whereas it was actually about £40 (£30 wind/£10 PV) or something like that.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: ringi on January 02, 2017, 06:50:35 PM
There are also solar panels close to market that convert sunlight + water + CO2 (from the air) into a very clean burning liquid fuel that can be transported as easily as petrol, will work in engines and can also be used by fuel cells.  These panels use chemical reaction powered by sunlight, so can be thought of as  manmade plants, however they have double the efficiency  of plant in converting sunlight, and use a lot less water.
Thank of a large area of these, close to a port, in a county that has strong sun most of the year and a no shortage of water.   


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: Countrypaul on January 02, 2017, 08:10:10 PM
Does anyone have a graph of oil price and electricty prices over say the last 10 years?  I suspect (but can't show it since I can't find any graphs) that the price of oil (and therefore gas and electricity) would be significantly higher if it wasn't for the RE contribution reducing demand on the FF. I know this may be difficult to show due to the 2008 financial crisis and also the rise in US shale gas amongst other aspects, but if we are getting 25% of our electricity from non FF sources then that means we are using significantly less FF which in turns means that FF prices would be much higher if it were not for the RE contribution.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: brackwell on January 03, 2017, 08:58:39 AM
carbon capture without subsidy  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: M on January 03, 2017, 10:19:07 AM
Does anyone have a graph of oil price and electricty prices over say the last 10 years?  I suspect (but can't show it since I can't find any graphs) that the price of oil (and therefore gas and electricity) would be significantly higher if it wasn't for the RE contribution reducing demand on the FF. I know this may be difficult to show due to the 2008 financial crisis and also the rise in US shale gas amongst other aspects, but if we are getting 25% of our electricity from non FF sources then that means we are using significantly less FF which in turns means that FF prices would be much higher if it were not for the RE contribution.

Is this what you are looking for, or thinking of, where the cost of subsidising RE can be partly offset by the reductions in bills that said RE has brought about by reducing some peak time spot prices?

These are probably not the best articles, but may lead to more detail, and its worth noting that whilst the levy control framework (LCF) has been overspent, that's largely due to the fact that more RE was installed, and off-shore wind was more efficient (higher cf) than expected, so the excess expenditure bought more RE generation (not necessarily a bad thing, just more gen from earlier and higher subsidy rate RE capacity than was planned):

Significant governmental failings led to LCF overspend, NAO report concludes (http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/significant_governmental_failings_led_to_lcf_overspend_nao_report_concludes)

Quote
Crucially, the report has also claimed that the LCF’s current structure fails to report regularly on what it describes as the “full impacts” of the technologies its levies support, particularly the notion that some of the schemes it pays for are actually forecast to reduce consumer bills. The report notes DECC analysis claiming that the estimated average annual energy bill in 2020 fell from £1,259 forecasted in November 2014 to £991 in July 2016.

While the collapse in wholesale energy prices is a significant factor in this, the wider deployment of renewable generation subsidy schemes like the RO and FiTs have at least partly enabled this collapse, leading to a situation where subsidies paid for through levies attached to consumer bills are in effect making those consumer bills cheaper.

Dubbed the ‘Merit Order Effect’, the subject was first publicly discussed within a Good Energy report released last autumn and has also been referenced by Sir Ed Davey.

Net cost of renewable subsidies nearly two-thirds less than LCF states, claims Good Energy report (http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/net_cost_of_renewable_subsidies_nearly_two_thirds_less_than_lcf_states_6516)

Quote
The net cost of wind and solar incurred by the government was almost two-thirds (58%) less than costs reflected in the Levy Control Framework, a report by renewables utility Good Energy has claimed.

The study found that deployment of onshore wind and solar reduced the wholesale cost of electricity by £1.55 billion in 2014, meaning that the net cost of their subsidy cost amounted to just £1.12 billion.

The report also claimed that if existing savings were maintained, future deployment of the technologies could actually deliver net cost benefits to consumers, defying the Department of Energy and Climate Change's reasonings behind recent and planned cuts to renewables support.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: Gnadt1990 on January 09, 2017, 08:00:34 PM
Does anyone have a graph of oil price and electricty prices over say the last 10 years?  I suspect (but can't show it since I can't find any graphs) that the price of oil (and therefore gas and electricity) would be significantly higher if it wasn't for the RE contribution reducing demand on the FF. I know this may be difficult to show due to the 2008 financial crisis and also the rise in US shale gas amongst other aspects, but if we are getting 25% of our electricity from non FF sources then that means we are using significantly less FF which in turns means that FF prices would be much higher if it were not for the RE contribution.

This sounds like a great idea, but wouldn’t be easy to prove, at least not only with the price development. You would probably have to include local politics of the main oil producing nations, RE capacities and net demand development of oil/gas and electricity. Combined that may lead to a consistent picture.

There is still an important question open. In earlier posts the current main grid was stated to be unsuitable for our future energy generation. Assuming there will be more and more small net energy exporters, how would it have to change to avoid a redundant infrastructure? And to develop such an infrastructure until 2030, can we already aim for 100% renewables or if we need a certain backbone energy generation, what would be the best solution?


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: Tiff on January 09, 2017, 08:03:30 PM
Does anyone have a graph of oil price and electricty prices over say the last 10 years?  I suspect (but can't show it since I can't find any graphs) that the price of oil (and therefore gas and electricity) would be significantly higher if it wasn't for the RE contribution reducing demand on the FF. I know this may be difficult to show due to the 2008 financial crisis and also the rise in US shale gas amongst other aspects, but if we are getting 25% of our electricity from non FF sources then that means we are using significantly less FF which in turns means that FF prices would be much higher if it were not for the RE contribution.

I've often thought this as well. It must be having an effect, but working out how much and proving it would be difficult, if not impossible.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: billi on January 10, 2017, 12:55:38 AM
Quote
There is still an important question open. In earlier posts the current main grid was stated to be unsuitable for our future energy generation. Assuming there will be more and more small net energy exporters, how would it have to change to avoid a redundant infrastructure? And to develop such an infrastructure until 2030, can we already aim for 100% renewables or if we need a certain backbone energy generation, what would be the best solution?

At the moment the grid works , doesnt it ?! So for  PV + storrage  its a no brainer to install rapidly more and it works decentralize

Grid structure is  there ,  so no need to slow down PV , like they (politics and grid el. providers) slow down  installs in Germany 

Stupid  misinformation like from Oettinger quoted in a recent Fraunhofer Institute study 12.16 about PV
https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/.../recent-facts-about-photovoltaics-in-germany.pdf

 
Quote
11.5 Does the expansion of PV have to wait for more storage?
No.
Although the EU commissioner Guenther Oettinger in an interview with the newspaper
FAZ (2 April 2013) said: “We must limit the escalating PV capacity in Germany. In the
first place, we need to set a tempo limit for renewable energy expansion until we have
sufficient storage capacity and an energy grid that can intelligently distribute the electricity.”
In fact, the situation is the opposite. Investing in storage is first profitable when large
differences in the electricity price frequently occur, either on the electricity exchange
market EEX or at the consumer level.



Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: M on January 10, 2017, 08:37:14 AM
There is still an important question open. In earlier posts the current main grid was stated to be unsuitable for our future energy generation. Assuming there will be more and more small net energy exporters, how would it have to change to avoid a redundant infrastructure? And to develop such an infrastructure until 2030, can we already aim for 100% renewables or if we need a certain backbone energy generation, what would be the best solution?

Two possible suggestions:

1. Gas backup - generation capacity paid for by the public/govt, so costs are included in the RE rollout. This article suggests 50GW of gas capacity would cost the same as building Hinkley Point C:

Planned Hinkley Point nuclear power station under fire from energy industry (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/09/planned-hinkley-point-nuclear-power-station-energy-industry)

Quote
Energy analyst says that for same price as Hinkley Point C, providing 3,200MW of capacity, almost 50,000MW of gas-fired power capacity could be built

This is only the capacity cost, so doesn't include the cost of gas generation, but then the £24bn cost of building HPC is more like £91bn for the leccy over the first 35yrs (3.2GW @ £102/MWh @ 91% capacity factor).

Also we already have around 25GW of gas capacity, and around 3GW of bioenergy and hydro. Plus there's storage and interconnectors to deal with peaks, so we may 'only' need an extra 25GW of gas.

As a demand follower, gas capacity would allow for the rapid rollout of RE, then as we start to experience overcapacity we steadily deploy storage and further reduce gas consumption.


2. Large scale storage.

This article

UK Electricity Part 3: Wind and Solar (http://euanmearns.com/uk-electricity-part-3-wind-and-solar/)

suggests that for a 'high electrification' scenario for 2050 (a shift in transport and heating demand to electricity), with annual demand of around 635TWh (v's 350TWh today), we would need 500GWh of storage (plus 500GWh thermal storage) for a wind and PV leccy supply, that 'only' has 12.8% of supply from gas.

Table 3 suggests the need for 280GW of wind (based on on-shore capacity factors, less with off-shore cf's) plus 100GW of PV. This would generate 121% of annual need. And Table 4 suggests that without storage, a further 19.9% would be needed from gas.

Fig 6 shows a graph of gas v's storage.

Now, here's the interesting part, the figure for gas is actually "Gas / Bio fuels". Currently we seem to have 2GW of bio-mass generation, plus 0.5GW of hydro, so that's about 6% of current needs, and I assume we have a lot more bio-gas from various projects around the UK.

If we could meet the gas requirement from bio-fuels, such as the 'Green Gas Mills' idea, then we'd be pretty much at 100% renewable leccy.

Additionally, the wind + PV + 13% gas + storage model, suggests a spill of 34%. I believe that hydrogen/methane production from spare leccy is about 30% efficient, so that 34% would provide nearly all the gas needs.


Just a couple of ideas!


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: Gnadt1990 on January 27, 2017, 04:03:15 PM
Dear Community Members,

In my opening post, I announced to finalize our discussion by building scenarios together. Within the last days, I analyzed our previous discourse for determinants we considered to influence the future development of renewable energies. To develop consistent scenarios within our setting, we decided to go on as follows:


  • First I’ll present the Influencing factors I identified in your contributions and read between the lines. I would kindly ask you to go through them and complement what I missed in your eyes or what you consider important even if we did not discuss it.
  • In a second step, I will create a poll in which you can vote for four to six key factors out of the determinants we set now.
  • Together we will then find possible projections for them, usually 2-3 per key factor.
  • The next step is a consistency evaluation. Since this is typically easier in a Matrix, which contains at around 15 Projections over 200 single consistencies, I would prepare that and present it to you for evaluation or correction.
  • Combining the consistency values will result in a certain number of most consistent projection combinations. Together we will bundle them to one or several final scenarios.


As moderator, I tried to guide our topics to include the typical STEEP-Factors (Social, Technological, Economical, Environmental and Political). Even though some were treated more deeply than others, we covered all of them. Among others we talked about energy price development, consumer behavior, environmental awareness, several specific RE generation methods including local dependencies, E-Mobility, infrastructure and Micro-Grids, energy storage solutions, expectations on politics and a little about the oil price.

Those are the determinants I identified. There is a possibility that I may have missed a few or that we did not discuss an important topic, so step one would now be to complete this list.

Social:
  • Consumer Price Sensitivity         
  • Consumer Behavior (usage spread during the day)
  • Electricity Price Transparency
  • Private Energy Consumption (Consumer)
  • Consumer Knowledge            
  • Total Energy Demand
  • Impact of Lobby Groups         

Technological:
  • Home Storage Capacities         
  • Total Storage Capacities
  • EV-Number               
  • Consumer EV charging behavior (peak/off-peak times)
  • EV charging infrastructure      
  • Speed of Energy Storage Development
  • EV as Decentralized Storage         
  • Energy Storage Risks
  • Grid Stability            
  • Local Political Micro-Grid Support/Subsidies
  • Grid Occupancy                
  • Hydro Energy Generation Development
  • Wind Energy Generation Development   
  • Tidal Energy Generation Development
  • PV Energy Generation Development   

Economical:
  • Entry Barriers for New REs         
  • Scalability of Current REs
  • Oil Price Development            
  • Energy Overproduction/Capacity Management
  • Electricity Price Development

Environmental:
  • Environmental Damage      
  • Public Environmental Awareness
  • CO2 recovery

Political:
  • Political Regulation         
  • Subsidies for Storage
  • Subsidies for REs         
  • International Cooperation
  • National Protectionism             


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: billi on January 28, 2017, 02:02:37 AM
?

 will there  be a consensus  here ?  To  come to an answer towards the "The Future of Renewable Energies "

It is as simple as that ,  that we can supply our energy needs from renewables and we know that since decades   , and there is simply no other chance/option for this planet  , so please focus your resume  on that


Billi



Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: Gnadt1990 on January 30, 2017, 03:06:53 PM
Hi Billi,

you may be right that in a forum like this, almost everybody will believe in the opportunities of the renewables. But the world is undoubtedly not out of oil and coal yet and taking into account current tendencies, international projects may also slow down. The goal of scenario development is not to reach consensus about the exact future but to develop a range of possible futures that may occur depending on how the influencing factors change.
Would be nice to build - together with you guys -  at least two different scenarios about how far in the use of renewables we may be in 2030. And all of this wouldn't need too much more effort from your side, although it would be nice to discuss the outcome with you as well. It's rather about putting all your interesting and already mentioned thoughts and developments together.

Do you have anything to add? If not, I'll post on thursday a short survey in which I'll kindly ask you to assess the aforementioned factors. Thanks.

Ferdinand


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: Gnadt1990 on February 02, 2017, 12:23:54 PM
Hi Guys,

Since none of you had anything to add, I assume it is silent consent.

As a reminder: Our main question was "What will renewable energy generation look like in the year 2030?"
As a second step of our scenario development, I developed a short survey in order to identify the key factors for the future of renewable energies based on your individual assessments. As aforementioned, I derived those factors based on your fruitful contributions from the last weeks. It will take you less than five minutes. More importantly it is critical for the next steps, so I hope you will all participate:

http://ww2.unipark.de/uc/future_RE/ (http://ww2.unipark.de/uc/future_RE/)

Thank you so much!


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: Gnadt1990 on February 08, 2017, 11:14:26 PM
Hi Guys,

It’s me again. Intermediate status is that we have 2 participants in the survey. Since it is certainly more fun, I’m sure most of you are just like me looking forward to discussing the different possible projections of our key factors. Nevertheless, we need to agree on the key factors and the easiest and fastest way is this poll.

So once again a little advertisement to take 5 minutes and answer the poll, please. For everyone that might look into this thread for the first time, feel free to join in.

Thanks again!


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: Gnadt1990 on February 28, 2017, 11:38:58 AM
Hi everyone,

even though we have no more than 5 results of our short survey, it is time to continue. I’m sure the next steps will be more fun again. Of course, 5 participants are not a lot. Nevertheless, I hope we will continue our fruitful discussions after the survey now.
First of all, here is how you evaluated the influencing factors:

(https://s14.postimg.org/euuvt5u8t/eval.png) (https://postimg.org/image/euuvt5u8t/)

I originally planned to discuss projections and continue by building a consistency matrix, but the latter would again be pretty dry work and need a higher participation than the last survey to deliver valid results. So, my proposal is that we build consistent scenarios based on the factors above. Thus, your task would be to combine those factors in a most desirable or probable, amongst others, scenario and describe how (positive, negative, or what else) those factors will develop.
Since you probably don’t want to repeat yourself in areas that we have already discussed, I tried to build a short summary of the main factors. Please feel free to add what I might have missed.


Consumer Price Sensitivity
Currently the price seems to be the main decision driver, and the price sensitivity is probably staying high. Private investments in storage are not expected before the price drop is lower than the expected earnings over the same time period

Grid Stability
Grid stability is high with a small risk due to demand variation and overproduction. Desirable for the future would be to allow energy export of private PV owners and in case of overproduction, shutdown by smart grid (PV without ill effects)

EV charging infrastructure
EVs as possible decentral storage rely on stable infrastructure. Desirable development: The increasing number of EVs loading at night and during work time (and PV peaks) and off peak demand times

Electricity Price Development of the Renewable Energies
The prices of PV and On-Shore wind are still falling and around 80£ already profitable and competitive. Tidal energy generation is still in test stage and more expensive but promising. Off- Shore wind energy should be around 100£ around 2020.

Entry Barriers for New REs
The earlier development was predominantly in wind and PV, which have highly competitive prices now. Also the price of basic infrastructure (especially Off-Shore Wind) and the high dependency of location factors negatively influence the development of new REs.

Public Environmental Awareness
Although the environmental awareness seems to grow, most people are rather driven by cost calculations. One idea to enhance the environmental awareness was to treat electricity like a luxury good with higher prices for high consumption.

Subsidies for Storage
Some political push for domestic storage as decentralizes storage solution would be desirable.  Governmental backup is necessary to as long as the fast development decreases storage prices faster than the home storage would save per year.

Subsidies for Renewable Energies
Massive subsidies for Wind and PV in the past also pushed the development and lowered the price. Since some were badly planned and ended with exploding cost, governmental (funding) projects should be less local but more cooperative and long term oriented.


Summarized, based on the survey and the previous discussed developments, we now want to build future scenarios together. Which future is desirable? Which future is the most probable? Or you can think of some creative or utopian scenarios. I am very much looking forward to discuss your future scenarios together!




Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: Gnadt1990 on March 08, 2017, 02:33:43 PM
Hi Guys,

Since none of you replied to the last question or commented on the results of our survey, are you still interested in continuing our scenario development? The difference to the earlier phase is to combine the probable or desirable developments of the different factors, also considering the possibility of inconsistencies between them or hindrances that may occur in the future.
There are only a few weeks left for my thesis and even though I will continue to frequent this forum, I probably won't deepen the development of scenarios here afterwards. Does anyone want to start? Others may join in if you don't combine all the key factors in your idea of the future.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: RIT on March 08, 2017, 05:44:05 PM
Sorry for not replying, but between your Summary and the size of the response you noted I did not have anything more to add. As you have found we are rather a small pool of vocal individuals.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: stannn on March 08, 2017, 06:12:10 PM
Sorry for not replying, but between your Summary and the size of the response you noted I did not have anything more to add. As you have found we are rather a small pool of vocal individuals.
We few, we happy few, we band of Brothers....


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: Gnadt1990 on March 14, 2017, 12:01:34 PM
Hi RIT,
 
You are right but I wanted to give it a try anyway. Some of you wrote pretty extensive and creative comments as well showing a lot of practical experience and with one or two more, I am sure we could get at least one consistent scenario. Consider it a nice view in a possible future.


Title: Re: The Future of Renewable Energies
Post by: Gnadt1990 on March 24, 2017, 04:24:25 PM
Dear Community Members,

I want to thank you all for your participation. The semester ends and it seems as if the discussion here has come to an end as well. We may have not been able to get to a final scenario, but nevertheless, we have had a pretty good conversation especially in the brainstorming phase and spoken about major changes and developments within the sector of renewable energies. I am still impressed by the content you contributed as well as by your passion for the topic.
I’m looking forward to continue to participate in the forum as regular community member.

Thank you very much!