navitron
 
Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Anyone wishing to register as a new member on the forum is strongly recommended to use a "proper" email address. Following continuous spam/hack attempts on the forum, "disposable" email addresses like Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail tend to be viewed with suspicion, and the application rejected if there is any doubt whatsoever
 
Recent Articles: Navitron Partners With Solax to Help Create A More Sustainable Future | Navitron Calls for Increased Carbon Footprint Reduction In Light of Earth Overshoot Day | A plea from The David School - Issue 18
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Future of Renewable Energies  (Read 24884 times)
RIT
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2317

South West London


« Reply #75 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.

Logged

2.4kW PV system, output can be seen at  - https://pvoutput.org/list.jsp?userid=49083

Join the fight against human malware at https://stats.foldingathome.org/team/259956

Why bother? - well, there is no planet B
ringi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 162


« Reply #76 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.
Logged
M
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5346



« Reply #77 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?"

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), 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.
Logged

Just call me Mart.     Cardiff: 5.58kWp PV - (3.58kWp SE3500 + 2kWp SE2200 WNW)
ringi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 162


« Reply #78 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.   
Logged
Countrypaul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714


« Reply #79 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.
Logged
brackwell
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3322


« Reply #80 on: January 03, 2017, 08:58:39 AM »

carbon capture without subsidy  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034
Logged
M
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5346



« Reply #81 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

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

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.
Logged

Just call me Mart.     Cardiff: 5.58kWp PV - (3.58kWp SE3500 + 2kWp SE2200 WNW)
Gnadt1990
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #82 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?
Logged
Tiff
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


« Reply #83 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.
Logged
billi
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9070



WWW
« Reply #84 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.

Logged

1.6 kw and 2.4 kw   PV array  , Outback MX 60 and FM80 charge controller  ,24 volt 1600 AH Battery ,6 Kw Victron inverter charger, 1.1 kw high head hydro turbine as a back up generator , 5 kw woodburner, 36 solar tubes with 360 l water tank, 1.6 kw  windturbine
M
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5346



« Reply #85 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

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

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!
Logged

Just call me Mart.     Cardiff: 5.58kWp PV - (3.58kWp SE3500 + 2kWp SE2200 WNW)
Gnadt1990
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #86 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             
Logged
billi
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9070



WWW
« Reply #87 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

« Last Edit: January 28, 2017, 10:23:25 AM by billi » Logged

1.6 kw and 2.4 kw   PV array  , Outback MX 60 and FM80 charge controller  ,24 volt 1600 AH Battery ,6 Kw Victron inverter charger, 1.1 kw high head hydro turbine as a back up generator , 5 kw woodburner, 36 solar tubes with 360 l water tank, 1.6 kw  windturbine
Gnadt1990
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #88 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
Logged
Gnadt1990
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #89 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/


Thank you so much!
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!