New world of electrical power generation

[themadhippy]

I thought the main thinking about future energy genaration was to help keep the planet a bit cleaner for future generations,not build something that whilst being a quick expensive fix in the now ,but leaving yet another toxic mess for future generations to deal with.

[kaz911]

There is no such thing as current lifetime prices for modern nuclear, other than "very expensive".  No country other than China has a functioning modern nuclear power industry where you can plan to build a power plant and realistically expect to get one with only moderate cost and schedule overruns.


To be clear, what I am claiming (maybe others, but I don't want to speak for anyone else) is that with renewables plus 6-12 hours of storage can cover 80-95% of electricity needs in many areas of the world, and where they can they do that it is much cheaper than any realistic estimate of nuclear costs, and can be deployed much faster than nuclear and start reducing CO2 emissions now.

How you make up the remaining 5-20% balance is up for debate.  The simple answer is that in the medium term future it will be handled by fossil fuels, particularly natural gas, just operating at low capacity factor.  These will be expensive per kWhr because they need to pay for their capital costs with only a few weeks a year of operation, but it will still be an acceptable system cost.

Long term of course that isn't ideal.  But we have a minimum of 10-15 years runway before it starts to be an issue.  We can built terrawatts of renewable energy and short term storage before we hit that 80% mark.  And there are several promising technologies for bridging that last 20%.

6-12 hours would not cover 95% At 6-12 hours you would be using backup batteries almost every day. So you would introduce excessive wear on the batteries. Best batteries today have around 3000-3500 cycles - so roughly enough for 10 years operation before you would have to replace all of them.  And that is calculated by batteries being at optimal temperatures. Any temperature deviation will degrade life and capacity unless storage have both heating and cooling to maintain optimal battery temperature.

And promising technologies : if they are "promising now" they are at least 10-20 years away from production - at least based on history. We can't rely on future promises.

UAE Nuclear - yes went over budget - but phase 1 was operational after 9 years since construction started. Phase 2 & 3 have followed same schedule and are now operational. 

So we can HOPE for fast advances in battery technology - or fusion - or similar. 

Until then we can only work with what we got.

[f4eru]

Existing running out nuclear is more expensive today than bigger scale renewables + storage. This excludes initial investment (paid off in the last 30 years) and cleanup+storage costs (largely ignored)

Building new nuclear today is much more expensive than running existing, which are more expensive than renewables. It's just economic suicide to build new nuclear plants...
In France, the EPR which is not finished already costs 20 billion Euros. and that is the building alone. Just that building alone costs already more than the same amoount of electricity from renewables it will produce over 30 years lifetime. no running costs, and disposal costs included.

Also, France is currently operating small scale wars in and around Niger, to secure it's uranium supply. This blood is one of the numerous non-considered "externalities" of nuclear, at least for France

https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/

[Someone]

To be clear, what I am claiming (maybe others, but I don't want to speak for anyone else) is that with renewables plus 6-12 hours of storage can cover 80-95% of electricity needs in many areas of the world, and where they can they do that it is much cheaper than any realistic estimate of nuclear costs, and can be deployed much faster than nuclear and start reducing CO2 emissions now.

6-12 hours would not cover 95% At 6-12 hours you would be using backup batteries almost every day. So you would introduce excessive wear on the batteries. Best batteries today have around 3000-3500 cycles - so roughly enough for 10 years operation before you would have to replace all of them.  And that is calculated by batteries being at optimal temperatures. Any temperature deviation will degrade life and capacity unless storage have both heating and cooling to maintain optimal battery temperature.

Well, batteries cycling daily is the current solution, and its profitable. Even if that will end up with a 10 year lifespan. More and more are planned to come online.

90% of all demand is a pretty accurate estimate for the capabilities of a grid with maximum of 12 hours of storage:
http://www.withouthotair.com/c26/page_189.shtml
But thats assuming you have zero dispatchable generators! Just hold back the (non-pumped) hydro generation until the prices rise. NZ goes through that sort of seasonal cycling most years. Graph below from: https://brendon-harre.medium.com/pumped-hydro-update-march-2020-9d83399ef6fd

[kaz911]

Well, batteries cycling daily is the current solution, and its profitable. Even if that will end up with a 10 year lifespan. More and more are planned to come online.

90% of all demand is a pretty accurate estimate for the capabilities of a grid with maximum of 12 hours of storage:
http://www.withouthotair.com/c26/page_189.shtml
But thats assuming you have zero dispatchable generators! Just hold back the (non-pumped) hydro generation until the prices rise. NZ goes through that sort of seasonal cycling most years. Graph below from: https://brendon-harre.medium.com/pumped-hydro-update-march-2020-9d83399ef6fd

Pumped storage is (so far) only viable with natural water features - which "might" have been "enhanced" using dams. There are not any hydro storage I have seen that is purely artificial. That is why it is a great success in Norway and less so in many other countries.

None of the "artificial" systems actually work (so far) including the very published cement block mover. Problem is you only get full efficiency from dropping blocks from absolute top to bottom. So the lower you get in the stack - the less efficiency. And that is without mechanical maintenance costs. 

And the problem with the link you sent - is that 1200 GWh (5 x 10GW x 24h) is not enough. UK had 7+ consecutive days with < 5-10% generation and 10-12 consecutive days with < 20%.  So optimistic we would need 10GW minus 2GW (max of min production ) = 8 GW * 12 days * 24 hours. So that would be 2300 GWh - minimum.  And that is without system losses (round trip cost) of at least 10% dependent on storage type.

But then on top of that 2 of the 7 day periods of low production (<10%) was only a week apart. So in one week they would have had to recharge the full battery set - so a 100+% overproduction for 5-7 days. Batteries do not recharge themselves.

So it is not as simple as you are trying to postulate. It is a lot more complex when you have battery storage. 

Battery stacks are great for slew protection though and a lot simpler.

[Someone]

Well, batteries cycling daily is the current solution, and its profitable. Even if that will end up with a 10 year lifespan. More and more are planned to come online.

90% of all demand is a pretty accurate estimate for the capabilities of a grid with maximum of 12 hours of storage:
http://www.withouthotair.com/c26/page_189.shtml
But thats assuming you have zero dispatchable generators! Just hold back the (non-pumped) hydro generation until the prices rise. NZ goes through that sort of seasonal cycling most years. Graph below from: https://brendon-harre.medium.com/pumped-hydro-update-march-2020-9d83399ef6fd

Pumped storage is (so far) only viable with natural water features - which "might" have been "enhanced" using dams. There are not any hydro storage I have seen that is purely artificial. That is why it is a great success in Norway and less so in many other countries.

None of the "artificial" systems actually work (so far) including the very published cement block mover. Problem is you only get full efficiency from dropping blocks from absolute top to bottom. So the lower you get in the stack - the less efficiency. And that is without mechanical maintenance costs. 

And the problem with the link you sent - is that 1200 GWh (5 x 10GW x 24h) is not enough. UK had 7+ consecutive days with < 5-10% generation and 10-12 consecutive days with < 20%.  So optimistic we would need 10GW minus 2GW (max of min production ) = 8 GW * 12 days * 24 hours. So that would be 2300 GWh - minimum.  And that is without system losses (round trip cost) of at least 10% dependent on storage type.

But then on top of that 2 of the 7 day periods of low production (<10%) was only a week apart. So in one week they would have had to recharge the full battery set - so a 100+% overproduction for 5-7 days. Batteries do not recharge themselves.

So it is not as simple as you are trying to postulate. It is a lot more complex when you have battery storage. 

Battery stacks are great for slew protection though and a lot simpler.

You jumped right past the point again. How slowly do we need to say this:
taking battery storage and pumped hydro as sufficient for 12-24 hour cycling (despite that they can do longer)
you've come up with a missing "storage" capacity of 2300 GWh, say 4 to 5 times a year, approximately 10 TWh of seasonal storage.

Whats the annual consumption of the UK grid? around 350TWh. So you only need to retain 3% of the total grid production for dispatchable power. Sounds like we have a solution that meets 97% of demand with just batteries and wind+solar.

How much of the generation in the UK currently comes from hydro? about 2%, so short but not by much. They will need more generators put in to deliver the peak power, but the energy is there. Worldwide, over 10% of all electricity comes from hydro so its already "solved" in many countries: Australia, China, United States, Russia, Japan, Germany, New Zealand, etc etc etc. All have enough hydro production.

Storage does not have to be electricity in electricity out. Holding back some resource (coal) until you need electricity and then using it has been completely fine/normal for fossil fuel powered plants, but you and others somehow miss that holding back water is almost exactly the same. Just wait until you need the power and let it rip. These facilities are already in place, with enough capacity in most countries, whats missing to fill in the grid is the short term storage and increasing the peak power of the long term storage. Both easily done and profitably.

[nctnico]

Averages don't mean sh!t; your math is way way off. You need to be able to deal with the worst case peaks. Actually, kaz911's analysis is far too optimistic. An analys of the Dutch government shows that the NL needs about 12TWh (12000GWh) of storage to bridge periods with low production and allowing storage to replenish over time. The UK will need a multitude of that amount because it is much bigger with more people compared to the NL. More likely in the 40TWh ballpark.

And adding more generators to hydro also does not make hydro more effective or increase the capacity. For more capacity that can deal with worst case peak usage of storage, you'll need to add more water surface area at the cost of massive amounts of land that need to be flooded (vilages moved, etc). Calling hydro in Germany (to take one of your listed countrys) a succes is a gross overstatement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity_in_Germany A measly 3% and no room for growth. The reality is that hydro is low hanging fruit and most of it has been harvested by now.

To put numbers further into perspective: Wordwide pumped hydro accounts for about 9TWh of storage. That is just a drop in the bucket when looking at what is needed locally. Using some form of natural gas or hydrogen storage underground is a much more realistic approach: www.nlog.nl/sites/default/files/2019-08/juez_larre_et_al_2019_fb_st_july.pdf Just the storage capacity in the NL alone dwarfs the worldwide pumped hydro storage capacity.

[Someone]

Wordwide pumped hydro accounts for about 9TWh of storage.

You can keep shouting that all you like, worldwide hydro generation is around 4-5PWh out of 30PWh annual, well over 10% of energy (the thing people want to store). Pumped hydro is not the only way to have a dispatchable energy source with hydro, nature does a good job of filling up the dams without any electricity input. NZ already runs their hydro in eactly the way I describe and other countries could easily do the same to get long term storage and dispatchable power right now.

Feel free to keep going on about how the Dutch cant have enough hydro power/storage, its a flat country, no-one is surprised. But they do have significant connectivity to surrounding countries, rich in such storage. Strawman is still strawman.

Neither of you have looked over the hill you intentionally make to frame your "argument". Energy is stored in hydro dams, it doesnt need to be pumped up with electricity. That is a dispatchable energy source that is already used for seasonal time frame storage, and the worlds resources of it are neither: at capacity, completely exploited, or prioritized for storage.

Averages don't mean sh!t; your math is way way off. You need to be able to deal with the worst case peaks. Actually, kaz911's analysis is far too optimistic. An analys of the Dutch government shows that the NL needs about 12TWh (12000GWh) of storage to bridge periods with low production and allowing storage to replenish over time. The UK will need a multitude of that amount because it is much bigger with more people compared to the NL. More likely in the 40TWh ballpark.

as the saying goes... citation required. But thats still "only" 10% of the annual electricity use of the Netherlands, right in line with the originally quoted point:

To be clear, what I am claiming (maybe others, but I don't want to speak for anyone else) is that with renewables plus 6-12 hours of storage can cover 80-95% of electricity needs in many areas of the world, and where they can they do that it is much cheaper than any realistic estimate of nuclear costs, and can be deployed much faster than nuclear and start reducing CO2 emissions now.

The world could easily (and with existing mature technology) come up with 10% seasonal storage in water dams. If there are other ways to get there, thats great too. But continuing to distract from the very basics of not turning on the hydro plants when other energy is abundant is starting to wear thin.

[kaz911]

Averages don't mean sh!t; your math is way way off. You need to be able to deal with the worst case peaks. Actually, kaz911's analysis is far too optimistic. An analys of the Dutch government shows that the NL needs about 12TWh (12000GWh) of storage to bridge periods with low production and allowing storage to replenish over time. The UK will need a multitude of that amount because it is much bigger with more people compared to the NL. More likely in the 40TWh ballpark.

And adding more generators to hydro also does not make hydro more effective or increase the capacity. For more capacity that can deal with worst case peak usage of storage, you'll need to add more water surface area at the cost of massive amounts of land that need to be flooded (vilages moved, etc). Calling hydro in Germany (to take one of your listed countrys) a succes is a gross overstatement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity_in_Germany A measly 3% and no room for growth. The reality is that hydro is low hanging fruit and most of it has been harvested by now.

To put numbers further into perspective: Wordwide pumped hydro accounts for about 9TWh of storage. That is just a drop in the bucket when looking at what is needed locally. Using some form of natural gas or hydrogen storage underground is a much more realistic approach: www.nlog.nl/sites/default/files/2019-08/juez_larre_et_al_2019_fb_st_july.pdf Just the storage capacity in the NL alone dwarfs the worldwide pumped hydro storage capacity.

haha - I was not trying to be precise at all - just trying to easyly illustrate how optimistic the original statement was - and how complex battery storage is in real life.

But I think if we took just 30% of the money we are putting into renewables and sent to researchers in universities etc for better and cleaner power production - we would get to net zero a lot faster than trying with the intermittent solar and wind + current battery technology.

I'm still for nuclear with generation 4 plants - as leftover waste is very limited - and potential issues of runaway are eliminated as far as I can tell.

[kaz911]

as the saying goes... citation required. But thats still "only" 10% of the annual electricity use of the Netherlands, right in line with the originally quoted point:

The NL 10% is of total energy consumption. The linked articles 10% is off pure net average renewables production. So they are not "comparable" 10%'s

[nctnico]

as the saying goes... citation required. But thats still "only" 10% of the annual electricity use of the Netherlands, right in line with the originally quoted point:

The NL 10% is of total energy consumption. The linked articles 10% is off pure net average renewables production. So they are not "comparable" 10%'s

Indeed. The amount of storage needed being 1, 2 , 10 or 20% of the annual energy consumpution doesn't mean anything. There is no statistical relation at all. Any storage will need to be able to supply a significant part of a country's energy needs. Likely close to 100% if there are no constant power sources like nuclear or fossil fuels (and no, hydro is not a constant source because it depends on the amount of rain which is getting more erratic in some places).

[kaz911]

as the saying goes... citation required. But thats still "only" 10% of the annual electricity use of the Netherlands, right in line with the originally quoted point:

The NL 10% is of total energy consumption. The linked articles 10% is off pure net average renewables production. So they are not "comparable" 10%'s

Indeed. The amount of storage needed being 1, 2 , 10 or 20% of the annual energy consumpution doesn't mean anything. There is no statistical relation at all. Any storage will need to be able to supply a significant part of a country's energy needs. Likely close to 100% if there are no constant power sources like nuclear or fossil fuels (and no, hydro is not a constant source because it depends on the amount of rain which is getting more erratic in some places).

One of my issues with current "Electricity Pricing" like in the UK - is that people think energy made on a stable source - should have the same value /MWh as electricity made with intermittent renewables without full backup. 

You can not compare £/MWh from Wind/Solar with £/MWh from coal, nuclear or gas. You have to DEDUCT risk of non-delivery to intermittent sources. The Risk factor is is different for each platform. So risk from "fossil" or nuclear is in the 50-60 days per year @ below average production. Risk from Wind is in the range of 150-170 days - and risk from Solar is in the 170-230 days (where production is below average nominal)

The risk from reliable systems is from breakdowns and maintenance. The risk from wind/solar is mainly no driving force - and then maintenance and breakdowns.

In 2022 we will have huge maintenance downtime for fossil and nuclear - but that is mainly due to a lack of maintenance during Covid. So there is a lot of catchup to do.

So Wind / Solar is just like having an employee who have 2 weeks annual vacation and maybe some sick days - but only turns up when it suits him/her/it - and only put in a part effort most of the time.

And old fashioned energy is like having an employee who have 5 weeks vacation and maybe some sick days. But the employee turns up and works full time and at peak efficiency every day.

Who would you pay a higher salary ? And how much less should you pay the person that randomly turn up when they feel like it?

[jonpaul]

Clean safe nuclear fission, [powered France and Switzerland safely and cleanly for decades.

Natural Gas plants are now in the balance better than solar or wind in use of resources.

SSPS is feasabe, Space Based Solar Power Station, uses solar cells in orbit synch, and efficient GaN transistors to create a microwave beam.

1960 invention at BTL.

Needs acres of RecTennas at land based station.

Dual use as a weapon!

Jon

[zeke.]

I think the biggest pro of PV is the independence it provides the consumer. I'm all for nuclear but it requires alot of institutions to get involved and the public to cooperate.

So Wind / Solar is just like having an employee who have 2 weeks annual vacation and maybe some sick days - but only turns up when it suits him/her/it - and only put in a part effort most of the time.

And old fashioned energy is like having an employee who have 5 weeks vacation and maybe some sick days. But the employee turns up and works full time and at peak efficiency every day.

Who would you pay a higher salary ? And how much less should you pay the person that randomly turn up when they feel like it?

You made good points in respect to nuclear but how much can we rely on government and utilities? Wouldn’t it be better to have investment in the direction of PV and batteries so consumers can take control of their energy needs (or at least a substantial portion of it)?

 

[themadhippy]

A question for all the proponents of nuclear,would you be happy with a new power station being built at the end of your road ? How about a solar or wind farm?

[kaz911]

A question for all the proponents of nuclear,would you be happy with a new power station being built at the end of your road ? How about a solar or wind farm?

For general noise - not at the end of my road for wind and nuclear.

Solar is fine close by as long as it is "considered" so ones does not get blinded by panel reflections.

But within 3 to 5 mile radius - fine with both nuclear and wind. I have a wind-park viewable from my windows - and it is far enough away so we can't hear them or get low frequency issues. And the 3 to 5 miles is only because of noise and ugliness of both windmills and nuclear.

If they could put nuclear underground and noise would be a non-issue - then I would not mind distance being smaller. But Windmills are ugly when built in "park" structures. 

[nctnico]

A question for all the proponents of nuclear,would you be happy with a new power station being built at the end of your road ? How about a solar or wind farm?

As long as they don't make noise. I just got back from a cycling trip and passed loads of wind turbines. Even from 1km away a wind turbine can be heard quite well even though the wind wasn't strong today. I wouldn't want to live near it as the noise would irritate the hell out of me. I'd take a nuclear power plant over a fossil fuel power plant any day. Nuclear doesn't emit toxic gasses into the air that kill me slowly. There is no denying that nuclear power is extremely safe; the numbers back that up very solid.

[Seekonk]

I worked at the startup of one of those nuclear plants on the coast that are now shut down. By the time I returned I lost all faith that engineering could overcome any problem. TEPCO was all about money and doing things as cheap as possible.  It seemed every week we had a small earthquake. Not like you could think it would never happen. The sea wall was way too short and they put the emergency generator/fuel tank right near the ocean. It was the first thing hit by the wave.  Had they placed the emergency generator away from the ocean the plants would have survived. The bean counters will destroy the world.

[Someone]

You can not compare £/MWh from Wind/Solar with £/MWh from coal, nuclear or gas. You have to DEDUCT risk of non-delivery to intermittent sources. The Risk factor is is different for each platform. So risk from "fossil" or nuclear is in the 50-60 days per year @ below average production. Risk from Wind is in the range of 150-170 days - and risk from Solar is in the 170-230 days (where production is below average nominal)

Levelized costs don't require any adjustment, its the deliverable energy over the cost of the install/operation/cleanup etc. Thats a guide to show if a technology is competitive. Running on the low end of rated capacity is not the risk to the pricing, its the other side when generation is in such high excess that the price goes to (or below zero) and the generation is no longer used. Generators aren't paying for not producing (unless they pre-comitted on a contract). Wind or Solar + storage is already cheaper, per delivered unit of energy. As disucssed above with just a small amount of storage such a system already meets the vast majority of energy demand. Whats left is the harder less frequent events.

How far should grid reliability go? 99.99% uptime, is the existing flat pricing for consumers (no incentive to curtail when power is short) really a viable model?

[nctnico]

How far should grid reliability go? 99.99% uptime, is the existing flat pricing for consumers (no incentive to curtail when power is short) really a viable model?

It is the expected model. How can businesses operate when the power goes out all the time? It is counterproductive to have a whole bunch of people sitting idle. Nowadays with people working at home more often, power grid reliability only got more important.

Suggesting to have power outages due to energy shortages is an evolutionary step back.

[kaz911]

How far should grid reliability go? 99.99% uptime, is the existing flat pricing for consumers (no incentive to curtail when power is short) really a viable model?

yes - 99.99% uptime as minimum should be the goal for any country. (Slightly less than 1 hour per year downtime)

We are reliant on stable and affordable electricity. That is how our societies are built. But our governments know it won't stay stable - which is why you are getting "smart meters" that can either cut you off - or delay when you are put back on the electricity grid at the goverments behest. And the losers in that game will be the low income families, as the high income areas have "power" and lawyers.

SmartMeters do not save energy for the average consumer six weeks post installation when the "effect" of the gadget wears off. So apart from the load management part - it is a waste of energy and money to put in the smart-meters as an energy saving incentive. LED lights have done more to reduce consumption than SmartMeters ever will.

For a country to be successful - it requires CHEAP and reliable energy. Everything else is secondary - because if the country is not successful - the country have much bigger problems ahead.

[f4eru]

Suggesting to have power outages due to energy shortages is an evolutionary step back.

Power outages due to generation have always existed, and will always exist.

In fact, in practice, reliability goes up with renewables !




And that is the state before cheap massive storage appears.

[kaz911]

How far should grid reliability go? 99.99% uptime, is the existing flat pricing for consumers (no incentive to curtail when power is short) really a viable model?

It is the expected model. How can businesses operate when the power goes out all the time? It is counterproductive to have a whole bunch of people sitting idle. Nowadays with people working at home more often, power grid reliability only got more important.

Suggesting to have power outages due to energy shortages is an evolutionary step back.

My primary business operate with a lot of people in an Asian country - where brownouts are a close to daily occurrence. I therefore had to split our locations 30 km apart to minimise total downtime risk (200+ people not being able to work is expensive) - and that is despite having battery backup and generators. Total downtime per year is 30-120 hours. Problems are big - especially due to grid "overload" when power comes back.

Often power will tick back on - only to go again in a short while later for "priority" energy delivery to "high end" residential and influential big businesses.

Generator parts are hard to get (at least "original" ones) and due to the climate they do not last long despite hardcore maintenance. And when something happens to the power - everybody stand in line for generator spare parts. So we try to stock most common parts in the warehouses.
 
But the biggest problem is telecom infrastructure - often exchanges do not have backup capability for long enough - so commutations disappear - and then it takes quite a while to get it back. So we run both on leased lines AND with Satellite backup.

I do not wish for the same to happen here. But it is where we are heading with current policies.

[kaz911]

Suggesting to have power outages due to energy shortages is an evolutionary step back.

Power outages due to generation have always existed, and will always exist.

In fact, in practice, reliability goes up with renewables !




And that is the state before cheap massive storage appears.

Is that based on research or are you guessing?

Most improvements in electricity network uptime have come from moving from cables in the air - to cables in the ground.

[Jester]

We will see a lot more wind generation. The cost to install has dropped and is often the lowest cost option now.

I was involved with the design of a protection scheme for these windmill generators and the sales in the last 5 years are simply going through the roof.