The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Yep, this is important as storage of energy over seasonal time scales is hard. One can match and mix wind and solar to follow the annual load cycle.
...but not just the seasonal cycle: wind and sun anti-correlate also on the synoptic time scale, with high pressures being sunny and low pressures windy.
You can, e.g., store quite huge amounts of energy in the Norwegian mountains. But getting it out quickly enough when you need it may be a problem. Even after installing all the necessary extra turbines and high-voltage lines -- where do you put all the water downstream of the dam?
There is also the option of pumped hydro, which would become far more attractive with access to sovereign credit. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
In the river, where it is collected by the next dam.
Eh, I'm talking GW, not TWh. Where do you put a huge amount of water all at once in a small river, with picturesque, small Norwegian villages lining the shores?
Have no idea what the order of maximum effect is with relation to water flows. Should not be much lower then total maximum effect though, not much point in installing more effect then the Vattendom allows water flow, though there is probably an effect on each others maximum allowed flow in the case of rivers running together. Total installed hydro capacity in Sweden is about 16 GW in Sweden. Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
So, currently Scandinavian hydro can produce only a tenth or so of total electric power consumed in Europe. If it is to serve as intermittency back-up, it should be much larger than that. As it is, it may serve Scandinavia, Scotland, the North of Germany, and that's about it. And that will require substantial investment, in HVDC lines and turbines. So, it's part of a solution at best. Alpine hydro will be another part.
Whether a hydro plant can be upgraded will depend on what's downstream: another big reservoir, a fjord, or the sea: good. And no, you don't actually need pumped hydro if the reservoir is big enough: you can "store" energy by holding back the flow, for a while at least. And the good news is that the reservoirs are lowest towards spring, when in winter there are good winds over Northern Europe.
Some reading stuff from Norway here:
http://www.cedren.no/Publications.aspx
esp. the first article.
Suppose you have a sustainable grid in which the baseload is wind, solar, and run-of-river hydro (and wave and tidal); scheduled load-following power is wood pellet, biochar, and large industrial consumers being paid to shift energy-intensive production around to other parts of the day/week; and peak load is hydro, pumped hydro and biogas.
Suppose further that European total consumption is on the order of 1 TW at the daily and seasonal peak, and 0.65 TW at the trough. If the largest single point of failure is 10 GW, with an 0.3 % probability of failing during any given day, and the largest forecast error for consumption in any given day has a standard deviation on the order of 20 GW, or about 2 % of peak power.
Now assume that we want to have enough peaker capacity to make blackouts only happen once every 1800 days (approximately five years) on average, and keep enough peaker power online at all time that we only need to bleed off scheduled power about once a year. That means you need about six or seven standard deviations plus the largest single point of failure. Call it 150 GW of dedicated peaker power. For all of Europe, in a fully sustainable grid. So 50 GW of peaker power from Scandinavia alone is very definitely in the right ballpark.
The real challenge is going to be coming up with sustainable scheduled load-following.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
I think you misread me: I'm not implying that the mechanics of load following would be a problem of consequence even at ~100% renewable penetration. That meme is nonsense. But we do need load-following power above and beyond hydro.
I don't think using bio-fuels for this is a good idea: they are limited in availability, and it would be better to reserve them, e.g., for transport, where they are hard to replace completely. One solution on the longer run would be hydrogen fuel, generated by electrolysis from peak wind/solar. This is already being studied. Besides being burned in power plants, hydrogen has some direct uses, e.g., in steel making (one example of a user that could switch off on request and use stored fuel).
This would require the installed capacity of renewables to be more than 100% of average electric power load, e.g., 150%. A tall order, but the North Sea is large enough for a big chunk of that.
I would not bet the farm on that.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.1401
by Frank Schnittger - May 27
by Frank Schnittger - May 5 22 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 23 1 comment
by Oui - May 13 64 comments
by Carrie - Apr 30 7 comments
by Oui - May 27
by Oui - May 24
by Frank Schnittger - May 231 comment
by Oui - May 1364 comments
by Oui - May 910 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 522 comments
by Oui - May 448 comments
by Oui - May 312 comments
by Oui - May 29 comments
by gmoke - May 1
by Oui - Apr 30242 comments
by Carrie - Apr 307 comments
by Oui - Apr 2830 comments
by Oui - Apr 2644 comments
by Oui - Apr 876 comments
by Oui - Mar 19143 comments