Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Details on the on-shore potential study from the second leak to Spiegel:
  • They deem 13.8% of Germany's land area suitable for wind power from the viewpoint of wind potential and distance from inhabited areas
  • A major element of the expansion was a reduction of safe distance from homes, under the assumption of the use of more silent wind turbines
  • The relative economics of constructing at these locations wasn't considered
  • Special protection for natural habitats, state zoning laws and NIMBY wasn't considered
  • Combined power capacity of turbines at 100% use of these areas: 1,190 GW
  • Power generation potential of these turbines at prevailing winds: 2,900 TWh (against the current consumption level of 600 TWh)

Spiegel mentions an earlier study by the same agency for a 100% renewable supply which foresaw only 60 GW wind (twice today's). That's why Spiegel doesn't think that the limitations of the study affect the point that on-shore potential is enough.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jun 10th, 2013 at 03:16:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Regarding the new boom of on-shore, the industry association said they expect 2.9 GW by year-end, which would make 2013 the second best year after 2002 (and together with off-shore, the best year for wind overall).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jun 10th, 2013 at 03:29:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
WAB has commissioned a study by VDMA which should be out in a month or so, addressing the industrial policy needs of keeping shipyards alive as well as the supply chain.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - AnaÔs Nin
by Crazy Horse on Tue Jun 11th, 2013 at 04:34:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
An interesting point is why Germany decided at the time to invest so strongly in off-shore. Surely part of that was the belief that on-shore wasn't big enough; but Merkel is a political animal, and I suspect it was done as an "insurance" against politically motivated NIMBY blackmail against land wind power. We have seen very little of that in Germany (contrary, e.g., to Australia).

Where NIMBY blackmail is being used is against strengthening of the grid. Perhaps expansion of land wind power, together with solar, in a territorially even fashion "close to the consumer" is the way to defuse that ;-)

by mustakissa on Tue Jun 11th, 2013 at 10:30:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
To also correct myself, the off-shore wind targets go back ten years to the SPD-Greens government, Merkel & co only accepted it seriously post-Fukushima. The belief that on-shore doesn't have the potential is more ten years ago. As for Merkel's post-Fukushima support for off-shore, by thinking of NIMBY, you are assuming a political animal truly thinking in decades. I think the thought that Big Energy will like off-shore wind more than solar or on-shore is closer to it.

Where NIMBY blackmail is being used is against strengthening of the grid.

This thing is part over-blown. There are a lot of projects well pre-dating the renewables boom which are now tacked on the need for balancing intermittency. At the demand side, DIW also criticised the method of estimating needed grid capacity, saying that it is too focused on large thermal plants and doesn't consider their throttling. And the truth is that beyond NIMBYism, the post-liberalisation reduction of investment and regulatory difficulties held up grid expansion, too. The good news is that grid investment now reached pre-deregulation levels and a law to enable accelerated approval just passed.

a territorially even fashion "close to the consumer" is the way to defuse that

Only if this means much more wind power in south Germany. Until now, this has been held up (intentionally) by zoning laws. Baden-Württenberg's Greens-led government is changing that for that state, though.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Jun 11th, 2013 at 11:48:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks DoDo. That's interesting to read.

BTW "Hochtemperaturleiterseil", high temperature conductor wire, apparently transports twice what a conventional wire does. Always learning something new

by mustakissa on Wed Jun 12th, 2013 at 06:29:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually I am not sure their calculation works.

They have 49,400 square km of suitable area, and want to build 1190 GW of capacity on that. That's by my calculations 24 MW / km^2. Which would produce some 8 MW on average per km^2.

I have seen one study using general circulation modelling, showing that you cannot efficiently extract more than 1 MW for every km^2. So there's a discrepancy of 8x.

Now of course if the suitable areas don't form big blocks but disconnected patches and strips, it won't be that bad.

Perhaps not yet give up on offshore ;-)

by mustakissa on Wed Jun 12th, 2013 at 01:42:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What's truly stupid about the questioning of feed-in support for off-shore is why we are having the debate now. As things stand, the 10 GW target for 2020 will probably be missed by a large margin due to the start-up difficulties, thus it's too early to speculate on a significant price effect (of any kind) due to the high off-shore wind feed-in rates. We should have this debate in 2018 or so (when the degression of those feed-in rates for new installations is currently set to kick in), when we can see whether serious cost reduction potentials became visible.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Jun 12th, 2013 at 02:46:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
For a better picture of what we are talking about in terms of feed-in rates, I prepared this diagram:

The first 12+ years and first 8+ years are alternative remuneration models which wind developers can (and have to) choose from. (The diagram ignores bonuses for system integration – granted above the base rate from 2009 to 2014, degressing from 0.5 €-cents/kWh – and repowering – above the rate for the first 5+ years, also degressing from 0.5 €-cents/kWh.)

For comparison, here are the highest and lowest feed-in rates for photovoltaic solar (with projected rates for Q3 and Q4 2013 with the assumption that degression remains the same):

(This diagram ignores a 5 €-cents/kWh bonus for façade-integrated facilities granted between 2004 and 2008 and [lower] rates for electricity not fed into the grid but metered as own use, granted between January 2009 and March 2012.)

The feed-in rate for the smallest rooftop PV facilities can be compared with the industry association's quarterly module price index:

The same on a logarithmic scale:



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Jun 15th, 2013 at 06:09:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
would almost deserve a diary of their own...

Wind power
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Jun 15th, 2013 at 08:54:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Q3 solar FIT degression and price index numbers are coming up in July. If a suitable news to tag it to presents itself then, I'll put the updated graphs into a diary.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Jun 15th, 2013 at 09:18:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Indeed 24 MW would be eight 3 MW turbines, which as low-wind turbines with 100-m-plus diameters would need separating distances of nearly a kilometre in the prevailing wind direction – at most half of that would seem more realistic.

Based on the 2,900 TWh-a-year figure, they seem to have considered an average capacity factor of 27.8% (probably realistic if we consider low-wind turbines with high towers), thus an average power of 6.7 MW. Still way above that 1 MW or even the 2-4 MW of local models.

I'll look for the report and check their assumptions.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Jun 12th, 2013 at 03:04:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The study is here.

Disconnected patches and strips is indeed the 'solution', check the example diagram on page 31 (you can even have a single tightly-spaced wind farm with the turbines placed on several separated but nearby suitable areas of less than a kilometre across). This also reduces the applicability of the 1 MW/km² figure for large contiguous windfarms.

They used two reference wind turbines (one weak-wind one strong-wind), and an iterated placement with a minimum spacing of 456 m (four times the [larger] rotor diameter of the weak-wind turbine). With a triangular grid pattern on a large uninterrupted suitable area, I calculate 17.77 and 18.88 MW/km² as maximum density on actual land area (as opposed to the area of the patches of suitable land) for the 3.2 MW resp. 3.4 MW reference turbines.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Jun 12th, 2013 at 04:06:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks DoDo, looks good.

I found that Jacobson has also studied this problem, arriving at considerably higher average power densities: ~ 4 MW/km^2.

by mustakissa on Thu Jun 13th, 2013 at 03:38:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My current rule of thumb is that you can pack at least 10 MW per sq. km.
You need 7-8 rotor diameters in the prevailing wind direction, but can get away with 5 in the other direction.

With current rotors around 110-130M for 4-6MW turbines, you can have 2 per sq.km.; with the coming generation (150m rotors for 6+MW turbines), you'll get more or less the same)

Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Jun 15th, 2013 at 05:35:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series