Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
A fairy whispered this into my ear: a journal article, with this as background.

I have been trying to read and understand this, but is it really true what I suspect: their modelling is based throughout on the currently existing German grid, i.e., no grid strengthening is considered. Obviously their results are no surprise then.

Can it really be that simple? Serious question.

by mustakissa on Thu Jun 13th, 2013 at 04:27:54 PM EST
They apparently built a complex grid and production model, but there are a lot of assumptions there and the tested scenarios are aimed at certain outcomes. I note in particular:
  • they assumed a specific constant price of CO2,
  • they treated hydro and biomass as being operated on a must-run basis,
  • they assumed additional renewable capacity will have the same geographical distribution as in 2010 [it's already significantly different today...],
  • they assumed the same hourly generation profiles in their projections of increased production as in the chosen three days from 2010 data.


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jun 13th, 2013 at 05:50:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As for not considering grid strengthening: indeed; and there are also possible changes in grid operation, and that includes much simpler things than smart grids and electric cars: like the idea of setting of reserve capacity every day instead of every three months.

To bring this discussion closer to the topic of the diary, the planned Norway-Germany undersea cable is significant in connection with the grid compatibility of the North Sea wind power.

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

by DoDo on Thu Jun 13th, 2013 at 06:38:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Federal Grid Agency is about to release its 2012 annual report. News reports say that the Agency now thinks that the critical situation it saw a year ago has eased. One positive change credited with this was the opening of a new grid connection at the end of last year (as linked above for the "indeed" part). Another is that at the shut-down Brokdorf A nuclear reactor unit, the steam generator was turned into a phase shifter.

As for a negative, the Agency criticised the scaling-down of the Staudinger power plant at Großkrotzenburg near Frankfurt:

  • the old intermediate-load hard-coal blocks 1-3 were shut down,
  • the less old peak-load gas-fired block 4 was retained,
  • the relatively new base-load hard-coal block 5 was retained,
  • the project for a base-load hard-coal block 6 was abandoned.

Well in the greater scheme of things I don't see that as a negative... and don't see why the Federal Grid Agency would want a new baseload plant for grid stability.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jun 24th, 2013 at 03:08:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Doesn't it say that right there in the abstract? If you shut off all the nukes tomorrow, what happens the next day?

That is a slightly different scenario from the "OMG Houston we have a giant problem here let's spend a couple of trillion Euros to fix it over the next ten years and part of that is shutting off the nukes" scenario.

by asdf on Thu Jun 13th, 2013 at 05:57:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, they made calculations for the system in 2012 as-is and with the already shut-down nuclear plants added back in, and with and without nuclear phaseout in 2017 and 2022. From their results, supposedly the 2012 situation is the most critical. Somehow that didn't happen; I suspect both falling demand and the rise of solar power (vs. their 2010 basis data) changed the equation significantly.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jun 13th, 2013 at 06:20:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series