Who will save renewable energy? Truth in the Model - 2
Humanity wants everything, more and the appetite is growing exponentially. And any needs imply energy: if 100 years ago humanity consumed 50 exajoules a year, today it is 500 EJ, then where to get 5000 EJ by the end of the century, and so on? To paraphrase the classic: “Infinity of energy is better than finiteness by the presence of infinity.” At the moment there are several solutions and one of them is Renewable Energy Sources (RES).
Power generation of the twentieth century era has fundamental shortcomings that require a modern solution: somewhere due to global warming, daytime temperatures will riseto +60, someone will flood the rising ocean. This is not enough for Russia, but our compatriots die in coal mines, the life expectancy of the population is reduced due to emissions of thermal power plants, and so on. RES has its own fundamental flaw that stands in the way - the inconstancy of generation.
For example, Denmark already meets almost half of its annual electricity consumption with wind energy. The only problem of renewable energy sources is the inconsistency of generation - the country decides to import electricity from neighbors who are more fortunate at this moment with the wind, the sun or something else. Thus, for the bright renewable future, the concept of flows was born and found partial confirmation, when one country in Europe reaches out to the “wind” or “sun” to another country and everyone seems happy, and even with renewable energy sources. The concept of overflows can only work in the case of wind energy, since the sun “turns off” at night over a fairly large area. But in addition to overflows, electricity (electricity) can be accumulated.
In words, the concepts of overflows and accumulations are good, but what will happen in practice in the case of, for example, Germany? If neighbors always have extra gigawatts for little Denmark, then will neighbors have extra 60 gigawatts for Germany? And how much accumulation do you need? Hypotheses are tested experimentally, which would require a second Europe with an alternative energy system. Therefore, I decided to simulate everything described above: the flow of wind energy between European countries and the accumulation in conditions of real wind and solar generation.
Imagine that windmills and solar panels are evenly distributed throughout Europe and the whole territory is shrouded in numerous power lines, allowing the transfer of electricity from one end of Europe to the other. With calm in Germany, a windmill spins in England, and if calm there, Spain helps out. Or Greece. I took the actual generation data from windmills for several European countries for 2015, normalized them to the same power and aligned them between countries - I got a more even generation emulating flows between countries. For example, January:
Generation from the windmills has leveled off, but the effect is moderate: the differences between the neighboring minimum and maximum levels are three times. At the same time, the energy consumption is also uneven and, together with the unevenness of the “wind”, even greater imbalances are formed. To build a “wind Europe”, the aligned generation needs to be increased and the imbalances will be very significant. Below is a graph of different multiple increases in generation, where the unit is equalized and normalized wind for European countries:
Six-fold “wind” as a whole is slightly lower than consumption and failures are formed when wind generation provides only 30% of the needs. If you try to close these gaps with a nine-fold “wind”, then there will still be holes of 100 GW, and the excess generation will be 20%. The former need to be covered with something, and the latter is simply lost energy, increasing cost. That is, the concept of “overflows” alone does not solve.
The second way to ensure the constancy of renewable energy is the accumulation of electricity during periods of high generation and discharge at low. In words, again, it sounds sensible, but the judge of the hypothesis is an experiment. The proposed model works simply: if the generation from the aligned and normalized “wind” and “sun” is greater than the energy consumption, then the batteries are charging. If less, then discharge. Consumption and solar generation are also taken from real hourly data of European countries for 2015.
If the amount does not reach consumption, and the batteries are empty, then gas generation is turned on - without it there is no way to die. Gas TPPs are a friend of renewable energy sources and, unlike coal-fired power plants, they can be found in any model dedicated to future power systems. Firstly, they can pay off by working only a couple of weeks a year - coal cannot do this because of the inappropriate cost structure (high share of capital expenditures). Secondly, gas thermal power plants have much less harmful emissions.
When playing with the model, you can see that it is extremely difficult to completely transfer power generation to renewable energy sources. After going through 30,000 combinations of the multiplicity of “wind”, “sun” and the amount of accumulation, you can find the cheapest one to fully satisfy power consumption due to RES. Namely: 12-fold “wind” (1230 GW), 7-fold “sun” (385 GW) and 3000 GW * h of accumulation (⅔ average daily consumption). For February, one of the most uncomfortable months, everything looks like this:
What catches the eye with this scenario:
1. Generation from windmills almost constantly exceeds consumption. This was required to close rare failures when the wind weakens throughout Europe (February 11-12). In theory, the gaps can be closed with increased solar generation or greater accumulation, but it will turn out to be more expensive. Therefore, in this scenario, 44% of electricity is lost, which did not fit into either consumption or accumulation.
2. Batteries are idle idle: they are constantly clogged and only 8.5 charge / discharge cycles per year (1% of all electricity consumption). Once idle, it means investments are difficult to recoup and batteries will have to sell electricity 25 times more expensive.
3. The main role is played by the “wind” (a kind of basic generation), and the sun helps. If we take into account the installed capacity (GW), then the “wind” is 3 times more, if the generation of electricity (GW * h), which is more correct, then the “wind” is 6 times more.
4. Due to the first two factors, the cost of electricity increased from the ideal $ 77 per MWh (incorporated into the model as something averaged over the real cost) to $ 205. The cost of infrastructure for equalization plays a small role, since it fades against the backdrop of several trillions of dollars for “wind”, “sun” and accumulation - this is what it will cost at current prices. And dozens of years of production, if you forget about the other customers.
In terms of size and complexity, the described energy system (entirely on renewable energy sources) will fit even not the middle of the 21st century, but rather the end, and most likely, our generation will contemplate the neighborhood of quantum computers, artificial intelligence and “boilers” in coal and gas power plants.
Thus, humanity will have many decades to squeeze the last juices from traditional energy sources. By the way, the current benchmark of advanced Germany in terms of renewable energy share in 2050 is 80% .
But there are also positive points. The complexity of the energy system with the increase in the share of renewable energy grows non-linearly and the transition from the current share in the model of 16% to the same 80% is easier than from 80% to 100%. A combination run with a renewable energy share of 80% yielded the following results of the optimal combination: 615 GW of “wind” (6x), 165 GW of “sun” (3x), 193 GW of gas generation and lack of accumulation. The same February:
Losses are relatively modest 6%, and the cost of electricity is $ 102.5 per MWh. The excess over the ideal is $ 25 per MWh, which includes losses and equalization, as well as the installation and use of gas generation.
This scenario also sheds light on the need to reserve renewable energy sources with traditional generation, in our case, gas. The maximum consumption in the model is 267 GW, and gas will have to be installed at 200 GW. That is, despite the perfect alignment and the share of renewable energy in 80%, almost the entire energy system will have to be backed up by traditional generation.
Regarding the lack of accumulation: at the moment it is corny is very expensive (the price of $ 250 per kWh is included in the model). Secondly, the “wind” is not good friends with accumulation: periods of strong and weak winds last for days, respectively, and the volume of batteries is needed for several days of consumption (10'000-20'000 GW * h). Such a volume will be rarely and little used, which means it will be difficult to recoup. For comparison, modern world production capacities are about 100 GWh per year. The “sun” is much better with accumulation, which will charge and discharge the batteries every day, but due to the low winter insolation they will have to be installed too much and energy will be lost in the summer, increasing the cost price.
Runs of the model on different shares of renewable energy sources show that the options with the “wind” are basically optimal. Below is a table for three shares of renewable energy sources, where options with different multiples of "wind", "sun" and accumulation are sorted by the cost of electricity (LCOE):
Of course, this model does not take into account a lot and it is unlikely that the whole of Europe will be shrouded in tens of GW interconnectors - they were interested concepts at a fundamental level and the general situation. You can play with the model in the telegram bot (Celado_bot) from the last article, in the chat with which you can personally simulate the behavior of the power system by setting the parameters of the “sun”, “wind” and accumulation of interest.
So, who will save the renewable energy?) With a very great desire, it is really possible to build an energy system entirely on renewable energy sources, having lowered several trillion dollars (at current prices) to save the concept and, as a result, have sky-high electricity prices. With fractions less than 100%, total redundancy by gas generation can save RES. Given that it will cost relatively little, this option does not look fantastic!
Power generation of the twentieth century era has fundamental shortcomings that require a modern solution: somewhere due to global warming, daytime temperatures will riseto +60, someone will flood the rising ocean. This is not enough for Russia, but our compatriots die in coal mines, the life expectancy of the population is reduced due to emissions of thermal power plants, and so on. RES has its own fundamental flaw that stands in the way - the inconstancy of generation.
RES experiments - there are results
For example, Denmark already meets almost half of its annual electricity consumption with wind energy. The only problem of renewable energy sources is the inconsistency of generation - the country decides to import electricity from neighbors who are more fortunate at this moment with the wind, the sun or something else. Thus, for the bright renewable future, the concept of flows was born and found partial confirmation, when one country in Europe reaches out to the “wind” or “sun” to another country and everyone seems happy, and even with renewable energy sources. The concept of overflows can only work in the case of wind energy, since the sun “turns off” at night over a fairly large area. But in addition to overflows, electricity (electricity) can be accumulated.
In words, the concepts of overflows and accumulations are good, but what will happen in practice in the case of, for example, Germany? If neighbors always have extra gigawatts for little Denmark, then will neighbors have extra 60 gigawatts for Germany? And how much accumulation do you need? Hypotheses are tested experimentally, which would require a second Europe with an alternative energy system. Therefore, I decided to simulate everything described above: the flow of wind energy between European countries and the accumulation in conditions of real wind and solar generation.
Flows between countries
Imagine that windmills and solar panels are evenly distributed throughout Europe and the whole territory is shrouded in numerous power lines, allowing the transfer of electricity from one end of Europe to the other. With calm in Germany, a windmill spins in England, and if calm there, Spain helps out. Or Greece. I took the actual generation data from windmills for several European countries for 2015, normalized them to the same power and aligned them between countries - I got a more even generation emulating flows between countries. For example, January:
Generation from the windmills has leveled off, but the effect is moderate: the differences between the neighboring minimum and maximum levels are three times. At the same time, the energy consumption is also uneven and, together with the unevenness of the “wind”, even greater imbalances are formed. To build a “wind Europe”, the aligned generation needs to be increased and the imbalances will be very significant. Below is a graph of different multiple increases in generation, where the unit is equalized and normalized wind for European countries:
Six-fold “wind” as a whole is slightly lower than consumption and failures are formed when wind generation provides only 30% of the needs. If you try to close these gaps with a nine-fold “wind”, then there will still be holes of 100 GW, and the excess generation will be 20%. The former need to be covered with something, and the latter is simply lost energy, increasing cost. That is, the concept of “overflows” alone does not solve.
Battery and model
The second way to ensure the constancy of renewable energy is the accumulation of electricity during periods of high generation and discharge at low. In words, again, it sounds sensible, but the judge of the hypothesis is an experiment. The proposed model works simply: if the generation from the aligned and normalized “wind” and “sun” is greater than the energy consumption, then the batteries are charging. If less, then discharge. Consumption and solar generation are also taken from real hourly data of European countries for 2015.
If the amount does not reach consumption, and the batteries are empty, then gas generation is turned on - without it there is no way to die. Gas TPPs are a friend of renewable energy sources and, unlike coal-fired power plants, they can be found in any model dedicated to future power systems. Firstly, they can pay off by working only a couple of weeks a year - coal cannot do this because of the inappropriate cost structure (high share of capital expenditures). Secondly, gas thermal power plants have much less harmful emissions.
When playing with the model, you can see that it is extremely difficult to completely transfer power generation to renewable energy sources. After going through 30,000 combinations of the multiplicity of “wind”, “sun” and the amount of accumulation, you can find the cheapest one to fully satisfy power consumption due to RES. Namely: 12-fold “wind” (1230 GW), 7-fold “sun” (385 GW) and 3000 GW * h of accumulation (⅔ average daily consumption). For February, one of the most uncomfortable months, everything looks like this:
What catches the eye with this scenario:
1. Generation from windmills almost constantly exceeds consumption. This was required to close rare failures when the wind weakens throughout Europe (February 11-12). In theory, the gaps can be closed with increased solar generation or greater accumulation, but it will turn out to be more expensive. Therefore, in this scenario, 44% of electricity is lost, which did not fit into either consumption or accumulation.
2. Batteries are idle idle: they are constantly clogged and only 8.5 charge / discharge cycles per year (1% of all electricity consumption). Once idle, it means investments are difficult to recoup and batteries will have to sell electricity 25 times more expensive.
3. The main role is played by the “wind” (a kind of basic generation), and the sun helps. If we take into account the installed capacity (GW), then the “wind” is 3 times more, if the generation of electricity (GW * h), which is more correct, then the “wind” is 6 times more.
4. Due to the first two factors, the cost of electricity increased from the ideal $ 77 per MWh (incorporated into the model as something averaged over the real cost) to $ 205. The cost of infrastructure for equalization plays a small role, since it fades against the backdrop of several trillions of dollars for “wind”, “sun” and accumulation - this is what it will cost at current prices. And dozens of years of production, if you forget about the other customers.
In terms of size and complexity, the described energy system (entirely on renewable energy sources) will fit even not the middle of the 21st century, but rather the end, and most likely, our generation will contemplate the neighborhood of quantum computers, artificial intelligence and “boilers” in coal and gas power plants.
Thus, humanity will have many decades to squeeze the last juices from traditional energy sources. By the way, the current benchmark of advanced Germany in terms of renewable energy share in 2050 is 80% .
There is no silver lining
But there are also positive points. The complexity of the energy system with the increase in the share of renewable energy grows non-linearly and the transition from the current share in the model of 16% to the same 80% is easier than from 80% to 100%. A combination run with a renewable energy share of 80% yielded the following results of the optimal combination: 615 GW of “wind” (6x), 165 GW of “sun” (3x), 193 GW of gas generation and lack of accumulation. The same February:
Losses are relatively modest 6%, and the cost of electricity is $ 102.5 per MWh. The excess over the ideal is $ 25 per MWh, which includes losses and equalization, as well as the installation and use of gas generation.
This scenario also sheds light on the need to reserve renewable energy sources with traditional generation, in our case, gas. The maximum consumption in the model is 267 GW, and gas will have to be installed at 200 GW. That is, despite the perfect alignment and the share of renewable energy in 80%, almost the entire energy system will have to be backed up by traditional generation.
Regarding the lack of accumulation: at the moment it is corny is very expensive (the price of $ 250 per kWh is included in the model). Secondly, the “wind” is not good friends with accumulation: periods of strong and weak winds last for days, respectively, and the volume of batteries is needed for several days of consumption (10'000-20'000 GW * h). Such a volume will be rarely and little used, which means it will be difficult to recoup. For comparison, modern world production capacities are about 100 GWh per year. The “sun” is much better with accumulation, which will charge and discharge the batteries every day, but due to the low winter insolation they will have to be installed too much and energy will be lost in the summer, increasing the cost price.
Runs of the model on different shares of renewable energy sources show that the options with the “wind” are basically optimal. Below is a table for three shares of renewable energy sources, where options with different multiples of "wind", "sun" and accumulation are sorted by the cost of electricity (LCOE):
Of course, this model does not take into account a lot and it is unlikely that the whole of Europe will be shrouded in tens of GW interconnectors - they were interested concepts at a fundamental level and the general situation. You can play with the model in the telegram bot (Celado_bot) from the last article, in the chat with which you can personally simulate the behavior of the power system by setting the parameters of the “sun”, “wind” and accumulation of interest.
So, who will save the renewable energy?) With a very great desire, it is really possible to build an energy system entirely on renewable energy sources, having lowered several trillion dollars (at current prices) to save the concept and, as a result, have sky-high electricity prices. With fractions less than 100%, total redundancy by gas generation can save RES. Given that it will cost relatively little, this option does not look fantastic!