That's what I came up with also. Without nuclear only a very few places with a lot geothermal can do it. If you add enough nuclear to make it viable (50%), you are still forced to do Power-to-X, because nuclear doesn't fluctuate well, and wind just does whatever it does. You still have periods with very high excess power being produced. But the wind is very expensive when you figure in the conversion/storage costs. Solar depends, but it still doesn't increase grid stability.
Adding in high surge power demands for electrically-fueled transport and heat makes the entire situation less stable.
Over the long run, any society which tries to do this will experience outright poverty. Growth declines sharply, necessities become much more expensive, and an ever-higher portion of the population sees a declining living standard.
I was on in the US Navy for over 20 years, ten of those on a Nuclear-powered Submarine and the other ten at the land-based training nuclear plants. We routinely took those plants from very low (~12%) power to full power (=100%) in a very short period of time (well less than five minutes stabilized at the new power level). When you say, "nuclear doesn't fluctuate well", that's a limit of power plants built to operate as baseload very efficiently, not a limit of the technology. The Nuclear Navies (not just US) have been building nuclear power plants that change power very quickly for decades. They do loose quite a bit in efficiency, though some (but not all) of that was size and weight restrictions that a civilian power station isn't constrained.
Adding Hydrogen infrastructure does have an advantage in large transportation vehicles (planes, trains, trucks, ships) where batteries aren't going to work (weight to power). I believe Germany has had a few Hydrogen fuel cell powered submarines with a range useable for coastal defense (three weeks?), I haven't looked in a while. If we are generating hydrogen for big transport, does that change the cost benefit for grid stabilization?
Producing hydrogen for other uses (e.g transportation, industrial uses) would work well with a nuclear based electrical grid, where you have control over how much you can produce and when you produce.
With a renewables based grid, particularly a wind based grid making hydrogen from surplus power, you would have long periods when no hydrogen could be produced. This wouldn't work for industrial uses or for transportation where demand is not flexible, unless you build massive storage.
Interesting thoughts thank you. A few random thoughts as I read it.
Perfection is the enemy of improvement, 90% renewable with fossil fuel backup for abnormal years would be a massive improvement.
Short term fluctuations are somewhat predictable, to some extent its a management issue.
Geographic diversification matters - that requires a good grid network. The storm your boat was in was localised. International networks help (Norway and France)
In your example wind was curtailed a lot (cost money, didn't make it) if it was used for Hydrogen production it is "free". Hydrogen can be stored as ammonia.
Why don't gas plants store gas? I presume it's uneconomic.
If Nuclear is the answer why have the French had so many recent problems?
Have you read David Osmond on the renew website? It was in Australia, but with solar and wind doing the vast majority of the lifting it looked possible to generate reliable, cheap power there.
Regions with high solar capacities and where power demand is highest in summer have a better chance of success than regions that rely in wind, since solar is more consistent than wind. Australia is a good example that cannot be applied everywhere.
Spreading the wind resources geographically helps to even out short term variations. However, it is the failure of wind over a long period that necessitates the high storage needs, and those periods of low wind tend to be widespread geographically. The low wind conditions that happened in the winter of 2009/2010 were Europe wide, so relying on imports from countries that are also relying on wind does not make for a stable grid.
High volume gas storage is usually done in hollowed out salt domes or abandoned oil fields, not necessarily where power plants are located. Above ground storage is expensive.
Ammonia is another option for energy storage, but it adds an extra layer of inefficiency, extra costs for building and operating ammonia plants and extra logistics issues when trying to operate those plants using surplus renewables. Ammonia is also difficult to burn without creating very high NOx emissions.
In my example wind was curtailed to the extent that overall costs were minimized. You reach a point where the wind surplus is insufficient to economically operate the hydrolysers.
Net zero targets are counter-productive, fossils could be used as back-up and keep costs reasonable, perhaps not 90% but certainly 60% on most areas. Diesel generators would probably serve that function best because storage would be easier, and supply would be more reliable. In a renewables system, as more renewables are added, there is a diminishing incentive to build and maintain a back-up gas network for emergency use.
Doesn't take that much storage to get to 90%. There is also transmission.
We already have 69 countries above 50% renewable. 95% of new capacity going in now, is renewable.
---
What happens when the sun still doesn’t shine, and the wind still doesn’t blow?
“This is the role of storage for energy shifting rather than storage for grid stability. Additional storage could provide coverage. The results of a simple network model suggest roughly one day out of 10 there will be a shortfall in renewable energy for more than 12 hours of average demand.
The provision of sufficient storage to supply 12 hours of average demand would allow the renewable energy penetration to exceed 90%.
This storage could come from a number of sources: the underutilised battery capacity of electric vehicles, behind the meter storage in houses and commercial premises, utility scale batteries..."
Countries with high levels of renewables on your scoring are I suspect well endowed with hydro resources, which are both low carbon (less the construction element) and an excellent way to counterbalance intermittency. That is not a model that can be spread elsewhere. See the data in this chart
Good news, there is no shortage of RE to tap. Very much an abundance.
1) Every country in the world barring Japan & nations in eastern & central Europe, have renewable resources capable of meeting their current energy demands 10X over. The global south is the richest region of all.”
Wind + solar + hydro + biomass + pumped hydro + battery + demand response control + distributed energy resources + efficiency + productivity + grid interconnection = at or near 90% RE by 2050.
Fossil Fuel Economy Requires 535x More Mining Than a Clean Energy Economy
Transitioning to clean energy would reduce the volume and harm of mining dramatically
“Every year, about 15 billion tons of fossil fuels are mined and extracted. That’s about 535 times more mining than a clean energy economy would require in 2040.
Very much attainable, and already on the way. In comparison, nuclear is way too slow & expensive to make a dent.
1) Solar up 40x since 2010, & now solar to be the WORLD’s top power source by 2033. IEA boosted their solar outlook again, solar beats IEA's 2015 outlook for 2050, 27yrs early.
“…solar to overtake nuclear, hydro & wind in 2026, gas in 2031, coal by 2033."
"Frequent stops and starts also shorten the life of the power plant increasing costs." I think you mean continuous cycling? They don't actually stop and start coal plants as it takes a long time to start a coal plant. Different though with combined cycle power plants where it is shut down.
In the UK the anti coal lobby meant that for some years it has been the case that most coal capacity has remained shut down, and only warmed up when forecast supply was tight. Often it wasn't even dispatched so it burned coal to heat the air. Its use was reserved to peak lopping in a highly inefficient manner on the grounds that it should not otherwise "pollute".
Interestingly West Burton was allowed to run as much as it found economic during its final year, probably because it argued that it should burn off its coal stocks. It operated more or less as baseload, and even had to import extra coal to keep going.
That's what I came up with also. Without nuclear only a very few places with a lot geothermal can do it. If you add enough nuclear to make it viable (50%), you are still forced to do Power-to-X, because nuclear doesn't fluctuate well, and wind just does whatever it does. You still have periods with very high excess power being produced. But the wind is very expensive when you figure in the conversion/storage costs. Solar depends, but it still doesn't increase grid stability.
Adding in high surge power demands for electrically-fueled transport and heat makes the entire situation less stable.
Over the long run, any society which tries to do this will experience outright poverty. Growth declines sharply, necessities become much more expensive, and an ever-higher portion of the population sees a declining living standard.
I was on in the US Navy for over 20 years, ten of those on a Nuclear-powered Submarine and the other ten at the land-based training nuclear plants. We routinely took those plants from very low (~12%) power to full power (=100%) in a very short period of time (well less than five minutes stabilized at the new power level). When you say, "nuclear doesn't fluctuate well", that's a limit of power plants built to operate as baseload very efficiently, not a limit of the technology. The Nuclear Navies (not just US) have been building nuclear power plants that change power very quickly for decades. They do loose quite a bit in efficiency, though some (but not all) of that was size and weight restrictions that a civilian power station isn't constrained.
Adding Hydrogen infrastructure does have an advantage in large transportation vehicles (planes, trains, trucks, ships) where batteries aren't going to work (weight to power). I believe Germany has had a few Hydrogen fuel cell powered submarines with a range useable for coastal defense (three weeks?), I haven't looked in a while. If we are generating hydrogen for big transport, does that change the cost benefit for grid stabilization?
Producing hydrogen for other uses (e.g transportation, industrial uses) would work well with a nuclear based electrical grid, where you have control over how much you can produce and when you produce.
With a renewables based grid, particularly a wind based grid making hydrogen from surplus power, you would have long periods when no hydrogen could be produced. This wouldn't work for industrial uses or for transportation where demand is not flexible, unless you build massive storage.
Interesting thoughts thank you. A few random thoughts as I read it.
Perfection is the enemy of improvement, 90% renewable with fossil fuel backup for abnormal years would be a massive improvement.
Short term fluctuations are somewhat predictable, to some extent its a management issue.
Geographic diversification matters - that requires a good grid network. The storm your boat was in was localised. International networks help (Norway and France)
In your example wind was curtailed a lot (cost money, didn't make it) if it was used for Hydrogen production it is "free". Hydrogen can be stored as ammonia.
Why don't gas plants store gas? I presume it's uneconomic.
If Nuclear is the answer why have the French had so many recent problems?
Have you read David Osmond on the renew website? It was in Australia, but with solar and wind doing the vast majority of the lifting it looked possible to generate reliable, cheap power there.
Regions with high solar capacities and where power demand is highest in summer have a better chance of success than regions that rely in wind, since solar is more consistent than wind. Australia is a good example that cannot be applied everywhere.
Spreading the wind resources geographically helps to even out short term variations. However, it is the failure of wind over a long period that necessitates the high storage needs, and those periods of low wind tend to be widespread geographically. The low wind conditions that happened in the winter of 2009/2010 were Europe wide, so relying on imports from countries that are also relying on wind does not make for a stable grid.
High volume gas storage is usually done in hollowed out salt domes or abandoned oil fields, not necessarily where power plants are located. Above ground storage is expensive.
Ammonia is another option for energy storage, but it adds an extra layer of inefficiency, extra costs for building and operating ammonia plants and extra logistics issues when trying to operate those plants using surplus renewables. Ammonia is also difficult to burn without creating very high NOx emissions.
In my example wind was curtailed to the extent that overall costs were minimized. You reach a point where the wind surplus is insufficient to economically operate the hydrolysers.
Net zero targets are counter-productive, fossils could be used as back-up and keep costs reasonable, perhaps not 90% but certainly 60% on most areas. Diesel generators would probably serve that function best because storage would be easier, and supply would be more reliable. In a renewables system, as more renewables are added, there is a diminishing incentive to build and maintain a back-up gas network for emergency use.
Doesn't take that much storage to get to 90%. There is also transmission.
We already have 69 countries above 50% renewable. 95% of new capacity going in now, is renewable.
---
What happens when the sun still doesn’t shine, and the wind still doesn’t blow?
“This is the role of storage for energy shifting rather than storage for grid stability. Additional storage could provide coverage. The results of a simple network model suggest roughly one day out of 10 there will be a shortfall in renewable energy for more than 12 hours of average demand.
The provision of sufficient storage to supply 12 hours of average demand would allow the renewable energy penetration to exceed 90%.
This storage could come from a number of sources: the underutilised battery capacity of electric vehicles, behind the meter storage in houses and commercial premises, utility scale batteries..."
https://www.energetics.com.au/insights/thought-leadership/what-happens-when-the-sun-doesn-t-shine-and-the-wind-doesn-t-blow
Countries with high levels of renewables on your scoring are I suspect well endowed with hydro resources, which are both low carbon (less the construction element) and an excellent way to counterbalance intermittency. That is not a model that can be spread elsewhere. See the data in this chart
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ToTqB/1/
Good news, there is no shortage of RE to tap. Very much an abundance.
1) Every country in the world barring Japan & nations in eastern & central Europe, have renewable resources capable of meeting their current energy demands 10X over. The global south is the richest region of all.”
https://www.ft.com/content/969d1a10-0e81-450b-971c-06acd79e4561
2) Earth's solar resource is 173,000 TW. Capturing just 1% of that would power 100x humanity's entire energy needs.
https://x.com/JessePeltan/status/1763282554059186679
3) The renewables work in concert together.
Wind + solar + hydro + biomass + pumped hydro + battery + demand response control + distributed energy resources + efficiency + productivity + grid interconnection = at or near 90% RE by 2050.
It’s a transition.
It's a fantasy, requiring an unattainable exploitation of resources.
As for resources, more good news:
Fossil Fuel Economy Requires 535x More Mining Than a Clean Energy Economy
Transitioning to clean energy would reduce the volume and harm of mining dramatically
“Every year, about 15 billion tons of fossil fuels are mined and extracted. That’s about 535 times more mining than a clean energy economy would require in 2040.
https://www.distilled.earth/p/a-fossil-fuel-economy-requires-535x
That's what RE is replacing.
Nuclear is irrelevant.
Nuke would need to 2x build rate just to keep up with retirements.
Solar adds 1.6GW per day now. That's more capacity than nuclear has netted in the last 20yrs.
Very much attainable, and already on the way. In comparison, nuclear is way too slow & expensive to make a dent.
1) Solar up 40x since 2010, & now solar to be the WORLD’s top power source by 2033. IEA boosted their solar outlook again, solar beats IEA's 2015 outlook for 2050, 27yrs early.
“…solar to overtake nuclear, hydro & wind in 2026, gas in 2031, coal by 2033."
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-solar-surge-will-send-coal-power-tumbling-by-2030-iea-data-reveals/
2) We now have 69 nations with more than 50% RE in their grid.
List here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production
How many countries with above 50% nuke? Three.
Above 40%? Eight.
Above just 20%? 15.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country
3) "Renewables will account for 95% of increase in global capacity through 2026, solar alone providing more than half."
https://www.iea.org/news/renewable-electricity-growth-is-accelerating-faster-than-ever-worldwide-supporting-the-emergence-of-the-new-global-energy-economy
Great article.
"Frequent stops and starts also shorten the life of the power plant increasing costs." I think you mean continuous cycling? They don't actually stop and start coal plants as it takes a long time to start a coal plant. Different though with combined cycle power plants where it is shut down.
In the UK the anti coal lobby meant that for some years it has been the case that most coal capacity has remained shut down, and only warmed up when forecast supply was tight. Often it wasn't even dispatched so it burned coal to heat the air. Its use was reserved to peak lopping in a highly inefficient manner on the grounds that it should not otherwise "pollute".
Interestingly West Burton was allowed to run as much as it found economic during its final year, probably because it argued that it should burn off its coal stocks. It operated more or less as baseload, and even had to import extra coal to keep going.