Flexible backup capacity is better option: Need for power storage overstated

[kristopher]

This summary of an analysis shows an extremely important point I've been making here for years. Namely, that the path forward for decarbonizing our economy isn't being hindered by the lack of storage. We have more than enough natural gas generating capacity to fill this need.

The charts might be a bit difficult to wrap your head around because of the way they can't be compared side by side, but somethings are worth taking the time to study in detail and IMO this is one of those things as it gives solid basis for this core concept.

A recent publication by Fraunhofer ISE shows how little wind and solar power would need to be stored at various levels of grid penetration. We are years away from such situations. Before we need power storage, we will need flexible backup capacity. In fact, that's what we need already.

For my international audience, I should probably point out that Fraunhofer is not a single institute, but a "research society." The other study I have been talking about this week was done by Fraunhofer IWES of Kassel. Today, I focus on a paper published in November by researchers at Fraunhofer ISE of Freiburg.

The researchers took a look at how much of Germany's current installed capacity is must-run, meaning that the power plants technically cannot be ramped down any further. While prices on the power exchange plummet as soon as conventional power generation dips below 25 GW, the researchers estimate that the technical lower limit is 20 GW.A recent publication by Fraunhofer ISE shows how little wind and solar power would need to be stored at various levels of grid penetration. We are years away from such situations. Before we need power storage, we will need flexible backup capacity. In fact, that's what we need already...

<Graphs and discussion at link>

In conclusion, the need for power storage is years away, and it also depends on the unflexibility of conventional power generation. Put differently, power storage is not needed for solar and wind, but for inflexible coal and nuclear in combination with solar and wind. These findings are not particularly new or surprising; I remember reading similar things in Photon magazine years ago. If Germany started building gas turbines instead of new coal plants, the need for power storage could be pushed into the distant future. The problem is that baseload coal and nuclear power is incompatible with fluctuating wind + solar. (Craig Morris)

http://www.renewablesinternational.net/need-for-power-storage-overstated/150/537/76767/

[kristopher]

1. Kicked because of relationship to IEA study

Posted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/112765354

Put differently, power storage is not needed for solar and wind, but for inflexible coal and nuclear in combination with solar and wind. These findings are not particularly new or surprising; I remember reading similar things in Photon magazine years ago. If Germany started building gas turbines instead of new coal plants, the need for power storage could be pushed into the distant future. The problem is that baseload coal and nuclear power is incompatible with fluctuating wind + solar.

[hunter]

2. The filthy fracking gas industry loves wind and solar.

.

[kristopher]

3. So you'd rather do what?

You can't build nuclear and shut down coal and natural gas as fast as you can by building out with renewables, so why would the natural gas industry "love wind and solar" when they can sell more natural gas with business and usual built around nuclear and coal?

Explain to me a path where we shut down all fossil fuels - including natural gas - faster than we can with renewables?

I'm really, really, REALLY eager to hear you explicate the process that will accomplish this. And do us a favor, don't pretend you are advocating everyone just turning off everything that consumes power because YOU made this an attack on renewables with at irrefutable implication that wind and solar are somehow enabling the natural gas industry's existence in some special way that other technologies do not.

[hunter]

4. To put it bluntly, I think consumerism, the car culture, and the military industrial complex...

... need to be killed off.

If we humans don't do it on our own terms, the planet will do it on hers.

We won't enjoy that, not one bit.

Your O.P. was about using filthy gas to fill in the gaps of solar and wind power.

That's a hefty gap to fill. It's not negligible.

[kristopher]

5. That's an evasion

You said natgas "loves" wind and solar. Now you are implying that the "gap" is somehow greater with wind and solar than with coal and nuclear, which makes the lack of an answer to my question stand out even more.

You can't build nuclear and shut down coal and natural gas as fast as you can by building out with renewables, so why would the natural gas industry "love wind and solar" when they can sell more natural gas with business-as-usual built around nuclear and coal?

Explain to me a path where we shut down all fossil fuels - including natural gas - faster than we can with renewables?

I'm really, really, REALLY eager to hear you explicate the process that will accomplish this. And do us a favor, don't pretend you are advocating everyone just turning off everything that consumes power because YOU made this an attack on renewables with at irrefutable implication that wind and solar are somehow enabling the natural gas industry's existence in some special way that other technologies do not.

What I'm reading from you is that you don't actually have a sound, rational reason for linking natural gas and renewables that isn't even more applicable to natural gas and coal/nuclear; but for some reason (wink wink) you are motivated to try and make wind and solar look like they are polluting - which isn't at all the case.

What is it called when someone twists facts and logic like that?

[hunter]

6. What Phantom Power says...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112765354#post4

Look, you want to sell a wind/solar/gas economy that looks much like our current economy. I get it, but I'm not buying it.

All I see is greenwash for the filthy gas industry.

(I'm making a point not to use the word "natural." Brilliant marketing term, but there's nothing natural about fracking and I don't want those assholes fucking up my water.)

[kristopher]

7. No, I don't, and that is a poor way to continue evading the questions.

Last edited Sat Mar 1, 2014, 02:52 AM - Edit history (2)

For why I say no I don't.

...renewables don't build "a consumer society like ours" - it's well understood that a large part of the problem you are complaining about is a result of an energy system that is built large scale centralized thermal generation like coal and nuclear.

The nature of centralized generation means the business model has to be a controlled monopoly.

That, in turn, leads to management techniques that promote expansion of demand - it happens every time. To expand demand and justified by anticipation of it (see how that circular reasoning slips in), capacity is expanded in excess of forecast need.

Since large scale thermal plants are most efficient when run at an optimum speed 24/7, it is to the benefit of the utility to sell excess power for anything it will bring, ensuring that even the true retail cost of energy (which in the case of coal and nuclear is already externalizing a huge amount of their true costs) is something that the manufacturing seldom has to take into consideration.

Renewable energy, on the other hand, is largely harvested in a way that puts production in front of people - removing the 'black box' nature of electricity and raising awareness of consumption and costs among both business and the public. This awareness introduces natural incentives towards being more frugal with energy. I mean, ask yourself where your drive to reduce consumption originated? I can guarantee that the first step was removal of the 'black box' aspect of energy from your world view. You've stated that you once had lifestyle that was far closer to the norm, so your childhood experiences would seem to be something that you were motivated to recover from your mental archive and polish off for closer inspection. No matter the specific cause in you personally, we know from abundant studies that distributed renewables have a strong tendency to inculcate the same sort of norm.

So while your statement might be sort of technically true, what it leaves out in the nature of renewables makes in irrelevant as a valid critique.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112765426#post5