Archives for posts with tag: energy

– – – – For kilder og henvisninger:
– – – – Klik på det der er med gult og se om du får brugbare detaljer.
– – – – Og klik på billeder for at få fuld størrelse.

__________________________________________________________________
z-energy storage.png
Klik på tabellen for at få fuld størrelse.

Naturligvis både forskes og tales om Syntetisk Gas
Det er muligt.
Så længe man ikke taler om prisen er det en strålende ide.
http://news.mit.edu/2017/turning-emissions-into-fuel-1128

OG

Hvis gas købes i Rusland er det meget billigere.
Sådan kun 20 %

I forbindelse med en grundig vurdering af Intermittent Grid Storage fås at (syntetisk?) methane round trip:
Electric energy to gas and back to electric energy.
Efficiency would be ~31%

Der Spiegel giver 2019 følgende oplysninger:
Effektiviteten bliver under 40 % ved “Vind -> El. -> Hydro -> Metan.”
Derudover kommer et lidt større tab ved metan til El.

I alt skal man ikke regne med over 25 % effektivitet ved denne form for energilagring.
Dertil kommer forrentning og vedligehold af dyre anlæg.

The following is nothing but a slightly improved version of a Google translation of the original Danish site.
Click on yellow text to follow links.
_______________________________________________________________________________

The Ultimate Goal:
100% Wind Power in Europe


zo
On the web page windeurope.org, that is sparkling with enthusiasm for wind power, one finds an overview of the European wind.

The happy reader finds data for the first half of 2017:
Offshore wind capacity 14.0 GW
Onshore wind capacity 145.5 GW
Maximum yield from wind February 22: 75 GW

Upon closer inspection, this data gives rise to interesting considerations.

It is easy to calculate the Capacity Factor for the “Record Date” Feb. 22nd.
– – – 47% that’s just not impressive.
.
Of course, you can not keep the S-train running using power that was produced last month.
Therefore:
Click on the chart.
Here you can see that on the “Minimum Days” the yield was 20 GW
– – – It gives a capacity factor of 12.5%
.
Then it’s tempting to consider “The Ultimate Green Goal” where you assume power and heat exclusively from sun and wind.

– – – Of course:
– – – Without the help of polluting power sources like coal and gas.
– – – And of course without the hated Nuclear power.

Thus, in order to maintain power on the net 24-7-365, there must be available wind capacity of at least 8 times the consumption.
Of course, these many wind turbines will stand still or idle for most of the time.
In addition: An almost unimaginable amount of high-voltage power lines will be needed to reconcile supply and demand across the European continent.

Specifically, it means that if the wind power lobby boast of that
“Now it costs only 100 € / kW (capacity)”
Yes, then the consumer must pay well over 700 € / kW extra for the necessary overcapacity.
And at least the same for the necessary high voltage net across the European continent.
These long wires will have a (significant?) energy loss.
This will require even more wind turbines.

BUT

That was what happens on “those bad days”
On “the good days” you will have an unimaginable amount of useless energy.
Or have to stop almost all wind turbines.

An Illustrative Review


y-power.png
Click the chart to get full size.
On these pictures you can see more than the usual dream.
The gray areas indicate supply with basic load and different types of
back-up.

I come with the following (small) objections.
– There will always be some (little) available hydropower.
– At European level there will always be some (little) available wind power.

But if “you’re going the plank out” and assume that all energy should be “green”.
It is easy to imagine the situation:
A lot of unused energy or unused capacity.
In my opinion it should have been shown on a fifth picture.

Of course there is something else

Of course there are other power sources.
In fact, most will only be marginal.
But no matter what; it is impossible to assume that, for example, the
“wind gods” will promise to be active at night – always.

Sun

If solar power (PV) is included in the calculations, the situation will at first get more muddy.
But ultimately only worsened.

Batteries

To avoid misunderstandings, I mention that, even using the most optimistic projections, it will be impossible to pay for batteries to store energy for more than a few hours of the “low time” – Which can easily be more than a week.

Heating

If heat can be stored in sufficient quantities and at a reasonable price,
You will get a good help?

Hydropower

will, even with the help of Norway, only be a drip in the European ocean.

Bioenergy

has evolved into being the rabbit, pulled out of the hat, when you want to overcome the reality.
At European level, it will hardly be more than a drip in the ocean.
A very expensive drip.

Nuclear Power

is sometimes suggested as backup.
Based on an economic assessment, it is unrealistic.
Due to the risk of Xenon Poisoning and an accident like Chernobyl, it will be irresponsible.

Why?

If you want to know why our dream of stable and pollution-free energy, it burst.
So take time to read another page.

Especially for Denmark

Denmark is a little country with good neighbors.
When we buy backups from Norway and Sweden, we pay ONLY twice as much as we get when we export bulkheads.

In this way, Denmark will be, not just the first country to invest in wind power.
But we will probably be the last country to understand that it was an expensive mistake.

Meanwhile, Denmark becomes a backward country with very little electrification.

kWh per person

Now consider the realities

If you, my unknown reader, have come so far, I ask you to take a little break and consider the consequences.

If you would like more, please continue to here .
Or you may see some of my sources.

Why did we jump on this
Limed Twig?

After the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island , we went into panic, mostly in the United States.
Until today, we live with the consequences.

Also in England

25 January 2018 World Nuclear quotes The Policy Exchange.
“Decarbonising our existing electricity system with 100% renewable energy might be possible, but unnecessarily expensive and perhaps unsustainable.”
The topic is discussed but the conclusion is hardly changed.

If you, my unknown reader, have FACTUAL objections, write to me
thorkilsoee@gmail.com
Otherwise, I say goodbye and have a good time of thought.
Thorkil Søe

Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik påb Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Og.klik påb Click on pictures for more details.
__________________________________________________________________________

Shure:
“Western Nuclear” is in deep troubles.

This has been seen again and again.

HOWEVER
We must conduct a proper post mortem and find out why.
First the obvious symptoms:
– Cheapest nuclear power from an ‘old system’ (Sweden): € 26/MWh
– Cheapest nuclear power from new power plants (Korea): € 27/MWh
– Most expensive new nuclear power (Hinkley Point C): € 124/MWh
– Russia: “Guarantee” 2017 50 €/MWh
Kina, Russia and Korea are able to follow plans.
Both costs and timetable.

OK
We have to analyze the horrifying symptoms and I have tried to come forward with the following:
– Why it is so expensive: http://wp.me/p1RKWc-11D
– How the exaggerated demands for safety undermines the economy:
http://wp.me/s1RKWc-51

The Market ?

Is it because we are locked into a capitalistic thinking and will, at all costs, avoid government investments?

From The Energy Collective
Edward Kee, February 23, 2017, I quote, extract and modify:

– – – – However, consolidating, standardizing and scaling require:
– Selection of a “winning vendor” – around which the industry can
consolidate.
– Selection of a “winning design” – around which the industry can
standardize; and
– Large need for new nuclear capacity to facilitate scale.
– Government determination.

– –The examples of where this has been done are limited.
– France until mid-1980s (when N4 designs started construction)
– South Korea
– China
– Russia and
– Probably also Sweden.

– –What these examples have in common are:
– Government ownership of nuclear power industry.
(Easy to decide on vendor and reactor design.)
– Government control of electricity industry.
(Captive customer for nuclear power plants).
– Need for capacity.
(Large and growing demand for power).
– An industry, allowed to getting things done.

However

– –The market approach to nuclear power, whether in U.S. or elsewhere in the world, involves:
– Vendors competing for market share.
– Reactor designs being developed by these vendors to meet buyer
preferences and/or requirements.
– Ever changing government demands and regulations.
– And, building units as possible (i.e., when buyers make investments.)

To make matters worse

Private investors will obviously be afraid of being treated as in Germany.
And
It may be difficult to find out:
– Shall we go for the extreme? – Both price and security.
(as in England.)
– Shall we go for something realistic?
(as now in Finland and different East European countries.)
– Shall we just wait and see?
– Will it be possible to find the necessary (private) investment?
(Except for the rich Gulf-states.)
Even
It is trumped, that nuclear (in the west)
will be extinct.

Finally:

What can be done to get out of the iron-grip of those who, just per automatic, say no No NO as soon as they hear the word nuclear?

Dear unknown reader

I need your input and hopefully constructive comments.
Write to me at thorkilsoee@gmail.com

Yours
Thorkil Søe

Postscript

From a long, but interesting article in The Economist Feb. 2017, I quote:
– –Paradoxically, that means:
The more states support renewables, the more they will have to pay for conventional power plants, too, using “capacity payments” to alleviate intermittency.

***

Now we ask: Does nuclear has a future in the west (US)

From The Economist 2017 Feb. 25

I have made major changes in the lay-out:
Mainly headings and line-shifts.
My additions and comments are marked as “indented text” with bullets.
Sometimes, I have used square brackets [ ]
__________________________________________________________________________

Introduction

ALMOST 150 years after photovoltaic cells and wind turbines were invented; they still generate only 7% of the world’s electricity.
Yet something remarkable is happening.

  • If the grid has less than say 10 % of the supply from the unstable renewable, this renewable can be incorporated in the system without major problems.
    Above this it starts to act as parasites.

From being peripheral to the energy system, just over a decade ago, they [the renewables] are now growing faster than any other energy source and their falling costs are making them competitive with fossil fuels.

  • As usually it is not discussed, how the varying and partly unpredictable renewables, should pay for the necessary backup.

BP, an oil firm, expects renewables to account for half of the growth in global energy supply over the next 20 years.
It is no longer far-fetched to think that the world is entering an era of clean, unlimited and cheap power.

About time, too

There is a $20trn drawback, though.
To get from here to there, we will require huge amounts of investment over the next few decades, to replace old smog-belching power plants and to upgrade the pylons and wires that bring electricity to consumers.

  • $20trn, as an investment, would bring us a long way towards nuclear with future clean and reliable power.
  • Here, as usually, it is “forgotten” that very little will be gained with a strong net to distribute what is not there.
    Or better: For obvious reasons, sunshine is synchronized.
    But in spite of green hopes, the wind is almost synchronized as well.
  • On an other website, I discuss the hopeles dream.

The dirty secret

Normally investors like putting their money into electricity because it offers reliable returns.
Yet green energy has a dirty secret.
The more [subsidized] renewables is deployed, the more it lowers the price of power from any source.
That makes it hard to manage the transition to a carbon-free future, during which many generating technologies, clean and dirty, need to remain profitable.
If the lights are to stay on.
Unless the market is fixed, subsidies to the industry will only grow.

Brakes

Policymakers are already seeing this inconvenient truth as a reason to put the brakes on renewable energy.
In parts of Europe and China, investment in renewables is slowing as subsidies are cut back.
However, the solution is not less wind and solar.
It is to rethink how the world prices clean energy in order to make better use of it.

  • It is difficult to understand why nuclear is excluded from being “clean”.

Shock to the system

At its heart, the problem is that government-supported renewable energy has been imposed on a market designed in a different era.

For much of the 20th century, electricity was made and moved by vertically integrated, state-controlled monopolies.
From the 1980s onwards, many of these were broken up, privatized and liberalized, so that market forces could determine where best to invest.
Today only about 6% of electricity users get their power from monopolies.

The pressure

Yet everywhere the pressure to decarbonize power supply has brought the state creeping back into markets.

This is disruptive for three reasons.
The first is the subsidy system itself.
The other two are inherent to the nature of wind and solar: their intermittency and their very low running costs.

All three help explain why power prices are low and public subsidies are addictive.

1: Substidies

First, the splurge of public subsidy, of about $800bn since 2008, has distorted the market.
It came about for noble reasons – to counter climate change and prime the pump for new, costly technologies, including wind turbines and solar panels.

  • No. I dare to say that it was not noble reasons.
    $800bn became available because we, in the West, had been brainwashed against nuclear.
  • Try to imagine how it would have been now.
    If these $800bn had been used for nuclear, instead of being lost down into a bottomless green hole?
  • If so, it would have been enough to pay for 160 new reactors as those now exported by Korea to UAE

But subsidies hit just as electricity consumption in the rich world was stagnating because of growing energy efficiency and the financial crisis.
The result was a glut of power-generating capacity that has slashed the revenues utilities earn from wholesale power markets and hence deterred investment.

2: Intermittent

Second, green power is intermittent.
The vagaries of wind and sun – especially in countries without favorable weather – mean that turbines and solar panels generate electricity only part of the time.
To keep power flowing, the system relies on conventional power plants, such as coal, gas or nuclear, to kick in when renewables falter.

  • Much too often we see how it is assumed, that the (dirty) coal, and especially the (hated) nuclear, should just kick in and act as back-up for the (bellowed) renewables.
  • Here, it is necessary to come forward with the following:
    1) The physical lifetime of these plants will suffer with frequent
    blaramp-up and down.
    2) After a ramp-down, a nuclear plant will suffer Xenon-poisoning.
    blaIn this way, a quick ramp-up may result in an accident as at
    blaChernobyl.
    However, “Western Reactors” are provided with a proper containment.
    Therefore a “Chernobyl Accident” will not cause damage outside the plat.
    3) The costs for power from coal, and especially from nuclear, are
    blamainly fixed costs.
    Elementary economics will show that it is not the best to use coal and nuclear as back-up.
    Therefore:
    4) Back-up will usually be hydro or gas-fired plants.
  • Without subsidies.
    If we want to be “green” it must be with very high economic penalties on pollution.
    In an absolutely free market, nuclear would probably be able to manipulate the prices and kill the economics of renewables.
    Just as the subsidies to the renewable is killing the economy of the rest.

3: Investors

But because conventional power plants are idle for long periods, they find it harder to attract private investors.
So, to keep the lights on, they require public funds.

Everyone is affected by this third factor:
Renewable energy has negligible or zero marginal running costs because the wind and the sun are free.

  • It is claimed, but usually neglected, that the wind-turbines, and especially the gears, have a limited life-time, which is markedly reduced during max loads.

In a market that prefers energy produced at the lowest short-term cost, wind and solar take business from providers that are more expensive to run, such as coal plants, depressing power prices, and hence revenues for all.

Get smart

The higher the penetration of renewables, the worse these problems get.
Especially in saturated markets.
In Europe, which was first to feel the effects, utilities have suffered a “lost decade” of falling returns, stranded assets and corporate disruption.
Last year, Germany’s two biggest electricity providers, E.ON and RWE, both split in two.
In renewable-rich parts of America power providers struggle to find investors for new plants.
Places with an abundance of wind, such as China, are curtailing wind farms to keep coal plants in business.

  • Wind farms in northern China are far away from the necessary back-up provided by stable regulated hydro.
    The necessary power lines are not cheap either.

Re-regulate

The consequence is that the electricity system is being re-regulated as investment goes chiefly to areas that benefit from public support.
Paradoxically, that means the more states support renewables, the more they [have to] pay for conventional power plants.
Using “capacity payments” to alleviate intermittency

  • Capacity payments has been introduced in England.
    In Germany the talk is about “scheduled black outs”.

In effect, politicians rather than markets, are, once again, deciding how to avoid blackouts.

Mistakes

They often make mistakes:
Germany’s support for cheap, dirty lignite caused emissions to rise, notwithstanding huge subsidies for renewables.
Without a new approach the renewables revolution will stall.
[See also http://wp.me/p1RKWc-11F ]

Technology

The good news is that new technology can help fix the problem.
Digitalization, smart meters and batteries are enabling companies and households to smooth out their demand — by doing some energy-intensive work at night, for example.
This helps to cope with intermittent supply.

  • Smart meters and variation in prices has been proposed, and rejected, some 40 years ago.
    See http://wp.me/p1RKWc-1tc
    Anyhow, whatever is done, it will have a limited effect.
  • For the time being, and for the foreseeable future, batteries will not be cheap enough to stabilize the grid for more than very short periods.
  • Much too often we are told, that “Small is Beautiful”.
    However:
    If larger plants cannot be economic, it may not be possible for smaller plants.

Small, modular power plants, which are easy to flex up or down, are becoming more popular, as are high-voltage grids that can move excess power around the network more efficiently.

  • Can smart grid save the fluctuating wind power?

  • In the discussion about wind power variation, it is often mentioned that ‘we just’ need to connect countries with a strong network of power lines.
  • April 2016 this problem was addressed by Sören Kjärsgaard.
    He provides a very thorough assessment of the energy situation, especially in Denmark and Germany.
    From this report is quoted as follows:
    It is evident that when you have said Wind power you have to say back-up too.
    Could this back-up be:
    European Wind Power connected by a super grid?
    ——– You find data from Austria, Belgium, Czech Rep.,
    ——– Denmark, Spain, France, Finland, Hungary, Poland,
    ——– Sweden and Germany:
    Over this huge area, the Wind Power fluctuates between
    56,512 MW and 3801 MW (7%).

    The answer will be NO – Unfortunately
    No matter, how much smart grid you get, it can not conjure a stable supply.
  • On another page I have tried to analyze the hypothetical situation assuming Wind Only.
    It should not come as a surprise that it will be extremely expensive.
    If at all possible.

The power market

The bigger task is to redesign power markets to reflect the new need for flexible supply and demand.
They should adjust prices more frequently, to reflect the fluctuations of the weather.
At times of extreme scarcity, a high fixed price could kick in to prevent blackouts.
Markets should reward those willing to use less electricity to balance the grid.
Just as they reward those who generate more of it.
Bills could be structured to be higher or lower depending how strongly a customer wanted guaranteed power all the time – a bit like an insurance policy.

  • Sure, but as mentioned above, it will have a long way to go and will be of minor benefit.
    See http://wp.me/p1RKWc-1tc
  • Extremely high prices will have a heavy negative social impact – even if it is for shorter periods.

In short, policymakers should be clear they have a problem and that the cause is not renewable energy, but the out-of-date system of electricity pricing.
Then they should fix it.

Atter, 2019-09-21 kommer The Economist med en lang og grundig vurdering.
Naturligvis uden at angive en reel løsning eller påpege de ansvarlige.
The past present and future of climate change.
Og
Humanity will find ways to adapt to climate change.

Postscript

Tysk solkraft variationFrom Germany: (right)
See http://wp.me/p1RKWc-f8
and
From the American “Sunshine-states”: (below)Duck curve result (2)
Sure you know: I say go nuclear.
If you say Chernobyl, then look at http://wp.me/p1RKWc-Dg
If you say Fukushima, then look at http://wp.me/p1RKWc-yI
Previously, I have tried to get to the same problem on the following:
Is “Western Nuclear” on its death-bead?
Why did nuclear end up to be so expensive?
Passionately, I claim that we have been cheated by “The Green”
Greenpeace’s Credibility is a Myth.

Mere KK mindre forureningIf you want to avoid (unnecessary) pollution.
Better do as in France.

Englisch Übersetzung http://wp.me/p1RKWc-11F

In gewisser Weise war es Deutschland, die erste ging, weil nach der Wiedervereinigung Kernenergie in Europa zu begrenzen begann.
Es ist schwer, etwas anderes als politische Motive zu finden.

Zunächst ist eine Zusammenfassung von Informationen aus Organisation REO, die plädieren für eine ausgewogene Beurteilung der Energie, insbesondere der Kernenergie.

  • Fünf Reaktoren in der ehemaligen DDR Deutschland wurden während der deutschen Wiedervereinigung geschlossen.
  • Vier Reaktoren in Bulgarien und Slowenien wurden als Bedingung für den Zugang zum EU geschlossen.
  • Drei Reaktoren in Deutschland wurden vor der Katastrophe in Fukushima geschlossen.
  • Acht weitere deutsche Reaktoren nach der Katastrophe von Fukushima waren geschlossen.
  • Ein kompletter Reaktor in Österreich und ein anderer in Deutschland wird nie zum Einsatz.

Zusätzlich geschlossen zwei Reaktoren in Barsebäck, auch wegen des politischen Drucks.
Mit keinem anderen Rechtfertigung als eine aufgeblähte, aber äußerst unfaire öffentliche Meinung in Dänemark.

So wurde für 15 GW Energie geschlossen, die leicht verfügbar heute sein könnte.

Um die Versorgung und das grüne Modell zu halten hat große Menge an Solarenergie und Windkraft ausgegeben.
Trotzdem war es notwendig, den Einsatz zu beginnen
12 MW neuer Kohlekraftwerke.

Eine Folge davon war:

Brunkul i TysklandVon vielen Seiten kritisiert der ehrgeizigen Pläne.
Vorläufige was Vorläufige was darauf hindeutet, all dies zu Deutschland nicht nur ihre Wirtschaft zu ruinieren, sondern zerstört auch das Klima zu speichern.

All dies kann in einem reichen Land natürlich tun.
 
In Deutschland fühlt sich offenbar wird die Welt untergehen, wenn es in einem Atomkraftwerk ein schwerer Unfall ist.

Tilbageflyttere ved Tjernobyl.pngTjernobyl dyreliv.pngAber dann (März 2016) beginnt der Spiegel zu erklären, wie all diese teuren Maßnahmen waren nicht erforderlich und so viel Angst vor der Kernenergie war stark übertrieben.

und Tiere sie verstehen nichts.
.
Mit dem folgenden von Der Spiegel (März 2013), gibt es keinen Anhaltspunkt dafür, dass die “Grünen” zu verstehen beginnen – langsam.

Selv dieser Konflikt berührt alle politiska Parteien, keiner ist mehr påvirket als die Grünen.
Seit der Gründung der Partei im Jahr 1980 verfocht har ein Atomausstieg und Kämpfte für saubere Energie.
Aber jetzt ist thatthis phaseout im Gange, sind die Grünen einen großen Teil von sina Traum zu verwirklichen – die utopische Idee einer Gesellschaft, die auf “gute” Leistung betrieben wird – wird sich in Luft verschwinden.
Grüne Energie, theyhave gefunden, kommt zu einem enormen Kosten.
Und die Umwelt også zahlen einen Preis, wenn die Dinge in Gang halten, wie sie havebeen.

In Deutschland haben Sie Das Bürokratie-Monster erreicht:
Von Der Spiegel Oktober 2013 zitiert:
“Vergessen wir nicht, dass die deutschen Bürokraten über 4.000 verschiedene Subventionskategorien für erneuerbare Energien entstanden sind und anscheinend an dem Prinzip festhalten, dass das, was besonders teuer ist, großzügig subventioniert werden muss.”

2016 August lesen wir, dass Deutschland die Subventionssystem ändern.
Es bedeutet, dass Sie das bestehende System verlassen wird basierend auf
Einspeisetarif zugunsten eines Systems nach Plänen auf Auktion Verträge zu liefern” erneuerbaren “Strom an den billigsten Anbieter.
Die verdorbene A-Kraft ist nicht als hartnäckig definiert.
Es ist nur billig und stabil.

und vieles mehr

Das Energy Collective gibt Januar 2017 ein sehr langer Versuch einer Bewertung.
Informationen und Ansprüche sind in alle Richtungen.

Aber die wirklich verheerende Regel ist, dass “Green Energy” Netzwerkpriorität hat.
Das bedeutet, dass “Die anderen” nur Backup sein sollten.
Obwohl es die Wirtschaft zerstört, wird davon ausgegangen, dass “das traditionelle” weiterhin vorhanden sein muss.
Dies ist “so nur” angegeben, um $ 24 Milliarden pro Jahr zu kosten.
Wenn die Informationen von Die kollektive Energie ist zuverlässig, es entspricht die Kosten für vier neue Reaktoren pro Jahr zu bauen.
Aber egal, was das Risiko einer Xenon-Vergiftung (Xe135) und eine Katastrophe von Tschernobyl, machen es unmöglich, die Kernenergie kann als back-up verwendet werden.

Agora Energiewende Bewertung 2014 bietet eine Fülle von Daten, die offenbar sorgfältig ist ausgewählt.
Aber egal was passiert, kann man sehen, dass die deutschen „traditionelle Kraftwerke“ geschickt worden sind bei den Netto-Ausgleich.

Der Spiegel, dass forkætres der grünen, bietet Informationen über Dunkelflaute, „dunkle Wind Arten“ bedeutet.
Das habe ich versucht, auf einer anderen Seite zu behandeln .

„Mehr Es folgt aus dem vorstehenden, dass Deutschland, die schwer zu grün, und kontaminationsfrei arbeitet –
Ja, sie kann das Hinterrad aus der „Atom-France“ nicht einmal sehen.

März 2017 die deutsche Energiewende wieder auf die The Energy Collective kommt.
Sie lesen, dass wir entweder wiederholen kann Deutschland die Fehler oder
von ihnen zu lernen.
Offenbar lernen die Bevölkerung nicht.

​​Auf einer anderen Seite, auch von die Energie gemeinschaftlich, sieht, dass in Deutschland Strom fast 10mal mehr verschmutzenden ist im Vergleich zu dem Französisch.
Man bekommt die Daten aus dem 2016.
Deutschland erzeugten 545 TWh und entladen im April 560 g CO2 pro kWh
Frankreich erzeugt 530 TWh und entladen im April 58 g CO2 pro kWh

Und dann.
Obwohl ich gesagt habe es viele Male:
Der Spiegel schreibt, dass die gefürchtete Radioaktivität nicht so gefährlich sein kann, wie wir dachten.

Netzwerkprobleme


Sehr selten gibt es Informationen über die Kosten von Energiewende zur Verfügung.
Von Das Energy Collective Collective , wie folgt:

Redispatch (Umverteilung)

In Perioden gibt es nicht genügend Kapazität, die Energie zu übertragen.
Dies bedeutet, dass die billigste Energie nicht verkauft werden kann und das “Netz” bedeutet teurer werden.
Zum Beispiel, wenn es in Norddeutschland viel Wind und ein großes Bedürfnis in Süddeutschland gibt.

År – – Antal dage Energimængde Omkostninger
2013 – – 223 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 137 million €
2014 – – 330 – – – – – 5.197 GWh – – – 187 million €
2015 – – – – — – – – 16.000 GWh – – – 412 million €

Hier sind die folgenden:
Jahr
2013 – – 555 GWh
2014 – – 4.722 GWh

Die folgende Abbildung gibt einen Überblick über die Kosten (Mio € / Jahr).
Deutsch omkostninger.png

Gesamt

Bis 2015 stiegen die Gesamtausgaben auf 715 Mio. €

For detaljer og henvisninger:
Klik på det der er med gult. Måske finder du det du har brug for.
_____________________________________________________________________
Hvis energi skal lagres er der tilsyneladende kun følgende muligheder.
– – – – Opbevaring af (fossilt) brændstof.
– – – – Brug af OPBEVARET bio-brændstof.
– – –Reguleret vandkraft.
– – –Pumped Storage.
– – –Batterier.
– – – – Og meget andet, der næppe vil leve op til forventningerne.

Tilsyneladende giver nedenstående diagram en pålidelig oversigt.
Omkostningerne (Levelized Costs $/MWh) vil naturligvis være omkostning per “round-trip” – opladning til afladning.
Det ville være mere realistisk at give pris per MWh installeret kapacitet.
z-energy storage

Kilde til ovenstående: Indlæg på netavisen Klimadebat.
Batterier - muliogheder

Klik på diagrammerne for fuld størrelse.

Uden på nogen måde at være ekspert, vil jeg mene at “Flywheels” vil have øjeblikkelig virkning hvis de kører synkroniseret med forsyningen.
Fx vil de store roterende masser i forbindelse med kul- og A-kraft hjælpe med at opretholde spænding og frekvens på nettet.

Ofte “glemmes” at der vil være behov for at lagre endog meget store energimængder.

Til syvende og sidst udspringer det hele af et næsten selvfølgeligt krav om en stabil forsyning med elektricitet.
På en anden side prøver jeg at gå i dybden med den altoverskyggende udfordring Forsyningssikkerhed.

Strømstød og Kortvarige ændringer

Hvis der er tale om meget kortvarige ændringer, fx fra vindstød, vil det normalt være tilstrækkeligt at have store roterende masser, en ydelse som de traditionelle kraftværker, (kul- og atomkraft) i realiteten yder gratis.
Dette kom frem til lyset da forbindelsen mellem Sverige og Bornholm var afbrudt og det blev nødvendigt at standse halvdelen af de bornholmske vindmøller – selv om der var mangel på kraft.
Tysk industri har haft store udgifter som følge af ekstremt kortvarige strømstød, der er en følge af det ambitiøse Energiewende.

Nu da den danske vindkraft ikke mere holder sig til “småtingsafdelingen”, oplyser netavisen EnergySupply glædesstrålende at
“Nu skal vedvarende energi lagres (kortvarigt) i svævende svinghjul,”
der svæver på magnetlejer.
Naturligvis er der intet om omkostningerne eller hvem der skal betale.

Mere end “Småting”

The Energy Collective giver en grundig behandling af problemstillingen, specielt med hensyn til den nødvendige batterikapacitet.
Der gives et væld af data, men jeg vil nøjes med at referere følgende:

  • Energitab ved energilagring i batterier er angivet til 18 %
  • For solenergi er årstidsvariationerne (sommer til vinter) omkring en faktor 6 i Tyskland. Kun 4 i USA
  • I Tyskland er der store og langvarende variationer om vinteren på grund af sne og is.
  • Denne udfordring stiger mærkbart med større markedsandel af solenergi, der ikke ’sådan bare’ kan optages af nettet.
  • Pludseligt skydække kan give store og pludselige variationer, der sætter store krav for at kunne vedligeholde nettets stabilitet.

Resultatet kan endog blive at Frankrig overvejer at afbryde forbindelsen til Tyskland.

Fossilt brændstof

Hvis der ses bort fra ønsket om at reducere udledning af CO2 og lignende, er dette den oplagte løsning.

Biobrændstof

Naturligvis kan afbrænding af affald eller træflis bruges ved “spidsbelastning”.
Tilsyneladende vil praktiske udfordringer i realiteten udelukke dette.
Mere findes på en anden side.

Vandkraft og Reguleret Vandkraft

Vandkraft er en “guds gave” til lande der har egnede naturforhold.
Vandkraft, som backup for andre energikilder, afhænger af størrelsen af de reservoirer, der findes i tilknytning til vandkraftværkerne.
Mere findes på en anden side.

Pumped Storage

Er en drøm for mange. Men hvis man går i detaljer vil også denne drøm desværre briste.
På verdensplan er over 98 % af lagret energi i form af Pumped Storage.
MEN
Hvis det skal have værdi – som andet end lidt glorificering – viser det sig at virkeligt store anlæg kun kan finde de nødvendige naturlige forudsætninger i Skotland, i Chile og i Mexico, der – teoretisk – kan levere “grøn backup” til Californien.

Compressed air

Denne mulighed er diskuteret på Science Nordic.
Samme sted oplyses at virkningsgraden i kendte anlæg for energilagring højst er mellem 45 % og 55 %
Foreløbigt finder man intet om realiteter.

Syntetisk Gas

Foreløbigt vil syntetisk gas koste vel over det dobbelte af gas fra Rusland.
Noget kan lagres sammen med almindelig naurgas.
Opbevaring i naturlige hulrum, vil blive både dyrt og besværligt.
(Det vil naturligvis være et uomgængeligt krav at gassen ikke blandes med luft.)

Batterier og Flowbatterier

Dette har efterhånden udviklet sig til et stort og håbefuldt emne.
Udviklingen mod bedre og billigere batterier går tilsyneladende rivende.
Men der er trods alt lang vej endnu før man nærmer sig de flotte mål.
For detaljer henviser jeg til en anden side.

I et forsøg på at vise hvor langt man er nået, kommer Energy Supply
(ved en fejltagelse ?) til at fortælle, det der egentligt skulle have været holdt som en hemmelighed:
Den “vedvarende energi” er ikke mere vedvarende end at der er et udækket behov for batterier, der trods alt skal betales af nogle.
Meget af det der skrives tyder på at der er mange fugle, der ikke engang er på taget.

Der bliver brug for meget

I to dage (17-19 sept. 2017) var der næsten vindstille.
Denne situation var ikke enestående.
Heldigvis får vi hjælp fra gode naboer og behøver ikke at købe batterier. Nul vindkraft - næsten
Klik på diagrammet for fuld størrelse.

Hilsner fra Thorkil Søe, der spørger:
Hvad mener du?
Er der noget, der mangler?
Eller mangler vi bare realitetssans?
Skriv til thorkilsoee@gmail.com

To Fremtids-senarier
VE contra Kernekraft

Tilsyneladende findes en afbalanceret vurdering her.

Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik påb Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Og.klik påb Click on pictures for more details.
______________________________________________________________________
In a way, it was Germany that took the lead, when Europe, after the German reunification, began to limit the use of nuclear energy. .
It’s hard to find anything but political motives.

The first is a summary of information from the Danish organization REO, who advocate a balanced assessment of energy, particularly nuclear energy.

  • Five reactors in the former East Germany were closed during the German Reunification.
  • Four reactors in Bulgaria and Slovenia were closed as a condition of access to the EU.
  • Three reactors in Germany were closed before the disaster at Fukushima.
  • Eight other German reactors were closed after the disaster at Fukushima.
  • A complete reactor in Austria and another in Germany have never been put to use.
  • One more reactor was closed December 2017.
    Also this reactor had been running without problems.

In addition, two reactors at Barsebäck (Sweden) were closed, also due to political pressure.
Thus we have closed for 15 GW of clean energy that could easily be available today.

In order to maintain the supply and the green model, Europe, and especially Germany, has spent huge amounts on solar energy and wind power.
Nevertheless, it has been necessary to start the construction of
12 GW of new coal-fired power plants.
Equivalent to about eight modern reactors.

The consequence of this has been:

Now slowly:
A basic understanding of the fact that it will not even be green.
AND
From many sides a beginning distrust in the sustainability of the ambitious plans.
Brunkul i Tyskland

Repeated concern that Germany is ruining both land-shapes and economy.
But even destroys the climate
In order to save it.

.

And now, after many years, we start to understand, that most of the horror-stories about radiation at Chernobyl is nothing but the usual falsifikations from Greenpeace and followers.

All this can naturally be done in a rich country.
Still it may be difficult.

But in Germany it is apparently felt that it will be the end of the world if there should be a serious accident at a nuclear power plant.

And then, (March 2016) Der Spiegel got the curage to explain how all these expensive measures were unnecessary and that the fear of nuclear energy was grossly exaggerated.

Tilbageflyttere ved Tjernobyl.png
Tjernobyl dyreliv.pngBut no matter what:
Some live happily in the highly contaminated area of Chernobyl.
They are more afraid of starving than they are for radioactivity.

And the animals,
they understand nothing.

BUT
It is high time, we should understand

With the following, from Der Spiegel (March 2013), there are signs to suggest that the “Greens” are beginning to understand – Slowly.

Although this conflict touches all political parties, none is more affected than the Greens.
Since the party’s founding in 1980, it has championed for a nuclear phaseout and fought for clean energy.
But now, that this phaseout is underway, the Greens are realizing a large part of their dream – the utopian idea of a society operating on “good power” – is vanishing into thin air.
Green energy, they have found, comes with an enormous cost.
And, the environment will also pay a price if things keep going as they have been.

In Germany they have reached a typical ”Bureaucracy Monster”:
From Der Spiegel October 2013 I quote:
And let’s not forget that the German bureaucrats have come up with over 4,000 different subsidy categories for renewable energy, apparently adhering to the principle that what is particularly expensive has to be lavishly subsidized.
Therefore:
August 2016 we read that Germany will change the subsidy system.
It will mean that they will leave the existing system based on
feed-in tariff in favor of a system based on plans to auction contracts to deliver “renewable” electricity to the lowest bidder.

The controversial nuclear power is clean.
You will have enough uranium and thorium for some 100,000 years.
Still it can not be defined as renewable / green.
Only reliable.

Now, 2018

the “Green” in Finland starts to support Nuclear Power as the way forward to cheap and pollution-free power.
I dare to ask: When will Germany surrender?

The not so distant future:
Trillion-euro cost of German energy transition

German energy and environment minister Peter Altmaier said that costs for the plans to reform and restructure the country’s energy sector by the end of the 2030s could reach $ 1 trillion.
This amount will correspond to the fact that every German – children as old – will pay 1.5 Euro daily in the period from 2010 when Energiewende was launched, until 2030 where it can no longer be hidden that the money was wasted.

And much more

January 2017 The Energy Collective gives a very long attempt at an assessment.
Information and claims are pointing in all directions.

But the truly devastating rule is that “Green Energy” has got
Network Priority.
This means that “The Others” are reduced to be backup and ‘shall just’ stay idle until they are called up when suddenly needed.
Although it is destroying the economy, it is ‘just’ assumed that “the traditional” must continue to be available.

If information from The Energy Collective is reliable, the cost associated with this will amount to € 20 billion per year, corresponding to the price of building four new reactors annually. As exported from Korea.

New reactors are better when it comes to ramp-up and down.
More than enough to follow the changes in the load.
Still:
The risk of Xenon poisoning (Xe135) and a disaster like at Chernobyl
will make it very difficult for nuclear power to be used as backup for the unreliable solar and wind.

Agora Energewende Review 2014 provides a wealth of data that seems to be carefully selected.
But, no matter what, it can be seen that the German “traditional power plants” have still been able to balance the network.

Der Spiegel, despised by the green, provides information on Dunkelflaute, which means “dark windless”.
I’ve tried to evaluate this on another page.

Although I have said it many times:
Der Spiegel writes that the dreaded radioactivity may not be as dangerous as we have been told.

More KK less Pollution It appears from the above that Germany, although they are working hard to become green and free of pollution – – –
Yes they can not even see the rear wheel from “Atom-France”.
An interactive diagram can be seen by clicking here.
The page is slow, but it is worth the efforts.

March 2017, you read on The Energy Collective that we can either repeat Germany’s mistakes or learn from them.
Apparently, the German population does not want to learn.

​​On another page, also from The Energy Collective, shows that Germany’s electricity is almost 10 times more polluting, compared to the French.
You get data from 2016.
Germany generated 545 TWh and polluted 560 g CO2 per kWh
France generated 530 TWh and polluted 58 g CO2 per kWh

CO2 Tyskland og Frankrig - Kopi
Also.
Although I have said so many times:
Der Spiegel writes that the feared radioactivity may not be as dangerous as we have believed.

Problems related to management of the network.

Very rarely we find information about the costs of Energiewende.
From The Energy Collective Collective, I have the following information.

Redispatch (Redistribution)

In periods, there is not enough capacity to transfer the energy.
This means that the cheapest energy can not be sold and the “net” is forced to use more expensive supplies.
For example, if there is a lot of wind in northern Germany and a great need in southern Germany.

bla Year Number of days Energy – – – – Costs
bla 2013 – – 223 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 137 million €
bla 2014 – – 330 – – – – – 5.197 GWh – – – 187 million €
bla 2015 – – – – — – – – 16.000 GWh – – – 412 million €

Curtailed energy

In periods, there has been more energy (from the sun) than the demand.
Here we have the following:
bla Year
bla 2013 – – 555 GWh
bla 2014 4.722 GWh

The figure below gives an overview of the costs (Million €/year).German costs.pngTyske omkostninger

What has been the costs for all this?

From The New York Times Dec. 25, 2017, I quote:

  • Germany has spent $ 200 billion over the past two decades to promote cleaner sources of electricity.

I dare to correct: Not even clean.

This amount ($ 200 billion) corresponds to the price of 40 new reactors similar to those exported from Korea to the UAE.
And about the same if considering export from Russia.
Or about 15 of the unreasonably expensive reactors under construction in England.

May be the realities will be seen.

Especially when we consider that the “green energy” does not come for free.

But also in the United States


Duck c
Without having more than a suspicion, I claim, that “own use” of electricity from solar is excluded from the data used for the figure above.

Conclution

Dear unknown reader:
Try to consider the above and draw your own conclution.

In the meantime I ask:
Are we, in Denmark and especially in Germany, behaving as the man, jumping out of an airplane – without a parachute – saying:
“Look it is fine. Soon I will be halfway and everything is going well.”