Please just go away and stay away. And quit spamming GTM. You’re one sick puppy.

Put just a little effort into being truthful. It will do wonders for you.

Bob’s believes renewable energy will run United States of America by the end of this year, whack a few grid tied solar panels on people’s roof and it solves the world’s energy crisis. When Bob was confronted by Mark.W on carbon loading, he refuses to accept that grid tied rooftop solar houses have a carbon loading, which are highly dependent on fossil fuel. So what Bob did, deleted Mark.W from this site for telling the truth, & future events to happen.

Any person, that Bob has a disagreement with, he deletes them, somewhat of a dictator, no freedom of speech for an individual person , personal view.

Maybe the Germans can annex that section and install them, for all I care.

That turns out to be BS.

Apparently the “surge” problem is not due to Germany pushing excess renewable generation on to its neighbors’ grids, but what problems there are result from market forces. Money, not wind.

“Poland and the Czech Republic charge that surges in renewable power are becoming uncontrollable, but the researchers could not confirm these findings.

On page 76, they note that loop flows with Poland exceeding 2.5 gigawatts only occurred in 2011, when wind power production was between four and eight gigawatts. And “significant loop flows of up to 2,000 megawatts” occurred when wind power production was “virtually negligible.”

So what is the problem? The researchers found that prices are high when production is also great. The way the market is designed, power might then be imported from neighboring countries (such as Denmark) if import prices are lower. This power then hits a congested part of the grid and is rerouted along a path of lower resistance. This outcome is not infrequent but also not directly related to surges in wind or solar power production as charged.

Once again, price – not technical capacity – is the culprit. A number of Eastern European countries had even proposed that Germany and Austria, which currently share a power trading platform, be split – a demand that the researchers take as a clear indication that the market’s design, not surges in renewable power, is causing loop flows.”

This is from a very interesting multi-part piece on Germany’s role in Europe’s electricity system. The quoted bit above is from the third part.

I would suggest you read all four parts in order to better understand what is happening with renewable energy in Europe.

——————-

http://energytransition.de/2013/02/german-energy-transition-and-its-neighbors-part-1/

No, intermittent renewables often are shadowed by load-following spinning reserve. That’s because it’s how we’ve backed up fossil fuel generation in the past.

“Have to be” is incorrect. We now have wind farms installing “15 minutes” of battery storage. That means that no spinning reserves are needed. Gas turbines can be started up during the “last 15 minutes” of wind supply.

Batteries are beginning to take over that role.

Pump-up hydro is one of the ways we can store power for longer periods of limited wind/solar input. Raccoon Mountain has a capacity of 1600 megawatts (1.6GW) of electricity and can generate for up to 22 hours.

These pump-up hydro systems were built to make nuclear reactors useful. They were not built for multiple day storage.

You can take an existing power producing dam which has turbines sized for the inflow and turn it into a producer and a storage facility.

Add a turbine/pump to the system and a “three day” reservoir below the dam. You now have a new pump-up storage system which can store three days of backup. Except when the winter/spring rains are keeping the upper reservoir full and the turbines are running full out you can store more electricity.

What you are more likely to do is to curtail other capacity during those times and create nothing to be stored.

I doubt that pump-up will be our preferred solution. We’re seeing battery technology beginning to emerge that will probably turn out to be as cheap or cheaper and has major transmission/siting/modularity advantages.

Let me spell it out, intermittent ‘renewables’ have to be shadowed by load following hot spinning synchronized reserve (normally CCGT because of fast response).

Most CCGT units work at optimum efficiency with a running load factor of 70 -85%, load following the predictable grid can be done with in these parameters; most don’t work well at below 25% load.

When you add unpredictable intermittent supply you need to have sufficient synchronized running reserve to cover its capacity, less the firm capacity factor (UK
wind is 11%).

So we have the madness of machines having to run in their most inefficient condition, using more gas & putting out more CO2/MW than if
they were producing full whack.
And it makes us more reliant on gas, not good
for energy security.

As % of intermittent renewables rises, the problems of an unstable grid also rise, Denmark, Germany, Spain have all experienced unstable grids (Poland has had to put blocks on its German interconnections to save its own grid) plenty of info on
the net .

Here is a link to the company website – http://www.fhc.co.uk/dinorwig.htm

From it you will see that Dinorwig IS a STOR
– Short Term Operating Reserve station & also a black-start unit.

In an emergency, with all 6 units synchronized & spinning on air, we can go from 0 to 1.6GW in about 15sec (feels like an earthquake),
but normal operation is 2 on air with a 90sec lead in & the next sets are run up & synchronized on air.

We run tours of Dinorwig Power Station, so if you are ever in Snowdonia, look for ‘Electric Mountain’ you’ll learn a lot, (and you can ask our grid operators what they think of intermittent resources ).
•

Yes – There are far more potential pump-up hydro sites in the UK. Most of them are not commercially viable; those that are have a 6-10yr construction timeframe.

Another link to ‘the cave’ https://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

But, nice job of cherry-picking. A bit more and you could bake us a pie.

Hydro often is. Turbines are left spinning without load and can respond very quickly.

Your pump-up efficiency claims do not match what I’ve seen.

There are far more potential pump-up hydro sites in the UK. Read up on closed loop systems.

Germany’s new coal burning plants are replacing (not adding to) the older plants that either have been or will soon be decommissioned. These new plants were planned and construction was started prior to the decision to close nuclear plants.

By 2020, 18.5 gigawatts of coal power capacity will be decommissioned, whereas only 11.3 gigawatts will be newly installed.

Furthermore those plants will be more efficient, releasing less CO2 per unit electricity produced than are the ones they are replacing. And the new coal plants are partially load-following.

Germany gets its natural gas from Russia. It would be politically dangerous to build their fossil fuel component around an undependable supply. Furthermore their new coal plants are capable of load following to some extent, which will further reduce the amount of CO2 they produce.

Denmark, in 2009 or 2010, decided to build no more coal plants. Their coal consumption has been dropping.

Denmark is building biogas and rubbish burning plants.

They are converting at least one coal plant to natural gas.

Denmark may be building new natural gas as fill-in for wind and using the combo to replace coal.

What information do you have about Denmark building new fossil fuel generation?

Why do you think Denmark & Germany
are building more fossil fuel generation ? Worryingly Germany is going for Lignite (about as dirty as you can get), with carbon capture ?? NO
as it’s still a laboratory experiment.

2 – ( “Gas turbines can go from full off to full speed in less than 15 minutes. I can take another three hours or so for the thermal
portion of a CCNG plant to reach full output, but the major part of the plant
comes on line very quickly.” )

Indeed you are correct on your CCNG plant timings, but not on operating procedures.

Problem is when the grid dips you don’t have 15 mins, the plant has to be already running & synchronized.

On a stable grid, synchronization takes between 1-7 mins (depending on plant type & skill of operator), on an unstable grid I have seen it take 25mins (& a lot of brown underpants !!).

3 – ( “Pumped-hydro can and does store many days of power.” )

Sadly people have misconceptions on pumped storage systems; they are not there to cover the wild daily fluctuations in wind output, ( that’s dealt with by synchronized running reserve, normally gas turbines ).

Pumped storage systems balance the instantaneous peaks & troughs, acting in response to short term rapid changes in power demand (coronation street cuppers) or a sudden loss of a major power station.

Our local unit, Dinorwig is a STOR – Short Term Operating Reserve station & also a black-start unit.

It took ten years to build and cost £425million in the 1970s

Britain’s 4 major pumped storage schemes give –
Dinorwig – 1659 MW for 6 hrs
Ffestiniog – 360 MW for 7hrs
Cruachan Dam – 440MW for 10hrs [worlds first, opened in 1965]
Foyers – 305 MW for 21hrs

Plus 2 small schemes are under construction (online 2016??)

In an emergency UKs total pumped storage (23,279MW), could only supply 4% of max demand for 6hrs then 0.8% for 4hrs.

Full recovery time is approx 17hrs & takes about 36,373 MW of surplus power !!!

There are only 3 other possible sites in Britain
which, if constructed would only give another 1 – 1.5% reserve but at a cost of £billions & take 8-10 yrs.

Pumped Hydro is approx 70% efficient up & 90% down –
– so 100% energy in x 0.7 x 0.9 = 63 % output… 37% losses !!

4 – ( “Batteries are very efficient and are being used on the grid right now to help deal with supply/demand fluctuations.” )

Like these you mean –

http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/164684136.html

Xcel Energy Inc. installed the $4.7m battery
in 2008 next to a wind farm and operated it safely for more than two years. The
sodium-sulfur (NaS) battery was shut down in October 2011 on the advice of its Japanese manufacturer after a similar unit caught fire there.

Now, the Minneapolis-based utility says, the Luverne battery has been rebuilt by manufacturer NGK Insulators of Nagoya and is likely to be back in service by February.

The 1 MWh battery can store enough electricity to power 500 homes for 7.2 hours.

One shortcoming of some new battery technologies is the fire risk. After the
September 2011 battery fire in Japan, NGK halted production of the batteries and advised customers, including Xcel and 19 other customers in North America, to stop using them. NGK later determined that a faulty cell had leaked molten material, triggering a
short circuit and fire.

From
– http://www.energy-storage-online.com/cipp/md_energy/custom/pub/content,oid,1184/lang,2/ticket,g_u_e_s_t/local_lang,2

$4.7m, 1 MWh sodium-sulfur battery can power 500 homes for 7.2 hours. !!

NOT cheap OR clean OR safe !!

lithium-ion batteries have similar problems – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner_battery_problems

These technologies are not mature enough for a grid system to rely on, maybe in a few yrs but don’t hold your breath.

To store 10% of uk average demand for 24hs using 1 MWh sodium-sulfur batteries would cost around $451 billion.

Wind displaces fossil fuel generation.

Pumped-hydro can and does store many days of power.

Batteries are very efficient and are being used on the grid right now to help deal with supply/demand fluctuations.

Gas turbines can go from full off to full speed in less than 15 minutes. I can take another three hours or so for the thermal portion of a CCNG plant to reach full output, but the major part of the plant comes on line very quickly.