Grid Storage Systems for Renewable Energy - Technology and Projects (No Politics)

[ctrl]

The new smaller proposed modular reactors are capable of ramping up and down energy output in a way they could replace natural gas powered plants.

If nuclear reactors are downsized, electricity prime costs will normally rise, because the small reactors require the complete infrastructure (Transformers, emergency power supply, safety measures,...) of large plants.
Electricity from nuclear power is already extremely expensive and non-competitive today. This is also evident in the predictable disaster of Hinkley C in the UK:

initially estimated that electricity could be produced at the competitive price of £24 per MWh.

Source

The deal he refers to is the so-called Strike Price for Hinkley C's electricity. Also in 2016, the British government fixed that price at £92.50 per megawatt hour (MWh). The price rises with inflation and has now reached £106/MWh.
Back then, the equivalent price for electricity from offshore windfarms was well over £120/MWh. But wind costs have fallen fast. Today new wind projects are fixed at about £50/MWh, well under half the price of Hinkley power.

Source
Source was from 2021, the current guaranteed purchase price is now likely to be 120 pounds/MWh because of inflation.
By contrast, the prime costs for solar and wind power, as well as the price for energy storage, continue to fall.

As you yourself write, these are "proposed" reactors that exist only on paper. By 2050 at the latest, energy production must be largely CO2-free, and new, small nuclear reactors, even if their construction is decided today, can hardly make a contribution, since it will take too long to build them en masse.

That is, even with the additional cost of energy storage, the prime cost of solar and wind power are cheaper or at the same level - e.g. prime costs for wind 40-80€/MWh onshore and solar 30-50€/MWh in Germany.

 

[MTBDoc]

As a physician who has seen so many utterly bogus papers touted as “the science” and has seen corruption of intellectual integrity to a degree that will make us doubt any pronouncements, it is genuinely hard to see through various “agendas” & know what is real. I acknowledge that there may be some true impact from TMI over the course of decades. Real life is a “contact sport” and there is no free lunch. Economical storage & minimization of transmission loss are still problems to be solved.

Hydrocarbons are not the evil they are portrayed to be. When Southern Company coal plants are forced to expend 50% of their energy production to capture & pump CO2 down into the earth, it is clear we have lost our collective minds. Increased CO2 has a markedly positive effect on plant growth - more food, more conversion of sunlight to biomass (rather than waste heat) which is the true “carbon capture” we need. But no, let’s listen to an autistic child lead us to TRUTH!

Personally I’m waiting for my own “Mr Fusion” and then perhaps seek a restorable DeLorean

 

[Keened]

There’s a small problem with your proposed scheme: thermodynamics. You can’t ‘re-crack’ combustion products back into usable fuel unless you put back more energy than was originally released!

Yeah, I know. Generating excess energy is getting cheaper by the day, we will easily exceed our maximum grid demands via renewable generation. The problem is how you capture, store, and/or transport that excess energy for use later.

There is a minimum price threshold for grid maintenance and expansion, so it's not like you can just use the excess energy to push prices to zero.

 

[MediumRare]

As a physician who has seen so many utterly bogus papers touted as “the science” and has seen corruption of intellectual integrity to a degree that will make us doubt any pronouncements, it is genuinely hard to see through various “agendas” & know what is real. I acknowledge that there may be some true impact from TMI over the course of decades. Real life is a “contact sport” . Economical storage & minimization of transmission loss are still problems to be solved.

Hydrocarbons are not the evil they are portrayed to be. When Southern Company coal plants are forced to expend 50% of their energy production to capture & pump CO2 down into the earth, it is clear we have lost our collective minds. Increased CO2 has a markedly positive effect on plant growth - more food, more conversion of sunlight to biomass (rather than waste heat) which is the true “carbon capture” we need. But no, let’s listen to an autistic child lead us to TRUTH!

Personally I’m waiting for my own “Mr Fusion” and then perhaps seek a restorable De

Yeah, I know. Generating excess energy is getting cheaper by the day, we will easily exceed our maximum grid demands via renewable generation. The problem is how you capture, store, and/or transport that excess energy for use later.

There is a minimum price threshold for grid maintenance and expansion, so it's not like you can just use the excess energy to push prices to zero.

Do you expect that hydrocarbon reforming will be more efficient than other carbon-free liquid fuels such as ammonia, which can be synthesized through electrolysis? Ammonia can the be cracked and the H2 used in a fuel cell, with the N2 returned to the air.

 

[Blumlein 88]

If nuclear reactors are downsized, electricity prime costs will normally rise, because the small reactors require the complete infrastructure (Transformers, emergency power supply, safety measures,...) of large plants.
Electricity from nuclear power is already extremely expensive and non-competitive today. This is also evident in the predictable disaster of Hinkley C in the UK:

Source

Source
Source was from 2021, the current guaranteed purchase price is now likely to be 120 pounds/MWh because of inflation.
By contrast, the prime costs for solar and wind power, as well as the price for energy storage, continue to fall.

As you yourself write, these are "proposed" reactors that exist only on paper. By 2050 at the latest, energy production must be largely CO2-free, and new, small nuclear reactors, even if their construction is decided today, can hardly make a contribution, since it will take too long to build them en masse.

That is, even with the additional cost of energy storage, the prime cost of solar and wind power are cheaper or at the same level - e.g. prime costs for wind 40-80€/MWh onshore and solar 30-50€/MWh in Germany.

No, the new designs just to pick a number may have 1/10th the output power, but require a good bit less than 10% the surrounding infrastructure. By nature of the design they don't need the emergency backups to the same degree, and are by design safe so that tacked on safety gear isn't needed like with older designs. The claim is that on-going electric generation costs will be a bit lower than solar. Up front costs are higher than solar (though lower than older designs), but these designs have much longer lifespans. I'm in no position to say they are claiming the impossible nor to say it can be done. Unlike fusion which isn't even possible yet and who knows if it will be, these designs can be built and will work. Companies investing will need to figure out if it makes economic sense.

I too would prefer if solar and wind can do everything for us. One thing I think is in areas not yet developed they don't need 24/7 power. If they had help to put together good daytime only power it would be a big step up from where they are. If they had manufacturing that only ran in daytime when there was power it could improve their standard of living considerably. They need never get onto significant fossil fueled infrastructure. Same for some transportation for things like trains. If trains only ran in the daytime, they'd still benefit if the clean power for it is available.

As for saying we must be largely CO2 free by 2050..........I've got bad news for you. It is not happening. It theoretically could, it politically and economically is not going to happen by then. China and India are still building coal plants and increasing carbon output rapidly. They account for 75% of carbon emissions and that likely will increase both in percentage and total volume. The stuff they are building now will be in use at least 20 to 30 years. 2050 being carbon free is a much bigger pipe dream than thinking by then reasonable, safe, economical nuclear reactors will get built.

Space based solar might become reasonable too. And could solve the storage problem as it would not be needed. It has the big drawback that such things would be prime targets in conflicts. Where one country could blow up the solar generating orbitals. Destroying many billions of dollars in power sources for a few hundred thousand dollars.

 

[Keened]

Do you expect that hydrocarbon reforming will be more efficient than other carbon-free liquid fuels such as ammonia, which can be synthesized through electrolysis? Ammonia can the be cracked and the H2 used in a fuel cell, with the N2 returned to the air.

First off, don't lump me in with 'Dr.GreenThumb or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love run-away Greenhouse effects'

I don't expect it to be more efficient in terms of cyclical energy percentage. I expect it to be easy to store, use, and transport with already existing technologies and logistical systems in place. Ammonia, like I said before, is a very interesting proposition. Especially with that recently announced near-perfect catalyst for untreated water or this other one which could feasibly use waste heat from PV generation to maintain the reaction.

But Ammonia is still naturally gaseous and pretty toxic. If they can do it safely and at scale that'd be great. We could even use the ammonia production to replace the Haber process currently used. Again, all good things, but only if we can scale the technology fast enough. Since we're 20 years away from fusion (hopefully for real this time), our primary goal is to shift to carbon neutral as fast as possible, hydrocarbons are well understood old tech that can be made useful and scaled quickly. Ammonia is interesting, but I'm not sure it is something we can go from 0-100 in 5 years with the infrastructure we currently have.

But if those new water hydrolysis catalysts work that well, we could just skip ahead to lithium by pulling it from seawater since the mining and refining lithium are the primary bottlenecks on high density battery production.

Space based solar might become reasonable too. And could solve the storage problem as it would not be needed. It has the big drawback that such things would be prime targets in conflicts. Where one country could blow up the solar generating orbitals. Destroying many billions of dollars in power sources for a few hundred thousand dollars.

Space based solar is, at least technically speaking, entirely possible as of right now. You could do it with geo-stationary collection, but park a few big units out a Lagrange point and use the geo purely as a relay and you'd go even further. The problem is less people blowing up the satellites (although "unintentional" space debris is already a problem and is mostly likely going to be entirely out of hand if China really wants to try their luck against the US military), and more maintaining control of the giant space microwave laser.

 

[Dismayed]

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.2968/060005010

The article by Mangano.

This is a direct quote from the article that you cite:

“The childhood cancer death rate in Dauphin and Lebanon counties has been elevated since the accident. From 1979 to 2001, 120 residents of these counties had died of cancer by age 19, a rate 46 percent above that for the rest of Pennsylvania. The degree to which this reflects the latent effects of Three Mile Island should be explored, especially since no other risk factors in these two counties are obvious.”

As I stated.

 

[Dismayed]

As a physician who has seen so many utterly bogus papers touted as “the science” and has seen corruption of intellectual integrity to a degree that will make us doubt any pronouncements, it is genuinely hard to see through various “agendas” & know what is real. I acknowledge that there may be some true impact from TMI over the course of decades. Real life is a “contact sport” and there is no free lunch. Economical storage & minimization of transmission loss are still problems to be solved.

Hydrocarbons are not the evil they are portrayed to be. When Southern Company coal plants are forced to expend 50% of their energy production to capture & pump CO2 down into the earth, it is clear we have lost our collective minds. Increased CO2 has a markedly positive effect on plant growth - more food, more conversion of sunlight to biomass (rather than waste heat) which is the true “carbon capture” we need. But no, let’s listen to an autistic child lead us to TRUTH!

Personally I’m waiting for my own “Mr Fusion” and then perhaps seek a restorable DeLorean

Coal is dead because renewables are cheaper. Carbon capture is just a Hail Mary pass by a dying industry. No one in their right mind takes it seriously, and it is not a ‘solution’ being pushed by environmentalists.

To claim that carbon emissions are just fine because it benefits plants is laughable. So are you also going to claim that melting glaciers and polar icecaps are net positives, too, because plants need water?

 

[Blumlein 88]

This is a direct quote from the article that you cite:

“The childhood cancer death rate in Dauphin and Lebanon counties has been elevated since the accident. From 1979 to 2001, 120 residents of these counties had died of cancer by age 19, a rate 46 percent above that for the rest of Pennsylvania. The degree to which this reflects the latent effects of Three Mile Island should be explored, especially since no other risk factors in these two counties are obvious.”

As I stated.

Yes, I posted the link to the paper, so people could read it for themselves. Several other epidemiologists came to different conclusions using different methodology.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Coal is dead because renewables are cheaper. Carbon capture is just a Hail Mary pass by a dying industry. No one in their right mind takes it seriously, and it is not a ‘solution’ being pushed by environmentalists.

To claim that carbon emissions are just fine because it benefits plants is laughable. So are you also going to claim that melting glaciers and polar icecaps are net positives, too, because plants need water?

Somebody forgot to tell India and China about coal being dead. Or expensive.

India and China Coal Production Surging By 700M Tons Per Year: That’s Greater Than All U.S. Coal Output

If you think the world is moving beyond coal, think again. The post-Covid economic rebound and surging electricity demand have resulted in big increases in coal prices and coal demand. Since January,

www.realclearenergy.org

 

[Dismayed]

Somebody forgot to tell India and China about coal being dead. Or expensive.

India and China Coal Production Surging By 700M Tons Per Year: That’s Greater Than All U.S. Coal Output

If you think the world is moving beyond coal, think again. The post-Covid economic rebound and surging electricity demand have resulted in big increases in coal prices and coal demand. Since January,

www.realclearenergy.org

China heavily subsidizes industries and distorts pricing. So are you pro-coal, too?

Global production of coal is declining in developed countries and is flat globally. Economics favor renewables - even without factoring in externalities, such as environmental damage.

 

[Blumlein 88]

China heavily subsidizes industries and distorts pricing. So are you pro-coal, too?

Global production of coal is declining in developed countries and is flat globally. Economics favor renewables - even without factoring in externalities, such as environmental damage.

View attachment 264394

Nothing I've posted indicates me being pro coal. I am pro reality. China and especially India aren't going to drop coal in a hurry. It will likely level off in China, it is not in India. Coal is not going away in 10 or 15 years time. No matter how much anyone wants it to do so. Wishful thinking won't make it so.

 

[Willem]

Gas consumption figures for the Netherlands in 2022 have just been published: down about 25%, largely attributed to reduced consumption by households and heavy industry. Our own consumption tracks this with a similar 25% lower gas consumption, due to a combination of the warmer weather, but mostly because of our investment in home insulation and a slightly lower temperature setting for heating.
The national numbers for electricity are not yet available. Our own electricity consumption is significanlty down by some 20%, perhaps because I replaced some power hungry gear like my old desktop computer, and because we just pay a litle bit more attention. Of course, it will go up next winter when our heat pump finally arrives. Ditching the gas stove and moving over to induction does not seem to have added significanlty to our electricity bill. It does make for much cleaner indoor air.

 

[Marc v E]

Gas consumption figures for the Netherlands in 2022 have just been published: down about 25%, largely attributed to reduced consumption by households and heavy industry. Our own consumption tracks this with a similar 25% lowergas consumption, due to a combination of the warmer weather, but mostly because of our investment in home insulation and a slightly lower temperature setting for heating.
The national numbers for electricity are not yet available. Our own electricity consumption is significanlty down by some 20%, perhaps because I replaced some power hungry gear like my old desktop computer, and because we just pay a litle bit more attention. Of course, it will go up next winter when our heat pump finally arrives. Ditching the gas stove and moving over to induction does not seem to have added significanlty to our electricity bill. It does make for much cleaner indoor air.

I tracked my own consumption to see if I could recognise a pattern in gas use.

To my initial surprise, despite less use of our bathtub and slightly lowering our room temperature, gas use almost completely tracks with outside temperature. In other words I think in my case the savings were there mostly because of external factors, not my change in behaviour. This winter has been very warm, 10C being common, while temperatures below zero C only occured on occassion.

This is in a modern, well insulated house (estimated B).

 

[ctrl]

Unlike fusion which isn't even possible yet and who knows if it will be, these designs can be built and will work. Companies investing will need to figure out if it makes economic sense.

As far as I know, there is not even a working prototype. This means that it will probably be decades before these reactors are available in "mass production".

No company or government is going to start building or get approval for dozens of reactors until a working prototype is built and evaluated - these ideas are simply not realistic alternatives to the problems of today.
But we need solutions that are available today, on an industrial scale - like wind, solar, biogas, hydro, geothermal, ...

I too would prefer if solar and wind can do everything for us.

It can be done. The German government's plan of energy transition for climate neutrality by 2045 aims to generate all needed energy from renewables, primarily from wind and solar - unfortunately, this is not yet CO2 neutral (goal for that is 2050+).
The objective is based on five major studies, all of which conclude that this goal is achievable with primarily wind and solar (plus biogas and hydro) - of course with additional energy storage. Here is a brief summary of all five studies.

As for saying we must be largely CO2 free by 2050..........I've got bad news for you. It is not happening. It theoretically could, it politically and economically is not going to happen by then.

Agree with you 100%. Nevertheless, the world must try.

China and India are still building coal plants and increasing carbon output rapidly. They account for 75% of carbon emissions and that likely will increase both in percentage and total volume.

When countries with huge populations try to bring their living standards in line with the West and in addition produce a large part of their goods (shift of the CO2 load), there are negative consequences, but one should never forget which countries bear the greatest responsibility for the climate crisis - especially if you take into account the population size too.

Source

The China and India bashing is currently very popular in the Western world, but completely ignores the fact that China in particular is expanding renewable energy at a dizzying pace.

Installed wind power capacity [MW]

Source

Source

China's plans for solar expansion 2021-2025:

Twenty-nine provinces have released their official plans and accordingly are aiming to add a total of 390 GW by 2025.

Source

 

[Willem]

I tracked my own consumption to see if I could recognise a pattern in gas use.

I admit it is hard to disentangle the various influences. However, in our case I think we now consume much less gas than in previous warm winters, due, I think, primarily to our major insulation effort in what was, in effect, already a well insulated house (built in 1998). We improved roof insulation to R=6 and crawl space insulation to R=7.5. You can feel the improved comfort.

 

[kongwee]

 

[MediumRare]

When your favorite restaurant has no reservations available this year.

"PJM Interconnection, which operates the nation’s largest regional grid, stretching from Illinois to New Jersey, has been so inundated by connection requests that last year it announced a freeze on new applications until 2026, so that it can work through a backlog of thousands of proposals, mostly for renewable energy."

The U.S. Has Billions for Wind and Solar Projects. Good Luck Plugging Them In. (Published 2023)

An explosion in proposed clean energy ventures has overwhelmed the system for connecting new power sources to homes and businesses.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Willem]

I am not sure I understand the specifics. Here in the Netherlands there is no restriction on domestic users connecting their solar systems to the grid. In fact, our local grid was recently upgraded to be good for universal private PV panels, heatpumps, and electric cars combined, the engineer assured me. This does not mean that the same is true for commercial large scale PV generation or major industrial consumption. For now, there are clearly still issues accommodating that.
The current geopolitical situation and the current market prices have obviously given a great boost to energy saving behaviour (long live the price mechanism). European natural gas consumption has gone down some 25% during the last year, and electricity consumption has also gone down. Personally, we went down from over 2800 m3 natural gas a year only two years ago to just 1950 m3 during the last twelve months, and perhaps 10% less electricity. Yes we lowered the temperature a bit, and it was a pretty mild winter, but we also invested in serious insulation. Next step is a heat pump.

 

[kongwee]