40% renewables wouldn’t need much coal, storage: study

By Nathan

There isn’t much of a need for power storage in Germany even if it increases the share of its electricity that is generated by renewable sources by around 50%, according to a new study by the German engineering association VDE.

Importantly, the study has shown that “baseload power – coal and nuclear – will have to go as the country switches to renewables.”

German engineering association VDE finds that the need for storage will be modest [up] to a 40% share of renewable power, at which point the need will increase. But the chart [above] also shows that German engineers believe that nuclear (red), brown coal (brown), and hard coal (black) are incompatible with renewable power. German engineers expect their country to mainly switch to cogeneration (fired with both biomass and fossil fuels) along with gas turbines running on natural gas and power-to-gas, a way of storing excess power seasonally.

There have been doubts expressed in the international media that Germany may not be able to switch over directly from nuclear to renewables without first relying on ramped-up coal use during the transition. But that concern isn’t a common one within Germany. As the new study shows, renewables completely ‘obliterate’ the need for baseload power.

The study’s main question was: How will intermittent wind and solar power affect the grid? And how much electricity will need to be stored?

“In five scenarios, the VDE finds that dispatchable power generators will mainly have to be flexible, but also that this requirement can be met in all of the scenarios. And up to a 40% share of renewables, the cost of power storage (or otherwise lost excess power production) remains moderate, only raising the cost of power by 10% in the worst case,” Craig Morris of Renewables International writes.

The study’s findings aren’t really a surprise. Renewables International had already found based on its calculations that Germany won’t need to make any real changes to its grid and won’t need very much power storage if it meets the targets that it currently has set for wind and solar. And we’ve reported on the lack of need for storage up to a high renewables penetration rate several times, as well.

If the targets are met, Germany will get around 40% of its electricity from renewables. As a comparison, it got around 25% of their electricity from renewable sources during the first half of 2012. So far, the effect has mostly been to offset power from natural gas, but it’s been increasingly “cutting into the baseload.” Denmark, which is already sourcing over 40% of its power from renewable sources, hasn’t had to create any major power storage infrastructure so far.

“To move beyond 40% to 80% renewable power (the target for around 2050), Germany could need as much as 14 GW of short-term and 18 GW of seasonal power storage to meet its peak power demand of around 80 GW in the moderate scenario. At that point, power prices would be roughly 10% greater than in 2011, but reaching 100% renewable power will be quite expensive indeed. The German engineers estimate that the final 20% will triple the need for power storage, raising prices once again by around 19%.”

As the chart above shows, not only will nuclear disappear (as national policy is to phase it out), but coal power use will fall off, nearly disappearing by the time the country sources 80% of its electricity from renewable sources.

“The country’s phaseout of coal power is based not on an official policy, but rather on a general understanding among experts in the power sector that the switch to renewables will gradually obliterate the need for baseload power.”
Clean Technica (http://s.tt/1pywf) – Reproduced with permission.

Comments

3 responses to “40% renewables wouldn’t need much coal, storage: study”

  1. Michael Kane Avatar
    Michael Kane

    One advantage they have in Germany (at least in summer) is the longer days means that you get solar during peak demand times. Day light saving in some Australian states help this somewhat but not sufficiently for our high summer peaks. Storage whether battery or otherwise is needed in Australia along with peak energy efficiency/demand management and gas peaking plant. In any event you can see the long term trend is not good for coal

    1. Photomofo Avatar
      Photomofo

      You don’t need to worry about where the peak is right now. PV is expected to lower prices in inverse-proportion to its generation profile. This means electricity will be cheapest when it’s sunniest. This means you’ll see people shift loads over to that time period to capture those lower prices. The end result is that you’re peak will move and you won’t need storage. It’s supply and demand. Think about it. Storage is not required until you get to much higher penetrations.

      You don’t want to add the costs of storage until you absolutely must. Lead Acid batteries cost $150/kWh for 1500 cycles. That’s 10 cent/kWh per cycle plus the loss of 20% of the energy you stored (2 to 3 cent/kWh more). Upshot is you double your costs for the electricity over a straight PV scheme. It makes no economic sense unless you can displace electricity that costs 25 to 30 cent/kWh on the back end. Most people would rather back-feed the electricity at cost back into the grid (10ish cent/kWh) and then buy the electricity back from the grid when needed. In this case you save 10ish cents/kWh rather than breaking even. Additionally you lay out less capital and take less risk and don’t have to worry about the space for batteries or their maintenance.

  2. Photomofo Avatar
    Photomofo

    Not much storage you say? That’s wonderful. Someone should tell all the hosers going on and on about storage.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.