1 / 36

Intermittent Sources for Electricity Production in Germany, Sweden, and Europe: A Comparative Analysis

This study compares the use of intermittent sources for electricity production in Germany, Sweden, and Europe. The analysis examines the integration of renewables, the replacement of nuclear power, and the benefits of cooperation in the EU. The study also explores the costs and economic implications of transitioning to a 100% renewable energy supply.

aholland
Download Presentation

Intermittent Sources for Electricity Production in Germany, Sweden, and Europe: A Comparative Analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. I also wanttotalkaboutEROI:

  2. I also wanttotalkaboutEROI: Electricity Renewables O2C Intermittency

  3. The useofintermittentsourcesforelectricityproduction in Germany, Sweden, Europe F. Wagner, Max-Planck-Institute for PlasmaphysicsGarching/Greifswald 4 Electricity production (2012/13) in the 3 regions Germany Sweden EU • Germany burns coal • Europe uses more gas • RES are large in Germany • Sweden is nearly CO2-free • Nuclear is important in EU • Topics to be covered: • Germany: • integration of RES in large scales • Sweden: • replacement of nuclear power • by wind • EU: • benefits of cooperation coal 135 TWh 630 TWh EU-283179 TWh

  4. The “Energiewende” in Germany 5 Energies 100% case

  5. The “Energiewende” in Germany 6 Energies Method: Analyse the time series (2012) of load, wind, PV, scaled to 100% Assumptions:Consumption (load) stays at 500 TWh Hydro cannot be increased No nuclear power No import-export No bio-gas PV: 20% (optimal mix) Wind: 1/3 offshore 100% case

  6. Major Results 7 Pwon=176GW ; Pwoff=33GW; PPV =97GW

  7. How much power has to be installed? 8 100% case W+PV Back-up Fossil power increases load

  8. How much power has to be installed? 9 Energy TWh load

  9. The extent of surplus energy? 10 The electricity export strongly increases. Numerically, the export agrees with the PV energy generated

  10. Dimension of storage? 11 Need ofback-updepending on storagecapacity Seasonal storage = 660 x present pumped water storage

  11. The amount of CO2 reduction? 12 with present German fossil fuel mix with gas alone Germany: 2002-2015 2015 Countries with hydro + nuclear arewhere Germany will never be with REs and gas as back-up

  12. The alternative use of gas 13 with present German fossil fuel mix with gas alone Germany: 2002-2015 2015 Countries with hydro + nuclear arewhere Germany will never be with REs and gas as back-up

  13. Conditions of a 100% supply by RES 14 Main knobs: savings/efficiency + useofbiomass Minor knobs: decreaseofpopulation, import (dispatchable power), geo-th-power level of consumption/present consumption factorofloadreduction

  14. Conditions of a 100% supply by RES 15 Main knobs: savings/efficiency + useofbiomass Minor knobs: decreaseofpopulation, import (dispatchable power), geo-th-power Surplus/load = 50% level of consumption/present consumption factorofloadreduction

  15. What could be a reasonable share by intermittent RES? 16 2015 2015 2014 2013 2011 40% possible limit

  16. What are the costs of the transition? 17 Household prices increase nearly linearly Feed-in-tariff 2015: 24 Mrd € Spot market price (annual average): - no business any longer to produce electricity by gas - CHP-limit ~ 5€cent/kWh Overproduction: Germany finances electricity use of its neighbours CHP

  17. What are the costs of the transition? 18 CHP W+PV power (W/capita) Source: F. Wagner Finadvice

  18. What are the economic implications? 19 Def.: full-load-hours (flh) = energy produced (TWh)/production capacity (GW) Electricity price ~ 1/flh The operation of gas power station loses economic basis - not only because of electricity price This fate will be shared by other thermal power stations – one after the other … also by a future storage system

  19. What are the economic implications? 20 EON RWE price of shares (€) “new industry” Market share on PV module production 2008: 20% 2015: 2% http://www.boerse.de/historische-kurse/RWE-St-Aktie/DE0007037129

  20. Lessons from German “Energiewende” 21 Large-scale Wind and PV electricity possible if the necessary space is allocated Large power to be installed – comparable to the load of Europe → high costs Back-up system required in all scenarios: little saving in thermal power Storage technology not available; its future operation not economic CO2 reduction by RES: not to the level already achieved by others in EU High costs to build-up the system Market-rules out of force: price follows weather, not demand (loss of landscape, loss of bio-diversity)

  21. Can Sweden replace nuclear by wind power? 22 Electricity production TWh Källa: Energimyndigheten

  22. Hydropower follows the load 23 present situation Data for analysis provided by E. Rachlew

  23. Operation of hydro-power plants 24 Electricity production is only one requirement for hydro-system water supply flood prevention + avoidance of low water levels fishing recreation and environment Hydro-system with several power stations along the river → coherent action to avoid spills Limits in Phy and gradPhy which vary during season Procedure: obey limits of each day

  24. The case without nuclear power 25

  25. The alternatives 26 Hydro electricity constant: 62 TWh

  26. The consequences 27 A gas back-up system is necessary → the specific CO2 emission increases by 50% PV is rather ineffective to replace back-up Storage is not meaningful because surplus power is too little Excessive surplus production leads to the replacement of hydro by wind power

  27. Benefitfrom an EU-wide RES field 28 Construction of an EU-wide RES field Germany, wind+PV Denmark, wind Belgium, wind France, wind+PV UK, wind Ireland, wind Spain, wind+PV Czech Rep., wind+PV Sweden, wind+PV

  28. Benefitfrom an EU-wide RES field 29 Annual duration curves for German RES field (dashed) and EU-wide RES field Construction of an EU-wide RES field Production: 1TWh for each case Germany, wind+PV Denmark, wind Belgium, wind France, wind+PV UK, wind Ireland, wind Spain, wind+PV Czech Rep., wind+PV Sweden, wind+PV Only wind has averaging effect

  29. Germany´sbenefitof an EU-wide RES field 30 the back-up energy is reduced by 24%, the maximal back-up power by 9%, the maximal surplus power by 15%, the maximal grid power by 7%, the typical grid fluctuation level by 35% the maximal storage capacity by 28%

  30. Structureofwind fieldover Europe 31 … expressed in termsof regressioncoefficient

  31. Usefulsurplus (fromGermany´spointofview) 32 surplusnormalisedforeachcase „useful“ surplus (surplusproducedwhen Germany is in need) 100% In caseofsurplus – also theneighbours produceit UK Spain Ireland France Belgium Denmark Germany Czech Rep.

  32. Interconnectorcapacity 33

  33. EU power installations 34 For comparison: EU, 2013 Derived heat: 680 TWh Road transport: 3305 TWh http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/transport-final-energy-consumption-by-mode/assessment-5 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Electricity_and_heat_statistics

  34. EU-wideconsequences 35 Large RES power necessary for all countries National RES use demand typically north-south grids Cross-border exchange requires east-west grids Exchange over large distances beneficial Large interconnectorcapacitiesneeded Not all countries benefit equally from an EU-wide RES field Economic consequences: Utilities lose business model IEA: EU loses 1/3 of global market share of energy intensive exports over next 2 decades* * Finadvice

  35. Considerationspriorto an „Energiewende“ 36 The generation power has to increase by up to a factor of 4 High costs, rising electricity prices High use of space Storage crucial but not available and not economic in operation Hydro+nuclear much better in CO2-reduction System without market incentives Strong impact on economy of present utilities Development of new industries not guaranteed Joint transition within EU highly doubtful

More Related