Is baseload power necessary?
For years, David Mills, the eminent solar energy technology developer, has dreamed of creating a new model for an energy system that does away with the conventional design of massive baseload infrastructure.
Next week the newly-retired founder of solar thermal technology company Ausra (now owned by French nuclear giant Areva), and a former leading researcher at UNSW, will present that model.
Using hourly data for energy use of the entire United States economy in 2006, Mills will demonstrate how it could have been powered almost exclusively by wind and solar (with storage and the help of biofuels for aircraft and some biomass capacity for certain smelting operations).
The details of his findings, including capacity and costing estimations, will be released when he addresses the Australian Solar Energy Society's annual conference in Canberra next week. But in an exclusive interview with Climate Spectator, Mills gave a broad outline of his conclusions and suggested there was a surprisingly small difference in costs.
“Everyone says that you need flatline baseload capacity (such as coal or nuclear, or in some countries hydro) and build on that platform, and use load-following gas turbines,” Mills said.
“They assume that being baseload makes it cheaper, and all other things are more expensive.”
“What we are suggesting is a new paradigm. The traditional paradigm of flatline baseload does not exist in this scenario, but you need to understand that the replacement for baseload power is not another baseload, it’s a system of flexible and inflexible energy mechanisms based around wind and solar and other sources.”
The study is an extension of an idea that Mills has held dear for some time. In 2005 he presented a talk in Canberra suggesting that solar plans with a “primitive” storage model could run the electricity grid in eastern Australia.
Two years later, he did a similar study for California concluding that, based on hourly data for energy usage in 2006, solar could have carried well over 90 per cent of the electricity load.
The latest study – completed with a former R&D specialist at Ausra, Wei Li Cheng, and a US Department of Energy analyst Phil Larochelle – looks at how solar and wind could handle the entire electricity needs for the US in the same year, and also looks at whether it could handle the entire energy needs for the country, including transport.
Interestingly, wind and solar account for around 50 per cent each of the electricity supplies to handle summer demand and peaks, while more wind was used in winter. Such a system would require a capacity redundancy above peak demand, but would in fact be less than current systems.
Mills says the study looked to test a number of different premises. The first premise was that there was enough solar and wind that, in combination, could run the US economy. There was.
The second was that solar and wind would be connected with a new electricity transmission system, using high voltage direct current lines for the spine of the network, which will allow more flows and result in considerably reduced transmission losses.
These are the sort of networks being contemplated by the Desertec consortium founded by a group of large European industrial giants that are looking to source solar power from north Africa to provide some of Europe’s energy needs.
Mills says China is installing more HVDC lines than any other country in the world – looking to link coal plants with the Three Gorges dam and wind and solar from the north and west of the country. “It very clear to see what they are doing and that it is a very good thing to do,” he said.
Mills says the data used for his study came from 2006, and was based around technology that might be used in 2050, but exists now – even though its lack of scale makes current deployment expensive. "Its not technology that we don’t have now. I didn't want people saying that it's future technology."
He says the model would need to be refined to be implemented, but it provides food for thought. He says it could easily apply to the Chinese and Australian economies, which also benefit from a population largely based on the eastern seaboard, western deserts (which can provide power later into the evening to the eastern consumers), and strong wind resources.
The Mills model will add to the considerable debate about the role of renewables – whether they are a “worthy” but annoying addition to the current network systems, or if they can assume a prominent role in powering economies.
Mills notes the work of the Beyond Zero Emissions group, which outlined a highly contentious study into how Australia could go 100 per cent renewable by 2020 – not so much to suggest it should be done, but that it could be done.
The German industrial giant Siemens has also produced a report entitled “Picture the Future”, which suggested renewable energy could, by 2030, provide 70 per cent of Australia’s electricity needs, with half coming from solar – augmented by storage and a suite of installation across different time zones – and the rest made up of an equal share of wind and geothermal.
Comments on this article
wilson tennis rackets
wilson racket currently brave up more than 90% of the far-reaching market.The seller is mostly racquet or demo plans, connotation that they resolve charge you a professed hire out a some days so that you can cause trouble a scattering more racket.Using the most memorable performer of professional tennis, wilson racket proffer the latest alteration and momentous quality work gig and can be bought in any place.wilson sporting goods utilize consume evolution of Wilson Conventions technology, using subsidiary bonds and graphite between the molecules in silica nanometer scale.For the beginners,they necessary choose a calling framework that is a graphite composite plastic or glass fiber thermoplastic resin reins graphite will be very good.
Hi ,how numerous people there lives in US NEW YORK?
Hi ,how numerous people there lives in US NEW YORK?
Hi ,how numerous people there lives in US NEW YORK?
Hi ,how numerous people there lives in US NEW YORK?
of course Baseload Power is necessary
Modern manufacturing and mining are very capital-intensive. This is the cost of increased productivity.
To best utilise expensive capital equipment, companies need to run 2 and 3 shifts a day. Underground mining machines, and factories, run on electricity.
Shopping centres, groceries, and cinemas don't just operate during the day.
Electric trains and airports operate about 19 hours a day (it should be 24)
Telephone exchanges, Internet Service Providers, TV stations, radio stations, emergency services, hospitals, some call centres, data centres, and air-navigation aids run 24/7.
Office cleaners, street lights, and navigation lights, operate at night.
Evening meals are usually cooked after dark, and in winter breakfasts are prepared in the dark. Heaters are turned on in winter when the sun sets, and then on again early in the morning.
Electric cars (when they come) will want to be charged at night.
The list is endless.
The wind blows more than 33% of the time
The adage that "whilst the wind may not blow in the same place all of the time, it must always be blowing somewhere" is true, but the scale over which it becomes true, is very large.
For instance, the windfarms across NSW, Victoria, and Sth Australia recently fell to about 2% of nominal capacity as a high pressure system sat over all three states. At that time, I looked at a pressure map of Australia, and noted that there were considerable pressure gradients in Tasmania, Queensland, Sth-West WA, and the Kimberley.
Wind-power can only contribute to baseload power if we have a national electricity grid with serious capacity in its interstate links plus wind-farms on an Australia-wide scale.
We would need windfarms along the Sthn coast, across the West and South coasts of Tasmania, and along the national grid lines from Nth Queensland to Adelaide. Then we need approx a 10GW link to Tasmania (we have 0.6GW), and around 20GW across the Nullarbor (very expensive!), plus upgrading the capacity of our few existing interstate links by a factor of 3.
Such a grid is "do-able", and has benefits beyond linking windfarms, but it would cost about 1-3 NBNs?
Our super-organism thinking is inside out and upside down.
The current thinking about baseload power has been that consumer lifestyle and manufacturing require reliable power on demand, therefore our planet should wear the fossil fuel and nuclear power stations and attendant climate bills and difficulties.
To be a long lived civilization, we can only use the renewable power stations the planet can afford, and work our societies and lifestyles around that.
In this long run battle of who is boss, who is going to win and set the limits? Our planet or us? Natures carbon accounting or our money accounting? Ecosystems or the economy that is a sub-system of our ecosystems? Resource recycling or resource destruction?
Embrace the future or die.
GO Solar thermal!
Not only is it a well known and proven technology, it is efficient and produces heat as its by product.
In order to make efficient use of the solar resource, a client for the generator's reject heat should be found.
Such a client could be forward osmosis, as dsescribed by Jeffrey L. McCutcheon at Yale University. This has to potential to produce vast amounts of fresh water from the waste heat of a power station. It is also potentially more efficient than current state of the art reverse osmosis processes.
How long have we got on Oil? Coal? Nuclear?
Over the timescale of this transition, Fusion should be ignored. It is probably 50+ years away (it's been like this for 50 years) and will be really expensive.
Nuclear (fission) in Australia won't happen for 20 years. We haven't event has a sensible debate yet. And then there's the conctruction timeframe and the cost of these plants. (see Canada's experiences with ageing and maintanenace of 500+MW reactors)
Like it or not, the human race will be powered by renewable energy in the not too distant future.
We have a choice, we can lead the way or be pushed.
The wind blows more than 33% of the time...
The average output from wind turbines is about 33% of "nameplate capacity" - the energy the would produce at maximum wind speeds. ( The average output using best design turbines and best locations is around 50%.)
But don't make the mistake of thinking that that 33% number means that the wind blows 1/3rd of the time and not at all the other 2/3rds. That's a very basic misunderstanding of what the statistic "average" means.
In fact, the wind is always blowing somewhere. Jacobson (of the Jacobson and Delucci article) found that if you hook wind farms together over a modest region about 33% of the produced average output is reliable enough to use as baseload.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/aj07_jamc.pdf
Another group found tht linked offshore wind could provide a steady source of power for the US east coast
"In the particular five-year period studied, the power output of the simulated grid never stopped completely."
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/20113
Combined heat and power CPV
Also, a few companies are turning concentrated PV solar into combined hot water and power plants, with overall solar conversion efficiency of over 70%.
See Israeli company Zenith Solar
and
Cogenra's 'Hybrid' Solar System Captures 80% of the Sun's Energy to Generates Electricity and Hot Water
article at treehugger
Is CO2 evil?
CO2 is not evil
" I am also aware that human contributions of CO2 each year is overwhelmingly dwarfed by natural emissions and atmospheric/ oceanic turnover."
Really?
Well perhaps you need to read this.
How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=2&t=78&&a=16*
And no, CO2 isn't evil, in fact, carbon is the most critical element in our world. So what? Your screen name makes me think you are a repeater, of nonsense denier claims.
- "CO2 isn't pollution" now being one of the popular slogans used by scientifically illiterate GOP congressmen in the U.S.
Someone mentioned 20% capacity factor for solar.
Solar thermal power tower type plants, with molten salt heat storage, can have capacity factors over 70% according to the U.S. NREL. They give 50% for parabolic solar trough plants with heat storage. The NREL has more experience with solar thermal than anyone in the world, having built and successfully run 9 pilot plants for over 20 years.
RE: The misleading facts
Harry
You make the valid point that some loads, such as overnight hot water, were indeed introduced to load shift from day time to night time to better match coal output. And the case of the Portland Smelter also demonstrates the Victorian Government's need to find a load for excess capacity during the 1980's.
But your post misses the point. Throughout the twentieth century, and continuing today, electricity networks have been constantly upgraded to provide society with the power it demands. The electricity suppliers are not forcing people to go out and purchase air conditioners so that they have to spend another $57B on transmission and distribution upgrades. The cost of upgrades is an order of magnitude greater than the revenues from households for the air conditioner use. It is a constant chase to ensure that the network can reliably supply society with the power it demands, every moment of every day, regardless of whether it is night/day, summer/winter, fine/raining, windy/calm, or whether there are breakdowns.
It is wholly remarkable to somehow suggest that people use electrical appliances simply to consume the power that is being generated because it is there.
RE: Critiques of BZE
Stephen Gloor, you state:
"The BZE study was a multi disciplinary study conducted by energy professionals. You on the other hand dismiss this with your amatuer back of the envelope studies."
The study includes assumptions to essentially ban or eliminate all domestic aviation by 2020, essentially remove all standard petrol and diesel cars from the road by 2020, reduce peak supply in winter to the point where many Victorians and others would be unable to use their heaters on some cold mornings, substantially reduce network reliability, dramatically increase the cost of energy, among other things. No-one doubts the commitment, enthusiasm or motives of the BZE crew, but the plan needed to be critiqued by Peter Lang, among other professional engineers, even if you disagree with their conclusions.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/
Baseload the misleading facts
The only misleading facts here are the ones provided by Harry Williamson. The start up times and load ramp rates of coal fired power stations is all to do with the design. Having worked in the technical area with such stations for 30 years I can assure Mr Williamson that there are large coal fired stations iin Australia that can go from dead cold to full load in short time frames and can easily respond to fast system demands. The large station at Gladstone in QLD, for example, has fast response coal mills and was designed for frequency control to ensure grid stability and to provide fast response for peak load changes.
I would suggest that Mr. Williamson actually do a bit of research before making such false claims in a public forum.
Critiques of BZE
Lang - "Clearly you haven't read the many critiques of the BZE studies. They are complete nonsense. The technologies they have built their case on do not exist, and probably never will. "
The ONLY critiques of BZE that I have seen are the completely bogus ones produced by yourself. The BZE study was a multi disciplinary study conducted by energy professionals. You on the other hand dismiss this with your amatuer back of the envelope studies.
Please post these critiques that do not come from the nuclear echo-chamber that is Brave New Climate.
Baseload Power - The Misleading 'Facts'
Baseload power plants were constrained by the requirement to use all the power they produce, continuously. A good example is a large coal fired station. The heat capacity of thousands of tons of steel and refactory lining means that the energy, if not removed as fast as it is supplied will catasptrohically damage the plant. The same applies to Nuclear. Both these technologies take time, sometimes hours or days, to adjust their output, and to start up and shut down. This unfortunately can not match the current massive demand swings created by our highly mobile energy hungry societies.
Attempts to use baseload excess power generation included hugely discounted power at night (Night Storage, remember that?) and subsidies to Aluminium Smelting which can soak up the excess power easily, and flexibly, at a moments notice.
The question is, which came first, baseload generation or excess consumption?
Solar storage, wind, wave, geo, and efficiency technogies, together with lifestyle improvements and workinghour flexibility make the concpt of HAVING to produce energy continuously that we HAVE to consume, redundant. The traditional supply and distribution 'experts' are fighting a losing battle with the truth.
is there a reason nobody applies existing infrastucture
why does the use of existing infrastucture seem to slip under the radar?is the rooftop and hwy system or myriad of gov bldgs schools etc..not available to tie in to the conversation.
all of these and more(factories warehouses skyscrapers sport complexs )all are conected to the grid and with a minimum of retro fit ,could supply much of there own energy use.the overall lack of grounded initiative within our leadership at all levels is a major draw back.
many individuals are bringing programs into the communities but a lack of a co-ordinated effort looks to be a big hold up.
Confused
Does Mr Mills have a different set of physic book to me
ZERO POINT ENERGY
FIELD PROPULSION ENERGY
Check it out....It has been around since the second world war.
Nicola TESLA. Victor SCHAUBERGER etc.
Free ENERGY is hidden from us.
Capital Utilisation
"You can't get away from the fact that wind generates, on average, 33% of the time, and solar on average 20% of the time. These are abysmally low capital utilisations; infrastructure with these capacity utilisations do not usually get funded."
That's very true. But you will also know that fuel costs are also a major part of the equation. Gas and coal fuel costs 100% of the time. Wind and sun is free. 100% of the time.
You guys have gotta be kidding!
Is baseload power necessary? You guys have gotta be kidding! This whole premise is fantasy. We already have a reliable, safe and relatively cheap baseload technology available for which Australia has ample fuel supplies - it's called nuclear!
Demand is not constant so why should supply be?
This debate on baseload is a great example of how the assumptions of the past are habitually carried forward as incontravertible truths.
In a fossil fuel or nuclear fuel world energy storage is easy. You just stockpile fuel.
Once this truth is grasped it is easy to see that the most efficient fuel-based model of power generation involves maximum capacity utilisation of the generating plant.
The concept of baseload derives from the cheapness of storage in fuel combined with the financial principle of maximum capacity utilisation for capital plant.
Industrial society grew up with this constraint and adapted itself to be "always on" - (the 24x7 factory line).
For renewables, this logic needs to be "inverted". There is no fuel cost so no latent "storage option". Solar and wind plant is automatically optimal in generation profile since free (fuel) energy is harvested whenever it is there!
The concept of efficiency involves scheduling the highest and best value use (demand) of energy whenever it is there. This means HVDC transport, demand response, and storage are the key concepts (not baseload).
Not surprisingly people don't get it :-)
Thank heaven for people like Mr Mills
CO2isnotevil
Michael Syna-Rahma,
I have no problem with seeking and perfecting new forms of energy. I recall a university team in 1964 driving a car from San Diego to Washington State on hydrogen they had generated by electrolysis as reported in Scientific American. Good. Except that the electrolysis uses more energy than is created by the recombining of hydrogen and oxygen. To make it work you need very cheap electricity. The cheapest electricity to date comes from burning coal and yes I am familiar with the carbon cycle. I am also aware that human contributions of CO2 each year is overwhelmingly dwarfed by natural emissions and atmospheric/ oceanic turnover.
My argument has always been to use the cheap energy we still have in abundance to power the next generation of energy research. We know that wind and solar are far too expensive for other than niche applications. We also know, and obviously the French and much of the world also know, that nuclear is the next best thing and yet Australia ignores the obvious. Why? It has little to do with science and much to do with garnering green votes, votes that will lead eventually to a reduced economy and many dark nights.
This form of electricity
This form of electricity network will need to be implemented whether you like it or not! (no amount of negative comments will change that - this is not a vote, ha, it's a reality check into truth - and you can't hide)
Add geothermal, tidal, wave, hydro, biomass, etc to solar and wind - linked into a range of storage facilities and most likely with Hydrogen as the energy carrier - and we will at least then have a chance to exist long enough as a species until we can start migrating into space exploration.
People still think in hundreds of years, maybe people could start thinking in terms of thousands of years as well - while still keeping your eye on your superannuation and tomorrows T.A.B
Lawrie Ayres - how does the carbon cycle work? people can get a technical as they like but the carbon cycle is the carbon cycle!
Baseload Power
Somebody is going to end up looking pretty silly. My money is on the advocates of baseload power who, had they been around in 1900 would have never backed petroluem engines against steam power. "How could there ever be enough places to refuel?" etc. ad infinitum. Human ingenuity will find a way. Is it really that you don't believe it or rather you don't want it to happen?
Oh yeah, now pull the other one
Sure, with infinite cheap storage and infinite cheap transmission, we could power the world without spending a penny on baseload generation plant. If that is true then the converse is true too.
.
If we had infinitely cheap baseload generating power, we wouldn't need all those ugly transmission lines or hillsides covered with ugly collectors. Now which is closer to the truth?
technologies that do not exist?
Mr. Lang, always good to hear from you. Are you suggesting that the BZE study used completely fictional technology?
Wow, that would be pretty embarrassing for highly respected researchers from one of Australia's top-tier universities...
As an engineer, I've always believed in 'making it happen'. What Mr. Crockett is advocating is 'recognising and capturing the opportunity'. It's not about right or wrong, only about 'making it happen'; better to have tried and failed, then never have tried at all - why seek to quash that?
CO2isnotevil
Coal and Gas companies are often accused of simply looking after their own interests when reporting the horrendous costs of renewables. According to some they have a vested interest. Well the proponents of renewables also have vested interests and their claims must also be viewed with a sceptical eye.
Nowhere is the proof that we need to change anything. This time last year PM Rudd was erroneously claiming a heatwave in Adelaide was proof positive of Global Warming. Not a peep this year when the La Nina is keeping Australia wet and cool.
Forget the saving the planet from CO2 and use the saved resources to find solutions to REAL problems.
Agree
You can't get away from the fact that wind generates, on average, 33% of the time, and solar on average 20% of the time. These are abysmally low capital utilisations; infrastructure with these capacity utilisations do not usually get funded.
The link from Peter Lang is a good one .... any electricity system needs to supply capacity (instantaneous demand), energy (total volume of demand) and reliability. With a massive amount of storage, perhaps wind & solar could provide a stable system, but it would be an incredibly expensive way of doing it. "Baseload" is just a moniker for a way of providing a stable, reliable system that can meet the required energy and capacity needs at least cost. Even if you price in the carbon costs, it's still less expensive than a wind+solar+storage solution.
Lane Crockett, Clearly you
Lane Crockett,
Clearly you haven't read the many critiques of the BZE studies. They are complete nonsense. The technologies they have built their case on do not exist, and probably never will.
Evidence mounting that 100% renewables can power Australia
First we had Jacobson & Delucchi's study (Scientific American) that the globe can be powered by 100% renewable energy. Now we have detailed studies for Australia (BZE's Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan) and the US (in the article above), based on real data but updated for projected future demand.
Achieving a low carbon future is not about technology, its about recognising and capturing the opportunity .