Lemdro.id

4 points

6 days ago

But there are a lot of gas power plants in Germany already. If you want them just as back up, it would be easier to just convert coal power plants to biomass. For 2% it should be fine.

report

[ - ]

Ooops@feddit.org

2 points

6 days ago

That’s the point. The backup needs to produce (close to) 100% of the demand 2% of the time.

And coal plants are incredibly bad at quickly reacting. It takes a day just from ignition to working temperature, several days to establish the transport chain constantly providing the huge amounts of fuel needed (bonus points for a lot of them being ship-based and possibly suffering from low water levels).

Also there is a lot of industry that will already need climate-neutral gas produced by green energy as their only valid way for electrification. And in the end it’s also a cost issue. If the industry already needs huge amounts of gas and the transport network anyway (of which a lot already exists - refitting natural gas networks for hydrogen has already started) the state doesn’t need to pay much than just the power plants. And they are comparably cheap (the exact opposite of nuclear where constrution is expensive but fuel and operation are cheap).

report

[ - ]

2 points

6 days ago

There are currently plans for over 226GW of grid sized battery storage in Germany, so a bit of lead time is possible. Weather forecasts are a thing as well, so the grid operators will have a good idea, about how much power is available at any given time.

report

[ - ]

barsoap@lemm.ee

2 points

5 days ago

Network operators got requests to connect 226GW, which is a completely different thing. The bulk of those is not even going to have fleshed out financing plans. Also that’s connection power, which might not be how much power the batteries can realistically deliver for more than seconds before overheating, much less over a whole day.

Generally speaking current battery tech isn’t suitable for longer-term storage. Synthetic fuel is, which is why those gas plants were planned for from the very start of the energy transition and they’re all going to be able to run on pure hydrogen without expensive modifications.

report

[ - ]

1 point

5 days ago

Network operators got requests to connect 226GW, which is a completely different thing.

So why would you request to connect a battery storage plant, without having any sort of plans for them? It needs to be realistic enough to invest the resources to look into it. Peak load was 75.775GW this year, so 226GW is roughly three times peak load or a lot more then needed. Usually they have an hour or two of storage capacity. So you do not need the power plants to meet peak load, but just enough to have them run 24/7 and then meet peak demand with batteries. So for a winter week Germany consumes about 9500GWh of electricity. So you need 56.5GW of power plants to run all the time to produce that. As of right now Germany has 36.7GW of gas, 6.4GW of hydro and 9.2GW of biomass. That means 4.2GW are missing. That is presuming no wind and solar generation at all and no grid connection with other countries.

Honestly just built hydrogen power plants right now. No need to make them methane gas powered in the meantime.

report

[ - ]

barsoap@lemm.ee

1 point

5 days ago

So why would you request to connect a battery storage plant, without having any sort of plans for them?

Because it’s a bunch of paperwork you need to get in order to see whether what you have in mind is practical. One of the cheaper parts of the whole process so you do it first.

So for a winter week Germany consumes about 9500GWh of electricity. So you need 56.5GW of power plants to run all the time to produce that.

That’s not how the maths works demand changes by hour of the day. Basic load generally fluctuates between 40 and 60GW so we’re missing at least 4GW more plus safety buffer. And that’s Germany’s load, we also export electricity and when the lot of Germany has issues with renewable generation then it figures that Poland isn’t likely to be in any better shape. If you catch a large enough geographical area then you’ll never have trouble in all places at the same time but to capitalise on that we’d need network connections we don’t have, and won’t have for some time.

Add to that increased electricity demand as companies are switching from gas to electric. Things like glass smelters, things you can’t even shut down: You either have 1600C in there or a very expensive write-off.

Honestly just built hydrogen power plants right now. No need to make them methane gas powered in the meantime.

They’re quite literally the same thing. Burner nozzles might be different but that’s not the expensive part, and it’s not like making them able to burn all kinds of hydrogen/methane mixtures would be rocket science (it’s turbine science).

Unless you mean fuel cell plants but those don’t run on biofuel and municipal utilities have sewage to ferment (those produce methane). They also don’t produce (much) heat which thus couldn’t be put towards district heating which TBH we should have a whole lot more of.

Then there’s yet another factor, and that’s inertia: Gas plants have big heavy spinny things that act as dampeners on frequency fluctuations, buying operators precious time to increase or lower production to match demand without the whole network crashing. Yes you can regulate frequency in other ways, like capacitor banks or flywheels, but if you already have a flywheel why not accelerate it with a turbine?

report

[ - ]

1 point

4 days ago

Because it’s a bunch of paperwork you need to get in order to see whether what you have in mind is practical. One of the cheaper parts of the whole process so you do it first.

So the problem is money, which again can be fixed, with for subsidies. Like the subsidies paid to gas power plants.

Basic load generally fluctuates between 40 and 60GW so we’re missing at least 4GW more plus safety buffer.

With battery storage it is possible to charge up batteries, when you only need 40GW and then power the grid, when you need 60GW. So storage reduces the amount of peak power plants needed. Btw peaks in summer are lower, as a good number of consumers use rooftop solar, lowering grid demand, so 40-60GW is too little.

They’re quite literally the same thing.

Hydrogen and methane are not the same thing and especially when you plan for a mix of the two, you need two sets of pipelines. We are talking years until they are finished. Again might as well built hydrogen first. That creates demand for hydrogen, expands that grid making it easier for chemical companies and the like to connect to it as well. With a connection to the electricity grid, those sites would also be prime sites for electrolysis units.

report