The issue from the very beginning of the push for large-scale wind power was whether wind would be reliable enough to provide continuous input, bearing in mind the ABC of intermittent energy.
A. Supply to the grid must continuously match demand.
B. The continuity of wind and solar input is disrupted by nights with little or no wind.
C. There is no grid-scale storage at present using pumped hydro or batteries or any other known technology.
Therefore intermittent inputs from the sun and wind have no place on the grid.
That might have been the end of the story if the meteorologists had ever spread the word about wind droughts, that is, prolonged periods with next to no wind across continental areas. And if the people who planned the wind transition using subsidies and mandates to drive out coal had bothered to consult with the meteorologists or in some other way assessed the reliability of the wind supply.
There are plenty of references to problems with the wind supply going back to 2015 and 2016 when there were long spells with no wind across much of North America and the meteorologists explained these by reference to high pressure systems.
At that time there was still plenty of conventional power and windless nights caused no problems.
It was different when Dunkelflautes turned up unannounced in Europe in 2021 and proceeded to wreck the power supply in Britain and Germany where the transition to wind was well advanced and coal was on the way out.
And so the spectre of power failure has haunted Britain and Germany ever since. Why the surprise?
Germany and Britain are in the grip of A WIND DROUGHT TRAP and it remains to be seen whether the United States can avoid the same fate because they were possibly only one Democrat administration away from the red zone where windless nights are very dangerous.
It seems various countries & companies are trying various technologies: sand for heat storage, ice for coolth storage, and so on. All seem small-scale: individual homes to village district heating. None offers conversion back to electrical power with anything other than poor efficiency. So they might help at the very margins, but not at the scale of an industrialised country.
I am aware of the conversion losses to electricity. However about half of the energy used is in the form of heat energy. Surely they can find a ready market for that. Especially given the low cost of storage its reasonable to assume they'll receive reliable 24/7 service.
You should look into what Germany means by “biomass.” My understanding is that is that a large fraction of that biomass is wood pellets inported from the US. When you consider the environmental impacts of harvesting all those trees, turning them into pellets, shipping them thousands of miles, and the emissions from burning wood, I would argue that’s hardy an environmentally benign choice.
The EU in its infinite wisdom categorises 'biomass' as being 'green'.
My understanding is, that many countries in the EU absolutely rely on 'biomass' being 'green' otherwise they would miss their EU 'green' targets even more than they already do.
My personal opinion on this is that, like Drax in the UK, providing massive subsidies to entities which burn wood simply incentivises felling of trees, whether ancient woodland or fast-growing timber. There's too much money at stake.
But probably an effective way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere is to grow more trees and then fix their carbon.
I seem to remember a commitment at the end of COP26 to stop felling trees, I wonder what happened to it...
You might add a cost estimate for constructing all those utility-scale battery installations in Germany. They roughly approximate the cost of nuclear power plants, but they do not even generate electricity.
Thanks as ever for the realistic, big picture analysis, Chris.
Just a point on the "perpetual motion" pumped storage question: if the capacity was 2x (or more) the apparent consistent generation volume, constant generation of half of aggregate capacity appears feasible (one station is 'recharging' which the other station is discharging).
The issue from the very beginning of the push for large-scale wind power was whether wind would be reliable enough to provide continuous input, bearing in mind the ABC of intermittent energy.
A. Supply to the grid must continuously match demand.
B. The continuity of wind and solar input is disrupted by nights with little or no wind.
C. There is no grid-scale storage at present using pumped hydro or batteries or any other known technology.
Therefore intermittent inputs from the sun and wind have no place on the grid.
That might have been the end of the story if the meteorologists had ever spread the word about wind droughts, that is, prolonged periods with next to no wind across continental areas. And if the people who planned the wind transition using subsidies and mandates to drive out coal had bothered to consult with the meteorologists or in some other way assessed the reliability of the wind supply.
https://quadrant.org.au/news-opinions/climate-change/no-gusts-no-glory/
There are plenty of references to problems with the wind supply going back to 2015 and 2016 when there were long spells with no wind across much of North America and the meteorologists explained these by reference to high pressure systems.
At that time there was still plenty of conventional power and windless nights caused no problems.
It was different when Dunkelflautes turned up unannounced in Europe in 2021 and proceeded to wreck the power supply in Britain and Germany where the transition to wind was well advanced and coal was on the way out.
And so the spectre of power failure has haunted Britain and Germany ever since. Why the surprise?
https://www.flickerpower.com/images/The_endless_wind_drought_crippling_renewables___The_Spectator_Australia.pdf
Germany and Britain are in the grip of A WIND DROUGHT TRAP and it remains to be seen whether the United States can avoid the same fate because they were possibly only one Democrat administration away from the red zone where windless nights are very dangerous.
https://www.flickerpower.com/index.php/search/categories/general/escaping-the-wind-drought-trap
it didn't matter
whether it was wind and solar input will not
Does thermal batteries help mitigate this some of this problem? Has there been any large scale deployments of this technology?
Hi Md,
It seems various countries & companies are trying various technologies: sand for heat storage, ice for coolth storage, and so on. All seem small-scale: individual homes to village district heating. None offers conversion back to electrical power with anything other than poor efficiency. So they might help at the very margins, but not at the scale of an industrialised country.
I am aware of the conversion losses to electricity. However about half of the energy used is in the form of heat energy. Surely they can find a ready market for that. Especially given the low cost of storage its reasonable to assume they'll receive reliable 24/7 service.
You should look into what Germany means by “biomass.” My understanding is that is that a large fraction of that biomass is wood pellets inported from the US. When you consider the environmental impacts of harvesting all those trees, turning them into pellets, shipping them thousands of miles, and the emissions from burning wood, I would argue that’s hardy an environmentally benign choice.
Hi Stephen,
The EU in its infinite wisdom categorises 'biomass' as being 'green'.
My understanding is, that many countries in the EU absolutely rely on 'biomass' being 'green' otherwise they would miss their EU 'green' targets even more than they already do.
My personal opinion on this is that, like Drax in the UK, providing massive subsidies to entities which burn wood simply incentivises felling of trees, whether ancient woodland or fast-growing timber. There's too much money at stake.
But probably an effective way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere is to grow more trees and then fix their carbon.
I seem to remember a commitment at the end of COP26 to stop felling trees, I wonder what happened to it...
Great article.
You might add a cost estimate for constructing all those utility-scale battery installations in Germany. They roughly approximate the cost of nuclear power plants, but they do not even generate electricity.
I made my own calculations in this article:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/utility-scale-batteries-are-as-expensive
Hi Michael,
Thank you.
I left it up to the reader to do that last bit of multiplication :)
Thanks as ever for the realistic, big picture analysis, Chris.
Just a point on the "perpetual motion" pumped storage question: if the capacity was 2x (or more) the apparent consistent generation volume, constant generation of half of aggregate capacity appears feasible (one station is 'recharging' which the other station is discharging).
Please keep it up.