Skip to main content

Good news on grid power balancing

As variable renewable expands there are issues in relation to maintaining security of supply, which will add to the cost of a sustainable energy system.  But, as bit of post-Christmas cheer, in this brief post, can I point to a recent Imperial College study that says power grid balancing costs for variable renewables are low at low penetration, and can even be negative. And although they can be higher at over 50% shares, depending on how balancing is done, total system intergration costs need not be excessive-  at most €30/MWh, even at 85% penetration. 

Reviewing existing data, Dr Phil Heptonstall and Prof. Rob Gross from Imperial College look at grid balancing costs, focusing on operating reserve costs, the costs of the unpredictability or incorrect forecasting of variable renewable energy (VRE) output over short timescales (seconds to a few hours) and the capacity adequacy costs associated with the extent to which VRE output can be relied upon to meet times of peak demand over the year. They also try to look at total system costs, including so called ‘profile costs’, but say that its hard to come up with reliable figures: ‘Double counting with reserve costs is possible in all instances, as the same capacity may provide reserve services, serve net loads and meet peak demands’.

The basic costs were relatively low. In a summary they say ‘we found that median values for operating reserve costs were less than €5/MWh when VRE contributed up to 35% of annual electricity production, and less than €10/MWh up to 45%’. They added that although ‘the range is very dependent on the actual or assumed flexibility of the electricity system being observed or modelled … for capacity adequacy, we found that median cost values did not exceed €10/MWh for any level of contribution from VRE’. They noted that ‘findings from other analyses that have modelled total or aggregated integration costs are broadly consistent with these values. However, at higher shares of VRE (for example over 50%) we found that there is a very wide range of total integration costs.’  

There was much less data on this, but their paper says that profile costs have been put at ‘€15–25 per MWh at a 25–35% penetration level’, while quoted total system integration costs range from €14 per MWh at up to 35% penetration, right up to £30/MWh at up to 85% penetration. That is obviously more significant, but has to be compared with the average wholesale cost of EU base-load power in 2019 of $43/MWh, current wind and solar generation costs of around £50/MWh and the strike price for the Hinkley nuclear plant of £92.5/MWh, index linked.

It is also worth noting that grid balancing systems are developing fast, so that costs should fall. For example, green hydrogen production and storage using zero cost surplus renewable output offers a way to balance long lulls and although some balancing systems may add to the cost as the Imperial College paper notes, some may actually reduce power costs. Certainly new more effective network management systems are emerging. So there are hopefully some happier times ahead, with, as renewables expand everywhere, smart grid systems helping to better match variable supply and variable demand and avoid curtailment/blackouts. 

That, along with a general shift to decentralised power, will lead to some interesting institutional issues, in relation to ownership and control of prosumer systems and community grid distribution networks and also the wider power system. Trying to enhance local control  hasn’t always gone well in the past, but the technology and the impetus for change is there. And if there are still still some social and political unknowns, then those are just the kind of positive exploratory issues we should now be engaged with- as the new more efficient  system gets created.     

Stephen Peake, now Professor of Climate Change and Energy at the Open University, has caught the new happier mood in his nice new ‘Pocket Einstein’ booklet ‘10 Short Lessons in Renewable Energy’, which takes you through all renewables and their mostly very positive prospects in an entertaining fashion. Out soon. Meanwhile, good luck for 2021…


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Renewables beat nuclear - even with full balancing included

A new Danish study comparing nuclear and renewable energy systems (RES) concludes that, although nuclear systems require less flexibility capacity than renewable-only systems, a renewable energy system is cheaper than a nuclear based system, even with full backup: it says ‘lower flexibility costs do not offset the high investment costs in nuclear energy’.  It’s based on a zero-carbon 2045 smart energy scenario for Denmark, although it says its conclusions are valid elsewhere given suitable adjustments for local conditions. ‘The high investment costs in nuclear power alongside cost for fuel and operation and maintenance more than tip the scale in favour of the Only Renewables scenario. The costs of investing in and operating the nuclear power plants are simply too high compared to Only Renewables scenario, even though more investment must be put into flexibility measures in the latter’.  In the Danish case, it says that ‘the scenario with high nuclear implementation is 1.2 bil...

Nuclear- not good vibrations in France

France is having problems with nuclear power.  It was once the poster child for nuclear energy, which, after a rapid government funded build-up in the1980s based on standard Westinghouse Pressurised-water Reactor (PWR) designs, at one point supplied around 75% of its power, with over 50 reactors running around the country. Mass deployment of similar designs meant that there were economies of scale and given that it was a state-run programme, the government could supply low-cost funding and power could be supplied to consumers relatively cheaply. But the plants are now getting old, and there has been a long running debate over what to do to replace them: it will be expensive given the changed energy market, with cheaper alternatives emerging. At one stage, after the Fukushima disaster in Japan in 2011, it was proposed by the socialist government to limit nuclear to supplying just 50% of French power by 2025, with renewables to be ramped up.  That began to look quite sensible wh...

The IEA set out a way ahead

The International Energy Agency's new Global Energy Roadmap sets a pathway to net zero carbon by 2050, with, by 2040, the global electricity sector reaching net-zero emissions. It wants no investment in new fossil fuel supply projects, and no further final investment decisions for new unabated coal plants. And by 2035, it calls for no sales of new internal combustion engine passenger cars. Instead it looks to ‘the immediate and massive deployment of all available clean and efficient energy technologies, combined with a major global push to accelerate innovation’.  The pathway calls for annual additions of solar PV to reach 630 GW by 2030, and those of wind power to reach 390 GW. All in, this is four times the record level set in 2020. By 2050 it wants about 24,000 GW of wind and solar to be in place. A major push to increase energy efficiency is also seen as essential, with the global rate of energy efficiency improvements averaging 4% a year through 2030, about three times the av...