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

Global Energy Outlooks - BP v Jacobson

The share of renewables in global primary energy may increase ‘from around 10% in 2019 to between 35-65% by 2050, driven by the improved cost competitiveness of renewables, together with the increasing prevalence of policies encouraging a shift to low-carbon energy’. So says BP in its latest Global Energy Outlook . It does see wind and solar accounting ‘for all or most of the growth in power generation’, but even at the top of the range quoted, it still falls a lot short of the renewable ‘100% of total energy’ scenarios that have been produced by some academics in recent years.  To fill the gap to zero net carbon, BP sees wide-scale use being made use of carbon capture technology, as well as some nuclear power. And it says ‘Natural declines in existing production sources mean there needs to be continuing upstream investment in oil and natural gas over the next 30 years’. You won’t find much support for these fossil and nuclear options in the scenarios produced by Stanford Universities

Small Modular reactors- a US view

Allison Macfarlane, who was Chair of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) from 2012-2014, has been looking at Small Modular Reactors in the USA and elsewhere. She thinks they are likely to be uneconomic, much like the their larger brethren, which, as she describes, have recently been doing very poorly in the USA.  Indeed, just like the EPR story in the EU, it makes for a sorry saga: ‘The two units under construction in South Carolina were abandoned in 2017, after an investment of US$9 billion. The two AP-1000 units in Georgia were to start in 2016/2017 for a price of US$14 billion. One unit started in April, 2023, the second unit promises to start later in 2023. The total cost is now over US$30 billion.’ Big reactors do look increasingly hard to fund and build on time and budget, while it is argued that smaller ones could be mass produced in factories at lower unit costs and finished units installed on site more rapidly. However, that would mean foregoing conventional economies

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