ᐅ Gas Prices – Where Is Gas Still Affordable?

Scout** schrieb:

"Shadow power plant" is one of the keywords.

Admittedly, I only spent five minutes on this — but the trend is not towards 1:1 but rather 1:0.1. This also aligns with wind/solar statistics from various institutes. So no — we don’t need more or fewer "shadow" power plants than before. It’s annoying, but that’s how it is. The situation is even more extreme with nuclear power, as France is currently demonstrating: they currently need 28 shadow nuclear power plants to compensate for the failure of the active nuclear plants. If the heat persists, another six will have to be shut down... You have to be willing (to pay) for that.

Scout** schrieb:

And I see nuclear power plants dispassionately: either we build them here, preferably 4th generation types (liquid salt, thorium), where none of the problems you mentioned exist anymore.

True. Nuclear power plants that don’t exist also cause no problems. I usually recommend anyone who raves about them to invest in Bill Gates instead of photovoltaic systems. He has enthusiastically promoted it but hasn’t invested a single cent himself…

Scout** schrieb:

"Shadow power plants" is one of the key terms.

It depends on what type of renewable energy it is, which region we are talking about, and how well it is connected to other regions at the high-voltage grid level (which is increasingly lacking!). Another question is about the expected availability: is 6 minutes of downtime per year acceptable, or 6 hours, or even 6 days?

How much load can be shed on demand, for example in industry or heat pumps (which also receive a discount for this)?

Balancing regionally within a large interconnected grid may work for wind power, but no longer for photovoltaics, since the output is quite well correlated within Central Europe despite spanning two time zones. In other words; between 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM our time during the winter half-year, there is basically no solar power anywhere in Europe. So for every MW of photovoltaic capacity, you also need to provide 1 MW elsewhere. That’s just how it is!

The whole thing is then a stochastic model. For wind power and a grid quality like today’s, it is generally assumed that 0.85 MW of reserve capacity is needed for every 1 MW of wind power. For photovoltaics, as mentioned, it is close to 1.0 MW.

That means that, on top of the famous “1 cent per kWh,” there are additional costs for providing capital and materials for these shadow power plants as well as their standby losses. Without these, there would be no grid of familiar quality, but rather something like in South Africa (with daily brownouts lasting hours, and in winter probably even longer here). Cheap is cheap... This factor can be reduced somewhat especially for wind by spreading it widely geographically as @Deliverer already mentioned. Fine. But that requires a well-developed interconnected grid, which is practically at full capacity in Central Europe today. Further expansion is definitely necessary. In Germany alone, we would need over 10,000 km of high-voltage lines and about 30,000 km of medium-voltage lines. Yet only about 1,000 km of high-voltage lines have been built in the last 10 years. Just imagine scaling that up...

No. Let’s be honest first: 100% renewables in the next 20 years is unrealistic. Run both types of generation in parallel, expand renewables pragmatically. Generate as much regionally as possible. Supplement fossil power plants with smaller combined heat and power (CHP) units. Expand the grid. Import green hydrogen, store blue hydrogen from surpluses. LNG terminals.

And I see nuclear power dispassionately: either we build them here, preferably 4th generation types (molten salt, thorium), which do not have the problems you described anymore. If not here, then we will simply import power from our neighbors (then gladly from 3rd generation plants with the issues you mentioned), pay more for it, but at least we can show principle and proudly keep our anti-nuclear stickers—just now on the electric car, taking them for a walk :p Another alternative would definitely be large-scale coal-fired power plants with sequestration, i.e. CO2 capture and storage underground.

Ultimately, it’s a political decision. RWE and EON are currently building new nuclear plants in the UK. They surely have no problem selling that electricity to Germany. The then generated hypothetical 100 cents/kWh will gladly be taken. The end price will ultimately be paid by the average consumer. But they are the ones who vote political parties into power. So the circle closes again.

Your data is all well and good, but it comes from "Pre-Ukraine invasion times." I see massive global pressure driving changes here! And often we are surprised how quickly some things happened once taken seriously? (well, some things a bit slower). I am more hopeful for more optimistic figures but do not believe in miracles. Still, overall, I am more optimistic and think that not achieving 100% renewables within 20 years is unrealistic (in Germany).

We currently unfortunately have a situation where we do not want to freeze starting this autumn and also don’t want the recession to fully hit just because the lights go out in German industry. There is also the long-term demand to get by with renewables not just for climate reasons, but also to provide energy in a socially acceptable way. Regarding hydrogen, I am ambivalent because industry likes to promote greenwashed marketing nonsense, but the reality regarding supply volumes and especially efficiency is rather sobering. But with surplus renewable energy, green hydrogen storage is welcome, even considering losses in storage and transport. I recently heard that about 80% of the natural gas pipelines in Germany are hydrogen-compatible?

Unfortunately, current scientific opinion says the commercial use of your preferred solution No. 4?, the molten salt thorium reactor, will be possible at the earliest in several decades. The small test reactors in China produce only about 2 MW thermal output. Also, gamma radiation remains somewhat “unmanageable” and “only” remains radioactive for a few hundred years. Goodness gracious... never ever another unpredictable risk, especially since we are just getting rid of the others.

Walle! walle
Some paths,
Therefore,
Water flows
And in a rich, full stream
Pours itself to the bath.

i_b_n_a_n schrieb:

There are now sufficient technical solutions for regenerative full-supply (yes, 100%) to solve the base and peak load issues. It would just require real political will to enforce this against the legislation corrupted by lobbyists. Time is getting a bit tight right now because of the slackers, doubters, and blockers 🙄

A one-liner for the "believers"
"Our storage is the grid and the goblins inside it, amen"

Hello @Marvinius! What valuable input would you like to add to this great thread? Go ahead!

Marvinius schrieb:

The one-liner for the "believers":
"Our storage is the network and the goblins within, Amen"

Sorry, discussing at this level is really pointless. Please contribute to the discussion with scientific facts, otherwise, as the person I’m not particularly fond of, Mario, often says, "just keep quiet."

i_b_n_a_n schrieb:

More trouble. Given the current situation, we (Germany) are naturally trying to generate enough energy in the short term, whatever it takes—coal, gas, wind, hydro, solar, and so on. In my opinion, there will still be significant cutbacks. I would give a 50:50 chance that the Nord Stream 1 pipeline will be reopened. It’s tragic (or maybe tragically ironic?) how our relatively Russia-friendly policies of recent decades are now coming back to haunt us (throws up at our own feet).

However: in the medium to long term (if only… then we would already be there), we must and will rely on energy sources that are incredibly cheap for the end consumer, environmentally friendly, and climate neutral. Anyone who doesn’t see this obvious path is short-sighted, ignorant, or blind to the facts. I am neither “faithful” (more of an agnostic) nor particularly anti-Russia; I am simply scientifically and technically interested and trust the majority scientific consensus on this topic. Of course, I do not hide my political leaning towards red/green values, but I am of clear mind (responsible!)—something that some others here might doubt (take it as you will). Yet despite everything, my crystal ball is no more accurate than anyone else’s…

The words of the believer

Scout** schrieb:

In Germany it goes like this: to get 1 kW of renewable energy (RE) electricity, you need almost 1 kW from fossil fuel power plants. That’s just how it is. Storage (including pumped hydro) on such a scale does not exist and, apart from PowerPoint presentations (“digitalization,” “supply-orientation,” “virtual power plants,” etc.), is not foreseeable. Again, hardly anyone understands the magnitude of what is needed. That’s the catch.

So, you have to operate a gigantic shadow fleet of conventional power plants that only run for a few to a few thousand hours per year. Out of 8,760 total hours in a year. Since renewables have priority feed-in. It also doesn’t help that you can generate wind power for 5 cents per kWh. Because there are massive transmission lines behind it (most regions in Germany are supplied regionally with electricity, and the high-voltage lines are mainly used to balance and reduce the number of reserve megawatts needed).

Secondly, there must be a suitably sized conventional power plant that has to be built and maintained. But it only operates for a few hours, with a utilization rate in the low single digits percent or lower. When you amortize investment in such a plant over the years and divide it by the number of kilowatt hours produced, you get outrageous numbers, of course! But this is not the “fault” of the conventional power plant; it’s simply due to the erratic output of the wind farm.

Why were 40 new gas power plants planned as part of the energy transition? They have become obsolete since February 24. If the sun and wind were so great and capable of generating electricity for a cent, the investors would be foolish. Here’s a hint: due to the low utilization and resulting low returns, these plants would not have been built anyway because they are simply not profitable—I know this firsthand from Uniper. Therefore, the energy transition would not have been successful either.

If these are the renewables, then explain to us why the spread between EEX futures for July and January of the same year has widened significantly in recent years? Electricity has always been relatively more expensive in winter due to demand, but now that supply (photovoltaics) decreases as well, the conventional power plants—more expensive now due to fewer operating hours—have to move from reserve to production and release their higher-priced electricity caused by renewables. Hence, the rising spread! What renewables might reduce in price during summer is effectively offset by higher prices in the winter half-year because of them.

Well explained, thank you!
And my electric car runs on coal power. The ridiculous consequence of the energy transition.