←back to thread

Europe is locking itself in to US LNG

(davekeating.substack.com)
151 points hunglee2 | 6 comments | 16 Sep 25 13:56 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
jsnider3 ◴[16 Sep 25 14:08 UTC] No.45262472[source]▶
Renewables solves this.
replies(5): >>45262574 #>>45262801 #>>45262945 #>>45263362 #>>45265626 #
probablypower ◴[16 Sep 25 14:17 UTC] No.45262574[source]▶
This is confidently incorrect.

Gas power generation is a necessary evil to balance out the variability of intermittent energy generation (i.e. wind and solar).

Hydropower isn't a feasible alternative because the easy resources have been developed.

The only alternative source of flexibility available today is demand side response.

Edit: I appreciate the down votes, as I've not explained in detail. It is a complex issue. My opinions are based on having a phd in the topic, 10+ years in control rooms, years of market operations and design, and years contributing to europe-wide risk assessment methodologies.

I emplore anyone who is actually interested in how energy mix actually impacts grid stability/reliability to look into the Eirgrid DS3 programme (https://www.eirgrid.ie/ds3-programme-delivering-secure-susta...).

replies(6): >>45262600 #>>45262621 #>>45262624 #>>45262845 #>>45265133 #>>45268364 #
1. bryanlarsen ◴[16 Sep 25 14:21 UTC] No.45262621[source]▶
Europe has 100 days worth of natural gas storage facilities. All it needs to do is to get renewables + batteries + nuclear above ~70% or so to be able to withstand being cut off for a year. Getting to ~95% is relatively cheap and easy. 100% is hard and expensive, but they don't need 100%. If they get to 95%, that's multiple years worth of storage.
replies(2): >>45262839 #>>45262861 #
2. dalyons ◴[16 Sep 25 14:35 UTC] No.45262839[source]▶
Germany is at 60% already! It’s close
replies(1): >>45263001 #
3. probablypower ◴[16 Sep 25 14:37 UTC] No.45262861[source]▶
Batteries don't provide meaningful flexibility on a continental scale. They're useful in localised frequency control or microgrid flexibility.

An exercise to the reader, calculate the space and materials required to replace the average norwegian hydro reservoir with batteries.

Nuclear tech doesn't provide required ramp rates at a useful price. I do agree however that more nuclear helps.

The problem is dispatchability/flexibility, not storage. At a more complex level the issue is grid inertia and frequency response.

replies(2): >>45262971 #>>45265300 #
4. bryanlarsen ◴[16 Sep 25 14:43 UTC] No.45262971[source]▶
That's why I said 100% renewable was hard and expensive. A grid that gets 5-10% of its energy from natural gas, but can get 100% of it's power from nuclear + gas during a dankelflaute provides optimally cheap + secure power.

> The problem is dispatchability/flexibility, not storage. At a more complex level the issue is grid inertia and frequency response.

That's something batteries are extremely good at.

5. bryanlarsen ◴[16 Sep 25 14:45 UTC] No.45263001[source]▶
No, it's not, because it uses so much natural gas for heating and in chemical plants. Also, it has to be the entire grid, not just one country.
6. abdullahkhalids ◴[16 Sep 25 17:37 UTC] No.45265300[source]▶
> An exercise to the reader, calculate the space and materials required to replace the average norwegian hydro reservoir with batteries.

Solution: I can't compute the space and materials, but can estimate the cost.

Norway has 1240 storage reservoirs with a total capacity of 87 TWh [1], which yields an average of 70 GWh/reservoir.

Last year, in China, a 16 GWh battery storage plant received an average bid price of $US66.3/KWh [2]. From this we can compute that a 70 GWh plant should cost $US4.65 billion.

A bit on the high side, but can battery prices fall by another order of magnitude? Then again, this is for replicating one reservoir. Replicating 1240 would be a 5 trillion dollar endeavor.

[1] https://energifaktanorge.no/en/norsk-energiforsyning/kraftpr...

[2] https://reneweconomy.com.au/mind-blowing-battery-cell-prices...