Why the Gulf States Are Betting on Hydrogen

Why are Gulf oil and gas producers so keen to promote hydrogen energy? This question is addressed in a new discussion paper by Natalie Koch, political geographer and fellow at the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS). She concludes that for political and corporate leaders in the Gulf states, pivoting towards hydrogen serves to maintain the social, political, and economic status quo. Questions of energy justice are likely to remain, however.

The oil- and gas-producing countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) are famous for their economic dependence on the hydrocarbon system, with revenues from oil and gas exports accounting for the bulk of state finances. The GCC, also known as the Gulf Council, was established in 1981 in Abu Dhabi by Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. The GCC fosters cooperation in the areas of foreign and security policy, promotes economic and scientific cooperation, and works to strengthen ties between the peoples of its member states.

Across the Gulf states there is broad resistance to moving away from oil and gas economies, writes Natalie Koch, IASS Fellow and Professor of Human Geography at the University of Heidelberg. Alternative energy aspirations are nonetheless spreading in the region – especially among the younger generation.

Solar power has received the most attention and funding within the GCC over the past decade, writes Koch. However, renewable energy generation capacities across the region are still negligible, as Koch explains: At the end of 2020, the region had 146 GW of installed power capacity, of which renewables accounted for 3,271 MW. Of this, solar PV technologies were the most dominant technology (71%), followed by concentrated solar power (23%), biomass and waste (4%), and wind (2%).

Now the Gulf region is shifting its focus to hydrogen. As Koch explains, local leaders have both an economic and political interest in joining the hydrogen rush, with the Dubai Future Foundation announcing its intention to help hydrogen energy “move from hype to reality”.

96 percent of hydrogen currently produced from fossil fuels in Gulf states

In the Gulf states fossil fuels are currently used to produce 96 percent of hydrogen. The bulk of this is produced using natural gas in a process called “steam methane reforming” (SMR). The resulting product is referred to as “gray hydrogen”, while “brown hydrogen” derives from coal gasification. Both methods of production are greenhouse gas intensive. So-called “blue hydrogen” is also produced through natural gas-SMR. However, this production process is categorized differently as it is paired with carbon capture and storage (CCS). As very little of the hydrogen produced today is “green”, blue hydrogen is commonly framed as a bridge to a green future.

The limited capacity of renewables in the Gulf is significant for the story that blue hydrogen production will just be a short build-up to the ultimate goal of green hydrogen production – without vast renewable energy capacities, there will be no green hydrogen. According to Koch, existing solar farms in the Gulf states are “little more than a drop in the bucket of their overall energy mix”, which continues to be dominated by oil and gas.

She suggests that if the myth that blue hydrogen is a minor detour on the road to green hydrogen takes hold internationally – as it seems to have done in some parts of the world – then these privileged industries are especially well positioned to tap into their existing infrastructures to produce blue hydrogen for potentially decades. As energy insiders know, writes Koch, “Once infrastructure is in place, path dependency has an astonishing power to keep people buying even after they realize that the myth of a “green” future has been a lie all along.”

Business as usual in a new hydrogen economy?

With a new hydrogen economy, much of the Gulf states’ existing oil and gas infrastructures could continue to be used. For example, there is already an established practice of producing hydrogen at oil refineries. In addition, it can be stored and transported through many of the existing infrastructures. Domestic production of hydrogen in the Gulf is seen as a way to maintain local industries that are only economically viable today because of their access to cheap, subsidized fossil energy, such as the steel, aviation and shipping industries.

Koch suggests that Gulf leaders could use hydrogen initiatives to show that they recognize their countries’ challenges and that they are “doing something” and demonstrate the paternalist care that is an important part of their local legitimacy. There is a risk, she warns, that Gulf states could appropriate the hydrogen dream as a strategic tool in preserving authoritarianism, as it offers opportunities to maintain economic and political power structures within the context of a global energy transition. However this process plays out, questions of energy justice are bound to remain.

The post Press Release: Why the Gulf States Are Betting on Hydrogen appeared first on MP Industries.

The windmills of Neshtifan

The Early Years

Humans have been harnessing the power of the wind for over two thousand years.

In the first century AD, Heron of Alexandria – mathematician, inventor and engineer – created something he called the windwheel. He used this windwheel to power a pipe organ, making “flute-like” noises.

Evidence of wind power then vanishes until the 7th or 8th century AD, when we find windmills being used to grind flour and pump water in Iran.

The next major development in our story was the discovery of electricity in the 1700s, even though it took at least another 100 years before the right mind came along.

Enter James Blyth, the world’s first wind power engineer.

Blyth built the first wind turbine in Scotland in July 1887. His 10 m high, cloth-sailed wind turbine was installed in the garden of his holiday cottage at Marykirk in Kincardineshire and was used to power the lighting in the cottage, making it the first house in the world to have its electricity supplied by wind power.

Blyth offered the surplus electricity to the people of Marykirk for lighting the main street, however, they turned down the offer as they thought electricity was “the work of the devil.”

He later built a wind turbine to supply emergency power to the local Asylum in Montrose, but at the time the technology was not considered to be economically viable. [Source]

Hot on Blyth’s heels, American Charles Brush was building his first electricity-generating wind turbine in 1888 in Cleveland, Ohio. The turbine’s diameter was 17 meters (50 feet), it had 144 rotor blades made of cedar wood, and it generated about 12 kilowatts (kW) of power. [Source]

We next meet a Danish man called Poul la Cour.

Inventor, scientist, meteorologist AND a teacher, la Cour was a major force in the development of what we now recognise as modern wind turbines. It was la Cour who realised that turbines with fewer blades are more efficient, and also that regulators could be used to provide a steady supply of energy.

The 20th Century on

Throughout the 20th century, individuals and companies around the world developed the technology to a utility-scale level.

The pace of development has been accelerating since the 1970s, thanks to a combination of material science, engineering and government incentives. The first windfarms were built, providing electricity to thousands of homes.

In the 1980s the Danes installed the first offshore wind turbines, starting the industry which now dominates the renewable energy world.

Turbines themselves have grown in size and efficiency, as you will see in the diagrams below.

How much does a wind turbine cost?

This depends on a few things, but mainly if the turbine will be onshore or offshore.

With the added challenges and costs of the logistics, offshore turbines cost significantly more than onshore.

Costs are worked out on a ratio, measuring the amount of capital expenditure (CAPEX) to generate 1 megawatt (MW).

The average value of the actual capex costs reported for onshore wind farms completed in 2016-19 was £1.61 million per MW; for offshore wind it was £4.49 million per MW (including transmission) or £3.99 million if the very expensive Hywind project is excluded. 

One way to look at all the costs involved in a comparative way is called levelised cost of energy (LCOE).

How big are wind turbines?

You can see in the graphic above how much they’ve grown over the years, and what they look like compared to some well-known landmarks and buildings.

The latest giants are GE’s Haliade X-13, which has 220 metre rotors (that’s 107 metres per blade!) and stands over 250 metres tall.

With the world’s largest swept area exceeding 43,000 m2, the new Vestas V236-15.0 MW “delivers industry-leading performance and moves the boundaries of wind energy.” 

What is the future for Offshore Wind?

With tens of billions of dollars already committed to developing offshore wind projects around the world, its future as a major electricity provider is assured.

There are also two areas which can be further developed to help establish the industry even further:

Wind to Hydrogen

A rapidly developing technology is using wind turbines to power electrolysers which then create Hydrogen, known as Green Hydrogen when made using renewable energy.

Floating offshore

The next frontier for wind power is into deeper water, where fixed platforms and foundations aren’t possible. Using the vast knowledge experience of the oil & gas industry, solutions are being developed to install floating wind turbines.

The post How Wind Turbines Have Evolved: From the First to the Biggest appeared first on MP Industries.

Concentrated solar power (CSP) is an approach to generating electricity through mirrors. The mirrors reflect, concentrate and focus natural sunlight onto a specific point, which is then converted into heat. The heat is then used to create steam, which drives a turbine to generate electrical power. The process can be repeated continuously because CSP technology can store the heat produced. It can therefore be used on days where there is no sun, or before sunrise and after sunset.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), CSP generation increased by an estimated 34% in 2019. Although this exponential growth is impressive, there’s still some way to go until CSP reaches its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which requires an average growth of 24% through 2030.

How does concentrated solar power work?

CSP technologies use a mirror configuration that concentrates the sun’s solar energy onto a receiver, which converts it to heat. The heat is then converted into steam to drive a turbine that produces electrical power. CSP plants can use thermal energy storage systems to store the power until it’s needed, for example during periods of minimal sunlight. The ability to store energy is what makes CSP a flexible source of renewable energy.

CSP systems can also be combined with other power sources to create hybrid power plants. For example, CSP can be integrated with thermal-fired power plants that use fuels like coal, natural gas and biofuel.

There are four types of CSP technologies:

1. Parabolic trough systems – Through this system, solar energy is concentrated by curved, trough-shaped reflectors, which are focused onto a receiver pipe. The pipe usually contains thermal oil, which is heated and then used in the thermal power block to generate electricity in a steam generator.
2. Power tower systems – These systems use mirrors called heliostats that track the sun and focus its energy onto a receiver at the top of a tower. A fluid (often, molten salts) is heated inside the receiver and is used to generate steam, which drives a turbine generator.
3. Linear fresnel systems – A large number of collectors are set out in rows. The mirrors are laid flat on the ground and reflect the sun on to the receiver pipe above. Similar to trough and tower systems, fresnel can integrate storage in a power block or generate steam directly.
4. Parabolic dish systems – A parabolic-shaped dish acts a concentrator that reflects solar energy onto a receiver mounted on a structure with a tracking system that follows the sun. The collected heat is then generated by a heat engine. The dish can attain very high temperatures, which makes the system potentially well-suited for use in solar reactors.

The advantages of concentrated solar power

Perhaps the most obvious advantage of CSP is that it’s renewable. Its supply will never be exhausted and be can used continually, so it’s a sustainable energy source. It also reduces carbon footprint. Unlike fossil fuels, which emit carbon dioxide when burned, CSP uses the earth’s natural resources, which is kinder to the environment. It can improve the quality of air and reduce the rate of climate change.

CSP also provides a relatively continuous source of electricity, particularly in comparison to solar photovoltaics (PV) and wind power, which provide intermittent supplies. Because CSP plants can store solar energy in the form of molten salts, the electricity generated is predictable and reliable.

CSP can be easily integrated into existing steam-based power plants. Even those running on fossil fuels can be used for CSP systems. The operating cost of a CSP plant is also lower than nuclear and hydrocarbon-based plants because the operations and maintenance is simpler.

Concentrated solar power can be used in combination with other energy sources, providing a more secure energy grid. When used in the energy mix, CSP can help meet future electricity demand. It can also aid oil recovery as the steam it produces can be used to concentrate heavy oil so it’s easier to pump.

It also has potential to be used as a transportable form of energy. For example, renewable energy consultancy Ecofys published a study to assess the feasibility of CSP being used as a technology to produce cost-effective hydrogen that could act as an energy carrier to power transportation.

The disadvantages of concentrated solar power

Despite the many benefits of CSP, it does have its downsides. For one, it’s largely dependent on location. Similar to solar PV and wind power, CSP plants require a large area of land to operate, which makes it uneconomical in populated areas.

Concentrated solar power uses a lot of water to drive steam turbines and to cool thermochemical reactors. Although seawater may be seen as a possible solution, this could present solar radiation issues for the surrounding landscape. Similarly, CSP plants can attract animals with its light, and the heat can be fatal for some species.

CSP plants are also expensive to run. Thermal energy storage materials that can withstand high temperatures are costly and difficult to source. Molten salt, for example, has a limited operating range because it solidifies at low temperatures and decomposes at high temperatures.

Competition from other energy sources like solar PV and fission-based nuclear power means that CSP doesn’t always receive the development it needs to become a primary energy source. As breakthroughs continue in other areas, concentrated solar power runs the risk of becoming obsolete.

How efficient is concentrated solar power?

The efficiency of a CSP system varies depending on several factors. The type of system, the engine and the receiver all make a difference to how efficient a concentrated solar power system will run. However, according to a statistic cited by EnergySage, most CSP systems have an efficiency of between 7 and 25%.

To provide some context, hydropower systems can achieve up to 90% efficiency and wind turbines can achieve efficiencies of up to 59%. Solar PV efficiencies are similar to concentrated solar power systems with most photovoltaic panels achieving an efficiency of between 14 and 23%.

Where is concentrated solar power used?

According to online publication, NS Energy, global CSP installations grew at a rate of 24% from 765MW in 2009 to 5.4GW in 2018.

Most of the world’s CSP plants are in Spain, accounting for over 42% of all CSP installations worldwide. The Planta Solar 10 (PS10) in Spain was the first commercial utility-scale solar power tower in the world. The country plans to double its CSP capacity by 2025, to 4.8GW as part of a ten-year energy plan.

Morocco currently has the largest CSP project in the world – the Ouarzazate Solar Power Station, which has a capacity of 510MW. It comprises three plants in total and started operating in 2016, using parabolic trough technology. It provides power consumption to around 1.1. million Moroccans.

However, the Moroccan plant is due to lose its rank to Noor Energy 1, Dubai’s 700MW CSP project, which is currently under construction. The plant, which will use a combination of parabolic trough and solar tower technologies, doesn’t have a completion date, but is part of the Dubai government’s ‘Vision 2021’ initiative to ensure sustainable and environmentally friendly development.

The USA is also known for its CSP projects and currently has 52 plants, the largest being the 392MW Ivanpah facility in California. However, there haven’t been any new CSP projects in the USA since 2016.

What is the difference between solar PV and concentrated solar power?

Perhaps the biggest difference between solar PV and CSP is the way in which electric power is produced. CSP systems convert the sun’s energy using various mirror configurations that drive a heat engine and produce electrical power.

Photovoltaic solar panels, on the other hand, use the sun’s light, rather than its energy. Unlike CSP, PV converts light into electricity directly. The solar PV cells absorb light (rather than reflect heat), which stimulates electrons that create a current. The direct current (DC) is captured and converted into an alternating current (AC) using inverters so it can be distributed on the power network.

CSP systems store energy through Thermal Energy Storage technologies (TES), so power can be used when there isn’t enough sunlight. PV systems, however can’t store thermal energy because they use direct sunlight, rather than heat. For this reason, CSP systems are better for energy storage and efficiency.

What are some environmental impacts of using concentrated solar power?

Because CSP plants require a lot of space, they’re often situated in arid, or ‘sun belt’ regions, where access to fresh water is scarce. Wet cooling towers are required for cooling the thermal cycle and water is also needed to clean the mirrors to maintain their reflectivity. The prospect of using large amounts of fresh water in these areas is often criticised, especially when water demand in the Middle East and North Africa is on the rise.

Another environmental impact of CSP plants is the visual impact they have on areas. A common environmental criticism is that CSP plants disturb the views of natural landscapes far more than other energy sources like wind power plants.

Despite the lack of agriculture in sun belt regions, they still have environmental value and provide habitats for threatened species. The arid nature of these regions also means that it takes longer for the landscape and community to recover from the effects of disturbance. For example, animal populations can be affected by the infrastructure that’s required to operate a CSP plant.

CSP plants use more materials than conventional fossil-fired plants, many of which aren’t recyclable. Concentrated solar power plants also produce toxic substances like biphenyl, which when burnt at high temperatures, can produce dioxins that stay in the environment for many years and can be harmful to humans.

Greenhouse gas emissions are linked to CSP plants as the nitrous salts used in energy storage emit nitrous oxide (N20), which damages the ozone layer.

Concentrated solar plants can also have a negative impact on flora and fauna. For example, traffic routes and building works can disturb the surrounding ecosystem and cause mortalities to local fauna.

What does the future hold for Concentrated Solar Power?

While the global solar industry has experienced rapid growth over the past decade, the emergence of concentrated solar power has had quite an impact. According to Solar Spaces, there are over 130 CSP projects globally, with a total installed capacity of 5,500 MW.

While CSP tariffs are lower than ever before, there are still several challenges facing concentrated solar power. For one, CSP plants are expensive to establish, operational costs are high and there’s a lack of funding available to finance new projects. However, once the CSP supply chain improves and investors start to see the opportunities in CSP, research will help drive down costs and the future will start to look brighter for concentrated solar power.

In terms of technological development, research is underway to explore how CSP can make fuel out of air and light. According to the IEA, by the end of the century, CO2 will need to be removed for the air to keep global temperatures below two degrees. Concentrated solar power looks set to play a key role in assisting with the removal of carbon dioxide.

Researchers at the US Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) are researching how CO2 can be captured from air and removed using amino acid chemistry.

Similarly, direct air capture company, Climeworks have developed carbon removal technology that can capture atmospheric carbon with a filter, using low-grade heat as an energy source.

The post Concentrated Solar Power (CSP), Explained appeared first on MP Industries.

According to Statista, global wind power capacity reached 743 GW in 2020, up from 650 GW in 2019 despite delays on projects due to COVID-19. The exponential rise of wind power installations demonstrates its growing popularity around the world.

Driven by advances in technology and global policies fighting climate change, wind power is becoming more financially sustainable. China and the USA remain the world’s largest wind power markets, with countries in the UK and Europe, North America, and India also driving the trend at a rapid pace.

How does wind power work?

Wind turbines work when air turns the carbon-fibre blades attached to the units. The blades are connected to a motor, which turns kinetic energy into electricity. The energy is transferred to a gearbox, which converts the slow spinning of the blades into a high-speed rotary motion. This then turns a drive shaft quickly enough to power an electric generator.

Traditionally, onshore wind turbines dominated the market, however, in recent years, advances in technology have led to the development of offshore wind farms.

For more information on the history of wind power, take a look at our post on how wind turbines have evolved.

What is onshore wind? 

Onshore wind power refers to turbines located on land rather than over water. They are typically located in sparsely-populated areas with low conservation value. According to the International Energy Association, onshore wind electricity generation increased by 12% in 2019. Capacity additions also grew by 22% after stagnating for a couple of years.

Advantages of onshore wind

Besides the obvious advantages of sustainability, what else is advantageous about onshore wind? 

Less expensive
The infrastructure required for onshore wind power is significantly less expensive than what’s required for offshore wind. In some cases, it’s half the cost and can provide investment payback as quickly as two years. It’s also the least expensive form of renewable energy compared to solar and nuclear power sources, which means it’s more affordable to consumers. Because they’re cost-effective, onshore wind farms tend to be larger, producing more energy per site.

Shorter cables
With less distance between the turbines and the consumer, there’s less voltage drop-off in the cabling.

Quick installation
Onshore wind turbines are quick to install and can be constructed within a few months, unlike other energy sources like nuclear power stations, which can take over two decades to build. When in operation, onshore wind turbines also have low maintenance costs.

Low impact on surroundings
Onshore wind farms have less physical impact on their surrounding areas. Toxins aren’t released, the site can be farmed around, and there’s very little impact to wildlife. 

Disadvantages of onshore wind

Varying wind speeds
The speed of onshore wind turbines is somewhat unpredictable. Because wind speed and direction vary on land, achieving consistent power generation can be challenging. As a result, wind speed and direction need to be carefully monitored to plan for energy generation.

Potential wind blockages
Physical blockages from buildings and surrounding landscape like hills or mountains can also cause production inconsistencies. For this reason, onshore wind can’t produce energy year-round and can only achieve around 2.5 MW, compared to offshore wind’s approximate 3.6 MW.

Intermittent energy
Because onshore turbines don’t run year-round, they require fossil-fuel backups when the wind speed is slow. As we come to rely more heavily on wind farms for our energy, increasing amounts of fossil fuels will also be required.

Visual and sound factors
Onshore wind farms can be an eyesore on the landscape. Wind turbines that are built on high ground to generate more power can be imposing on surrounding residential areas. Wind turbines also aren’t silent, meaning they cause noise pollution if located near a residential area. To illustrate, up close, a wind turbine sounds like a lawnmower.

Overall, the advantages of onshore wind and the sustainable energy it can create outweighs the potential disadvantages. 

What is offshore wind? 

Offshore wind power refers to wind farms that are located over shallow open water, usually in the ocean, where there are higher wind speeds. The term ‘offshore wind’ can also refer to inshore water areas like lakes and fjords. Most offshore wind farms use fixed-foundation wind turbines in shallow water. However, as technology advances, wind farms will be able to be built over deeper waters. According to the Global Wind Energy Council, offshore wind will surge to over 234 GW by 2030, led by Asia-Pacific.

Advantages of offshore wind

More energy generated
Offshore wind speeds are typically faster than on land, and even small increases in speed can produce large increases in energy generation. As such, fewer turbines are needed to produce the same amount of energy as an onshore turbine.

More wind consistency 
Wind speeds offshore don’t vary as much and the wind direction doesn’t change as often, so offshore turbines are more consistent (meaning more reliable power generation).

Less visual impact
Offshore turbines don’t have as much visual impact as those on land. They don’t interfere with land usage, and there are no physical obstacles that can interrupt the wind flow. For this reason, offshore wind farms can be made larger and generate more energy than those onshore, with less physical impact.

Bigger turbines
Offshore turbines can also be built taller than those onshore, which means they can harness more wind energy and produce more electricity.

Disadvantages of offshore wind

Higher cost
Creating the infrastructure for offshore wind farms can be expensive and complex, especially over deeper waters. 

Maintenance & repairs
Sea waves and very high winds can damage turbines, so they need more maintenance than their onshore counterparts. Offshore wind farms are also difficult to access, which means longer wait times for repairs. 

Noise & visibility 
The underwater noises from turbines can impact fauna and other marine life. Further, not all offshore wind farms are built out of public view. Some are built within 26 miles of the coastline, so can still be an eyesore for local residents. 

Less local jobs
Unlike onshore wind farms, those offshore have a limited capacity to benefit local economies. As the manufacturers’ offices are situated inland and often far away from the offshore site, jobs aren’t created in the local community and other investments aren’t made.

The post The pros and cons of onshore & offshore wind appeared first on MP Industries.

There are two industry-accepted methods that grid operators are pursuing. Only the average method is favorable for renewable developers because the marginal method discounts renewable capacity contributions and works in favor of thermal resources.

Effective Load Carrying Capability (ELCC)
When wind penetration was 1,000 MW, and forecasts indicated 10,000 MW in 10 years due to state Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), grid operators had to find a way to calculate how much capacity value they should assign for wind. This need arose when wind integration studies were done at most transmission organizations. The wind industry quickly accepted a calculation that worked with existing Loss of Load Expectation (LOLE) models because LOLE models were run to determine the planning reserve margin, where capacity credit for the wind was needed at first. Until then, there was no need for calculating capacity credit because it was widely accepted that thermal resources would get 100% because they showed up to perform during peak demand hours. Thermal resources outage statistics under peak demand were captured under a different metric, “Effective Forced Outage Rate at peak demand” EFORd.

For wind, the Effective Load Carrying Capability or ELCC calculation method depended heavily on the number of historical peak load hours. Its main job was to determine the value of wind capacity if the wind was available during those top eight peak demand hours. As the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) Wind and Solar Capacity Credit report states, “Tracking the top eight daily peak hours in a year is sufficient to capture the peak load times that contribute to the annual LOLE of 0.1 days/year”.

The initial set of ELCC values for wind penetration at 10,000 MW was high in the 40% range. Hence the capacity contribution for 10,000 MW of wind was determined at 4,000 MW. As more wind was added to the grid (a total of 25,000 MW), this value fell to 15% because more wind resources were available to meet the top eight peak hours meant better reliability – less chance of blackout or brownout conditions.

Average ELCC or Marginal ELCC?

Let us consider solar and storage in this ELCC world because some states have announced goals to be 100% carbon-free electricity (by 2040 in New York, by 2045 in California, and by 2050 in Wisconsin). Since it is common knowledge that the capacity credit falls as we increase wind penetration, renewable developers want to avoid a similar situation with solar. Hence energy storage is added at the point of interconnection to prop up the capacity value of solar. These interconnection requests are called hybrid interconnections, mostly solar+storage but could also include wind plus storage and other forms of renewables with storage.

Calculating ELCC for solar alone and solar+storage clearly shows storage capacity benefit to the grid operator. Where capacity markets exist, the grid operators must run these ELCC calculations to determine capacity credit for all renewable resources. Since most states lack the engineers to run these complex calculations, they apply the grid operator’s capacity credit calculation to renewable resources in their Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) proceedings.

With solar and storage in the mix, ELCC is now discussed in at least 2 ways – an average ELCC (MISO’s wind capacity credit) and a marginal ELCC (California IRP). An average ELCC looks at averaging ELCC values calculated at each of the 8 peak demand hours. A marginal ELCC, on the other hand, is looking at the next MW that the resource can provide to meet that 1 day in 10 reliability standard because that MW could come from either a thermal or non-thermal resource. Both have their uses, but the grid operators seem to be focused on adopting marginal ELCC to ensure reliability because they are convinced that with more renewables on the grid, there is a need for more dispatchable capacity.

Interestingly, renewable advocates are showing data where thermal resources like natural gas units have issues even when assigned 100% capacity value, such as frozen gas compressor stations and pipeline unavailability, in addition to their regular operational maintenance issues. Typically, utilities exclude all supply constraints in a category called “Outside Management Control” OMC cause code in the NERC Generating Availability Data System (GADS) database, which resulted in better outage statistics (XEFORd), which meant a higher unforced capacity value for those thermal resources.

Average ELCC works best

What works for grid operators does not work for renewable developers. The reason for storage at most of these solar interconnections is to maintain the capacity value of solar. Suppose solar production hours are not syncing with peak demand hours, which is typically the case; using a battery made sense to charge when peak solar production occurs and discharge when peak demand occurs. This storage ensures solar serves the grid during peak demand hours, not a thermal resource which is the main goal behind those states’ plans to achieve carbon-free electricity. This storage investment is why a marginal ELCC method does not work for renewable developers because as more renewables are added to the grid, the capacity value falls to zero, whereas in an average ELCC, the decrease in capacity value is gradual and does not fall to 0%.

Additionally, the grid operators have convinced themselves that duration-limited resources must be discounted in this ELCC calculation for capacity purposes. A battery is limited by the number of hours it can discharge; hence it is “duration limited.” It also doesn’t help small renewable developers when grid operators and other transmission providers bury them in acronyms and complex LOLE calculations.

Conclusion

Transmission providers and grid operators must be technology agnostic and should not care about the technology that provides capacity as long as it performs when needed. If renewable developers are swimming in complex ELCC calculations to assess their resource capacity contributions, it is only fair for thermal resources and their utility owners to look through this ELCC lens. During the events leading up to load shed or blackout conditions – every MW counts. Whether that MW comes from thermal or non-thermal on the supply or demand side should not matter to the balancing authority.

The post There’s a better way to measure a renewable energy project’s capacity appeared first on MP Industries.

This growing number is worthy of much excitement. Yet as renewable energy use continues to grow, it faces a looming challenge: in a world accustomed to having electricity on demand, renewable energy’s reliance on specific weather means that it offers intermittent availability, which could create a less reliable grid system over time. 

Does this mean they won’t be dependable sources of renewable energy in the future? Quite the contrary. Let’s take a closer look at how energy storage solutions can solve the problem and help the world get the most from sustainable energy production – all while creating even more job opportunities for specialists in the renewables & energy storage sectors.   

What is intermittent power generation? 

In short, intermittent generation is the irregular availability of electricity over a certain time period. When weather conditions are less than favourable, the efficiency of renewable sources decrease, which can make electricity generation inconsistent and unreliable. Since leading renewable technologies like solar, hydro, wind and geothermal power are weather dependent, they can’t provide electricity year-round as single sources.

For example, hydropower, which accounts for 16% of global power generation, is largely dependent on water currents, precipitation levels and is impacted by the seasons. Wind power relies on wind speed, concentration and temperature, and solar power depends on the sun’s energy concentration, the amount of diffuse solar radiation and the time of year.

Because of these variances, these sources are considered ‘non-dispatchable’, meaning their output can’t be turned on or off as required to meet society’s fluctuating electricity needs. 

Why is intermittent energy an issue?

Today, we’re used to having electricity on demand. The intermittent nature of renewables can put pressure on the reliability of the current grid system. Integrating variable renewable energy sources into the power grid is challenging, as the grid is designed to ensure power plants produce the right amount of energy, at the right time, to meet demand. 

Because the grid has limited storage capacity, the balance of supply and demand needs to be carefully calculated. Consistency and predictability are important factors in energy generation to avoid blackouts. 

There are times when renewable sources generate excess power that can’t be handled by the grid. For example, with wind turbines, if demand is low but the wind is blowing at a high speed, the frequency rises too high. Conversely, if demand is high but the wind speed is low, the frequency falls below what’s required. These fluctuations can have a negative impact on the grid and cause damage that can be expensive to repair.

What is energy storage and how does it work?

Enter: energy storage. Essentially, energy storage is the capture of energy at a single point in time for use in the future. For example, holding water back behind a hydroelectric dam is a traditional form of energy storage. 

As technology advances, energy storage will play an ever-increasing role in integrating variable energy sources into the grid and ensuring energy consistency. This also means that more and more jobs will become available in the field over time. 

How can energy storage overcome intermittent power?

In order to integrate variable energy sources into the grid, an effective energy storage system is required to ensure excess energy can be stored for on-demand use as required. 
Energy storage can overcome the problem of intermittent power by introducing more flexibility to the grid. Solar, wind, hydro and geothermal energy sources can be integrated effectively, creating a cleaner, low carbon energy mix that can evolve more reliably. 

For example, in Denmark, there are currently three electric energy storage facilities that operate using electro-chemical batteries. Pre-existing infrastructure is also being used in creative ways: companies in the Netherlands are currently experimenting with utilizing excess offshore wind energy to create green hydrogen via an electrolyser located on an offshore oil rig, helping to balance the grid. 

Resolving the intermittent generation problem for the future

Whereas the challenges of integrating variable renewable sources into the grid are significant, action needs to be taken now to meet global climate change targets and ensure a sustainable energy system for the future. 

In comparison to the complexity of unifying power generation systems in the 1870s, the challenge of introducing variable energy sources into an existing grid pales in comparison. As storage technology advances, costs are dropping significantly, making variable energy integration more achievable than ever before. Likewise, as energy storage becomes more standardised across the industry, the energy market won’t have to contend with the diverse technical requirements and processes involved in their design. 

As residential, commercial and industrial interest in energy storage grows, regulatory policies will be updated to further advance its use in global energy grids.

The post Energy storage is vital for renewable energy’s future: Here’s why appeared first on MP Industries.

The transfer of energy through empty space is not new. The sun has been practicing this procedure for more than 4.5 billion years. But the losses are gigantic; Most of the energy radiated by the sun is lost in space, and only a tiny fraction reaches the celestial bodies that orbit around it – and only a fraction of that can eventually be harnessed. The same applies to earth when it comes to wireless energy transmission over distances of more than a few centimetres: Their efficiency (the ratio of usable energy to total energy expenditure) is well below 1 percent and drops rapidly with distance.

One solution is the bundling of electromagnetic energy. That is why Emrod, a cleantech company founded in Auckland, New Zealand, in 2019, relies on a beam-forming technique that converts electricity into a parallel-aligned electromagnetic beam sent directly from one antenna to another. One year after its founding, Emrod presented proof-of-concept for wireless power transmission with a beamforming efficiency of more than 97 percent. Founder and CEO Greg Kushnir explains the key innovation: “We achieve the high efficiency with electromagnetic metamaterials. With them, we can strongly bundle the electromagnetic energy in the transmitting antenna. We are convinced that through further improvements on the transmitting side, and especially on the receiving side (where the greater losses currently occur), we will be able to realize an efficiency of over 80 percent for the overall system.” The usual efficiency for power transmission over high-voltage lines is 60-95 percent, depending on the country and considering losses, for example due to power theft. Metamaterials, such as composites of metal and plastic, have “unnatural” optical, electrical, and magnetic properties. They contain man-made repeating structures that interact with electromagnetic waves in unusual ways, provided the structures are smaller than the wavelength. For example, metamaterial can direct radar beams around itself in a way that it remains invisible to radar.

Field tests are currently taking place

The metamaterials that we design and build are characterized by their smart properties such as precise shape, geometry, size, orientation and arrangement which allows us to block, weaken, amplify or redirect electromagnetic energy. Emrod uses the 5.8 gigahertz frequency for wireless power transmission. This frequency, which is also used by radar, directional radio, WLAN and Bluetooth, among others, is largely independent of weather conditions. The beam-forming technology developed by Emrod guides the energy in the form of a strongly bundled “rod” from the transmitting antenna via relay antennas to the receiving antenna. The company name is also derived from this technology: “Em” stands for electromagnetic, “rod” for rod. In cooperation with the New Zealand power supplier Powerco, Emrod has developed a larger indoor prototype and is planning to build a wireless system that can be used to further expand Powerco’s supply network. The system is expected to help provide power to remote locations and eliminate the need for expensive copper cable installation in areas with difficult terrain. Furthermore, the wireless system is said to significantly lower maintenance costs and reduce environmental impact. “Especially for renewable electricity generation, wireless power transmission offers itself as a key technology for transporting energy to the consumer in a sustainable way,” says Kushnir. That’s because transport by cable requires a lot of space due to substations and transmission line towers, as well as many materials such as copper and steel, and a considerable amount of maintenance and repair work.

Could this really be the future of energy transmission?

The post Will electricity be generated out of thin air in the future? appeared first on MP Industries.

The authors estimate that 8300 million metric tons (Mt) of virgin plastics have been produced since 1950, the beginning of large-scale production.

They also document the fate of these plastics, reporting that around 9% have been recycled and 12% incinerated. Seventy-nine percent are now in landfills or the natural environment. “If current production and waste management trends continue, roughly 12,000 Mt of plastic waste will be in landfills or in the natural environment by 2050,” the authors state.

This finding comes on the heels of announcement by the captain who discovered the North Pacific garbage patch that he has found another mass of in the South Pacific that could be as large as 1 million square miles, 1.5 times the size of Texas.

The post Is it green? appeared first on MP Industries.

The great scale-up

The scaling up of offshore wind is essential for the future of the market. This starts with the tendering process and the desire among industry to plan projects which will increase capacity in UK waters. The Crown Estate Scotland is leading the way in this area having recently awarded the rights for nearly 25GW of offshore wind development as part of the ScotWind seabed tender – that’s more than twice the size of current capacity for the entire UK. A total of 17 projects and 8,600km² won leases, with sites allotted for both fixed-bottom and floating wind farms. Winning tenders were awarded to Iberdrola, BP, Shell, SSE Plc, EnBW, and Falck Renewables SpA, among others.

The ScotWind process comes at a crucial time as gas prices soar. It will also continue to create new and exciting employment opportunities for the UK workforce (more on this shortly), while supporting the UK economy. To make it a real success, there are still several stages to go through. These include planning permissions, optimizing electric grid capacity, sourcing turbines, and support from the government.

A transferable workforce

As the industry grows, we need to think about where the increasing workforce will come from too. Fortunately, we have many avenues to pursue, with individuals from various industries who already have transferable skills. For example, many people who have trained to work on offshore oil and gas sites will have some of the experience required to perform various tasks on an offshore wind farm. There are also many individuals who are highly proficient in the transport of crew and components to offshore sites, as well as various manufacturers and project management organizations that can lend expertise to the generation, transport, and storage of green energy.

Another invaluable source of skills and experience is the growing pool of ex-servicepeople. It is estimated to be over 2 million armed forces veterans reside in the UK, with the percentage of working-age veterans increasing. Ex-military personnel possesses many transferable skills which can be readily applied to offshore wind, having accrued extensive experience of working with multi-national teams and in high-pressure situations, making them highly adaptable. To improve the pathway for ex-service people to join the offshore wind sector, the Offshore Wind Industry Council (OWIC) has launched a Military Working Group. By identifying opportunities for individuals to find new employment and offering the support they need to excel in their new career, this is an exciting initiative that will help the workforce to grow as the industry evolves.

Realizing the opportunities

As the offshore wind sector looks to ramp up energy generation, the UK is set to remain a trailblazer in the industry. The future of the market is bright, but it will require the merging of skills, technologies, and ambitions for its full potential to come to fruition. Collaboration is key – together, we can build on our world-leading progress in offshore wind to support even the most aspirational net-zero targets.

The post The future of offshore wind appeared first on MP Industries.