Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
21. Baseload, reactive, etc
Thu Aug 1, 2013, 08:53 PM
Aug 2013

I read the various reports, and apparently they are using a lot more reactive power to handle the grid even when output of renewables is high.

Obviously DU is not a German-language site, which limits the utility of all those reports for us.

The techniques used to handle grids are pretty uniform across most modern nations, so the UK's national grid documents give us something more understandable to look at in terms of concepts:
http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/Balancing/Summary/

Large traditional power producers always had frequency response agreements, so those were used to modulate grid inputs. The problem is totally different when you have a lot of smaller variable sources that are supposed to get first priority in. In times of high generation, some of those may have to be locally dumped in order not to overload local grids, but aside from that these inputs must be taken, so you have to get your reactive power from another contracted source.

And reactive power is a localized demand, so the more traditional power plants have to be ready to provide it:
http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/Balancing/services/balanceserv/reactive/

Another way to think about Germany's current predicament is to consider smaller systems like Denmark or the BPA in the Pacific Northwest. Both of these grid systems balanced higher wind inputs by becoming higher exporters. They used the wind when it was available, but maintained other sources and basically exported the excess power, in some cases reimporting it (pumped storage in Norway, for example). Now Germany is doing the same thing.

It's very easy for Bonneville, because it has huge hydro and it can modulate that down and up quickly, plus there is a big export demand. So it doesn't have much problems handling its wind for the most part:
http://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/baltwg.aspx


And:
http://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/baltwg3.aspx

But Germany doesn't have that, so it is using more thermal power. And nuclear power may be great for baseload, but it is generally not suited well for balancing, plus that's going away anyway, and maybe more quickly than scheduled.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

. wtmusic Jul 2013 #1
German emissions down 25.5% since 1990, US emisions up 5% bananas Jul 2013 #2
Thank you. mbperrin Jul 2013 #3
Really, bananas? NickB79 Aug 2013 #4
Are you SERIOUSLY making the claim kristopher Aug 2013 #5
Are you seriously going to dismiss two years of back-to-back carbon increases? NickB79 Aug 2013 #6
You bet your sweet ass I am. kristopher Aug 2013 #7
Then you've gone round the bend. FBaggins Aug 2013 #8
You haven't been right about a single thing since this started. kristopher Aug 2013 #10
Oh my, oh my NickB79 Aug 2013 #15
So let me get this straight kristopher Aug 2013 #16
It remains to be seen? FBaggins Aug 2013 #22
You mean that your strawman has been wrong all along? FBaggins Aug 2013 #24
The German Greens are seriously making that claim because it is true Yo_Mama Aug 2013 #13
"this increases the need for stabilizing power" NickB79 Aug 2013 #14
Baseload, reactive, etc Yo_Mama Aug 2013 #21
It is always worth looking at what you leave out kristopher Aug 2013 #17
Except, Kristopher, that Germany passed a law preventing these shutdowns when necessary Yo_Mama Aug 2013 #25
Close... but not quite FBaggins Aug 2013 #27
It's amazing how short-sighted you can be FBaggins Aug 2013 #26
Since 1990? FBaggins Aug 2013 #9
They decided to eliminate nuclear power in 2000 kristopher Aug 2013 #11
And changed it after that FBaggins Aug 2013 #12
I haven't ignored it kristopher Aug 2013 #18
What you keep forgetting... FBaggins Aug 2013 #19
Not at all kristopher Aug 2013 #20
Lol! FBaggins Aug 2013 #23
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Merkel’s Green Shift (sic...»Reply #21