Yesterday, I presented a guide to the new visualization of an entirely green power supply. Today, we take a look at a few of the main assumptions behind the study, starting with power generation.
First, the bad news: I have been in contact with the makers of the study, and no English edition is planned. A budget of 1.8 million euros, and it was not seen fit to carve out a small amount so that international onlookers not conversant in German could follow along.
Next, one my readers pointed out to me by email that you can click on the right chart in the visualization, and it opens up to show the entire year. (Kudos to Stephen in Australia for that!)
Another reader commented below yesterday’s article that the study was “clearly inspired” by NREL’s recent Renewable Electricity Futures powerhouse, including this visualization. I’m not sure what the inspiration was – the German study started in 2007 – but the visualizations are clearly similar.
For the time being, let’s focus on the assumptions provided in the background paper (PDF in German).
First, the project focuses on what is “technically possible,” not what is affordable. It is based on “real weather data” in combination with consumption statistics, but there is no indication of whether a single year was used or whether the average over multiple years was taken – and which years those might be.
The scenario assumes that 60 percent of the power came from wind turbines, 20 percent from photovoltaics, 10 percent from bioenergy, and the remaining 10 percent from geothermal and hydropower.
The placement of future onshore wind turbines makes a difference. The researchers based their assumptions on weather data and the area is currently set aside as having potential for wind power in Germany (the country has a map for that purpose). Of the 87 gigawatts installed onshore, four would be needed in Bavaria, the government of which currently greatly resists wind power.
Offshore, the situation is more predictable. Of the 40 GW expected, 36 would be in the North Sea and 4 in the Baltic. The capacity factors show why: wind farms in the North Sea are expected to run at 44 percent capacity, compared to 40 percent in the Baltic. Both levels are already realistic, but the capacity factor of onshore wind would rise from the current <20 percent to nearly 30 percent.
In total, 127 gigawatts of wind power would be installed, up from the current roughly 35 GW.
133 GW of PV would be installed, 45 of which would be along autobahns and railway lines. The country currently has around 37 GW.
Because it is dispatchable, electricity from biomass is counted in TWh. 60.5 is expected to be generated, equivalent to nearly 10 percent of demand. Because biomass comes in such a wide variety, the breakdown is complex and partly focuses on what is environmentally friendly. I could write an entire article about this, but we’ll skip it for now.
Interestingly, the study assumes that Germany will get nearly as much power from geothermal at 40 TWh. Hydropower comes in close to its current level at 25 TWh.
That’s the generation side. Tomorrow, I take a look at the assumptions for consumption. Keep those questions and discoveries coming.
source: http://www.renewablesinternational.net/underlying-assumptions-in-100-percent-renewable-power-scenario/150/537/81203/
Comments are closed.
