Mass "alternative" energy in Russia - is it real?

Alternative energy in Russia (first of all - wind turbines and solar panels) simply does not work. More precisely, these things do not work yet. There are many reasons, but the main ones are that we are digging oil, gas and coal, and the city input is not just cheaper, but cheaper by an order of magnitude even in the most neglected cases of a distant plant on the Baltic Sea, where a constant strong wind seems to be blowing. In countries where alternative work really works, other infrastructure conditions are: geographically compact networks, compensation from the state for wind turbines, there is a return of energy to the urban network if it is not consumed from batteries now.

On the other hand, we have an incredible advantage: the length of the country is such that when it is night somewhere, somewhere on the other side of the country it is already day. And, it means that it is possible to “smear” consumption peaks very well at the expense of a well-thought infrastructure. We also have hydroelectric power stations that work well on renewable energy. And very, very cheap atomic energy.
')
Why alternative, why not renewable? Because with the renewable energy as such, we have a good situation. About 20% of the installed capacity and about 17% of the generated energy in the overall balance of the country is hydroelectric power. Russia has the second largest position in the world after China in terms of economically feasible hydropower potential. Serious figure. Hydropower is a source of clean energy with imputed capital expenditures and a minimum cost of generated energy. There are pros and cons here, but this is not about them today. Speech about those sources that are now fashionable to call the "alternative" energy, first of all - about the wind and the sun. But with their use in Russia, things are not going fast.

The first reason. We are rich in fossil fuel and energy raw materials. Coal, gas and oil are about 2/3 of the energy we produce, nuclear power plants - another 17%. Yes, the energy generated from these sources is more expensive than the “conditionally free” energy of the sun and wind, but the infrastructure has already been created by our fathers and grandfathers, and it works. While creating an alternative energy requires capital expenditures (and costs are considerable), and this is in terms of an expensive loan. For example, the cost of 1 kW of installed power of the sun and wind is about $ 1,000, i.e. approximately at the level of the cost of a gas power station. But there is a nuance. Build a source of 1 kW and guaranteed to get from it 1 kW of power, as the favorite satirist said, these are two big differences. I will explain. Gas or coal power plants operate with a capacity factor (installed capacity utilization factor) of 0.4–0.6, and for “alternatives” this parameter is 2–5 times less. What does this mean? This means that the sun does not always shine like at noon in July, and the wind is not always below 10 m / s (these are conditions for maximum energy production). Most of the time in the year is even in the best places and there is less sun (and the night also happens), and the wind is weaker, and there is complete calm. It turns out so. We built a 100 MW coal station and we get an average of 60 MW from it every hour and day and night 24 hours, 365 days a year. The second option. We built a wind park with the installed capacity of the same 100 MW for the same money, but we will receive an average of 20 MW per hour from it in a year, i.e. the efficiency of investments per kilowatt produced is 3 times less. This means that in order to replace one coal station, we need to supply wind turbines three times the installed capacity with the corresponding capital costs. On the other hand, the cost of wind generated energy is also 3 times lower than the cost of energy from gas (for us), since the wind is free, but gas is not. But fuel prices are very variable now, plus coal and gas stations, in addition to electricity, also give heat. In general, in each specific case it is necessary to consider separately, but in fact, in Russia it is not easy to obtain the economic effect of alternative energy on the generating side. In Europe is another matter. It’s not enough gas, imported gas is expensive, which means that the difference in energy costs is more, credit is cheap, winters are warm, so heat from gas stations is not required, so it turns out that the economic effect from alternatives in Europe is more noticeable ... if the prices of energy carriers. After all, calculations of the prospective economic effect of alternative energy often relied on the “fact” of the growth in prices for classical energy carriers, on the so-called “converging lines” of the falling cost of alternative kW and the rising cost of kW classical. An interesting coincidence: in April of this year, the largest in the solar industry, the American concern SunEdison launched the bankruptcy process, there were reports of a reduction in investment in alternative energy in Europe, the USA and China ...

The second reason. Low capacity factor is only half the trouble. The second half is the absence of a guarantee of obtaining energy from alternative sources. A cloud may come, the wind will suddenly subside, and now the rolling mill will rise somewhere, stop the subway or something worse will happen, even to large-scale blackouts. How to fight? Maneuver the power of "classical" sources - coal, gas, fuel oil. But this means that these sources, firstly, must be physically available and, secondly, they must constantly stand “under steam” with a minimum load and wait for an urgent request to replenish the outgoing power of the sun or wind. This is an extremely inefficient mode of their work. Who will pay the costs? In fairness, they should be attributed to alternatives, but in fact they are referred to as "classics." Not fair. You can also build buffer pumped storage power plants of the Zagorsk PSP type. With an excess of electricity in the network, the pumps pump water from the lower reservoir to the upper one, and with a lack of power in the network, the water from the upper reservoir flows by gravity to the lower one, rotating the turbine and generating electricity. A kind of pulsed hydroelectric station with a closed loop water. A good solution, but expensive, and not everywhere you can build. And again the question: where to include the cost of its construction? That is, it turns out that the energy of the wind and the sun seems to be free, but in fact it has a price for itself, if it is fair to calculate the costs arising from its use. What does it mean? This means that one cannot unlimitedly increase the percentage of alternative energy in the overall generation balance without the risk of a significant reduction in the already controversial economic effect. A contribution of 10–15% of total output is relatively safe, but a contribution of 20–25% is already beginning to significantly complicate the task of balancing power with a corresponding increase in costs.

The third reason. Weather. Paraphrasing the words of a famous cartoon character about the weather in Russia, one can say the following: not that there is no suitable weather at all, it exists, but not exactly where one would like to.

Wind. We have excellent wind potential along the northern coast and in the Far East:


Wind energy resources of Russia

And if in the Far East (Kamchatka, Sakhalin, Vladivostok) wind generation really has real prospects, as there is wind and electrical networks, and energy consumers in these places, then everything is very sad in the Polar Region. There is wind, and there are neither consumers, nor electric networks, nor even roads there. The temperatures are also low, and the humidity on the coast is high. This means a high risk of frosting machines. Compare with Europe, the USA or China. Wherever you spit - a solid warm coast. Also people live nearby. Is there a difference with us? In general, the coast of any large reservoirs is almost a guaranteed wind. Here we have an untapped potential for the Caspian and Azov seas, the Volga River delta, etc. The only question is the economic feasibility (see above).

The sun. With the sun, the situation is no better. The capacity factor above 0.1 is difficult to obtain in almost the entire area of ​​the country. This is not a Chilean desert with 350 clear days a year - there it’s really possible to work with a capacity factor of 0.25. But again, the Far East, Yakutsk, and the south of Russia have a certain potential that can be tried to use under favorable conditions.

A spoon of honey. On the other hand, we have an incredible advantage: the length of the country is such that when it is night somewhere, somewhere on the other side of the country it is already day. And this means that it is possible, better than anywhere else, to "smudge" the peaks of consumption and generation at the expense of the giant energy infrastructure built by the ancestors.


The arrival of solar radiation in Russia.

Perspectives. So, it turns out that Russia has no prospects in the development of alternative energy? No not like this. There are prospects. But not in the format of "not falling behind, catching up or overtaking the leaders." This is impossible for the objective reasons described above. We should not catch up, we need to do what has commercial potential in our specific conditions. What exactly?

In addition to the above promising areas for the development of industrial wind and sun (primarily our Far East, southern Russia and Eastern Siberia), we should pay attention to small alternative energy. Energy, tied to a specific object to a specific consumer. What is the point? The bottom line is that on the generating side, energy is sold at a price of up to 1 rub. for 1 kWh, but the consumer pays for it at least 4 rubles. for 1 kWh It turns out that the economic effect from the introduction of alternative energy on the consumer side will be at least 4 times greater than on the generator side. And this is more interesting! In our conditions, we should first of all talk about the energy of the sun for the needs of private houses. Why? Because the owners of private houses are sufficiently provided and motivated to install solar systems without external financial assistance. These systems are quite reliable and easy to install and maintain. What are the advantages of this solution for citizens and the state? Citizens save on electricity payments with a payback period of invested funds within 10 years, and also receive moral satisfaction from being involved in a big business - taking care of nature. The state, without investing a penny, provides an increase in the share of alternative energy in the overall balance, improves its international image, stimulates the production of solar panels and related electronics, increases GDP, improves public attitude to power, etc. Obviously, once saves on energy, that is, those who will lose income. Who in this scheme loses? The power supply organizations, certainly, will lose a part of the income, but against the general background of their turnover, frankly, this is a miser. As a certain compensation, networkers receive a smoothing of the daily peak of load, since usually the peak of energy production by solar panels coincides with the daily peak of consumption. The volume of energy production by such systems is unlikely to exceed 5% in the next 10 years. And this means that there will be no fundamental difficulties in receiving this power from the networks. It will be a no-cost, but very important step towards the truly massive introduction of alternative energy into society.

Is there any similar experience abroad? Of course. Let's see how it is organized in the Netherlands. The cost of electricity for individuals is approximately 30 euro cents. Of these, the cost of energy itself is 7 eurocents, the rest is taxes, duties, and so forth. After coordination with the local energy supplying organizations, the owner installs a bi-directional electricity meter and solar panels working on the mains inverter (inverter operating in parallel with the network). At night, the house behaves normally - it consumes energy from the network, the meter counts its quantity. After sunrise, the energy from the solar panels through the mains inverter begins to be mixed into the home electrical grid over the counter, thereby reducing the consumption from the grid. Accordingly, the counter continues to consider energy, but at a lower pace. After the electricity production by solar panels reaches the level of full consumption of the house, the consumption from the urban network is stopped, the meter stops, and all the needs of the house are fully provided by solar panels. With a further increase in energy production by solar panels (or with a decrease in home consumption), excess electricity begins to be unloaded into the city network, and the counter begins to subtract this energy from its previous readings. By the end of the reporting period (we have 1 calendar month), three options are possible on the balance of consumed and generated energy:

• energy production by solar panels for the period did not exceed the consumption of the house, in this case, you pay at the rate of 30 cents the difference between the consumption from the network and the output from the sun;
• energy production by solar panels for a period is equal to the consumption of the house, in this case you will not need to pay for electricity at all;
• The energy production of solar panels for the month exceeded the consumption of the house, in this case the sales company will pay you for “excess energy”, but only at a rate of 7 eurocents per kWh.

Thus, the installation of panels of such power is automatically stimulated so that the balance of consumed and developed power approaches zero. It’s simply unprofitable to produce more, since the 7-cent tariff will not allow recouping the funds invested in the installation of extra panels during their entire service life (in principle, you can not pay for “extra” energy at all). This scheme, combined with the controlled issuance of permits, relieves grid companies of problems with excess power in the network sections on the last miles (between consumers and the nearest transformers). That is, no work on adapting the network to receiving power from the grid companies is practically not required. For legal entities, the calculation scheme is somewhat different, more rigid. This system works well and makes a significant contribution to the overall energy balance of the country. Please note that there are no batteries in this solution - this is crucial!

The existing system does not allow unloading of surplus electricity to the network by individuals. Accordingly, accumulation of surplus requires batteries that completely kill the whole idea, completely depriving it of economic meaning. What prevents us from building systems, like in the Netherlands? Technically, nothing. The networks do not need to be changed, many of the electronic meters used in Russia are initially capable of counting energy in two directions, now this feature is disabled by software. What really gets in the way is the lack of government will and the corresponding regulatory framework. In this scheme, the most beautiful thing is that the state does not spend a penny. Private traders themselves buy solar batteries, controllers and inverters - some of the savings, some of the ideological environmental considerations - and use them. Expensive batteries in such a scheme is simply not needed. All that is practically required of the power engineers is to reprogram the counters. Here is an approximate scheme of such an installation:



Are there still relevant applications for small alternative energy? There is. These are power supply systems for remote autonomous objects. On this topic, we wrote earlier about Chile .

Another option, which is close to our work profile, is to reduce the peak consumption of energy-intensive objects, for example, computer centers. We are currently working on a similar project abroad. On the roof of the data center with a peak power of 7.5 MW, solar panels will be installed, giving up to 250 kW of electrical power in the summer afternoon. Best of all, the peak power generated by the panels exactly coincides with the peak of the power consumption of the data center (sunny weather). The resulting PUE gain (a kind of energy efficiency of the data center) will be at least 5% with a full data center load and at least 20% at the first stage of operation.

Summary

1. Mass alternative energy in Russia is really possible with the controlled admission of individuals to the ability to ship "excess" energy in the network, subject to subtracting the shipped energy from the previously consumed energy. There is a successful experience on this topic abroad. The cost of the state for the development of this technology is close to zero - an appropriate legislative initiative is required. Probably, it makes sense to think about legal entities that are not generators in generally accepted terms.
2. With reasonable state support, successful development of alternative energy is possible in promising areas of Russia (above all, this is our Far East).
3. The use of alternative energy for the supply of autonomous remote objects is still relevant.

Links

• About the wind turbine, geo probe and battery, our practice
• Our trigeneration centers and calculations are based on the example of finished objects (in the production of electricity, excess heat remains, it is given to heating systems and to absorption chillers of cooling systems).
• Funny little case of the transfer of the city boiler room with 50 thousand inhabitants from coal to gas
• My mail is PVashkevitch@croc.ru