"Due to the government mandated coal phase-out, 11 coal-fired power plants with a total capacity of 4.7 GW were shut down on January 1, 2021. But the coal phase-out ended up lasting only 8 days, after which several power plants had to be reconnected to the grid due to a prolonged low-wind period.

The affected large Heyden power plant had to be restarted six times by the end of February in order to secure the power supply.

The Federal Network Agency has now confirmed that it has reclassified the Heyden, Datteln, Walsum 9 and Westfalen power plants, which had already been shut down, as system-relevant and that they now must remain on standby as reserve power plants. The owners will therefore be required to continue operation in the short term.

Never mind that this sporadic operation of these coal plants is horribly inefficient and costly, as you will find out below.

Coal plant shutdowns have increased grid frequency instability

The large power plants are to primarily provide their rotational energy, i.e. run at full speed but not feed any electricity into the grid. The rotational energy is urgently needed to bridge the time needed by the medium- and peak-load power plants to deliver the missing power to the grid by adjusting the load accordingly. Smaller plants simply have too little flywheel mass to be able to provide this compensation. We described how to stabilize a power grid in more detail in the article “How to stabilize the power grid“. The number of these critical frequency drops has already risen sharply this year.

Consumers have to bear the costs

The Federal Network Agency adds, “The costs for the provision in the grid reserve, as well as for the conversion to a rotating phase shifter, are borne by the power grid customers, as these measures serve the safe and reliable network operation.” It is thus clear that these costs must also be financed through the electricity price.

The planned operational readiness to be able to provide only the flywheel mass in critical situations as a rotating phase shifter is an economic disaster for the operators. Because these have the costs for the facility and the maintenance of the plants and practically no incomes, since for the bridging with net frequency dips only a current feed in the range of some seconds and/or few minutes takes place. So you then have to subsidize these plants. This is paradoxical, because these power plants have generated the cheapest electricity to date and have managed without subsidies.

Government rushed the phaseout

The German government has allowed itself to be politically driven by Fridays-for-Future protests and other NGOs and has rushed the coal phase-out. The coal commission that decided on the phase-out neither included power grid experts nor power producer representatives."

https://notrickszone.com/2021/04/13/2021-german-coal-plant-phaseout-lasted-only-...

Ajax wrote on Apr 17^th, 2021 at 11:42am:




i've seen the left in action and can almost guarantee  ' .......  people like Greta will NOT suffer and WILL be able to access the internet or aircon and heating when they want it ......  '

People like Greta say what people what to hear, then do whatever suits themselves the most.

freediver wrote on Apr 17^th, 2021 at 1:06pm:



So tell us about the relative energy densities of Solar and wind.

freediver wrote on Apr 17^th, 2021 at 2:00pm:



Only if you can manufacture and site sufficient solar farms and wind farms.

freediver wrote on Apr 17^th, 2021 at 2:00pm:



You do have to pay for the structure, the increased demand on materials. Cement, steel, copper, silica.

freediver wrote on Apr 17^th, 2021 at 2:00pm:



And the capture of that has costs associated.

I have posted this before. You seem to have forgotten -

"London Array wind farm to the south of England.This is the world’s largest offshore wind farm and according to its owners will generate “enough energy to power nearly half a million homes.” Its total capacity is 630 MW covering a total of 100 km2, and is expected to have a capacity factor of 39%. In other words the power density of the London Array will be 2.5 W/m2."

" As a result the highest power density achieved is around 20 W/m2 in desert solar PV farms, whereas solar farms in Germany generally achieve 5 W/m2."

"Power densities are comfortably above 100 W/m2 after accounting for mining etc. And conventional power plants often have power densites in excess of 1000 W/m2. A simple example of this higher power density is this small propane powered generator, providing in excess of 1000 W/m2. This is far in excess of the power density of any conceivable new method of generating renewable energy.  "

https://energycentral.com/c/ec/future-energy-why-power-density-matters

Perhaps you can refute?

freediver wrote on Apr 17^th, 2021 at 5:05pm:



That is for offshore where generally they get the strongest breezes. Onshore wind is generally lower. But if it is offshore then that creates other hazards - shipping lanes etc.

In offshore windfarms there are also other factors. They tend to not last as long because of the rust etc. They cost more to maintain. They also cost more for their eventual removal.

How many square kilometres at 2.5W/m2 for a 1GW windfarm? Separation seems to be about 0.5Km between the turbines.

freediver wrote on Apr 17^th, 2021 at 5:05pm:



You show you have no critical thinking ability at all.

freediver wrote on Apr 17^th, 2021 at 5:05pm:



Ok. Put in all the windfarms and solar farms you want. That will merely destroy the Australian ecology.

You didn't rebut the increased needs for materials.

Quote:


Why would I be building anything?

freediver wrote on Apr 17^th, 2021 at 8:07pm:



That was a rhetorical question petal. It wasn't meant for you to build personally.

So what is your preferred renewable energy?

Hydro has limitations it requires appropriate terrain.

But perhaps you think unicorn farts may work.