Buffering Volatility: A Study on the Limits of Germany's Energy Revolution

Squaring hourly demand and wind-solar production data for Germany and a number of neighbouring countries with the results of the EU’s ESTORAGE project, this paper studies the limits of Germany’s energy revolution in view of the volatility of wind and solar power. In addition to pumped storage, it considers double-structure buffering, demand management, Norwegian hydro-dam buffering and international diversification via grid expansion. If Germany operated in autarchy and tried to handle the volatility of wind-solar production without using stores while replacing all nuclear and fossil fuel in power production, on average 61%, and at the margin 94%, of wind-solar production would have to be wasted, given the current level of other renewables. To avoid any waste, the wind-solar market share in an autarchic solution must not be expanded to more than 30%. By using Norway’s hydro plants the share could be expanded to 36%. If Norway were to build all the pumped-storage plants the ESTORAGE study deems feasible, Germany’s wind-solar market share could be expanded by another 24 percentage points to about 60%, which corresponds to 48% of the combined German and Norwegian markets. Additionally expanding the market to Switzerland, Austria and Denmark and building the maximal number of pumped stores would increase the combined wind-solar market share for all five countries to nearly 50%.

[1]  Tsukasa Yoshimura,et al.  Seawater pumped-storage power plant in Okinawa island, Japan , 1993 .

[2]  Wolf-Peter Schill.  Residual load, renewable surplus generation and storage requirements in Germany , 2014 .

[3]  Amany von Oehsen,et al.  Langfristszenarien und Strategien für den Ausbau der erneuerbaren Energien in Deutschland bei Berücksichtigung der Entwicklung in Europa und global , 2012 .

[4]  Martin Greiner,et al.  Reduced storage and balancing needs in a fully renewable European power system with excess wind and solar power generation , 2011 .

[5]  Matthias Huber,et al.  On The Optimal Mix of Wind and Solar Generation in the Future Chinese Power System , 2015 .

[6]  Friedrich Kunz and Hannes Weigt.  Germanys Nuclear Phase Out - A Survey of the Impact since 2011 and Outlook to 2023 , 2014 .

[7]  F. Wagner.  Surplus from and storage of electricity generated by intermittent sources , 2016 .

[8]  F. Wagner.  Considerations for an EU-wide use of renewable energies for electricity generation , 2014 .

[9]  Joachim Bertsch,et al.  Flexibility in Europe's power sector - an additional requirement or an automatic complement? , 2013 .

[10]  Welfare Gains under Tradeable CO2 Permits , 1999 .

[11]  Thomas Hamacher,et al.  Integration of wind and solar power in Europe: Assessment of flexibility requirements , 2014 .

[12]  H. Sinn.  The Green Paradox: A Supply-Side Approach to Global Warming , 2012 .

[13]  André Faaij,et al.  Uncertainty in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) deployment projections: a cross-model comparison exercise , 2014, Climatic Change.

[14]  Marco Nicolosi,et al.  The Economics of Renewable Electricity Market Integration: An Empirical and Model-Based Analysis of Regulatory Frameworks and their Impacts on the Power Market , 2012 .

[15]  Lion Hirth,et al.  The Optimal Share of Variable Renewables: How the Variability of Wind and Solar Power affects their Welfare-optimal Deployment , 2012 .

[16]  Christoph Weber,et al.  Integration of Fluctuating Renewable Energy in Europe , 2011, OR.

[17]  D. Zilberman,et al.  Agricultural globalization, trade and the environment , 2002 .

[18]  Tom Brown,et al.  Cost-Optimal Power System Extension under Flow-Based Market Coupling , 2014 .

[19]  T. Trainer.  Some inconvenient theses , 2014 .

[20]  Martin Greiner,et al.  Seasonal optimal mix of wind and solar power in a future, highly renewable Europe , 2010 .

[21]  Hans Auer,et al.  On integrating large shares of variable renewables into the electricity system , 2016 .

[22]  F. Graf,et al.  Renewable Power-to-Gas: A technological and economic review , 2016 .

[23]  F. Wagner.  Electricity by intermittent sources: An analysis based on the German situation 2012 , 2014 .

[24]  R. J. Hopkirk,et al.  Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI) for photovoltaic solar systems in regions of moderate insolation , 2016 .

[25]  Unfccc.  Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , 1997 .

[26]  Nils Markusson,et al.  Last chance for carbon capture and storage , 2013 .

[27]  J. Rosen.  The future role of renewable energy sources in European electricity supply: A model-based analysis for the EU-15 , 2008 .

[28]  Christian von Hirschhausen,et al.  “Take the long way down”: Integration of large-scale North Sea wind using HVDC transmission , 2010 .

[29]  Peter Lund,et al.  Review of energy system flexibility measures to enable high levels of variable renewable electricity , 2015 .

[30]  Lion Hirth,et al.  The benefits of flexibility: The value of wind energy with hydropower , 2016 .

[31]  Lion Hirth,et al.  On the economics of renewable energy sources , 2013 .

[32]  Competitive low carbon economy in 2050 , 2013 .

[33]  H. Sinn.  Das grüne Paradoxon; Plädoyer für eine illusionsfreie Klimapolitik , 2012 .

[34]  Paul Denholm,et al.  Grid flexibility and storage required to achieve very high penetration of variable renewable electricity , 2011 .

[35]  J. Weimann.  Die Klimapolitik-Katastrophe : Deutschland im Dunkel der Energiesparlampe , 2009 .

[36]  Lion Hirth,et al.  Balancing power and variable renewables: Three links , 2015 .

[37]  Elisabeth Rachlew,et al.  Study on a hypothetical replacement of nuclear electricity by wind power in Sweden , 2016, The European Physical Journal Plus.

[38]  Reyer Gerlagh,et al.  The Green Paradox , 2013 .

[39]  Christoph Weber,et al.  Renewable Electric Energy Integration: Quantifying the Value of Design of Markets for International Transmission Capacity , 2011 .