From [here]([https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cost-achieve-100-renewable-energy-comparative-analysis-hugh-wynne/](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cost-achieve-100-renewable-energy-comparative-analysis-hugh-wynne/))
​
>Transitioning to an all-renewable energy system requires the addition of sufficient renewable generation and storage capacity to meet demand during every hour of the year. To achieve this goal with intermittent wind and solar resources is inherently wasteful and excessively expensive. At 100% renewable penetration, we calculate that the levelized cost of energy\[1\] would rise to $147/MWh on ERCOT and $213/MWh on CAISO, three and four times, respectively, the cost of full requirements power in 2018. We doubt, therefore, that 100% renewable penetration will be achieved.
​
From [here]([https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261918312790](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261918312790))
​
>…additional costs, as even when wind and PV are placed in the optimum locations, the total annualised costs of a 100% renewable power system *would be at least 530 €bn y−1 (based on the Free RES scenario), approximately 30% higher than for a system in which nuclear or carbon capture and storage are included. Moreover, these costs would increase relatively more with higher demand.*
>
>…the large-scale mobilisation of Europe’s biomass resources, with power sector biomass use reaching at least 8.5 EJ (4.5 times higher than today’s 1.9 EJ) in the most challenging year (based on the Base scenario);
> >…increasing solid biomass and biogas capacity deployment to at least 4 GW y−1 and 6 GW y−1 respectively every year until 2050 (based on the Alternative Demand Profile scenario); and,
​
From [here]([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7338272/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7338272/))
​
>The results show that under current technology assumptions and resource potentials with an annual limit of 50% on VRES generation, a maximum of 94% renewable can be reached, where electricity accounts for one third of energy consumption with over 85% from renewables. Without bioenergy import, maximum feasible renewable reduces to 75%. 100% renewables can be reached with more ambitious bioenergy supply or integrating higher shares of variable renewable energy. Scenarios with 100% renewables requires additional system cost equivalent to more than 2% GDP relative to the BASE scenario. Incremental cost in targeting for higher ambitious renewable penetration levels is non-linear. Extra system cost from 25% to 50% renewable level is less than 0.3% of total GDP and reaching 90% RES requires 1.3% of total GDP.
> The policy target of 100% renewable energy should not be confused with a net zero emission target. Focusing on renewable penetration is less cost effective in achieving carbon mitigation compared to focusing only on carbon mitigation.
​
From [here](http://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/HeresiesFinal.pdf)
> Imagine the entire province of Ontario, about 900,000 square km, collecting its entire 680,000 billion litres of rain, an average annual rainfall of about 0.8 m. Imagine collecting all that water, every drop, behind a dam of about 60 metres height. Doing so might inundate half the province, and thus win the support of the majority of Canadians, who resent the force of Ontario. This comprehensive ‘Ontario Hydro’ would produce about 11,000 MW or about four fifths the output of Canada’s 25 nuclear power stations, or about 0.012 watts per square metre or more than twice the USA average. In my ‘flood Ontario’ scenario, a square kilometre would provide the electricity for about 12 Canadians.
Biomass instead of hydro
> Imagine, as energy analyst Howard Hayden has suggested, farmers use ample water, fertiliser, and pesticides to achieve 12,000 watts thermal per hectare (10,000 square metres). Imagine replacing a 1000 MWe nuclear power plant with a 90% capacity factor. During a year, the nuclear plant will produce about 7.9 billion kWh. To obtain the same electricity from a power plant that burns biomass at 30% heat-to-electricity efficiency, farmers would need about 250,000 hectares or 2500 square kilometres of land with very high productivity. Harvesting and collecting the biomass are not 100% efficient; some gets left in fields or otherwise lost.
1 comment
How is this relevant to Germany?