Eddie O’Connor – Executive Chairman and Founder, Mainstream Renewable Power
Speech to the Energy Institute, University College Dublin / 07 February 2018
Part 1: INTRODUCTION
This presentation provides an engineering solution to a political challenge.
As formulated recently by President Macron, that challenge is to create a single energy market for Europe.
We in Mainstream Renewable Power have devised the engineering solution.
There is an old engineering slogan, which goes, “The difficult we do immediately, the impossible takes a little longer”.
We are going to propose how, as engineers, we do the impossible.
The presentation consists of three parts:
Marcos Byrne will present a ground-breaking piece of research estimating the demand for electricity in 2050 in the light of changes in the way we live and work, and adapt to the challenge of climate change.
Sean Hayes will demonstrate how the demand for electricity is to be met through a combination of wind power in Northern Europe and solar PV in Southern Europe.
This part of the presentation will make use of the most recent break-throughs in technology and expected developments in the future.
It too is a pioneering piece of work.
I will complete the presentation by answering the question as to what technology changes are necessary to make a 100% renewable system operable.
I will explain the concept of the Supergrid and unveil the Supernode which makes the Supergrid possible.
With a combination of the two we can operate a single European energy market, replace fossil fuel generation with clean, renewable electricity and so save our civilisation from the calamitous effects of climate change.
This is no empty rhetoric. Climate change is the threat that caused President Macron to speak as he did.
That is why we have titled our presentation as “Saving Civilisation”. That’s what at stake.
After questions and answers, Pat Cox will summarise the proceedings. As a former President of the European Parliament and an expert on a trans-European infrastructural projects he is uniquely positioned to draw all the strands together.
I now ask Marcos Byrne to make his presentation.
Part 2: Launch of the SupernodeTM
This may appear to many as an overly dramatic heading for a speech on the future of European electricity.
You think so?
Well let me ask you the following question?
How long do you think the institutions of Europe and its member states could survive a sea level rise of one meter. Much of the populations would have to migrate from coastal areas where they now live into the raised hinterland.
How about a three metre rise?
It took us millennia in the West to sort out the concept of private property, something that has not yet been conceptualised in Africa. As millions are displaced from their homes that are about to go under water, where will they go? It is hard for me to envisage how civilisation can survive this watery onslaught. Just consider how the European populations reacted to the suggestion that one million refugees be allowed to enter.
Preserving civilisation is the main context in which this speech is made. There is also another context, ie the EU vision outlined by President Macron in a ground breaking speech on the Future of Europe last September in the Sorbonne.
He put the emphasis on safeguarding the Sovereignty of Europe as a whole.
The President put forward six key actions.
One of these was “ecological transformation” which is action to prevent climate change.
Put a European energy market at the centre of this action plan.
The plan is based on using renewable energy instead of fossil fuels and interconnecting national energy markets.
He had the courage to admit that in the past an energy market was not one of Europe’s common core interests.
But it should be now.
We must harness renewable energy so that “all of Europe benefits”.
President Macron has put forward a political vision.
We engineers must respond with an engineering vision.
Here it is.
My colleagues have pointed out the parameters of a sustainable future electricity supply.
Marcos analysed the future 100% renewable electricity supply taking into account that all generation will be renewable, with a little nuclear. A significant component of this supply will be the energy needed to fuel our transport fleet. Due to efficiency improvements the total electricity demand is no larger than it was in 2005.
Sean looked at where in Europe there are sufficient resources to meet this renewable generation. We have always known that there is an abundance of wind in the Northern seas and that the sun shines brightly in the Mediterranean basin, particularly Spain. It is good to see it quantified.
We now propose that the solution to a 100% renewable electricity future will be a Supergrid. This can be defined as follows: the Supergrid is a collection and transmission system for electricity that sits on top of the current system. It collects electricity where it can be made from the cheapest raw material, analogous to the minemouth coal fired power station of yesterday. The Supergrid then routes the electricity to where the demand is highest via HVDC cables. The electricity is generated as AC and is collected and turned into DC at a series of SupernodesTM A SupernodeTM is a piece of technology which resembles a router in IT systems. A model of a SupernodeTM is displayed here today and I will describe it in detail later on.
This Supernode is the linking piece of technology which makes the Supergrid happen.
Equipment to transmit high voltage electricity over long distances has existed since the early 1950s. The location of generation, in the North and Baltic seas, and around the Med. basin coupled with ubiquitous local opposition will ensure that much of the cabling will have to be buried. Therefore if the distances are more than 75km, with buried cables, the electricity will be in the form of DC.
Up until now HVDC has however always been point to point. (for instance from the Dublin to Liverpool). In a 100% renewable scenario much of the electricity will be generated far from the point of consumption. Local generation in various parts of Europe will vary with cloud cover, and local wind speed, so there will be a requirement to route the remote generation to where the demand is most needed. The piece of technology to do this is called the SupernodeTM
The SupernodeTM is composed of DC circuit breakers, transformers, power electronics, inverters, busbars, cabling, coolers, simulators of the EU electrical systems, and multiple control systems. Such technology has not yet been built, as we are at the early stages of (less than 25% penetration) of a renewable solution to the continental problem.
Here we have a model of the SupernodeTM. This model is a scale model of 100:1 so it measures 50 multiplied by 50m . The area is 2500 m2. It is capable of collecting 4800mw, transforming it into DC and routing it to either a centre of population or another SupernodeTM.
Costs: early estimates of a 10,000mw supernodeTM linking the UK and Germany came in at €29 bn
Supergrid including SupernodesTM A best estimate of cost at this early stage is that the Supergrid/SupernodeTM arrangement would double to treble the cost of building offshore wind.
It was reckoned that 469,000mw of offshore wind and 405,000mw of solar PV would have to be built. This alone would cost about 1.2 trillion Euros. There would be further bills for the Supernodes, cabling, and the backup electricity storage which would be needed for the 100% renewable solution. These sums seem large, but we are talking about a completely new electricity supply system for Europe. By 2050, all but the nuclear stations currently under construction will have to be replaced, even if there were to be no renewables.
A renewable solution means that there will be no future costs for fuel, no CO2 emissions, and no balance of payments deficits arising from energy imports.
Geopolitically we are rendered independent of oil exporting countries.
Going to the 100% renewable solution throws up some interesting issues which I will endeavour to ask and answer.
- What political regime is needed to allow this renewable electricity regime to exist:
The Lisbon Treaty provides part of the answer at the EU level: EU energy policy is governed by Article 194 of the Lisbon Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It says that EU policy on energy “shall aim to, ensure the functioning of the energy market; ensure security of supply; promote energy efficiency and energy saving and the development of new and renewable forms of energy; and promote the interconnection of energy networks.”
There would have to be agreement between individual countries as well. Given that all electricity systems are national entities, individual nations would have to agree to a Supergrid proposal. For many of them this agreement would take into account the fact that much of their nations generation would take place beyond it’s boundaries.
Security of the transmission system would be an important consideration for nations. The current situation has almost all generation located within national boundaries, so security is not such a large issue. The concept of interdependency and trust which drove the formation of the EU, would need to be re-affirmed in the case of electricity.
Cost comparison, fossil fired generation vs renewablesThe price of electricity from wind and solar has now become so low that they outcompete all forms of fossil fired generation.
The projected cost of Fossil Fuels in US$ per megawatthour (CIA source)
| Coal | Natural gas | Nuclear | |||
| Country | Including CO2 cost | Without CO2 cost | CCGT* | OCGT** | |
| USA | 142.5 | 128.9 | 53.8 | 148.3 | None Planned(N.P.) |
| Germany | 95.5 | 75.3 | 89.6 | N.P. | N.P. |
| UK | 180.6 | N.P. | 89 | 218.3 | 124.7 |
| France | N.P. | N.P. | 72 | N.P. | 179 |
| Australia | 144 | 75.2 | 72.8 | 177.6 | N.P. |
| Average | 140 | 93 | 75 | 181 | 152 |
The projected costs of wind and solar in US$ per megawatthour
| Wind | ||||
| Country | Year | Onshore | Offshore | Solar PV |
| Peru | 2016 | 35 | None planned | 48 |
| Chile | 2020 | 41 | N.P. | 29.1 |
| Morocco | 2017 | 40 | N.P. | 19 |
| Egypt | 2017 | 39 | N.P. | |
| Texas | 2017 | 20* | N.P. | |
| Germany | 2017 | 33.6 | 86.7 | |
| Germany | 2024 | 52.54 | ||
| UK | 2017 | 50 | ||
| UK | 2024 | 64 | ||
| Netherlands | 2016 | 86.8 | ||
| Mexico | 2017 | 19.5 | N.P. | 17.7 |
| Average 2017 | 31 | 68 | 40.1 |
Table 2**
*all energy prices in the US are subsidised in one form or another This figure is so low because of a subsidy called “the Production Tax Credit” which amounts to circa $2.2 cents per unit or $22 per megawatthour.
**all the other prices are the result of competitive tenders in the various countries.
Given that the price of wind and solar continues to fall, it makes sense to build the future on them. Logically then wind and solar resources should be mined where they are most reliable and cheapest to produce. As already pointed out this would wind in the North and Baltic seas, and PV in the Med. Basin. The whole brought to the customer via the Supergrid.
Summary Table
| Coal no CO2 | Coal with CO2 | CCGT | Open cycle gas | Nuclear | |
| Average cost $/mwhr |
140 |
93 | 75 |
181 |
I52 |
| Wind onshore | Wind offshore | Solar PV | |||
| Average cost $/mwhr |
31 |
68 |
40.1 |
Any plan for the Supergrid gives rise to the following questions:
- How is the variability of wind and solar PV to be planned for
- How adequate are the current grids to allow this scheme to happen?
- How are countries which have less renewable resources to be included in the scheme?
- What is the EU role in innovation to bring about the vision?
- What incentives have to be put in place to allow the capital to flow into the scheme?
- What is the glide path towards a complete solution?
Q1: the variability of wind and solar is broadly dealt with by 4 strategies:
- In the early transition phase, ie with a penetration by renewables of less than 25%, by utilising the spare capacity held to meet customer variability, plus by turning up or down coal fired generation in response to quantity of electricity being generated by renewables
- the Supergrid itself gives rise to generation balancing
- By creating a portfolio effect, and thus smooth out the contribution of wind for instance, by capturing a storm front all along its trajectory
- By combining wind and PV so that the obvious absence of electricity generation at night from PV is compensated by wind which can be independent of the suns position.
- By using electricity storage devices. In principle it is possible to go to 100% penetration by renewables if the storage systems are big enough
- By demand side management. The technology already exists to allow demand to follow available supply, in response to, for instance, price signals, or frequency dips, etc
Q2: How adequate are the current grids to allow this scheme to happen?
Most current grids are bounded by national boundaries, with at on average circa 10% interconnection to neighbouring systems. They are electricity island systems, and are not fit for the purpose of becoming 100% sustainable. The Supergrid is needed.
Q3: How are countries which have less renewable resources to be included in the scheme?
By importing from their more energetic neighbours, via a dedicated leg of the Supergrid.
Also by incentivising householders to install solar panels on roofs. The technology now exists to allow new homes to have their roofs constructed using photo-active tiles. Building regulations in various countries could mandate that new roofs be so constructed. In fact I cannot understand why inert tiles are any longer allowed on roofs. Many European companies manufacture photoactive tiles, and logically it should be mandatory that every new house has power generation built into the roofs.
Q4: What is the EU role in innovation to bring about the vision?
No individual country can bring about this vision. By very definition it requires mutual interdependence between all the European countries, including the UK. The EU has the role in bringing about this vision. Whether Brexit happens or not. It, the UK, has a major proportion of the North Sea wind catchment area Everything about this vision is new and therefore innovative. At EU level the provisions of the Treaty have to be turned into a binding legal framework via a Directive. Largely the technology to deliver on this vision already exits
Q5: What incentives have to be put in place to allow the capital to flow into the scheme?
Very large capital sums will be deployed in delivering on this vision. The EU and it’s countries would be substituting capital cost only for pay as you go fossil fired operating costs in addition to the fossil stations’capital costs.
Governments have all the experience needed to cause offshore wind, and onshore solar PV to be built. The electricity generated has to have a guaranteed market. The difference between what exists today and what will be needed for the vision is that the guaranteed price will be realised no matter where the electricity is eventually consumed.
If the normal method of incentivising the building of grids is followed an allowable rate of return is allocated to qualified builders. Normally this is regulated and of course up to now applies to individual countries.
Much more involvement of the private sector will be in order because of the large capital sums needed. It would be important to reward the early movers more so than would be the case with later initiatives, so that the building of big transmission corridors and
SupernodesTM becomes established as a new asset class as quickly as possible. Eventually a competitive method of allocating transmission contracts could be established.
There is a need for a central European Electricity Regulatory Authority, analogous to the FERC in the US. Its main functions would be set down by EU Directive. Among it’s principle functions would be to give effect to the orderly build out of the European wide electricity generation and transmission system, while ensuring that the customer was served in a non discriminatory way. It needs to work with the national Regulators, so that a common set of rules exist.
Also a European wide Transmission System Operator needs to be created. This may not be such a big step, as such coordinating organisations exist in the US.
To quote from Electricity Transmission A Primer, By Matthew H. Brown, et al.
As a result of these changes, the power system that began as fundamentally a local system evolved into an interstate system. Power used in Rhode Island might have been generated in Connecticut or elsewhere in New England. By 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that, because of this fast-developing transmission system, electricity was not an intrastate but an interstate commodity that therefore was subject to federal regulation in addition to state regulation. Later Supreme Court rulings affirmed and built upon this federal jurisdiction over the transmission system. Two other major pieces of federal legislation have been important in recent years: the 1978 Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) and the 1992 Energy Policy Act (EPACT).
The Mid Continental independent System Operator or MISO exists in the US and performs many of the functions that the newly created EUTSO would need to do. Its area is 2774600 sq kilometres, whereas the area of Europe is 4422800 sq kms Q6: What is the glide path towards a complete solution?
It will take some time to achieve this vision, and Europe needs a continuous electricity supply in the interim. This will continue to be supplied from the sources that are there now. It is very hard to see how any new coal fried power stations will be built. The exception to this may be in Poland, where the coal industry forms an important part of the economy.
Up to now each country held its own spare capacity to manage variations in customer demand and unplanned forced outages of generation plant. There is a massive interim benefit from implementing part of the Supergrid solution immediately. Spare capacity in one country is also capable of “covering” a third country. An instance of where the Supergrid concept would have worked would have been in the UK. They offered contracts to providers of capacity to meet periods where the wind was not blowing sufficiently, or where customer demand reached unplanned levels. Such plant, mainly open cycle gas turbines, has very low capacity factors, typically 2 or 3%. Payment is made for being available to produce, as distinct from being paid for the units produced only. It is an expensive way of guaranteeing continuity of electricity supply….and also quite short term. If the money were to have been spent of a 10,000mw link with Germany, the following benefits would have ensued
- Wind blowing in a combined Germany and England would have a different pattern than England alone. There would be a smoothing out effect. This arises because wind systems in northern Europe are driven by pressure, that is to say cyclonic weather systems which arise usually in the south west and flow towards the north east. The net effect is that there are unlikely to be the drop offs in wind generated electricity when it is collected from points which are separated by up to 1000km.
- The same set of spare capacity equipment which exists to meet German supply shortages could offer coverage to UK customers. There are different customer demand profiles in Germany and the UK, arising from the disparate structures of the respective economies. The UK for instance derives 14% of its GDP from manufacturing whereas Germany derives 29%. Peaks and troughs happen at
different times. This effect is reinforced by the fact that peak demand occurs at different times. The net effect is that the UK would not have to make the same investment in capacity only plant as it does currently
- The benefit of a 10,000mw connection between the UK and Germany lasts long after the “interim” phase of which we are now speaking. The UK has massive access to the North Sea and will undoubtedly contribute more than its fair share of renewable electricity to the European Pool.