,
12 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
Ever wanted to run your own energy system model with your own assumptions?
Now you can!
A new, open online tool for computing least-cost wind+solar+storage systems to meet baseload electricity demand:
whobs.org
Now you can!
A new, open online tool for computing least-cost wind+solar+storage systems to meet baseload electricity demand:
whobs.org
Just choose your location (European countries at the mo, will extend worldwide shortly), which assets you want (wind/solar/batteries/power-to-gas), cost assumptions, then press the big red "Solve" button, wait 30 seconds and voila!
Fun things to do:
i) Remove long-term hydrogen gas storage and see system costs rise!
In most locations solar+wind+batteries alone won't be affordable. You need longer-term storage or other dispatchable low-carbon generation for multi-day lulls.
i) Remove long-term hydrogen gas storage and see system costs rise!
In most locations solar+wind+batteries alone won't be affordable. You need longer-term storage or other dispatchable low-carbon generation for multi-day lulls.
Cf. recent work by @nsepulvedam, @JesseJenkins and others:
doi.org/10.1016/j.joul…
and this article by @jtemple
doi.org/10.1016/j.joul…
and this article by @jtemple
ii) Set solar costs super low!
That's actually not sufficient to push out wind from the least-cost solutions, because even if solar's dirt cheap (100 EUR/kW in this example), there is just not enough sun at extreme latitudes to supply electricity during the winter cheaply.
That's actually not sufficient to push out wind from the least-cost solutions, because even if solar's dirt cheap (100 EUR/kW in this example), there is just not enough sun at extreme latitudes to supply electricity during the winter cheaply.
iii) Make hydrogen electrolysers more expensive!
The system costs are not super-sensitive to high electrolyser costs (1500 EUR/kW in this example). More important is the low per-kWh cost of underground storage (already demonstrated at scale in salt deposits in the UK and US)
The system costs are not super-sensitive to high electrolyser costs (1500 EUR/kW in this example). More important is the low per-kWh cost of underground storage (already demonstrated at scale in salt deposits in the UK and US)
The results *are* very sensitive to the costs of wind turbines and solar panels, and to the cost of capital. If we want cheap wind+solar+storage energy systems, we should focus on reducing these costs. And making sure power-to-gas can scale up before we bet the house on it.
Now some important warnings: Zero-emissions systems can be much cheaper if they include other generation technologies, storage technologies, coupling to other energy sectors, cross-border grid connections, and demand-side management. See full list here:
github.com/PyPSA/WHOBS#wa…
github.com/PyPSA/WHOBS#wa…
This is just a toy model, to set an upper bound on what a wind-and-solar-dominated system would cost. It may also be useful for small, isolated systems that don't have access to other balancing options. See more background here:
If you want to see a more complete model with more renewable technologies, cross-border grid connections, etc., see this animation of a 95% decarbonised European electricity system:
pypsa.org/animations/pyp…
pypsa.org/animations/pyp…
This tool is based entirely on free software and open data, so you can inspect all assumptions, tweak them and run the model at home. See the GitHub repository for more details:
github.com/PyPSA/whobs-se…
github.com/PyPSA/whobs-se…
New features coming soon:
- Extension of location selection to the whole globe
- Select weather data locations by latitude and longitude
- More generation technologies (e.g. offshore wind, dispatchable sources)
- Allow non-zero CO2 limits
- Extension of location selection to the whole globe
- Select weather data locations by latitude and longitude
- More generation technologies (e.g. offshore wind, dispatchable sources)
- Allow non-zero CO2 limits
