Lichtblick and Volkswagen To Build 'Swarm' Power Plants

Dr. Hok writes "As more and more renewable energy enters the grid, it gets increasingly difficult to match supply and demand 24/7. The answer of German power company Lichtblick and Volkswagen is a swarm of 100,000 flexible base-load generators. These fridge-sized CHP (Combined Heat and Power) generators that will be installed in people's basements in Hamburg starting early next year will feed electricity into the grid and the waste heat into their home's water/heating. The "ZuhauseKraftwerk" (HomePowerPlant) features a vanilla VW Golf natural-gas engine that generates 20kW electrical and 34 kW heat with an efficiency of 92%. The units are remotely controlled via a mobile network or DSL; they can ramp up in a minute if needed. A water tank ensures that heat is continuously available, while electricity is produced on demand. The swarm will replace two nuclear plants, they say. And your old oil heating needed replacement anyway."

Uh?

[0123456]

"The swarm will replace two nuclear plants, they say"

So when we're all supposed to be scared to death of EVIL GLOBAL WARMING, the 'green' Germans want to replace two nuclear plants that emit no CO2 with... car engines... running on natural gas which will probably have to be purchased from the Commies?

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

92% efficiency??

[goombah99]

"generates 20kW electrical and 34 kW heat with an efficiency of 92%. "

since when is heat generation anything but 100% efficient. Now delivery to where you want it perhaps not. ANd it might go up the stack. but citing a 92% efficiency does not tell me much about the electrical generation efficiency.

Re:92% efficiency??

[norpy]

I think the other 60% efficiency is because you arent' just cooling away the hot water in a radiator but storing it in a tank for your radiators/showers/washingup

Future for gas engines ?

[moon3]

Fearing the EV revolution behind the door, the motor engineers are finding ways to stay relevant, but the idea of a Volkswagen gasoline engine running in every home is questionable, fossil fuels are not something people want to stay here forever (nor in their homes).

Swarm of CHP flexible base load generators

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

They sure have a great marketing team at Lichtblick and Volkswagen: so much rah-rah to describe a generator made out of recycled WV engines, that's pure genius.

Re:Russia and natural gas

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

personally I think the higher up front cost of nuclear is more than offset by the stability it provides

Not sure about that. Uranium is a finite resource too, much more finite than fossil fuels in fact. If the world suddenly switched massively to nuclear power, there would be about a decade worth of uranium to extract. See this page [wikipedia.org].

So in short, yes you're right, nuclear is great *for you* (and inhabitants of a few other rich politically stable countries), provided (1) it stays fairly unpopular and (2) other countries don't have access to the technology, so that *you* keep enjoying it for a long time.

Re:Russia and natural gas

[Mr. Roadkill]

Uranium is a finite resource too, much more finite than fossil fuels in fact. If the world suddenly switched massively to nuclear power, there would be about a decade worth of uranium to extract. See this page [wikipedia.org]

Not quite. That's assuming a "once-through" fuel cycle, and ignoring things like the newer generations of breeder reactors that burn waste from other reactors. Depending on a number of factors, estimates range between 80 and five BILLION year.

I quite like Bernard Cohen's take on things, cited in that same article, that effectively suggests that we can keep getting uranium from seawater at least as long as the time we have until the sun burns out. I don't quite know how realistic it is, but it's certainly interesting and worthy of further examination.

Effectively 100% gas - electricity conversion

[nniillss]

You failed to consider that the target applicants are already using gas for heating purposes anyway. Now the heat production of the engine will be exactly matched to this need (same as before). All extra gas consumption is fully transformed into electricity (which is possible, even for only 40% raw conversion efficency, as long as the electrical output is much below the heat load).

So, overall, the extra gas consumption (compared to conventional heating) is transformed with 100% efficiency into electricity which is a vast improvement over all competing technologies with similar flexibility.

Re:Uh?

[Dr. Hok]

So when we're all supposed to be scared to death of EVIL GLOBAL WARMING, the 'green' Germans want to replace two nuclear plants that emit no CO2 with... car engines... running on natural gas which will probably have to be purchased from the Commies?

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

There is one thing that nucular plants can't do, namely ramp up in a minute. But that's is a prerequisite if you want to use wind and solar power when it's produced. AFAIK only water and gas plants can do that. So the CHP swarm is green because it enables the massive use of green energy. Nuclear plants take a few hours to get going, which is just not fast enough. Plus, I live close enough to Chernobyl to know that nuclear power is simply not acceptable. Unless you just love thyroid cancer.

I'll grant you that being dependent on Russia is dangerous. Germany currently buys 32% of their natural gas from Russia (who are not exactly commies any more BTW). The German government plans to replace 10% of the natural gas by biogas in 2030, so the amount of gas we need to buy from them decreases. And biogas is CO2 neutral, i.e. green.

Re:Uh?

[FireFury03]

I live close enough to Chernobyl to know that nuclear power is simply not acceptable. Unless you just love thyroid cancer.

Massively flawed reactor designs being run by complete idiots is simply not acceptable. Modern reactors are extremely safe and (in the West) well regulated. If you're going to ban the modern nuclear industry on public safety grounds, you'd better ban the whole chemical industry too since that deals with chemicals that are way more harmful and is far less well regulated. Replacing all the coal fired power plants with nuclear plants would massively cut pollution (coal plants put up a *lot* of particulate pollution into the atmosphere, much of which is radioactive and/or highly toxic, not to mention the environmental concerns of the toxic and radioactive fly ash which has to be disposed of - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill [wikipedia.org] for why this is bad).

Re:Uh?

[Eunuchswear]

Also, in contrast to a nuclear plant, this swarm can react almost instantly to changes in supply or demand, thus complementing the fluctuating levels of power generated by wind and solar (try achieveing that with a centralized mega-plant).

Talk to the French [wikipedia.org].

France currently produces 1/10 of the C02 per kWh that Germany does.

Re:Swarm of CHP flexible base load generators

[Atario]

Not "a generator". A system of 100,000 generators, scattered throughout the country, centrally managed via data links. Which is the point.

Re:Uh?

[zblack_eagle]

Seriously, reading that 'article', while they make a decent point, pretty much every human activity as it stands results in CO2 emissions. Extracting and refining the materials to build equipment to harvest renewable sources of energy? CO2 emissions. Transporting and installing equipment? CO2 emissions. From the 'article':

If you ignore the vehicles that the workers use to get to work, the reactor does not produce any CO2

I guess we're also ignoring the fact that the workers breathe and engage in other activities in living that emit CO2.

Nuclear energy couldn't possibly be made less carbon intensive, making solar panels involves toxic chemicals, wind turbines kill rare birds/bats, etc. Some people seriously won't ever be happy unless we rid the world of humanity.

Why now?

[ShooterNeo]

What I am curious about is why this technology is being deployed on a wide scale now. Cogeneration, where a heat engine's waste heat is used to heat a structure has existed for a long time. There's no reason that natural gas generator/heater couldn't have been installed in your basement in 1970. It would have made your house more efficient then much as it would now. So what has changed over 40 years that make the arguments for/against shift in favor of doing it? The biggest change I can think of is maybe better communications makes it easier for the power company to remotely control the generator. (since it wouldn't do any good to only have a generator in your basement for supplying power to your own house, wouldn't get enough return on investment...that power needs to be sold/credited to other users as well)

Re:Uh?

[gmthor]

Nuclear plants do have an impact on the environment too. What do you do with the toxic waste? The problem here is that you need to store it somewhere safe for thousand of years. This is almost impossible to foretold. And don't reply that you can just use old salt stocks because they have been dry for millions of years already. The best example for this is Asse 2 [asse2.de] which is already starting to flood.
Another option are fusion power plant. The research did alot of improvement during the last few years and the radio active waste has got a half-life of only a few years not really worth mentioning.

Re:Uh?

[bickerdyke]

the term "green" has lost all meaning through over use.

solar, wind and wave can't maintain a consistent load 24/7, so i'm curious as to what alternative you propose.

Simple. Dont call anything that produces CO2 or other toxic waste (liquid, solid or gaseous) green

Then take that "green cant provide sonstant load 24/7" strawman-argument and put it where the sun never shines. Ignoring that almost free energie sources, just because they won't satisfy 100% of your needs is plain stupid. Grab as much as you can get from that free energy pool and then throw in less-green power until you get 100% 24/7.

Diversity is the way to success here.

Re:Uh?

[iamhassi]

" They are simply stating that it will generate power equivalent to two average nuclear power plants."

That's good, so if I'm helping them pay for two nuclear power plants, I'm getting paid for the use of my basement, or at least getting it for free, right?

FTFA: "Households would pay around $7,250 to have the generators set up along with an appropriate heating system."

W...T....F.... so, I save them the billions it costs to build a nuclear power plant [csmonitor.com], and they want me to pay them to save them money? How stupid does that sound "Hi, I want you to save me money, and I want you to pay me for the privilege to save me money". That's like your boss laying you off and asking you to pay him to do it.

Someone explain how this works, why would anyone sign-up for this?

Wrong assumption

[Moraelin]

Germans sometimes perplex and leave you breathless...

You seem to assume that this is something "the germans" as a whole have something to do with, or that it's inherently something that wouldn't happen elsewhere.

In reality, it's just capitalism finding a way to exploit a legislation loophole. There are some hefty subsidies for energy put back into the grid, on the assumption that (A) it would be some green energy like solar or wind, and (B) that it wouldn't happen otherwise, because, (C) there's not much you can put in that way.

Germany is way north, and in at least half of it there are plenty of cloudy days. The same gulf stream influence that makes us not have the climate of, say, Canada or Siberia, well, warm air coming from the direction of the ocean, you do the maths. In, say, Düsseldorf probably a vampire could probably get a day job because there aren't many days with direct sunlight ;)

So solar power isn't a very efficient way to generate energy. Wind is a bit better, but still takes a long time to pay for itself otherwise. So someone figured they'd subsidize people who nevertheless buy a turbine or solar pannels, to have _some_ green energy, even if expensive green energy. Debatable, but Idon't think it's downright stupid or perplexing by any reckoning.

It was not particularly designed for people running diesel or gas generators in that basement, because, well, there weren't any significant numbers of those.

So now two companies figured out they can use a loophole to sell more of their own crap.

Whop-de-do. If you think no American company would do the same abusing a loophole, you haven't been paying attention much. There have been even more stupid attempts, all the way to trying to sell a SMG without the trigger (it would start firing automatically when you chambered a round, and only stop when the magazine was empty) because some PHB thought it wouldn't qualify as an automatic weapon that way. Apparently the BATF thought it still did, though.

Re:Uh?

[fforw]

Because a new heating system alone wouldn't be significantly cheaper?

Re:Uh?

[Rogerborg]

"Free" energy? Tell me, oh wise one, what is the payback time on unsubsidised renewable generation?

Hydro, geothermal and wave, fine. Wind and solar? You still have to keep fossil and nuclear plants running 24/7, or eat the brownouts. Power generation figures for wind and solar are bullshit - show me the figures for reductions in fossil and nuclear generation in areas where wind and solar are "contributing" to the load.

What a stupid idea

[WindBourne]

First, this is a Japanese idea and we covered it here already. Second, this is a waste. They are trying to combine heating and power to increase overall efficiency. Cool. Except that Germany does not have much in way of natural gas so imports it. Mostly from Russia who has already shown that they will use it as a weapon. Instead, they should be pushing the use of geo-thermal heat pumps. Or if in town, then do a steam exchange (Germany has high enough density in most of their towns to make it worthwhile). Once they move to a heat pump, their hvac can be used for AC as well and has much higher efficiency. From that point, they can focus on a variety of power generation; Wind, Solar PV/Thermal, Geo-thermal; Nukes; even natural gas backing up solar thermal or geo-thermal (increased efficiency during day to generate more power).

Once they add these expensive units, ppl will NOT want to change until the price of their natural gas goes up. That is the mistake that America has. We typically install Natural Gas/AC which together is about 6-10K. Nobody wants to put out 10K again.

Re:Uh?

[TheRaven64]

There is no such thing as radioactive waste. If it is sufficiently radioactive to be dangerous, it is sufficiently radioactive to be used in betavoltaic, radiothermal, or pebble bed reactors. Complaining about radioactive waste is like using charcoal mounds as a fuel source and then complaining that you have to store all of that waste charcoal.

What about the noise?

[PmaxII]

I use water cooling on my PC because air cooling is too noisy. So, installing a power generator in my basement... I'm not sure that's a great idea..

Re:Uh?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Nuclear plants are difficult to control. The reaction's dynamics are nonlinear and unstable, and you have only a 0.7% margin in which they respond with a 10-second lag (and are controllable).

Oddly enough, nuclear power plants used by the US Navy work just fine when the power demand spikes (or is reduced suddenly) without becoming uncontrollable.

Proper design ftw.

Re:Uh?

[KDR_11k]

Fuel cells are energy storages, can those really be combined meaningfully with generators?

Re:Uh?

[drinkypoo]

Hydro, geothermal and wave, fine. Wind and solar?

Solar could pay back the energy cost of the production of the panels back in the 1970s. If you are going to try to tell me that we can't build solar plants that will pay back the energy cost of their entire production in less than a decade today, I am going to tell you that you are a liar and/or an idiot.

Wind farms to date have not been all that effective, but we haven't been really applying ourselves to making them work for very long, either. So they're not a fit for all our power generation needs, so what? Installing them where they make sense still... makes sense. I assure you that using wind power to do actual work is a worthwhile endeavor; humans have been moving water by such means for an absurdly long time. You use the right solution for the situation.

Incidentally, if you think hydro, geothermal, or wave power production are greener than wind or solar, you have no clue what you are talking about. Dams are the only way to effectively institute hydroelectric power, although there IS some room in the world for small-scale hydro. Dams are some of the most ecologically devastating things humans have built. I live near The Geysers, where the world's largest geothermal complex is installed. It produces about 1/4 of the projected power output and has so far produced one SuperFund site (leakage from which was causing two-headed cattle to be born nearby) and on-site, there are several concrete pools filled with Arsenic and other heavy toxics. Every so often they fill up a pool, then they cover it over and build the wall higher , and start filling it up again. Wave power so far mostly is being done using hydraulics, using traditional hydraulic fluid which is not a nice thing to use near the ocean which is likely to wipe out your installation.

Re:Uh?

[Rei]

There are some serious problems with this home generation concept.

1) When is extra peaking most in demand? In the middle of the day in July, when everyone's AC comes on. How much home heating is generally needed in the middle of the day in July when everyone's AC comes on? Not bloody much. But you're going to have the full heat output of a car engine pumping into your house; there's no way water heating alone will justify that.

2) Instead of spending the capital costs to build a couple really big peakers, they're going be building millions of tiny individual peakers, each with their own pollution controls? I can't imagine that would be even *remotely* cost-competitive. Or as clean.

I just don't buy it.

Re:Uh?

[Doctor O]

Someone explain how this works, why would anyone sign-up for this?

Because $ 7.250 already is significantly cheaper than a regular heating system with condensing boiler technology (nothing else makes sense from an efficiency point of view), plus you get money for the electricity you produce. So you save on two fronts. You know, there's a law here in Germany which says that the grid *must* take the electricity I produce, and at a fixed price, which conveniently is higher than the price I pay at the moment.

So, it's pretty much a no-brainer. The only thing that makes me a bit uncomfortable is having a fscking power plant in my basement that is connected to the Internet.

I am actually evaluating this at the moment, but I'm not in Northern Germany where they'll launch the pilot systems. So I'll have to wait - OTOH, my heating system probably will be okay for another two or three years.