本文转自《ieaghg》发表的题为“100% Renewable, Really?”的报道。

作者：John Gale

日期：2018.06.14

原文链接：https://ieaghg.org/ccs-resources/blog/100-renewables-really

I hear on a regular basis, advocates of renewable energy telling audiences that we can go 100% renewable. Whilst this is a nice concept, and would certainly help achieve the Paris Agreement targets, I am afraid reality must at times prevail, as recent events in the UK suggest.

我经常听到可再生能源倡导者告诉观众我们可以100％可再生。 虽然这是一个很好的概念，并且肯定有助于实现“巴黎协议”的目标，但恐怕现实必然有时会占上风，正如英国最近发生的事件所表明的那样。

In the UK this week, according to Bloomberg, we have gone 9 days with no wind generation. Worse still, weather forecasts suggest this "wind drought" could last for another two weeks. The consequence is that day-ahead power prices to their highest level for the time of year for a decade.

据Bloomberg报道，本周英国已有9天没有风力发电。 更糟糕的是，天气预报显示这种“风力干旱”可能会持续两周。 其结果是，日前的电力价格达到了十年来的最高水平。

The good news is its June in the UK and power demand is low. If the same scenario happened in winter, the grid could be vulnerable. This was the case on 15th January 2015 when electricity demand hit a high; the contribution of wind power was only 1% due to low wind conditions.

好消息是它在英国的六月，电力需求低。 如果冬季发生同样的情况，电网可能会变得脆弱。 2015年1月15日电力需求创出新高时， 由于风力较低，风电的贡献仅为1％。

Therefore, despite the fact that we have enough wind turbines to generate as much electricity as 12 nuclear reactors, if the wind does not blow then they are not a sound investment. In such conditions, typically fossil fuels have to step up to the plate. Increasingly in the UK, that is natural gas, with unabated coal plants being phased out.

因此，尽管我们有足够的风力发电机可以产生与12座核反应堆相同的电力，但如果风不起来，那么它们就不是合理的投资。 在这样的情况下，化石燃料通常必须上升到盘子。 在英国，越来越多的天然气正在被淘汰，煤炭工厂正在逐步淘汰。

It would, therefore, seem that relying solely on a combination of renewable power and batteries to keep the lights on throughout the year is not a sensible approach. The answer, of course, should be fossil plus CCS. Our recent analyses show that flexible fossil-based CCS plants can help balance the variability of renewables to the benefit of the grid not the detriment.

因此，似乎仅仅依靠可再生能源和电池的组合来全年保持照明状态并不是明智的做法。答案当然应该是化石加CCS。我们最近的分析表明，灵活的基于化石的CCS电厂可以帮助平衡可再生能源的变化与电网的利益，而不是损害。

The counter argument to flexible CCS is that it is more expensive that solar and wind. On a unit cost basis that is correct, you can mass-produce solar panels and wind turbines, which has helped reduce their component costs. CCS plants are not "off the shelf" items at present but with advances in modularisation that could be the case. What I never see openly discussed when we talk about the unit costs of solar panels or wind turbines is the cost associated with adding these to the grid and including battery storage for back up. In a recent article in Modern Power Systems entitled the"True Cost of Electricity" they have addressed this issue and clearly demonstrated that he grid level of system costs of renewables is 15-45USD/MWth higher than conventional fossil or nuclear power plants.

对灵活的CCS的反驳是太阳能和风能比较昂贵。以单位成本为准，您可以批量生产太阳能电池板和风力涡轮机，这有助于降低组件成本。 CCS工厂目前不是“现货供应”的产品，但随着模块化的进展，情况可能会如此。当我们谈论太阳能电池板或风力涡轮机的单位成本时，我从来没有公开讨论过的是与将这些电池添加到电网并包括用于备份的电池存储相关的成本。在Modern Power Systems最近发表的题为“真正的电力成本”的文章中，他们解决了这个问题，并清楚地表明，他的可再生能源系统成本的网格水平比传统化石或核电厂高15-45USD / MWth。

I am not dismissing renewables; I believe they should be a part of a balanced portfolio of power generation technologies for any grid system. Just don't keep telling me they are low cost and we can go 100% renewable. To me, both these statements are just smoke and mirrors. 

我不是拒绝可再生能源; 我相信他们应该成为任何电网系统均衡的发电技术组合的一部分。 只是不要告诉我他们成本低，我们可以100％可再生。 对我而言，这两个陈述都只是烟雾和镜子。