Solar ... In the news
Options
Comments
-
Solar in the UK doesn't make sense to subsidise, offshore wind has a better correlation with demand and a higher more workable capacity factor
Solar has achieved a lot it could provide 1/3rd of the annual growth in electricity needs but the real question is will governments still wish to subsidise it when it begins to saturate the grid or will they cut back like Germany had to do.
Let people and companies install solar on their roofs without subsidy if they want to do that but dont subsidise it Martyn has proof that it can be done for $18/MWh so it doesn't need any more support especially in cloudy England0 -
HiSolar in the UK doesn't make sense to subsidise, offshore wind has a better correlation with demand and a higher more workable capacity factor
Solar has achieved a lot it could provide 1/3rd of the annual growth in electricity needs but the real question is will governments still wish to subsidise it when it begins to saturate the grid or will they cut back like Germany had to do.
Let people and companies install solar on their roofs without subsidy if they want to do that but dont subsidise it Martyn has proof that it can be done for $18/MWh so it doesn't need any more support especially in cloudy England
I agree that offshore wind has a supply profile which tends to generally favour winter night-time generation, but then again, solar has a profile which does the same for summer daytime, however, the majority of hours that we're normally awake are daylight hours ..
Regarding capacity factor ... this is increasingly used as an argument for or against various forms of generation, however, whatever the capacity factor is, it's the cost/unit which is important ... if one form of generation has a 70%CF but costs 12p/kWh, is that better than another form with a 35%CF at a cost of 7p/kWh, or even another delivering at 11% but at a cost of 5p/kWh ?? ...
Cloudy England .. this has been raised time after time in discussions, so I'll just refer to a previous discussion which contextualises PV generation differential related to latitude ..... let's look at how that converts to generation potential ....
Being areas of concentrated population and therefore demand, let's take two capital cities, one in a high latitude and the other on the equator ... say London & Kampala and see what relative generation potential is likely to be. PVGIS can act as our tool, and we can use a 1kWp array as a benchmark ... ( http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps4/pvest.php# ) ...
Flat (No inclination) - (L)848kWh/kWp : (K)1400kWh/kWp
Optimised inclination - (L)38Deg : (K)0Deg
Optimised generation - (L)1000kWh/kWp : (K)1400kWh/kWp
So, the (your)~'60% less light' (insolation/irradiation) resolves to ~40% less generation ((848/1400)-1) on a flat plain. However, optimising the fixed inclination to reflect latitude this reduces to 28.6% less generation ((1000/1400)-1).
Now, let's compensate for the issues of having a panel mounted flat ( pooling water, dirt/dust buildup, self cleaning etc). Allowing a shallow slope of 10degrees and say that this is west facing so as to not skew seasonal generation, we get 1380kWh/kWp in Kampala bringing the difference to 27.5% ((1000/1380)-1) ... this is representative of a direct comparison between 'real world' optimised systems ... 27.5%.
Now, just because we can, let's compare a system on a 35Degree roofline (water runoff) in both locations. Again let's take the London orientation as south and Kampala as west to mitigate seasonal variation, we now get 1260kWh/kWp in Kampala resulting in a difference of 20.6% ((1000/1260)-1) ... of course, there's the valid argument that not all UK installations face due-south ... so let's compensate by bracketing the orientation between S/W (939kWh/kWp) giving a difference of 25.5% ((939/1260)-1) ... obviously we now can say that a 'typical' roof mounted system in a high latitude system could be expected to generate approximately 75% to 80% of what it would be expected to do if located on the equator, despite the differential in surface area insolation being considerably higher ...
Z
The issue continually raised against almost all renewable energy sources is their intermittency, however, much of that can be addressed through storage of various forms ... as for grid saturation, well that's effectively down to grid management and the ability to either store excess energy, or forcing inverters to de-rate or switch in/out in phased generation blocks through settings ....
All is not bleak ...
HTH
Z"We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
0 -
Solar in the UK doesn't make sense to subsidise,
Martyn has proof that it can be done for $18/MWh so it doesn't need any more support especially in cloudy England
Where do I say that UK solar can generate for $18/MWh?
As UK PV is cheaper than UK off-shore wind, why not support PV?
As off-shore wind alone, is not a solution to our leccy/energy needs, why would you hamstring it by removing the other parts necessary to create a viable renewables mix?Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)
For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.0 -
Martyn1981 wrote: »As UK PV is cheaper than UK off-shore wind, why not support PV?
Probably because I do not believe that statement to be true.
Solar in the UK has too low a CF which means it can do less before it needs mass storage which will add more cost.As off-shore wind alone, is not a solution to our leccy/energy needs, why would you hamstring it by removing the other parts necessary to create a viable renewables mix?
Solar power takes up too much land and industrializes the countryside.
I have no problem with people putting them on their roofs, you keep telling me how cheap it is now so presumably we both agree no need for subsidy let the people put it on their roofs with their own money.
Offshore wind has high CF and reasonable seasonal correlation with seasonal demand.
We could go to 60% offshore wind with the remaining 40% a combination of CCGT/Rooftop-Solar/UK-Nuclear/Interconnector-imports (mostly Franch nuclear)0 -
Hi
I agree that offshore wind has a supply profile which tends to generally favour winter night-time generation, but then again, solar has a profile which does the same for summer daytime, however, the majority of hours that we're normally awake are daylight hours ..
Regarding capacity factor ... this is increasingly used as an argument for or against various forms of generation, however, whatever the capacity factor is, it's the cost/unit which is important ... if one form of generation has a 70%CF but costs 12p/kWh, is that better than another form with a 35%CF at a cost of 7p/kWh, or even another delivering at 11% but at a cost of 5p/kWh ?? ...
Cloudy England .. this has been raised time after time in discussions, so I'll just refer to a previous discussion which contextualises PV generation differential related to latitude ..
The issue continually raised against almost all renewable energy sources is their intermittency, however, much of that can be addressed through storage of various forms ... as for grid saturation, well that's effectively down to grid management and the ability to either store excess energy, or forcing inverters to de-rate or switch in/out in phased generation blocks through settings ....
All is not bleak ...
HTH
Z
Mass battery storage does not exist, and it makes sense to allocate batteries to vehicles before you use then for stationary storage of excess wind/solar. Other ideas like excess wind to power aluminium smelters only when the wind blows to to do electricity to nat gas conversion are so stupid i dont even need to comment on them
Solar is silly for the UK because it is purely fuel displacement
Its great for countries which where both solar output and electricity demand match, often hot countries with AC demand. There solar is both fuel displacement and to a large extend power station displacement too.
Anyone who wants to place PV on their roofs with their own pockets more power to you. Martyn has proven time and again here that solar is cheap and will just get cheaper no need to throw more money at solar when the NHS needs additional funding.
Personally I think just using what we have is fine (a mix of nuclear gas and imports)
But if the public feels we are so wealthy and have no other areas we could spend more on, like heathcare, and that the most pressing need is decarbing the grid then offshore wind is really the only option for the uk. Be grateful for it as the country would not accept mass onshore wind and solar PV is not a solution in the uk so really it is only offshore wind or nuclear both are expensive but offshore wind probably less so0 -
Probably because I do not believe that statement to be true.
No links, references or costs to support your opinion? Have you herd about some PV farms going subsidy free now thanks to PPA's and batteries?Solar power takes up too much land and industrializes the countryside.
Personally I'd install it demand side on rooves, no problem getting 60-80GWp on rooves and carparks, so 20% of UK leccy demand. But just to place your 'dramatic' statement in context, and as a thought exercise - to build enough PV farms to generate the equivalent of a UK years leccy demand, you'd have to cover approx 2% of England in 15% efficient panels. Currently about 2% of England is covered in golf courses, driving ranges etc.Offshore wind has high CF and reasonable seasonal correlation with seasonal demand.
We could go to 60% offshore wind with the remaining 40% a combination of CCGT/Rooftop-Solar/UK-Nuclear/Interconnector-imports (mostly Franch nuclear)
Sounds good to me, though 50% off-shore wind may be the technical limit, depends how much the cost of floating WT's falls.
But if you are willing to go that far, why not push more CCGT off the grid with on-shore wind, tidal (stream and lagoon) and hopefully wave power too. Perhaps 40% off-shore wind, 30% on-shore wind, 20% PV, 10% tidal, 10% bio-energy, 2% hydro plus storage and interconnectors and CCGT with bio-gas. [Yes I know it's more than 100% but some spill and storage losses will occur.]Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)
For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.0 -
Personally I think just using what we have is fine (a mix of nuclear gas and imports)
But if the public feels we are so wealthy and have no other areas we could spend more on, like heathcare, and that the most pressing need is decarbing the grid then offshore wind is really the only option for the uk. Be grateful for it as the country would not accept mass onshore wind and solar PV is not a solution in the uk so really it is only offshore wind or nuclear both are expensive but offshore wind probably less so
But PV, on-shore wind, and now off-shore wind are all cheaper than nuclear and gas, so why spend your money on them instead of healthcare? And why spend NHS money on imports when we have plenty of wind, sun and tides of our own?
The public don't have a problem with on-shore wind, take a look at the 22 quarterly public attitude surveys. Support for on-shore wind is 73% with opposition of 9%.
This has risen over the 5yrs (of the surveys) from 66% support and 12% opposition. So contrary to your claims, not only do the public support on-shore wind, but their support has grown, and opposition fallen across the time period that on-shore wind has impacted us, both visually and financially. So all looks good to me, when you look at the facts.
BTW nuclear has 35% support and 21% opposition, hardly a ringing endorsement, unlike on-shore wind.Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)
For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.0 -
Note - this article talks about installed capacity, not generation, and of course solar has a low capacity factor (output v's capacity rating) than most other sources of generation.
Solar power a clear leader, IEA report findsFor the first time ever, there were more grid additions from solar power than another other type of fuel, the International Energy Agency said Wednesday.
IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said that, by 2022, renewables in general will equal about half the global capacity for coal power and its solar energy in particular that's leading the way.
"What we are witnessing is the birth of a new era in solar PV [systems]," he said in a statement. "We expect that solar PV capacity growth will be higher than any other renewable technology through 2022."
A previous report from the IEA estimated the cost of utility-scale solar power projects has declined by about 60 percent since 2011 and could drop another 25 percent by 2021. In response, investments in solar photovoltaic systems increased 20 percent last year.Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)
For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.0 -
Rooves are the obvious answer to solar placement. Retrofit to all reasonable sites and legislate for all new builds to be oriented for best results, and, have battery storage installed at the same time.Solar power takes up too much land and industrializes the countryside.
I have no problem with people putting them on their roofs,The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.
Oliver Wendell Holmes0 -
HiMass battery storage does not exist, and it makes sense to allocate batteries to vehicles before you use then for stationary storage of excess wind/solar. Other ideas like excess wind to power aluminium smelters only when the wind blows to to do electricity to nat gas conversion are so stupid i dont even need to comment on them
Solar is silly for the UK because it is purely fuel displacement
Its great for countries which where both solar output and electricity demand match, often hot countries with AC demand. There solar is both fuel displacement and to a large extend power station displacement too.
Anyone who wants to place PV on their roofs with their own pockets more power to you. Martyn has proven time and again here that solar is cheap and will just get cheaper no need to throw more money at solar when the NHS needs additional funding.
Personally I think just using what we have is fine (a mix of nuclear gas and imports)
But if the public feels we are so wealthy and have no other areas we could spend more on, like heathcare, and that the most pressing need is decarbing the grid then offshore wind is really the only option for the uk. Be grateful for it as the country would not accept mass onshore wind and solar PV is not a solution in the uk so really it is only offshore wind or nuclear both are expensive but offshore wind probably less so
In order ...
"Mass battery storage does not exist" ... you'll note that your reply is to the following ... 'The issue continually raised against almost all renewable energy sources is their intermittency, however, much of that can be addressed through storage of various forms' ... mass storage does exist - pumped storage, thermal mass being just two examples ... We use thermal mass quite effectively as a storage medium ...
"Solar is silly for the UK .." .. yes it does displace carbon intensive fuel .. can't see anything wrong with that ... but it's not 'purely fuel displacement' (whatever that means!) .. our solar is currently providing a background 2kW of heat to 'top-up' the house heat and we're still exporting ~75% to the grid or our neighbours to use .. our solar is displacing energy requirements right now and charging up the house heat now means that we'll not need any heating overnight either ... isn't that logical? .. anyway, as already demonstrated solar generation in the UK is likely around 75%-80% of that which could be expected in the 'hot countries' mentioned.
".. no need to throw more money at solar .." fine, but doesn't that argument equally apply to all forms of energy subsidy when the technology has matured enough to stand-alone ? ...
"But if the public feels we are so wealthy.." .. really? - I would have thought that there'd be plenty of support for technologies which have rapidly reducing capital investment costs, could be rolled out relatively quickly, had little long-term impact and were actively holding prices lower than would be the case without their existence .. as for on-shore wind ... I'd not mind seeing a few where we are, but average wind speeds around here are relatively low, so the nearest big turbines are around 20 miles away !
HTH
Z"We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle0
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards