Free solar panel discussion

Cardew

PeterZ wrote: »

While your engineer friend may know about coal fired power stations, its obvious you know very little about how the national grid works.

What do you think happens during the half time when the footies on and everyone turns on their kettles? The demand on the grid surges.

How do you think they cope with a sudden increase in demand if we are so reliant on coal fired stations?

Well at half time we sure ain't going to satisfy the extra demand from solar panels!

Surely the point being made was that if we get a fine sunny day with lots of solar power, we can't just 'switch off' coal fired power stations.

Indeed a major disadvantage of solar power is that it won't reduce UK's conventional generating capacity, as this capacity is needed to cope with periods of maximum demand - this being a winter's evening when solar output is zero.

The half time surge will be dealt with in exactly the same way as we did before UK had any solar.

grahamc2003

PeterZ wrote: »

Oil is at a 2 and a half year high:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12998807

This is the big issue that we need to address right now. How much longer do you think we can compete with China and the US for oil? Like it or not we need alternative sources of energy.

When people are paying £5 a litre for petrol and cant afford to eat, then we might see riots - but it will be all too late then.

We need action now, a small price today will reap huge rewards later. Renewables and nuclear need to increase massively. Of course since the terrible events in Japan no one wants to touch nuclear now.

We need people prepared to take action now, not an army of armchair critics.

We certainly do need some action on the electricity generation front.

But I would prefer action which makes engineering sense, and not action which is pure political nonsense which doesn't seriously adress the looming capacity problems.

No use whatsoever jumping up and down shouting 'Do Something, anything!'.

While Nuclear appears to be the only very long term viable and sustainable option for the substantive solution with current technology, I really don't see where many of the other 'renewables' (like solar and wind) fit into the solution. The maximum demand has to be covered by capacity which has to be reliably available at that time - obviously solar will supply zilch at that time, and wind may not supply anything at that time, hoiwever many windmills we build. It follows directly that any solar and wind is simply extremely expensive superfluous redundant capacity.

The real problem is from armchair supporters who really can't see the scale of the problem and the required scale of the solution, and confuse political gestures with engineering solutions.

John_Pierpoint

This is mainly about reducing carbon dioxide plus a little bit of energy security and balance of payments deficit reduction.

Well I suppose we do have a manufacturer here in the uK.
Promotional puff:
Sharp is one of the world’s oldest and largest solar panel manufacturers and has their European factory sited at Wrexham in North Wales. They produce a range of high quality and very cost effective monocrystaline and polycrystalline modules ranging from 180W – 235W.
Sharp are the market leading manufacturer supplying to the UK market and have a long history of successful operation in UK applications across the country including many of the largest installations to date. They are expanding their production capacity in early 2011 to meet rising demand and they provide an exceptional good value for money product from a local manufacturer, ideally sized for domestic installations.

Anyone know if we have UK made inverters?

PeterZ_2

Cardew wrote: »

Well at half time we sure ain't going to satisfy the extra demand from solar panels!

Surely the point being made was that if we get a fine sunny day with lots of solar power, we can't just 'switch off' coal fired power stations.

Indeed a major disadvantage of solar power is that it won't reduce UK's conventional generating capacity, as this capacity is needed to cope with periods of maximum demand - this being a winter's evening when solar output is zero.

The half time surge will be dealt with in exactly the same way as we did before UK had any solar.

No, the point being made was as if the demand on the grid was fixed and we had to rely on coal fired power stations.

That is clearly not the case. The demand on the varies, as does to output from the UK power stations. As the demand goes up and down the national vary to amount of electricity generated. It doesn;t matter if the demand goes up/down due to kettles at half time or inout from solar and wind.

PeterZ_2

Cardew wrote: »

Indeed a major disadvantage of solar power is that it won't reduce UK's conventional generating capacity, as this capacity is needed to cope with periods of maximum demand - this being a winter's evening when solar output is zero.

Its unfair to confuse generating capacity with energy used.

I also find it hard to believe that you are correct and the government, its scientists, engineers and the national grid are wrong.

PeterZ_2

grahamc2003 wrote: »

I really don't see where many of the other 'renewables' (like solar and wind) fit into the solution. The maximum demand has to be covered by capacity which has to be reliably available at that time .

Looking at the national grid website the biggest enery demand is during the day, summer and winter. Of course renewables will make contribution to this demand, dont you think the national grid have worked that out?

The winters evening peak is about peak capacity for that moment in time. What is important here is the energy consumed, most of which is during the day. Far more energy is used during daylight hours than at night, hence E7 and cheap overnight electricity.

grahamc2003

PeterZ wrote: »

Looking at the national grid website the biggest enery demand is during the day, summer and winter. Of course renewables will make contribution to this demand, dont you think the national grid have worked that out?

The winters evening peak is about peak capacity for that moment in time. What is important here is the energy consumed, most of which is during the day. Far more energy is used during daylight hours than at night, hence E7 and cheap overnight electricity.

So lets get this clear. You are saying solar power will contribute during the period of maximum demand?

PeterZ, I can tell you categorically that your view on how the grid works is simplistic. to the extent of being of no use in discussing the technicalities of how demand is satisified. Suffice it to say that wind causes problems for grid management, which are alleviated by burning more fossil fuel, which is rarely addressed in any analysis of the tiny and expensie wind-power contribution to demand.

In addition, you, like many others, seem to think energy is the critical criterion for the grid, when it is in fact power, and power matching. The fact that generation is capital intensive means capacity is important, because that soaks up much of the cost. Having one lot of capacity idle because of capacity duplication (which is what all renewables entail) is not engineering sense at all.

You can argue all you like about the policital imperitives of wind and solar, but they won't solve our looming dispatchabloe capacity problems, because engineering solutions are necessary nfor that.

You can't simply replace 1GW of nuclear capacity with 1GW of wind capacity. You can't replace 1GW of nuclear with 3GW of wind (for those taking account of the capacity factor), you can't even replace it with X GW of wind (or solar) where X is any number you like - and that all due to the difference between energy and power.

You said yourself, and have amply demonstrated yourself, that solutions to these problems won't come from armchair bloggers, and neither will they come from political imperatives.

Also, you are in error assuming that, because wind and solar are connected to the grid, that NGC engineers have supported some sort of engineering analysis saying they are sensible. NGC are obliged by law to safely connect anything legislated for by government. Over the last 30 or 40 years, there has been a rising tide of political decision driving electricity generation, and the influence of grid engineers at the strategic level has dropped to very close to zero. These days, thay have to manage what's thrown at them, and have little influence on what is thrown, and that is why we are currently facing major generation problems in the near term.

Ocentric

I'm thinking about going for the free solar panel on my garage roof, south facing with no shade. If I do get approved for the free solar panel on my roof, does this mean that I have to make sure that nothing ever creates a shade on the solar panel? For example if a tree grows by the side will the supplier then charge me or require that I remove the tree?
I fully understand that any shade will create a reduction in the amount of electricity that is generated, I'm just wondering if the contract with the supplier will put conditions in about, not creating any new shade where the solar panels are installed.

Cardew

PeterZ wrote: »

Its unfair to confuse generating capacity with energy used.

I also find it hard to believe that you are correct and the government, its scientists, engineers and the national grid are wrong.

Unfair?

What on earth does that second sentence mean?

Looking at the national grid website the biggest enery demand is during the day, summer and winter. Of course renewables will make contribution to this demand, dont you think the national grid have worked that out?

You can look as much as you like, but as said earlier Peak demand in UK is always at a time when solar output is zilch

Energy suppliers pay the National Grid for energy transmission, calculated from their demand in each UK region at the time of highest national electrical demand. These peak demand times are known as Triads. Triads always occur between November and February, and are typically between 5.00pm and 6.00pm, because industrial demand coincides with the domestic tea-time peak.

So to satisfy that peak demand you have to have sufficient conventional generating capacity; without considering solar generating potential.

Again as said many times, if our political masters deem it necessary to have solar generation(despite it being an economic disaster) then generate that solar power from 'solar farms' on the roofs of large industrial buildings in South West England; not pay stupidly high subsidies(paid for by other consumers) for tiny solar systems dotted around UK.

Cardew

Ocentric wrote: »

I'm thinking about going for the free solar panel on my garage roof, south facing with no shade. If I do get approved for the free solar panel on my roof, does this mean that I have to make sure that nothing ever creates a shade on the solar panel? For example if a tree grows by the side will the supplier then charge me or require that I remove the tree?
I fully understand that any shade will create a reduction in the amount of electricity that is generated, I'm just wondering if the contract with the supplier will put conditions in about, not creating any new shade where the solar panels are installed.

Yes you must ensure that the roof will not be shaded my any trees.

Quite what will happen if a neighbour grows a tree, or a block of flats is built , is not known!