Solar Panel Guide Discussion

orrery

digitaltoast wrote: »

Is anyone going to actually say anything or come up with any facts, figures
....
how about how someone explains how we deal with the yawning great elephant in the room, the evening energy gap when the sun goes down. And I mean, using reality, not "magical pixies will come and blow the windmills".

If you want facts and figures there are plenty of them here:
http://www.withouthotair.com/
In the book, which you can download for free, he explains how we, as a society, will never achieve the level of renewable energy that we need to achieve - all supported by more detail, data and references than you can shake a stick at.

Solar is intended to help achieve the mandatory CO2 reduction targets that we are signed up to. If it displaces gas usage during sunny periods, then the gas can be used to achieve the evening peaks. This gives us more time to develop the storage technologies that we need to achieve the peaks without fossil fuels. What is not to understand?

Martyn1981

Blossom2528 wrote: »

He says money should have gone on high wind or offshore, but only 2 years later how do costs compare. How will costs compare in 2 more years.

No idea if anyone cares, but I can remember a list of energy costs. Sadly, I can't remember where I found them. They may be accurate, they may be complete rubbish. All per kWh.

On-shore wind, latest and largest, approx 10p, anticipated 10% fall by 2020.

Off-shore wind, approx 17p, anticipated 40% fall by 2020.

Gas (can't remember todays - someone must know?) anticipated 2020 with CCS 7-9p.

Nuclear (when constructed but in todays money) approx 13p.

I don't think there was a PV, but estimating a large 5kWp install, 900kWh/kWp, £7k plus 2 inverters = £9k. 40 years, dropping to 80% (average 90%) = 5.6p

On-shore wind would also need grid changes, off-shore also need further grid costs, plus storage costs. Nuclear doesn't include insurance nor decommissioning. PV doesn't include large cost of capital.

If someone knows where I can find a reliable costs list I'd appreciate a link.

Mart.

Lotus-eater

digitaltoast wrote: »

or how about how someone explains how we deal with the yawning great elephant in the room, the evening energy gap when the sun goes down. And I mean, using reality, not "magical pixies will come and blow the windmills".

Well some storage type will have to be developed.

I did see on tv a while ago about a project in the USA which uses liquid metal (I think) to store electricity. The research seemed to be going well, IIRC a tank the size of a normal LPG tank would store enough for a small town.

Whether this, or something like this, will be achieved in time, who knows, it will be very expensive, but the more expensive oil gets, the cheaper everything else seems.

Hobbo2006

As well as more generation what about about educating people to use the new technology rather than generating more electricity.

Phasing out kettles in form of the one cup products that only heat the water you need?

Using LED lighting where possible as that uses only 20% of conventional lighting, by the time you get the same lumens output.

Not heating your hot water in the evening.... do you really need a full hot water tank at 9pm after those baths?

Hit the low heat button on the tumble dryer rather than leaving it on high heat?

Use less.... as well as generate more.

Martyn1981

Lotus-eater wrote: »

Well some storage type will have to be developed.

I did see on tv a while ago about a project in the USA which uses liquid metal (I think) to store electricity. The research seemed to be going well, IIRC a tank the size of a normal LPG tank would store enough for a small town.

Not quite the same thing, but that reminds me that I missed out concentrated solar power (CSP). being installed / tested in Spain. The latest versions heating up salts can store up energy for 14 hours.

Winter production is less, and therefore storage less. Plus solar levels being about 2/3 in southern UK and high land values, not really too helpful. But ..... again with the interconnectors, and the desperate economic position of both Spain and Portugal maybe we can pay to build there. Similar to paying German or French energy giants to build nuclear.

I think there are lots of ideas to share the load, but appreciate that trying to eliminate nuclear entirely from the equation is close to impossible. If carbon taxes and all nuclear costs are openly added to our bills, that could (ironically) be the very catalyst to finding/funding more part solutions.

Mart.

orrery

Lotus-eater wrote: »

Well some storage type will have to be developed.
.....
Whether this, or something like this, will be achieved in time, who knows, it will be very expensive, but the more expensive oil gets, the cheaper everything else seems.

Exactly. We are not gearing up for some theoretical gradual increase in energy costs. Both India and China are becoming industrialised and have massive populations with quickly rising living standards and they will all want the same as we have - washing machines, dishwashers, fridges, freezers, air conditioning and cars etc. The massive increase in energy consumption, and therefore demand, will coincide with reducing availability. The opportunity for suppliers to make their mint by massively increasing costs will be an absolute gift for them that they will take full advantage of it.

We either get off our backsides and get moving with these technologies, or we will have to go cap in hand to the various Sheikhs, Vladimir Putin and the nice Mr Ahmadinejad of Iran - and that isn't going to come cheap, either way.

jimjames

What seems surprising with the recent power problems in India is that solar PV isn't something more widely used. When a country has a generally high level of sunlight it would seem to be an ideal way to increase their daytime output with local generation avoiding the problems of long distance transmission networks. I've probably missed some critical point but I'll be interested to hear what it is.

Cardew

jimjames wrote: »

What seems surprising with the recent power problems in India is that solar PV isn't something more widely used. When a country has a generally high level of sunlight it would seem to be an ideal way to increase their daytime output with local generation avoiding the problems of long distance transmission networks. I've probably missed some critical point but I'll be interested to hear what it is.

Surely the 'critical point' is that solar doesn't work at night.

So India will face the same problems as every other country -including UK - in that it will still need the 'conventional' generating capacity to cope with the maximum demand for those times when solar/wind is producing no output.

India has huge reserves of coal, which it relies on for electricity generation.

Also despite the recent lowering of production costs for PV it is still a very expensive method of generating electricity.

zeupater

Blossom2528 wrote: »

... The discussion on the thread about FIts being good or bad was pretty good, but took Zeupater to control Cardew with long detailed replies, but he still just keeps twisting single sentences, so it always falls apart ....

Hi

I think that the extent of my input is overplayed ....

Leaving the main issue details aside for a while, let's just step back and look at the general position ...

On one side of the debate we have a mindset which seems to always be concentrating on - big is tried and cheap and small is insignificant and expensive, whilst on the other side the position is that this can be addressed through high economies of scale & integration planning to reduce the cost differential and utilise whatever fuel which needs to be expended in an efficient way .... I actually try to see both sides of the arguements and believe that both camps have valid viewpoints, although still needing to stand back from their strong-held beliefs and view the picture from the opposite point of view ...

Consider the big is beautiful side and look at massive centralised plant such as nuclear, gas & coal stations. To support this form of solution we need massive infrastructure utilising continuous 'guaranteed' generation involving spinning reserves which can only be supplied by niche market suppliers ...

... now an alternative ... build lots of small units (whatever they may be) to a point where the cost/unit (including capital outlay amortisation) of energy is lower than that from 'legacy' generation ...

Whatever the viewpoint on this there's one given .... limited numbers of complex, high cost solutions provided by niche suppliers have historically suffered a much higher scale of cost inflation than mass-market 'consumerised' items provided by suppliers which are in a position of ongoing competitive forces ... it's evident everywhere, for example cars vs aeroplanes/trains, TV receivers vs transmitters ... there's simply no incentive to improve manufacturing/building efficiencies for niche products and this is where many niche product suppliers catch a cold as market conditions change ... efficient competion comes along and suppliers with a niche or geographic strategy simply dissappear .... we all know of great brands which have suffered this fate in the automotive, electronics, shipbuilding, aircraft, white goods or literally hundreds of other sectors, including pv (anyone care to name the company ) ...

Let's look at electricity from an extremes viewpoint and forget the relative capital costs (controversial ) for a moment ...

If all electricity was supplied by a national grid supplied by a single central powerstation ... could it work ? -vs- If there was no national electricity grid and all generation was 'off grid' using whatever technologies (including gas grid microgeneration/local community generation) ... could it work ??

... I would suggest the answer would be 'yes' to both .... furthermore as generation would be more in-tune with demand that the latter would be more fuel efficient as there would be no need to generate at all when there's no demand ....

So where is the issue ? - politics, cost, morality, engineering solutions, management, understanding ...... well, it's obviously a combination of all of these, but I would add 'vision', 'optimism' and 'fear' as being the main points ... there are those who apply the 'historical' and 'current' directly to predict the 'future' and therefore lack vision .... there are those who are so optimistic that they simply believe that the problem is solved and the solution could be available tomorrow (including technologies which are unproven, bordering on unlikely) and then there's a group who understand many of the current technical issues and therefore 'fear' the level of impact that the 'optimists' have overlooked .... If anyone is firmly rooted in any one camp, whichever one it is, then, believe me, it's the wrong one ....

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Surely the 'critical point' is that solar doesn't work at night.

So India will face the same problems as every other country -including UK - in that it will still need the 'conventional' generating capacity to cope with the maximum demand for those times when solar/wind is producing no output.

India has huge reserves of coal, which it relies on for electricity generation.

Also despite the recent lowering of production costs for PV it is still a very expensive method of generating electricity.

Actually it's not a very expensive method in India, and prices have fallen since I posted this, might be worth a read:

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Ok, cheeky question, have the worldwide FITs schemes helped to bring production up, and prices down to "financially viable"?

Regardless of environmental concerns, economics will win out over any subsidy scheme in the long run. So can the 'heavy lifting' now be done elsewhere?

New Scientist article on solar panel prices and India - Some extracts:

Also I believe Spain are planning an unsubsidised PV farm next year - that means grid viable.

Mart.