MSE News: Government to appeal High Court solar ruling

HalloweenJack

http://www.decc.gov.uk/media/viewfile.ashx?filetype=4&filepath=11/stats/publications/energy-in-brief/2286-uk-energy-in-brief-2011.pdf&minwidth=true


have a read - figures for 2010 - and to answer my own awesome question;

biomass is 83% of the renewable output (once you take out wind) - and solar is way down the list

in 2010 , 363 TWh were generated , out of that

nuclear was 56 TWh , wind was 10TWh and `other` was 13TWh - remember 83% of other was biomass.

so in the scale of things - solar is very very small compared to nuclear

top of the pile was gas at 171 TWh and coal at 102 TWh

jamesd

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Well that implies about 850GW of solar capacity (say 10%cf for solar 95%cf Nukes)

UK nuclear generation capacity is something like 11GW according to the World Nuclear Association. And if you look at the National Grid site you'll find that they were writing about total UK electrical power generation from all sources in 2006/7 of 76.3GW rising to 94.5GW in 2011/12..

Not sure how you get the capacity factor numbers to come to 850GW, since 11GW * 0.95 / 0.1 only comes to 104.5GW for 10% efficient solar to match 95% efficient nuclear. Not that nuclear is 95% efficient, it's more like 80-85% in current government estimates for newbuild reactors.

grahamc2003 wrote: »

I think not

I think that with more realistic numbers it's entirely possible, though I don't think that it should be done at an installation cost of £2,000 per kW. The timeline over which I think it may well happen is something in the 25-50 year plus range and I don't expect that solar PV installations in newbuild properties are going to cost as much as £2,000 per kW over that timeframe, particularly when you do things like offset the cost of not having to provide a conventional roof as well as the PV roof.

At current prices I don't think there should be much installation of solar PV because I don't think that it makes economic sense.

Martyn1981

Thanks Jamesd for running the nuclear numbers.

I'm glad you mentioned the potential for 15% solar, that's the crucial bit I omitted in my comparison.

My thought was to express the cost of birth of pv, to the cost of death of nuclear, whilst ignoring any ongoing nuclear subsidies, since nuclear provides peak demand power, whether directly, or through pumped storage (nighttime UK & French nuclear).

Actually death costs aren't fair, as the industry isn't dying, those are decommissioning costs for current nuclear. I'm not clear on the projected additional future costs of decommissioning the proposed plants, but I'm willing to bet you are, and that they will be a lot lower. Lessons learned etc.

Hope that makes things clearer, it was just to help people get a feeling for two similar costs as they relate to energy production now and tomorrow. Most taxes and subsidies are hidden (hidden is probably a little unfair) within general govt expenditure, and hard to appreciate sometimes on a household by household basis.

Lastly, with regard to potential of PV, I think the estimation of 20% of current housing stock being suitable is well documented. But do you have any guesses on the suitability of current commercial premises?

I'm guessing that soon LA's could require at least PV friendly roofs when issuing planning consent for commercial sites, such as supermarkets, fast food etc. But I haven't been able to find any data on current suitability. Appreciate any assistance.

Thanks.

Mart.

Cardew

In the Nuclear v Solar debate, wouldn't it be more useful to talk in terms of annual generation in kWh rather than generating capacity in kW.

Doesn't nuclear generate at night and in all weathers;)

Martyn1981

grahamc2003 wrote: »

I don't want to compare 2011 generation, I want you to. I'm sure the scal of the difference would be an eye opener for you.

If you don't like my historic 2011 year, you could try it with your projections for the generation from Nuclear and Solar in 2012.

Often in these forums, a sense of scale is usually missing, and that was very well personified by your view that solar may not reach the (current) levels of energy contribution from Nuclear.

The scales are several orders of magnitude different.

Why do you want to compare 2012 generation, aren't you aware that PV is a relatively new product in the UK?

Thanks as always.

Mart.

grahamc2003

jamesd wrote: »

UK nuclear generation capacity is something like 11GW according to the World Nuclear Association. And if you look at the National Grid site you'll find that they were writing about total UK electrical power generation from all sources in 2006/7 of 76.3GW rising to 94.5GW in 2011/12..

.

Yes, you're correct, mea culpa. I've edited my post to reflect those comments, Thanks.


It still looks totally impossible to me for (roof mounted) solar to ever get anywhere near the generation as current Nuclear output, even in theory let alone practice, by a very long margin, for both financial and a variety of technical reasons.

grahamc2003

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Why do you want to compare 2012 generation, aren't you aware that PV is a relatively new product in the UK?

Thanks as always.

Mart.

I don't want to compare 2012 generation, I want you to. I'm sure the scale of the difference would be an eye opener for you.

If you don't like my current 2012 year, you could try it with your projections for the generation from Nuclear and Solar in 2013, or any other year for which you think you can predict the solar/nuclear generation.

Often in these forums, a sense of scale is usually missing, and that was very well personified by your view that solar may not reach the (current) levels of energy contribution from Nuclear.

The scales are several orders of magnitude different.

grahamc2003

Just as an aside and a change to the recent posts - did anyone hear our glorious leader on radio 4 today, around 08:20 (so those if interested can hear a replay on the net).

He basically said that the government had to act quickly to cut the solar fit in order for them not to overburden household energy bills. Not his exact words but as best as I can remember. I expect someone could post an exact quote if minded.

Martyn1981

grahamc2003 wrote: »

I don't want to compare 2012 generation, I want you to. I'm sure the scale of the difference would be an eye opener for you.

If you don't like my current 2012 year, you could try it with your projections for the generation from Nuclear and Solar in 2013, or any other year for which you think you can predict the solar/nuclear generation.

Often in these forums, a sense of scale is usually missing, and that was very well personified by your view that solar may not reach the (current) levels of energy contribution from Nuclear.

The scales are several orders of magnitude different.

I sense a pattern emerging!

I doubt you're really interested in my thoughts, but just in case.

I'll take a punt at 2020, only my guess and lots of variable factors, especially the effect of the recession on renewables investment worldwide.

Nuclear, currently about 15%, some plants due for de-commissioning have been extended, but near end of life now.

no new construction started, but possible 10 plants in consideration. Minimum commissioning time about 10+ years.

2020 guesstimate 8 to 10%

PV, if panel prices continue to decline as per last 30 years, and desire for renewables is maintained, then perhaps;

1. generation (PV farms) 1 to 2%
2. domestic negative demand 5%
3. commercial negative demand 5 to 10%
4. For heavy industry where installs of the size seen in parts of Europe could be used, perhaps negative demand of 10 to 20%

Net figure 6% to 8%

Note: I stress the negative demand factor as consumption at source, or locality, means that most PV generation is classed as a negative effect on demand, rather than the positive supply increase that a PV farm would show.

I think it's only after 2020 that we'll see any form of saturation, perhaps 15%+ by 2030.

Mart.

PS any chance of clarification regarding:

"It still looks totally impossible to me for (roof mounted) solar to ever get anywhere near the generation as current Nuclear output, even in theory let alone practice, by a very long margin, for both financial and a variety of technical reasons."

Thanks. M.

jamesd

grahamc2003 wrote: »

It still looks totally impossible to me for (roof mounted) solar to ever get anywhere near the generation as current Nuclear output, even in theory let alone practice, by a very long margin, for both financial and a variety of technical reasons.

One of the older estimates I found when researching the solar PV potential gave 266TWh as the practical UK potential, which is about 30GW. But that's for buildings. The same source gave 62.5GW as the potential from 5% of the UK land surface.

So it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that matching current nuclear capacity with solar PV is possible, given 25-50 years of development of technology and spending. Perhaps a bit on the ambitious side, but eventually seems credible enough, if the costs make it economically sensible.

However, those numbers should serve as a reality check for those who might think that we can sensibly meet all of our needs that way. If you want to match eight times as much that's fully 40% of the land area of the UK using the technology assumed in the study and that's just not credible. So it'd take some very substantial improvements in efficiency to get all of our current power generation that way, remembering that efficiencies can only go up about eight to ten times before they reach 100%. And we'll need more electricity generation to power vehicles so our demand isn't going to be only 100% of what we have now.

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Just as an aside and a change to the recent posts - did anyone hear our glorious leader on radio 4 today ... He basically said that the government had to act quickly to cut the solar fit in order for them not to overburden household energy bills.

Maybe someone there has been reading the discussions here...