Solar Panels --- a bit of a Gimmick

jamesingram

29 GWp of PV installed in Germany , going up about 1GW per month over the last few months (estimate)
back on 12/05/2012 more than 50% supplied by renewable electricity in the German grid in, mainly PV.
See http://www.transparency.eex.com/en/

I guess they dont see it as a gimmick

Over here perhaps it is?
1.21GWp installed in the UK over the last 3 years under the FITs scheme (from DECC)

How about this ,
Germany currently has 168 GWp capacity (of which 69GWp is renewable) which is approximately 3x average daily peak load.
( more than 2x max. peak load ever measured)
The UK ( and Eire) needs theoretically no power plants at all, Germany's powerplant capacity could provide the UK with cheap and green power - if cables are build.

grahamc2003

jamesingram wrote: »

29 GWp of PV installed in Germany , going up about 1GW per month over the last few months (estimate)
back on 12/05/2012 more than 50% supplied by renewable electricity in the German grid in, mainly PV.
See http://www.transparency.eex.com/en/

I guess they dont see it as a gimmick

Over here perhaps it is?
1.21GWp installed in the UK over the last 3 years under the FITs scheme (from DECC)

How about this ,
Germany currently has 168 GWp capacity (of which 69GWp is renewable) which is approximately 3x average daily peak load.
( more than 2x max. peak load ever measured)
The UK ( and Eire) needs theoretically no power plants at all, Germany's powerplant capacity could provide the UK with cheap and green power - if cables are build.

Of the 1.21GW of installed solar, how much generation from that do we get when it's needed most, which is about 17:30 on a cold January evening?

The answer is zero. Meaning we have to get the power at that peak time from other sources, such as coal or Nuclear. And that means no coal or Nuclear stations can be closed no matter how much solar capacity we install. That redundancy is anything but 'green'.

As to using German generation and ditching our power sations, have you checked the diameter of the cables necessary, and checked there is enough copper on the earth to make them? A further factor is that you seem to be assuming capacity is the same as generation, which of course it isn't, especially for most renewable technologies.

jamesingram

We already have several interconnectors to the EU and are currently importing 2.7GW (8% of our current demand)
http://www.earth.org.uk/_gridCarbonIntensityGB.html
Combining EU interconnectors and renewable diversity over the area will allow us to cover your 17:30 cold jan. conundrum.
Doubling/mirroring of renewable generation capacity by other types will not be necessary , though I agree some overlap will be required.

As we both know capacity is not the same as generation , that's why all countries, able to, have capacity well above peak demand and have done so long before this recent renewable trend.

Martyn1981

grahamc2003 wrote: »

As to using German generation and ditching our power sations, have you checked the diameter of the cables necessary, and checked there is enough copper on the earth to make them?

No need for James to check since this technology is already in existence. Here's a link to existing European HVDC cables:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=203708609189562510683.00049c1e9997e3e60156b

Or an article explaining how increased links could help to level out renewable intermittency issues:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/how-the-supergrid-could-help-keep-the-lights-on-7640771.html

(which contains a link to an extremely interesting graphic showing proposed, in progress and existing UK interconnectors)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/89104120/13-a-Pr-Uk-Energy-Graphic#fullscreen

Or, to put your 'lack of copper' fears to rest, an article on the planned UK / German interconnector:

http://www.nasdaq.com/article/update-statnett-to-build-power-cables-from-norway-to-germany-uk-20120621-00819

The truth is out there, you just have to look (though it does require removing ones head from the sand first)!

Mart.

EricMears

grahamc2003 wrote: »

that means no coal or Nuclear stations can be closed no matter how much solar capacity we install. That redundancy is anything but 'green'.

Keeping a coal station open but not generating when SPs (or indeed wind turbines, tidal barriers etc. etc.) are active has to be outputting less CO2 than if they were running at full capacity all the the time. So by that yardstick, the redundancy isn't 'un-green'.

Martyn1981

EricMears wrote: »

Keeping a coal station open but not generating when SPs (or indeed wind turbines, tidal barriers etc. etc.) are active has to be outputting less CO2 than if they were running at full capacity all the the time. So by that yardstick, the redundancy isn't 'un-green'.

I doubt the UK leccy generators are building them (because they cost a bit more) but General Electric make very efficient CCGT plants that can ramp up at a rate of 50MW per minute.

A good partner for renewables if they (or anyone!!!) were planning ahead for a change?

Mart.

Ben84

Hobbo2006 wrote: »

Why should the gvt do this when there are loads of fridge manufacturers out there improving their products to keep ahead of the competition.

I see your point, but to be fair it seems just as reasonable to ask why should the government pay for solar panels when there are plenty of individuals and organisations who can buy them without a subsidy?

I think the answer in both cases is to reduce energy from polluting sources by encouraging the adoption of less polluting sources. Encouraging this at the consumer level or the manufacturer level seems fairly immaterial to me, as the main issues I care about are how much pollution is reduced and how much does it cost.

However, rather than positioning themselves as just consumers of energy saving technology and renewable sources, actually producing energy saving technology is worth money to the government. Increasingly so as the cost of energy is going up.

Hobbo2006 wrote: »

As a householder I bet you could make your own fridge more than 5% more efficient, if you really wanted to, by either keeping it out of direct sunlight or turning the heat down in the kitchen.

Fridges were just an example that would happen to save huge amounts of energy, there's plenty of other examples however. The power transformers used in computers and various small appliances for example. Or perhaps window panes or the design of buildings. Look at virtually anything that uses or produces energy and there's some potential.

Ben84

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Ben, sorry, but I can't agree with a lot of that. I've read several posts on MSE over the last few months where people have said we should do this, instead of that, or have those instead of these. I don't understand why we have to keep choosing between greener generation, or more efficient generation, or lower consumption. They are not competing with each other, we should be doing all of them.

Regarding nuclear, I spent some time last year and the beginning of this year trying to find out the cost of a unit of nuclear electricity, with little to no success. The closest I came was a 10 year old report suggesting 5p/kWh. Lately however with the reported costs of 'our' planned new nukes rising from £5bn to £6bn to £8bn each, there have now been several references to costs of 9p to 13p.

I appreciate the benefits of nuclear with reasonably guaranteed generation, but it is certainly not cheap. Also remember that those costs do not include insurance - no generating company can afford it, and no company is large enough to underwrite it, so the UK govt has accepted that they (us) will insure the proposed plants. Costs also don't include decommissioning, estimated at approx £2bn pa (twice the entire UK's spending on renewables).

In fact it was the rising cost of nuclear and the falling costs of renewables that were cited by the German energy giants as their reasons for withdrawing from negotiations with the UK govt to build new plants.

I agree that we should improve the efficiency of our current gas and coal plants, but fuel prices are still rising, so costs will rise regardless, and will rise even further with the addition of carbon taxes or the addition of CCS technology. At the same time, the cost of renewables is falling.

I think we should be investing in all technologies, remembering that renewables spending (regardless of media hype) is actually tiny. Not trying to find a single magic solution, when there simply isn't one.

As an aside, recent estimates of worldwide fossil fuel subsidies are approx $1 trillion per year, you could get a lot of renewables, efficiency investment, and technological research with that kind of budget.

Lastly, regarding community projects, I agree with you entirely, but it's very hard in the UK to get people motivated. I think until the mixed messages over AGW and renewables stop, the majority of the public simply won't recognise the need to act (and spend).

Mart.

I think we're seeing different parts of the same thing really. I have no specific aversion to renewable energy, in fact these sources often represent much greater energy security and long term control over prices. I also like that these sources often do not consume more land, for example solar panels are often fitted on existing building roofs and wind turbines can be built in fields while leaving the vast majority of the field still usable for its existing purpose.

However, our dependence on fossil fuels probably isn't about to vanish any time soon. A realistic goal when there is limited money to spend and we're working against time to reduce pollution is to become more efficient, as reduction does tend to be the cheapest and easiest option. Infrastructure and appliances last a long time too. Power plants may be in use for decades, while a TV set, boiler or car bought today will easily be in use in 2022, even 2032 or longer. The energy efficiency of generation and consumption in the future isn't a problem for the future, it's a problem that needs answers right now because we are building, installing and buying the appliances of the future right now.

As for the cost of nuclear, fossil fuels and renewables comes with their hidden costs too. Fossil fuels incur huge widespread costs to everyone in the world through climate change, mercury pollution, ocean acidification that causes coral reef death and acid rain that damages forests and buildings, to name just a few. The cheapness associated with fossil fuels is unlikely to be accurate I think. Renewables of course do not generate in line with demand, so they have a hidden cost in the need for back up energy supplies that is added to the actual cost, although often not mentioned in price comparisons I've seen. I don't think nuclear is a magic answer, but it's a realistic option for abundant low carbon energy.

CCS however makes me somewhat uneasy as it's being used in some cases to promote building new large coal power plants with the idea we can later add the carbon capture and storage. It's not a certainty however and the actual technical plausibility and costs I don't believe are fully known yet. If we build new coal plants and either aspect falls through, then there are only two outcomes I can see. We keep emitting carbon from burning coal until the plants are replaced, or we stop using them early at significant expense.

davidanddeirdre

Ben84 wrote: »

I think we're seeing different parts of the same thing really. I have no specific aversion to renewable energy, in fact these sources often represent much greater energy security and long term control over prices. I also like that these sources often do not consume more land, for example solar panels are often fitted on existing building roofs and wind turbines can be built in fields while leaving the vast majority of the field still usable for its existing purpose.

In the UK we not only have the consideration of reducing use of fossil fuels for the reason of pollution, we are becoming more and more reliant on importing them, in many cases from countries we don't necessarily want to depend on. We have abundant supplies of wind and water resource- it is amazing to me that we havn't already organised to be 100% supplied with electricity from them. I'm afraid it has not happened due to our own obstreperousness and resistance to change, and propensity to elect useless politicians forming cowardly governments afraid to put their foot down and impose changes even when they are perfectly sensible.
Whenever I see some group or other raising a campaign against some quite reasonable development, I think of Britain in the second world war, in the deep doodah, when to defeat the enemy we became united as a nearly completely state controlled nation. As a result of this positive attitude and the power it had, the government of the day appropriated land across the entire east of the country at regular intervals and used it to do what was necessary to win the war, that is to build the necessary airfields. Imagine what would have happened instead if every proposed airfield was debated to death at planning meetings!
I'm not suggesting that democracy is wrong, I would hate to live in a dictatorship, but we the electorate are not thinking clearly about the country's needs and so we are electing wrong thinkers, haverers and incompetents.

zeupater

jamesingram wrote: »

We already have several interconnectors to the EU and are currently importing 2.7GW (8% of our current demand)
http://www.earth.org.uk/_gridCarbonIntensityGB.html
Combining EU interconnectors and renewable diversity over the area will allow us to cover your 17:30 cold jan. conundrum.
Doubling/mirroring of renewable generation capacity by other types will not be necessary , though I agree some overlap will be required.

As we both know capacity is not the same as generation , that's why all countries, able to, have capacity well above peak demand and have done so long before this recent renewable trend.

Hi

Possibly ... possibly not .....

At 17:30 in the UK it's currently 18:30 in France & Germany which allows excess generation capacity in France to provide for peak demand in the UK as there's a peak demand time difference of around 1hour ... now consider that some bright-spark individuals are currently pushing for the UK government to adopt CET in order for it to be lighter in the evenings and therefore save some electricity ... ... penny dropped yet ?? ... correct, no time differential, no excess generation in France, so nothing to push down the interconnector !!:rotfl:

Germany is ripping out it's own nuclear and likely has it's own eye on any excess nuclear generation which France may have at their shared peak demand time .... Regarding renewables, you can duplicate, triplicate or apply whatever multiplier you want to generating capacity, however, without energy storage, on a future cold, dark, windless winters night everyone's highly efficient GSHP heating will suddenly become completely useless unless there's still ample capacity in fossil fuel and/or biomass generation ...

So .... maybe, maybe not ....

HTH
Z