Solar Panels --- a bit of a Gimmick

Martyn1981

Ben84 wrote: »

I think we're seeing different parts of the same thing really.

Hiya Ben, in a word. Yep.

So we've got fossil fuels with CCS, renewables or nuclear. Or more reasonably a mix of all three.

I'm a fan of the idea of CCS, especially for coal. I'd rather see gas conserved for heating and automotive use. But agree that it's not looking good.

I've nothing against nuclear. Nice if we could avoid it, but it's very useful, my dislike is more for those that think it's a cheap alternative to renewables, unaware of the multiple hidden costs and subsidies.

Renewables can certainly match nuclear generation costs, probably by 2020, but certainly well before any new plants get commissioned (circa 2024+), but as you say, intermittency means storage issues, and nameplate generation is next to impossible.

I'm all for picking the low hanging fruit, and I'm really impressed with the adoption of low energy bulbs, and the astronomical reductions in standby consumption. It's just that long-term energy supply needs to be addressed so far ahead that it's not something that can be put off till later.

I'm sure we'll get there eventually, the last few years have scared the yanks slowly into action, and where they go, most of will eventually follow. Let's just hope we get there soon enough - last week American satellites observed 97% of Greenland had some surface melting, instead of the expected 40%. They had to check with other observers around the world as they thought it was a technical fault with their images. Sadly it wasn't.

Yes it's going to be expensive, but not as expensive as waiting.

Mart.

kingdavid2012

With the piering shortage of power,we will see more use of solar energy.

Maybe i'll give it a shot in the near future.

Just care about the payment and maintenance

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

... last week American satellites observed 97% of Greenland had some surface melting, instead of the expected 40%. They had to check with other observers around the world as they thought it was a technical fault with their images. Sadly it wasn't. .....

Hi

I saw that report too ... but it's not really unexpected.

The arctic airmass is pretty stable in terms of total area covered ... prod it with a stick somewhere and it just expands somewhere else and that's what we've been experiencing in the UK so far this summer (/year) ...

We've all seen reports that the jetstream is further south than normal over the UK/Europe, so with the jetstream effectively marking the boundary with the arctic airmass then there's a bulge here ... so where's the balancing contraction - well what's the weather been like in North America ... hot by any chance ?? ... no wonder there's some surface melting/pooling recorded on the surface of the Greenland icecap, it's pretty normal for this to happen, but what I really disagree with is the way it's been spun & reported - one article I read seemed to suggest that the Greenland icecap had reduced by ninety-something percent in a couple of weeks and that this was why it had been so cold here !! ....

On a similar theme I do notice that the same article-writing doomsayers are now predicting that the Ferrigno rift is ripping the Antarctic apart and melting ice at an unprecidented rate, which, of course will drown us all by next tuesday ... well probably not, but you get my drift ... someone at some academic institution or other seems to be applying for a new round of research funding in order to save the world (and buy a luxurious new 4x4 for the commute to work )

HTH
Z

Ben84

davidanddeirdre wrote: »

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.

While the resources are abundant and I don't doubt there's enough wind, solar and wave power in or around the UK to supply all our energy needs multiple times over, doing this is still technically and economically challenging. Mainly because these resources are distributed widely and their distribution changes location and intensity quite rapidly over time - while the infrastructure stays in the same place. The amount and diversity of infrastructure we would have to build to ensure a high probability of capturing and distributing to everyone enough energy from these sources to meet demand under most conditions would be vast. I frankly don't think it can be done.

So, we really do need sources that either generate electricity all the time or can be turned on when needed. There are viable low pollution options fortunately, like geothermal, nuclear, even some plants that turn sewage in to methane and add it to the gas supply in place of North Sea gas. Biomass plants sit in a maybe good, maybe bad spot, depending on the source of fuel. I'm sure we can have electricity without much pollution, but we need to spend on the right things.

Ben84

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I'm a fan of the idea of CCS, especially for coal. I'd rather see gas conserved for heating and automotive use. But agree that it's not looking good.

I actually think, if we were being really sensible, we wouldn't be burning vast quantities of coal, oil and gas in power plants at all - with or without CCS. As we have alternative ways to make electricity, the true value of these materials is actually their use as synthetic building blocks, a use which has less alternatives. Synthesis of materials like plastics, drugs and compounds to kill insects, mould and such are the most important uses of these things. Public perception is somewhat behind the curve, we take these things for granted like we used to take energy for granted when it was cheap enough to waste. I remember the days when I used to flip the switch on the back boiler in October to constant and forget about it until Spring. Energy was just there whenever you wanted it. Synthetic materials and molecules are still seen in that way by most people. We don't often consider the massive difficulties we would have filling the modern world with so many useful things that everyone can afford without plastics, or how we need to make chemicals for drugs and farming. Of course in the future we will be able to use plants for some of these materials - but that too suggests there will be less than we are currently used to having. A world that grows food, fuel and molecules for making plastics and chemicals is likely to be a world with very little land that isn't farmed.

Martyn1981

Ben84 wrote: »

While the resources are abundant and I don't doubt there's enough wind, solar and wave power in or around the UK to supply all our energy needs multiple times over, doing this is still technically and economically challenging. Mainly because these resources are distributed widely and their distribution changes location and intensity quite rapidly over time - while the infrastructure stays in the same place. The amount and diversity of infrastructure we would have to build to ensure a high probability of capturing and distributing to everyone enough energy from these sources to meet demand under most conditions would be vast. I frankly don't think it can be done.

Never say never - if you accept nuclear as the way to ensure that we have enough electricity at any given time, then that gives us approx 10 to 12 years to address the problems or improve/perfect alternatives (before any new plants will come on line).

Renewables can deliver the energy, but not the reliability. Hopefully Scotland will reach the incredible 50% landmark this year where they generate more than half of their electricity from renewables. During the sunnier days since late May, Germany has regularly been producing around 50% of it's electrical demand from PV alone (approx 10am to 2pm).

So it all comes down to accessibility or storage. As addressed earlier, interconnectors are being built since 'the wind is always blowing somewhere'. But there are many more ideas that are moving forward:-

Why fit efficient (but small) generators to all wind turbines, why not use some as water pumps (like the famous wind 'mills' in Holland that were actually pumps to drain the land). Pump the water into stored hydro, where much larger and more efficient turbines can make use of it when needed.

The UK has a pretty limited ability to build much more pumped storage hydro - but we could pay to build more Norwegian hydro, or capture lagoons at the base of hydro plants, for pumped storage, then via interconnectors use those resources as batteries for our excess renewables generation.

Why not use excess power from off-shore wind (when demand is low but wind is high - nighttime) to store compressed air in airbags at depth under the sea. This can then be reclaimed when demand is high, and or when wind is low.

Tidal power, such as the Severn Barrage. Predictable generation (100's of years in advance) with a small amount of delivery delay to match peak demands. Sadly it's costs suffered the maximum 'what if' multiplier, back when the proposed nukes somehow got the lowest applied (government fixing anyone?). Since then the nukes have had their prices adjusted up by 60% already and rising.

Useful, but low efficiency - Battery technology is moving slowly at small-scale, but there are some promising advances with much larger scale developments. And, using excess electricity to produce hydrogen, which is then used (via fuel-cells) to produce electricity when needed (circa 25% efficiencies).

Lastly, there are the huge price 'benefits' that nuclear could bring in the mid 2020's. A large injection of un-subsidised nuclear would almost instantly boost the viability of both wind and PV. Imagine if the cost of leccy jumped 2p today, with export around 7p and import savings around 13p. A good install (south facing, southern location) could today be earning around £400pa against an install price of approx £7k and falling. Then imagine those numbers with another 12 years of falling PV prices.

Strangely in a belt and braces way, I'd like to see the decision today to build some nuclear plants, but asking companies to gamble vast amounts of money today, on the hope that they'll be competitive and start earning money in 12 years is interesting to say the least. That's why the Germans have pulled out (citing the falling cost of renewables), and EDF won't budge unless they get a guarantee on the amount, (above market rates) that they will be paid for the leccy - leading to the on-going Tory v's Lib Dem war over re-classifying green subsidies as 'low carbon', and the almost certain breaching of EU rules on state aids.

"May we live in interesting times."

Mart.

Ferdy147

Anybody got any ideas on this one? Is something wrong or is it within normal variance?

We had 2 systems installed in Feb - Both identical (3.92kw suntech panels in 8*2 configuration and Sunnyboy 4000tl inverter).The systems are on my parents and sisters house which are next door to each other and neither has ANY shading. .

In the first month the reading from both systems were pretty much the same. If anything, the system on my sisters house was slightly higher for Feb/March than my parents. Since then my sisters house is producing noticably less than my parents - say 10% less when you look at the inverter or generation meter readings.

Is there something that needs to be looked at or is that kind of difference to be expected?

Ferdy147

Sorry posted on the wrong thread.

oldandgrumpy

2010 wrote: »

Thanks for the replies.
I spent £300 over the past year on electricity which equates to £9k over 30years which is about the price of currently installing these panels.

I won`t be bothering, and if people want to spoil the look of their property that`s up to them.

Yeah, but do you have £8000 stuffed away earning a measly 3% when £8000 worth of pv could net 7-8%, tax free, index linked, for the next 25 years?

[Deleted User]

oldandgrumpy wrote: »

Yeah, but do you have £8000 stuffed away earning a measly 3% when £8000 worth of pv could net 7-8%, tax free, index linked, for the next 25 years?

err, FITs is 20 years now for new installs... So not such a great deal anymore.