Does anyone here have an ideological objection to Solar?

spgsc531

Anyone can post the link?

zeupater

spgsc531 wrote: »

Anyone can post the link?

Hi

Here it is ... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2254901/Wind-turbines-half-long-previously-thought-study-shows-signs-wearing-just-12-years.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

... must be a quiet news day to publish a scoop which could have been headlined .... "Major Scoop - Mechanical devices wear and require regular maintenance to remain efficient" ...

I wouldn't worry too much .... there's a pretty large windfarm in California which I first drove past almost 25 years ago, and it's still there. The only issue which strikes me is that for safety reasons there should be an enforced certification, maintenance and checking schedule similar to aircraft, but I doubt that anyone in government has seriously considered this yet ....

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

doughnutmachine wrote: »

[FONT= ]
[FONT= ]The Scottish Sothern Electricity Glen Doe hydro scheme (built 2009) scheme cost[/FONT][FONT= ]£[/FONT][FONT= ]160m with a 100MW capacity. Predicted annual energy produced 180GWh. So two of them would trounce the power produced by solar…. SSE say they have another 4 potential hydro schemes with a total forecast capacity of 360 to 660MW. How much would they cost[/FONT][FONT= ]?[/FONT][FONT= ] Maybe a billion tops[/FONT][FONT= ]? I’d much rather FITS encouraged this type of scheme than solar. After all, how much has 200,000 domestic solar schemes cost us?[/FONT]

Hello DM, sorry to post again before you've had a chance to answer, but I was thinking about those costs you gave. I really didn't want to play 'compare the energy source' as I don't think it's worthwhile, but here goes, for argument sake.

Can I ask you to consider 5 years ahead. I think these numbers are fair, but please challenge any you don't like:

4kWp install £4,500 (currently about £5.5k to £6k)
Generation, moderate, not great 3,500kWh's pa
Import 15p (today maybe 12p, but some 'all in' rates are already 15p)
Export 6p (today 4.5p)
FIT rate 3p?????

So we get income (purely as an example):-
1,400 units @ 15p = £210
2,100 units @ 6p = £126
3,500 units @ 3p = £105
Total £441, giving a return (before cost of capital) of 10%

I think that's pretty reasonable. I choose 3p FIT not to cheat, but because it seems to allow a reasonable total / return.

Now, remember that the capital cost is born by the household, not the leccy company, so we only have to look at FITs (admittedly present FIT is a large burden/investment).

So the cost is 20years @ £105 = £2,100

60,000 of these, will cost £126m, and generate approx 210GWh pa. More leccy for less money than your hydro example.

Also note:

Hydro has a very long lead time, and generates nothing till it is complete. PV can be installed within days, and is modular, so house 1 is generating even though the other 59,999 haven't even started.

Hydro is financed up front, every penny of capital spent before anything is generated. PV FIT is paid in arrears over 20 years and only after generating.

All hydro generation has to be paid for. All PV generation consumed on site (assuming export monitored eventually) is not paid for. But reducing import, is the same as export (leaving more on the grid for others!), so the benefit of those 1,400kWh's in the example is felt for free.

PV is an oddity at a domestic and commercial install, as generation is moved from supply side to demand side. That's why it's a little harder to spot some of the benefits, when comparing it to 'normal' generation by the supply companies.

Hope this makes sense, and please challenge any numbers you think I've been unfair with. Also I'm not suggesting PV instead of hydro, I'm simply trying to show how many more sides there are to this.

Mart.

PS - Going to stretch this now, so you, Zeup, or anyone can challenge this idea. You suggested FITs might be detrimental to large hydro - so in this example, if we have a lot of low cost PV generation, helping to meet demand through the middle of the day, then that might remove some demand from hydro. The hydro can then supply more at peak times, when it will charge more for the leccy. Increased profits, leading to more hydro interest, leading to more hydro. FITs = more hydro???

OK, probably taken that one too far!;)

ed110220

spgsc531 wrote: »

Not spam

Daily Mail article about a study saying wind turbines last a lot less than previously thought

I wonder how true the article is

Given the Daily Mail's ideological hatred for wind power and track record of mangling scientific studies to fit their agenda, I'd be suspicious of it. Remember how not so long ago they misrepresented a study of Texas wind farms that found that on cold winter nights that the turbines mixed warmer air from higher up with cooler air at ground level? Their "reinterpretation" of the paper was that wind power causes global warming...

John_Pierpoint

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Mechanical things that spin tend to need a big overhaul every 10 years ?

So buy quality and aim for it to last a generation (no pun intended).

Presumably this applies to windmills too - I would think that there is also a pretty complicated electronic brain that feathers the blades and brakes the rotor, depending on wind speed and electricity demand, plus some pretty complicated gearing ?

My sister has just given me an "Eagle" annual as an Xmas present - presumably intelligent 10 year olds, mainly boys, are still interested in "How it works" type explanations for modern kit?

Anybody got a link?

doughnutmachine

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

In theory .... but .... cheap rate electricity already exists and many people who have E7 don't wash overnight, or run the dishwasher, or any other high load device, even though the cost of the energy is around 1/3 the price.

Regarding storing high volumes of hot water ... many do this at the moment, we certainly do, but 'hot water for weeks' would involve an incredible volume of water to be able to make any use of what is being stored ... a simple rule of thumb (but close enough) would suggest that 1kWh of energy would raise 1tonne of water by 1C, therefore storing enough water for a day of winter heat demand (say 60kWh) to a minumum useful heat of say 30C would require storage of a tonne of water at 90C until needed, so say 1cubic meter of water thermal mass per days heat requirement for a smallish, or well insulated house .... 7days=7tonnes=7m3 etc .... then there's the incredible volume of insulation which would be required for long(ish) term storage at 90C, so 7m3 of water storage would likely need somewhere around 80m3 of space, that's approximately the same as a 40' shipping container ....

HTH
Z

[FONT= ]Like it or not, a power generation system dominated by renewables is likely to be “feast or famine”. Plenty electricity in stormy/ sunny weather, but little electricity on a cold still winters night. Perhaps when people are paying a penny in summer for electricity and a pound in winter they will shift their power demand.[/FONT]
[FONT= ] [/FONT]
[FONT= ]But the technology does exist to heat water to over 100 degrees… energy could also be stored in the likes of wax so that there is specific heat stored and enthalpy of fusion. But I agree to store weeks of heat in winter will be difficult.[/FONT]
[FONT= ] [/FONT]

doughnutmachine

zeupater wrote: »

The issue which is being overlooked is that, due to topography, the majority of sites which are suitable for hydroelectric power generation in the UK simply don't have large enough catchment areas and are therefore only suitable for pumped storage schemes.

Pumped storage adds absolutely nothing to overall energy generation, it actually has a negative net-energy contribution to the whole, consuming more energy than it supplies. The advantage of these systems lies in the way they are used ... soaking up excess power when it's available, then releasing it at times of peak demand or low availability from non-schedulable sources such as pv or windpower .... it's simply a battery, something which is pretty useless from a carbon-reduction point-of-view without unschedulable, or constant load (nuclear), generating sources first being in place .... the questions and priorities therefore change when considering the disparate generating technologies with a view to constructing any form of coherent integrated energy policy.

HTH
Z

[FONT= ]The british hydro org say there is potential hydro of 2,593,317kW in Scotland, this would generate an estimated 10,644,403MWh a year. The BHA say that 657,259kW of this hydro is economically viable, this viable hydro would produce 2,766,682MWh a year. I’d also imagine there would be some financially viable hydro in England and wales.[/FONT]
[FONT= ] [/FONT]
[FONT= ]Solar produced 259,198MWh of power last year…. So financially viable hydro in scotland could produce ten times as much power as solar is producing now.[/FONT]
[FONT= ] [/FONT]
[FONT= ] [/FONT]

doughnutmachine

Martyn1981 wrote: »

But DM, you're still going in circles trying to criticise PV by concentrating on one idea or installation at a time.

Why won't you supply any answers?

Do you think we can meet future energy needs just from hydro? Or for that matter from nuclear, gas, wind or solar?

Why do you keep saying things like instead of FITs , or rather FITs did this. Show me where FITs has taken money from these other schemes? Or where PV FITs has taken money from other FITs?

[FONT= ]Surely it has to be accepted that a FIT pound spent on solar is a pound that can’t be spent on any other energy resource[/FONT][FONT= ]?[/FONT][FONT= ] If we install enough solar it’s likely that conventional power stations will stand idle for 6 months of the year, since power stations have a high fixed cost in capital and labour it means the electricity they produce in Winter will have to go up in price. So I do think solar is damaging the overall electricity market.[/FONT]
[FONT= ] [/FONT]
[FONT= ]OK the hydro/ solar debate goes a bit like this.[/FONT]
[FONT= ] [/FONT]
[FONT= ]Solar [/FONT]
[FONT= ] [/FONT]
[FONT= ]Cost circa 1400 pounds per kW capacity. Produces about 10% of capacity per year in electricity. Produces bulk of power in summer when demand is low. No control over when power is produced.[/FONT]
[FONT= ] [/FONT]
[FONT= ]Hydro (Glen Doe)[/FONT]
[FONT= ] [/FONT]
[FONT= ]Cost Circa 1600 pounds per kW capacity. Produces about 20% of capacity per year in electricity. Produces bulk of power when demand is high ie autumn/winter. Output can be controlled so power is produced at peak demand times.[/FONT]
[FONT= ] [/FONT]
[FONT= ]For me this is how I see the debate, tbh all your arguments such as “ignore the capital cost of the householder” and “solar was never meant to provide electricity at the biggest peak demand of the year” are confusing. Hydro just seems a better power source for a wet climate like the UK with the biggest electricity demand in the wet months…. A renewable source that could actually cause conventional power stations to be shut down…..[/FONT]
[FONT= ] [/FONT]
[FONT= ]I honestly think solar FITs are relatively high so the politicians can say what a good job they are doing on climate change.[/FONT]
[FONT= ] [/FONT]

grahamc2003

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Smartgrids are at first a great idea, then, if you are blessed with an independent mind and apply a couple of logical & typical scenarios, you start to think ......

Take now for example .... it's the mid winter and we have visitors ... we've recently had a meal which was cooked by electricity, but now we only have five low energy lights & a hifi on and that's it for the non-baseload energy consumption, so what's possible to save from non-essential baseload management with a smartgrid apart from the fridge & freezer ? - absolutely nothing. Is this a problem now, probably not because smartgrid management would see this as a low-load period and therefore allowing the fridge & freezer to run according to their own thermostatic cooling demand requirements, but we probably cooked our meal and had hot drinks afterwards at around the same time as the average household and that would be a time when, if the fridge & freezer were running at the same time they would only be consuming less than 10% of the household load ... which in real terms is pretty insignificant when you consider that domestic energy doesn't form the only source of instantaneous power demand .... yes it's a technique for smoothing demand a little, but it's not the great panacea which many claim - it's actually very likely that smartmetering is simply a ploy to introduce HHM (Half Hourly Metering) and therefore bill peak demand energy supply at a punitive rate in order to increase supplier profit margins ....

HTH
Z

if you are blessed with an independent mind and apply a couple of logical & typical scenarios, and additionally understand the requirements of the grid, then you'll possibly appreciate advantages of a smart grid which not unsurprisingly escapes others.

Two mega costs of the grid are meeting the peak and frequency stability. Everything else is simple and cheap. While you sort of addressed peak demand and how a smart grid can ameliorate that either by pricing or direct control, I'm not sure you mentioned the frequency stability aspect.

Due to the cost of meeting the peak, any generation which doesn't is of limited and extremely low value - irrespective of any other consideration (and your and my solar panels produce this inherently low value generation). Since smart meters will -eventually - help lower the peak by shifting demand to a lower demand period, it is an extremely valuable addon to the generation itself.

Frequency control is necessary at all times, and the ability of smart meters - eventually - to exercise a degree of control over many households discretionary load, almost instantaneously, means they'll be able to relieve other stations of the need to provide so much very expensive primary reserve. (for which they burn fuel and cause co2 of course, even when supplying no generation at all).

Intermittent generation necessarily increases the primary reserve requirements of the grid (so wind and solar are not zero co2 when connected to the grid as many seem to think), so smart meters will help offset the extra reserve requirements brought on by solar and wind.

I'm afraid, from the grid engineering perspective, solar has the pretty unique and unfortunate characteristics of not supplying power at the peak, while at the same time requiring more system primary reserve. Smart technology, which incidentally is nothing new and was being discussed in the cegb research labs 35 years ago, has the opposite characteristics.

spgsc531

grahamc2003 wrote: »

if you are blessed with an independent mind and apply a couple of logical & typical scenarios, and additionally understand the requirements of the grid, then you'll possibly appreciate advantages of a smart grid which not unsurprisingly escapes others.

Two mega costs of the grid are meeting the peak and frequency stability. Everything else is simple and cheap. While you sort of addressed peak demand and how a smart grid can ameliorate that either by pricing or direct control, I'm not sure you mentioned the frequency stability aspect.

Due to the cost of meeting the peak, any generation which doesn't is of limited and extremely low value - irrespective of any other consideration (and your and my solar panels produce this inherently low value generation). Since smart meters will -eventually - help lower the peak by shifting demand to a lower demand period, it is an extremely valuable addon to the generation itself.

Frequency control is necessary at all times, and the ability of smart meters - eventually - to exercise a degree of control over many households discretionary load, almost instantaneously, means they'll be able to relieve other stations of the need to provide so much very expensive primary reserve. (for which they burn fuel and cause co2 of course, even when supplying no generation at all).

Intermittent generation necessarily increases the primary reserve requirements of the grid (so wind and solar are not zero co2 when connected to the grid as many seem to think), so smart meters will help offset the extra reserve requirements brought on by solar and wind.

I'm afraid, from the grid engineering perspective, solar has the pretty unique and unfortunate characteristics of not supplying power at the peak, while at the same time requiring more system primary reserve. Smart technology, which incidentally is nothing new and was being discussed in the cegb research labs 35 years ago, has the opposite characteristics.

I don't understand your post. Covering peak demand (peak and frequency demand) is surely just about capacity, and that capacity reacting quickly enough to those demands?

Anything that aids capacity surely contributes? talking about intermittent generation is surely like talking about intermittent use? both can be factored for within reason surely?

Your post completely ignores the threat of CO2 and the demand we become a low CO2 economy, which means committing to renewables for the future. The fact is that's where we are heading, and need too. It's a brave new world that needs forward thinking.

Solar is not alone in not (all year round) supplying the peak so why single it out?

spgsc