Solar ... In the news

Martyn1981

kevin6666 wrote: »

Interesting sub 10kW PV FIT installs continue to fail to meet UK caps with the extra capacity rolling over into yet lower and lower tariffs.

I think it's fair to say FIT has failed.

Nice.

I'm glad your pleased, but unclear about your claims.

Firstly, didn't you say a few months back that you didn't think there would be any domestic PV installs when the tariff dropped?

Lower and lower tariffs is a good thing isn't it, and you are aware that the rate dropped from 4.39p to 4.32p, a drop of only 1.6%? It should reach 3.55p by Jan 2019.

If PV delivering generation today at a cost to consumers of £68/MWh, v's Hinkley if it did generate today* at a cost to consumers of £99/MWh, is your idea of a failure, then please may we have many more such failures as soon as possible.

*Now unlikely to start generating in 2025, more likely 2028.

I always find it strange why pro-nukers find renewables (and storage) so scary. Perhaps it's an ideology thing?

Mart.

Martyn1981

Dubai Gets Record-Low Bid Of 2.99¢/kWh For 800 MW Solar PV Project

Rumor is that Abdul Latif Jameel (Saudi Arabia) + Fotowatio Renewable Ventures (Spain) + Masdar (UAE) formed a consortium for the low solar price bid of 2.99¢/kWh, JinkoSolar was next at 3.65¢/kWh, and a consortium of First Solar & ACWA Power was next at 3.95¢/kWh.

Mart.

kevin6666

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I'm glad your pleased, but unclear about your claims.

Firstly, didn't you say a few months back that you didn't think there would be any domestic PV installs when the tariff dropped?

Lower and lower tariffs is a good thing isn't it, and you are aware that the rate dropped from 4.39p to 4.32p, a drop of only 1.6%? It should reach 3.55p by Jan 2019.

If PV delivering generation today at a cost to consumers of £68/MWh, v's Hinkley if it did generate today* at a cost to consumers of £99/MWh, is your idea of a failure, then please may we have many more such failures as soon as possible.

*Now unlikely to start generating in 2025, more likely 2028.

I always find it strange why pro-nukers find renewables (and storage) so scary. Perhaps it's an ideology thing?

Mart.

I'm just pro cheap sustainable electric supply regardless of source.

PV isn't sustainable full stop as it doesn't work half the time. It just a semi-supplement and in no way can be compared with power stations from any sort of cost angle.

Sub 10kW PV installs are just limping along atm; probably dodgy salesmen miss selling them to the elderly. But it's far from what should have been a flourishing industry if FIT had been run correctly from the start, instead of boom-bust.

zeupater

kevin6666 wrote: »

Interesting sub 10kW PV FIT installs continue to fail to meet UK caps with the extra capacity rolling over into yet lower and lower tariffs.

I think it's fair to say FIT has failed. Appreciate Mart will be on saying PV is now super cheap..yet no one wants it despite it still apparently returning investment over 20 years.

The old boys from late 2011-early 2012 continue raking in the cash, probably looking at 4-6x returns over 25 years, while traditional power generation is at an all time low and making some major losses throughout Europe.

Nice.

Hi

If that's the case then can you explain the difference between your rather simplistic explanation and the the latest official figures ( https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/solar-photovoltaics-deployment ) which clearly show that total installed capacity is continuing to increase at a rate which is pretty consistent with the long-term trend ....

Deployment (MWp) April 2015 to March 2016
A - 48
M - 58
J - 125
J - 75
A- 93
S - 118
O - 145
N - 157
D - 307
J - 126
F - 42
M - 132

... if there's been a shift in the average installation size then there's simply been a move towards larger systems which is to be expected as prices drop and banding changes, but that doesn't convey any form of scheme failure and just demonstrates how the abovereferenced post should be considered as being nothing more than a poorly considered & mischievous misrepresentation ...

HTH
Z

zeupater

kevin6666 wrote: »

I'm just pro cheap sustainable electric supply regardless of source.

PV isn't sustainable full stop as it doesn't work half the time. It just a semi-supplement and in no way can be compared with power stations from any sort of cost angle.

Oh dear, ... I read the following on another thread earlier and wondered when it would be incorporated into the usual anti-pv stance ...

kevin6666 wrote: »

... Battery tech atm is going virtually nowhere. Just compare your smart phone or laptop from 5 years ago to todays latest and greatest. My latest smart phone has worse battery life ...

Looks like the argument is moving from 'pv doesn't work when it's dark' to 'pv doesn't work when it's dark & storage is virtually useless' .... at least some of us see the irony but still appreciate the relevance of the change ... :whistle:

Z

Martyn1981

kevin6666 wrote: »

I'm just pro cheap sustainable electric supply regardless of source.

Oh! My mistake then, I thought you supported nuclear, but clearly you've just ruled it out.

kevin6666 wrote: »

PV isn't sustainable full stop as it doesn't work half the time.

The sun isn't sustainable?

My PV systems have worked fine for 5 years meeting and beating all expectations and targets. If they didn't work for half the time, I'd be extremely concerned.

Mart.

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Looks like the argument is moving from 'pv doesn't work when it's dark' to 'pv doesn't work when it's dark & storage is virtually useless' .... at least some of us see the irony but still appreciate the relevance of the change ... :whistle:

Z

You don't know how true that is.

Elsewhere I've engaged in some debate on the relative costs of renewables and nuclear. It was pointed out that wind and PV are still far more expensive than nuclear when you take intermittency into account.

I pointed out that the cost difference between on-shore wind or PV, both at £80/MWh (or domestic PV at £68/MWh) is £19 cheaper when compared to the 2016 inflation adjusted Hinkley price of £99/MWh.

I then pointed out that even chemical battery storage could manage that price differential, with £12/MWh (or £6/MWh if you only store 50%, but apportion costs across all generation, including that consumed directly).

I was challenged to prove my point and used this now ageing link:

Tesla Powerwall & Powerpacks Per-kWh Lifetime Prices vs Aquion Energy, Eos Energy, & Imergy

You'll see in the second half, the grid scale part, that two systems come in under £19/MWh

the EosAurora at £12/MWh ($0.02/kWh) and the Imergy Flow at £18/MWh ($0.03/kWh).

But this is when it got interesting. The pro-nukers disagreed with me (apparently I must be the author of the article), and then explained that those batteries only supply 4hrs of leccy (4hrs? no idea?). So if you wanted 16hrs of storage, you'd need 4 batteries, which raises the cost to £48/MWh.

Yes Z, 4 batteries apparently cost 4 times the 'per unit' storage cost.

Nothing like open-minded folk with the ability to do simple maths, and these were nothing like ........ yada yada yada.

Haven't seen maths like that since a certain discussion about potato farmers!

I did counter that a 1/10th scale battery must surely cost £1.20/MWh, and with 600kWh of capacity would give me inter-seasonal storage on a domestic level. But this (joke) only confused them more.

Mart.

tunnel

Looking better for storage

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technologyinvesting/the-battery-that-never-dies-scientists-find-breakthrough-technique-to-stop-phones-losing-power/ar-BBs4kkw

Despite the Powerwall's size it - and other lithium ion batteries - are still subject to degradation over long-term use. Which is something this new research will hopefully be able to prevent.

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

Looks like the argument is moving from 'pv doesn't work when it's dark' to 'pv doesn't work when it's dark & storage is virtually useless' .... at least some of us see the irony but still appreciate the relevance of the change ... :whistle:

Z

You are getting more like the Guru with every post and have lost any objectivity and indeed much credibility. All that has been stated is that battery storage is currently too expensive. It is you stating ''pv doesn't work when it's dark & storage is virtually useless' and trying(and failing) to attribute that argument to others. We do understand the irony of that tactic; much like solar farms were absolutely useless according the Guru and others. Now we are inundated with posts from those same opponents giving details of huge outputs(nothing at night though!)


Much as you would like to, you cannot simply ignore the fact that PV doesn't work 'when it is dark'; and indeed often very produces little during the day. It contributes nothing/zilch/zero when there is maximum load on the Grid, so we still need power stations to cope with that load.


Obviously when battery storage becomes cheap enough(when??) we will move into a new situation. However from the comments on this thread, people could be could be forgiven for thinking it is only PV generated power that can be stored in batteries?


At least with conventional and nuclear generation it will be possible to guarantee that every storage facility will be used to capacity 24/7.

Cardew

Originally Posted by kevin6666
I'm just pro cheap sustainable electric supply regardless of source.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

The sun isn't sustainable?

My PV systems have worked fine for 5 years meeting and beating all expectations and targets. If they didn't work for half the time, I'd be extremely concerned.

Mart.

Do you not appreciate that counter argument (I use the term loosely) is silly. Or do your panels generate at night and in bad weather?