Solar ... In the news

Martyn1981

Some good news for PV, PPA's seem to be working.

I went to a local presentation last year proposing the construction of a solar farm on an old landfill site. The guys there chatted about PPA's - the investor pays for the PV, then sells the leccy to the customer. The investor gets a higher price than the wholesale price, whilst the customer gets a lower price than the retail price. This helps to make supply side schemes more economic.

In this example Bristol City Council is the investor in a number of schemes:-

Bristol City Council completes PPA project at local stadium

Mart.

PS. Either the generation numbers are a little pessimistic (95MWh from 117kWp), or it's not a particularly good orientation/pitch. (Pitch .... boom boom!)

Martyn1981

The Musk consolidation moves forward as Tesla buys SolarCity.

Elon Musk sells his solar power company to his own electric car company

Mart.

Martyn1981

Very impressive PV install (plus CHP plans). Note expectations to use 100% of generation, which must help considerably with the economics.

UWE to install largest single roof-mounted solar panel array in UK University sector

Mart.

PS. Is it just me, or does Bristol seem to come up an awful lot regarding RE and energy saving? M.

lstar337

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Very impressive PV install (plus CHP plans). Note expectations to use 100% of generation, which must help considerably with the economics.

UWE to install largest single roof-mounted solar panel array in UK University sector

Mart.

PS. Is it just me, or does Bristol seem to come up an awful lot regarding RE and energy saving? M.

Trying to get their Green City award back.;)

Martyn1981

Lightsource connects first CfD solar project

Good news:

Lightsource has confirmed that Charity Farm solar park in Shropshire has been connected to the grid, becoming the first solar project to do so under the Contracts for Difference scheme.

Bad news:

But with other projects to have received a CfD having either collapsed or facing significant delays, and solar looking certain to be excluded from future allocation rounds, Lightsource’s project could be the only solar farm successful under the CfD process.

But for context:-

Charity Farm was one of three projects to receive a CfD in February last year at a strike price of £79.23/MWh. That price now stands at £83.42/MWh given how strike prices are CPI indexed.

In comparison, the controversial 4GW Hinkley Point C nuclear project received a CfD with an initial strike price of £92.50/MWh which has subsequently increased to circa £102/MWh.

It's quite incredible to think that we aren't subsidising 'cheap' PV for 15 (or 20 (domestic)) years, but are going to subsidise 'expensive' nuclear for 35 years. [Note £83.42/MWh would be a nice and fair figure for domestic PV, representing approx a 5.9p/kWh FiT.]

Keep an eye on that Hinkley price, it could reach £130 by 2028 (possible start date) with just 2% inflation.

Mart.

Martyn1981

PV is still doing well against coal this year. Obviously winter figures aren't too good (need wind for that) but the graph suggests 4% or 5% of leccy could come from PV in the winter months if we max out in the 30GW's. Could see 20% of summer generation from PV. Then it's fingers crossed for storage, and another 30GW or so ..... perhaps!

Solar Beats Out Coal In UK For 2nd Whole Month Ever

Mart.

Martyn1981

And here's one for Z, who will probably make more sense of the graphs than I.

Basically it shows how quickly a disruptive technology can become established once it builds momentum, such as radios, tv's computers etc.

Hopefully this will apply to RE and EV's.

The Shift To Solar, Wind, & Electric Vehicles Is Too Monumental To Overstate

[Note: The y-axis on the first graph represents percentage of US households.]

The examples seem to show that after a slow burn, when the technologies take off, they are quickly 'adopted' by around 60% of households in what looks (to me) like 15 years or so.


Edit - partly related, here are the expectations for 2016 PV, up massively, but there may be a fall back in 2017. The last section is promising showing a growth in emerging markets. M.]

Mart.

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

And here's one for Z, who will probably make more sense of the graphs than I.

Basically it shows how quickly a disruptive technology can become established once it builds momentum, such as radios, tv's computers etc....

Hi

First impression is that for the article to be taken seriously the author should at least have a decent command of language ... 'Click to embiggen'? .... really? - what's wrong with 'Click to enlarge'?' ... anyway, the technology transitions graph really says very little as the products seem to be very selective with no examples of technologies which failed to reach deep market penetration - essentially the basic argument seems to revolve around technology take-up momentum gaining critical mass soon after achieving 5% penetration, however we can all think of numerous examples where this completely failed to happen ... as such I completely understand why the author is 'not sure who created the original version or where to find a sharper copy', you'll probably find that anyone with any credibility would be too professionally embarrassed to hold their hand up and admit it was theirs, which means that it's likely sourced from some highly biased report somewhere or other ... :shhh::D

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

First impression is that for the article to be taken seriously the author should at least have a decent command of language ... 'Click to embiggen'? .... really? - what's wrong with 'Click to enlarge'?' ... anyway, the technology transitions graph really says very little as the products seem to be very selective with no examples of technologies which failed to reach deep market penetration - essentially the basic argument seems to revolve around technology take-up momentum gaining critical mass soon after achieving 5% penetration, however we can all think of numerous examples where this completely failed to happen ... as such I completely understand why the author is 'not sure who created the original version or where to find a sharper copy', you'll probably find that anyone with any credibility would be too professionally embarrassed to hold their hand up and admit it was theirs, which means that it's likely sourced from some highly biased report somewhere or other ... :shhh::D

HTH
Z

Hi Z. That's interesting, you seem to have taken it very differently to me. I didn't read it so much as a prediction that PV, wind, EV's etc would be massively successful, but to show how quickly they could become mainstream if they succeed, hence why it highlights successful technologies.

Anyway's here is the first use of the diagram by the New York Times in 2008.

As you'll see, when in more detail, there are many examples that have slower burns, the clothes washer is an interestingly slow one, perhaps early models proved poor. But the recent article picked out some of the more disruptive examples to show what is possible. Personally I can see something happening very fast with EV's, especially given the actions of some cities and countries towards future ICE car sales.

Mart.

lstar337

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

First impression is that for the article to be taken seriously the author should at least have a decent command of language ... 'Click to embiggen'? .... really? - what's wrong with 'Click to enlarge'?' ... anyway, the technology transitions graph really says very little as the products seem to be very selective with no examples of technologies which failed to reach deep market penetration - essentially the basic argument seems to revolve around technology take-up momentum gaining critical mass soon after achieving 5% penetration, however we can all think of numerous examples where this completely failed to happen ... as such I completely understand why the author is 'not sure who created the original version or where to find a sharper copy', you'll probably find that anyone with any credibility would be too professionally embarrassed to hold their hand up and admit it was theirs, which means that it's likely sourced from some highly biased report somewhere or other ... :shhh::D

HTH
Z

I believe 'Embiggen' is a Simpsons reference likely used as a bit of fun.

I think the Springfield town motto (as said by Jebediah Springfield), is "A Noble Spirit Ebiggens the Smallest Man" or something to that effect.

The episode pokes fun at the made-up word and includes a string of other made-up words to comedic effect.