Solar ... In the news

Pincher

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07xy112/click-01102016

Where are they going to dump all the out of fashion solar panels?

Wonder if they can be used as roof tiles?

Martyn1981

Hi. The perovskite technology has been advancing rapidly. I think its theoretical efficiency is nearly twice that of silicon PV, and it could be cheaper to produce.

Hopefully it'll lead to an even cheaper application of PV, and the ability of a property/business to generate twice as much leccy from the same roof area will shift a lot of 'questionable' rooves into the 'suitable' rooves category.

Mart.

silverwhistle

Pincher wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07xy112/click-01102016

You couldn't give us a management summary, could you? I don't particularly want to buy a TV licence just to watch that..

Martyn1981

Solar outstrips coal in past six months of UK electricity generation

Electricity generated by solar panels on fields and homes outstripped Britain’s ageing coal power stations over the past six months in a historic first.

Climate change analysts Carbon Brief found more electricity came from the sun than coal from April to the end of September, in a report that highlighted the two technologies’ changing fortunes.

Solar had already eclipsed coal for a day in April and then for the whole month of May, with coal providing zero power for the first time in more than 100 years for several days in May. The latest milestone saw an estimated 6,964 gigawatt hours (GWh) generated by solar over the half-year, or 5.4% of the UK’s electricity demand. Coal produced 6,342GWh, or 4.7%.

The last paragraphs are also interesting, as some commentators on PV (and wind) often refer to the high costs of integrating intermittent generation, with some figures/estimates/claims as high as £50/MWh:

“With intermittency costs today of around £1.3/MWh for solar [with around 10-12GW of solar installed], increasing to £6.8/MWh with a substantial 40GW of solar on the system by 2030, we would suggest these costs do not provide a strong argument against the further build out of renewable generation,” said the report, by the consultancy Aurora.

Mart.

michaels

What do the inermittency costs arise from? If it is from contracting backup diesel generation than whilst not being a cost problem, it could be an environmental one - firing up the diesel during a settled temperature inversion in November is potentially rather damaging both locally as well as CO2 wise.

Martyn1981

michaels wrote: »

What do the inermittency costs arise from? If it is from contracting backup diesel generation than whilst not being a cost problem, it could be an environmental one - firing up the diesel during a settled temperature inversion in November is potentially rather damaging both locally as well as CO2 wise.

The costs reflect the fact that intermittent generation needs back up. The better and broader the mix, the less we will hopefully need, but as you say, there will be times that they can't meet demand.

At the moment it's not too big an issue as we have relatively little RE and a lot of gas capacity, but as we use the gas less and less, it becomes less economic to keep the plants on line, so payments for back up are needed to give those plants an extra income.

The diesels are more there for emergencies but even they could be going as the Grid starts to look towards batteries. They are currently contracting batts for frequency response:

Battery storage dominates National Grid EFR tender results

Something you've got me pondering, is PV's responsibility towards peak demand. Should PV have some cost responsibilities as it doesn't generate during the winter peak, or does it have no responsibility, since we know it doesn't generate during the winter peak, so installing PV capacity has no affect on the situation? I don't actually know which is fair(er).

Or does PV have a positive impact on the peak, as when combined with storage, it will help a bit, by time shifting some generation from earlier on. Looking again at the report mentioned in the last paragraphs of the Guardian article, it suggests the £1.30/£6.80 cost for PV could actually become a £3.70 net gain:

Today, these three factors place a negligible £1.30/MWh additional system cost on the electricity network at current solar penetration levels. The analysis shows that even at nearly 4 times this capacity by 2030 (40GW, 11% of UK electricity), the cost impact is still low at a maximum of £6.80/MWh.

Complementary technologies can reduce or eliminate variability costs

Additionally, the analysis shows that complementary technologies can minimise this variability impact further. It quantifies the complementary portfolio effect of wind and solar - together their variability imposes modest wider costs across the system, even at very large output levels (55% of UK power). Strikingly, the development of a cost-effective battery storage market can turn solar variability into a benefit. Batteries can move power from when it is generated to when it is most needed better matching the electricity demand which itself is variable.

This is done more economically using solar than would be the case from an equivalent baseload (i.e. continuous) power output profile. High battery penetration combined with high solar penetration reduces the cost of variability by £10.50/MWh, resulting in a net £3.70/MWh benefit. This reflects the fact that solar combined with batteries allows output to match demand requirements and requires only a very small amount of back up.

I suspect this issue will be quite controversial till we see how the PV and storage industries develop going forward.

Mart.

michaels

Thanks Matt - this stuff is facinating in its complexity. A while back there was a report on CCS but the economics of this is based on having a decent proportion of leccy produced using carbon intensive methods, so the cleaner the generation the less likely CCS is to pay for itself or in other words put in a CCS infrastructure and it makes less sense to generate carbon free.

I guess with some big generation facilities Nuclear, Coal etc being basically either on or off and taking hours (days) to switch it may make economic sense to run them plus batteries in the winter and solar plus batteries in the summer, thus the battereis that work with solar pay for themselves by working with nuclaer in the winter - even before you start to look at wind and solar being complimentary.

Sadly my knowledge of DECC (or whatever they are now called) is that they are carp at modelling these things.

Also sadly all the evidence is that we are way overpaying for the electtricity from Hinckley C compared to almost any other generation technology including alternative nuclear options.

lstar337

michaels wrote: »

I guess with some big generation facilities Nuclear, Coal etc being basically either on or off and taking hours (days) to switch

If only we would forget problematic PWR's (Pressurised Water Reactors) and instead spend the money on developing an MSR (Molten Salt Reactor). An MSR will naturally adjust its output to match demand making it an ideal accompaniment to renewables. Throw in inherent safety and the ability to burn up our current stock of nuclear waste and it sounds like a no-brainer.

The trouble is it works off of plentiful and unprocessed fuel, so there is no money to be made out of it once the reactor is built. We couldn't possibly build something that doesn't facilitate transferring yet more wealth to the mega rich.

Martyn1981

michaels wrote: »

I guess with some big generation facilities Nuclear, Coal etc being basically either on or off and taking hours (days) to switch it may make economic sense to run them plus batteries in the winter and solar plus batteries in the summer, thus the battereis that work with solar pay for themselves by working with nuclaer in the winter - even before you start to look at wind and solar being complimentary.

I've been wondering the same. If we do have supply side storage/batts then the capacity needed for PV is tiny compared to the amount needed for excess nuclear, or winter wind etc. So I assume(?) that PV gets a free ride, by simply piggy backing off anything that is built for other generation.

My assumption also works on the basis that excess PV will occur during the daytime, when demand, even in the summer is still high, 30-40GW, so excess GW's (as well as GWhs) will be smaller than winter nightime excess when wind and nuclear are both running strong, but demand is lower, perhaps 25GW, and for a long time, from late night to early morning.

Coal is going anyway, a lot has closed already, or been converted to bio-mass as it can't be economically upgraded to meet environmental/pollution standards, but your idea applies to gas too. It can ramp more quickly, but greater storage would allow it to be left on, or off for longer without the National Grid having to make a rush decision to reduce/increase gas purchases. Instead allowing the excess into storage, or the shortfall from storage.

CCS is a great idea, but like you I can't see the economics working. Just powering the kit to extract the CO2 is expected to push fuel consumption up by 20-30%, so that's more gas (or possibly coal) being burned, higher generation costs, plus the shipping and storage of the CO2.

But if combined with bio-mass, then it makes a bit more sense, as it could make the process a net remover of CO2 if the bio-mass is renewable. And the concentrated CO2 could be used to produce methane, when combined with hydrogen, itself produced using spare/excess RE generation. The hydrogen/methane is then a form of storage, utilising existing infrastructure, and used to generate leccy, or even as an automotive fuel if hydrogen cars ever make it.

michaels wrote: »

Also sadly all the evidence is that we are way overpaying for the electtricity from Hinckley C compared to almost any other generation technology including alternative nuclear options.

I'm more than a little baffled by the decision to go forward with HPC. I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that nuclear shouldn't be part of the future mix, but if it can be generated at a comparatively reasonable price (perhaps £60-£70/MWh) then it is cleaner than coal, predictable and low CO2.

So I'm torn on nuclear, but HPC is simply insane. £102/MWh today for 35yrs, but won't generate till 2028 or so. Already beaten by on-shore wind and PV farms at £83 and only 15yr subsidies, and domestic PV at £66 (though £85 is more reasonable to get the industry back on its feet). Even the government admit that off-shore wind will be sub £100 by the early to mid 2020's, and is well under that already with the recent Dutch contracts, though the inshore installs are easier.

If economic storage arrives before HPC comes on line, then it becomes a total farce!

I'm missing something, perhaps their is a logic to it, or it's political, maybe it'll make sense one day. But it even shoots itself in the foot over the intermittency payments (going right back to the start of this conversation). Whilst nuclear is predictable, so technically doesn't need back up, such huge concentrations of power (2x 1.6GW) in a single location, create a new risk, which is what happens if there's an unscheduled shutdown, instantly leading to a power shortfall of 1.6-3.2GW. NG have estimated the necessary back up costs over the lifetime of HPC at $12bn (not sure why it's in dollars!)

Mart.

michaels

I'd like to think Hinkley C is to do with the electrification of transport and domestic heating...however it is much more likely it is to do with deals making connected people money, keeping the French and Chinese happy, a bit of a panic to be seen to be open for investment post the Brexit vote (LHR 3rd runway anyone), etc.