Solar ... In the news

Exiled_Tyke

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

you would rather gas than nuclear?

Abso-bloody-lutely!

Cardew

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

If you are going to make claims of dishonesty in a technical discussion then I think you should explain yourself.

Interesting as your contributions might be, methinks you are wasting your time in this forum.

The start point for any discussion is that everything about solar is wonderful, everything about nuclear is bad.

zeupater

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

I think we may be off topic - I believed the question was how to address global warming with renewables but the questions seem to be leading towards 'how can we not have nuclear'

I do not think the playing field is level.

Is not the price to consider, the price of not addressing climate change?

Hi

In writing "I think we may be off topic" that's probably the most relevant and factually correct contribution you've made so far .... this thread is for discussing developments regarding solar which have been mentioned in the news or related articles ....

Tell us, do you habitually land on a site as a new member and immediately launch into a pro-nuclear/anti renewables gabfest ... should we consider ourselves blessed to receive sermons and selective of contextual irrelevance such as this codswallop ... "Is not the price to consider, the price of not addressing climate change?" ... that's what people who actually care do and talk about on a daily basis, so what did you do actually achieve today? - did you do, or did you just argue a point? .... if so, you should really open your own argumentative thread in a section of the forum where such things are welcomed and persons of great verbal experience gain pleasure in swatting lightweight intellectuals chasing argument for argument sake aside ... alternatively, have you simply been banished from another playground and seek new playmates ...

Whichever the case, this is not the place to plant the 'I love nuclear at all costs' supporters flag without expecting to receive a well deserved verbal lashing from those who believe that the cheaper alternative afforded by various renewable technologies combined with storage are the way forward ... yes, it's already been noted that there's the odd reference to climate & renewables too, but even after so few posts - there's already expectation of selective misuse of context and eagerly await the 'but' ..., so as a 'newbie' please do learn to play with us misinformed creatures nicely: as you obviously consider your self superior, both morally & intellectually, that shouldn't be a hard concept grasp - else simply withdraw & play silly games elsewhere ...

Z

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Interesting as your contributions might be, methinks you are wasting your time in this forum.

The start point for any discussion is that everything about solar is wonderful, everything about nuclear is bad.

Hi

Probably more accurate to tweak that to something along the lines of "everything about solar and distributed generation technology costs reducing rapidly is wonderful, everything about nuclear costs being highly uncompetitive without substantial ongoing financial support for at least a century is bad" .... but as a start point on a thread mainly concerned with positive solar news stories, why would a pro-nuclear/anti-renewables poster expect anything other than what you describe .... :)

HTH
Z

Nicolai_Grenovski

Tell us, do you habitually land on a site as a new member

no, you can only do that once. :T

zeupater

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

...
I googled 'carbon footprint of storage' and came up with this academic paper in English


impact of electricity storage
on CO2 emissions in power systems
with high penetrations of wind
power: A case-study of Ireland
". Using the Irish All-Island power system as a case-study, data on the observed dispatch of each large generator for the years 2008 to 2012 was used to estimate a marginal emissions factor of 0.547 kgCO2/kWh. Selected storage operation scenarios were used to estimate storage emissions factors – the carbon emissions impact associated
with each unit of storage energy used. The results show that carbon emissions increase in the short-run for all storage technologies when consistently operated in ‘peak shaving and trough filling’ modes, and indicate that this should also be true for the GB and US power systems. "

The total limit we aim for is 100g CO2

Storage is evidently costly and adds to the carbon footprint 5 times over the limit.

Hi

The whole post is contextually irrelevant in terms of the answer given in the post you referenced ... however, the post quoted above is interesting, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to explain what it means ....

Generation for storage before meeting demand has a lower overall efficiency than generating to match demand ... Okay, that's a given as there are storage inefficiencies & losses ... but then going on to explain that CO2 emissions increase without considering the primary reason for the storage (ie generation mix change to include renewables) seems to be a little naive on the author's behalf , or by those who quote the article out of context .... as the carbon intensity relative to the mix falls past the storage efficiency loss threshold, the combined solution provides a lower CO2 footprint .... but then again, the author obviously knows that, that's why the term ".. carbon emissions increase in the short-run .." was included ... as such then, this contribution, although linked to renewables, was irrelevant too ...

Z

Nicolai_Grenovski

In writing "I think we may be off topic" that's probably the most relevant and factually correct contribution you've made so far .... this thread is for discussing developments regarding solar which have been mentioned in the news or related articles ....

I responded to a contradictory comment on Hinkley point C - is that a solar plant?

zeupater

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

Tell us, do you habitually land on a site as a new member

no, you can only do that once. :T

Really? .. have you mistakenly interpreted 'a site' as meaning 'this site' and posted out of context again ? .... is it not logically the case that you could make a habit out of landing on 'a site as a new member and immediately launch into a pro-nuclear/anti renewables gabfest ' before sequentially repeating the process on a myriad of other sites? - after-all, there are plenty of sites other than this one to visit ... but I reckon that it's not a totally new concept, maybe 'bounce' as opposed to 'landing' though as it suggests less permanence ...

Z

Nicolai_Grenovski

The whole post is contextually irrelevant in terms of the answer given in the post you referenced ... however, the post quoted above is interesting, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to explain what it means ....

It is pleasing to come across someone who can critique peer reviewed academic papers so succinctly.

this contribution, although linked to renewables, was irrelevant too ...

Yes I can see why that would have to be your perspective.

Do you have a Twitter feed? - I desire to be informed by you on all matters scientific.;)

zeupater

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

I responded to a contradictory comment on Hinkley point C - is that a solar plant?

Hi

You responded to nothing in particular .... pretty much says it all really!

Z