Solar ... In the news

Martyn1981

and to stick tghe boot in, solar is beating the n word today, despite new build n being 5 to 10yrs away and costs can only fall from falling cost per kwp, raised efficiency, removal of mip, and life expectancies proving to be greater than expected, so capex costs can be diluted further.

pv the little engimne that could .....

..... spell better than me.

gefnew

This seems to be a bit over optimistic in the savings quoted in this report on the bbc. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41122433
regards
gefnew

Martyn1981

gefnew wrote: »

This seems to be a bit over optimistic in the savings quoted in this report on the bbc. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41122433
regards
gefnew

savings sound a tad high even for residents in all day, but also can't be true because our reasident self declared expert has told us that pv doesn't benefit the poor and people l.ike this, only really rich people.

still lowered bills from solar panels will help offset the subsidies for 'n' we'll be pying till 2065ish

Martyn1981

this has caught me by surprise, last i heard solar would be single largest energy source at abut 30pc, roughly 20pc pv and 10pc csp.

but now 'they' arev trebling the pv estimates up to about 50pc. wow


Global solar potential is highly underestimated, study shows

The authors of the report claim that the share of PV by 2050 could be three times as large as previously assumed. According to the article published in the magazine “Nature Energy”, the share of solar energy could be between 30% and 50% worldwide, and not as current estimate of between 5% and 17%.

michaels

gefnew wrote: »

This seems to be a bit over optimistic in the savings quoted in this report on the bbc. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41122433
regards
gefnew

Are the suppliers getting fit plus price per unit for deemed export or selling to the grid at whatever they can negotiate for the power generated?

Nicolai_Grenovski

Well, for a small & totally random news article it certainly covers a lot ..

Firstly, something which normally sets the dogs barking ... but this time it's a pretty big dog doing it ...“
This week, Duke Energy Florida announced that it will terminate all plans to build its Levy Nuclear Project.
And as part of a deal with the Florida Public Service Commission, the company will instead invest $6 billion in solar energy, smart meters, and grid modernization as well as electric vehicle (EV) charging stations and a battery storage pilot program.
”... Whoops!, apple cart & all that ...

.. so whilst talking about Apple carts, I can't help but remember some heated conversations a few years ago comparing the massive generation capacity of ..(, don't mention the 'N' word).. against solar potential .. so, with massive wooden spoon in hand and a glint of mischief in the eye ...

You appear to be implying that solar is a replacement for nuclear when the press report that the reason that this plant has been cancelled is because of the cheapness of American fracked gas.
It may not have been your intention, but may I infer from this that you support fracked gas as a mechanism of displacing nuclear?

We have an issue in Germany where a large number of people wearing the coats of environmentalists promoted coal instead of nuclear power -and got what they wanted. We now have several coal stations open since we decided to phase out nuclear, lots of renewables but ultimately the same emissions per MWh.
Yes, the Solar sector may benefit, especially in green washing by big corporates, (at least where it is sunny throughout all seasons) but it doesn't really help the environment.

gefnew

Hi Michaels
Tried a bit of searching the web but to no avail on the terms they have,
maybe just current fit for 20 years ? who knows, do the maths equate for a roi maybe?
regards
gefnew

ed110220

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

You appear to be implying that solar is a replacement for nuclear when the press report that the reason that this plant has been cancelled is because of the cheapness of American fracked gas.
It may not have been your intention, but may I infer from this that you support fracked gas as a mechanism of displacing nuclear?

We have an issue in Germany where a large number of people wearing the coats of environmentalists promoted coal instead of nuclear power -and got what they wanted. We now have several coal stations open since we decided to phase out nuclear, lots of renewables but ultimately the same emissions per MWh.
Yes, the Solar sector may benefit, especially in green washing by big corporates, (at least where it is sunny throughout all seasons) but it doesn't really help the environment.

That's a little simplistic.

From 2015 to 2016 the USA produced 46.7 TWh more electricity from natural gas, 8.15 TWh more from nuclear, 16.75 TWh more from hydro, 11.86 TWh more from solar, 36.15 TWh more from wind. So though natural gas was the largest increase, it wasn't overwhelmingly so and was smaller than the increase in "new" renewables (wind plus solar). Nuclear added less than either solar or wind and produced 1.67 TWh less in 2016 than its peak in 2010.

Nicolai_Grenovski

That's a little simplistic.

From 2015 to 2016 the USA produced 46.7 TWh more electricity from natural gas, 8.15 TWh more from nuclear, 16.75 TWh more from hydro, 11.86 TWh more from solar, 36.15 TWh more from wind. So though natural gas was the largest increase, it wasn't overwhelmingly so and was smaller than the increase in "new" renewables (wind plus solar).

That's not the point - the point is the reason nuclear plant was cancelled is because the cost of electricity from cheap, fracked gas is significantly lower.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

Solar should reach parity with gas, but the cost to the consumer is higher because of the external systems to make it despatchable (counter intermittency with storage, grid interconnectivity etc).

So gas is the supply of choice when compared to clean nuclear.
Better than coal, but without CCS not by all that much.

Nicolai_Grenovski

"(Reuters) - Duke Energy Corp said on Thursday it will not proceed with a $24 billion nuclear power project in central Florida because of licensing delays and doubts about cost recovery, but may use the site for nuclear power generation in the future.

The announcement was the latest blow to nuclear power investment in the Sunshine State and reflected the boom in natural gas development nationwide.

Although it is pulling the plug on plans to build a nuclear plant in Florida’s Levy County, the company said it continues to regard the Gulf Coast site as a “viable option for future nuclear generation.”

“We continue to believe that a balanced energy portfolio, including renewable energy, energy efficiency, and state-of-the-art cleaner power plants are critical to securing Florida’s energy future,” Alex Glenn, president of Duke Energy’s utility operations in the state, said in a statement."
http://www.reuters.com/article/utilities-duke-levy/duke-energy-shelves-major-nuclear-project-in-florida-idUSL1N0G227O20130802