Solar ... In the news

Nicolai_Grenovski

I think there is a severe lack of understanding of this point - possibly at all levels. The 'obvious conclusion' is that because there is no PV on winter evenings and at night that pv is completely of no use when looking at how much thermal generation capacity is required - ie 'You can have as much PV as you want but it will not reduce the number of power stations required by even one'

Yes, as Professor David Mackay, author of 'Sustainability, Without hot air' said:
❝..if you ask what is the optimal amount of wind and solar to add in then the answer is going to be almost zero,” he said. “I love wind turbines – they are the cathedrals of the modern age – but they are a waste of money if you have a low carbon solution that gets you through the winter … because when the wind blows you are going to have to either turn them down or something else down that you have already paid for like nuclear or CCS.❞
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/03/idea-of-renewables-powering-uk-is-an-appalling-delusion-david-mackay

That doesn't mean we shouldn't have renewables (it's my sector!) but it does put the point in context for addressing climate change rather then the often confused idea of installing renewables for the sake of installing renewables.

The ONLY objective is to cut emissions - each location/country has its own sociological, economic and environmental conditions to be met.
France didn't put in 75% nuclear because it was cleanest and safest - they put it in because of a lack of fossil fuel reserves.

Nicolai_Grenovski

I'd say it was precisely the opposite. Nuclear is failing all on its own, simply because in most cases at least in the West it is too expensive, takes too long to build , the projects are too large and tend to be delayed and run over budget. Let's not forget that the latest debacle in South Carolina is far from the first in the USA,

Yes, that is nuclear cancelled because it costs so much more than fracked gas.

That is not an environmental argument.
I assume you accept the objective should be to cut emissions.

Nicolai_Grenovski

If any shilling for nuclear is taking place, it's more likely to be from the fossil fuel industry, given the likelihood the plans will eventually fall through and yield nothing, in the meantime delaying other low carbon sources of energy.

I had to look up the word 'shill'(ing) -

Here in Germany we are phasing out nuclear and since we started we have opened 5 new lignite coal power stations and have just given permission for a sixth and gas imports (including US fracked gas!) are projected to rise through 2050

I think the coal and gas industry is extremely happy with the outcome.

I don't see any mechanism by which nuclear could delay alternate low carbon supplies.
Did you have something in mind - an actual real world causal relationship?

lstar337

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

I had to look up the word 'shill'(ing) -

Here in Germany we are phasing out nuclear and since we started we have opened 5 new lignite coal power stations and have just given permission for a sixth and gas imports (including US fracked gas!) are projected to rise through 2050

I think the coal and gas industry is extremely happy with the outcome.

I don't see any mechanism by which nuclear could delay alternate low carbon supplies.
Did you have something in mind - an actual real world causal relationship?

What I have in my mind is "Please move this to another thread!"

It isn't welcome in a thread that is meant to be for 'Solar news'.

This isn't me nuclear bashing, it's about putting discussions where they are appropriate!

:mad: Start a new thread about your topic, and post in there. PLEASE! :mad:

Nicolai_Grenovski

What I have in my mind is "Please move this to another thread!"

It isn't welcome in a thread that is meant to be for 'Solar news'.

I did not raise the subject.
I responded to a post on nuclear - surely that is where you should direct your scorn?
This is a solar news thread, not an anti-nuclear thread. The two are not exclusive.
Do you agree?

Why not ask the previous poster/s to refrain from raising nuclear - which I think we can agree has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with solar news.

Does it..
Hmmm?

Cardew

lstar337 wrote: »

What I have in my mind is "Please move this to another thread!"

It isn't welcome in a thread that is meant to be for 'Solar news'.

This isn't me nuclear bashing, it's about putting discussions where they are appropriate!

:mad: Start a new thread about your topic, and post in there. PLEASE! :mad:

Much as I appreciate your input on MSE, I think the above is unfair.

It is impossible to post anywhere in this section(Green and Ethical) with anything that is considered detrimental to Solar PV without at times an almost hysterical response raising a comparison with Nuclear generation and Hinkley in particular.

Look through all the threads in Green and Ethical to confirm.

zeupater

lstar337 wrote: »

What I have in my mind is "Please move this to another thread!"

It isn't welcome in a thread that is meant to be for 'Solar news'.

This isn't me nuclear bashing, it's about putting discussions where they are appropriate!

:mad: Start a new thread about your topic, and post in there. PLEASE! :mad:

Hi

Agree - but that's the corporate position for you ... no idea of how to stand back look at the big picture !

Anyway, couldn't help but notice mention of 'shilling' & see the comment ... "I don't see any mechanism by which nuclear could delay alternate low carbon supplies." ... :rotfl::rotfl: .. a long time ago I learned that if I had a shilling pocket money I could spend it on a single chocolate bar or a bag of goodies such as mojos, bootlaces, black jacks & flying saucers ... but not both! ... any kind of analogy going on here ...

I also seem to have at the back of my mind that a certain recently referenced report shows the rate of reduction which BEIS needed to apply to PV just between 2013 & 2016 ... odd really, let me think - isn't the reduction in alternative fuel source supplies exactly why the predicted cost of future energy has fallen and isn't the HinckleyC strike price mentioned just that - a corporate strike price, not a consumer supply price ... so maybe the cheaper other energy becomes, the more we'll all be subsidising a technology which has already been subsidised for as long as it's existed ? .... but we all knew that anyway - didn't we? ... :cool:

That really leads to another issue ... the word 'delay' ... because of additional pressure on consumer bills, it's unlikely that the massive level of support which will be required by one energy sector would leave much for the others ... surely this would impact on and delay the uptake of other low carbon energy sources, which have much shorter delivery lead times, the logical conclusion being decades of additional generation by the carbon-intensive sources ... surely this carbon element should be added to balance sheet against the technology which caused the delay ...

Anyway, we're currently using our generation ... the corporate view is that the energy is worth ~4p/kWh and therefore value & compare everything against that wholesale price ... yet, to us, in our house, it's displacing retail priced electricity at around 4x the price ... odd really, the difference between a corporate viewpoint & reality when considering microgeneration .... :cool:

Corporate idiots ... :wall::whistle:
Z

Martyn1981

just for fun, i thought i'd post a statement that my guardian troll posted about 20 to 30 times throughout july, to try to mislead folk with out of date information:-

This is the Gov't prediction for 2030.
Onshore wind to be in the range £45-72/MWh
Offshore wind will be in the range £85-109/MWh
For solar they predict £59-73/MW,
Nuclear will be £69-99/MWh.

what's interesting is just how far we've come since that prediction for 2030. even the house of lords has pointed out how misleading it is, way, way back in february.

Also we had Scottish Renewables 6 months ago say that they can install on-shore wind at £50/MWh now, German PV contracts (comparable to the UK) this year hit £50/MWh, and on-shore wind hit £40 and even our own government has stated that there will be an £85/MWh cap on off-shore CfD bids for 2026 commissioning.

So looks like we are at or near the lowest end of those renewables estimates already, rather than the somewhat misleading appearance that we'll be within the range in 13yrs time, as my troll would like to suggest.

in fact the only technology in that list not already pushing at the lowest estimate is nuclear, which at £97 in 2017 monies is instead pushing the upper limit of its range.

And of course, always worth repeating that the £92.50/MWh for HPC (2012 pricing)is for 35yrs, whereas the wind and solar CfD's are only for 15yrs, and will most likely not need a subsidy when they need replacing.

fun fact, since the cost of pv has fallen 30pounds in germany since the 80 pound contracts where issued there and in the uk, and we can now expect the 2030 intermittncy cost of pv to be minus £3.70, that suggests sub 50pounds for uk pv, which is roughly half the price of nuclear, something i've mentioned previously.

Martyn1981

and another fun fact, they just keep popping up today, again from my guardian troll.

he constantly tries to bash renewables by pointint to prof mackay, but in his book, without hot air, prof m refers to 'typical' rooftop pv as being 10pc efficient, and high efficiency pv at 20pc. he then goes on to claim

I am sure that photovoltaic panels will become ever cheaper; I’m also sure that solar panels will become ever less energy-intensive to manufacture, so their energy yield ratio will improve. But this chapter’s photo-voltaic estimates weren’t constrained by the economic cost of the panels, nor by the energy cost of their manufacture. This chapter was concerned with the maximum conceivable power delivered. Photovoltaic panels with 20% efficiency are already close to the theoretical limit (see this chapter’s endnotes). I’ll be surprised if this chapter’s estimate for roof-based photo-voltaics ever needs a significant upward revision.

which is a rather poor prediction, given that 'typical' rooftop pv is now about 18pc, high performance about 24pc, and perovskite/silicon around 26pc and heading for ~38pc.

goes to show, you never can tell.


maybe it's just me, but there seems to be a need by some to mislead others when it comes to renewables, often referring back to old and out of date information, perhaps it's ideological?

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

perhaps it's ideological?

Ideological? That is terrible!