Solar ... In the news

NigeWick

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

What sort of an argument is it to say solar (and I challenge you to identify one single negative solar comment) is any better at what it undoubtedly does because of another completely different technology.
Solar is extremely useful - it has its place in our toolbox..

I refer you to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0&t=22s from minute 50.

That said, I fully accept that we'll want tidal, hydro, wind and batteries in the mix too. We certainly do not need coal, gas and nuclear generated electricity.

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

however, when the counterpoint of 60 years of nuclear subsidy without even a possibility of being subsidy free is raised, the 'foul play' flare is shot into the air and claims of 'anti-nuclear' are megaphoned around the G&E board for weeks, as well you know! .. isn't that a classic case of spin, the aggressor feigning aggrieved?

HTH
Z

that, sqadly seems to be the entire basis of nearly a decades worth of anti-pv comments, whilst pretending it is he who is under attack.

personally i see no point in it. i don't enjoy football, but would never go onto a football discussion to demonstrate my lack of ability, and i enjoy meat, but would never try to spoil the enjoyment of vegan posters, especially on an 'ethical' board, just so i can illustrate my lck of understanding on the full picture.

maybe the saying should change to 'those that can do, those that can't just troll everyone else.'

Martyn1981

future cost of pv generation in the uk.

i thought i might elaborate on some older comments i've made about the price direction uk solar is goin in. i've suggested 50pound or less lokks likely, well it's based on many facts-

1. both the uk and germany issued contracts in early 2015 at around 80/mwh. and whilst the german contracts don't include all infrastructure costs, their contract costs have fallen by 30/mwh, so it's perfectly reasonable to assume a similar drop in costs would have been seen by the uk, within its cfd terms.

2. costs for installing pv in the uk are actually a little lowere than in germany.

3. Scottish renewables study stated that english costs were already about 60/mwh some time back.

4. some subsidy free pv will start to be deployed from 2018 in england, and a large farm planned in scotland, though that one may be deployed later as they are still watching prices/costs.

5. pv costs are currently artificially high in the eu due to the mip. costs cvould fall by about 25pc when that ends, reducing pv farm costs by around 10pc, as the panels represent approx 50pc of the costs.

6. efficiency levels are still rising slowly, and perovskite/silicon could double current efficiency levels, this won't reduce the cost/kwp, but will allow twice the generation from the same area, or the same generation from half the area, effectively halving the land related costs. for example, a house that could fit 4kwp for 5grand, with 2grand of that for the pv could then install 8kwp for 7grand, reducing the install cost from 1.25k/kwp to 0.875k/kwp, effectively a 30pc reduction.

all of these measures will obviously push farm pv below 50/mwh, and domestic pv below 5p/kwh long beforec 2030 ..... maybe 2020. [in 2017 monies]

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

that, sqadly seems to be the entire basis of nearly a decades worth of anti-pv comments, whilst pretending it is he who is under attack.

personally i see no point in it. i don't enjoy football, but would never go onto a football discussion to demonstrate my lack of ability, and i enjoy meat, but would never try to spoil the enjoyment of vegan posters, especially on an 'ethical' board, just so i can illustrate my lck of understanding on the full picture.

maybe the saying should change to 'those that can do, those that can't just troll everyone else.'

Once again a post that is nothing but a personal attack.

Anyone who disagrees with you on any point, both here and on other Boards is apparently anti-PV and a troll.

That now appears to include posting - without comment - a link to a BBC article pointing out possible dangers of a vegan diet on a thread about vegan diets. I have very real experience of a close relative who became very ill following such a diet. Until he saw sense and took medical advice to follow a 'normal' diet he was almost as obsessive as you are about your beloved Solar.

As said many times, why don't you put me on 'ignore' and then you won't be upset by my posts, and those of anyone else who thinks, IMO with justification, many of your posts are illogical and biassed. You do not have ownership of this section of MSE.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

As said many times, why don't you put me on 'ignore' and then you won't be upset by my posts, and those of anyone else who thinks, IMO with justification, many of your posts are illogical and biassed. You do not have ownership of this section of MSE.

but you don't annoy me. i find you nothing more than an irrelevance now, after all, you are still campaigning against a technology and subsidy scheme long after both have proven to be an enormous worldwide success.

no you don't upset me, though i do feel some pity for you, the upset and failure you clearly still hold having bet against this decades greatest success must burn quite deep.

as for myself or others having to place you on ignore so as to avoid seeing your trolling ....... there is a far simpler solution, and one that would also save you thousands of wasted posts.

lstar337

To clarify my position, I just want to keep this thread for links to solar news articles.

Sadly my outburst has led to yet more off-topic posts in this thread, which is not what I intended.

I also didn't mean to single out Nicolai Grenovski or nuclear based posts, apologies for that.

It is inevitable (I suppose) that solar news posts will draw comparisons to other generation, I just can't stand the arguing over it! Especially when it is two posters who I respect for their contributions to different areas of the forum. It's like being a kid watching their parents fight!

I enjoy reading the solar news articles (I find it interesting tech, and I have an array on my house), and this thread saved me a lot of time by putting them all in one place.

I'm not really interested in nuclear news or 'facts'. Since I work in the nuclear industry, any news article reported isn't really 'news' to me, it's old news.

So sorry for my initial rant (and followup), I just want to keep this as a place for news reports.

Martyn1981

if you think the first graph is funny, wait till you see the second.

IEA Gets Hilariously Slammed For Obsessively Inaccurate Renewable Energy Forecasts

Nicolai_Grenovski

I refer you to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0&t=22s from minute 50.

That said, I fully accept that we'll want tidal, hydro, wind and batteries in the mix too. We certainly do not need coal, gas and nuclear generated electricity.

Yes, I've seen it - I agree with what he says on solar and his data are correct for the areas he discusses although the tipping point he suggests for energy (2020) seems fanciful, other than in the very sunniest of locations without a large industrial demand.

So in answer to the point I think you're making on solar displacing conventional "baseload" supplies - A qualified yes, especially in hot countries where solar pv matches aircon/refridgeration demand curves.

Less so in darker, colder countries with a large industrial demand - the more seasonal variation, the lower (and slower) the penetration that is possible -at least as a general rule.

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

if you think the first graph is funny, wait till you see the second.

IEA Gets Hilariously Slammed For Obsessively Inaccurate Renewable Energy Forecasts

Hi

I find that appraisal quite interesting, however it doesn't really attempt to explain why the forecasting model is flawed causing a need for continual upward adjustment ... sounds like a bunch of automatons doing today what they did yesterday to earn a crust which when confronted by issues simply apply the "above my pay grade!" rule ...

Anyway, if the author is correct and the forecasts closely follow those of carbon intensive industries, then there's a simple & logical reason ... their forecasts use historical models which are based on long-term generation capacity investment where there's an imbalance between operating costs and capital investment, or capital investment is huge.

Effectively an industry which has historically held almost complete control of the energy sector through a centralised generation model involving vast investment has completely overlooked the effect of economies of scale on market penetration combined with the comparatively low operation cost and short build/supply cycles of renewable technologies.

In a situation where economies of scale lead to (say) a 20% reduction in plant & equipment costs, the overall effect on a carbon based generation cost would be marginal over time due to there being no impact of fuel input and operation costs ... move the same 20% P&E cost reduction to new disruptive technology investment and we see a very large reduction in generation costs ... each phase of PDCA is short, therefore there are more cycles, therefore more improvement, therefore the P&E costs start to fall exponentially due to increasing economies of scale, likely aided by increased competition for a slice of a fast growing market ... meanwhile, analysts sitting at the back of a dusty room somewhere continue to work on P&E supply cycles measured in decades, and therefore happily base their analysis on renewable installation data and costs which could be a couple of development/supply cycles old, hence continual uplift of a linear forecast as opposed to applying exponential curves ...

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

In a situation where economies of scale lead to (say) a 20% reduction in plant & equipment costs, the overall effect on a carbon based generation cost would be marginal over time due to there being no impact of fuel input and operation costs ... move the same 20% P&E cost reduction to new disruptive technology investment and we see a very large reduction in generation costs

HTH
Z

that's quite annoying, it's so obvious [when it's pointed out] but it hadn't dawned on me quite why pv and wind costs were falling so fast ........ because they are far more capex heavy and opex light.

that also increases the importance of something i've said before about life expectancies being longer than 'expected', since these divide into capex, though i assume diminishing returns, as a return must still be made reasonably asoon.

recently saw that some off-shore wind generation may reach 25yrs, which will help considerably with returns, and future bids.

...... so, so obvious, how did i miss that :embarasse