Solar ... In the news

Martyn1981

michaels wrote: »

I'm thinking the gulf states already have infrastructure to ship liquefied gases, have an abundance of sunshine that falls onto land with little or no alternative use and are likely to be looking for a replacement to the export of extracted hydrocarbons to support their economies.

Surely that can be made to work....

That's my thinking too, but I guess it all comes down to transportation and profit margin - since we can do this ourselves in the UK, only we'll get half the generation, so would the extra costs of shipping it in work out cheaper, I've no idea.

The other reason for doing it ourselves is that we could rollout overcapacity of PV, use it all in the bottom 6 months, and store the excess as hydrogen in the better 6 months.

The problem for the sunnier countries is that regardless of solar levels around the world, PV itself is getting so cheap that just installing more to make up the difference may be cheaper.

TBF I have no way of knowing how this would all stack up, and what options are more viable, just spitballing at this point, till some sun rich country gives it a shot and we get an idea on the comparable economics. Step one I suppose is can generation - hydrogen - shipping - leccy be cheaper than gas with an appropriate carbon tax. If it is, then that could change things significantly as sunlight/H2 might be competing against LNG rather than against leccy, and as we are already shipping significant amounts of LNG around, that market already exists, and the H2 can be used to produce methane for the gas grid if necessary.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I find the anti-RE and full RE trolling fascinating, it seems to have peaked this last year as nuclear became unviable, or appears to be behind RE and falling. This seems to have led to a growing volume of ever more desperate spin, akin I suppose to the drowning man clutching at straws analogy.

I think I'll stick my neck out now and say that it's over, any spin/trolling from now on will be too obvious and too desperate for anyone with an IQ over 15 to take seriously.

Here's to a RE heavy and anti-RE spin light future on the G&E board.

That post is both sad, childish and embarrassing.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

That post is both sad, childish and embarrassing.

Yes. I may well sound like a sad embarrassed child when predicting an end to anti-RE spin on here, but I feel that a level of child-like optimism is now warranted. So will hope for the best.

After all, why would anyone in their right mind want to spoil the enjoyment of others in discussing RE progress, especially if the negativity requires fact denying spin?

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

That post is both sad, childish and embarrassing.

Then feel free to be embarrassed ..:o.. after years of posting against renewable energy based on cost and the effect of subsidy on the vulnerable in society, it seems that the renewables sector has risen from a mere concept to one which is not only starting to compete with long-term highly subsidised generating sources, but also knocking on the door of cheaper carbon based sources too, all this achieved within little more than a decade ... in not recognising the benefits of the rapid rise in the various technologies, embarrassment would be an obvious outcome ...

zeupater

michaels wrote: »

I'm thinking the gulf states already have infrastructure to ship liquefied gases, have an abundance of sunshine that falls onto land with little or no alternative use and are likely to be looking for a replacement to the export of extracted hydrocarbons to support their economies.

Surely that can be made to work....

Hi

There has already been much talk about gulf states starting to invest oil-wealth into rapidly decarbonising and industrialising (Aluminium etc) their own economies in anticipation of reducing fossil-fuel demand. Have a look at this document (pdf) ...

SASIA-CountryFocusReport-SP.pdf

... quite interesting! ...

HTH
Z

silverwhistle

zeupater wrote: »

Then feel free to be embarrassed ..:o.. after years of posting against renewable energy based on cost and the effect of subsidy on the vulnerable in society,

Ah yes, thanks for reminding me! I'm not complaining about my lot in life and my pension of just over a grand a month, especially as I've been told I'm one of the rich being subsidised, although I expect he'd consider that a laughable income for himself.

Martyn is obviously an enthusiast, and I far prefer enthusiasts than carping miserabilists in life. So I might not be interested at all in cars but I'll express admiration to some enthusiast who has just restored an old one or is really enthusiastic about his new one. Nor do I go on motoring forums to start criticising the cars or the ICE. But I find some people incredibly tiresome, and the poster we are discussing is a case in point: they make no real contribution to this forum, look at his last few posts, they're fairly typical in their brevity, lack of content and negativity.

Nicolai_Grenovski

. Nor do I go on motoring forums to start criticising the cars or the ICE. But I find some people incredibly tiresome, and the poster we are discussing is a case in point: they make no real contribution to this forum, look at his last few posts, they're fairly typical in their brevity, lack of content and negativity.

An interesting complaint - I came tothis forum because of the title, 'Solar News'
I started a conversation on solar and the reply was "because Hinkley point" I again attempted to start a conversation on solar - the response was "because Hinkley point" . following which Martyn the "enthusiast" started complaining about his "guardian troll" with the nearest pass to an on topic comment, a bizarre claim that solar works best if you don't point it where the sun is most of the time.
I pointed out why this is incorrect andI was then attacked (with your support) for not joining up with the criticism of Hinkley point - which you characterise as "negativity"
Whenever I attempt to drag the conversation back to a solar topic I get more of the same.

From my perspective the forum is incorrectly titled.

Martyn1981

LG now offering 360Wp panels. One small point, these are 1,700mm tall rather than the more common 1,600mm. But still a massive increase on the 225Wp, 235Wp, 250Wp panels from 5 to 7 years ago.

LGs Brings New High-Efficiency Residential Solar Panels To SPI For Reveal

NigeWick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

LG now offering 360Wp panels. One small point, these are 1,700mm tall rather than the more common 1,600mm. But still a massive increase on the 225Wp, 235Wp, 250Wp panels from 5 to 7 years ago.

It's like Wagon Wheels getting smaller but costing the same.

Former_MSE_Andrea

Hi everyone,

Please remember this is a friendly forum.

Please try to help us keep discussions on topic, remembering, though, that if your view is very different from others' views and you don't like what you read you can block forum members by adding them to your ignore list.

Thanks in advance for your help