Solar ... In the news

Martyn1981

Nicolai_Grenovski wrote: »

Nonsense - I didn't raise it
But that doesn't mean that you can use a solar group to attack nuclear any more than you could use it to attack the science behind global warming.
The fact is that I work in the solar energy sector and I'm in favour of all green technologies - it's why I do what I do - yet you and Marty have done little else but invent silly stories about nuclear with fairytale comparisons to renewables and get abusive whenever I try to swing the conversation back.
Why don't you set up a little anti-nuclear page for you both to patrol?
Just a secret one that only you can use :A


.

Firstly, please end all of this abuse, there's no need to be so rude and aggressive.


Now, just to remind you:

1. You started this latest argument by claiming that German PV costs can not be used for comparison as 25%-35% more must be added - you have repeatedly refused to provide any evidence to support your claim.

2. You have gone on to claim that UK PV is connected to the HV grid (later rolled back to some UK PV) - you have repeatedly refused to provide any evidence to support that claim, other than reference to a future possible farm that has been discussed on this thread before, and if built (2019 I think) will make use of an existing HV build out to save on infrastructure costs.

3. You have gone on to claim that the LV network does not exist in the UK, even challenging the word of an operational manager for a DNO (DNO's manage the LV grid, or if you prefer LV network in the UK).

4. You have denied that the latest off-shore wind auction price is £57.50/MWh, despite providing a link to the auction and allocation rounds that clearly show that £57.50/MWh applies to a 'later' date than £75/MWh, reflecting falling costs over time.

5. You are determined to argue minutia over contract details, yet are more than happy to simply claim a £70/MWh for future nuclear when no such contract has been issued.

6. You want to stir the issue of solar news on this thread, yet as a nuclear supporter have clearly joined MSE purely to start arguments and make unsubstantiated claims against RE supporters on a green & ethical board.


I'm sorry that nuclear looks to no longer be economical (assuming it ever was), but that does not justify a defense of it on a solar in the news thread.

I should also point out that even if nuclear can provide a £70/MWh bid, presumably for 35yrs, at some point in the future, it will then be going up against RE at something like £40/MWh for PV and on-shore wind, and £50/MWh for off-shore wind, all on shorter 15yr contracts. So the future for economical nuclear is not bright.


I see little point in continuing any discussion here with you unless you can evidence your claims of 25%-35%, PV on HV grid, a single allocation of off-shore wind in 2017, and a £70/MWh contract for nuclear. Thank you for your time.

Martyn1981

Perovskite keeps moving forward, with an article here on how Perovskite and silicon panels could be 25%. I've read of potential well into the 30's, so that means we could twice as PV gen in the same 'space' or half the space for the same amount of generation v's the PV most of us installed just 5 (or so) years ago.

Also Perovskite should be cheap, so the Wp cost might be the same, so whilst 6kWp of panels may be twice the cost of 'old' 3kWp, the other install costs would not increase significantly.

[Edit - the newspaper PV growth chart stops at 2016, so just to say that PV deployments in 2017 topped 100GWp for the first time, taking the total to around 400GWp, continuing the exponential growth. M.]

After the 'sunrush': what comes next for solar power?

Perovskite captures energy from a different part of sunlight!!!8217;s wavelength than silicon, so Oxford PV!!!8217;s plan is to layer it atop silicon, to maximise electricity generation.

!!!8220;We find ourselves in a position that we are not fighting a $35bn industry [silicon], we are enhancing it. The idea is use the existing assets. If you do something completely different it will fail. This can complement the existing cell,!!!8221; said Frank Averdung, the company!!!8217;s CEO.

Martyn1981

Hybrid solar-plus-storage economics ‘stacking up’ as Anesco dismisses Capacity Market impact

The economics of solar-and-storage in the UK are being proven, Anesco has said.

Speaking at the Energy Storage Summit in London, Steve Shine, Anesco’s chairman, explained that while the company had not proven the case for subsidy-free solar, the business model for its hybrid Clay Hill project was panning out.

Martyn1981

I think this is significant, but stick with me as I go down a mathematical rabbit hole:

Solar rises to nearly 2% of U.S. generation in 2017

Generation from U.S. solar increased 41% last year to 1.9% of all electricity, with solar making up more than 10% of generation in California, Nevada, Hawaii and Vermont.

Growth of approx 40% pa for PV has been typical now for about a decade. That actually translates to an approx doubling every 2 years.

Wind and PV have started from a tiny (tiny weeny) base, but their growth has now reached critical levels, such as 2% .... really, 2% is critical ....... I said it was a rabbit hole.

Now, whilst earlier doubling's move you from negligible, to almost negligible, 1% or 2% are actually significant. If you start at 2% and do 5 doubling's you get to, wait for it, 64%, which is by no means trivial nor negligible.

Now, I don't expect that to happen, or even be needed, but that hypothetical level could be reached in just 10yrs, or 15yrs if doubling's take 3yrs.

So with low costs, and falling costs, it looks like the potential of PV supplying a significant percentage of US leccy has now arrived, and hopefully that potential, let's lowball it at 10-20% in the next decade or so, now seems reasonable.

Isn't maths (sorry math it is the US after all) fun!

SolarCoach

"Whilst I'd prefer it if we could drop nuclear, that doesn't seem quite possible today. The same goes for gas too, especially in a role as making up for fluctuating renewable generation."

As I was reviewing your comment I came across this piece of information that basically ventilates the same worry, but gives context to the actual numbers.


People do love solar energy, but can it really fulfill our need for energy:question::question::question: If we just start filling our roofs with solar panels we will be closer to the solution.

irinarina

I agree with you, SolarCoach! Here is an infographic that also shows that
greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2017/09/nuclear-energy-in-the-uk-green-or-not

It's about the un-feasibility of long-lasting nuclear power use, in comparison to solar energy.

Martyn1981

SolarCoach wrote: »

People do love solar energy, but can it really fulfill our need for energy:question::question::question: If we just start filling our roofs with solar panels we will be closer to the solution.

Hiya, and welcome. That's a simple suggestion, I like it. the market tends to find solutions to any problems as it develops, so, PV first, answers later would almost certainly work.

It's a bit like the 'the sun doesn't shine at night', or 'PV gen is less in the winter' comments. So long as PV displaces FF generation, as and when it can, then job done. Daily CO2 is not really the problem, it's the cumulative annual total that is a concern, so PV in the summer, wind in the winter and so on is OK so long as the average gas generation is very low on an annual basis, even if some days it's extremely high.

Then long term, bio-gas for filling in the holes, but now I'm getting greedy.

ASavvyBuyer

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hiya, and welcome. That's a simple suggestion, I like it. the market tends to find solutions to any problems as it develops, so, PV first, answers later would almost certainly work.

It's a bit like the 'the sun doesn't shine at night', or 'PV gen is less in the winter' comments. So long as PV displaces FF generation, as and when it can, then job done. Daily CO2 is not really the problem, it's the cumulative annual total that is a concern, so PV in the summer, wind in the winter and so on is OK so long as the average gas generation is very low on an annual basis, even if some days it's extremely high.

Then long term, bio-gas for filling in the holes, but now I'm getting greedy.

If you also add in some battery storage & more pumped hydro; it could make it very viable .

NigeWick

ASavvyBuyer wrote: »

If you also add in some battery storage & more pumped hydro; it could make it very viable .

Or, gravity generated electricity a la Gravitricity featured in this video:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTZ6HBQgq8E

Martyn1981

Same ole same ole with Australia rolling out masses of small scale PV, but what struck me was the price of a domestic system:-

Australia's solar future bright as households install record 3.5m panels

A fully installed 5KW system costs an average of $5,930 in Australia, according to the energy broker Solarchoice.net.au. Its records show that the price has roughly halved in many capital cities since 2012.

And just to be clear, those are Aussie dollars.

So Aus$6k is approx £3,400.

Even taking into account the MIP which Europe has, and the fact that many Aus properties may well be single storey, that's still a staggering price.

Goes to show what can be achieved if the industry is supported and supply chains (importers, wholesalers and retailers) aren't damaged by boom and bust political decisions.

Have to repeat that price £3.4k for 5kWp. :shocked: