Solar ... In the news

NigeWick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

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

My 4kW system with immersion tank diverter was £6,300 three years ago.

michaels

NigeWick wrote: »

My 4kW system with immersion tank diverter was £6,300 three years ago.

And mine was 4.8 at the same point but even though we were 2 story there was a flat roof to work off so no scaffolding needed. 4 more panels to make it 5kwh would not have added much cost either.

pinnks

My 5kWp systems (well 5.25kWp) with immerSUN was just over £10k in 2013 and extended 2014. How times and prices change.

But then, early adopters were paying significantly more just 6 or 7 years ago

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

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

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!

Hows continually doubling solar working out for the Germans?
Why would it be different for the USA or wherever else?
Solar can grow exponentially then it will fall off a cliff just as it did with the Germans.

As you know solar is only about 7% of Germany which is good but not a big part of the solution. Its feast and famine output makes high integration difficult and then impossible beyond a certain point and that point is a low number.

Much more effective would be high CF offshore wind power for the EU.
Like the new large GE turbine which apparently can get 63% CF.
With such offshore wind turbines you could have offshore wind at 70% of electricity while PV seems to be finding it hard to go much above 7% in Germany.

Both good technologies but the future for bulk clean generation for the EU is high CF wind not solar. High CF offshore wind also clears a path to closing the nukes while PV and low CF onshore wind wasn't really something that could replicate what nuclear has achuebd in France.

Also offshore wind is really near the beginning of its story. How many have been installed maybe <1,000 turbines last year? While PV is near the end of its story over 20 billion panels were manufactured last year.

Martyn1981

GreatApe wrote: »

Hows continually doubling solar working out for the Germans?
Why would it be different for the USA or wherever else?
Solar can grow exponentially then it will fall off a cliff just as it did with the Germans.

As you know solar is only about 7% of Germany which is good but not a big part of the solution. Its feast and famine output makes high integration difficult and then impossible beyond a certain point and that point is a low number.

Much more effective would be high CF offshore wind power for the EU.
Like the new large GE turbine which apparently can get 63% CF.
With such offshore wind turbines you could have offshore wind at 70% of electricity while PV seems to be finding it hard to go much above 7% in Germany.

Both good technologies but the future for bulk clean generation for the EU is high CF wind not solar. High CF offshore wind also clears a path to closing the nukes while PV and low CF onshore wind wasn't really something that could replicate what nuclear has achuebd in France.

Also offshore wind is really near the beginning of its story. How many have been installed maybe <1,000 turbines last year? While PV is near the end of its story over 20 billion panels were manufactured last year.

I think you will find my huge support for wind evidenced on the Green energy thread. Plus of course I think I've been through most of this with you in the past under your other name.

Martyn1981

The massive roll out of solar in India continues, with a year on year rapid scaling up towards their 100GWp by 2022 target, and now a 3GWp tender with a $45/MWh cap.

India’s Largest Solar Tender Of 3 Gigawatts Launched


And news of a solar powered city, perhaps more accurately described as 'net 100% solar powered':-

This Indian City Is 100% Solar-Powered

Martyn1981

What do you do if you have loads of contaminated ex-coal generating sites, and maintaining them costs a fortune ....... build a PV farm perhaps?

US Utilities Turning Shuttered Coal Generating Facilities Into Solar Power Plants

Martyn1981

Shadow chancellor rebukes government for ‘destruction’ of UK solar industry

McDonnell, responding to chancellor Philip Hammond’s spring statement, said that the government had “single-handedly destroyed our solar industry”, adding that 12,000 jobs were lost as a result of cuts to subsidies.

Leonie Greene, director of advocacy and new markets at the STA, said she was pleased to see the shadow chancellor reference the problems facing the solar industry and called for the technology to receive a level playing field, including fair market access and tax treatment.

Chris Law, SNP MP for Dundee West, referenced how solar remained locked out of CfD auctions, putting the technology at a “clear competitive disadvantage” to other forms of renewable generation.

NigeWick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

build a PV farm perhaps?

Instead of HPC? Excellent idea.

Martyn1981

NigeWick wrote: »

Instead of HPC? Excellent idea.

Here's another thought, my 'German fan' keeps stating that EDF can build another nuclear powerstation for £70/MWh, rather than the £97/MWh for HPC.

So ....... as HPC construction has barely started, why not prove that by building HPC at £70/MWh and saving us £27/MWh in subsidy = £24bn.

Then take that £24bn and spend it on off-shore wind at the latest contract (2022/23 allocation) of approx £62/MWh in todays money.

Assuming wholesale prices of £50/MWh, and a subsidy top up of £12/MWh that £24bn would get us:-

£24bn / 15yrs = £1.6bn pa

£1.6bn / £12/MWh = 135TWh

135TWh is approx 40% of UK leccy consumption, v's the 7% from HPC.

Just a thought?