Solar ... In the news

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Yes, got it now, I completely mis-read the figure, so the stored leccy price is 1.3c/kWh more, giving a total of 3.3c/kWh. I'm utterly shocked, that's incredible. I'm so shocked I'm still not sure I've got it right, that sounds way to good.

I'm reading (it now) that the adder is only for the stored leccy, whereas if it was on all leccy, that would seem decent, but stored only is ............ I don't know what to say! Do you read it that way too?

Hi

Yes, I read it as a base price for direct delivery of energy with an additional payment above that for energy delivered from the batteries, so just under $33/MWh from storage ...

I'd consider that to be California conveying the term 'Game On' to Washington in spreadsheet terms .... :cool:;)

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

And another, dare I say cheap, solar and storage deal, this time for Nevada. i won't comment more on the price, as I mucked it up last time, but I think the article is pretty clear:

8minute To Build 475 Megawatt/540 Megawatt-hour Solar + Storage Project

8minute Solar Energy announced on Tuesday that it has been selected to develop the largest solar plus storage project ever built in Nevada, and one of the largest in the world, measuring in at a whopping 475 megawatts (MW) for the solar array and 540 megawatt-hours (MWh) for the battery storage system.

Southern Bighorn will deliver clean power at an average price (including Time of Delivery Adjustments) of about $35 per MWh, which is below the cost of fossil fuel-based generation.

Martyn1981

Started off thinking this should go on green energy but it's actually a little more about PV's future, possibly 80GW's? Great news though, dare I say historic.

UK Power Sector Nears “Landmark” Renewable “Tipping Point” Even As It Underestimates Solar

The UK power sector is on track to reach a “landmark tipping point,” according to National Grid, the country’s national grid operator, as it nears the point where non-fossil fuel sources generate more electricity than traditional fossil fuel-powered generation.

“The incredible progress that Britain has made in the past 10 years means we can now say 2019 will be the year net zero power beats fossil fuel-fired generation for the first time,” said National Grid chief executive John Pettigrew, speaking in late June. Specifically, according to National Grid, 47.9% of electricity across the first five months of 2019 came from wind, solar, hydro, storage, and nuclear, while fossil fuels only supplied 46.6%.

GreatApe

The grid is already solved with what is under construction and what is committed to and what will be negative cost (interconnectors). 2023 will be about 75% non fossil fuel and we will continue to build out more offshore wind and interconnectors from 2023-2030 further increasing this 75% figure.

There is no need for additional tidal or nuclear or mass solar when the grid is already solved by what is under construction and what is committed to be built (30GW offshore by 2030)

Martyn1981

Clever way to 'turbo charge' silicon PV to get to higher potential efficiencies.

Quick note - even if efficiency gains mean a proportional increase in cost, say a 33% more powerful panel costing 33% more, the gains are still enormous as all the other PV farm costs, such as land, frames, labour, fencing etc wouldn't increase. So the cost of generation falls as PV efficiency rises, assuming cost effective rises. And for demand side PV, it again means more kWp for the same space.

Researchers Unlock Secret To Higher Efficiency Solar Cells

Martyn1981

Shiny grass, well it made me laugh. Simple idea to boost bi-facial panel generation, especially this time of the year when the sun starts and finishes behind the panels (NE rise, NW set).

BP solar firm blazes ahead in search for UK's shiniest grass

BP’s solar subsidiary is on the hunt for Britain’s shiniest grass to help make the most of new double-sided solar panels that can harness light reflected off the ground.

Lightsource BP hopes the “bi-facial” solar panels will boost the amount of renewable energy generated at its solar farms and could make them more economic in gloomier parts of Northern Ireland and Scotland.

At a test site outside Belfast the company found that the bifacial panels can increase electricity output by almost 15% – but this can be much higher if the ground beneath the panel is particularly reflective.

Coastalwatch

Well, with all the knocks that solar seems to have taken lately this is a refreshing piece of news and especially if you're suffering from shading issues due to neighbours!



https://f7td5.app.goo.gl/ZrVsf

Martyn1981

Coastalwatch wrote: »

Well, with all the knocks that solar seems to have taken lately this is a refreshing piece of news and especially if you're suffering from shading issues due to neighbours!



https://f7td5.app.goo.gl/ZrVsf

Cheers that is a bit of good news, nice to see AGW being considered 'properly'?

The judge acknowledged that Mr McLennan's panels only make a 'very modest' contribution to reducing carbon emissions.

But, overturning the permission, he added: 'Mitigation of climate change is a legitimate planning consideration'.

Mr McLennan said the shadow cast by the extension would 'severely degrade the power output' of his micro-energy generation system.

But the council said that was a purely 'private' matter between him and Mr Kennedy and was not a 'material planning consideration.'

The extension would be in keeping with the area and would have no major impact on sunlight reaching Mr McLennan's garden or living rooms.

But Mr McLennan insisted that the fight against climate change by promoting renewable energy sources is in the public interest and not merely a private matter.

Coastalwatch

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Cheers that is a bit of good news, nice to see AGW being considered 'properly'?

So going forward has this case set a precedent for any similar such cases that may occur in future or is it just a one off with any subsequent events being judged entirely on their own merits without reference to this ruling?

EricMears

Coastalwatch wrote: »

So going forward has this case set a precedent for any similar such cases that may occur in future or is it just a one off with any subsequent events being judged entirely on their own merits without reference to this ruling?

I think it was just a district court where one decision doesn't bind a different court. If it goes to appeal, the appeal court decision would bind lower courts.