Solar ... In the news

Martyn1981

Extracts from this week's Carbon Commentary newsletter:

3, Solar thermal. Concentrating solar power (CSP) seems to be losing the race against photovoltaics but a serial entrepreneur unveiled a new approach that may make it cost competitive. Instead of huge mirrors he promises reflectors no larger than solar panels that will be simply dropped on the ground and then adjusted automatically to follow the sun and reflect onto a central tower. The claim is that this approach will produce the very high temperatures necessary for some industries for no more than 1 US cent per kilowatt hour, a cost that beats the heat from burning natural gas in most parts of the world. It is certainly true that simply increasing the scale of CSP plants has not resulted in major cost reductions and this new approach is well worth trying.
  
5, World’s largest (or 2nd largest) PV plant. Global solar PV capacity reached 2.2 GW in 2002. A single solar farm of that size was initiated in western China this week, transmitting its electricity over a long distance at ultra-high voltage to the more populous east. The farm took just four months to construct, at a cost of approximately $2.2bn. But the transmission line more than doubled this figure, although it will also accept power from other sources. 200 MW/MWh of storage accompanied the solar farm, making it the second largest battery in the world. A hugely impressive achievement but China will probably have to build a thousand sites like this to get to its new net zero target by 2060.
 
6, PV mixed with agriculture (‘Agro-photovoltaics’). Pioneers suggest that in sunny countries solar panels placed high above horticultural crops can both generate electricity and actually improve food yields by reducing heat stress. A different way of merging agriculture and PV emerged last week in a new German solar installation (text in German). In this case, solar panels that can collect light on both sides (‘bifacial’) are put on vertical fences that run north south across grain or seed fields. The rows of panels are 8 metres apart, allowing full sized agricultural machinery to move between them. Being in north/south rows, the panels themselves face east/west, meaning that maximum yields are attained in the morning and late afternoon. Typically, the value of this electricity will be greater than output which peaks at midday. From the data provided from the 4 MW Bavarian installation I calculate that the yield per megawatt is probably about as good as a conventional solar farm. The amount of electricity per hectare is only about half as much but the value of the grain grown may more than compensate for this. (In energy terms, growing crops cannot compete with solar PV – a hectare of maize will typically provide about 18 MWh of energy value compared with 700 MWh for PV, says the German energy researcher Fraunhofer). 

10, How much electricity from covering a truck with solar panels? I see this question more often than any other single query: would the electricity produced by solar panels covering a vehicle contribute a significant amount of its energy needs? Truck producer Scania gave us a partial answer last week. PV panels covering almost the entire surface of a 18 metre long trailer will produce about 5-10% of the vehicles energy needs in Sweden and perhaps twice this percentage in sunnier southern Europe. Scania projects electricity production of 200 kWh per square metre in Spain. What does this mean for a typical passenger EV, which uses about 3,000 kWh a year? My guess is that a medium-sized car could conceivably carry about 5 square metres of panels, generating perhaps one third of the car’s total needs in southern Europe. Probably better to make the electricity in a large field at a fraction of the cost, I would guess, although self-generation is a possible answer to range anxiety.

Martyn1981

The MONSTER PV farm in Australia to help power Singapore (via undersea HVDC cable) has taken another step forward, and given that Australia's CO2(e) is about 1.4% of World emissions, with only 0.3% of the population, this will help them, both with their own energy consumption, and their energy exports. [Note - Australia may end up exporting sunshine to Japan too, as that Nation is probably too compact to generate enough RE for itself, so may need to rely on imports (possibly as H2 or ammonia).]

Australian outback cattle station to house world's largest solar farm, powering Singapore

A cattle station halfway between Alice Springs and Darwin is set to house the world’s largest solar farm, with energy generated from the project to ultimately power Singapore.

Newcastle Waters, where casino mogul James Packer worked as a jackaroo for a year when his father, Kerry, owned the 10,000 sq km property, has been earmarked for the $20bn solar farm, according to the company responsible for the project, Sun Cable.

The 10 gigawatt solar farm, which will be visible from space if built, was granted major project status from the Morrison government in July and has attracted billionaire investors including Andrew Forrest and Mike Cannon-Brookes.

Sun Cable’s chief executive, David Griffin, told Guardian Australia the site would take up about 12,000 hectares, and that a referral for the project has been submitted to the Northern Territory’s Environmental Protection Authority – the first stage of a lengthy approvals process that is expected to allow construction to begin in late 2023, energy production by 2026 and export by 2027.

Exporting solar energy has been flagged as a way Australia can expand its energy production while significantly reducing global emissions. Australia is responsible for about 1.4% of greenhouse gas emissions, which increases by 5% if fossil fuel exports are counted.

Martyn1981

Obviously this is a global story, and not UK specific, as lower PV generation (kWh/kWp) in Northern Europe will mean higher costs of generation, than PV that is ideally located. But the direction of travel is the same, with new solar starting to beat existing FF powerstations on price.

Solar Power = “Cheapest Electricity In History”

The International Energy Agency has a long history in fossil fuels. It is not the first, second, or third organization that would come to mind when thinking of renewable energy bulls or fans. However, its latest report indicates that solar power is now the “cheapest electricity in history.”

The International Energy Agency (IEA) said much more than this in its 464-page World Energy Outlook 2020, but when it comes down to it, this is the line that matters most. The past decade has shown tremendous growth in solar power and wind power worldwide, but the next decade is where they’ll really shine, because the key crossover points have now occurred (like solar becoming cheaper than every other electricity source, on average) or will soon occur (like electricity from new solar power plants becoming cheaper than electricity from existing fossil fuel power plants).

EricMears

Martyn1981 said:

Solar Power = “Cheapest Electricity In History”

AND of course "Soon it will be too cheap to meter"  .    Watch out for flying pigs   

JKenH

Martyn1981 said:

Obviously this is a global story, and not UK specific, as lower PV generation (kWh/kWp) in Northern Europe will mean higher costs of generation, than PV that is ideally located. But the direction of travel is the same, with new solar starting to beat existing FF powerstations on price.

Solar Power = “Cheapest Electricity In History”

The International Energy Agency has a long history in fossil fuels. It is not the first, second, or third organization that would come to mind when thinking of renewable energy bulls or fans. However, its latest report indicates that solar power is now the “cheapest electricity in history.”

The International Energy Agency (IEA) said much more than this in its 464-page World Energy Outlook 2020, but when it comes down to it, this is the line that matters most. The past decade has shown tremendous growth in solar power and wind power worldwide, but the next decade is where they’ll really shine, because the key crossover points have now occurred (like solar becoming cheaper than every other electricity source, on average) or will soon occur (like electricity from new solar power plants becoming cheaper than electricity from existing fossil fuel power plants).

I don’t recall seeing any mention of battery storage in that article.

The author states (before he gives a huge plug for Tesla and his referral code)

The implication of the first matter is clear — it becomes illogical to build more expensive new power plants that also pollute when you can build cheaper solar power plants.

This is the problem with CleanTechnica articles - a complete lack of objectivity. Solar is great during daylight hours but without storage is useless when the sun isn’t shining and that’s at least 50%of the time. We have seen the problems with the California grid because it relies heavily on solar power and there is insufficient storage. 

If you are so naive go build your grid based on solar power plants only if you think it will work. 

I am all for solar and wind so long as there is some back up to keep the lights on. In states like California where the sunshine is far more reliable and predictable than here it may possible to base all your generation on solar but you are going to need a lot of storage to make it work and that costs money - is solar then still the cheapest form of providing guaranteed supply? 

Why can’t solar (and wind) advocates be honest and admit that. Tell us please what it will actually cost to provide a 100% renewables powered grid 100% of the time compared to gas. Then we can have a sensible discussion about how and when we can integrate more solar and wind into the grid and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Until then it’s just idealistic nonsense conveniently ignoring the cost of storage to claim it becomes illogical to build more expensive new power plants when you can build cheaper solar power plants. 

Martyn1981

JKenH said:

Martyn1981 said:

Obviously this is a global story, and not UK specific, as lower PV generation (kWh/kWp) in Northern Europe will mean higher costs of generation, than PV that is ideally located. But the direction of travel is the same, with new solar starting to beat existing FF powerstations on price.

Solar Power = “Cheapest Electricity In History”

The International Energy Agency has a long history in fossil fuels. It is not the first, second, or third organization that would come to mind when thinking of renewable energy bulls or fans. However, its latest report indicates that solar power is now the “cheapest electricity in history.”

The International Energy Agency (IEA) said much more than this in its 464-page World Energy Outlook 2020, but when it comes down to it, this is the line that matters most. The past decade has shown tremendous growth in solar power and wind power worldwide, but the next decade is where they’ll really shine, because the key crossover points have now occurred (like solar becoming cheaper than every other electricity source, on average) or will soon occur (like electricity from new solar power plants becoming cheaper than electricity from existing fossil fuel power plants).

I don’t recall seeing any mention of battery storage in that article.

The author states (before he gives a huge plug for Tesla and his referral code)

The implication of the first matter is clear — it becomes illogical to build more expensive new power plants that also pollute when you can build cheaper solar power plants.

This is the problem with CleanTechnica articles - a complete lack of objectivity. Solar is great during daylight hours but without storage is useless when the sun isn’t shining and that’s at least 50%of the time. We have seen the problems with the California grid because it relies heavily on solar power and there is insufficient storage. 

If you are so naive go build your grid based on solar power plants only if you think it will work. 

I am all for solar and wind so long as there is some back up to keep the lights on. In states like California where the sunshine is far more reliable and predictable than here it may possible to base all your generation on solar but you are going to need a lot of storage to make it work and that costs money - is solar then still the cheapest form of providing guaranteed supply? 

Why can’t solar (and wind) advocates be honest and admit that. Tell us please what it will actually cost to provide a 100% renewables powered grid 100% of the time compared to gas. Then we can have a sensible discussion about how and when we can integrate more solar and wind into the grid and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Until then it’s just idealistic nonsense claiming it becomes illogical to build more expensive new power plants when you can build cheaper solar power plants and ignoring the cost of storage to make it work. 

Just a thought Ken, but rather than following me around from thread to thread, ranting and making up silly claims such as running the World on solar only, something nobody is suggesting, why don't you just pop me on ignore. You complain about all the sources I quote, so clearly they are not of interest to you.
So just like the energy thread, the investment thread and the BEV thread, rather than spoil and disrupt, just pop me on ignore and you'll never be bothered by me again.
Many thanks.

Martyn1981

EricMears said:

Martyn1981 said:

Solar Power = “Cheapest Electricity In History”

AND of course "Soon it will be too cheap to meter"  .    Watch out for flying pigs   

Yep, that would be funny.
I may have mentioned this before but a guy I chat with on another site has recently moved back to nuclear fission research from nuclear fusion (the 'too cheap to meter' dream). The problem with the technology, which is progressing and will hopefully one day produce vast amounts of energy safely, is that it won't do it cheaply, and investment monies have slowed down the last 5yrs or so, due to the rapidly falling costs of RE which it simply won't be able to match.
So this great future technology may (or may not) still arrive, but it simply won't be cost effective to deploy. Oh well.

JKenH

Martyn1981 said:

JKenH said:

Martyn1981 said:

Obviously this is a global story, and not UK specific, as lower PV generation (kWh/kWp) in Northern Europe will mean higher costs of generation, than PV that is ideally located. But the direction of travel is the same, with new solar starting to beat existing FF powerstations on price.

Solar Power = “Cheapest Electricity In History”

The International Energy Agency has a long history in fossil fuels. It is not the first, second, or third organization that would come to mind when thinking of renewable energy bulls or fans. However, its latest report indicates that solar power is now the “cheapest electricity in history.”

The International Energy Agency (IEA) said much more than this in its 464-page World Energy Outlook 2020, but when it comes down to it, this is the line that matters most. The past decade has shown tremendous growth in solar power and wind power worldwide, but the next decade is where they’ll really shine, because the key crossover points have now occurred (like solar becoming cheaper than every other electricity source, on average) or will soon occur (like electricity from new solar power plants becoming cheaper than electricity from existing fossil fuel power plants).

I don’t recall seeing any mention of battery storage in that article.

The author states (before he gives a huge plug for Tesla and his referral code)

The implication of the first matter is clear — it becomes illogical to build more expensive new power plants that also pollute when you can build cheaper solar power plants.

This is the problem with CleanTechnica articles - a complete lack of objectivity. Solar is great during daylight hours but without storage is useless when the sun isn’t shining and that’s at least 50%of the time. We have seen the problems with the California grid because it relies heavily on solar power and there is insufficient storage. 

If you are so naive go build your grid based on solar power plants only if you think it will work. 

I am all for solar and wind so long as there is some back up to keep the lights on. In states like California where the sunshine is far more reliable and predictable than here it may possible to base all your generation on solar but you are going to need a lot of storage to make it work and that costs money - is solar then still the cheapest form of providing guaranteed supply? 

Why can’t solar (and wind) advocates be honest and admit that. Tell us please what it will actually cost to provide a 100% renewables powered grid 100% of the time compared to gas. Then we can have a sensible discussion about how and when we can integrate more solar and wind into the grid and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Until then it’s just idealistic nonsense claiming it becomes illogical to build more expensive new power plants when you can build cheaper solar power plants and ignoring the cost of storage to make it work. 

Just a thought Ken, but rather than following me around from thread to thread, ranting and making up silly claims such as running the World on solar only, something nobody is suggesting, why don't you just pop me on ignore. You complain about all the sources I quote, so clearly they are not of interest to you.
So just like the energy thread, the investment thread and the BEV thread, rather than spoil and disrupt, just pop me on ignore and you'll never be bothered by me again.
Many thanks.

It’s not about you just what you post. If you are going to post articles from CleanTechnica that ignore the realities of implementing renewables I will continue to point out the fallacies in what you post. When you post something sensible I give you the thumbs up.

I acknowledge that wind and solar are already cheaper than fossil fuels in some circumstances and they will only get cheaper so they should and will be an increasingly important part of our grid. Without storage though the marginal benefit of each new solar or wind farm decreases and storage must be our priority as I have explained on the AGE thread. 

Other than JoeFizz no one else on here will admit that weaknesses in our grid are developing as we roll out renewables without a commensurate increase in storage to provide the back up that FF have traditionally provided. 

My argument is not with renewables - how many times do I have to say that I am pro renewables - it is how it is being rolled out. We can not replace 1GW of FF generation capacity with 1 GW or even 10GW of renewable capacity because renewables are just too intermittent. We need storage and lots of it to make renewables work. 

So my point, in the post you complained about, was that CleanTechnica can’t acknowledge that because when you add in the cost of storage the sums don’t look quite so rosy. They can’t acknowledge it because, like you, they only want to push the good news and ignore the inconvenient truth. And that is why California one of the beacons of renewable energy have ended up with a lop sided grid which is not fit for purpose once the sun goes down.

Let’s hope we don’t make the same mistake here. 

Pile_o_stone

Martyn1981 said:

JKenH said:

Martyn1981 said:

Obviously this is a global story, and not UK specific, as lower PV generation (kWh/kWp) in Northern Europe will mean higher costs of generation, than PV that is ideally located. But the direction of travel is the same, with new solar starting to beat existing FF powerstations on price.

Solar Power = “Cheapest Electricity In History”

The International Energy Agency has a long history in fossil fuels. It is not the first, second, or third organization that would come to mind when thinking of renewable energy bulls or fans. However, its latest report indicates that solar power is now the “cheapest electricity in history.”

The International Energy Agency (IEA) said much more than this in its 464-page World Energy Outlook 2020, but when it comes down to it, this is the line that matters most. The past decade has shown tremendous growth in solar power and wind power worldwide, but the next decade is where they’ll really shine, because the key crossover points have now occurred (like solar becoming cheaper than every other electricity source, on average) or will soon occur (like electricity from new solar power plants becoming cheaper than electricity from existing fossil fuel power plants).

I don’t recall seeing any mention of battery storage in that article.

The author states (before he gives a huge plug for Tesla and his referral code)

The implication of the first matter is clear — it becomes illogical to build more expensive new power plants that also pollute when you can build cheaper solar power plants.

This is the problem with CleanTechnica articles - a complete lack of objectivity. Solar is great during daylight hours but without storage is useless when the sun isn’t shining and that’s at least 50%of the time. We have seen the problems with the California grid because it relies heavily on solar power and there is insufficient storage. 

If you are so naive go build your grid based on solar power plants only if you think it will work. 

I am all for solar and wind so long as there is some back up to keep the lights on. In states like California where the sunshine is far more reliable and predictable than here it may possible to base all your generation on solar but you are going to need a lot of storage to make it work and that costs money - is solar then still the cheapest form of providing guaranteed supply? 

Why can’t solar (and wind) advocates be honest and admit that. Tell us please what it will actually cost to provide a 100% renewables powered grid 100% of the time compared to gas. Then we can have a sensible discussion about how and when we can integrate more solar and wind into the grid and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Until then it’s just idealistic nonsense claiming it becomes illogical to build more expensive new power plants when you can build cheaper solar power plants and ignoring the cost of storage to make it work. 

Just a thought Ken, but rather than following me around from thread to thread, ranting and making up silly claims such as running the World on solar only, something nobody is suggesting, why don't you just pop me on ignore. You complain about all the sources I quote, so clearly they are not of interest to you.
So just like the energy thread, the investment thread and the BEV thread, rather than spoil and disrupt, just pop me on ignore and you'll never be bothered by me again.
Many thanks.

Maybe Ken could create a new 'alternative to solar energy news' thread for himself like he created his "Alternative to Green Energy" thread. He can post his pro-fossil fuel propaganda on there and have it read by himself and the couple of like-minded souls who hold the same opinion. Meanwhile it'll keep them from ruining the threads for those of us who are interested in renewable energies.

I often wonder why people feel the need to Troll forum sites and all I can think of is that they didn't get enough attention as children and they are 'acting out' on the internet to make up for it. Perhaps instead of 'hug a hoodie', we should be encouraged to hug a troll? If their parents had hugged them when they were kids, perhaps they wouldn't be on here now?

Martyn1981

JKenH said:

Martyn1981 said:

JKenH said:

Martyn1981 said:

Obviously this is a global story, and not UK specific, as lower PV generation (kWh/kWp) in Northern Europe will mean higher costs of generation, than PV that is ideally located. But the direction of travel is the same, with new solar starting to beat existing FF powerstations on price.

Solar Power = “Cheapest Electricity In History”

The International Energy Agency has a long history in fossil fuels. It is not the first, second, or third organization that would come to mind when thinking of renewable energy bulls or fans. However, its latest report indicates that solar power is now the “cheapest electricity in history.”

The International Energy Agency (IEA) said much more than this in its 464-page World Energy Outlook 2020, but when it comes down to it, this is the line that matters most. The past decade has shown tremendous growth in solar power and wind power worldwide, but the next decade is where they’ll really shine, because the key crossover points have now occurred (like solar becoming cheaper than every other electricity source, on average) or will soon occur (like electricity from new solar power plants becoming cheaper than electricity from existing fossil fuel power plants).

I don’t recall seeing any mention of battery storage in that article.

The author states (before he gives a huge plug for Tesla and his referral code)

The implication of the first matter is clear — it becomes illogical to build more expensive new power plants that also pollute when you can build cheaper solar power plants.

This is the problem with CleanTechnica articles - a complete lack of objectivity. Solar is great during daylight hours but without storage is useless when the sun isn’t shining and that’s at least 50%of the time. We have seen the problems with the California grid because it relies heavily on solar power and there is insufficient storage. 

If you are so naive go build your grid based on solar power plants only if you think it will work. 

I am all for solar and wind so long as there is some back up to keep the lights on. In states like California where the sunshine is far more reliable and predictable than here it may possible to base all your generation on solar but you are going to need a lot of storage to make it work and that costs money - is solar then still the cheapest form of providing guaranteed supply? 

Why can’t solar (and wind) advocates be honest and admit that. Tell us please what it will actually cost to provide a 100% renewables powered grid 100% of the time compared to gas. Then we can have a sensible discussion about how and when we can integrate more solar and wind into the grid and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Until then it’s just idealistic nonsense claiming it becomes illogical to build more expensive new power plants when you can build cheaper solar power plants and ignoring the cost of storage to make it work. 

Just a thought Ken, but rather than following me around from thread to thread, ranting and making up silly claims such as running the World on solar only, something nobody is suggesting, why don't you just pop me on ignore. You complain about all the sources I quote, so clearly they are not of interest to you.
So just like the energy thread, the investment thread and the BEV thread, rather than spoil and disrupt, just pop me on ignore and you'll never be bothered by me again.
Many thanks.

It’s not about you just what you post. If you are going to post articles from CleanTechnica that ignore the realities of implementing renewables I will continue to point out the fallacies in what you post. When you post something sensible I give you the thumbs up.

I acknowledge that wind and solar are already cheaper than fossil fuels in some circumstances and they will only get cheaper so they should and will be an increasingly important part of our grid. Without storage though the marginal benefit of each new solar or wind farm decreases and storage must be our priority as I have explained on the AGE thread. 

Other than JoeFizz no one else on here will admit that weaknesses in our grid are developing as we roll out renewables without a commensurate increase in storage to provide the back up that FF have traditionally provided. 

My argument is not with renewables - how many times do I have to say that I am pro renewables - it is how it is being rolled out. We can not replace 1GW of FF generation capacity with 1 GW or even 10GW of renewable capacity because renewables are just too intermittent. We need storage and lots of it to make renewables work. 

So my point, in the post you complained about, was that CleanTechnica can’t acknowledge that because when you add in the cost of storage the sums don’t look quite so rosy. They can’t acknowledge it because, like you, they only want to push the good news and ignore the inconvenient truth. And that is why California one of the beacons of renewable energy have ended up with a lop sided grid which is not fit for purpose once the sun goes down.

Let’s hope we don’t make the same mistake here. 

The article is about the falling cost of PV. You are trying to start yet another argument by falsely diverting into claims about ignoring storage, or an all PV future. Yet again you are stretching for no purpose other than thread disruption.
This is simply whataboutery and has nothing to do with the article. A mixed bag of RE and storage is discussed all the time both on the G&E board, and by Cleantechnica, as I'm sure you are well aware.
So please, I'm asking nicely, yet again - rather than constantly trying to start arguments and disrupt threads with your 'interpretation of the facts', just pop me on ignore.