Solar ... In the news

JKenH

scubajoe said:

JKenH said:

michaels said:

JKenH said:

Martyn1981 said:

Personally ET, I find it hysterical now, that PV is getting the blame due to decisions to not roll out as much ..... PV, and because of some issues with an interconnector and two nuclear reactors. The levels of spin needed to blame RE for coal being burnt, rather than simply accepting that less coal (FF's in total) is being burnt now, might be enough to fly a helicopter ..... maybe Silverwhistle will now.  

At this stage, if 'that's all they've got', then RE is really starting to shine.

Why is the RE faction so paranoid about what is said in the press? Everybody is out to get us. That article wasn’t about RE it was about burning coal. We shouldn’t need to be doing it but, until there is a despatchable alternative, coal and gas are all we have to plug the gaps. Our priority should be storage not more and more RE just because it is cheap.

Edit: spelling 

Why would the Torygraph mention solar which was supplying at least the average June output rather than Nuclear and Inter-connectors which weren't?  Almost suggests they have an agenda....

Also I would happily have put PV and battery export into the grid rather than putting PV into the battery and the hot water had I been paid to do so but the joke per unit export payments for anyone not on Octopus mean there was no incentive to do so.

Although I am getting bored with defending the Telegraph for having the temerity to point out we were burning coal in June, I will extend you the courtesy of a reply that I might not to others.

The Telegraph was making the point that solar PV falls off in hot weather and in earlier paragraphs of their article had discussed the matter in more detail making a comparison with earlier days in the month and observing:

Solar panels are tested at a benchmark of 25C. For every degree rise in temperature above this level, the efficiency is reduced by 0.5 percentage points.

The temperature level refers to the solar cell temperature, rather than the air temperature. In direct sunlight, the cells can easily reach 60 or 70 degrees.

The article had compared PV with a week earlier and looking at Drax Electric iInsights I see PV generated 0.06 TWh compared to 0.08TWh on the respective dates. That looks like 25% less but there may be rounding errors.

The article also mentioned lower wind output and gas plant closures but, as you say, not nuclear or interconnectors. Ok, fair point but it doesn’t mean they omitted them because they have an agenda. 

The Telegraph pointed out in their headline and text that it was the hot weather driving demand for air conditioning which was the primary cause of the increase in demand. Low solar output was only one factor. 

Now if you or anyone else have decided the Telegraph has an agenda that is anti PV then I am not going to be able to convince you otherwise as AFAIW  you or other critics don’t read the paper. It’s just an urban myth which it suits some to maintain. I can link numerous articles from the Telegraph supporting RE but what is the point as the response will be that the articles are behind a firewall. 

If you wish to pursue the argument that the Telegraph has an agenda (whether that is fact or fiction) it is only reasonable that you also consider whether many of the other sources quoted on these forums, particularly this one, also have an agenda. I may have got the names slightly wrong but I seem to recall PV Magazine (or similar) regularly being quoted. Might they have an agenda? Or CleanTechnica? Or the Guardian? Do you or others ever raise the “agenda” issue when strongly pro RE articles are quoted/linked?

I’m not making an issue of it but the Guardian article didn’t mention the impact of temperatures on solar PV output - one might ask why not? That doesn’t necessarily mean they have an agenda but I recall they quoted some environmental lobby group (maybe Greenpeace - apologies if I misremembered). 

The point I am making here is that whether bias is displayed or whether some publication is perceived as having an agenda is often in the eye of the reader. Bias, when it boils down to it, is no more than an alternative point of view. If we don’t agree with a position it is easy, or you could say lazy, to label it as bias. Shouldn’t we share alternative points of view and discuss the issue without always playing the bias /FUD card?

I think we have done the Telegraph’s agenda to death now. Please come back to me if you wish but I can’t promise to spare the time for a reply.

Now to the second point you raise about the “joke per unit export payments”. Might I enquire what you receive in terms of export payments compared to your import tariff? I may have misremembered again but don’t you have some very low TOU import rate? You mention Octopus. Have you looked at them? If you take their EV tariffs you don’t get a very good export rate but why would a supplier pay you a similar rate to export compared to import when they have additional costs and levies to absorb in what they charge you over and above the wholesale price.

If you think the retail electricity market is unfair then why not try Octopus Agile or Flux. If you go on the Octopus Flux thread you will see PV and battery owners are getting very good returns for being net exporters. I don’t have a battery but over the last few days have been earning £6/7 a day after standing charges and import. A lot of EV owners are fixated on the lower overnight rates offered under tariffs like Octopus Go and IO and don’t consider whether Flux might be a cheaper option. 

You ok? Were you up all night writing that?

Best time of the day in summer, but thank you for your concern.

JKenH

What do we do when the wind does not blow, and the sun does not shine?

Just to demonstrate that the Telegraph is a broader church than many are prepared to accept when it comes to RE. This article from May 23 addresses the issue of intermittency (dirty word, forgive me) and then tackles pros and cons of various technologies for storage including green hydrogen . These are the concluding 3 paragraphs. I would like to publish the whole article but there would be copyright issues so apologies that you can’t see the whole picture.

In the end, the solution will be a jumble of competing technologies. The UK’s Highview Power is the world leader in cryogenic compressed air that can store energy for days in steel towers. It plans two to three plants a year over the 2020s, targeting 6 GW of dispatchable back-up electricity for up to 60 hours at a levelised cost of $100 a MWh. If it succeeds, that will plug a large hole.

There is so much creative ferment in global clean-tech that it is impossible to know what will sweep the board by the 2040s. Vast sums are being spent by the US, China, Japan, and the EU, by the world’s top universities, and by venture capital funds trying to crack the technology of energy storage. It is being cracked.

The lesson of the last 20 years is that technology moves faster than the public can keep up, and that seemingly insurmountable problems fade into irrelevance. We have the means to master the intermittency of wind and solar. If governments set the right tone, markets will find the cheapest way to do it.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/05/16/what-we-do-when-wind-does-not-blow-and-sun-does-not-shine/

EricMears

Performance of solar panels doesn't have to fall off in hot weather. It's an economic choice not to install cooling systems for the few days a year when they might be worthwhile.  And of course with adequate storage systems  it probably wouldn't matter anyway.

michaels

JKenH said:

michaels said:

JKenH said:

Martyn1981 said:

Personally ET, I find it hysterical now, that PV is getting the blame due to decisions to not roll out as much ..... PV, and because of some issues with an interconnector and two nuclear reactors. The levels of spin needed to blame RE for coal being burnt, rather than simply accepting that less coal (FF's in total) is being burnt now, might be enough to fly a helicopter ..... maybe Silverwhistle will now.  

At this stage, if 'that's all they've got', then RE is really starting to shine.

Why is the RE faction so paranoid about what is said in the press? Everybody is out to get us. That article wasn’t about RE it was about burning coal. We shouldn’t need to be doing it but, until there is a despatchable alternative, coal and gas are all we have to plug the gaps. Our priority should be storage not more and more RE just because it is cheap.

Edit: spelling 

Why would the Torygraph mention solar which was supplying at least the average June output rather than Nuclear and Inter-connectors which weren't?  Almost suggests they have an agenda....

Also I would happily have put PV and battery export into the grid rather than putting PV into the battery and the hot water had I been paid to do so but the joke per unit export payments for anyone not on Octopus mean there was no incentive to do so.

Although I am getting bored with defending the Telegraph for having the temerity to point out we were burning coal in June, I will extend you the courtesy of a reply that I might not to others.

The Telegraph was making the point that solar PV falls off in hot weather and in earlier paragraphs of their article had discussed the matter in more detail making a comparison with earlier days in the month and observing:

Solar panels are tested at a benchmark of 25C. For every degree rise in temperature above this level, the efficiency is reduced by 0.5 percentage points.

The temperature level refers to the solar cell temperature, rather than the air temperature. In direct sunlight, the cells can easily reach 60 or 70 degrees.

The article had compared PV with a week earlier and looking at Drax Electric iInsights I see PV generated 0.06 TWh compared to 0.08TWh on the respective dates. That looks like 25% less but there may be rounding errors.

The article also mentioned lower wind output and gas plant closures but, as you say, not nuclear or interconnectors. Ok, fair point but it doesn’t mean they omitted them because they have an agenda. 

The Telegraph pointed out in their headline and text that it was the hot weather driving demand for air conditioning which was the primary cause of the increase in demand. Low solar output was only one factor. 

Now if you or anyone else have decided the Telegraph has an agenda that is anti PV then I am not going to be able to convince you otherwise as AFAIW  you or other critics don’t read the paper. It’s just an urban myth which it suits some to maintain. I can link numerous articles from the Telegraph supporting RE but what is the point as the response will be that the articles are behind a firewall. 

If you wish to pursue the argument that the Telegraph has an agenda (whether that is fact or fiction) it is only reasonable that you also consider whether many of the other sources quoted on these forums, particularly this one, also have an agenda. I may have got the names slightly wrong but I seem to recall PV Magazine (or similar) regularly being quoted. Might they have an agenda? Or CleanTechnica? Or the Guardian? Do you or others ever raise the “agenda” issue when strongly pro RE articles are quoted/linked?

I’m not making an issue of it but the Guardian article didn’t mention the impact of temperatures on solar PV output - one might ask why not? That doesn’t necessarily mean they have an agenda but I recall they quoted some environmental lobby group (maybe Greenpeace - apologies if I misremembered). 

The point I am making here is that whether bias is displayed or whether some publication is perceived as having an agenda is often in the eye of the reader. Bias, when it boils down to it, is no more than an alternative point of view. If we don’t agree with a position it is easy, or you could say lazy, to label it as bias. Shouldn’t we share alternative points of view and discuss the issue without always playing the bias /FUD card?

I think we have done the Telegraph’s agenda to death now. Please come back to me if you wish but I can’t promise to spare the time for a reply.

Now to the second point you raise about the “joke per unit export payments”. Might I enquire what you receive in terms of export payments compared to your import tariff? I may have misremembered again but don’t you have some very low TOU import rate? You mention Octopus. Have you looked at them? If you take their EV tariffs you don’t get a very good export rate but why would a supplier pay you a similar rate to export compared to import when they have additional costs and levies to absorb in what they charge you over and above the wholesale price.

If you think the retail electricity market is unfair then why not try Octopus Agile or Flux. If you go on the Octopus Flux thread you will see PV and battery owners are getting very good returns for being net exporters. I don’t have a battery but over the last few days have been earning £6/7 a day after standing charges and import. A lot of EV owners are fixated on the lower overnight rates offered under tariffs like Octopus Go and IO and don’t consider whether Flux might be a cheaper option. 

Thanks for taking the time for such a detailed reply (off topic those playing the man not the ball in response to your post above is not the usual standard of debate on this board).

My main point re mentioning solar being lower is that whilst generation was down compared to the week before, it was probably at/above the June average so not less than would be expected so I would not single it out as being a shortfall.  Agree though there might be some sort of 'wind plus solar' average that perhaps we dip below with an anticyclonic heatwave?

In terms of tariffs with our v2h, PV and 2EVs the options are very complicated with potentially different answers for winter and summer but then we are on a fix with an exit fee that we could not rejoin next winter so further complication.  Generally we are using electricity that costs 4.5p per unit to import (overnight rate) so things like flux where the unit rate never goes below about 20p would be hard to make work, our peak gen is about 28kwh per day and our average daily usage is 25kwh so even in peak summer there is little scope to export.  instead we use electricity to heat hot water rather than gas (at currently 10p per unit), using the 4.5p per unit stuff at night and the excess PV in he day.  Happy for any suggestions on tariffs that might work better.

JKenH

michaels said:

JKenH said:

michaels said:

JKenH said:

Martyn1981 said:

Personally ET, I find it hysterical now, that PV is getting the blame due to decisions to not roll out as much ..... PV, and because of some issues with an interconnector and two nuclear reactors. The levels of spin needed to blame RE for coal being burnt, rather than simply accepting that less coal (FF's in total) is being burnt now, might be enough to fly a helicopter ..... maybe Silverwhistle will now.  

At this stage, if 'that's all they've got', then RE is really starting to shine.

Why is the RE faction so paranoid about what is said in the press? Everybody is out to get us. That article wasn’t about RE it was about burning coal. We shouldn’t need to be doing it but, until there is a despatchable alternative, coal and gas are all we have to plug the gaps. Our priority should be storage not more and more RE just because it is cheap.

Edit: spelling 

Why would the Torygraph mention solar which was supplying at least the average June output rather than Nuclear and Inter-connectors which weren't?  Almost suggests they have an agenda....

Also I would happily have put PV and battery export into the grid rather than putting PV into the battery and the hot water had I been paid to do so but the joke per unit export payments for anyone not on Octopus mean there was no incentive to do so.

Although I am getting bored with defending the Telegraph for having the temerity to point out we were burning coal in June, I will extend you the courtesy of a reply that I might not to others.

The Telegraph was making the point that solar PV falls off in hot weather and in earlier paragraphs of their article had discussed the matter in more detail making a comparison with earlier days in the month and observing:

Solar panels are tested at a benchmark of 25C. For every degree rise in temperature above this level, the efficiency is reduced by 0.5 percentage points.

The temperature level refers to the solar cell temperature, rather than the air temperature. In direct sunlight, the cells can easily reach 60 or 70 degrees.

The article had compared PV with a week earlier and looking at Drax Electric iInsights I see PV generated 0.06 TWh compared to 0.08TWh on the respective dates. That looks like 25% less but there may be rounding errors.

The article also mentioned lower wind output and gas plant closures but, as you say, not nuclear or interconnectors. Ok, fair point but it doesn’t mean they omitted them because they have an agenda. 

The Telegraph pointed out in their headline and text that it was the hot weather driving demand for air conditioning which was the primary cause of the increase in demand. Low solar output was only one factor. 

Now if you or anyone else have decided the Telegraph has an agenda that is anti PV then I am not going to be able to convince you otherwise as AFAIW  you or other critics don’t read the paper. It’s just an urban myth which it suits some to maintain. I can link numerous articles from the Telegraph supporting RE but what is the point as the response will be that the articles are behind a firewall. 

If you wish to pursue the argument that the Telegraph has an agenda (whether that is fact or fiction) it is only reasonable that you also consider whether many of the other sources quoted on these forums, particularly this one, also have an agenda. I may have got the names slightly wrong but I seem to recall PV Magazine (or similar) regularly being quoted. Might they have an agenda? Or CleanTechnica? Or the Guardian? Do you or others ever raise the “agenda” issue when strongly pro RE articles are quoted/linked?

I’m not making an issue of it but the Guardian article didn’t mention the impact of temperatures on solar PV output - one might ask why not? That doesn’t necessarily mean they have an agenda but I recall they quoted some environmental lobby group (maybe Greenpeace - apologies if I misremembered). 

The point I am making here is that whether bias is displayed or whether some publication is perceived as having an agenda is often in the eye of the reader. Bias, when it boils down to it, is no more than an alternative point of view. If we don’t agree with a position it is easy, or you could say lazy, to label it as bias. Shouldn’t we share alternative points of view and discuss the issue without always playing the bias /FUD card?

I think we have done the Telegraph’s agenda to death now. Please come back to me if you wish but I can’t promise to spare the time for a reply.

Now to the second point you raise about the “joke per unit export payments”. Might I enquire what you receive in terms of export payments compared to your import tariff? I may have misremembered again but don’t you have some very low TOU import rate? You mention Octopus. Have you looked at them? If you take their EV tariffs you don’t get a very good export rate but why would a supplier pay you a similar rate to export compared to import when they have additional costs and levies to absorb in what they charge you over and above the wholesale price.

If you think the retail electricity market is unfair then why not try Octopus Agile or Flux. If you go on the Octopus Flux thread you will see PV and battery owners are getting very good returns for being net exporters. I don’t have a battery but over the last few days have been earning £6/7 a day after standing charges and import. A lot of EV owners are fixated on the lower overnight rates offered under tariffs like Octopus Go and IO and don’t consider whether Flux might be a cheaper option. 

Thanks for taking the time for such a detailed reply (off topic those playing the man not the ball in response is not the usual standard of debate on this board).

My main point re mentioning solar being lower is that whilst generation was down compared to the week before, it was probably at/above the June average so not less than would be expected so I would not single it out as being a shortfall.  Agree though there might be some sort of 'wind plus solar' average that perhaps we dip below with an anticyclonic heatwave?

In terms of tariffs with our v2h, PV and 2EVs the options are very complicated with potentially different answers for winter and summer but then we are on a fix with an exit fee that we could not rejoin next winter so further complication.  Generally we are using electricity that costs 4.5p per unit to import (overnight rate) so things like flux where the unit rate never goes below about 20p would be hard to make work, our peak gen is about 28kwh per day and our average daily usage is 25kwh so even in peak summer there is little scope to export.  instead we use electricity to heat hot water rather than gas (at currently 10p per unit), using the 4.5p per unit stuff at night and the excess PV in he day.  Happy for any suggestions on tariffs that might work better.

I apologise if my post came across as playing the man, rather than the ball. It was not my intention to make it so but it is difficult to discuss perceptions of bias without it inevitably taking on a personal hue. The comments  about bias were not aimed at you specifically, more the community generally.
Sorry.
I am grateful for your reply in the circumstances. 

Exiled_Tyke

Of course another point about this misleading article is: if coal was being burnt (at its peak rate for the day) at 21.30 after the sun had gone down, then there could never have been any expectation there would be solar power at this time.  So there is surely the proof that the reduction of effeciency in solar has nothing whatsover to do with the need to turn on coal as part of the mix.  In light of this I would go so far as to say that solar shouldn't have been mentioned at all in the context of  this story.

Martyn1981

Hiya ET, there's some info in this article from yesterday:

Why did National Grid use coal to meet surge in electricity demand?

Several factors had combined to put strain on the grid: the surge in demand for aircon; a fault on the 1,400-megawatt North Sea Link interconnector with Norway that meant the power the subsea cable was carrying to the UK was reduced by half; and planned maintenance at the Torness nuclear power station on the east coast of Scotland, which cut supplies.

There's no mention of hot PV. But I'd assume that PV generation was as expected, since the weather and higher temps were well forecast. Quite why the Telegraph singled out PV as the cause, placing it in the headline, is a mystery.

I'm also surprised however, that the Guardian article only mentions the planned maintenance at Torness, and not the unplanned shutdown of reactor 2 (~700MW) due to "Automatically tripped on generator protection", but good news it is due back on line 19th June. Reactor 7 at Heysham 2 (~600MW) was also not mentioned, this too was down due to "Automatically tripped following a grid event", and is due back on today. As I mentioned yesterday, but just a guess, I wonder if the 'grid event' was the fault on the Norway link.

What is great to know, and is Solar News, is that RE continues to displace FF's. Despite the exceptional geopolitical issues in Europe this last year, and the need to have coal at least on standby at times, it seems looking at the NGL website that coal only provided 1.2% of supply during the last year. Coal provided ~1.5% in 2022. Looking at the NGL website, and selecting the 'all time' tab, we see the curve for coal consumption dropping rapidly down from 2012 (39%) to 2019 (2.1%), and continuing to slide further, as RE grows, and now slowly starts to push gas lower.

Note, when we go back a decade and further, we see a lot of fluctuations in gas and coal, which reflects prices, so sometimes coal was used more, and sometimes gas. But, the sum of the two has been reduced by the growth of RE, and is now about half what it was at the start of the last decade.

Exiled_Tyke

And now the BBC have come out strongly to debunk the myth from stuck in the mud anti-REers

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65907342

As well as breifly mentioning the issues made in your source @Martyn1981 , I found this quote interesting

"The government's independent advisers, the Climate Change Committee, said in March that more would need to be done to prepare the UK for periods when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining.

It suggested this could be done without emitting greenhouse gases, by investing in hydrogen and carbon capture for example."

Which is consistent with what many of us here have been saying for some time!

silverwhistle

Interesting to note that another forum - SpeakEV - also has a considerable number of posters maing similar observations about the Telegraph's conflation of coal burning and PV.

I haven't seen the actual figures for actual burn as opposed to readying the plant, but was wondering why they didn't invoke user reduction like last winter's saver sessions?

Exiled_Tyke

silverwhistle said:

Interesting to note that another forum - SpeakEV - also has a considerable number of posters maing similar observations about the Telegraph's conflation of coal burning and PV.

I haven't seen the actual figures for actual burn as opposed to readying the plant, but was wondering why they didn't invoke user reduction like last winter's saver sessions?

Yep, I've seen another forum tear this apart too. Good to see people taking a stance. Sadly we are the ones with the interest and know what's going on here. How many readers will have been taken in by the nonsense though?

RE: the coal burn, Good point, I guess that either it wasn't financially viable for the numbers this time round or they hadn't seen it coming and hadn't got themselves ready. OR they really wanted to test the coal stations and get them onlne.