Solar ... In the news

Martyn1981

Nice little earner/saver for Northumberland CC, and some great future proofing too with the inclusion of EV chargers. I've always thought that workplace chargers (so long as the price rate is reasonable), could be a great way for some folk to switch to a PEV. And if the location has PV too, all the better.

Edit - Checking on Google maps, the main building already had the PV on its roofs.

Solar-powered EV car park to save up to £150,000 in energy costs

Northumberland County Council has opened a new solar car port array set to save between £100,000 and £150,000 in energy costs.

Designed and built by UK Power Networks (UKPN) the project includes a canopy of 800kW solar photovoltaic (PV) panels installed over a 40-year-old staff car park which will provide clean energy to the council’s headquarters in County Hall in Morpeth.

Addtionaly, a 400kW battery energy storage system with smart controls has been installed to optimise energy use.

The car park will also feature 100 fast electric vehicle (EV) chargers and 20 rapid chargers.

Martyn1981

Europe's PV deployments are well ahead of targets. [But small caveat, as of yesterday the EU voted to up their RE target for 2030 from 32% of energy by 2030 to 43.5%.]

Solar Power Europe Predicts EU Will Reach Its Renewable Energy Goal 3 Years Early

The 2023 annual report from Solar Power Europe comes to a startling conclusion. It says the EU will reach the renewable energy goal it set for 2030 three years early. 

What changed for solar power in 2022 — and why the researchers consider that year an inflection point — is the technology’s newly discovered image by a growing number of policymakers. Solar power now enjoys widespread acceptance as the key tool to achieve local energy security in the midterm.

During the recent fossil fuel sparked energy crisis, the International Energy Agency (IEA) used two reports to highlight solar’s critical role to reduce the European Union’s dependence on Russian gas. The EU Solar Strategy of May 2022 even called solar the ‘kingpin’ of the continent’s effort to get off Russian gas. Such geostrategic considerations are applicable for other energy importing countries as well.

According to Politico, the data from Solar Power Europe suggests 23 countries will reach their solar installation targets by 2027 instead of in 2030 as originally planned. That mirrors a global trend, and means millions more tons of greenhouse gas emissions are being saved each year than predicted.

zeupater

Martyn1981 said:

Europe's PV deployments are well ahead of targets. [But small caveat, as of yesterday the EU voted to up their RE target for 2030 from 32% of energy by 2030 to 43.5%.]

Solar Power Europe Predicts EU Will Reach Its Renewable Energy Goal 3 Years Early

The 2023 annual report from Solar Power Europe comes to a startling conclusion. It says the EU will reach the renewable energy goal it set for 2030 three years early. 

What changed for solar power in 2022 — and why the researchers consider that year an inflection point — is the technology’s newly discovered image by a growing number of policymakers. Solar power now enjoys widespread acceptance as the key tool to achieve local energy security in the midterm.

During the recent fossil fuel sparked energy crisis, the International Energy Agency (IEA) used two reports to highlight solar’s critical role to reduce the European Union’s dependence on Russian gas. The EU Solar Strategy of May 2022 even called solar the ‘kingpin’ of the continent’s effort to get off Russian gas. Such geostrategic considerations are applicable for other energy importing countries as well.

According to Politico, the data from Solar Power Europe suggests 23 countries will reach their solar installation targets by 2027 instead of in 2030 as originally planned. That mirrors a global trend, and means millions more tons of greenhouse gas emissions are being saved each year than predicted.

Hi

Quick thought ... if the target was set on a scientific basis as a solution to a potential problem, then why, when the goal has been (at great expense and despite all obstacles in the way!) achieved early, is there a need to move the goalpost ??

Wouldn't it be logical to conclude that there was either no original scientific basis or that the science was wrong, in which case what is there to substantiate that the new scientific basis either exists or is substantially more accurate than what previously stood ...  ??? .... in other words, where is the emissions balance point to calibrate as a defined zero to measure net emissions from as logically they've just moved it down by a substantial amount ... so was the science wrong, the political interpretation of the science wrong, or is the science simply politics - it must logically be one of the three!!!!

HTH - Z

ed110220

zeupater said:

Martyn1981 said:

Europe's PV deployments are well ahead of targets. [But small caveat, as of yesterday the EU voted to up their RE target for 2030 from 32% of energy by 2030 to 43.5%.]

Solar Power Europe Predicts EU Will Reach Its Renewable Energy Goal 3 Years Early

The 2023 annual report from Solar Power Europe comes to a startling conclusion. It says the EU will reach the renewable energy goal it set for 2030 three years early. 

What changed for solar power in 2022 — and why the researchers consider that year an inflection point — is the technology’s newly discovered image by a growing number of policymakers. Solar power now enjoys widespread acceptance as the key tool to achieve local energy security in the midterm.

During the recent fossil fuel sparked energy crisis, the International Energy Agency (IEA) used two reports to highlight solar’s critical role to reduce the European Union’s dependence on Russian gas. The EU Solar Strategy of May 2022 even called solar the ‘kingpin’ of the continent’s effort to get off Russian gas. Such geostrategic considerations are applicable for other energy importing countries as well.

According to Politico, the data from Solar Power Europe suggests 23 countries will reach their solar installation targets by 2027 instead of in 2030 as originally planned. That mirrors a global trend, and means millions more tons of greenhouse gas emissions are being saved each year than predicted.

Hi

Quick thought ... if the target was set on a scientific basis as a solution to a potential problem, then why, when the goal has been (at great expense and despite all obstacles in the way!) achieved early, is there a need to move the goalpost ??

Wouldn't it be logical to conclude that there was either no original scientific basis or that the science was wrong, in which case what is there to substantiate that the new scientific basis either exists or is substantially more accurate than what previously stood ...  ??? .... in other words, where is the emissions balance point to calibrate as a defined zero to measure net emissions from as logically they've just moved it down by a substantial amount ... so was the science wrong, the political interpretation of the science wrong, or is the science simply politics - it must logically be one of the three!!!!

HTH - Z

I don't think it works like that. I think in simple terms the science says we need to reduce emissions as fast as possible and that we've already emitted too much ie we have been too slow to start cutting emissions. The target was just what politicians thought was achievable without unacceptable disruption etc. So having achieved one target early they have increased the targets in line with "as fast as possible". 

In other words, ideally we would have cut emissions to net zero already. Obviously we can't now do that overnight, but the growth of renewables mans we can move faster than we thought a few years ago.

silverwhistle

zeupater said:

Hi

Quick thought ... if the target was set on a scientific basis as a solution to a potential problem, then why, when the goal has been (at great expense and despite all obstacles in the way!) achieved early, is there a need to move the goalpost ??

Because politics is the art of the possible and science is always advancing our knowledge. In most business you set targets that are possible and then change them when they have been achieved, whether through quantative inputs or qualitative improvements. I think we have both here, along with a renewed understanding that we need to do more.

I certainly wouldn't look for excuses to sit back or relax.

zeupater

Hi Both

Consider the position behind the target being set in the first place ... COP21 in 2015 was a conference to establish international agreement, based on science, to adopt policies in order 'To limit global warming to 1.5°C, greenhouse gas emissions must peak before 2025 at the latest and decline 43% by 2030" .... so was the science wrong, the politics misrepresented or, over a mere 8 year period, has there been a substantial change in the physical constants which has an associated substantial impact on the predicted rate of change? (such as the Sun increasing irradiation or the Earth's core somehow warming ... etc)

Both logic & science are effectively based on testing a hypothesis of 'If This ... Then That', with the results determining the validity of the initial concept .... in my experience, anyone looking to change the agreed rules before the results are known is in some way being disingenuous, probably attempting to cover for errors, or establish further change based on ideology rather than science ...

Further change? ... well, considering that as short a time ago as November last year (2022), so not even a year ago!, the COP27 conference established that there was considerable risk that the 2030 targets would be missed by many countries, therefore the conference encouraged "Parties to revisit and strengthen the 2030 targets in their NDCs to align with the Paris Agreement temperature goal by the end of 2023, taking into account different national circumstances."  ... so what's happened over 12 months to conclude that with the EU looking to reach it's 2030 solar energy targets by 2027 (so 3 years early, 20% faster than anticipated!) that results in the renewable energy target being raised by a whopping 36% ... ???? ....

... any clues yet ???? ...

Hopefully the penny's dropped .... the change in target has nothing to do with climate change or science at all, it's simply the effect of geopolitics on the ability of the EU being able to maintain the standard of living of their population without reliance on what was planned to be abundant gas consumption over the intervening period. 

As we all know, the roll-out of RE is incremental ... you can have RE commissioned & generating at least something within incredibly short timescales then build on that as you incrementally add capacity .... so, what are the alternatives for the EU? ... recommission mothballed nuclear & coal plants?, well that's mixed, some countries have taken political decisions to reopen existing & commission new to coal plant & others (Germany in particular) are politically resisting further use of their nuclear capacity and are actively shutting plant according to an agreed time-plan .... notice the political aspect as opposed to science base here??? ... anyway, there's effectively not enough mothballed generation capacity to recommission & new centralised capacity build has extraordinary long lead-times before even the first electron enters the European grid ... in a nutshell, the EU's reliance on cheap gas to replace coal generation in order to achieve their 2030 emissions targets was going well for them, until the combination of corruption & ideology linked to the source nation that they were confidently relying on threw a spanner in the works !! ...

Science, COP this, COP that, climate concern, IEA, targets and all that are irrelevant .... it's purely a group of politicians & academics that now know how much they screwed up and are desperately trying to cling on to the gravy train they've been gleefully riding for years ..... yes, it's politics, science has nothing to do with it.

In a corruption free world, true science should inform & drive political decisions, however what we continue to see is the exact opposite ... politics effectively drive the direction and outcome of scientific research and conclusions, mainly because that's where the money is and there's a financial incentive to follow the money ... the gravy train has to be fuelled by something & needs someone to keep it running !!!

HTH - Z (Seer, sage, possessor of crystal ball - available for insightful consultations at reasonable rates!!!)

Martyn1981

Orsted planning to build utterly huge PV farm in the UK - 740MW.

Orsted unveils plans for first UK solar farm

Orsted has unveiled its first solar project in the UK - a 740MW scheme with associated battery storage located in Nottinghamshire.

One Earth Solar Farm is being co-developed with PS Renewables.

Subject to local and stakeholder consultation, which will begin later this month as part of the process for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIP), a development consent order (DCO) submission is planned for 2025.

NigeWick

Martyn1981 said:

Orsted planning to build utterly huge PV farm in the UK - 740MW.

Why do we never see anything about concentrating solar power plants that can now produce electricity up to 15 hours after dark? And, they're cheaper and more efficient than PV.

Martyn1981

NigeWick said:

Martyn1981 said:

Orsted planning to build utterly huge PV farm in the UK - 740MW.

Why do we never see anything about concentrating solar power plants that can now produce electricity up to 15 hours after dark? And, they're cheaper and more efficient than PV.

Hi, I'll keep an eye out for some news, but the earlier ones didn't too well. Yes they can provide leccy for longer, even 24hrs in some cases, by using molten salt, but they are only viable nearer to the equator, so southern Spain and down, typically (just as a rough guide).

But they aren't cheap, and got overtaken by PV, as costs fell last decade. However, I'm sure I've skimmed a few articles this year, where the idea is coming back into favour, through some cost saving developments.

As you mention, it's the built in storage angle that is important, but as other forms of storage accelerate it becomes the usual balancing game.

Not trying to be negative, but a hybrid site with PV, wind and storage, may be better, but of course horses for courses, and weather conditions vary, so I think CSP still has potential.

QrizB

NigeWick said:

Martyn1981 said:

Orsted planning to build utterly huge PV farm in the UK - 740MW.

Why do we never see anything about concentrating solar power plants that can now produce electricity up to 15 hours after dark?

Because there's hardly any of them?

As of 2021, global installed capacity of concentrated solar power stood at 6.8 GW. As of 2023, with the inclusion of three new CSP projects in construction in China and in Dubai in the UAE, the total is now 7.5 GW.

NigeWick said:

And, they're cheaper ... than PV.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power#Cost_and_Value

As early as 2011, the rapid decline of the price of photovoltaic systems lead to projections that CSP will no longer be economically viable. As of 2020, the least expensive utility-scale concentrated solar power stations in the United States and worldwide are five times more expensive than utility-scale photovoltaic power stations, with a projected minimum price of 7 cents per kilowatt-hour for the most advanced CSP stations against record lows of 1.32 cents per kWh for utility-scale PV. This five-fold price difference has been maintained since 2018.