Solar ... In the news

Energetic_2

Presented without comment:

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/10201097.Police_swoop_on_solar_powered_drugs_factory/

EricMears

Energetic wrote: »

Presented without comment:

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/10201097.Police_swoop_on_solar_powered_drugs_factory/

Watch out chaps - we should all expect our front doors smashed in this weekend

Energetic_2

Another story about renewables undercutting conventional energy prices amongst other things...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100331611/COLUMNGerman_wind_power_irks_neighbouring_grids_Wynn

spgsc531

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-21298117

Not Solar in the news, but does make you think about the cost of FiT compared to the cost of Nuclear...

Energetic_2

spgsc531 wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-21298117

Not Solar in the news, but does make you think about the cost of FiT compared to the cost of Nuclear...

Glad its finally getting some coverage, people seem to think nuclear is cheap, dependable and hassle free. In reality its a money pit and we still don't have a credible long term plan to dispose of the waste. Expect more billions of tax payers money to follow...

Martyn1981

I read a very interesting article in New Scientist this morning. Concerns the roll out of some very large batteries (pretty much as test plants at this stage) to help level out fluctuations in energy supply from wind farms.

In my defence it does also contain these words " ...when the wind drops, the sun isn't shining.." so possibly something to watch for solar farms too, which could help there long-term business case.

I've found a link to it here:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729026.000-texas-megabattery-aims-to-green-up-the-grid.html

some extracts:

"In Modesto, a wind farm will be backed up by a 25 MW storage system based on a zinc-chloride flow battery, which is charged by filling with a reusable electrolyte liquid. The battery will replace a planned 50 MW fossil fuel plant."

""The whole goal is to build a grid that is flexible enough to achieve any level of renewables," says Kamath. "Limitations on the grid have made it look like renewables are a problem, but the grid was never designed for them. It needs to be," he adds."

My understanding of this article, is that the batteries aren't there to supply power when the stations aren't running, but rather to level out export as generation goes up and down with wind speeds (or perhaps with solar fluctuations during cloudy skies)? Thus making export more consistent.

Mart.

Martyn1981

Energetic wrote: »

Glad its finally getting some coverage, people seem to think nuclear is cheap, dependable and hassle free. In reality its a money pit and we still don't have a credible long term plan to dispose of the waste. Expect more billions of tax payers money to follow...

Just to prove I'm not obsessed with PV or renewables only, I will point out that nuclear is low carbon (not green or renewable) but low carbon and does play a very important role in predictable baseload generation 24hrs day. Ignoring concerns over pollution, which is not an easy thing to do, nuclear should receive some credit (financially too) for offering a more predictable generation than renewables.

Whilst I'd prefer it if we could drop nuclear, that doesn't seem quite possible today. The same goes for gas too, especially in a role as making up for fluctuating renewable generation.

So I can't see how we can do without these technologies in the short to medium term .... but ...... absolutely agree that it's so important that people start to realise the real costs of the energy mix we have, and that a sizeable chunk of the renewable subsidies is there to make up for artificially low electricity prices, due to costs hidden in general taxation, so subsidies to balance out subsidies, leaving the highly transparent FITs to receive bad press, whilst hidden nuclear subsidies and carbon costs go largely unnoticed.

Given the 70% drop in PV FITs last year I tried to compare domestic PV to large scale nuclear costs here:

Martyn1981 wrote: »

PV costs v's new nuclear.

Not sure if I'm close to the right numbers, but if so, then approx 5 years of large scale support for PV, has made new domestic PV costs in the UK (in the UK!!!!!) similar to new large scale nuclear after 50+ years of support. Plus PV subsidies are still falling, and generation starts within weeks of deciding to install, not 12 or so years later.

(rant over)

Mart.

spgsc531

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/05/first_solar_cheap_power_el_paso/

Brave new world out there..

rogerblack

spgsc531 wrote: »

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/05/first_solar_cheap_power_el_paso/

Brave new world out there..

And New Mexico is perfectly situated to supply the UK evening peak load.

Now, where did I put that extension flex...

Energetic_2

Here's another... http://www.nanowerk.com/news2/green/newsid=28890.php