Solar ... In the news

digitaltoast

Imagine the following article:

• The government is going to spend billions on the least effective possible way of reducing carbon emissions.
  
• The system will generate tiny and random quantities of electricity at enormous cost at an entirely unsuitable latitude, and never, ever at the time it is most needed.
  
• The system will be an extremely effective method of transferring large quantities of cash from poor to rich.

If you published that on April 1st, everyone would go "ha! nice one! Completely mental idea of course, but you had me going for a few seconds".

The_Green_Hornet

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has published the long-awaited Solar Strategy today, designed to enact a “further step change in deployment” for solar in the UK.

The document is the first dedicated solar strategy released by any European government, signalling the remarkable growth of the UK PV sector over the last few years.

The strategy places particular emphasis on encouraging the deployment of rooftop solar, especially the underperforming commercial-scale sector. In addition, the strategy confirms that the government is targeting one million solar homes by 2015. There was potentially ominous news for the ground-mount sector however.

http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/uk_launches_europes_first_dedicated_solar_strategy_2356

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-solar-pv-strategy-part-1-roadmap-to-a-brighter-future

Martyn1981

The government may be shifting the emphasis now from supply side PV farms, to demand side residential and commercial rooftop PV.

UK launches Europe’s first dedicated solar strategy

UK government unveils Solar Strategy

Live: Industry reacts to Solar Strategy

Mart.

silverwhistle

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Salmon-scented solar panels set for UK rooftop trial



Mart.

Not only that, they could chase away the pigeons who s**t on my panels.:D

Martyn1981

New UK PV manufacturing plant opens

SunSolar Energy has officially opened its 75MW module manufacturing facility in Oldbury, Birmingham.

The company teamed up with toolmaker Meyer Burger to install a production line capable of building 60- and 72-cell modules.

The facility which currently employs 150 people will employ 600 by 2015.

This project will be implemented over three phases with a start-up capacity of 35 MW, increased to 75 MW in phase two and 250MW by 2015."

Exclusive: Time for solar investors to turn attention to rooftops, says Barker

Investors must focus their attention on rooftop projects, UK climate minister Greg Barker has told Solar Power Portal.

Speaking at the launch of the Solar Strategy at the SunSolar Energy module manufacturing facility opening in Birmingham today, the minister said it was time for a shift in priorities.

“New investor focus must be: onsite generation, whether domestic roofs - we’re aiming for one million – or industrial rooftops,” he said.

Mart.

The_Green_Hornet

Solar power has won the global argument. Photovoltaic energy is already so cheap that it competes with oil, diesel and liquefied natural gas in much of Asia without subsidies.

Roughly 29pc of electricity capacity added in America last year came from solar, rising to 100pc even in Massachusetts and Vermont. "More solar has been installed in the US in the past 18 months than in 30 years," says the US Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). California's subsidy pot is drying up but new solar has hardly missed a beat.

The technology is improving so fast - helped by the US military - that it has achieved a virtuous circle.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/10755598/Global-solar-dominance-in-sight-as-science-trumps-fossil-fuels.html

digitaltoast

The_Green_Hornet wrote: »

Solar power has won the global argument.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/10755598/Global-solar-dominance-in-sight-as-science-trumps-fossil-fuels.html

Quoting from the article...

"Photovoltaic energy is already so cheap that it competes with oil, diesel and liquefied natural gas in much of Asia without subsidies."

HOW much of Asia? And where? Have you looked at the size of Asia lately?? 7,139,445 million square miles covering the Artic down to just above Australia, covering vast swathes of latitude, terrain, countries, population density etc.

"A McKinsey study said the average cost of installed solar power in the US across all sectors has dropped to $2.59 from more than $6 a watt in 2010".

Now factor in the capacity factor of 18% for the USA (10% for Germany). Note that capacity factor is different from installed capacity and represents the actual usable portion of the installed capacity.

And even though this article has been out only an hour, I've already seen:

"Roughly 29pc of electricity capacity added in America last year came from solar, rising to 100pc even in Massachusetts and Vermont".

misquoted as suggesting that 100% of electricity capacity in Massachusetts and Vermont is solar.

Don't get me wrong. I can't wait to see a fossil-fuel free world. And it's quite possible that this may happen in many years time when load balancing and storage technologies have been refined.

But I really can't agree that "Solar power has won the global argument" based on selective, cherry-picked data without context.

I wonder where we'd be now if the amount squandered on solar subsidies had been invested in research into safe, abundant Thorium technology...

Martyn1981

digitaltoast wrote: »

I wonder where we'd be now if the amount squandered on solar subsidies had been invested in research into safe, abundant Thorium technology...

Probably without either! After all, research into thorium technology has been going on for decades, and if anything it's starting to slow down now, as it's probably about as far away still, as nuclear fusion. Fusion being the more desirable of the two.

Also is thorium generation cheaper, I just thought it was safer. Nothing wrong with safer of course, but the risks aren't really factored into the price at the moment, we simply hope it won't go wrong.

I agree you with you that solar isn't at the finishing line today, but I think it's fair to say that the technology has closed the gap so quickly, that we are now today at a stage where you simply can't say (honestly) that it won't cross the finishing line.

The UK is a good place to judge PV. We have lots of wind, and have been subsidising nuclear for 50 years, yet on the small scale PV is already cheaper than wind, and nuclear isn't viable as a residential/commercial scale option.

On the large scale, PV is already ahead of off-shore wind, and will almost close with on-shore wind by the end of the decade. Both probably being cheaper than nuclear before 2023 when the first reactor may come on line.

If you add in carbon costs and air pollution (hidden subsidies), large scale PV and wind will probably match coal and gas too by the end of the decade.

If PV can compete with the 'big boys' in the UK (of all places) then it's going to be ahead of them for most of the rest of the world.

In fact, for a well sited install today, domestic PV may already be on par with 2023 nuclear subsidies, which are to be £93/MWh. Whilst this argument has a lot of holes in it, think £6k install, 4,000kWh of generation, 7p FiT and 2.385p export (50% of 4.77p) plus leccy savings of about £120. That gives an income of about £500 and a gross return of approx 8.25%. And that generation hits the grid (either as export or off-set) all for a subsidy/cost payment of £93.85/MWh. Yes it's marginal, but it's still got 10 years to improve. In fact the 4-10kWp rate is now already effectively just under the off-shore wind subsidy of £155/MWh.

Isn't that a scary thought, by the time the next generation of "too cheap to meter" nuclear comes on line, domestic PV in the UK, may actually be cheaper!

The down side is that for supply side generation, the leccy companies get to add on their profit margin when selling it, whereas with demand side generation they only get to see about 60% as export (the rest as off-set) so their profits go down. Also of course there is any leccy generation that is wasted, or off-set in a lower value form such as gas, oil, lpg etc due to devices such as diversionary switches.

And of course one other problem (that the nuclear fans like to remind us of repeatedly) is that PV subsidies are paid by all leccy consumers, but PV is probably only suitable for about 20% of residences, making it unfair. Whereas nuclear subsidies which are also to be paid by everyone, can be installed by 0% of residences ....... hang on, that doesn't make sense, maybe I've gotten it wrong?

Mart.

EricMears

Martyn1981 wrote: »

. . . .

In fact, for a well sited install today, domestic PV may already be on par with 2023 nuclear subsidies, which are to be £93/MWh. Whilst this argument has a lot of holes in it, think £6k install, 4,000kWh of generation, 7p FiT and 2.385p export (50% of 4.77p) plus leccy savings of about £120. That gives an income of about £500 and a gross return of approx 8.25%. And that generation hits the grid (either as export or off-set) all for a subsidy/cost payment of £93.85/MWh. Yes it's marginal, but it's still got 10 years to improve. In fact the 4-10kWp rate is now already effectively just under the off-shore wind subsidy of £155/MWh.

. . . .

Mart.

Somewhat puzzled by the figure of £93 /MWh ? (and the other figures in that paragraph)


That equates to £9.30 /kWh which bears little resemblance to the current cost of metered electricity of around £0.12 - £0.15 per kWh or even the top rate of FIT payments around £0.50 /kWh

zeupater

EricMears wrote: »

Somewhat puzzled by the figure of £93 /MWh ? (and the other figures in that paragraph)


That equates to £9.30 /kWh which bears little resemblance to the current cost of metered electricity of around £0.12 - £0.15 per kWh or even the top rate of FIT payments around £0.50 /kWh

Hi

There's a little issue here. The conversion factor is 1000, not 10 - the cost is therefore 9.3p/kWh, not £9.30 … I believe that this is referred to as being the 'strike price'.

HTH
Z