Solar ... In the news

Martyn1981

mac2008 wrote: »

Not exclusively about solar, but a fun piece nonetheless, Unpicking Simon Jenkin's arguements:

Mac

Cheers, I agree, these sort of things are fun pieces, looking at the big picture rather than overly negative assumptions.

I may be teaching you to suck eggs, but have you noticed the new wave of 'criticisms' that the anti-PV brigade have started to use. Generally these turn up in the comments sections after newspaper articles promoting renewables and PV. Mostly these are put out by nuclear fan-boys, bit like the, 'PV subsidies are paid by all, but only go to a few households' arguments ........... unlike nuclear subsidies that go to all the households that have a reactor in their garden ...... oh wait a minute!

Quick run through:-

1. Capacity factor: If we compare 1GW of PV, wind and nuclear, then approximately, in a year, they'll generate, 1,000GWh, 3,000GWh and 9,000GWh respectively.

This is used to suggest we get less bang for our buck from PV, but omits to mention that subsidies are paid on generation, not capacity. Naughty, naughty.

2. Dilute the gains: Several times now I've seen comments that say that PV should provide 5 to 10% of our annual leccy needs. The comments don't belittle 10% (fair enough). However, they then go on to point out that when you include heating and transport, the percentage of total energy supplied by PV falls to about 2% ...... which they do belittle.

Cut your car fuel bill by 50% (or your heating bill, or your mortgage costs) then you've saved 50%. Diluting that saving into your total household costs doesn't change anything. Smoke and mirrors!

3. If at first you don't succeed: Many of us will probably remember the many, many, many posts saying 'we shouldn't be funding PV, we should put the money into cheap nuclear instead'. Those posters denied repeatedly that nuclear was (and always had been) sucking up huge volumes of subsidies. But then in 2012/13 we found out what the real costs were. Then PV subsidies started to slide down ever faster, and will undercut the subsidies of the next nuclear fleet, before they even come on line ....... so ...... what to do?

Simples ...... add the word thorium to the argument. 'we shouldn't be funding PV, we should put the money into cheap thorium nuclear instead'. Don't mention that research into thorium has been going on for about 30 years without success. Don't mention that thorium reactors are not yet available. Just throw it out and hope nobody checks what you're saying.

My understanding of thorium was that progress had been so slow, that funding was now switching to fussion, however, China is to build some test plants. So the nuclear fan-boys can now argue that if we fund and support the testing of thorium, and subsidise the rollout of new plants, then costs should fall over time ........ a bit like the pro PV argument that they all laughed at ....... :rotfl:

Watch out for these arguments, coming to a PV thread near you, soon.*

I guess, eventually, folk will realise that we need a good mixture of technologies, a mixture of demand and supply side generation, and a mixture of centralised and distributed generation. Plus efficiencies, economising and even some punitive measures.

But till that day arrives, just sit back and enjoy the free show courtesy of the spin doctors - "PV doesn't generate when there's no sun!" :T

Mart.

* One of them has already been used recently! :shocked:

EricMears

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Many of us will probably remember the many, many, many posts saying 'we shouldn't be funding PV, we should put the money into cheap nuclear instead'.

There are of course some of us who remember the opening speech from Calder Hall : "soon electricity will be too cheap to meter".

Get that framed and put it alongside "Jam Tomorrow" & "Free Beer Tomorrow" ! But don't hold your breath till any of them happen.

penrhyn

Sounds like that old fraud Tony Benn.

mac2008

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I guess, eventually, folk will realise that we need a good mixture of technologies, a mixture of demand and supply side generation, and a mixture of centralised and distributed generation. Plus efficiencies, economising and even some punitive measures.

But till that day arrives, just sit back and enjoy the free show courtesy of the spin doctors - "PV doesn't generate when there's no sun!" :T

Mart.

Quite. Like most things on this scale, in all probability there won't be a 'big bang' overnight change. A low(er) carbon future delivered via a combination of enhancements like nuclear, cleaner fossil fuel tech, ever more efficient renewables, a much smarter grid, community energy, storage tech, reduced demand (peak and generally) through more demand side response and more efficient appliances and buildings etc etc.

Reduction measures are an important part of this debate too. It'd be intuitive to think that our demand for electricity is increasing, but peak demand has actually fallen by 5GW over the past seven or so years and will probably fall another 3-4GW over the next few according to OFGEM, depending on how our economy performs.

silverwhistle

lstar337 wrote: »

If/when solar is generating significant amounts, and smart metering is widespread, do you think we should expect to see tariffs which are cheaper during sunny periods?

To be honest, I think it's more of an issue of excess wind power at night when everybody is asleep and homes, offices, shops and factories aren't drawing much power.

In those circumstances it would make sense to use such cheap power to heat water - whether domestic tanks or even process heat (grain drying, for example?) - and any other draw which doesn't need to be continuous but would benefit from extra power. I'm sure others could come up with other suggestions.

penrhyn

At the time of posting the vast number of windmills are contributing under 1000 MW of power to the grid, i.e. 2%. Frat lot of use that is for any practical purpose, whist the main load is being powered by Gas. Which the Eco luddites don't want use to exploit.

silverwhistle

Is it night where you are?

penrhyn

Winter is coming

mac2008

penrhyn wrote: »

At the time of posting the vast number of windmills are contributing under 1000 MW of power to the grid, i.e. 2%. Frat lot of use that is for any practical purpose, whist the main load is being powered by Gas. Which the Eco luddites don't want use to exploit.

Well done for quoting actual data! I should say I'm not against gas use at all and as you rightly point out it is currently contributing the bulk of the generation, but the fact remains we cannot extract this forever, and for even less time in an economic or un-damaging manner.

Regarding renewable contributions to the grid, wind is currently 2.84%, biomass 1.71%, hydro 1.1%. add another say 1% for non-metered wind (demand reduction) and another fraction of a % for solar (4GW installed but a pretty miserable day!) and one could argue that it's making a decent contribution to the grid. Yes renewables have their challenges (partly because the grid and our lifestyles were not built to accommodate them) but its not right dismiss them outright.

Indeed, the current contribution of wind alone is more than the predicted de-rated capacity margin of the grid in 2015/16, which could be as low as 1.8%.

ed110220

penrhyn wrote: »

At the time of posting the vast number of windmills are contributing under 1000 MW of power to the grid, i.e. 2%. Frat lot of use that is for any practical purpose, whist the main load is being powered by Gas. Which the Eco luddites don't want use to exploit.

Using such biased and inflammatory language as "eco luddites" doesn't help your case, when scientists and economists are warning of the very serious costs of continuing to burn fossil fuels like gas in a measured and sober way through scientific journal etc.

Let's leave the shrill rhetoric to the tabloid editorial writers and bloggers who have not actually done any scientific research on the subject, but still think their opinion is more important than those who have.

Ed