Solar ... In the news

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Have you looked at the technical details of those batteries?

Leaving aside the operating voltage and maximum charge current,
why would anyone in a domestic situation consider spending that sort of money for a battery to store 2.4kWh(worth about 25 pence)

Hi

I agree, if you're grid connected it's still a silly prospect from a financial aspect, but for someone with an off-grid system any reduction in price, even at that level, would be welcomed. To be fair, the way that I read it, Mac was simply highlighting the reduction in costs for such systems with a view to considering one when the current inverter is due for replacement in a decade or so, by which time the technology should be a fully consumerised mass-market product with a much more realistic price-point.

At the right price I'd certainly be interested in a battery pack of around that capacity (maybe a tad more) to use in conjunction with our existing inverter ....

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

At the right price I'd certainly be interested in a battery pack of around that capacity (maybe a tad more) to use in conjunction with our existing inverter ....

HTH
Z

Yep, me too. In fact, somewhere on one of these threads I've already said that. I described what I'd want as approx 5kWh of FLA's, using them to 40% DOD, giving me 2kWh for the night, and probably an extra 1kWh during the day via micro charges/discharges as supply and demand differed.

So 2.4kWh of lithium's at a 80% DOD, pretty much the same. When I 'perused' the specs this morning, I also noted that the discharge rate was 1,300W, which is also, pretty much ideal, working in conjunction with modest PV generation, and of course ..... common sense.

Would reduce my leccy import for the best 4 months to close to zero. And massively dent the 4 shoulder months, when generation still exceeds total demand. June this year import was 72kWh and July may be a bit better, hence why 2.5 to 3kWh of stored leccy per day is (for me) ideal.

With the cost of batts, it's always going to be a compromise (for on-grid set up) between reducing import sensibly, and paying out for too much batts. Off-gridders get round it by having back up gennies for those periods that simply aren't worth providing for with batts, due to the extra expense.

Just need to watch those prices, and see what else arrives, hopefully in around 5 to 10 years when my ESE inverters start to pack in.

The good news of course, is that with Germany, Japan, USA (and others) going down this route (domestic PV with batteries) we should see technology advance. And with Elon Musk shaking up the battery manufacturing world too, it's all looking extremely bright for solar.

Mart.

mac2008

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

...To be fair, the way that I read it, Mac was simply highlighting the reduction in costs for such systems with a view to considering one when the current inverter is due for replacement in a decade or so, by which time the technology should be a fully consumerised mass-market product with a much more realistic price-point.

At the right price I'd certainly be interested in a battery pack of around that capacity (maybe a tad more) to use in conjunction with our existing inverter ....

HTH
Z

Absolutely. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to buy one to replace my working inverter, just as I'm not going to buy a new condensing boiler to replace my working 12 year old one.


what I really wanted to highlight was a) the reducing (though still high) costs and b) the more 'mainstream' nature of the tech. Instead of having to build a whole shed to accommodate my dirty great bank of ex forklift batteries then spend half my life tinkering with them to make them work, I can just buy a relatively integrated plug & play system that'll sit in the loft or a cupboard for not mental amounts of money. That's real progress.


And note that £4k buys you the two batteries so c. 5kWh.


But in say 5-10 years when I (and half a million other homes) will need a new inverter anyway, the cost has reduced, the tech improved, variable tariffs mean that 5kWh could be worth a lot more etc etc., then it become a valuable part of the solution.

Martyn1981

mac2008 wrote: »

And note that £4k buys you the two batteries so c. 5kWh.

Very good point. In fact, possibly overkill for me, and I'd suspect many/most PV'ers, as I reckon we don't need that much capacity, unless chasing the more elusive part winter and whole shoulder months. But the thought of 'as good as' zero import for 8+ months a year ...... hmmmm!

But, of course, counter argument, that would mean operating at a 40% DOD, which from what I've read, might mean lithiums lasting 7k to 10k cycles.

mac2008 wrote: »

what I really wanted to highlight was a) the reducing (though still high) costs and b) the more 'mainstream' nature of the tech. Instead of having to build a whole shed to accommodate my dirty great bank of ex forklift batteries then spend half my life tinkering with them to make them work, I can just buy a relatively integrated plug & play system that'll sit in the loft or a cupboard for not mental amounts of money. That's real progress.

I asked this question a year or so back on Navitron. The kind souls on there quickly listed all the kit for battery back-up, but that meant a separate charge controller and an inverter to convert the DC back again. Also 'they' were working on much, much cheaper battery costs than me, especially those living in Spain, France, Germany etc.

It all sounded ok, but not simple, and at the time I didn't have anywhere to house the FLA's safely. Plus, as always .... costs ...... even deducting the considerable lead value at the end of 10 years, it didn't quite work out, and there would be greater losses.

One very helpful bod on there (Clockman) operates an on-grid battery system in France as the leccy costs are so high. The EU tables suggest leccy in France is quite reasonable, but those living there report additional local taxes that push it up a lot. He has 2 battery packs, 3 HP wind turbines built himself, and now 3 PV trackers (fabricated to his design, available free (for the cost of postage)), plus recently installed fixed PV system. It's interesting to watch/read how all this 'bolts' together.

For me, really just a fun thing to do, tricky to break even on my consumption levels, and my specific generation cycle, which is particularly low in the winter, due to off-south shallow panels. Plus needs to be cheaper and plug n play.

Mart.

mac2008

I wonder what effect the recent cabinet reshuffle might have on the gov's attitude to PV?

http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/greg_barker_resigns_and_owen_paterson_sacked_in_cabinet_reshuffle_45671

Martyn1981

Could California go 100% renewable? Would California? Interesting study/report on the potential future and related costs/benefits. It includes 75GWp of residential PV.

Stanford study shows how to power California with wind, water and sun

Published in Energy, the plan shows the way to a sustainable, inexpensive and reliable energy supply in California that could create tens of thousands of jobs and save billions of dollars in pollution-related health costs.

"If implemented, this plan will eliminate air pollution mortality and global warming emissions from California, stabilize prices and create jobs - there is little downside," said Mark Z. Jacobson, the study's lead author and a Stanford professor of civil and environmental engineering.

The study concludes that, while a wind, water and sunlight conversion may result in initial capital cost increases, such as the cost of building renewable energy power plants, these costs would be more than made up for over time by the elimination of fuel costs. The overall switch would reduce California's end-use power demand by about 44 percent and stabilize energy prices, since fuel costs would be zero, according to the study.

Mart.

The_Green_Hornet

In northern hemisphere most solar panels point south. But west-facing panels are able to generate more even flow of electricity than spikes of energy at lunchtime.

Thousands of people have spent vast sums of money installing eco-friendly solar panels but most will have probably had them fitted facing the wrong way, according to energy experts.

The solar power industry is being urged to reconsider its approach to installing panels after one of the UK’s leading experts, Professor Ralph Gottshalg of Loughborough University says too many solar panels are facing in the wrong direction.

Professor Gottshalg said Germany has too many solar panels which means that its grid is disrupted on sunny Summer lunchtimes with a flood of solar power so cheap it has to be almost given away.

He is urging to the UK to follow Germany’s recent policy of putting panels on east-west facing roofs to smooth the supply of power during the day and prevent spikes of power at midday.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/solarpower/10996273/Most-solar-panels-are-facing-the-wrong-direction-say-scientists.html

globalds

First the bad news

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-solar-boom-so-successfull-its-been-halted/

Then the hopefully good news to sort the problem out ..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27829874

The last link is really long ..But well worth the read ..

mac2008

The_Green_Hornet wrote: »

In northern hemisphere most solar panels point south. But west-facing panels are able to generate more even flow of electricity than spikes of energy at lunchtime.

Thousands of people have spent vast sums of money installing eco-friendly solar panels but most will have probably had them fitted facing the wrong way, according to energy experts.

The solar power industry is being urged to reconsider its approach to installing panels after one of the UK’s leading experts, Professor Ralph Gottshalg of Loughborough University says too many solar panels are facing in the wrong direction.

Professor Gottshalg said Germany has too many solar panels which means that its grid is disrupted on sunny Summer lunchtimes with a flood of solar power so cheap it has to be almost given away.

He is urging to the UK to follow Germany’s recent policy of putting panels on east-west facing roofs to smooth the supply of power during the day and prevent spikes of power at midday.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/solarpower/10996273/Most-solar-panels-are-facing-the-wrong-direction-say-scientists.html

That article is worth reading just for the funny comments after it

I do get what they are saying, but at present, total installed capacity is 4. something GW. That is less than 10% of total demand at midday even if all were outputting 100% of installed capacity, which they won't.

So yes, I could see that if we had a vastly higher total installed capacity, east/west splits might be useful, but to-date people have not installed the panels incorrectly, they have installed them perfectly correctly to generate maximum income.

I'd guess as panel prices drop and tech improves there will be more East/West splits anyway, or in the very worst case the FiT could be changed to give a slightly higher rate for such systems?

Or just wait for grid connected storage, or variable tariffs or something else to eliminate the problem

zeupater

Hi All

Just a quick observation ..... when utility companies start to moan and complain about infrastructure (as in Germany) you know something's going particularly well for everything apart from their bottom line. In the case of Hawaii, what else would a monopoly energy supplier on a small group of islands do but protect their business model - it's quite normal for a monopoly to operate inefficiently because a lack of competition makes them complacent ..... I doubt that they even considered small pv systems to be a significant threat until someone in a significant role woke up one morning and opened the curtains ....

HTH
Z