Energy import benefits of UK Solar PV

EricMears

tberry6686 wrote: »

I live in Scotland. Hydro power up here is very common and as such is not usually counted as a renewable (probably because it has been in use here for so long before the modern renewables were being considered suitable alternative energy sources).

It absolutely is a renewable and indeed is one of the most reliable forms.

Not alas available in most other parts of the UK although there are still plenty of opportunities to install small scale HEP plants on reliable fast-flowing rivers (and I believe to claim FIT payments).

Burning biomass instead of fossil fuels would work well - IF we could grow enough of the stuff in the right place,

And of course there are schemes afoot to harness tidal power (a special form of HEP not requiring a suitable mountain ) although still a lot of work to do to make the plant more reliable and to overcome 'ecological' objections.

tberry6686

EricMears wrote: »

It absolutely is a renewable and indeed is one of the most reliable forms.

I'm not denying it is a renewable just that up here it's not really thought of that way, probably due to the reasons I mentioned.

grahamc2003

EricMears wrote: »

Burning biomass instead of fossil fuels would work well - IF we could grow enough of the stuff in the right place,

.

Possibly. And solar would be great IF the sun shone day and night. And wind would be great if the wind blew constantly at the correct speed. And IF sh*t were grub, there'd be no starvation in the world.

To part feed just one coal fired powerstation with biofuel, the owners of Drax have bought a wood pellet plant in Louisiana - probably the nearest place to Selby where they have enough land to grow sufficient biofuel, and that's 3,500 miles away (hope the ships are solar powered, and not those 50 gallon per mile jobbies). Iirc, the area Drax needs is all of the countryside - all farms, all woods and forests - south of Watford to supply its future needs.

spgsc531

tberry6686 wrote: »

They generally disconnect the wind farms as it is easier, less costly etc.(1)




Solar was claimed to replace some conventional capacity and so logic dictates that it would be needed at peak times all year round not just in the middle of summer.(2)



As someone a lot smarter than me pointed out before, you can't prove a negative, but if you care to research how many conventional power stations have been replaced by renewables you will rapidly find your answer.(3)

(1) They generally disconnect the wind farms when a cloud goes over a house? Really? Any proof? Facts?

(2) Who claimed that, Proof? Facts? Why does logic dictate that it would be needed at peak times all year round not just in the middle of summer (you do realise Solar works other times than the middle of Summer?)

(3) Ah ok, no proof needed, that's convenient.

tberry6686

(1) They generally disconnect the wind farms when a cloud goes over a house? Really? Any proof? Facts?

.
I'll have to dig around for that info. It was widely reported as part of a report on the massive subsidies being given to wind farms not to produce power at certain times.

(2) Who claimed that, Proof? Facts? Why does logic dictate that it would be needed at peak times all year round not just in the middle of summer (you do realise Solar works other times than the middle of Summer?)

So your saying that we can remove conventional capacity because of solar availability ? (That is one of the main arguments used by the green lobby). It's totally logical that it would be needed at peak times and yes I'm well aware that it generates power whenever it gets light, problem is as the light drops so does that generation capacity. If it's not needed at peak demand then it quite simply is not needed at all.

(3) Ah ok, no proof needed, that's convenient.

It's accepted almost universally and as I said you cannot prove a negative but you can find out how many conventional power stations have been replaced by renewables. I'll save you some research. The answer is 0 as acknowleged by every generating company, government, energy research agency in the world.

It's quite interesting that you seem to be questioning everything I have said but have yet to put forward one answer to anything that has been said. Do you have any answers ?

spgsc531

tberry6686 wrote: »

.
I'll have to dig around for that info. It was widely reported as part of a report on the massive subsidies being given to wind farms not to produce power at certain times.

So your saying that we can remove conventional capacity because of solar availability ? (That is one of the main arguments used by the green lobby). It's totally logical that it would be needed at peak times and yes I'm well aware that it generates power whenever it gets light, problem is as the light drops so does that generation capacity. If it's not needed at peak demand then it quite simply is not needed at all.

It's accepted almost universally and as I said you cannot prove a negative but you can find out how many conventional power stations have been replaced by renewables. I'll save you some research. The answer is 0 as acknowleged by every generating company, government, energy research agency in the world.

It's quite interesting that you seem to be questioning everything I have said but have yet to put forward one answer to anything that has been said. Do you have any answers ?

Another post with not one fact/figure/link.

Still waiting for any proof/fact for the points I raised.

Martyn1981

tberry6686 wrote: »

The amount of fuel used at peak generation for a power station is not that far off what it uses in standby mode. The reason for this is simple - they are designed to generate the electricity as efficiently as possible, not to be as efficient as possible in standby. Think of it as a car. A car is most fuel efficient at a predetermined speed and gear not when it is sitting still idling. It will use slightly less fuel sitting still but you still get most of the emissions and costs with none of the benefits.

Therefore any fuel saving is minimal and at a massively disproportionate cost.

Interesting article (posted earlier today) that challenges such claims:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/sep/26/myth-wind-turbines-carbon-emissions

I believe there have been similar reports comparing Irish gas consumption and wind generation, and if I remember correctly, finding a similar correlation between German PV generation and gas consumption.

Mart.

Edit: Also, whilst it could be argued that a stationary car uses an infinite amount more fuel per mile than a moving car, I think it's too much of a stretch to say 'slightly less fuel' in a time context, since the engine is only having to supply minimum power to rotate the engine, clutch and gear shaft. It doesn't have to move the other rotating mass (gears, driveshafts, differential, wheels and tyres), also, and most importantly, it isn't moving the mass of the vehicle, nor competing with road/tyre and wind resistance. Please note however, I'm not advocating leaving an engine idling. M.

tberry6686

Most cars will move quite happily at idle and will use the same amount of fuel moving at idle that they will use idling while stationary but I accept the analogy is probably not the most appropriate.

Interesting article that, although it does appear a little bit skewed in favour of wind power.

I won't argue that wind turbines can play a part in reducing emissions because it's obvious that they can. I will argue that solar panels will make at best a trivial saving on gas consumed in this country. (I'm not saying they should not be used) but I do think the subsidies that are being given to both wind and solar power should be withdrawn and these industries made to stand on their own feet.

spgsc531

tberry6686 wrote: »

Most cars will move quite happily at idle and will use the same amount of fuel moving at idle that they will use idling while stationary(1) but I accept the analogy is probably not the most appropriate.

Interesting article that, although it does appear a little bit skewed in favour of wind power.

I won't argue that wind turbines can play a part in reducing emissions because it's obvious that they can. I will argue that solar panels will make at best a trivial saving on gas consumed in this country. (I'm not saying they should not be used) but I do think the subsidies that are being given to both wind and solar power should be withdrawn and these industries made to stand on their own feet(2).

(1) That's wrong. A car requires more power to move, therefore must use more fuel to maintain revs (idle). Unless its going down a decline I suppose. If steep enough most modern cars will shut off fuel to the engine.

(2) I guess you want cuts to all fossil fuels as well, make them stand on their own feet too?

spgsc531

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Once you've worked it out, try doing the same again with Nuclear as the example. Then you save the gas 24 hrs per day, and you don't have to build the hundreds of inefficient small gas stations in the first place, and you don't have to burn gas for reserve duty to correct for the intermittent sun (and wind). You also don't have to have the inefficient operation of startup and shutdown of many stations every day, which of course leads to additional maintenance costs.

But it is an extremely cocked eyed way of looking at the situation anyhow.

Solar (and wind) aren't engineering solutions (i.e. the best system to satisfy a set of requirements), they are political imperatives, which are extremely costly to all consumers, due to

- duplication of capacity (each MW of solar/wind capacity has to have an equal amount of reliable capacity built, and maintained at operational status all the time)

- increased primary reserve requirements (i.e. other reliable stations have to burn fuel to correct for instantaneous changes in both demand and intermittent generation)

- the increasing costs of subsidies to inefficient generation as time goes on.

Don't expect the rate of increase of electricity bills to ameliorate anytime soon.(and that now applies to whatever we do tomorrow - we are in a situation we shouldn't be in at all, but hey ho, this is where we are. It would be pertinent for the powers that be to examine why we are currently in this desperate situation in order that we at least set a course for improvement in the future.

"There has been a concerted effort by some campaign groups to completely mislead the public into believing that green taxes have been the main cause of rises in fuel bills," said Bob Ward, at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics. "These groups, including the Global Warming Policy Foundation and the Taxpayers' Alliance, appear driven by an extreme ideological opposition to environmental regulation, and have sought to confuse and misinform the public with blatantly inflated figures."