Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

More grown-up reading!

Finally, for those who want to learn more about electricity supplies I can warmly recommend the online book Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air. The author, Prof David MacKay is currently Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change.

I'm glad you brought this up. I've been saying for years that your position is an ideological one opposed to PV, but since you refuse to answer questions related to your unsubstantiated statements against PV, I have to wait each time for you to shoot yourself in both feet.

To expand on what Z has already said, the main point about Dr Mackay's comments on PV can be summarised as - "PV can't supply all of the UK's energy (that's energy not leccy), so therefore PV doesn't work."

The conclusion so far: covering your south-facing roof at home with photovoltaics may provide enough juice to cover quite a big chunk of your personal average electricity consumption; but roofs are not big enough to make a huge dent in our total energy consumption.

I recommend everyone read the PV chapter, it's only a few pages, I've read it many times. Sadly, whilst the late Dr's work is relatively well received, his work on PV is ridiculed on renewables forums, as it seems designed purely to support his pro-nuclear position.

His main failing relates to the efficiency of PV (as he does conclude that costs could fall (and have) considerably):-

Photovoltaic (PV) panels convert sunlight into electricity. Typical solar panels have an efficiency of about 10%; expensive ones perform at 20%.

That 10% figure is repeated again later:

I assumed only 10%-efficient panels, by the way, because I imagine that solar panels would be mass-produced on such a scale only if they were very cheap, and it’s the lower-efficiency panels that will get cheap first.

Now comes the interesting bit, towards the end of the chapter he makes this statement:

I am sure that photovoltaic panels will become ever cheaper; I’m also sure that solar panels will become ever less energy-intensive to manufac-ture, so their energy yield ratio will improve. But this chapter’s photo-voltaic estimates weren’t constrained by the economic cost of the panels, nor by the energy cost of their manufacture. This chapter was concerned with the maximum conceivable power delivered. Photovoltaic panels with 20% efficiency are already close to the theoretical limit (see this chapter’s endnotes). I’ll be surprised if this chapter’s estimate for roof-based photo-voltaics ever needs a significant upward revision.

Unfortunately, that statement that the chapter's estimate won't ever need significant revision, fails since 14-15% efficient PV was being installed on rooftops in 2010, and we are now seeing 17.5% efficient panels (285Wp 1.6m2) installed as standard. 20% efficient normal (or 'typical') are also now becoming available. So that's a 100% increase in efficiency over Dr Mackay's line in the sand.

The good news is that Dr Mackay's argument against PV rarely comes up now, apart from perhaps by those that haven't read the chapter, before trying to use it to misrepresent the potential of PV in the UK.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Doubtless the two posts above will be condemned as ‘trolling’ and attempts made to discredit the authors as with George Monboit.

I don't need to accuse you of trolling when you keep posting articles like these, or the global warming denialist articles you posted a while back. Instead I can let your actions lead to a natural conclusion.

Cardew wrote: »

This in a thread with over 400 posts eulogising about Solar PV – with input almost exclusively provided by the solar industry. No vested interests there then!!

This is a repeated claim by you, and one I enjoy greatly. You like to say that you are not ideologically opposed to PV, yet you complain about PV news articles on a PV news thread, especially if they come from PV news sites.

Perhaps you would prefer we get our news from you, posting 10yr old information that has been debunked by ...... all?

[BTW My wife asked a week ago if you'd been on yet with your annual January rant, and I said you were a bit late this year, but nice to see that you haven't abandoned your tradition.]

Cardew

Why am I not surprised!

Exiled_Tyke

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Unfortunately, that statement that the chapter's estimate won't ever need significant revision, fails since 14-15% efficient PV was being installed on rooftops in 2010, and we are now seeing 17.5% efficient panels (285Wp 1.6m2) installed as standard. 20% efficient normal (or 'typical') are also now becoming available. So that's a 100% increase in efficiency over Dr Mackay's line in the sand.

The good news is that Dr Mackay's argument against PV rarely comes up now, apart from perhaps by those that haven't read the chapter, before trying to use it to misrepresent the potential of PV in the UK.

So that makes my, not very unusual 300W panels (standard 1.6m2 size) 18.5% efficient?

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Why am I not surprised!

Because you knew that I wouldn't let you get away with posting false and misleading information as part of your long running crusade.

Is that the right answer? Do I win a prize?

Martyn1981

Exiled_Tyke wrote: »

So that makes my, not very unusual 300W panels (standard 1.6m2 size) 18.5% efficient?

Yep. And if you think about, an 18.5% efficient panels will generate nearly 6% more leccy for the same surface area as a 17.5% panel, or about 85% more leccy than a 10% panel.

It'll be interesting to see if the Perovskite panels work well, and if efficiencies can be pushed up into the 30% region.

Edit: recent news article suggesting 24% may be reached this year:

Trendy solar cells hit new world efficiency record

The 12.1% efficiency rating was for a 16 cm2 perovskite solar cell, the largest single perovskite photovoltaic cell certified with the highest energy conversion efficiency, and was independently confirmed by the international testing centre Newport Corp, in Bozeman, Montana. The new cell is at least 10 times bigger than the current certified high-efficiency perovskite solar cells on record.

Her team has also achieved an 18% efficiency rating on a 1.2 cm2 single perovskite cell, and an 11.5% for a 16 cm2 four-cell perovskite mini-module, both independently certified by Newport.

“This is a very hot area of research, with many teams competing to advance photovoltaic design,” said Ho-Baillie. “Perovskites came out of nowhere in 2009, with an efficiency rating of 3.8%, and have since grown in leaps and bounds. These results place UNSW among the best groups in the world producing state-of-the-art high performance perovskite solar cells. And I think we can get to 24% within a year or so.”

Martyn1981

Analysis of off-shore wind costs looks like it could go under £100/MWh earlier than expected. This could mean that new contracts will be less than the Hinkley price (£102/MWh (2016 monies)) nearly 10 years before HPC comes on line.

Current on-shore wind and PV contracts are £83/MWh, but they were set 2 years ago, and since then German PV, and Italian wind contracts have been issued for £60/MWh.

The recent tidal lagoon bid for Swansea was as high as HPC, but the package of 12 lagoons, if built, will cost about the same as on-shore wind and PV, and could supply 12% of the UK's leccy.

UK wind farm costs fall almost a third in 4 years

The green energy industry has hit another milestone as offshore wind companies reveal their costs have tumbled much faster than expected and should soon be level with gas or coal-fired power stations.

UK offshore wind beats £100/MWh goal early as LCOE plunges by 32%

UK offshore wind has slashed its cost of energy by 32% since 2012, beating its target of £100/MWh ($125/MWh) four years early and is on track to become “the lowest cost large-scale clean energy cost”, according to latest industry figures.

Larger turbines, competition and lower cost of capital meant projects reaching a final investment decision (FID) came in with an average levelised cost of energy (LCOE) of £97/MWh, down from £142/MWh in 2010/11, said the latest annual report on cost reductions in the sector released on behalf of the UK government-backed Offshore Wind Programme Board (OWPB).

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Sadly, whilst the late Dr's* work is relatively well received, his work on PV is ridiculed on renewables forums, as it seems designed purely to support his pro-nuclear position.

* The author, Prof Sir David MacKay was Cheif Scientific Advisor to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change.

Ridiculed in the well known balanced and unbiased renewables forums no less!

So anyone reading the reports referred to in posts #418 and #419 should be aware that – apparently(according to the Guru) the authors don’t know what they are talking about, are biased against solar PV, etc etc. Perhaps a people’s petition should be raised with Parliament to have Sir David’s Knighthood removed posthumously.;)

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

* The author, Prof Sir David MacKay was Cheif Scientific Advisor to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change.

Ridiculed in the well known balanced and unbiased renewables forums no less!

So anyone reading the reports referred to in posts #418 and #419 should be aware that – apparently(according to the Guru) the authors don’t know what they are talking about, are biased against solar PV, etc etc. Perhaps a people’s petition should be raised with Parliament to have Sir David’s Knighthood removed posthumously.;)

Just because I think you are a troll, doesn't mean you have to act like one. Rather than spit and rant and abuse and spin, you could of course debate the facts?

Do you believe a technology is invalid for the UK unless it can provide 100% of the UK's energy needs, or even just 100% of the UK's leccy needs?

Do you believe that normal (or 'typical') rooftop PV will never significantly exceed 10% efficiency?

Have you actually read Dr Mackay's work?

BTW, you can't remove a knighthood posthumously as they expire upon death.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

you could of course debate the facts?

Debate? You don’t even know the meaning of the word.

I posted links for people to have a chance of Grown-up reading instead of the endless propaganda from renewables industry that you post.

What these gentlemen have written is way above my pay grade in that I don’t have the scientific background(I am merely an engineer), I simply found it interesting and enlightening. One of these gentlemen was:

Professor Sir David MacKay, who has died aged 48, was a Cambridge University physicist who set out to cut “UK emissions of twaddle” by applying the laws of physics and mathematics to the debate on sustainable energy.

His book, Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air (2009), provided a user-friendly guide to how much energy we consume in our daily lives, the lifestyle changes that would substantially reduce that total, and which kinds of technology would make a difference. Amusingly written, it was acclaimed as a breath of fresh air in the often self-righteous and highly charged atmosphere surrounding the debate about climate change, and led to his appointment in 2009 for a five-year term as chief scientific adviser to the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

In an interview with Leo Hickman in The Guardian, MacKay explained that he had decided to write the book because he was tired of the “greenwash” surrounding the energy and climate change issue: “I was tired of the debate – the extremism, the nimbyism, the hairshirt. We need a constructive conversation about energy, not a Punch and Judy show... I wanted to write a book about our energy options in a neutral, human-accessible form.”

However apparently you, from your discussions on ‘renewables forums’, conclude his contributions on PV can be ridiculed. You even attribute the nonsense he writes as ‘designed purely to support his pro-nuclear position.’

That appears to be your definition of debate.

On your definition of debate, let us take the good George Monbiot. The thrust of his original article was that the FIT system of subsidies enabled a transfer of money from the poor to the middle classes.That was true then, and is still true, as witnessed by the current rate of 50p+ for every kWh generated and paid for by electricity consumers. You don’t need an O level to appreciate that is true; enough posters on MSE give their yearly income.

However you have spent the last few years trying every way to discredit Monbiot. Not on the principle of his objection to FIT but because he used the term ‘Domestic’ customers, instead of all customers, or

Monbiot did claim that all the systems would be backwired with the TGM's running from the mains. Yet another completely false claim of his.

On your definition of ‘debate’ that was sufficient to totally discredit everything he has written on FIT.

Look at the last paragraph of the obituary on Prof MacKay, it could have been written with you in mind.



Now just go back to finding some more gems from renewables publications.