Solar Panel Megathread

[unbeliever]

Why and who said it is not needed? The energy being produced by offshore wind power is essentially available in varying amounts 24/7 and is also capable of being reduced when not needed. Solar is different but still produces electricity during the daylight hours which is also used.

 

The energy is available but is discarded. Whether you generate electricity and discard it or just disconnect the generator and discard the wind/sunlight makes no difference.

 

Shouldn't we also include Nuclear in that as well? as it also produces electricity when not needed as it cant be ramped up or down quickly on demand like gas, which will eventually run out at some time. The new Nuclear power plant owners are also being guaranteed a price per MWH and that is what is being generated and not just used.

 

Modern nuclear can be built for base load or on demand. The technology has advanced. Gas will not run out. Methane is everywhere.

 

 

The costs of wind power is also coming down. The offshore wind farms are estimating price reductions from £100MWH to £85MWH. The new farms being commissioned have estimated the cost to go from £85MWH to around £60MWH.

 

Gas is cheaper and we have to have gas anyway for when it's neither windy nor sunny.

 

Your £85/MWh wind farm will need about 80% combined cycle gas backup, increasing the cost to approx. £150/MWh and will also generate about 33% of its energy when nobody wants it meaning the true cost is more like £200/MWh.

 

New nuclear is struggling, this is true. Partly because it's a cutting edge "on demand" design to compensate for the variability of our wind. Still the estimated cost is £90-100/MWh and it gives you energy as and when you need it with no backup costs.

Base load only nuclear would be quite a bit cheaper and a full nuclear grid would be about half base load only.

 

Hinkley Point C has been insanely mismanaged and nuclear plants are going up in the rest of the world at half the price or less. I see no reason why nuclear on a larger scale should cost us more than it does anybody else in the world.

Edited September 5, 2015 by unbeliever

[psynuk]

Cardiff University say they have built a house that exports more power to the grid than it uses.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33544831

 

That's pretty cool although a bit ugly imo.

I do wonder how truthful they are being when they say1000p/msq

and comparing it to another house. As the general convention when pricing a house is to halve the cost of a square metre for the second floor (excluding the bathroom area) but that's really just me being a cynic

 

---------- Post added 05-09-2015 at 16:06 ----------

 

The lifespan of each turbine is relatively short.

 

 

er and...

 

“Let’s also remember that Gordon Hughes’s previous research on wind energy has been described by the UK Energy Research Council’s Dr Robert Gross and others at Imperial College, London, as ‘economically irrational, a nonsense scenario’ and ‘economically absurd, spurious and misleading’.”

[El Cid]

The lifespan of each turbine is relatively short.

 

Tvindkraft was built in Denmark, the 54-meter-high turbine has an iron and concrete tower and cone. Construction began in 1975.

I guess they can last as long as you want them to last,

Ferrybridge power station that is closing next year was built in 1966

 

---------- Post added 05-09-2015 at 18:29 ----------

 

New nuclear is struggling, this is true. Partly because it's a cutting edge "on demand" design to compensate for the variability of our wind. Base load only nuclear would be quite a bit cheaper and a full nuclear grid would be about half base load only.

 

I thought it was struggling because of the cost, it cannot be built without subsidy; they are still trying to get the money?

[RickyM]

Tvindkraft was built in Denmark, the 54-meter-high turbine has an iron and concrete tower and cone. Construction began in 1975.

I guess they can last as long as you want them to last,

Ferrybridge power station that is closing next year was built in 1966

 

---------- Post added 05-09-2015 at 18:29 ----------

 

 

I thought it was struggling because of the cost, it cannot be built without subsidy; they are still trying to get the money?

 

It's metre for the spelling but most people go by feet and inches in this country!!

[El Cid]

It's metre for the spelling but most people go by feet and inches in this country!!

 

Nice to be corrected by someone that is right

[unbeliever]

Tvindkraft was built in Denmark, the 54-meter-high turbine has an iron and concrete tower and cone. Construction began in 1975.

I guess they can last as long as you want them to last,

Ferrybridge power station that is closing next year was built in 1966

 

I thought it was struggling because of the cost, it cannot be built without subsidy; they are still trying to get the money?

 

No it can't be built without subsidy. It's not the cheapest form of energy. That would be coal, closely followed by gas. All CO2 free energy requires subsidy. Renewables all have subsidy of one kind or another: Feed in Tariffs, extra taxes on competitors, guaranteed prices even when the energy is not needed. Most have multiple subsidies.

[apelike]

The energy is available but is discarded. Whether you generate electricity and discard it or just disconnect the generator and discard the wind/sunlight makes no difference.

 

Modern nuclear can be built for base load or on demand. The technology has advanced.

 

Modern Nuclear is normally run at base load and unlikely to run on-demand because of economics. That is why the Government are having to guarantee a fixed return on every MWH produced and not just on what is used. That has been one of the big sticking points with the proposed operators and why the contract costs and MWH costs are so high. Our present working reactors also run in base mode so electricity is also being, as you put it, discarded.

 

http://nuclear-economics.com/nuclear-base-load/

 

Gas will not run out. Methane is everywhere.

 

I should have been more exact.

 

The UK's natural gas supply is running out and is the reason why we import a great deal of piped in gas from Norway and import a great deal of LPG from Arab countries. How much methane is used at the moment?

 

Gas is cheaper and we have to have gas anyway for when it's neither windy nor sunny.

 

That may be so but its a "for now" scenario. Ukraine saw what can happen when another country controls the supply as the taps can easily be turned off or the prices can drastically rise.

 

I see no reason why nuclear on a larger scale should cost us more than it does anybody else in the world.

 

Because this is Europe and someone has to pay as it cant be subsidised. Those investors want a return for their investment that's why the proposed new reactor builders/owners are having problems getting the funding.

[unbeliever]

Modern Nuclear is normally run at base load and unlikely to run on-demand because of economics. That is why the Government are having to guarantee a fixed return on every MWH produced and not just on what is used. That has been one of the big sticking points with the proposed operators and why the contract costs and MWH costs are so high. Our present working reactors also run in base mode so electricity is also being, as you put it, discarded.

 

http://nuclear-economics.com/nuclear-base-load/

 

 

 

I should have been more exact.

 

The UK's natural gas supply is running out and is the reason why we import a great deal of piped in gas from Norway and import a great deal of LPG from Arab countries. How much methane is used at the moment?

 

 

 

That may be so but its a "for now" scenario. Ukraine saw what can happen when another country controls the supply as the taps can easily be turned off or the prices can drastically rise.

 

 

 

Because this is Europe and someone has to pay as it cant be subsidised. Those investors want a return for their investment that's why the proposed new reactor builders/owners are having problems getting the funding.

 

 

Nuclear is not perfect. It's more expensive than fossil and so it requires subsidy. All renewables also require subsidy (far more in fact).

Fracking would make us self-sufficient in gas.

 

You talk about how nuclear is normally base load. This is true. But renewables are neither base load nor on demand, nor peaking. That's the huge problem with them. At least nuclear is controllable. You can choose how much electricity to generate.

I just want the true costs (including the costs of backup and waste for renewables) presented for everybody to judge. If they choose renewables anyway, that's fine. At the moment it feels like a con.

[El Cid]

I now have eight solar panels on my roof. There is a digital display in the loft, which, three days ago gave a reading of 00038.4 kwh.

Today the reading is 00048.1kwh

 

So that means its generated 9.7kwh in three days. Any one else got solar panels? What would this power?

[unbeliever]

I now have eight solar panels on my roof. There is a digital display in the loft, which, three days ago gave a reading of 00038.4 kwh.

Today the reading is 00048.1kwh

 

So that means its generated 9.7kwh in three days. Any one else got solar panels? What would this power?

 

Would heat one room for one evening.

Except that it would be dark then. So basically nothing. Your electricity will mostly have been binned.