Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Green energy and jobs will cripple the UK economy 
Author Message
Doesn't have much of a life

Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am
Posts: 1911
Reply with quote
Amnesia10 wrote:
Actually in southern Europe solar is now the cheapest form of energy and it will get even cheaper.

I don't believe that. Have you a source for this claim?


Tue Sep 06, 2011 10:51 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:58 pm
Posts: 8767
Location: behind the sofa
Reply with quote
In places where land is cheap and the sun shines a lot, it seems bonkers to even imagine that any other form of power would be cheaper. However, fossil fuels are still financially incredibly cheap despite their cost in human terms.

Less reliance on fossil will also have an interesting impact on world economics. There are various cost facts and predictions here, most of which are quite rosy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrating_solar_power

_________________
jonbwfc's law: "In any forum thread someone will, no matter what the subject, mention Firefly."

When you're feeling too silly for x404, youRwired.net


Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:45 am
Profile WWW
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:25 pm
Posts: 10691
Location: Bramsche
Reply with quote
What happened to the planned solar farm in Morocco or Algeria? It was supposed to be over 100KM² and provide power for Europe...

_________________
"Do you know what this is? Hmm? No, I can see you do not. You have that vacant look in your eyes, which says hold my head to your ear, you will hear the sea!" - Londo Molari

Executive Producer No Agenda Show 246


Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:02 am
Profile ICQ
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:56 pm
Posts: 12030
Reply with quote
Are you thinking of this - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/23/solarpower.windpower?

_________________
www.alexsmall.co.uk

Charlie Brooker wrote:
Windows works for me. But I'd never recommend it to anybody else, ever.


Wed Sep 07, 2011 6:19 am
Profile
Spends far too much time on here
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 8:38 am
Posts: 2967
Location: Dorchester, Dorset
Reply with quote
big_D wrote:
What happened to the planned solar farm in Morocco or Algeria? It was supposed to be over 100KM² and provide power for Europe...


I imagine the big wigs don't like the idea of relying on some north african country for their energy needs. Shame, as I think it's a great idea.

_________________
I've finally invented something that works!

A Mac User.


Wed Sep 07, 2011 7:59 am
Profile
Doesn't have much of a life

Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am
Posts: 1911
Reply with quote
That scheme requires a gigantic investment and ONLY WORKS IN THE DAY
You would still have to invest billions more to maintain all the nuclear or gas generation required AT NIGHT


The 35bn sum involved is obviously a napkin estimate just for laying the power lines.

Quote:
Scientists working on the project admit that it would take many years and huge investment to generate enough solar energy from north Africa to power Europe but envisage that by 2050 it could produce 100 GW, more than the combined electricity output from all sources in the UK, with an investment of around €450bn.


Wed Sep 07, 2011 9:54 am
Profile
Doesn't have much of a life

Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am
Posts: 1911
Reply with quote
ShockWaffle wrote:
Amnesia10 wrote:
Actually in southern Europe solar is now the cheapest form of energy and it will get even cheaper.

I don't believe that. Have you a source for this claim?


Anticipating a certain reticence on your part, I though perhaps I would look this up for you.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/ ... ble-energy
Quote:
Spain's electricity regulator recently reported its annual electricity-tariff deficit (ie, the amount by which costs exceed revenues) had climbed in 2010 to a record €5.6 billion ($8.3 billion) as a result of the surge in subsidy payments. The government now faces lawsuits from its own renewables sector, which had invested heavily on the promise of such profits.
[...]
Renewables may never achieve cost parity with fossil-fueled electricity without years of heavily-subsidised development. But overly-generous and rigid guarantees may do more harm than good.


As for the awesomeness of Germany's energy policies...
http://www.economist.com/node/21526366
Collapsing solar industry, collapsing wind, lots of new gas powered stations to come, and/or imports of raw electricity. Well done to them, let's copy that one.


Wed Sep 07, 2011 10:59 am
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:25 pm
Posts: 10691
Location: Bramsche
Reply with quote
ShockWaffle wrote:
That scheme requires a gigantic investment and ONLY WORKS IN THE DAY
You would still have to invest billions more to maintain all the nuclear or gas generation required AT NIGHT


The 35bn sum involved is obviously a napkin estimate just for laying the power lines.

Quote:
Scientists working on the project admit that it would take many years and huge investment to generate enough solar energy from north Africa to power Europe but envisage that by 2050 it could produce 100 GW, more than the combined electricity output from all sources in the UK, with an investment of around €450bn.

I thought part of the idea was to invest in storage technology, so that excess electricity generated during the day would be stored and released when needed.

That will need to be part of any plan to invest in renewable energy. It generates electricity as and when the resource is there, not necessarily when it is needed.

_________________
"Do you know what this is? Hmm? No, I can see you do not. You have that vacant look in your eyes, which says hold my head to your ear, you will hear the sea!" - Londo Molari

Executive Producer No Agenda Show 246


Wed Sep 07, 2011 11:24 am
Profile ICQ
Doesn't have much of a life

Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am
Posts: 1911
Reply with quote
You can store energy either with a giant battery (inconceivable as far as I know with current tech), or by storing the energy in latent form by moving something heavy to a high place, or making something become very hot and then converting the heat or height back into electricity later. Any of those options is going to waste massive quantities of expensively gathered power.

Pumping a lake of any significant mass up a hill, only to pour it back down again 8 hours later uses gigawatts of power, and costs billions in capital investment. Your output for this massive investment would be a comparative trickle of energy. The idea that this is all powered by an excess (which implies that you get that energy pretty much for free) is a fallacy. You have to invest massively to get enough energy for this, and design your system specifically to generate the "excess", which negates its description as such.


Wed Sep 07, 2011 12:03 pm
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
ShockWaffle wrote:
Amnesia10 wrote:
Actually in southern Europe solar is now the cheapest form of energy and it will get even cheaper.

I don't believe that. Have you a source for this claim?

My mistake I forgot about the year

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/09 ... europe.php

also 20% of Germany energy comes from renewables.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/09 ... energy.php

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:07 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:58 pm
Posts: 8767
Location: behind the sofa
Reply with quote
ShockWaffle wrote:
That scheme requires a gigantic investment and ONLY WORKS IN THE DAY
You would still have to invest billions more to maintain all the nuclear or gas generation required AT NIGHT


Solar-Gas Hybrid Power Plants provide for power all day and night. They cost far less than building two separate power plants; it's simply that you heat the boiler with whatever energy source is available when required.

As to storage, the most obvious method is probably hydrogen. Produced on site during the day (and possibly pumped directly into the public gas network - see Hydrogen Economy) and then burned at night.

Given that the sun is always shining somewhere, and more energy falls on the world's deserts in six hours than the world consumes in a year, the only true obstacle to a purely solar powered future is mankind's preference for killing each other rather than cooperating for the greater good.

I have to say I'd rather work night-shift cleaning big mirrors, than work down a coal mine where it's night all day and thousand of people die every year.

_________________
jonbwfc's law: "In any forum thread someone will, no matter what the subject, mention Firefly."

When you're feeling too silly for x404, youRwired.net


Wed Sep 07, 2011 6:47 pm
Profile WWW
Doesn't have much of a life

Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am
Posts: 1911
Reply with quote
Amnesia10 wrote:
ShockWaffle wrote:
Amnesia10 wrote:
Actually in southern Europe solar is now the cheapest form of energy and it will get even cheaper.

I don't believe that. Have you a source for this claim?

My mistake I forgot about the year

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/09 ... europe.php

also 20% of Germany energy comes from renewables.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/09 ... energy.php

Well the 2013 prediction on the treehugger site looks very good. So good that one is inclined to inspect the methodology.
2013 Prediction wrote:
These uniform prices for all countries considered are based on the example of Germany, which has Europe’s
most mature PV market. This “mature market” assumption intends to reflect the
convergence of future prices and margins. But such convergence will be possible only if
the right regulatory framework is implemented in a way to encourage more growth of
European and international markets
(Source: http://www2.epia.org/documents/CITES/Co ... Report.pdf)


So the health of the German PV industry is a critical concern here. I wonder what my Economist link has to say about that?

The Economist wrote:
A bleak picture indeed, without much sunlight from the solar industry. It was, though, always an artificial market, says Wolfgang Hummel, an energy expert at the University of Applied Sciences in Berlin. Solar-panel producers flourished, especially in eastern Germany, mainly because of the guaranteed premiums, known as feed-in tariffs, that solar-power suppliers can get for electricity sold to the grid. The government-guaranteed premiums have been sharply reduced, while those for wind farms have been kept high—higher still for offshore ones. Now investors in solar arrays have to compete with fewer subsidies. That has sent the share prices of Germany’s solar champions, such as Phoenix, SMA Solar and Solarworld, spiralling downwards.

Oh dear :(

I also enjoyed the bit where they say even after grid-parity, PV is going to still need subsidy. I am not qualified to understand their LCOE calculation, that is for investors to make a decision on. So the most damning thing I can say about it is, have a read, scroll down to the end...
http://www2.epia.org/documents/CITES/Co ... Report.pdf
The interesting bit is on page 32. They are basically asking for investors to grade their investment AAA and pretend there is no risk - that's part of their requirement for grid-parity.

I tried to follow the Chinese claims and see what they are based on, but all I saw was a press release that might have been based on some kind of genuine information, but might (more likely) be a pile of spin.


20%, with a commitment to raise that to over 30% by the end of the decade huh? Well, that's got to be expensive. Will it leave them enough cash on hand to bail out Spain with it's 5 billion Euro per annum subsidy commitment when the time comes?


Wed Sep 07, 2011 6:59 pm
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
I am not in support of subsidises even a green like moi does not approve of them.

An interesting infographic re insulation over new nuclear plant. Improving efficiency should be our first priority. Even then solar and wind may not be able to meet all the demand.

Image

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Wed Sep 07, 2011 7:40 pm
Profile
Doesn't have much of a life

Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am
Posts: 1911
Reply with quote
JJW009 wrote:
ShockWaffle wrote:
That scheme requires a gigantic investment and ONLY WORKS IN THE DAY
You would still have to invest billions more to maintain all the nuclear or gas generation required AT NIGHT


Solar-Gas Hybrid Power Plants provide for power all day and night. They cost far less than building two separate power plants; it's simply that you heat the boiler with whatever energy source is available when required.


Well true, but that would be a fundamentally different plan to the one I was criticising. So it doesn't have the benefits of that one either (being predicated on improvements in PV technology that your plan doesn't use). Your version also has the alarming drawback of placing fossil fueled power plants two thousand miles or more from consumers. The distribution would necessarily eat up much of this produced power - you might create more noxious carbon than you save.

JJW009 wrote:
As to storage, the most obvious method is probably hydrogen. Produced on site during the day (and possibly pumped directly into the public gas network - see Hydrogen Economy) and then burned at night.
I considered mentioning that, but as it is by a huge margin the worst possible option, I left it out. Electrolysis is all very well in the chemistry lab, but it isn't used to create industrial hydrogen because nearly all the power goes to waste. If you simply burned the gas afterwards, I believe you would get back a fraction of a single percent of the electricity used in creating it. I don't think you would climb over the 1% barrier even if you used the far more obvious fuel cell approach. (presumably we have a science bod here who can verify or dismiss my claim).

JJW009 wrote:
Given that the sun is always shining somewhere, and more energy falls on the world's deserts in six hours than the world consumes in a year, the only true obstacle to a purely solar powered future is mankind's preference for killing each other rather than cooperating for the greater good.
I think a more certain obstacle to that plan is called resistance - in this case of the electrical variety rather than the French. It's a stretch to try and power London from North Africa, and a good deal of that power would go to waste. But if I want to watch telly at 10 o'clock at night, the nearest viable source of solar power would be somewhere like Texas, and I don't believe that's anywhere near feasible.

JJW009 wrote:
I have to say I'd rather work night-shift cleaning big mirrors, than work down a coal mine where it's night all day and thousand of people die every year.
I would prefer to work in IT than either, so I am hoping nobody does anything to take away all my electricity - I am too fat and decadent to become a hunter gatherer.


Wed Sep 07, 2011 8:03 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:58 pm
Posts: 8767
Location: behind the sofa
Reply with quote
ShockWaffle wrote:
I think a more certain obstacle to that plan is called resistance - in this case of the electrical variety rather than the French.

That made me lol, but you're right. I imagine the longest power lines currently carrying current are probably in America, and 2000miles is quite a stretch. The usual answer is to increase the voltage to reduce the current, but there are practical limits to this. This is one example where high temperature super conductors really could revolutionise things, but as yet they are a pipe-dream.

ShockWaffle wrote:
I don't think you would climb over the 1% barrier

I'm not sure where your 1% guess regarding H2 storage came from. Figures as high as 80% efficient have been quoted for electrolysis, and the high temperatures available at a CSP would be conducive to reducing the electrical power requirements. Even being relatively pessimistic and guessing 40% for conversion each way, that's still 16x more efficient than you suggest. Thermolysis is perhaps also an option for solar collectors, although I have no idea about the potential efficiencies.

One primary reason for suggesting hydrogen gas is that the distribution and storage network already pretty much exists, suggesting it's not an unachievable goal. I understand many countries have storage facilities for gas to last for months, and we have fuel pipelines running across the world. Even without, it's certainly less destructive than mining a mountain and creating a couple of large lakes.

Remember, not so long ago we used "town gas" - that was over 50% hydrogen.

_________________
jonbwfc's law: "In any forum thread someone will, no matter what the subject, mention Firefly."

When you're feeling too silly for x404, youRwired.net


Wed Sep 07, 2011 8:47 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.