-
@Tim massive, massive infrastructure build. Only China could do this. USA maybe if they pulled finger.
This sort of tech could assist Australia get where it needs to be with renewables across state lines, but the cost is prohibitive.
Better to go "standard" HVDC to get the wind and solar farms connected.
-
Yeah, surely local micro generation is a better solution. There may be some population "control" issues in China as well.
These look good:
*"The International Energy Agency says solar electricity is now being made more cheaply than any other method of production. But solar panels currently only convert around a fifth of the sun's energy that falls on them into electricity.
Sunlight is made up of the spectrum you see in a rainbow and silicon, found in nearly all solar panels, is best at converting the red part into electricity.
But UK-based company Oxford PV is combining silicon with a material called perovskite - a semi conductor mineral with a crystal structure of titanium calcium oxide - which turns the blue wavelengths into electrical energy. This chemical sandwich can increase the panels efficiency to 30-40%.
They are going into production this year and expect early applications to be on rooftops where customers want to maximise the wattage from a confined area."*
-
@Snowy all comes down to cost - solar panels that were 11% efficient were the norm for domestic applications ten years ago.
Mine are 5 years old and were about 18% efficient at install (they degrade about 1% of existing yield per annum so would now be getting down to 17%)
Most of the Tier 1 panels were 20-22% at the time, and always getting better. That's why the wattage increases without panel size increasing - efficiency.
Mine are 250W but 350W+ is fairly normal now.
-
@NTA Mine were 250w as well. From memory they had a 20 year warranty to operate at 80% plus (of original output) which actually sounds a bit low. Pretty hard to measure that in a home system though on any given day with the sunlight variable.
No idea what the Oxford ones will cost but if you are reducing the number of panels by that much could be economic. Say a third more efficiency on top.
These look interesting too:
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/05/06/a-new-passive-technique-for-cooling-solar-panels/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090447913000403
The tech keeps changing so you have to take the plunge at some point I guess.
The other issue is supply with Covid and ships not being unloaded in NZ. Hopefully that will be fixed before I want them and isn't a problem as yet. -
I decided to reply here as it seemed like a better place for it. Also: the Powerwall is celebrating its 5th birthday today, so yay me.
@pakman said in Electric Vehicles:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/27/bright-green-impossibilities/
"I sincerely hope that everyone can see that any of those alternatives are not just impossible. They are pie-in-the-sky, flying unicorns, bull-goose looney impossible."Interesting language. A lot of angry comments under that article as well
Beyond the fact that WUWT is a known climate science denial/doomscare blog, and Eschenbach is not considered scientifically literate by any reasonable measure, I want to hone in on a couple of points he uses:
The NREL document he's quoting for solar at "8.3 watts per square metre" is from 2013
Significant improvements have been made since then , with cell efficiency doubling, so maybe quote that figure above 17 watts/sqm or more - due to better inverter tech. Ignoring deployments that use tracking tech to extract even more than the stated efficiency.Wind turbines quoted at 2MW is on the small side. Land-based turbines are typically 3MW or above for grid scale installations. Twice that or more for offshore turbines - average turbine size in Europe installed in 2019 was 7.8MW. I'd be happy to say that average installed wind turbine capacity for 2021 onward is 4MW and leave it at that.
(Unfortunately both of these are examples of the denier scepticism: use old or current figures like they're never going to get better).
We've just improved both technologies by 100%, and therefore halved any figures used in the article for time, land use, or labour. Nice. That's without even adding any firming storage or pumped hydro to support the capacity factor of wind/solar.
Nuclear is not financially viable in any of these scenarios, however I think there will continue to be development here to help with the last 25% of need on the grid. Governments will probably end up carrying the can for that.
I'm in no way belittling the challenge. Net zero is a freaking huge effort and the inaction to date hasn't helped kick it along except in certain cases e.g. R&D under certain schemes. We'll basically have to pivot all mining of fossil fuels into mining of other things to keep the movement going, as one example, and electrifying heavy industry will be tough.
On the plus side for the article: looking at the problem in terms of all FF burned is really key. A lot of studies just concentrate on the electricity grids and manufacturing, and forget the billions of cars running around - particularly here in Oz where we have no emissions standards.
At the same time, we need to consider the transformative nature of something like an EV: A petrol engine might convert about 20% of the power in liquid fuels to energy at the road (losing a lot to heat), while electric cars are close to 80% on the same measure. Already you're achieving a massive difference with each FF car taken off the road, even considering the manufacturing differences for the battery - which again will get more efficient over time.
An overarching point is the efficiencies in supply chain: if your car runs on wind/solar, you're not shipping or refining petrol, and so you're not burning crude to ship petrol. It is a force multiplier effect. Then you have the downside of replacing solar/wind every 20-30 years, which produces the upside of getting more efficient tech replacing old tech more rapidly than a 50-year coal or nuclear plant, but what about the waste? We'll make new recycling industries to ensure we keep a closed loop on things? Who is paying for that?
Here come the Unintended Consequences
-
@NTA said in Solar Power and Storage - a nerd's view:
Here come the Unintended Consequences
The consequences are obvious - we're going to pay more for electricity. And the more we pay for wind and solar the less we're going to decarbonise our grid per dollar spent compared to alternatives.
-
@antipodean said in Solar Power and Storage - a nerd's view:
@NTA said in Solar Power and Storage - a nerd's view:
Here come the Unintended Consequences
The consequences are obvious - we're going to pay more for electricity. And the more we pay for wind and solar the less we're going to decarbonise our grid per dollar spent compared to alternatives.
You're funny.
-
@NTA said in Solar Power and Storage - a nerd's view:
@antipodean said in Solar Power and Storage - a nerd's view:
@NTA said in Solar Power and Storage - a nerd's view:
Here come the Unintended Consequences
The consequences are obvious - we're going to pay more for electricity. And the more we pay for wind and solar the less we're going to decarbonise our grid per dollar spent compared to alternatives.
You're funny.
I almost bit
-
@NTA said in Solar Power and Storage - a nerd's view:
@antipodean said in Solar Power and Storage - a nerd's view:
@NTA said in Solar Power and Storage - a nerd's view:
Here come the Unintended Consequences
The consequences are obvious - we're going to pay more for electricity. And the more we pay for wind and solar the less we're going to decarbonise our grid per dollar spent compared to alternatives.
You're funny.
Evidence. South Australia, California and Germany. Right now South Australia has the most expensive electricity in Australia:
What a coincidence.
Then we look at Norway, Sweden, France compared to Germany:
Strange how spending hundreds of billions of euros on wind and solar still hasn't decarbonised Germany's grid as well as France's.
Data's funny that way.
-
@antipodean said in Solar Power and Storage - a nerd's view:
Strange how spending hundreds of billions of euros on wind and solar still hasn't decarbonised Germany's grid as well as France's.
You're a fan of government expenditure on nuclear?
That's weird, given your pissing and moaning about the cost to future generations over COVID
-
@NTA said in Solar Power and Storage - a nerd's view:
@antipodean said in Solar Power and Storage - a nerd's view:
Strange how spending hundreds of billions of euros on wind and solar still hasn't decarbonised Germany's grid as well as France's.
You're a fan of government expenditure on nuclear?
More than subsidising rent seeking solar farms.
That's weird, given your pissing and moaning about the cost to future generations over COVID
Not weird at all. One has clear measurable benefits. Why are you conflating the two?
-
@antipodean said in Solar Power and Storage - a nerd's view:
@NTA said in Solar Power and Storage - a nerd's view:
@antipodean said in Solar Power and Storage - a nerd's view:
Strange how spending hundreds of billions of euros on wind and solar still hasn't decarbonised Germany's grid as well as France's.
You're a fan of government expenditure on nuclear?
More than subsidising rent seeking solar farms.
Rent seeking? So you're a big supporter of fossil fuels then?
-
@NTA said in Solar Power and Storage - a nerd's view:
@antipodean said in Solar Power and Storage - a nerd's view:
@NTA said in Solar Power and Storage - a nerd's view:
@antipodean said in Solar Power and Storage - a nerd's view:
Strange how spending hundreds of billions of euros on wind and solar still hasn't decarbonised Germany's grid as well as France's.
You're a fan of government expenditure on nuclear?
More than subsidising rent seeking solar farms.
Rent seeking? So you're a big supporter of fossil fuels then?
Are you capable of discussing something without inventing arguments for others? I'd consider $50+ billion in exports as slightly better than rent seeking.
-
There appears to be no allowance for micro generation, so grid becomes irrelevant. I will be grid connected but more likely to supply than draw. Macro generation and distribution should be confined to the past.
Subsidies for micro would be a more efficient way to achieve the goal by 2050 than investing in large scale sources.
-
@Snowy said in Solar Power and Storage - a nerd's view:
There appears to be no allowance for micro generation, so grid becomes irrelevant. I will be grid connected but more likely to supply than draw. Macro generation and distribution should be confined to the past.
Subsidies for micro would be a more efficient way to achieve the goal by 2050 than investing in large scale sources.
Show me the data to support such an assertion.
-
@antipodean said in Solar Power and Storage - a nerd's view:
@Snowy said in Solar Power and Storage - a nerd's view:
There appears to be no allowance for micro generation, so grid becomes irrelevant. I will be grid connected but more likely to supply than draw. Macro generation and distribution should be confined to the past.
Subsidies for micro would be a more efficient way to achieve the goal by 2050 than investing in large scale sources.
Show me the data to support such an assertion.
Sure.
This is from NZ (because that is where I am) and covers a lot of energy related stuff but micro is the beginning:
https://www.pce.parliament.nz/media/pdfs/microgen_background.pdf
-
@Snowy said in Solar Power and Storage - a nerd's view:
@antipodean said in Solar Power and Storage - a nerd's view:
@Snowy said in Solar Power and Storage - a nerd's view:
There appears to be no allowance for micro generation, so grid becomes irrelevant. I will be grid connected but more likely to supply than draw. Macro generation and distribution should be confined to the past.
Subsidies for micro would be a more efficient way to achieve the goal by 2050 than investing in large scale sources.
Show me the data to support such an assertion.
Sure.
This is from NZ (because that is where I am) and covers a lot of energy related stuff but micro is the beginning:
https://www.pce.parliament.nz/media/pdfs/microgen_background.pdf
Page three and it's calling energy savings generation...
PV installed cost of $40k ?
Installing wood and pellet burners? I thought we were going for clean energy. That hardly seems a reasonable wholesale adoption for people who aren't rural/ remote households.
I've said it before; I'm more than happy to run an experiment here in Australia by removing the interconnects to South Australia and see how they're faring in a decade. If it's cleaner, more reliable and cheaper then I'm a convert.
-
@antipodean said in Solar Power and Storage - a nerd's view:
Are you capable of discussing something without inventing arguments for others?
OK then, let's talk money:
GERMANY
Deutschland's Energiewende gets waved around like a big flag for the outcomes in Australia, ignoring that circumstances are different. That argument doesn't hold water any more, even if it did at the start.Probably the biggest factor there is the timing of their plunge into renewables: to shift to renewables these days is far cheaper than it was a decade ago, or even five years ago. Do you disagree that renewables are now far more effective for the price?
SOUTH AUSTRALIA
You're grabbing the spot price on the NEM. Be careful with that, because it may not always work in your favour e.g.Q4 2020 prices (VWA) were lowest in South Australia ($35/MWh) and Victoria ($40/MWh), followed by Queensland ($48/MWh) and Tasmania ($46/MWh), with the highest quarterly prices occurring in NSW ($71/MWh).
Of course, that is wholesale market, so pinning down someone to blame for retail electricity prices is difficult. Will SA always have the cheapest or most expensive electricity? It'll depend on the NEM.
To conflate price increases with renewables is ambitious at the least - I'd like to see your data reference for that in absolute terms. You'd be disagreeing with a fair few learned people, and ignoring several other market factors in South Australia including limited competition, a high proportion of gas*, and a larger proportion of gentailers than other states.
*the argument for gas as a transition fuel has also been thoroughly debunked, I might add.
-
On the nuclear thing: awesome. I actually like nuclear as a source of energy, and think we'll need it for spreading throughout the solar system as one example. The only shortcoming is nobody wants to pay for it, because it is one of the few advanced technologies we've got that hasn't experienced double-digit growth in efficiency, or corresponding reductions in cost.
The Nordic countries have oodles of hydro to back up their state-sponsored nuclear, so like New Zealand, they're not comparable to a Germany or Australia in terms of leaving lignite and black coal.
The carbon intensity of NZ grids barely appears as a blip on our charts at work. So freaking low.
-
@antipodean PV's can be as much as you want them to cost. My father's last year were 25k and he is a net producer of power even with an EV. Obviously a big system but it does the business and he pays no power bill (daily charge to be grid connected). My last system was $15k plus the battery and I paid F all in usage.
Modern wood and pellet burners are very efficient now and produce bugger all emissions and remember this is NZ lots of it is rural.
I did also say that it was the micro generation part not the whole document that was relevant.
Solar Power and Storage - a nerd's view