How many power stations would we need then?
I see there's some debate in parliment about power stations and I might send them a note.
If all government offices stuck solar pannels on include in that hospitals, prisons, army bases etc then drag in the local authorities it would add up to a fair acerage of leccy genertion.
It's a no brainer, surely?
I know one thing for sure. If I put solar panels on my roof, the sun would never come out ever again
more than you seem to think
Factories would be a good bet, as they tend to have very large surface areas, and they also often use a lot of power themselves.
I did read somewhere that in the US where they build giant shopping malls and department stores as huge flat roofed single storey buildings in hot very sunny climates, some companies are putting solar on and getting all their leccy for free.
It's the perfect real-estate for solar, it should be bloody mandatory.
Probably a more appropriate question is, is 'green' electricity generation possible? No fired or nuclear power stations at all.
All houses and offices, factories and things feed solar power into the grid, we establish biomass plants wholesale, all the sewage and green waste goes into these. Keep the wind and wave farms, keep the hydro power stuff.
What then? How short are we? A little bit, or a lot?
binners I told you, it's never going to rain ever again in Lancashire. See?
http://m.yr.no/place/United_Kingdom/England/Lancashire/long.html
more than you seem to think
How many then?
If everyone in Britain stuck solar panels on their roof....
samuri - Member
How many power stations would we need then?
About the same amount. Otherwise when the sun goes behind a cloud (at least half the year) you still need to same amount of energy.
Now add batteries and you might have something.
Well not really because the panels still generate when the sun goes in.
However they don't when it goes down.
Perhaps one of the most popular myths about the use of solar energy is that on days when the weather is stormy or there is not much sunshine, that anyone who relies solely on solar power will simply have to shut down operations and make do. Fortunately, this is not the case for several reasons.
http://www.greenlivinganswers.com/archives/179
About the same amount. Otherwise when the sun goes behind a cloud (at least half the year) you still need to same amount of energy.
Why post as if you know what you're talking about when you really don't? 😕
... we'd have to pay for them ourselves (fair enough) but rather than seeing our bills reduce the power companies would find some excuse for charging us to top up the grid and the government would tax us for being too self reliant.
Then the power companies would charge us some more to help build more infrastructure as we'd be in danger of overloading the grid and the government would tax us a bit more so they could subsidise the solar panel industry while also paying for panels on public buildings, those that can't afford them, and MPs 5th homes.
And then once everyones pockets have been picked yet again they'd find another green initiative and the cycle would continue until everyones rooves had collapsed under the weight of expensive solar panels and our children couldn't play in the garden as it would be full of windmills.
A good read for anyone who's actually interesting in an objective look at the numbers (or a good guess at what they are at least...)
Exactly the same amount as we need now. The grid would buy it's reliable baseload from the power stations, the solar panels would occasionally and unpredictably chuck out a bit of wibbly extra power and that'd get dumped straight to waste heat.
Solar panels make sense where it's very very sunny. We should be harvesting some of our non-potable water from our roofs, not solar.
About the same amount. Otherwise when the sun goes behind a cloud (at least half the year) you still need to same amount of energy.Now add batteries and you might have something.
POSTED 11 MINUTES AGO # EDIT
molgrips - Member
Well not really because the panels still generate when the sun goes in.
Not sure if you have noticed but about 50% of the time the sun is behind the earth and it's dark, I know the panels work when it's cloudy but at night??
About the same amount. [s]Otherwise when the sun goes behind a cloud (at least half the year) you still need to same amount of energy.[/s] Because peak load often occurs when its dark.
ftfy
Edit: slightly too late!
Probably a more appropriate question is, is 'green' electricity generation possible? No fired or nuclear power stations at all.
The book that gibber's linked to +1
We should be harvesting some of our non-potable water from our roofs, not solar.
erm, harvest both?
put a gutter along the bottom of the panels and channel it to a water butt.
We'd still need the same number of power stations, especially in winter when its dark for 16 hours.
Oh yay all the renewables haters are here now, presenting their opinions as 'facts'. 🙄
+1 to reading the link above btw
If it was a bit sunnier, and everybody could live with panels, what we'd have to do is build a whole lot of Dinorwic style storage. Batteries can't be the soultion. I'm still not convinced on the lifespan of the panels or the environmental impact of their manufacture personally.
Not sure if you have noticed but about 50% of the time the sun is behind the earth and it's dark, I know the panels work when it's cloudy but at night??
Mike I said exactly that immediately below the line you quoted.
I would also challenge grum's source on that - winter evenings would be chilly and dark if we all relied on solar.
How much energy does it take to manufacture a solar panel vs its projected energy generation over its life? Is it actually net positive?
sorry molegrips I was using you as a point. But when the sun goes down singletrack would shut down so it would at least make the evenings quieter....
I would also challenge grum's source on that - winter evenings would be chilly and dark if we all relied on solar.
I never suggested relying entirely on solar though did I.
Do we have to have this straw man in every single thread about energy?
I don't understand why solar has to either be the solution to all mans problems or a totally useless disgrace. Seems to be the STW way though.
I never suggested relying entirely on solar though did I.Do we have to have this straw man in every single thread about energy?
It's mostly the problem of using power supplies that are not under our control. They do not have a consistent output so you need something to back them up. So come 8pm on Christmas night how do we power the country?
Reduced consumption and stable base load generation coupled with renewables is the answer.
The answer to the OP's question is about the same amount. It doesn't mean they need to be running flat out but they need to be there.
I was going to post what grum said ^^^^^
However there is no point. Everyone is ready to jump up and down and say Photovoltaics, infrared hot water (hot water solar) onshore wind, offshore wind, tidal, wave, insert any form of renewable energy is useless. The only answer is coal and we may as well just deal with the rising cost of energy with no consideration for alternatives. Surely if we used all in some kind of 'combination' we could reduce our dependency on fossil fuels which are finite?
Maybe everyone who worked 10 miles or less than where they lived (if they work in an office or at another fixed location daily) could commute by bike as well while we're at it; then perhaps the world would be a happier place fitter place?
I predict that the answer from the multiple oracles here on STW will be no - and why should we try to stop the Japanese whaling as well you big bunch of hippies. Or similar.
I have some on my garage roof. I live in Oxfordshire. In the winter I get paid £75 pm, in the summer months its been up to £150.
Cost me £8k to fit it.
On weekends we use it to power the washing machine, dishwasher etc for free. The income is greater than our electricity and gas costs per year.
Brilliant.
However there is no point. Everyone is ready to jump up and down and say Photovoltaics, infrared hot water (hot water solar) onshore wind, offshore wind, tidal, wave, insert any form of renewable energy is useless. The only answer is coal and we may as well just deal with the rising cost of energy with no consideration for alternatives. Surely if we used all in some kind of 'combination' we could reduce our dependency on fossil fuels which are finite?
True at no point did I said it wouldn't reduce our dependency but it would not reduce the peak amount of energy required to power the country. High consumption industry works during the small hours of the morning using the excess power that is running to keep us in light during the evening.
The world population is growing, the energy use is increasing. We need drastic reduction or increase of production to go forward.
Most people are lazy and want to see some super fast return on the investment,so they can't be Rsd making the effort.
The answer is more in educating about efficient use,rather than giving us more cheap energy.
Most people are lazy
Pretty much is the answer. Depressing really.
[edit]
The world population is growing, the energy use is increasing. We need drastic reduction or increase of production to go forward.
Also pretty depressing. [/edit]
It is,the answers are all out there if more people would make an effort.
What would happen? We'd have shiney rooves, but unreliable supplies. Especially at night.
If solar energy was that good we wouldn't need subsidies for it. It would've happened already.
We'd have shiney rooves, but unreliable supplies.
It's part of the plan not the whole plan 🙄
However they don't when it goes down.
That's when we switch to our Luna Panels.
Solar PV + some of those gas cooling and liquification batteries would mean that we could still be toasty in the dark winter nights.
If solar energy was that good we wouldn't need subsidies for it. It would've happened already.
Just like how nuclear didn't require any public investment you mean?
It is,the answers are all out there if more people would make an effort.
Alas it's not really the solution to say that answers are out there if we made more effort.
What we have to remember is that we have Human Beings V1.0, not V2.0 with added niceness and enhanced moral convictions, and as such solutions need to be based on what Humans will do, rather than what we'd wish they'd do.
I guess it might have depressed me once, but we are what we are, and wishing we were something else isn't really that productive.
The Network in Utopia TV series understood this 🙂
Just like nuclear. That should never have been given, and still being given, public subsidies.
Just like how nuclear didn't require any public investment you mean?
Did you hear that programme on R4 last week about the mox treatment plant in Sellafield? I'm surprised how little fuss has been made about that.
Solar panels make sense where it's very very sunny. We should be harvesting some of our non-potable water from our roofs, not solar.
...or where hot water heating is a large share of energy consumption.
My friends have had solar panels in the highlands for years, it's saved then tons.
I haven't read all the posts however the problem you will come across is storage of energy for use when the sun is not out.
For home use I would imagine that a substantial proportion of people would be in the same boat as me requiring their power early in the morning and then in the evening when for a fair proportion of the year it is still dark. This means you need to be able to store the power created by the solar panels during daylight hours till you need it and to store such significant quantities of energy will take up a large amount of space.
Solar panels make sense where it's very very sunny.
Photovoltaics don't need direct sunlight. They are also more efficient in low temperatures. Those infra red water tubes for water systems also don't need direct sun light.
I have some on my garage roof. I live in Oxfordshire. In the winter I get paid £75 pm, in the summer months its been up to £150.Cost me £8k to fit it.
On weekends we use it to power the washing machine, dishwasher etc for free. The income is greater than our electricity and gas costs per year.
Brilliant.
Your feed in tarrif, paid at several times what your watt hours are worth even if the grid could use them (it probably can't), goes straight on everyone else's fuel bill. And rising fuel bills hit the poorest the hardest.
STW communists, gather! 😈
Did you hear that programme on R4 last week about the nox treatment plant in Sellafield?
NOx treatment? which plant is that?
I think you mean Mixed Oxide Fuel. The rebuild of the existing plant fell through after the Tsunami shut down it's customers.
France successfully produces 200+Te MOX fuel per year ([url= http://www.areva.com/EN/operations-1173/the-fabrication-of-mox-fuel-recycled-nuclear-power.html ]Link[/url]) for use all over the world. MOX fuel is a great solution to Pu stockpiles and energy shortages.
Solare, wind, etc are all part of the mix so is a stable base load and reduced consumption. I made the point earlier - increasing population = increasing demand. At the rate the population is expanding and contries are heading to more developed states demand increase continues. Even with massive reductions in the west energy use will rise. A proper solution is required.
klumpy - you are correct 🙂
But Im quite happy spending my savings on shiny bike parts. I got far less when the money was in an ISA.
Its the best thing Ive done with any money Ive ever had.
I've read the Without Hot Air paper from start to finish.
Its clear that solar isn't the answer but it could make a very useful contribution.
A move to ground or air source heat pumps would help as well too.
Coal and Fission for the next 50 years until renewables can ramp and we have viable Fusion
If solar energy was that good we wouldn't need subsidies for it. It would've happened already.
Well not necessarily - sometimes you need economies of scale, and you can't get those without lots of take-up. So the public susbsidy is to get around this initial Catch-22. A good use of Government imo.
Klumpy, I am with you - and I am so far from being a communist. The whole concept of subsidising panels for reasonably affluent people by levying increased charges on the poorest is totally screwed up. Add to that the fact that the panels will take AT LEAST two years (and possibly much longer) to payback the energy cost of making the panel in the first place and its clearly got very little to do with reducing CO2...
No-one has talked about biomass yet as far as I can see.
As someone who works for a company that has to deal with a lot of poo, I see this is an entirely viable source of energy. Our largest poo factory is already generating around 9MW. That's just one waste water treatment works.
The food and stuff that goes in your green bin is also being used to generate electricity on a quite reasonable scale, the new plant at Widnes will produce around 4MW.
let's do some maths!
uk population = 60,000,000
let's assume that each household is 3 people, living in a house, with a roof that can present 10m^2 of usefull roofspace towards the sun.
lets assume that half of all households are suitable (some households are a flat)
finally, lets assume that each square metre generates an average of [s]1kw[/s] edit: 500W during daylight hours.
10,000,000 roofs, 200,000,000 square metres of solar panel, [s]100,000,000,000[/s] edit: 50,000,000 Watts of power generation.
that's [s]100GW[/s] edit: 50GW
from memory, the uk needs something like 70GW, so according to my vastly over-optimistic estimates, it [s][i]could[/i][/s] edit: couldn't work...
[s]now, how feasible is it?[/s]
i'm sure photovoltaics have their place, i'm not yet convinced that place is covering every roof in the uk.
Add in to the mix tidal, wind and ground source heat and the UK could easily* go the way of Germany and rid itself of nuclear altogether.
*Yes, the word easily is not entirely correct, but everything requires a bit of work doesn't it.
The gov response to all this is daft and short sighted. Logical thinking people stand no chance of changing that response, which is a shame.
Make the most of what you can now.
glasgowdan - MemberAdd in to the mix tidal, wind and ground source heat and the UK could easily* go the way of Germany and rid itself of nuclear altogether.
Germany still uses Nuclear power, they buy it from the French + Swiss.
let's do some maths
Why not read the link where someone has done the maths properly?
why not think for yourself?
i'm not being ar53y, i just like doing maths 🙂
(and, that link is where i got my 1000/500W value from)
that's [s]100GW[/s] edit: 50GW
the uk needs something like 70GW
it could edit: [s]couldn't work[/s]... provide 70% of a base load bassed on pretty rough and ready calculations; so let us assume that it could provide 35% of a base load. That is better than a kick in the bollox and could help take the edge off the ever increasing fuel bills that are shafting [s]the poor[/s] everyone pretty much.
alex222 - MemberEveryone is ready to jump up and down and say Photovoltaics, infrared hot water (hot water solar) onshore wind, offshore wind, tidal, wave, insert any form of renewable energy is useless. The only answer is coal and we may as well just deal with the rising cost of energy with no consideration for alternatives.
grum - MemberDo we have to have this straw man in every single thread about energy?
😆 😆 😆 😆 😆
provide 70% of a base load
I'm guessing you don't understand what "base load" means in the context of power generation.
+1 to ahwiles, removing nuclear and using nuclear are 2 different things
The whole concept of subsidising panels for reasonably affluent people by levying increased charges on the poorest is totally screwed up.
This. It's incredibly socially unjust.
I note that nearly all the discussion is about supply side, yet we could do so much more to reduce demand. The subsidies for middle-class solar would save far more carbon if they were directed to proper insulation and efficient boilers instead.
Regarding how many power stations we would need, it's not binary. Use fossil fuels only for when it's dark and the wind's not blowing...
fasthaggis - Member
Most people are lazy and want to see some super fast return on the investment,so they can't be Rsd making the effort.The answer is more in educating about efficient use,rather than giving us more cheap energy.
Don't think most people are lazy or otherwise, how many people on the min wage, low paid jobs, renting or pensioners do you think can afford to install £10k worth of panels and then afford to maintain them? I know lots of people who fall into that category.
The polyester film used in panels has to be certified for 25yrs. I imagine all the other components used and that are not biodegradable will be the same. So in 25yrs or less when the first generation of panels have to be scrapped how will they be recycled? Yet another cost!.
I'm guessing you don't understand what "base load" means in the context of power generation.
The minimum amount of power a utility company has to provide.
Don't need to do dodgy maths to try to find a way to make GW generated by individual households balance GW required. Especially so when there needs to be some kind of source of power for when PV are not illuminated or bird dicers are not spinning on a calm day.
Might make more sense to use other means to reduce power requirements. Solar heating, ground source heating, etc.
I'm all for mini/micro nuclear in every home (just to spice it up a bit).
Germany still uses Nuclear power, they buy it from the French + Swiss
True, but did you know that French nuclear relies on having an export market? Because nuclear can't easily be turned up or down to match demand, exports and imports are the only way they can sustain such a high percentage of their generation from nuclear. That, and a shed load of hydro.
The minimum amount of power a utility company has to provide.
So how does solar provide 70% of that when it's dark?
it could edit: couldn't work... provide 70% of a base load bassed on pretty rough and ready calculations; so let us assume that it could provide 35% of a base load. That is better than a kick in the bollox and could help take the edge off the ever increasing fuel bills that are shafting the poor everyone pretty much.
except at night 🙂
True, but did you know that French nuclear relies on having an export market? Because nuclear can't easily be turned up or down to match demand, exports and imports are the only way they can sustain such a high percentage of their generation from nuclear.
I think that simply reinforces the point that Germany is still using nuclear - simply that not only do they locate their nuclear power stations away from their centres of population, they locate them in a completely different country.
You will all go round in ever frustrating arguments about what should be done vs what is being done.
In the end you will realise no Gov is going to do the right thing and not enough individuals will make a difference.
You then end up realising the most logical thing to do is make money for yourself out of the daft system.
*turns up heating as its free and a bit nippy outside*
so let us assume that it could provide 35% of a base load.
So how does solar provide [s]70%[/s] of that when it's dark?
You got me; how does solar provide 35% of that when it's dark?
[url= http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=1593 ][edit]except at night[/edit][/url] 😀
You can't use panels on most buildings in the Dales. The National Park authorities want the Dales to keep their character right up until we are building nuclear plants and wind farms across the top of the hills and there is a tidal scheme on the Wharfe.
It's got to be a no brainier to fit things if you can afford it, you can appease you middle class consciences by purchasing a copy of the Guardian whilst employing a cleaner. Oh and drink a little champagne.
In the end you will realise no Gov is going to do the right thing and not enough individuals will make a difference.
Always the problem when a gov term is ca. 5 years, and of those, 2 are when they can do radical stuff in a honeymoon period, 1 is mid term blues, and the last 2 are a combination of trying to get elected again or setting up the next govt to have a sh1t time if you're going to lose.
Using the German example above - Merkel cashed in on the Japanese tsunami and Fukushima issue to grab back a little bit more popularity, and to make sure no other party could do that for the elections which are later this year. Germany may have a lot of windmills, but they certainly don't provide the meat of the power generated.
zeee chermans are going for it and they think they can make it work, and I wouldn't bet againt them
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01q8mqh ]Costing the Earth - Berlin's Big Gamble[/url]
certainly an eye opening program - interesting how it's not big-gov and big-capital driving a lot of the development it's small/local groups. The down side is the eye-watering bills they're gonna have to pay for a few years, although if the Russkies turn the gas off they can still be warm.
Check out the table in this wiki article
[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany ]Renewable Energy in Germany[/url]
Surely once the Russians turn off the power we will be grateful for any electricity at all.
Making this country as self sufficent as possible is not only so we can watch X factor it's about national defence.
We will end up doing whatever the Russians want or they won't give us any leccy. Ukraine anyone?
The 'without hot air' link - its interesting to see what the big chunks of consumption are; air flights, heating & cars.
Its fairly apparent that cars & flights in their present form will just get more and more expensive. I guess eventually people will be forced, economically, to start cutting back on travel.
Heating is a bit trickier, we like to not freeze. Time to stock up on woolly jumpers. Or build better insulated houses that don't leak heat & make good use of the sun.
PV by its nature is a direct current, as we sit on a grid designed exclusively for AC then surely the greater us of pv must mean greater use of switch mode dc>ac conversion and step up transformation to match grid voltage, this (imo) cannot be a good thing,it cannot therefore be viable except on a very small scale or limited to demands immediately in the vicinity of where it is produced ie: drip fed into the households mains via an inverter downstream of the meter if tariffs are to be collected.
This is a purely personal opinion and I apologise if it offends anyone.
alex222 - would you care to do the calcs to work out how much space you'd need for your molten salt battery to provide [s]70%[/s] 35% of the UK's baseload? Though given you're advocating solar panels on roofs, presumably you just put some molten salt storage under every house, along with the associated steam generator etc.?
Feel free to just suggest it's a problem we'll solve in the future if it helps.
If only Germany had the army of naysayers and people with a hard on for nuclear power we have in this country, then they wouldn't be falling for all this misguided hippy nonsense! 🙂
alex222 - would you care to do the calcs to work out how much space you'd need for your molten salt battery to provide 70% 35% of the UK's baseload? [url= http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=1593 ]Though given you're advocating solar panels on roofs, presumably you just put some molten salt storage under every house, along with the associated steam generator etc.?[/url]
My comment was based on some calculations that someone else did as in ahwiles did some rough calculations to say that pv could provide 50GW which is 70%. I know it is not the answer I just find it hard to believe that it doesn't go some way to helping out with the problem that we [i] humanity[/i] are currently faced with. I would hold my hands up and say it is not the answer and I am by no means an expert but surely combined with other sources of power it can go some way to alleviating fossil fuel dependency?
aracer - Member
alex222 - Member
Everyone is ready to jump up and down and say Photovoltaics, infrared hot water (hot water solar) onshore wind, offshore wind, tidal, wave, insert any form of renewable energy is useless. The only answer is coal and we may as well just deal with the rising cost of energy with no consideration for alternatives.grum - Member
Do we have to have this straw man in every single thread about energy?
😆 😆 😆 😆
What is the answer aracer? You seem to know wholesale what isn't the answer so presumably you also know what the wholesale answer is?
Was going to say it'd make more sense to build solar parks, but then the land they'd use are farm fields that are either sitting there doing nothing or would be fields that would have been useful for biomass.
Only need to build an apple orchard round the solar park to make it invisible to passers by, unlike bird dicers up on scottish hills.