Viewing 33 posts - 81 through 113 (of 113 total)
  • If everyone in Britain stuck solar panels on their roof….
  • mrmonkfinger
    Free Member

    This is a purely personal opinion and I apologise if it offends anyone.

    Sounds a reasonable opinion to me based on what I know of electrical engineering.

    Inverters can get to about 80% efficiency quite easily. I’m not sure how much more efficient it is possible to get, even at great expense.

    However, running a few gadgets and gizmos from an inverter isn’t a bad option, doing the route of Solar panel -> charge car type batteries -> inverter -> TV / fridge / etc.

    Inverters are not much use for power appliances though, kettles, dryers, washers. A lot of those would be far better served by other (more efficient) power sources.

    AlexSimon
    Full Member

    I’ve always been of the (uninformed) opinion that the embodied energy of a PV panel was a killer. Especially as it just moves the problem to the country of manufacture which is probably more polluting than the UK.

    However, I’ve just been reading this report:
    http://www.resilience.org/stories/2006-06-16/energy-payback-roof-mounted-photovoltaic-cells

    Which concludes that realistic energy payback from a roof-mounted PV panel is approx 8 years (including dealing with the waste/pollution/etc).

    This sounds hopeful to me.

    ransos
    Free Member

    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.

    Germany relies on electricity imports generated from various sources, including nuclear. But those who point to the French example of a very high percentage from nuclear need to remember that they are heavily reliant on exports and imports with other countries.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    zokes
    Free Member

    Just like nuclear. That should never have been given, and still being given, public subsidies.

    Coal and gas get massive massive subsidies from the environment, paid for by the poorest in the world. Lets try to phase those out first shall we?

    No-one has talked about biomass yet as far as I can see.

    Given how many nutrients are in biosolids / garden waste, how much energy it costs to produce mineral fertiliser, and the fact that the world will run out of phosphorus (we can’t make it from air like N fertilisers), i’d say it was pretty criminal not to be using biosolids et al. as fertiliser. Burning them’s daft. But getting the best of both worlds out through biogas production, then reusing the residue as fertiliser makes a lot of sense.

    Biomass grown for that purpose displaces food. I know what I’d prefer to feed – my family, rather than my car / tv.

    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!

    If only Germany’s army of hippies would realise that their nuclear-free utopia relies on French nuclear power

    ransos
    Free Member

    If only Germany’s army of hippies would realise that their nuclear-free utopia relies on French nuclear power

    And French nuclear power relies on exports to Germany. What’s your point?

    aracer
    Free Member

    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%.

    Which was based on putting solar panels on every roof – or did you miss that bit?

    I know it is not the answer

    Really, so why did you write “it could… 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.” – if you know that it wasn’t true? You do realise that you were the one who added “base load” to awhiles’ calcs which didn’t mention that?

    You seem to know wholesale what isn’t the answer so presumably you also know what the wholesale answer is?

    Do you know that the solution to the middle east problem isn’t to arm both sides with nukes and let them go at it? Good – let’s know what the solution is then?

    I’m not entirely sure whether you’re still missing the irony of writing a load of hype suggesting people were claiming something they aren’t right after grum’s comment about straw men.

    aracer
    Free Member

    And French nuclear power relies on exports to Germany. What’s your point?

    That between the two of them they have a healthy mix of nuclear?

    I don’t think anybody is suggesting every country should have as much Nuclear as France – simply that it is useful as part of the mix, and that France’s excess goes to make up for those countries who have ideological objections to having such things on their own soil.

    ransos
    Free Member

    That between the two of them they have a healthy mix of nuclear?

    I was trying to make the point that an interconnected energy grid using a diverse range of sources is surely the way forward. Nuclear may be part of that mix.

    Once we’ve done all we can to minimise consumption…

    fasthaggis
    Full Member

    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.

    Trekster
    Yup I get all that ,I was more having a go at the general attitude to energy saving and fuel use ,from people that do have a choice.
    A lot of people want to keep on using the same levels of energy and fuel without the cost going up ,rather than trying to reduce their need for it.

    As an example:
    Look at the last time the tanker drivers went on strike and people were forced to car share and think a little bit more about the way they were driving. Plenty stories from mr and mrs amazed ,that they had magically saved money .
    As for people that can’t afford to invest in energy saving ,maybe landlords or local communities should go some way to making sure that buildings and services are up to a good standard.

    Plus ,3 pages in and nobody has mentioned Hydro ,the forgotten resource .

    zokes
    Free Member

    And French nuclear power relies on exports to Germany. What’s your point?

    My point is that without it, parts of Germany would be very cold and very dark. Whereas without Germany, parts of France would have a few less nuclear power stations. Also, Germany can hardly claim to be nuclear-free when it uses nuclear power.

    What’s your point?

    Plus ,3 pages in and nobody has mentioned Hydro ,the forgotten resource .

    Unfortunately, hydro tends to take up quite a bit of space, and also requires some quite specific topography – the most suitable of which is already in use.

    aracer
    Free Member

    I was trying to make the point that an interconnected energy grid using a diverse range of sources is surely the way forward. Nuclear may be part of that mix.

    I’m not sure any of the people you’re attempting to argue with disagree with you 😉

    fasthaggis
    Full Member

    Unfortunately, hydro tends to take up quite a bit of space, and also requires some quite specific topography – the most suitable of which is already in use

    Mostly true,but where I live in Scotland some of the turbines are over 50 years old and there is a lot of room for improvement.
    With most of the infrastructure already in place , a lot of the efficiency/output could be vastly improved.

    ahwiles
    Free Member

    that R4 program: costing the earth, is quite interesting.

    in summary:

    German: Here in Germany we are closing down our Nuclear power stations, and we are now burning lots of pig poo.

    R4 interviewer: and burning pig poo provides enough power to make up the shortfall from the Nuclear power stations?

    German: no, we’re burning more coal. but in 20 years we will run our country on butterflies and rainbows. it will be perfect.

    R4 interviewer: isn’t that a little optimistic?

    German: perhaps…

    ransos
    Free Member

    My point is that without it, parts of Germany would be very cold and very dark. Whereas without Germany, parts of France would have a few less nuclear power stations. Also, Germany can hardly claim to be nuclear-free when it uses nuclear power.

    Incorrect.

    1. Germany relies on imports, but is not dependent on a specific form of generation.
    2. Without exports during times of low demand, France would not generate enough electricity to cover times of high demand – you can’t just turn nuclear up and down. So yes, the lights would go out unless they built other forms of generation.

    ahwiles
    Free Member

    fasthaggis – Member

    Mostly true,but where I live in Scotland some of the turbines are over 50 years old and there is a lot of room for improvement.

    they may be 50 years old, but they’ll be 50yr old Pelton wheels

    (one of the most efficient machines ever made)

    …a lot of the efficiency/output could be vastly improved…

    i wouldn’t bet on it.

    one of the great things about hydro power is that it’s quite simple, we got very good at it very quickly, a long time ago.

    (a brand-new pelton wheel at the bottom of a new nice long penstock, wont be much more efficient than a 100yr old pelton wheel and penstock)

    aracer
    Free Member

    Without exports during times of low demand, France would not generate enough electricity to cover times of high demand – you can’t just turn nuclear up and down

    Why don’t they install some molten salt batteries?

    zokes
    Free Member

    Incorrect.

    1. Germany relies on imports, but is not dependent on a specific form of generation.
    2. Without exports during times of low demand, France would not generate enough electricity to cover times of high demand – you can’t just turn nuclear up and down. So yes, the lights would go out unless they built other forms of generation.

    You are mistaken. Not incorrect, more ‘incomplete’.

    1) Would you rather they import their energy from something less polluting then, like coal. Obviously you’ve not heard of this little thing called air pollution and global warming?

    2) So France builds some more fossil fueled stations to plug the gaps. See above.

    Then, listen to your own post, in which you hit the nail on the head, and stop being antagonistic for the sake of it.

    I was trying to make the point that an interconnected energy grid using a diverse range of sources is surely the way forward. Nuclear may be part of that mix.

    Once we’ve done all we can to minimise consumption…

    thisisnotaspoon
    Free Member

    Photovoltaics don’t need direct sunlight. They are also more efficient in low temperatures.

    +1, I read that a solar panel in Cardiff is actualy better than one in Madrid as the power drops off something like 10% for every 10C.

    Tidal barrages make more sense, you could keep the water back untill peak time most of the time. The downside it the potential destruction of huge ammounts of habitat.

    zokes
    Free Member

    +1, I read that a solar panel in Cardiff is actualy better than one in Madrid as the power drops off something like 10% for every 10C.

    But you get much shorter darker days in winter, which is kind of when you need the energy most

    ransos
    Free Member

    You are mistaken. Not incorrect, more ‘incomplete’.

    1) Would you rather they import their energy from something less polluting then, like coal. Obviously you’ve not heard of this little thing called air pollution and global warming?

    2) So France builds some more fossil fueled stations to plug the gaps. See above.

    Then, listen to your own post, in which you hit the nail on the head, and stop being antagonistic for teh sake of it.

    Nowhere have I stated whether I believe nuclear to be a good or bad thing. Suggesting that I might prefer coal is refuting an argument I haven’t made and also a false dichotomy.

    Go away and have a think.

    ransos
    Free Member

    Why don’t they install some molten salt batteries?

    I don’t know much about them, but I doubt it’s much of an issue – they have a market for their excess electricity and also quite a lot of hydro to respond to peak demand.

    zokes
    Free Member

    Suggesting that I might prefer coal is refuting an argument I haven’t made and also a false dichotomy.

    Not really. You remove one large scale form of generation, unless everyone in the area it served likes candles, you will have to replace it with another. And like it or not, renewables will never be able to power all of either Germany or France. Which, if you remove nuclear, equals fossil fuel.

    Again, just stick with this, and you’ll be fine darling:

    I was trying to make the point that an interconnected energy grid using a diverse range of sources is surely the way forward. Nuclear may be part of that mix.
    Once we’ve done all we can to minimise consumption…

    Then have a quiet lie down. That would serve us all better than you trying to cause arguments when you’ve already made a statement I doubt any of us would disagree with.

    fasthaggis
    Full Member

    one of the great things about hydro power is that it’s quite simple, we got very good at it very quickly, a long time ago.

    Awhiles

    True enough,but when I worked on them 25 years ago they were always trying to sort out the blade cavitation and hydraulic problems for more efficiency .I also can’t believe by now,that there couldn’t ( or hasn’t been )an improvement on the generation side .There were always sets getting taken out for rewinds and repairs( part of my job at the time),this had stations running below full capacity.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    Ok – so the heating problem – if we all had super insulated houses, could we all heat ourselves and our water with biomass?

    CountZero
    Full Member

    hydro tends to take up quite a bit of space, and also requires some quite specific topography – the most suitable of which is already in use.

    Rather than one large tidal barrier, as keeps getting mooted for the Severn, there should be lots of smaller tidal systems dotted around the Severn Estuary and Bristol Channel, and others, to take advantage of diffrent tidal flows at different depths, that way there’s minimal habitat destruction, and the Severn remains fully useful for shipping.

    alex222
    Free Member

    Which was based on putting solar panels on every roof – or did you miss that bit?

    Remind me again what is the thread title?

    Really, so why did you write “it could… 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.” – if you know that it wasn’t true? You do realise that you were the one who added “base load” to awhiles’ calcs which didn’t mention that?

    Yep I do realise I added that and yes it was inaccurate. Yes I appologise for not knowing as much as you.

    Do you know that the solution to the middle east problem isn’t to arm both sides with nukes and let them go at it? Good – let’s know what the solution is then?

    I’m not entirely sure whether you’re still missing the irony of writing a load of hype suggesting people were claiming something they aren’t right after grum’s comment about straw men.

    maxtorque
    Full Member

    The issue for me is that we live in a world driven by Economics primarily and Politics secondarily. This leads to the following dichotomy:

    No Politician can do anything that results in his electoral mass being economically disadvantaged.

    So, whilst technological solutions exist to all the worlds power problems, each and every one results in an extra financial burden over and above the costs of the current system. As such, no politician can champion a solution for fear of loosing their majority. And whilst Politicians might love to be “seen to be green” or whatever, they love NOTHING more than being the one who is re-elected.

    This makes it less suprising that most of the current ‘high tech/green’ alternative energy schemes have been financed either by the commercial sector or by very high level EU funding (where the waters between politics and economics are muddled by distance).

    Because of this reason, I for one, cannot see anything but the following outcome:

    1) Continued use of fossil fuels until they get so expensive that it actually becomes cheaper to use something else (rather than use until they completely run out)

    2) Limited and localised uptake for small scale domestic power generatino schemes, where costs could be minimised by getting a group of people involved (for example, your village buys a wind turbine etc)

    3) A huge increase in the cost of all energy, almost certainly double the current artificially low price (because we will have to package the incoming solar energy ourselves, rather than rely on it having been done for free by nature previously and only having to “unwrap” it)

    This leads me to think that what the UK needs is a party independent energy policy, with short(5yr), medium(15yr) and long (50-100yr) strategies that are ratified and maintained by a suitably selected, but non political, board of scientists, engineers and economists.

    Think of it as like the CEGB for the future if you will?

    mjb
    Full Member

    +1, I read that a solar panel in Cardiff is actualy better than one in Madrid as the power drops off something like 10% for every 10C.

    It would be more efficient more not really any better. The cells efficiency drops off quite considerably as they heat up and they get a lot hotter than the ambient temperature. However the cell in Madrid will receive considerably more energy and although converting a smaller percentage of it to electricity the overall amount it produces will almost certainly be higher. To be honest as the energy being received is free we’re not really interested in the efficiency, more in the overall output of the system.

    It always surprises me how everyone always focuses on electricity production a far greater amount of our energy consumption is used in heating and transport.

    Ok – so the heating problem – if we all had super insulated houses, could we all heat ourselves and our water with biomass?

    With a super insulated house you’d need very little heating, an exercise bike in the corner of the room would probably be enough 🙂

    julianwilson
    Free Member

    Electricity usage by offices/factories/hospitals etc still has a long long way to go.

    The electricity generated by the HUUUUge slab of PV panels on the roof of our ooober-expensive PFI hospital unit is more than offset by the electricity wasted by the lights: these come on automatically in 90% of areas whether you want them too or not, and whether it is the middle of the night or a bright summer’s day. They stay on 15 minutes after last motion is detected in the room. All about safety, innit. 😕

    And when the fire alarm is tested weekly every last light comes on in every last nook, cranny and broom/storage cupboard, and you have to walk round the whole building into every last room/door/cupboard in order to ‘trip the motion sensors and have the light switch itself off again 15 minutes later.

    (similarly the super-efficient gas boiler for the heating is wasted since we can’t adjust the heating without a day’s notice, and it spends a lot of time battling against thermostatically controlled automatically-opening roof windows and air conditioners. 👿

    molgrips
    Free Member

    The issue for me is that we live in a world driven by Economics primarily and Politics secondarily.

    Yes, and so you arrive at the same bottom line again and again – education.

    People need to understand the importance of decisions that are made now, and how they affect the future. Education is the most important thing we can do, because the success of everything else we do depends on it.

    And yet, it’s treated like crap. It should be the cornerstone of our society.

    Sandwich
    Full Member

    Ok – so the heating problem – if we all had super insulated houses, could we all heat ourselves and our water with biomass?

    A couple of candles would do, if you don’t feel like pedalling.

    scuzz
    Free Member

    Electricity usage by offices/factories/hospitals etc still has a long long way to go.

    This very website is hosted in a datacentre that uses DX Airconditioning. For every Watt of computing power, an additional ~0.4 Watts are used to run the datacentre. Datacentres can easily consume the power of a small town.
    Get off Facebook.

    Peyote
    Free Member

    Yes, and so you arrive at the same bottom line again and again – education.

    You’re right.

    But, some people need more than just education, they need to accept that education and act on it and in some cases need to be forced into acting on it. Behaviour change is a complex and so process (unfortunately) but eductaion is at the heart of it.

    I think we’re going to have to pay more for fuel, power and goods before people (as a whole) start using less of them. But then we know this from the way the econmies of all the major markets have been progressing over the past few decades. Petrol use is only just dropping despite rising for 20 odd years, for example.

Viewing 33 posts - 81 through 113 (of 113 total)

The topic ‘If everyone in Britain stuck solar panels on their roof….’ is closed to new replies.