Solar is now cheaper than nuclear. Even in the UK

Latest Articles

Solar is now cheaper than nuclear. Even in the UK
Page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Downsizer Forum Index -> Energy Efficiency and Construction/Major Projects

Author

Message

Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25795
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism

Posted: Tue Jun 11, 13 5:24 pm Post subject:

OtleyLad wrote:

Sometimes I think the central reason for using renewables gets lost in the arguing about costs/figures.

The whole idea is surely to cut down/stop burning fossil fuels because it damages the environment.

So what that it costs more money? We want to save the planet don't we?

If a mix of wind/solar/wave/hydro cannot produce 100% of our energy needs all the time, then its ok to burn fossil fuels some of the time to make up the difference.

We are nowhere near the installation of enough renewables to make fossil fuel burning the exception rather than the rule, but we must get there.

But you hardly ever hear people mention cutting down. Wind/solar seem to be used as an excuse to carry on regardless whereas they barely keep up with rising demand even during a deep recession. If anything in England they may even do more harm than good, i.e. they distract us from the real problem which is we should be dramatically reducing our usage.

As and example, I often mention it but even as of late last year over a third of houses that could have loft insulation still have none according to the government figures.

As for saving the planet take a look at the damage done mining the materials to make solar panels and wind turbines.

Jb

Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 7761
Location: 91ï¿½ N

Posted: Tue Jun 11, 13 9:05 pm Post subject:

cassy wrote:

Our local hydro system produces rough the same as one of our local windfarms (~100MW). So if I also assume 100% efficiency then, 2 windfarms could supply the grid full time (one direct and one via pumped storage).

It's a hilly region, ideal for hydro (200m plus above sea level) and the water passes through several turbines before finally reaching the sea. It's not without it's problems; land purchase to start with, habitat losses, volume of concrete needed, drilling for pipelines etc but it doesn't sound that crazy to me compared to say, trying to bury C02 at sea.

Again it's one of those things that in principle is a great idea but the practical numbers work against it. For example based on those 100MW figures the entire country could be powered by 300 hydro schemes and 600 windfarms. But the figures work out a little differently when practical numbers are put against it. For example UK wind generation is about 25% efficient not 50%, and to compare a typical 100MW hydro scheme (Glendoe is the example I'm using here) then although it has a maximum capacity of 100MW it only averages about 20MW. Using those figures we find that we need 1200 windfarms (based on 25% efficiency not 50%) and 1500 hydr6 schemes (based on 20% efficiency).

A typical 100MW wind farm would cover about 6000 acres so 1200 of those would cover about 7 million acres, or about 10% - 15% of the UK. I would also question whether it's practical to find suitable locations for 1500 100MW hydro schemes (Glendoe is extremely unusual in its location)

I strongly suspect that without massively reduced demand renewables alone will not provide a viable power supply in the UK.

sean
Downsizer Moderator

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 42207
Location: North Devon

Posted: Tue Jun 11, 13 9:36 pm Post subject:

I'm not sure that I trust you with numbers though:

JB wrote:

I would personally favour a mixture of 50% nuclear, 50% renewable and 50% fossil.

Nick

Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 34535
Location: Hereford

Posted: Tue Jun 11, 13 10:51 pm Post subject:

Hairyloon wrote:

JB wrote:

The problem is of course storage and supply consistency so for the moment fossil fuel, nuclear or a combination to provide a 100% base load as needed remain necessary.

I was chatting with a wine turbine salesman the other

Want. That is all.

Jb

Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 7761
Location: 91ï¿½ N

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 13 6:14 am Post subject:

sean wrote:

I'm not sure that I trust you with numbers though:

JB wrote:

I would personally favour a mixture of 50% nuclear, 50% renewable and 50% fossil.

That is right. You need a capacity of more than 100% of demand to allow for periods when renewables are not producing.

cassy

Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 1047
Location: South West Scotland

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 13 8:27 am Post subject:

JB wrote:

A typical 100MW wind farm would cover about 6000 acres so 1200 of those would cover about 7 million acres, or about 10% - 15% of the UK. I would also question whether it's practical to find suitable locations for 1500 100MW hydro schemes (Glendoe is extremely unusual in its location)

I take the point about efficiency v installed capacity. However, the 7 million acres are not lost from providing other functions. You can graze under turbines, grow certain crops; loch/lake fish stocks could be increased to provide a meaningful amount of food, free range water-fowl...... I'm liking the idea more!

JB wrote:

I strongly suspect that without massively reduced demand renewables alone will not provide a viable power supply in the UK.

That is a given.

vegplot

Joined: 19 Apr 2007
Posts: 21301
Location: Bethesda, Gwynedd

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 13 8:44 am Post subject:

JB wrote:

sean wrote:

I'm not sure that I trust you with numbers though:

JB wrote:

I would personally favour a mixture of 50% nuclear, 50% renewable and 50% fossil.

That is right. You need a capacity of more than 100% of demand to allow for periods when renewables are not producing.

or when conventional power stations are pulled off line or shut down due to radiation leaks.

Jb

Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 7761
Location: 91ï¿½ N

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 13 8:46 am Post subject:

cassy wrote:

JB wrote:

Loss of land is not an issue, because as you say it can be used for other purposes. What is an issue is whether there is that much land suitable for turbines. It's got to be hilly (edit - not necessarily, it just needs to be windy, which for most purposes means coastal or hilly), non urban, not affected by being downwind of too many other turbines etc. You could of course use offshore wind which solves the power availability but adds a lot of cost and engineering problems.

The other question is could you persuade the general public to accept that much land being being used for or near wind farms? It's hard enough to get them to accept putting up a single turbine never mind the number that would be required for a project of that size.

cassy

Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 1047
Location: South West Scotland

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 13 9:22 am Post subject:

JB wrote:

The other question is could you persuade the general public to accept that much land being being used for or near wind farms? It's hard enough to get them to accept putting up a single turbine never mind the number that would be required for a project of that size.

I have a slightly different experience; living in a hilly area we have several nearby windfarms and more at development/scoping stage. I think we're lucky in Scotland as, because of the commitment to 100% renewable electricity by 2020, there is a presumption towards unless there are environment constraints (ie. designated protected land).

Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25795
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 13 9:30 am Post subject:
Loss of land for the solar farms cropping up all over the south of England is certainly an issue. The one's I've seen are on good quality land and there's nothing growing underneath or around them. Still, at least we can use fossil fuels to import the food lost.

Pilsbury

Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 5645
Location: East london/Essex

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 13 10:08 am Post subject:
What I don't understand Iw the seeming line of thought that if we can't provide 100% of Or energy needs from renewable then we shouldn't bother trying. Every Mw produced from renewable reduced our dependence on nuclear or fossil fuels and there will come a tipping point when we can start shutting power stations

vegplot

Joined: 19 Apr 2007
Posts: 21301
Location: Bethesda, Gwynedd

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 13 11:17 am Post subject:
One of the reasons I'm in favour of micro-generation is to move away from reliance on the big 6 energy companies and their investment in large scale, renewables included, infrastructure. With Ofgem wanting to break the stranglehold of the major producers independent companies such Good Energy could stand to benefit .

Jb

Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 7761
Location: 91ï¿½ N

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 13 11:52 am Post subject:

In principle I'm in favour of micro-generation but the economies of scale often favour large schemes. For example a 2MW turbine will cost about $4m which is about $2000 / Kw but under 100Kw the price rises to about $3000 - $8000 / Kw.

I suspect the main advantage of microgeneration is that by localising power production near to consumption it makes people aware of their power use in a way that they are not when their power comes from some abstract huge source somewhere on the grid.

vegplot

Joined: 19 Apr 2007
Posts: 21301
Location: Bethesda, Gwynedd

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 13 1:05 pm Post subject:
Ours worked out at £2,700 / KW plus and that was a year ago. It's cheaper now.

Mistress Rose

Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 15575

Posted: Thu Jun 13, 13 9:13 am Post subject:

Although the National Grid has enabled virtually everyone to be on mains power, microgeneration does have the advantage of reducing losses through transmission.

Pilsbury, I think you are also right about the line of thought about if we can't make all our energy by renewable means, don't bother. There also seems to be the issue of the relative inefficiency of solar and wind power, but as the energy to produce the power is 'free' that doesn't matter too much, as long as the expectations are achievable and the overall power/material usage in the system is exceeded over it's life.

	Downsizer Forum Index -> Energy Efficiency and Construction/Major Projects	All times are GMT Page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 5 of 5

View Latest Posts