OT:Who needs nuclear ?

Have fun !!!

formatting link
substantial investments in solar energy go back decades, and progress has been building gradually. But it passed a notable benchmark last week when its solar power met almost half of the country?s electricity demand at mid-day on a Saturday, and a third of its needs on a Friday, when industry was cranking full steam.

The development broke all records for solar power at peak output, Germany used 22 gigawatts of solar generated electricity. That highlights Germany?s leadership position in the field it has nearly as much solar power capacity as the rest of the world combined. And, in a country that plans to eventually abandon all nuclear energy in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the amount produced on these very sunny two days was equal to the generating capacity of about 20 nuclear stations, according to press reports.

Several key developments have helped Germany reach this point, beginning with a long-standing commitment to solar begun in the 1990s. Then, starting around 2001, Germany ?heavily invested in solar subsidies,? says Ruben Lobel, a professor of operations and information management at Wharton. The subsidies were ?very aggressive? and gave a long-term commitment aimed at benefiting consumers who placed photovoltaic panels on their roofs, and producers of solar equipment. In effect, says Lobel, the plan fixed subsidies for 20 years.

The subsidies locked in guarantees on the price that consumers would pay to generate solar electricity and additional guarantees on how much would be paid for excess electricity piped into the main grid when the generation exceeded consumption. Energy companies were required to buy that excess at fixed rates. Those funds helped to reduce the initial costs of equipment and installation, and the idea was that the level of subsidy would decline as the price for photovoltaic panels and related costs came down over time. To a large degree, that is how the program has worked out. Germany?s substantial investments in solar energy go back decades, and progress has been building gradually. But it passed a notable benchmark last week when its solar power met almost half of the country?s electricity demand at mid-day on a Saturday, and a third of its needs on a Friday, when industry was cranking full steam.

The development broke all records for solar power at peak output, Germany used 22 gigawatts of solar generated electricity. That highlights Germany?s leadership position in the field it has nearly as much solar power capacity as the rest of the world combined. And, in a country that plans to eventually abandon all nuclear energy in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the amount produced on these very sunny two days was equal to the generating capacity of about 20 nuclear stations, according to press reports.

Several key developments have helped Germany reach this point, beginning with a long-standing commitment to solar begun in the 1990s. Then, starting around 2001, Germany ?heavily invested in solar subsidies,? says Ruben Lobel, a professor of operations and information management at Wharton. The subsidies were ?very aggressive? and gave a long-term commitment aimed at benefiting consumers who placed photovoltaic panels on their roofs, and producers of solar equipment. In effect, says Lobel, the plan fixed subsidies for 20 years.

The subsidies locked in guarantees on the price that consumers would pay to generate solar electricity and additional guarantees on how much would be paid for excess electricity piped into the main grid when the generation exceeded consumption. Energy companies were required to buy that excess at fixed rates. Those funds helped to reduce the initial costs of equipment and installation, and the idea was that the level of subsidy would decline as the price for photovoltaic panels and related costs came down over time. To a large degree, that is how the program has worked out.

Kick-starting an Industry

The subsidy program has helped to kick-start a viable solar energy program by absorbing a lot of upfront costs. Now the system is getting closer to paying for itself, says Lobel, particularly as panels get more efficient and higher demand greatly increases the supply and makes them cheaper. The earlier installations ?will drive down the costs of the next installations,? he points out.

The emphasis on residential-installed solar panels is particularly important. Subsidies on residential systems are more effective than on large solar arrays because local installations avoid the relatively large costs for transmission and distribution, Lobel notes.

?As a proof-of-concept, yes, renewable generation can be made economical,? Lobel says. ?The best proof is what is happening with wind and solar now. The business model is now proven.? Recent developments put many renewables at or near ?grid parity,? where their costs are roughly the same as energy produced by fossil or nuclear sources.

Still, the subsidies known as the feed-in-tariff or FIT have added some

10% to residential electricity costs and will cost consumers some 130 billion euros over 20 years. That has become controversial in a country that already has some of the world?s highest electricity prices. The subsidies have been gradually declining as intended as the price of solar panels has dropped, but not as fast as many would like. ?In practice, the cost of producing solar dropped more quickly than the tariff cuts. That meant that customers were in effect simply ploughing money into massive profits for the booming solar industry,? according to the Global Post.

Measuring Costs

But as this report from PV Magazine (Photovoltaic Markets & Technology) notes, sorting out all of the costs and benefits is far from straightforward. ?Contrary to many reports that photovoltaics force up electricity bills for all consumers, the opposite was observed as the solar power kicked in. Called the merit order effect, solar power fed back into power grids brought down the price of electricity over the weekend in Germany?. This is amplified by the fact that photovoltaics provides supply at times when demand is high.?

What?s more, current cost calculations do not account for the benefits in reduced carbon dioxide emissions, which contribute to global warming, nor any savings from lower health care costs by reducing air pollution and the health disorders associated with it.

Some observers say that the subsidy system is just now coming into its own: The need for the subsidies is dropping, says Lobel, as the cost of solar panels drops dramatically (by 50% over the last six years, in part thanks to subsidized Chinese solar panel makers) and an increasingly efficient installation sector develops. Solar panels are said to account for only about a quarter of the cost of producing solar energy. The balance is made up by installation, financing costs and related costs

The U.S. could learn some lessons from the German system, Lobel says. Longer-term subsidies of the kind offered in Germany provide more certainty, and with that comes a higher level of confidence that large initial investments will pay off for consumers. Under many U.S. subsidy schemes, ?the subsidy is either a tax rebate or earned credits for electricity that [a homeowner] produces and sells in the market. When you earn credit, you cannot be sure what it will be worth in a few years.?

Can Germany?s program be replicated elsewhere? ?It depends on the price of electricity but for sure, Germany is one of the less sunny places you would imagine people starting to promote solar energy, but they did it successfully.? Kick-starting an Industry

The subsidy program has helped to kick-start a viable solar energy program by absorbing a lot of upfront costs. Now the system is getting closer to paying for itself, says Lobel, particularly as panels get more efficient and higher demand greatly increases the supply and makes them cheaper. The earlier installations ?will drive down the costs of the next installations,? he points out.

The emphasis on residential-installed solar panels is particularly important. Subsidies on residential systems are more effective than on large solar arrays because local installations avoid the relatively large costs for transmission and distribution, Lobel notes.

?As a proof-of-concept, yes, renewable generation can be made economical,? Lobel says. ?The best proof is what is happening with wind and solar now. The business model is now proven.? Recent developments put many renewables at or near ?grid parity,? where their costs are roughly the same as energy produced by fossil or nuclear sources.

Still, the subsidies known as the feed-in-tariff or FIT have added some

10% to residential elecGermany?s substantial investments in solar energy go back decades, and progress has been building gradually. But it passed a notable benchmark last week when its solar power met almost half of the country?s electricity demand at mid-day on a Saturday, and a third of its needs on a Friday, when industry was cranking full steam.

The development broke all records for solar power at peak output, Germany used 22 gigawatts of solar generated electricity. That highlights Germany?s leadership position in the field it has nearly as much solar power capacity as the rest of the world combined. And, in a country that plans to eventually abandon all nuclear energy in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the amount produced on these very sunny two days was equal to the generating capacity of about 20 nuclear stations, according to press reports.

Several key developments have helped Germany reach this point, beginning with a long-standing commitment to solar begun in the 1990s. Then, starting around 2001, Germany ?heavily invested in solar subsidies,? says Ruben Lobel, a professor of operations and information management at Wharton. The subsidies were ?very aggressive? and gave a long-term commitment aimed at benefiting consumers who placed photovoltaic panels on their roofs, and producers of solar equipment. In effect, says Lobel, the plan fixed subsidies for 20 years.

The subsidies locked in guarantees on the price that consumers would pay to generate solar electricity and additional guarantees on how much would be paid for excess electricity piped into the main grid when the generation exceeded consumption. Energy companies were required to buy that excess at fixed rates. Those funds helped to reduce the initial costs of equipment and installation, and the idea was that the level of subsidy would decline as the price for photovoltaic panels and related costs came down over time. To a large degree, that is how the program has worked out.

Kick-starting an Industry

The subsidy program has helped to kick-start a viable solar energy program by absorbing a lot of upfront costs. Now the system is getting closer to paying for itself, says Lobel, particularly as panels get more efficient and higher demand greatly increases the supply and makes them cheaper. The earlier installations ?will drive down the costs of the next installations,? he points out.

The emphasis on residential-installed solar panels is particularly important. Subsidies on residential systems are more effective than on large solar arrays because local installations avoid the relatively large costs for transmission and distribution, Lobel notes.

?As a proof-of-concept, yes, renewable generation can be made economical,? Lobel says. ?The best proof is what is happening with wind and solar now. The business model is now proven.? Recent developments put many renewables at or near ?grid parity,? where their costs are roughly the same as energy produced by fossil or nuclear sources.

Still, the subsidies known as the feed-in-tariff or FIT have added some

10% to residential electricity costs and will cost consumers some 130 billion euros over 20 years. That has become controversial in a country that already has some of the world?s highest electricity prices. The subsidies have been gradually declining as intended as the price of solar panels has dropped, but not as fast as many would like. ?In practice, the cost of producing solar dropped more quickly than the tariff cuts. That meant that customers were in effect simply ploughing money into massive profits for the booming solar industry,? according to the Global Post.

Measuring Costs

But as this report from PV Magazine (Photovoltaic Markets & Technology) notes, sorting out all of the costs and benefits is far from straightforward. ?Contrary to many reports that photovoltaics force up electricity bills for all consumers, the opposite was observed as the solar power kicked in. Called the merit order effect, solar power fed back into power grids brought down the price of electricity over the weekend in Germany?. This is amplified by the fact that photovoltaics provides supply at times when demand is high.?

What?s more, current cost calculations do not account for the benefits in reduced carbon dioxide emissions, which contribute to global warming, nor any savings from lower health care costs by reducing air pollution and the health disorders associated with it.

Some observers say that the subsidy system is just now coming into its own: The need for the subsidies is dropping, says Lobel, as the cost of solar panels drops dramatically (by 50% over the last six years, in part thanks to subsidized Chinese solar panel makers) and an increasingly efficient installation sector develops. Solar panels are said to account for only about a quarter of the cost of producing solar energy. The balance is made up by installation, financing costs and related costs

The U.S. could learn some lessons from the German system, Lobel says. Longer-term subsidies of the kind offered in Germany provide more certainty, and with that comes a higher level of confidence that large initial investments will pay off for consumers. Under many U.S. subsidy schemes, ?the subsidy is either a tax rebate or earned credits for electricity that [a homeowner] produces and sells in the market. When you earn credit, you cannot be sure what it will be worth in a few years.?

Can Germany?s program be replicated elsewhere? ?It depends on the price of electricity but for sure, Germany is one of the less sunny places you would imagine people starting to promote solar energy, but they did it successfully.?tricity costs and will cost consumers some 130 billion euros over 20 years. That has become controversial in a country that already has some of the world?s highest electricity prices. The subsidies have been gradually declining as intended as the price of solar panels has dropped, but not as fast as many would like. ?In practice, the cost of producing solar dropped more quickly than the tariff cuts. That meant that customers were in effect simply ploughing money into massive profits for the booming solar industry,? according to the Global Post.

Measuring Costs

But as this report from PV Magazine (Photovoltaic Markets & Technology) notes, sorting out all of the costs and benefits is far from straightforward. ?Contrary to many reports that photovoltaics force up electricity bills for all consumers, the opposite was observed as the solar power kicked in. Called the merit order effect, solar power fed back into power grids brought down the price of electricity over the weekend in Germany?. This is amplified by the fact that photovoltaics provides supply at times when demand is high.?

What?s more, current cost calculations do not account for the benefits in reduced carbon dioxide emissions, which contribute to global warming, nor any savings from lower health care costs by reducing air pollution and the health disorders associated with it.

Some observers say that the subsidy system is just now coming into its own: The need for the subsidies is dropping, says Lobel, as the cost of solar panels drops dramatically (by 50% over the last six years, in part thanks to subsidized Chinese solar panel makers) and an increasingly efficient installation sector develops. Solar panels are said to account for only about a quarter of the cost of producing solar energy. The balance is made up by installation, financing costs and related costs

The U.S. could learn some lessons from the German system, Lobel says. Longer-term subsidies of the kind offered in Germany provide more certainty, and with that comes a higher level of confidence that large initial investments will pay off for consumers. Under many U.S. subsidy schemes, ?the subsidy is either a tax rebate or earned credits for electricity that [a homeowner] produces and sells in the market. When you earn credit, you cannot be sure what it will be worth in a few years.?

Can Germany?s program be replicated elsewhere? ?It depends on the price of electricity but for sure, Germany is one of the less sunny places you would imagine people starting to promote solar energy, but they did it successfully.?

Reply to
Jethro_uk
Loading thread data ...

Byut what about at night time?

Brian

Reply to
Brian Gaff

Now tell me why we were burning so much coal lqast winter and exporting it to Germany,.

Of course the price off electricity went down. The PV panel are paid for out of charges made to at other times.

We would have to throw away a 22GW solar peak.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

they opened the throttles on all the coal plant that had been running all day wasting heat.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Sadly that is probably true at least in part and burning dirty coal at that. How much fast response gas turbine do they have?

The truth is that for longer term electricity generation and energy security nuclear is the only game in town. Nothing else comes close.

Reply to
Martin Brown

Use the output to charge batteries to run bright lights to generate power when the sun's not shining.

Reply to
John Williamson

And on Sunday the clouds reduced the output of the PV systems to a half of what they did they day before, and France's nuclear capacity carried the shortfall, and made it almost looks like the PV was doing something useful...

Reply to
John Rumm

They import from Spain where Solar PV works day AND night.

Reply to
The Other Mike

Or to run fans to generate wind to power the turbines over here? Oh, sorry, won't work, the wind direction's against the prevailing wind.

Reply to
Davey

If in fact German solar output - even on one day - is at the level claimed, and if in fact it is possible to import electricity with small loss, then it would seem logical for the EU to promote solar plants in Italy and Spain. I think I read that the average solar energy per square metre in Italy is 5 times that in the UK (or possibly Ireland). I assume the German level would be much the same as the UK.

Reply to
Timothy Murphy

Only to people who confuse 'peak' with 'average' and have no conception of the waste involved in having to deal with very high worst case to average scenarios.

sadly thats bollocks

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

So even by their own admission, generating a small fraction of the nation's power from solar has cost an utter fortune.

NT

Reply to
NT

This isn't really relevant to the issue I raised. The EU is promoting solar energy anyway. My suggestion is that given this it would make more sense to promote solar energy in Spain and Italy.

I haven't found an exact figure, but according to

"The UK's insolation is ... a fraction of that in subtropical locales such as Spain and North Africa". Unfortunately it does not say what this fraction is.

According to John Rumm's contribution to this thread, solar output in Germany fell by 2/3 over 2 days due to cloud cover. I don't know where he got this figure from, but assuming it is accurate that would suggest to me (taken with the contrast between "sunny" in the UK and in Spain) that a factor of 5 is not unlikely.

(Actually I think I was slightly inaccurate in my recollection of this. The factor in question was not that of the solar energy received, but rather the output of a solar panel. I suppose it is possible that a solar panel will not output anything unless the solar energy exceeds a certain level?)

I read in the Wikipedia article above that 80% of Spain's solar output is exported to Germany. This suggests to me that the ratio must be quite high, and also that the power-loss in transferring electricity from Spain to Germany must be reasonably low.

Reply to
Timothy Murphy

In fact further south still but the relative effectiveness as a function of energy to manufacture only rises from 4x in the UK to 7x in the absolute optimum sunniest spot. North Africa would be a good spot.

In very hot sunny countries it can be a win-win to have solar panels on the roof since the second skin slows down ingress of solar heating and provides a power boost during the maximum peak demand for aircon.

It is a bit better in Germany especially in the southern regions. But really they are too far north and it is a waste of good kit even there.

People forget that the UK is very far north. Biomass does rather better in this respect with long days. The Siberian forests in near continuous sunshine during summer make a measurable dent in the local CO2 concentration. One reason why there are so many migratory birds to exploit the continuous light and food availability up there.

But it is bordering on utter madness to have governments subsidise expensive PV solar power in countries where the sun hardly ever shines!

Reply to
Martin Brown

If that figure is correct, the Germans should be ashamed. It would be possible to build 60 Sizewell B reactors for that price.

That's rather more than we need.

Reply to
Steve Firth

FWIW I think *some* Germans are ashamed/angry/despairing. One of the best analyses I've read (not that I've read all that many) was by the German Physical Society which included:

"Amongst all renewable energy sources with regard to grid-connected electricity generation, photovoltaics (PV) still is, by far, furthest from being economically competitive." ....

"Therefore, when making an economic assessment, just as when assessing other fluctuating electricity sources (such as wind power), the necessary auxiliary costs need to be considered at all times, i.e. the necessary capital expenditure for controllable standby or backup systems (or the costs of electricity storage units, should they exist eventually and the apportioned operating costs need to be added to the actual costs of the photovoltaic systems. Photovoltaics, therefore, can only play an important and useful role with regard to future large-scale electricity supply, if much more cost-efficient systems are achievable through further intensified research and development." ....

"In southern Europe electricity from photovoltaics can be generated at half the costs incurred in Germany (perhaps even more economically as the costs for sites may be lower) due to higher solar irradiation and its more balanced seasonal fluctuation. Transportation of PV-generated electricity from these regions to Germany may be considerably more advantageous with regard to both cost-effectiveness and climate protection than electricity generation from domestic PV installations."

more if the same seemingly sound words in

formatting link

Reply to
Robin

Now where was it I was reading in a German paper where those in industry were saying that they couldn't cope with the rising price of electricity?...

>
Reply to
tony sayer

Its all encapsulated in the basic proposition that all intermittent renewable energy is pants and the job of the renewable lobby is to lie about it to try and give the impression it isn't

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Hand pumps for the lukewarm beer?

Reply to
The Other Mike

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.