PV Solar - If not Florida, Where?

[zapta]

In the UK you can buy a "green tarriff" from providers; it costs a few extra pence per kWh (that's maybe a 10~20% rise in total cost of electricity.) But, all our energy comes from the grid. These providers just claim to invest the extra in renewable power. I really can't see how that helps much, if anything. Seems more like a "feel good" factor than anything.

I switch to just such a tariff after getting my EV. As for Ecotricity, it's not just that they invest the extra in renewables, they invest everything in it. They build nothing but renewable energy, and things like car charging infrastructure.

They are currently at over 86% renewable for their energy mix: https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-green-energy/energy-independence/our-fuel-mix

Mojo Chan, you are regressing, in August you were 100% renewable for only 1-2% surcharge and now you claim only  89% for 10-20% surcharge.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/this-is-why-we-should-all-leave-the-eu/msg500802/#msg500802

[Red Squirrel]

I've always been intrigued by the "free solar" programs, but I am also sceptical.  There has to be a catch.  I would rather buy and install my own system.  Would not work very well where I live though, we barely get any sun.  We get maybe 2-3 months of summer and maybe half the time it's cloudy and raining.  In winter the days are maybe like 7 hours long and it's rare that the sun is out as well but even when it is, it's a pretty limited time.

Would be interesting to go wind though, while the wind is not really all that constant here at least it can happen any time within the 24 hour period instead of limited to a fraction of the day.   The key to any renewable energy system is lots and lots of batteries and avoid deep cycling them.   You can never have too many.

[dannyf]

The key to any renewable energy system is lots and lots of batteries and avoid deep cycling them.

What are the environment problems associated with manufacturing, transportation, storage and recycling of batteries?



There are sound reasons that most batteries (particularly lead batteries) are made and recycled in developing countries where environmental protection is lax, at best.

[NiHaoMike]

Those who live in a strongly heating dominated climate would probably be better off with a CHP setup running off of natural gas or whatever you already use for heating. Could be as simple as a small car engine coupled to a large induction motor (used as a generator) plus some heat exchangers to capture and make good use of the heat.

[Red Squirrel]

The key to any renewable energy system is lots and lots of batteries and avoid deep cycling them.

What are the environment problems associated with manufacturing, transportation, storage and recycling of batteries?



There are sound reasons that most batteries (particularly lead batteries) are made and recycled in developing countries where environmental protection is lax, at best.

True, and same can probably be said for the actual solar cells themselves.  We definitely need better energy storage technology there's no doubt about that.  Mind you lead acid batteries are probably not that bad if they're properly recycled but I imagine that process and the manufacturing still may output some pollution.

Hydrogen fuel cells may be viable too but not sure what the energy density is like. I don't think it's very high or we'd see them in use more in use. 

[zapta]

Hydrogen fuel cells may be viable too but not sure what the energy density is like. I don't think it's very high or we'd see them in use more in use.

Few weeks ago I saw a production UAV that operates on a fuel cell. It was chosen for density, refueling time and quiet operation (no ICE). The majority of the weight goes into the high pressure tank. It was made of a composite material of some sort. I don't know what it take to generate hydrogen but it if can be done with heat and/or electricity than it could be produced with nuclear energy. Yes, I know, the devil is in the details.

[SeanB]

The key to any renewable energy system is lots and lots of batteries and avoid deep cycling them.

What are the environment problems associated with manufacturing, transportation, storage and recycling of batteries?



There are sound reasons that most batteries (particularly lead batteries) are made and recycled in developing countries where environmental protection is lax, at best.

True, and same can probably be said for the actual solar cells themselves.  We definitely need better energy storage technology there's no doubt about that.  Mind you lead acid batteries are probably not that bad if they're properly recycled but I imagine that process and the manufacturing still may output some pollution.

Hydrogen fuel cells may be viable too but not sure what the energy density is like. I don't think it's very high or we'd see them in use more in use.

I was chatting to a battery supplier the other day, and they told me that in a lead acid battery about 60% of the lead is directly recyclable as lead, with the rest being oxide that is either dissolved into the plastic separator or the casing. The plastic is normally granulated and used to make new battery casings, while the oxide and separators go off to a smelter to be burnt and reduced back to lead. While lead is not exactly the most environmentally friendly stuff around, the recycling channel for it is both old and established. I would guess most batteries are recycled, I know that around here in SA very few go out to landfill, as the users are well aware that they are worth money as scrap. I keep all my old SLA batteries till I get enough, or take to the scrap as part of another load. While you do not get much each, it does add up, especially as I just bought 300kg of them

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--It seems that rather a lot of the panels made by certain Chinese companies are failing prematurely, see below link.
 
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/solar-panel-degradation

"The German solar monitoring firm, Meteocontrol, found that 80 percent of the 30,00 solar installations it reviewed in Europe were under performing. Enertis Solar tested solar panels from 6 manufacturers at two power plants in Spain and found rates of malfunctioning as high as 34.5 percent. An inspection of a solar plant in Britain found that 12 percent of its Chinese modules failed. In the United States, an American solar manufacturer, First Solar, budgeted $271.2 million to replace defective modules it manufactured in 2008 and 2009."

--Now, I do not think that PV Solar is doomed, but I do think it is due for a shake out. The current boom is in part generated by US and European subsidies for acquisition on one hand and Chinese subsidies (dumping) on the other hand. Chinese dumping has led to the closing of many European and US panel producers. What with cheap oil at the moment, it is about time for the exponential growth rate of PV Solar to reach an inflection point, and for the rate of increase in installations to level off somewhat for a while at least. Likewise Nuclear is not looking as doable as it was  just a few shot years ago, and Solar Thermal is moribund for the foreseeable future.

--Welcome to Red Squirrel from the land of Moose Head beer.

"Does not squirrel crack nuts on bough of oak tree."
Lao Fu  1411  -  1623

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[zapta]

I was with Good Energy, who are 100% renewable for electricity. I switched because Ecotricity have a better offering for gas, and so a lot to support EVs in the UK with their network (I drive an EV now). So while Ecotricity's overall mix is not 100% renewable, overall I think they do more and are certainly more active. They give a discount to EV drivers as well. I save a lot on petrol anyway.

 

Gas? Does it mean that you dilute even the 89% Ecotricity claim?

Also, I wonder what is behind their 89% claim. Assuming perfect transmission, if they generate during the day and their consumers consume at night, does this count as renewable consumption (if so they use other people fossil based generation as storage).

Would be interesting to see a reasonable size town disconnect itself from the grid and run only on sun or wind energy. This will be a proof that it's feasible indeed. What we see now are niche low hanging fruits that fall back to fossil fuel when things get tough.

[Rufus]

The key to any renewable energy system is lots and lots of batteries and avoid deep cycling them.

And they cost more than the mains electricity they will charge and discharge in their lifetime. The key to most renewable energy systems is to use the non-renewable energy grid as a huge battery that someone else pays for.

[Zero999]

I don't think anyone is saying we can run everything off renewables just yet.

The idea is to use renewable energy when it's available to supplement fossil fuels and nuclear.

It's silly not to use solar power when lots of energy is needed for cooling.

There's no sense in not installing wind turbines around the coast of the British isles where is very windy.

[dannyf]

The key to most renewable energy systems is to use the non-renewable energy grid as a huge battery that someone else pays for.

Bingo!

Fleecing of rate payers (for the infrastructure) and taxpayers (for the subsidies).

The only thing "green" in those "green energy" is the pockets of some people.

[Rufus]

It also means that my car is almost completely emission free

In your almost completely rational thought free mind anyway....

[Red Squirrel]

The key to any renewable energy system is lots and lots of batteries and avoid deep cycling them.

And they cost more than the mains electricity they will charge and discharge in their lifetime. The key to most renewable energy systems is to use the non-renewable energy grid as a huge battery that someone else pays for.

Do you have a source on this?  I'm genuinely curious.  I could see that being a big incentive for building your own batteries if going with a big system.   Not sure where you'd get the led plates and sulfuric acid though, I don't imagine any random person can buy that. Though you could probably build your own hydrogen fuel cell or other type of storage too. Lead acid is probably the simplest though.

The point of the batteries is so you can rely on the grid less and less.  If ever I produce my own electricity I want to store it, and only use the grid when I'm not producing enough.  If you are grid tied and the power goes out and you have no way of storing your energy then you're stuff is going to go on and off every time there's clouds, if you have power at all.  A grid tie inverter would have to stop producing till you disconnect it from the grid.

[dannyf]

only use the grid when I'm not producing enough.

That brings in a new but interesting dynamics: if sufficient number of utility users adopted that strategy, their usage of the grid would decline. The grid operator would have to charge more for given amount of electricity delivered, or per access. That will drive more people off the grid, ...

In no time, you will have no grid to access.

That's the "free rider" issue economists so worry about,

[nctnico]

I don't think anyone is saying we can run everything off renewables just yet.

The idea is to use renewable energy when it's available to supplement fossil fuels and nuclear.
It's silly not to use solar power when lots of energy is needed for cooling.

There are two problems with that: first of all solar and wind are unpredictable and therefore need coal powered backup generators which are very inefficient. In other words: you loose a lot of what you gain. Secondly a lot of so called green electricity isn't green at all. Most of the green electricity is washed clean by buying CO2 certificates (emission trade scam).

[zapta]

Also, I'm not sure what your point is... It isn't perfect from day one, so it's a complete waste of time?

My point is that it has inherit storage problems with no solution in sight.

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--When I quoted the below article from the Canada Free Press, I was much more interested in the quoted statistics for premature solar panel failure rather than payback time, which can be a complicated issue. Moreover, I naively assumed that everyone would understand that an article in a Canadian newspaper when talking about PV Solar payback times was talking about Canada, and the payback times in Canada. That was foolish of me.

--In the USA where most PV installations qualify for a 30% tax credit (subsidy), if you own the installation you get the the 30%, if you lease, the installing company gets the 30%. So if you cannot afford to pay out of pocket for premature panel failure you may want to consider leasing, and your banker may want you to consider lease as well.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/solar-panel-degradation

--True the author of the Canadian Free Press article when talking about payback times in Canada quoted times of around 25 years. That is because he was being generous. As general matter actual payback times in Canada are very much more than 25 years and have never been anywhere near a hallucinatory 5 years. It may surprise some but  Canada is rather far down the list of locations favourable for PV Solar. Please see the below article which shows payback times for Solar Thermal Water Heat , and PV Solar. Did I mention we are talking about Canada not Florida.

http://latitude51solar.blogspot.com/2011/03/solar-payback-good-bad-and-ugly.html

"To summarise.... Payback for Solar PV and Solar Water Heating
If you spend $8000 on either a solar Water Heating System OR a 1 kW Solar PV System...
1)   A solar water heating system payback = approx 7.8% per year investment or about 9 Years
2)   Solar PV System, payback = approx 1.4% per year return on investment or about +45 years!

--Lastly please note that since PV Solar generates electricity and not subsidies (government does those), the payback time for the buyer, and the actual pay back time for the government plus buyer are two different things. So an installation that costs $20,000  including tax tag and title and not including subsidies has not reached payback until is saves $20,000, plus miscellaneous additions for interest, maintenance and repair. If a PV Solar installation makes economic sense for you, by all means go for it. But do not let anyone tell you that the subsidy money was grown on trees.

"When ignorance is bliss 'tis folly to be wise.
William Shakespeare  1564  -  1616

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[mtdoc]

Grid tied solar currently costs approx $2-3 per watt installed in the US. Less for very large installations. That is before any tax credits.

[nctnico]

If you spend $8000 on either a solar Water Heating System OR a 1 kW Solar PV System...

$8000 for a 1kW PV system?!? SgtRock. For that much you can get 4-5000W system in Europe, and that's with zero subsidy. It's no wonder you think it's such a bad deal, you are multiplying all your costs and pay-back times by 5.

I agree Sgt Rock's numbers are completely wrong. For example: In the NL the pay back time is about 7 years for a PV solar system. In a sunny area in the US it should be possible to have a much shorter pay back time. But you have to make sure you don't pay too much for someone else's hyper inflated profit margin. Importing the panels yourself may be a good option.

http://www.aliexpress.com/item/140Watt-12V-monocrystalline-solar-panel-140w-12volt-pv-mono-power-module/592006581.html
Or this one: 2.5kW for $2000 ($800 per kW including shipping): http://www.aliexpress.com/item/250W-monocrystalline-solar-panel-with-sea-shipping-cost-to-local-seaport-CFR-only-available-for-the/1982545168.html

For example: I'm always amused by how airconditioning companies get agitated when comparing their prices to buying an airconditioning system directly from China. Guess where they buy their systems...

[mtdoc]

Solar Panels can be purchased for less than $0.50 per watt in the US. Sometimes much less. Of course installation and grid tie entails other costs - a lot of which is labor.

Sgt Rock has an agenda and is simply not reporting unbiased information.

[tom66]

There's a guy on the Tesla Motors Club forum who's taken a battery pack from a wrecked Model S and used it as part of a 25kW off-grid solar system.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/34934-Pics-Info-Inside-the-battery-pack

Tesla are paying somewhere from $250 to $300 per kWh at the cell level, the pack parts (cooling, balancing, wiring, etc.) add a little extra.

If you say $350 per kWh then at $0.10/kWh then each cell needs to do about 3,500 total cycles to contribute its cost (if you say the solar input is free, ignoring sunk costs.) That's doable for some types of li-ion cell, but it's pushing it if you do 0-100-0% cycles, so you need to use even less of the capacity.

So right now, li-ion grid storage doesn't make much sense. (The guy with the Tesla pack got it closer to $180/kWh as it was surplus.) You can of course use NiMH or lead-acid but they  have worse energy density and in the case of lead acid poorer cycle life.

One possible alternative is with EVs, to use about 20-30% of the battery as grid storage. Say you need 200 miles range to get safely home & back to work the next day, the car would charge up at the office to say 230 miles with cheap daytime solar/wind/etc electricity, when it gets home with X miles left it would sell the energy back into the grid at the higher, non-solar/wind/etc prices and make sure that you'd have as much range as needed. All you'd say is "I need at least 200 miles range to get where I want" and it would also act as a nice second income source as you'd in essence be renting your battery to the grid. (With the understanding that this will increase pack degradation.)

I think that the only way grid storage could work right now would be in the manner of the pumped water storage systems like Dinorwig (in Wales), but they aren't small and they cost a lot of money to build. It contributes about ~2GW peak... but not for long.

There are other issues with solar, if you ignore night-time supply for now, in the day-time they can supply way too much energy leading to a big sag in demand in daylight hours... This means that it's very difficult to use larger power plants like coal and nuclear which take much longer to "spin down".  Those are the most efficient and cheapest to operate. Although it does make daytime electricity very cheap...

[dannyf]

in the day-time they can supply way too much energy leading to a big sag in demand in daylight hours...

Just think about how expensive it is to operate a grid like that. If you size your base load on 12gwh, anything from that to 18gwh or even 26gwh would be subject to merchant pricing -> typically 10x or more of the base load in terms of rates. So 4 hours of base load and 20 hours of merchant power at 10x the pricing.

Vs. the current situation where you are mostly on base load until 6pm and then 5 hours of merchant power (from 20ghw to 26ghw).

If that curve comes to be true, Californians would pay dearly to save money on "green energy". And the people who will get paid handsomely are the merchant plants, which runs almost exclusively on gas.

Isn't that some irony?

[tom66]

Electricity cost in Cali is actually already quite high, about 30c/kWh... and this is part of the drive behind the rapid up-take in solar generation.

[dannyf]

If you look at a typical dispatch curve - PJM for example, as it has the most data on. The pricing goes almost vertical on the right, meaning there is very little elasticity, as the capacity there is dominated by gas and oil powered plants. Those plants don't get plugged into the grid. So if / when they do get plugged into the grid, you pay through the nose and then some.

People in the know keep saying that green energy is expensive. Fortunately, the tree huggers will never understand it.