The cost-effectiveness of solar panels

[grams]

We would break even on cost but importantly the CO2 savings are important. 

What’s the carbon cost of manufacturing and installing it? And more importantly, what’s it displacing?

It’s possible that if you emit a load of carbon building a system and if it’s poorly positioned never earns that back.

And if you were already on a zero carbon energy tariff - and assuming those aren’t a complete con - are you actually reducing emissions at all?

[Polar Bear]

Manufacturing and installation are one off and there are plenty of sources of peer reviewed information showing clearly that CO2 is repaid in a short period of time.

The Energy Saving Trust calculator takes into account the situation for the installation including angle to south, pitch of roof, amount of potential tree and other shade and uses postcode to locate the area and thus uses available stats on daylight and sunlight hours in our area.

Tariff choices are largely moot at the moment and energy insecurity looks to be a medium to long term issue given how the tories have neglected renewable investment in favour of the never-ending nuclear option for the last decade.  Nuclear is not the answer in spite of the industry lobby.  Accidents and safe storage are still the two major issues but also where do we get the uranium from?  We have no significant (if any) natural resource to mine in the UK so we will always be at the whim of the marketplace.

I have spent time over the past 10 or more years watching the cost gap erode and the technology improve and in my view the tipping point is so close as it is with ev's.  We are not car owners and we have used "renewable" electricity suppliers for as long as they have been in the marketplace but I see some long term benefits to having our own partial energy supply. 

I'll see what the survey says before I pull the trigger of course.

[Kim]

Nuclear is not the answer in spite of the industry lobby.  Accidents and safe storage are still the two major issues but also where do we get the uranium from?  We have no significant (if any) natural resource to mine in the UK so we will always be at the whim of the marketplace.

FUD aside, the real issue with nuclear is that it takes 10 years to build an unclear power station, which will inevitably be late and over-budget, and subject of all the usual government shenanigans.  Meanwhile you can be - quietly and without a fuss - putting up wind turbines and solar panels that start producing electricity for a fraction of the cost from day one.

It just doesn't make sense any more.  And I say that as someone who's always been quite pro-nuclear.  Nuclear needs radical technological development to make economic sense for generating electricity anywhere that isn't a submarine or a spacecraft.  At this point, that's probably fusion reactors (thorium always struck me as a bit of a distraction, like hydrogen cars), and those are always 50 years away.

[ian]

Nuclear has had significant technological gains – particularly with smaller, modular reactors, but given the regulatory and political environment, we're still stuck with megaprojects and all that those entail.

We could, of course, as a world, throw our efforts and money into making fusion actually viable. But that's as likely as making the fossil fuel industry pay its costs.

[Kim]

We could, of course, as a world, throw our efforts and money into making fusion actually viable. But that's as likely as making the fossil fuel industry pay its costs.

Strikes me that the best chance of that happening is if Bezos or Musk decide that it's more fun that rockets...  Seems unlikely.

[ian]

Indeed, much of the approach to fusion so far, is more megaprojects.

But anyway, we basically have to stop extracting fossil fuels now. That's this year. So we're a bit late on all these things.

[Kim]

It's okay, someone (but obviously not Bezos or Musk) will invent an insanely cheap technology that allows us to just disappear carbon dioxide any day now...

[orienteer]

I still think tidal power is best. Spread round our coastline it would provide continuous, reliable power.

Nuclear power is kicking problems down the road for our descendants due to the, so far, insoluble waste disposal problem.

[mrcharly-YHT]

I still think tidal power is best. Spread round our coastline it would provide continuous, reliable power.

Nuclear power is kicking problems down the road for our descendants due to the, so far, insoluble waste disposal problem.

Tidal is almost as bad as fusion. On the face of it, effectively limitless supply of energy.

However, to really extract it at scale, you have to completely stuff up significant ecosystems. Worse than mega dams.

[FifeingEejit]

Meanwhile you can be - quietly and without a fuss - putting up wind turbines and solar panels that start producing electricity for a fraction of the cost from day one.

This sounds an awful lot like English Vs Scottish power supply strategy.

Although... we've got plenty more wind capacity than England, in fact Englands lack of potential capacity of many resources coupled with being determined to isolate itself might explain some choices...

Can only assume England's resourcing plan remains "develop Wales then whatever else we need to do"

I was a tad miffed when I was on the Western Isles earlier this year that both the Stornoway and Arnish diseasel power stations were running (never seen either running before) but then I think Peterheid was also running, and there was a major line fault somewhere on the bed of the Minch.
I was also miffed that the wind was < Force 7 well actually it was < force 2 most of the time, was actually able to cycle southwards.

[Mr Larrington]

It's okay, someone (but obviously not Bezos or Musk) will invent an insanely cheap technology that allows us to just disappear carbon dioxide any day now...

Politicians have been assuming that “They*” will invent just such a solution for a Several of decades now, though actually funding any such research is, well, it's a question of priorities.

* Formerly generic “Scientists ” but now also generic “tech gazillionaires”

[ian]

There is no technological solution to current carbon dioxide levels, yet we're proceeding as though this is just around the corner. Any technological solution is, in effect, a massive planetary-scale engineering project. We've only done a single project of this scale before and that's the one that took us a century to get where we are now.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Curtis Mayfield was right, half a century ago!
https://youtu.be/BzsmciMNAGU

[andytheflyer]

I still think tidal power is best. Spread round our coastline it would provide continuous, reliable power.

Nuclear power is kicking problems down the road for our descendants due to the, so far, insoluble waste disposal problem.

Agreed on the tidal power, having worked on a tidal power project, but may I beg to differ, as a geologist, on the nuclear waste disposal issue? 

(goes off to don hard hat and Kevlar m/cycling suit)

Stick it back whence it came: the mantle. 

There's a reliable delivery system that's been working for many millennia; the subduction zones.  Drop it in the deep ocean trenches and wait a bit.  The stuff needs stabilising first (vitrification maybe) and international agreement (impossible), but geologically it should work.  But that's way above my pension grade.

[Mr Larrington]

Nuclear waste?  Fire it into the sun, and send colossal bellend Piers “Morgan” Moron along to drive the spacecraft.

[Feanor]

Set the controls for the heart of the sun...

Speaking of which, the sun will have turned into a small dark cold chunk of coal before I have PV at F towers.

The electromagnetic noise generated by the inverters is an act of environmental vandalism like streetlights that spew light upwards into the dark skies.
I operate a VLF observation station here, and PV inverters within a few hundred metres totally blat out the entire VLF spectrum.

Make the inverters electromagnetically quiet then I'll think about it again!

[felstedrider]

This post from an industry consultant that I know posted today :-

How much comes from renewable sources at the moment?

In 2020, just over 40% of electricity demand came from renewables. In addition another sixth or so from nuclear.
 
Is it feasible to move to renewables by 2035?
 
A significant further increase is possible. Scenarios we model for our benchmark power curve range range from 50% and 85% by 2035 renewables on a demand base 50% bigger due to more power for heat and transport.
 
Intermittency? Lots more nukes?
 
It’s theoretically possible on our modelling with only 5GW nuclear, with increasing offshore wind capacity fourfold, onshore wind at least doubling, solar PV up by a third. Backed up by up to 40GW of battery storage, up to 16GW of conventional and biomass CCUS plus a gas fleet equivalent to today. The latter to run at very low load factors to maintain system security.
 
Who pays for it?
 
The cumulative spend on the battery, wind and solar (i.e. not all the above) by 2035 comes in at between £170bn to £200bn on our figures. To date decarbonising the power system has been funded through bills and with a proposed shift in policy costs from power bills to gas to stimulate heat decarbonisation this looks like it will continue at least for now. We await (still) the Treasury's net zero funding review to learn more.

[Morat]

Nuclear is not the answer in spite of the industry lobby.  Accidents and safe storage are still the two major issues but also where do we get the uranium from?  We have no significant (if any) natural resource to mine in the UK so we will always be at the whim of the marketplace.

FUD aside, the real issue with nuclear is that it takes 10 years to build an unclear power station, which will inevitably be late and over-budget, and subject of all the usual government shenanigans.  Meanwhile you can be - quietly and without a fuss - putting up wind turbines and solar panels that start producing electricity for a fraction of the cost from day one.

It just doesn't make sense any more.  And I say that as someone who's always been quite pro-nuclear.  Nuclear needs radical technological development to make economic sense for generating electricity anywhere that isn't a submarine or a spacecraft.  At this point, that's probably fusion reactors (thorium always struck me as a bit of a distraction, like hydrogen cars), and those are always 50 years away.

I was rather hoping that H2 would be a viable fuel eventually. It seems to be a decent replacement for both OilNGas IF we can create enough electricity to produce the hydrogen. Doesn't H2 make more sense as a power storage option than all those nasty metals being turned into batteries? Maybe not....
Also, H2 in the gas mains would get my vote but that's probably because I have a new build house with tiny radiators and a brand new, highly efficient, gas boiler and changing to air source heating would cost me a fortune.

[mrcharly-YHT]

Meanwhile you can be - quietly and without a fuss - putting up wind turbines and solar panels that start producing electricity for a fraction of the cost from day one.

This sounds an awful lot like English Vs Scottish power supply strategy.

Although... we've got plenty more wind capacity than England, in fact Englands lack of potential capacity of many resources coupled with being determined to isolate itself might explain some choices...


Regarding batteries, Vanadium, Iron and liquid air are all looking to be promising for mass storage.
Can only assume England's resourcing plan remains "develop Wales then whatever else we need to do"

I was a tad miffed when I was on the Western Isles earlier this year that both the Stornoway and Arnish diseasel power stations were running (never seen either running before) but then I think Peterheid was also running, and there was a major line fault somewhere on the bed of the Minch.
I was also miffed that the wind was < Force 7 well actually it was < force 2 most of the time, was actually able to cycle southwards.

Major line fault?

Some eejit cut the cable.

Navy were conducting exercises in the area at the time, no other vessels present. Wasn't us, no sir, couldn't be. Cable must have spontaneously snapped.

New cable has been in place for about a month now. However, the cost of replacement used up the budget that would have gone to a second, much higher capacity, cable.

[iandusud]

Solar energy is free and abundant. IMO no new house should be built without them. The problem at the moment is that it is only generated during daylight hours and it is clear that storage technology needs to continue to develop. However I have no doubts that it will. Added to that is the fact that all cars will be electric in the not too distant future which will create a lot of storage capacity which could be tapped when demand is high. If the government is serious about renewable energy they should be incentivising home owners to install solar panels by buying production at rates which make it an attractive investment. In the meantime with a domestic installation any production surplus to immediate demand can be used to heat water thus storing energy.

[felstedrider]

Solar energy is free and abundant. IMO no new house should be built without them. The problem at the moment is that it is only generated during daylight hours and it is clear that storage technology needs to continue to develop. However I have no doubts that it will. Added to that is the fact that all cars will be electric in the not too distant future which will create a lot of storage capacity which could be tapped when demand is high. If the government is serious about renewable energy they should be incentivising home owners to install solar panels by buying production at rates which make it an attractive investment. In the meantime with a domestic installation any production surplus to immediate demand can be used to heat water thus storing energy.

They did but then they stopped.

[Quisling]

Following the slightly OT larger discussion about renewables, the way to make increasing the % of renewables in the grid is to rapidly reduce demand, or at least shift it to times of use when there is an abundance of renewables in the grid and use storage to shift time of use.

For a detailed and informed discussion on whether the embodied carbon of PV is paid back by the power it generates please refer to this:
https://circularecology.com/solar-pv-embodied-carbon.html
It notes importantly that even if the embodied carbon of solar PV is high, it's still lower than fossil fuel generation.

[SoreTween]

If the government is serious about renewable energy they should be incentivising home owners to install solar panels by buying production at rates which make it an attractive investment.

They did but then they stopped.

I disagree.  High FITs allowed the wealthy with large roofs and cash sloshing about to make a nice not-so-little profit. 

(click to show/hide)

Where did the money for the profit come from? Everyone's bills meaning it was a nice way to move cash from the poor to the rich.

The government should outlaw new build that isn't highly insulated and fitted with the maximum possible solar.  They should do it tomorrow and include property already under construction.
The government should subsidise installation costs for middle income homes.  It needs to be done properly with installations tailored to the location not a one size fits none approach geared to maximise the count of installations in the shortest possible time.  On roof, in roof, ground or wall mounted, whatever works best for as many homes as possible.  There should be incentives not for number of panels fitted but for quality of job done.
The government should subsidise purchase and installation costs for low income homes.

[grams]

If the goal is more solar, is subsidising small scale domestic installations really the best way to achieve that?

[frankly frankie]

Meanwhile I receive a letter from an anonymous-sounding agency offering me a subsidy of up to £10,000 for energy-related property improvements that are unspecified, with only a phone number to ring for further details.  It's rather like a cold call with the twist that I get to make the call myself, so on that basis I'll pass.