zinc-air battery

[RIT]

RiT  ,   there is no need for  urgently battery based PV in the UK !  the highest PV percentage in the UK electricity mix was "Electricity mix at 2.12pm on 30 June 2018, %"   and PV had "only" 27.8 %
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/02/uk-heatwave-helps-solar-power-to-record-weekly-highs


So tell me , why should that not be 127.8%  and more ,  so those 27.8 % can then be stored for later use ?
In times where we talk about electric transport, electric heating , electric showers ,  bitcoins and coputers on  all day ?  No idea why you think that Hinkley Point  is a good reliable deal , when the sun is there and PV is cheaper

I'm not sure what you are reading into my comments.

My personal view of HPC is that it is likely to be one of the last nuclear power stations built in the western world and the larges white elephant ever built in the UK and we have something of a history of such things. Its the government who are focussed on the idea of having a fleet of such stations to provide a highly stable and costly base load.

As for PV the only issue I am noting on this thread is that trying to retrofit 2-4kW on homes has zero financial sense as the deployment costs are far too high and that even if an individual decides to do so the only way they are likely to see much benefit (without FiTs) will need local battery storage. This in turn pushes the cost up even more.

PV and batteries at solar farms is a different matter and something that reports have indicated that many of the farms are looking into as it will allow them to time-shift their output from the daytime to the evening. As they are businesses I would expect them to make such upgrades when they see a financial benefit.

[billi]

As for PV the only issue I am noting on this thread is that trying to retrofit 2-4kW on homes has zero financial sense as the deployment costs are far too high

oohh ,   why not try to change attidudes ? ?        a simmple calculation  for an example   as i allways say 10 kw per house  would be the target , even if it takes up some car parking space for the BMW  ..... current costs installed  are about 10000- 12000 GBP  for a 10 KW PV  providing abaout  1500 GBP  per anumat (15 p per kWh)

I really dont get it  !   to miss  that oppurtunity on our planet  to harvest free green energy for way much cheaper than drilling holes into our planet  that is  rented by us , but energy companies charge , for the holes they dig   and after the holes ar dug , the garbage and destruction left behind , they just disapear with pockets full of cash ...  not realy my aproach to create an aware society ,  giving Joe average the joy to be his own  power producer,  will leed into a better society  , thats my believe


Amen
Billi  

[RIT]

As for PV the only issue I am noting on this thread is that trying to retrofit 2-4kW on homes has zero financial sense as the deployment costs are far too high

oohh ,   why not try to change attidudes ? ?        a simmple calculation  for an example   as i allways say 10 kw per house  would be the target , even if it takes up some car parking space for the BMW  ..... current costs installed  are about 10000- 12000 GBP  for a 10 KW PV  providing abaout  1500 GBP  per anumat (15 p per kWh)

I really dont get it  !   to miss  that oppurtunity on our planet  to harvest free green energy for way much cheaper than drilling holes into our planet

But electricity generation costs are not 15p per kWh, even HPC over inflated strick price is currently only at about 11p. The focus of the large-scale wind farms that current have bids in is sub 6p per kWh area.

You also have to consider how few homes are large enough to have 10KW of PV installed. It is a shame that the current government (well the last guys to lead it) withdrew what few rules there were in place to force new builds to have PV as standard. Having PV fitted at build time would have a much lower additional cost and so the calculations start to make sense again, even for smaller deployments.

[biff]

  The man was complaining about his wife,
        "I,m getting a divorce,!"  "I,ve had it up to here" " I,m totally fed up with her" He moaned,
   The friend asked him what was wrong,
  " She is going  around all the bars and pubs" he said  "and , and if that is not enough,,She goes round all the clubs as well"
  "Good Lord"said the friend  "There is something wrong there.. What on earth does she need to go round them all for,,??
  "She be,s looking for me"  he said.
                     Biff

[billi]

   hope we all meet someday , ....

[biff]

 

[M]

But electricity generation costs are not 15p per kWh, even HPC over inflated strick price is currently only at about 11p. The focus of the large-scale wind farms that current have bids in is sub 6p per kWh area.

You also have to consider how few homes are large enough to have 10KW of PV installed. It is a shame that the current government (well the last guys to lead it) withdrew what few rules there were in place to force new builds to have PV as standard. Having PV fitted at build time would have a much lower additional cost and so the calculations start to make sense again, even for smaller deployments.

I think Billi makes good points, and you can't compare wholesale generation costs to PV savings as they are against retail prices.

If you look at HPC and the subsidy element it's pretty much identical to the current FiT + export rate (around 6.5p/kWh), but domestic PV can displace CO2 today, rather than waiting ten years.

It's kinda hard to comprehend the UK government's logic that they won't pay households in the UK for clean generation today, what they will be paying to Chinese and French governments in 10yrs time.

Regarding space for PV, I'm not convinced that 10kWp is that difficult. Most rooves can take 3-4kWp, in fact closer to 4-5kWp now with 300Wp (1.6m2) panels now common, and twice that if you utilise two rooves. Then there's solar pagolas, car ports, wall mounted solar, and next decade silicon/Perovskite PV in the 30%+ efficiency range, so 10kWp should be doable, but of course not every single residence.

@Desp - regarding net metering, I'm wondering if folk on here appreciate how small the current FiT is, especially given the criticism it often garners. The government plans to scrap it next year, and even deny the export tariff, but for comparison consider the figures today for a 4,000kWh PV system and 50% consumption:

FiT = 4p X 4,000kWh = £160
Export is 5.24p x 2,000kWh = £104.80
Total £265

Net metering at 2,000kWh export on a 15p/kWh rate = £300.

So FiT is already cheaper than net metering, and the government plans on scrapping even that.

[RIT]

I think Billi makes good points, and you can't compare wholesale generation costs to PV savings as they are against retail prices.

But you have to if you want to remain grid-tied as there are a large number of costs incurred to provide the connection that are currently hidden in the retail unit price as the standing charge does not truly cover all those costs. Ofgen publishes a chart/table at the link below

    https: //www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/breakdown-electricity-bill

True widescale home-based PV installation would require a complete reworking of the way consumers are billed, with all the fixed costs being billed separately from the unit costs. Such billing would then allow for unit net metering as the retail price of a unit of electricity on a sunny afternoon would be very clear and very low. On the other hand I would guess the upgrade costs to all the local transforms so that they could handle large amounts of local PV would also then be charged to anyone with PV installed.

It's kinda hard to comprehend the UK government's logic that they won't pay households in the UK for clean generation today, what they will be paying to Chinese and French governments in 10yrs time.

Between 2008 and 2017 the government has been rather focussed on wind rather than PV, with capacity having increased from 3GW to 20GW, with a lot more having come online this year or due/planned for the next few years.

[billi]

basicaly  its against any law to give  12 (euro) cent granted  for non renewable Nuclear power  over  decades ,  have you had a look RIT , what solar clean PV power gets for Export in  the UK ?   A no go to support  that  structure in my eyes

[M]

True widescale home-based PV installation would require a complete reworking of the way consumers are billed, with all the fixed costs being billed separately from the unit costs. Such billing would then allow for unit net metering as the retail price of a unit of electricity on a sunny afternoon would be very clear and very low. On the other hand I would guess the upgrade costs to all the local transforms so that they could handle large amounts of local PV would also then be charged to anyone with PV installed.

Alternatively, demand side PV and demand side storage will reduce peak loads on the distribution network and reduce upgrade costs. The network needs to cope with peak evening demand, with or without SSEG's, so reducing that peak actually reduces costs.

And many such studies were carried out in the US when net metering was challenged due to the high price being paid (or credited) for PV generation, and the studies found that the PV actually had very high value due to network savings.

Networks struggling to export PV, when EV's are beginning to approach a disruption point (around the 8% mark, newer/better technology uptake tends to enter the 'S' curve rapid takeup, before slowing down again around the 80% mark) also seems highly unlikely when a parked up BEV could be absorbing around 7kW of local leccy with smart chargers identifying low variable prices when supply is high.

I still remain saddened by the need to post so many questionable future negatives on here, whilst simultaneously ignoring all the positives that are actually happening and the technology being rolled out to meet these future scenarios.

It's kinda hard to comprehend the UK government's logic that they won't pay households in the UK for clean generation today, what they will be paying to Chinese and French governments in 10yrs time.

Between 2008 and 2017 the government has been rather focussed on wind rather than PV, with capacity having increased from 3GW to 20GW, with a lot more having come online this year or due/planned for the next few years.

Which is great, but in no way explains nor validates the government plans to 'export' approx £44bn in subsidies for one nuclear power station, whilst removing smaller (per kWh) and shorter (per term length) subsidies for UK domestic based CO2 displacing technology that can be operational 10yrs sooner. It also doesn't explain why PV (and on-shore wind) are still not eligible for CfD subsidies (like nuclear) especially when they could most likely now be issued at a net subsidy free price (around £50/MWh), which would, according to the NAO estimated future wholesale price of leccy (see page 39) pay back in the later years, any subsidies received in the earlier years.

[desperate]

But what's wrong with a dumb meter that goes backwards? we buy a kWh for 15p and we sell a kWh for 15p forget smart metering for the purpose of feeding home brewed leccy into the grid. Smart metering should be for demand management shouldn't it?

Desp

There are 2 key issues

- The market cost of a unit of electricity varies over the day, so electricity generated on a sunny day via PV is unlikely to have the same market value as the electricity consumed at 7pm the same evening.

- The price paid for each kWh of electricity includes a lot more than just the generation cost. While most bills now have a standing charge element this does not truly cover the additional costs.


The first issue will one day be fixed with smart meters, but notice how no one in government talks about the introduction of such tariffs being the real value of the smart meter rollout.

The second issue is far more complex for the UK marketplace. We just do not do fully itemised billing in the way that much of the US does. Without a bill that truly breaks down all the different charges, you can't just roll back the meter. You can see what I mean if you look at page 2 of this example USA bill

    https://www.peco.com/MyAccount/MyBillUsage/Pages/Business100kWBillpg1.aspx

As you can see there are separate items for different aspects of meter charging, delivery, generation, transmission and tax. A UK bill would also have to include environmental and social costs, which are just hidden redistribution taxes to cover the cost of things like FiTs/CoD and the fact that energy is now so costly that people on low incomes get subsidised via the energy bills.

I agree with both your points, but that is just a stupid manifestation of the "market place" we are slaves to. It doesn't have to be this way.

Desp

[RIT]

Which is great, but in no way explains nor validates the government plans to 'export' approx £44bn in subsidies for one nuclear power station, whilst removing smaller (per kWh) and shorter (per term length) subsidies for UK domestic based CO2 displacing technology that can be operational 10yrs sooner. It also doesn't explain why PV (and on-shore wind) are still not eligible for CfD subsidies (like nuclear) especially when they could most likely now be issued at a net subsidy free price (around £50/MWh), which would, according to the NAO estimated future wholesale price of leccy (see page 39) pay back in the later years, any subsidies received in the earlier years.

In case you missed it I stated the following a HPC and UK nuclear

My personal view of HPC is that it is likely to be one of the last nuclear power stations built in the western world and the larges white elephant ever built in the UK and we have something of a history of such things.

So I do not try to "explain nor validate" what our governments over the last 10 years have been doing. My views go as far as having been a lib dem voter purely based on their anti-nuclear position. When we finally got one elected in my local area who also had a strong personal anti-nuclear position it seemed thing we're going in the right direction. When the lib dem / con coalition was then formed it seemed that things were going to change for the better. My MP was Mr Ed Davies, who's first task when he became the minister for energy was to sign off on HPC. The lib dems sold their principles for the chance to get a referendum on PR, and the rest is history.

[M]

Which is great, but in no way explains nor validates the government plans to 'export' approx £44bn in subsidies for one nuclear power station, whilst removing smaller (per kWh) and shorter (per term length) subsidies for UK domestic based CO2 displacing technology that can be operational 10yrs sooner. It also doesn't explain why PV (and on-shore wind) are still not eligible for CfD subsidies (like nuclear) especially when they could most likely now be issued at a net subsidy free price (around £50/MWh), which would, according to the NAO estimated future wholesale price of leccy (see page 39) pay back in the later years, any subsidies received in the earlier years.

In case you missed it I stated the following a HPC and UK nuclear

My personal view of HPC is that it is likely to be one of the last nuclear power stations built in the western world and the larges white elephant ever built in the UK and we have something of a history of such things.

So I do not try to "explain nor validate" what our governments over the last 10 years have been doing. My views go as far as having been a lib dem voter purely based on their anti-nuclear position. When we finally got one elected in my local area who also had a strong personal anti-nuclear position it seemed thing we're going in the right direction. When the lib dem / con coalition was then formed it seemed that things were going to change for the better. My MP was Mr Ed Davies, who's first task when he became the minister for energy was to sign off on HPC. The lib dems sold their principles for the chance to get a referendum on PR, and the rest is history.

Hiya, I think you've misunderstood my post. And I did see and read (and remember) your comments on HPC.

I was pointing out that your comments regarding the governments support of wind, did in no way address my comments that you quoted. And as you'd raised government policy, I also showed how that did not appear to balance when you look at the support for nuclear v's the lack of support for PV and on-shore wind. I was simply pointing out that a reference to the expansion of wind over the years fails to address what it was posted in response too.

Your new response also fails to address the comment I originally made about government policy on PV, and my restatement of it including their lack of support for on-shore wind.

With the removal, finally, of the MIP, and the falling costs of storage, the government could get quick, easy and cheap wins (on CO2) by supporting demand side PV and/or storage. A sizeable industry employing thousands could be encouraged via the use of a relatively small amount of subsidy support now. Said subsidy would go straight back into the UK economy, and the rollout of demand side RE and storage would be a great educational tool too.

Edit - and just to re-iterate what I said before, I do not believe that this would be a cost burden to the DNO's, in fact I believe the exact opposite as SSEG's reduce the peak demand needed, and storage helps even more, as shown by the number of experimental storage programs that DNO's have been trialling both to allow increased rollout of SSEG's and to help reduce peak supply.

[RIT]

M.

I think the only real difference we have is that I've been posting from the position of 'what, has/is' taking place while your focus is more around 'what, could/should' happen.

Considering the stated focus of all our political parties I'm just glad that we have got this far.