navitron
 
Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Anyone wishing to register as a new member on the forum is strongly recommended to use a "proper" email address - following recent spam/hack attempts on the forum, all security is set to "high", and "disposable" email addresses like Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail tend to be viewed with suspicion, and the application rejected if there is any doubt whatsoever
 
Recent Articles: Navitron Partners With Solax to Help Create A More Sustainable Future | Navitron Calls for Increased Carbon Footprint Reduction In Light of Earth Overshoot Day | A plea from The David School - Issue 18
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: UK needs extra 100GWp renewables+30GWh storage.  (Read 804 times)
stannn
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5279



« on: October 16, 2019, 12:49:59 PM »

https://www.pv-tech.org/news/report-uk-needs-100gw-more-solar-wind-by-2050-to-hit-net-zero-target
Logged

2.45 kWp PV (Navitron supply), 40 evacuated tubes (Navitron supply), Clearview 650 log burner with back-boiler heating cottage and water, 2 off 50W border collies, 1 off 35W cat, 1 off 25W cat.
oliver90owner
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2055


« Reply #1 on: October 16, 2019, 07:32:54 PM »

Can someone enlighten me as to what 30GW of energy storage comprises?

100GW is OK.  It is power.  30GW is also a power unit, so for how long (to become an energy unit)?

Can someone enlighten me as to what 30GW of energy storage comprises?

100GW is OK.  It is power.  30GW is also a power unit, so for how long (to become an energy unit)?

Thread title is not quite the same as in the report.  I donít think 30GWh is anywhere near enough as an energy store.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2019, 07:37:30 PM by oliver90owner » Logged
ecogeorge
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1323


« Reply #2 on: October 16, 2019, 08:30:00 PM »

Can someone check my maths ......

100 Gw = 100,000,000,000 watts
UK no. of households = 27.2 million (2017 data) = 27,200,000
100,000,000,000 / 27,200,000 = 3,676 watts.
so every household needs to install a 4kw syatem -maybe a big ask but maybe 2kw based on space more attainable.
BUT some will house more and what about industrial roofs Huh ground arrays ??more onshore and offshore wind , hydro ? any barrage's ?wave ??
reckon we could do it ...........
George
Logged
brackwell
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3038


« Reply #3 on: October 16, 2019, 08:40:55 PM »

Without seeing the report i wonder how they came to 30GWh  storage.  If that was to cover just one day of no RE then perhaps. Noting they want to increase nuclear as well.

"without hot air" mentions 1200GWh to cover 5 days and also this http://euanmearns.com/uk-electricity-part-3-wind-and-solar/ of equally large figs.

To give some scale our present pumped hydro is c30GWh

But it is wrong to pick on one fig without understanding what their big picture is, particularly with respect to hydrogen production and how much FF they intend using.  Remembering that NET zero CO2 is not zero FF

Today people believe that interconnectors are for us to import leccy but down the line perhaps they are for us to export our excesses to get to the NET whilst still using FF.
Logged
stannn
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5279



« Reply #4 on: October 16, 2019, 08:44:15 PM »

Yes, it was a bit naughty of me to add h in the title. The following article refers to 30GW short duration storage.
https://envirotecmagazine.com/2019/10/15/net-zero-energy-questions-answered-aurora-energy-research/
Logged

2.45 kWp PV (Navitron supply), 40 evacuated tubes (Navitron supply), Clearview 650 log burner with back-boiler heating cottage and water, 2 off 50W border collies, 1 off 35W cat, 1 off 25W cat.
brackwell
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3038


« Reply #5 on: October 16, 2019, 08:46:39 PM »

Ecogeorge,

You have left out capacity factor which for solar is 11% ie you need 9x what you are suggesting.   And if the CF is 11% you need unatainable amount of storage.

"Without hot air" is essential reading even if costs are a little out of date now.  https://www.withouthotair.com/download.html
Logged
ecogeorge
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1323


« Reply #6 on: October 16, 2019, 08:53:59 PM »

Ecogeorge,

You have left out capacity factor which for solar is 11% ie you need 9x what you are suggesting.   And if the CF is 11% you need unatainable amount of storage.

"Without hot air" is essential reading even if costs are a little out of date now.  https://www.withouthotair.com/download.html

Yes but was the original title for installed capacity or actual production Huh
Seems odd to require actual 100Gw when max demand peaks at 30-40Gw Huh?
George
Logged
azps
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 713



WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 16, 2019, 09:38:52 PM »

"Without hot air" is essential reading even if costs are a little out of date now.

Not really - the assumptions made were nonsense at the time, and are still nonsense now.
Logged

RIT
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


« Reply #8 on: October 16, 2019, 10:34:29 PM »

Ecogeorge,

You have left out capacity factor which for solar is 11% ie you need 9x what you are suggesting.   And if the CF is 11% you need unatainable amount of storage.

"Without hot air" is essential reading even if costs are a little out of date now.  https://www.withouthotair.com/download.html

Yes but was the original title for installed capacity or actual production Huh
Seems odd to require actual 100Gw when max demand peaks at 30-40Gw Huh?
George

Without access to the full report, it is hard to work out what they think needs to be in place and why. The article does state

Quote
The report proposes that excess electricity generation Ė which could grow to as much as 185TWh as renewables prosper Ė could be used for producing hydrogen or decarbonising industry, heating or transport.

So the report is considering the generation capacity to replace the use of natural gas and oil-based fuels but seems to total ignore the fact that by 2050 all transport on the road will be battery or hydrogen-based. If EVs win the battle the amount of available energy storage could be in the few TWh range if managed correctly. If on the other hand, hydrogen-based cars win out the UK will basically retain a gas-based infrastructure.
Logged

2.4kW PV system, output can be seen at  - https://pvoutput.org/list.jsp?userid=49083

Why bother? - well, there is no planet B
M
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5085



« Reply #9 on: October 17, 2019, 09:09:50 AM »

"Without hot air" is essential reading even if costs are a little out of date now.

Not really - the assumptions made were nonsense at the time, and are still nonsense now.

Andrew, how very dare you.

It states that for PV the rooftop efficiency of 10%, and high efficiency panels of 20% will never need significant revision, and it's those efficiencies that prevent it becoming viable, especially as a single source solution for the UK.  Tongue
Logged

Just call me Mart.     Cardiff: 5.58kWp PV - (3.58kWp SE3500 + 2kWp SE2200 WNW)
dan_b
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4180


WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 17, 2019, 11:30:22 AM »

Indeed. He goes hard into offshore wind based on 3MW turbines being the de facto size for example, and how deep water offshore will never be viable.

"Without hot air" is essential reading even if costs are a little out of date now.

Not really - the assumptions made were nonsense at the time, and are still nonsense now.
Logged

3.06kWp SolarEdge system with a split array:
2.18kWp 10x South facing, plus 4x West facing 880W

Mk1 ImmerSUN DHW diverter
4kW PowerVault Battery

Tesla Model 3 Long Range
brackwell
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3038


« Reply #11 on: October 17, 2019, 12:22:11 PM »

For sure time has taken its toll on specs and prices but i still maintain it provides a very good overview and perspective on the problems we face.  PV and wind twice as good and 1/2 the price does not change the problems and only by understanding the problems and not pretending they dont exist, can one work on the solutions.  To say the work is rubbish because of a few out of date facts is short sighted in my opinion.
Logged
renewablejohn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2946



« Reply #12 on: October 17, 2019, 05:17:22 PM »

For sure time has taken its toll on specs and prices but i still maintain it provides a very good overview and perspective on the problems we face.  PV and wind twice as good and 1/2 the price does not change the problems and only by understanding the problems and not pretending they dont exist, can one work on the solutions.  To say the work is rubbish because of a few out of date facts is short sighted in my opinion.

Come on it was shown to be garbage when it was written and when you compare to RE now its even more garbage than we ever thought possible. Written by someone who thought nuclear would be our saviour. How wrong could he be thankfully with current cfd pricing nuclear is no longer a threat.
Logged
M
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5085



« Reply #13 on: October 17, 2019, 07:19:51 PM »

For sure time has taken its toll on specs and prices but i still maintain it provides a very good overview and perspective on the problems we face.  PV and wind twice as good and 1/2 the price does not change the problems and only by understanding the problems and not pretending they dont exist, can one work on the solutions.  To say the work is rubbish because of a few out of date facts is short sighted in my opinion.

But, and this the crux of my issue(s) with it, he specifically stated that the cost of PV would fall, but that it wouldn't be a viable solution for the UK because of their efficiency (and therefore footprint), and WHA uses 10% for typical rooftop and commercial farms, and 20% for high efficiency panels:

Quote
Arenít photovoltaic panels going to get more and more efficient as technology improves?

I am sure that photovoltaic panels will become ever cheaper; Iím also sure that solar panels will become ever less energy-intensive to manufacture, so their energy yield ratio will improve. But this chapterís photo-voltaic estimates werenít constrained by the economic cost of the panels, nor by the energy cost of their manufacture. This chapter was concerned with the maximum conceivable power delivered. Photovoltaic panels with 20% efficiency are already close to the theoretical limit (see this chapterís endnotes). Iíll be surprised if this chapterís estimate for roof-based photo-voltaics ever needs a significant upward revision.

[My bold.]

But 'typical' panels are now around 19-20%, and I mean before costs start to shoot up per Wp, but do go higher, and high efficiency are 24%+. Plus we have cheap perovskite closing in on 20%, and silicon perovskite suggestions of low 30's 'easy' and approaching high 30's hopefully.

So he boxed himself in by specifically ruling out PV on efficiency, and yet the 'real' figures are now ~100% higher than he suggested would not ever need a significant revision. I'd suggest significant would be anything over 10-20%.

It may seem somewhat churlish of me, but to be so wrong, so fast, makes me doubt a lot of the work, and I particularly disliked the way PV was dismissed for not being a singular solution, but it isn't a singular solution, and judging it on that basis guarantees it will fail, which suggests (to me) that, that was the aim.
Logged

Just call me Mart.     Cardiff: 5.58kWp PV - (3.58kWp SE3500 + 2kWp SE2200 WNW)
renewablejohn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2946



« Reply #14 on: October 17, 2019, 10:46:29 PM »


For sure time has taken its toll on specs and prices but i still maintain it provides a very good overview and perspective on the problems we face.  PV and wind twice as good and 1/2 the price does not change the problems and only by understanding the problems and not pretending they dont exist, can one work on the solutions.  To say the work is rubbish because of a few out of date facts is short sighted in my opinion.



Problem is he managed to gain a prominent role within Defra with the ability to steer government policy. Had he still been alive I doubt whether we would have been celebrating 50% electric from renewables this week. I dont like speaking ill of the dead but his untimely death probably allowed the development of the UK renewable industry. Unfortunately his misinformed attitude to low head hydro still influences the attitude of the environment agency to this day against any hydro schemes.

« Last Edit: October 17, 2019, 10:54:51 PM by renewablejohn » Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!