[alancalverd]

Whilst we are diverting towards money it is worth noting that the permitted price of mains electricity in the UK is linked to the current wholesale price of gas, not the actual cost of generating electricity.

Right now, 80% of demand is being met by non-gas generation, so wind, solar and nuclear generators are profiting from the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Red/green color blindness?

[evan_au]

The cost of natural gas in the eastern states of Australia is tied to the international price.
- The smarter government in Western Australia decreed that all gas exporters had to reserve 15% of production for local use, at a price related to the cost of production, so they are not suffering like the Eastern states.

So gas prices have spiked in the Eastern states:
- Since peak-hour generation is provided by gas turbines, they are bidding higher prices to stay profitable
- Several coal-fired power stations were down for maintenance, when a couple of others broke down, significantly cutting supply (this is how Enron became so profitable!)
- So the energy regulator shut down the spot market for electricity, capped the wholesale price, and told the gas generators to start producing (reimbursement to be worked out later...)
- Some of the coal generators are now back on line, and the electricity market is operating again. Blackouts narrowly averted.

Apparently one contributor to the problem has been the Green party; looking for excess purity, they refused to fund gas-fired generators to be backup supply.
- I thought most people realized that gas is going to be an important bridging power source as we reduce coal consumption, but we still need to meet peak-hour demand.
 - The gas turbine generators are installed by businesses to keep data centers and industry running when there are blackouts. IMHO, it makes sense to use them for peak demand whenever renewables+storage is insufficient.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Apparently one contributor to the problem has been the Green party; looking for excess purity, they refused to fund gas-fired generators to be backup supply.
- I thought most people realized that gas is going to be an important bridging power source as we reduce coal consumption, but we still need to meet peak-hour demand.

I should think Australia is not far from being carbon neutral? Its a big place just like Canada, but has few people. In the current economic situation coal is a fantastic fallback.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Whilst we are diverting towards money it is worth noting that the permitted price of mains electricity in the UK is linked to the current wholesale price of gas, not the actual cost of generating electricity.

Right now, 80% of demand is being met by non-gas generation, so wind, solar and nuclear generators are profiting from the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Red/green color blindness?

Many solar producers are producing their highest amounts, yet the feed in tarrifs are around 2.5p a kwh. I have a feeling strip mining coal is about as cheap as you will get elsewhere. The carbon cost though and the environmental costs are great.

[James-Stephens]

answer is Yes.
Ref: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=84600.0

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

answer is Yes.
Ref: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=84600.0

To produce enough solar panels to generate the electricity for the uks current usage would require somewhere in the region of 1 billion tonnes of co2, for all our usage that figure is at 10 billion . 

[evan_au]

I should think Australia is not far from being carbon neutral?...just like Canada

Australia is one of the highest CO2 emitters in the Western world (per capita), at 17 tons per capita per year
- Behind Canada at 18.6
- But more than USA at 15.5 tones

This is due to:
- Base load is mostly burning coal
- One of the largest states (Victoria) uses brown coal, which is saturated with water; the water must be driven off before you can get it to burn - very inefficient!
- Political backlash against nuclear power over many years (even though Australia exports a lot of uranium ore)
- A carbon tax implemented in 2011 was quickly reversed by a change of government
- It is a fairly flat and dry country, so not much hydro power
- Far from plate boundaries, so not much geothermal power
- Neglected transmission infrastructure, so it is hard to feed in renewables
- The fossil fuel industry has a lot of money from exports, which funds their vigorous campaign to keep burning fossil fuels locally.
- NIMBY: Even if most people want clean power, everyone says "Not In My Back Yard"!

See: https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

I should think Australia is not far from being carbon neutral?...just like Canada

Australia is one of the highest CO2 emitters in the Western world (per capita), at 17 tons per capita per year
- Behind Canada at 18.6
- But more than USA at 15.5 tones

This is due to:
- Base load is mostly burning coal
- One of the largest states (Victoria) uses brown coal, which is saturated with water; the water must be driven off before you can get it to burn - very inefficient!
- Political backlash against nuclear power over many years (even though Australia exports a lot of uranium ore)
- A carbon tax implemented in 2011 was quickly reversed by a change of government
- It is a fairly flat and dry country, so not much hydro power
- Far from plate boundaries, so not much geothermal power
- Neglected transmission infrastructure, so it is hard to feed in renewables
- The fossil fuel industry has a lot of money from exports, which funds their vigorous campaign to keep burning fossil fuels locally.
- NIMBY: Even if most people want clean power, everyone says "Not In My Back Yard"!

See: https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/

It's a big carbon sink though Evan for the populace, just like Canada. I would think both countries are fairly neutral.

If it wanted it could make a fortune selling solar power to Indonesia, malaysia and the phillipines. It could also make carbon neutral solar panels rather than the ones we buy from China. But then again you have such big back yards it would suffer much resistance. Then if Australia powered itself from solar it could start charging the states carbon credits and get filthy rich just like Elon musk.

[wolfekeeper]

answer is Yes.
Ref: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=84600.0

To produce enough solar panels to generate the electricity for the uks current usage would require somewhere in the region of 1 billion tonnes of co2, for all our usage that figure is at 10 billion . 

And it would break even in a few years at the absolute most.

Meanwhile the price of coal and natural gas is soaring. Some places subsidize their local power with low-cost petrochemicals. The UK used to do that, British natural gas was sold within the UK at cut-price costs, but they're running out in the North Sea. And so the price is now rebounding to the world price-nearer what it probably should have been all along, and suddenly solar and wind actually makes loads of sense.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

answer is Yes.
Ref: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=84600.0

To produce enough solar panels to generate the electricity for the uks current usage would require somewhere in the region of 1 billion tonnes of co2, for all our usage that figure is at 10 billion . 

And it would break even in a few years at the absolute most.

Meanwhile the price of coal and natural gas is soaring. Some places subsidize their local power with low-cost petrochemicals. The UK used to do that, British natural gas was sold within the UK at cut-price costs, but they're running out in the North Sea. And so the price is now rebounding to the world price-nearer what it probably should have been all along, and suddenly solar and wind actually makes loads of sense.

7 bare minimum in the UK for just the manufacture, neglecting any other concerns. It seems a little like adding a massive carbon load rather than reducing emmissions here.

[wolfekeeper]

Nah, not even in the UK.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints/

[alancalverd]

Interesting study with entirely predictable findings.

I'm somewhat surprised by the "nuclear" figure. Time was (in the 1960s) that the energy break-even  occurred at 5 years of operation, so you would have to run a nuke for 10 years to exceed the input by 50% and around 100 years to get to a 5% footprint. It's difficult to believe that improved performance and increasing regulatory requirements have actually reduced that period, or that any nuke is expected to run for 100 years without 100% replacement of its components.  In the strategy of the old Central Electricity Generating Board, nuclear power was regarded as the best investment of (then) cheap oil against future price rises - an energy store rather than generator - when the expected life of a reactor was about 20 years.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Nah, not even in the UK.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints/

Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds

From a site called carbon brief.

[paanjii2]

Solar panels do value a small amount within the starting however compared to the price of electricity that you simply are going to be paying over the years, the panels area unit value your each penny. It not only reduces the price however additionally provides you clean emission-free energy right in your own yard.

[JesWade21]

You will still lose power unless you have a battery storage system. Since you would be using net metering to get paid for extra electricity you produce you will be connected to the grid. If there is an outage your panels won't work because if they fed the grid workers would get hurt so they get turned off unless a battery solution is in place

[evan_au]

coal or gas [power] with carbon capture and storage (CCS)

Current methods of CCS are very inefficient.

It's even worse if you try to capture the CO₂ after it has been diluted in the atmosphere, as you need to pump large volumes of air to collect small amounts of CO₂.

3 cheers for growing trees, which use solar power directly!

[alancalverd]

Problem with trees is that photosynthesis is at best 2% efficient and in the case of trees, probably closer to 0.1%, in converting solar input to stored energy. Then you have to burn them, at no more than 50% efficiency, assuming you expended no energy in cutting them down, chipping the wood, and drying it.

At least one UK biomass power station has been abandoned because although the primary input was free agricultural waste, the energy expended in transporting and preparing it exceeded the electrical yield. 

[thugtomas]

There are various ways solar panels pay off, ranging from reducing your carbon footprint to increasing your home's value. Recently, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) found that for a home with a solar power system, every dollar saved on energy increases a home's value by $20

[alancalverd]

But most US houses depreciate in value over time, as does the solar panel installation and money itself. So the question is how long does it take you to save that dollar?

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

The thread is more slanted toward carbon emissions than money. You can ask is manufacturing electric cars economically wise, the answer is yes given that other manufacturers of petrol cars have to pay you money even though your cars are manufactured and powered with carbon based fuel.