[wolfekeeper]

The retail cost of electricity has very little to do with physics and a great deal to do with profits, taxes and subsidies.

There are not really any solar subsidies anymore in the UK. They pay you what is basically cost (or more accurately, they pay the electricity supplier, most of them just pocket this, but Bulb gives you the money.)

Having lived through many, I understand a good deal about UK summers. Yes, the sun is above the horizon for over 16 hours in June, but the solar angle never exceeds 62 degrees in London, 59 in Inverness, which is why it is generally colder in Scotland than in England and the north pole (24 hour sunlight) stays frozen.

Gee, if only someone could work out a magic way to deal with that issue, such as tilting the panels at ~30 degrees. But apparently you can't think of any way. Must be impossible.

And we do have a lot of cloud over these Atlantic islands.

Yeah, except not so much in summer. Solar is quite predictable in summer, and isn't permanently hidden by clouds in the UK.

The value of mains electricity and gas is 24/7/365 availability at any level from zero to the supply rating. Until the cost of renewables includes that of maintaining an adequate overnight and strategic (say 10 day) reserve, you are not comparing apples with apples.

Wrong. Dispatchable electricity is certainly useful to have, but you want to use it as little as possible because: it's always £££ and high CO2 emissions. But a lot of our electricity is predictable and highly correlated with the daytime.

[alancalverd]

The retail cost of electricity is the renewables subsidy. The retailer gets a profitable 27p per unit  whether the wind is blowing or not, so there is no incentive for the wholesaler to build the storage system needed for a fully renewable supply.

[evan_au]

Not sure where Evan is, but winter holidays in Queensland...

I live in Sydney, but I'm currently on an autumn/fall vacation in Queensland.

Sydney averages 240 cloud-free days per year, and around 300 with some Sun visible. So where I live is a good place to install solar panels.

Unfortunately, we had a La Niña this year (the opposite polarity of the better-known El Niño), so we had fewer sunny days this summer - just after I installed solar panels!

PS: Alan, for your vacation, was that winter in UK, or winter in Queensland?  (North Queensland summer is hot and wet; I find that Queensland winter is a better time to visit).

[wolfekeeper]

The retail cost of electricity is the renewables subsidy. The retailer gets a profitable 27p per unit  whether the wind is blowing or not, so there is no incentive for the wholesaler to build the storage system needed for a fully renewable supply.

If the retailer is getting 27p/kWh then it's still in their interest to get the electricity for the lowest possible average cost. Note that wind power is usually sold on Contract For Difference, which is essentially a fixed price of 7p/kWh or whatever.

In practice, retailers are in competition with each other for customers, so they try to hold their price down- the 27p is not a given.

[alancalverd]

Alan, for your vacation, was that winter in UK, or winter in Queensland?  (

Queensland! 42°C in Mount Isa just beat the Cambridge record for June, but Bris and Bundy were tolerable with good gliding weather too.  Looking forward to the next round of bugs and tinnies!

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Solar panels aren't scrapped after 25 years, they have about 0.5% loss of output per year, so they're still outputting nearly 90% of their original output after that. That's just the suggested lifespan, but they're clearly going to go a lot longer.

Whilst this is somewhat  true of current panels, many older panels are significantly worse, plus there is the lifespan of associated equipment/faults/ servicing.

https://news.energysage.com/how-long-do-solar-panels-last/#:~:text=The%20industry%20standard%20for%20a,below%20what%20the%20manufacturer%20projected.

But given this degradation that is reported widely at 1% a year and the lack of cloudy sky generation, I have to think this is being rushed into. When cloudy sky generation  is improved  most solar in the uk will be replaced.

[alancalverd]

When cloudy sky generation  is improved  most solar in the uk will be replaced.

Only radical climate change can do this. Clouds absorb and reflect almost the entire spectrum of sunlight. Less input = less output!

[wolfekeeper]

Solar panels aren't scrapped after 25 years, they have about 0.5% loss of output per year, so they're still outputting nearly 90% of their original output after that. That's just the suggested lifespan, but they're clearly going to go a lot longer.

Whilst this is somewhat  true of current panels, many older panels are significantly worse, plus there is the lifespan of associated equipment/faults/ servicing.

https://news.energysage.com/how-long-do-solar-panels-last/#:~:text=The%20industry%20standard%20for%20a,below%20what%20the%20manufacturer%20projected.

But given this degradation that is reported widely at 1% a year and the lack of cloudy sky generation, I have to think this is being rushed into. When cloudy sky generation  is improved  most solar in the uk will be replaced.

No.

And because there's been little installation so far, most panels that will be installed will be new panels, and they give 0.5% a year:

https://www.nrel.gov/state-local-tribal/blog/posts/stat-faqs-part2-lifetime-of-pv-panels.html

Note that the UK may well be a lot less even than that, a lot of the degradation is due to stuff like high temperatures and damage from sunlight. The UK has less sunlight than many places (like Hawaii!) and is not a particularly hot country, so the calendar degradation should be much less.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

When cloudy sky generation  is improved  most solar in the uk will be replaced.

Only radical climate change can do this. Clouds absorb and reflect almost the entire spectrum of sunlight. Less input = less output!

I am not sure Alan if we could produce solar panels that produce at the 200w per metre square rate regardless of conditions, rather than the 20.% currently, this would give the same peak output, but reliably under all conditions. Admittedly it would not cure the sun angle day length problem in winter, but it would go a long long way to make solar viable in the UK.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Solar panels aren't scrapped after 25 years, they have about 0.5% loss of output per year, so they're still outputting nearly 90% of their original output after that. That's just the suggested lifespan, but they're clearly going to go a lot longer.

Whilst this is somewhat  true of current panels, many older panels are significantly worse, plus there is the lifespan of associated equipment/faults/ servicing.

https://news.energysage.com/how-long-do-solar-panels-last/#:~:text=The%20industry%20standard%20for%20a,below%20what%20the%20manufacturer%20projected.

But given this degradation that is reported widely at 1% a year and the lack of cloudy sky generation, I have to think this is being rushed into. When cloudy sky generation  is improved  most solar in the uk will be replaced.

No.

And because there's been little installation so far, most panels that will be installed will be new panels, and they give 0.5% a year:

https://www.nrel.gov/state-local-tribal/blog/posts/stat-faqs-part2-lifetime-of-pv-panels.html

Note that the UK may well be a lot less even than that, a lot of the degradation is due to stuff like high temperatures and damage from sunlight. The UK has less sunlight than many places (like Hawaii!) and is not a particularly hot country, so the calendar degradation should be much less.

Yes,

The source you state has implemented policies to give Elon musk money from poor peoples taxes, for increacing fossil fuel usage.

[wolfekeeper]

Conspiracy theories can be fun

[alancalverd]

I am not sure Alan if we could produce solar panels that produce at the 200w per metre square rate regardless of conditions,

That would really offend the guys who write the laws of physics.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

I am not sure Alan if we could produce solar panels that produce at the 200w per metre square rate regardless of conditions,

That would really offend the guys who write the laws of physics.

In what way, something to do with the construction or conversion into electricity? Clouds do not completely block solar irradiance. Different technology etc. Even if solar produced at a continuous 5 percent of total irradiance rate it would certainly be an improvement on the current.

[alancalverd]

One important condition is called night. This magically reduces the ability of any solar panel to produce anything at all. So having reduced the maximum possible average output to half the peak rating, let's look at the intensity of illumination  under "all other conditions".

This chart shows that solar illuminance varies by up to a factor of 120,000:1 during daylight,so if you want to build a system that will deliver 200 W/sq m under all conditions half of the time, it needs to be rather more than 2,000,000% efficient.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

One important condition is called night. This magically reduces the ability of any solar panel to produce anything at all. So having reduced the maximum possible average output to half the peak rating, let's look at the intensity of illumination  under "all other conditions".

This chart shows that solar illuminance varies by up to a factor of 120,000:1 during daylight,so if you want to build a system that will deliver 200 W/sq m under all conditions half of the time, it needs to be rather more than 2,000,000% efficient.

Yes but compared to the average in London of 1000w at noon. Even if a panel that was producing at 20w a square metre or 2% during daylight continouosly would be advantageous.

[alancalverd]

Which London are you talking about? Best average output in the UK is 10% of peak rating, according to the manufacturers.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Which London are you talking about? Best average output in the UK is 10% of peak rating, according to the manufacturers.

The London in greater London, obviously. But that is 10 percent 24 hours a day, not during the average daylight of 12, at which measurement it would be 20 percent average but that is a percentage on duty cycles.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_Kingdom

[Spam3 240622]

A single solar panel cost £300-£500, but it can vary depending on the size and type of system. The cost of solar panel installation to predict it's very difficult, but you can easily know about it through our solar contractor.

[wolfekeeper]

Everyone talks about cost, they never talk about the profit. If you install solar panels you're virtually guaranteed to save money, they typically pay for themselves in 5-10 years. The best angles to place them in the UK are usually about 30-40 degrees to the horizontal, facing south east and/or south west. That gives you electricity in the mornings and evenings when you need it (mainly in spring, summer and autumn). The solar electricity costs about 6p/kWh, and it saves you spending ~27p/kWh on electricity.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Everyone talks about cost, they never talk about the profit. If you install solar panels you're virtually guaranteed to save money, they typically pay for themselves in 5-10 years. The best angles to place them in the UK are usually about 30-40 degrees to the horizontal, facing south east and/or south west. That gives you electricity in the mornings and evenings when you need it (mainly in spring, summer and autumn). The solar electricity costs about 6p/kWh, and it saves you spending ~27p/kWh on electricity.

It was intentionally started as a thread on carbon rather than money. I accept that at present solar can be reasonably profitable, in a similar way electric cars are cheaper to fuel but there are many hidden charges to the average IC engine car, such as road tax fuel duty vat. In carbon terms fully electric cars and IC engine cars are the same in carbon terms to fuel, but the electric car having a higher carbon footprint. Hybrid cars are obviously the best option.