Nice Photovoltaik Peak in Germany

[chappy]

Originally Posted by chalsall

I'm advising those here in Bim who are interested in PV in new builds to plan for it (read: install the needed conduits; have a place for the batteries (if not grid-tying), etc), but don't invest in the actual "kit" until the technology and the market further stabilizes.

Excellent advice. Although I have some caveats. Here in Missouri the local power company, my liege, pays a certain amount per watt of Solar PV offset power. This is typically in the $2 per watt range. That added with the considerable tax write-off means that most set-ups become a financial positive within a couple years.

At the end of this year that amount paid is set to drop to 25 cents per watt. Which will mean that it will take 4-5 years to recoup the costs.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by chappy

At the end of this year that amount paid is set to drop to 25 cents per watt. Which will mean that it will take 4-5 years to recoup the costs.

IMO, artificial incentives create artificial economics.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by chalsall

IMO, artificial incentives create artificial economics.

The demand that they have created have spurred production capacity. The cost per watt has continued to fall. By 2015 (IIRC) it should cross over (without incentives) with typical cost of power from the grid. Soon it should make plenty of sense to just use solar in a huge number of areas. One of the big advantages of solar is that roof top solar can block the heating of a building, thus helping to cut demand. Solar thermal can also match peak capacity to peak demand.

And the artificial economies that happen when there is a desired technology can be helpful toward the goal.

[chappy]

Originally Posted by chalsall

IMO, artificial incentives create artificial economics.

tautologies add no new information.

By which I mean: certainly. and I've never seen any evidence that tweaking capitalism is, in and of itself, a bad thing. And plenty of evidence that unbridled capitalism is a bad thing.

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

The demand that they have created have spurred production capacity. The cost per watt has continued to fall. By 2015 (IIRC) it should cross over (without incentives) with typical cost of power from the grid. Soon it should make plenty of sense to just use solar in a huge number of areas.

I'll believe it when I see it. Here in the Midwest windpower costs nearly three times what the most expensive coal power costs on what is called busbar cost: the cost of all associated expenses of the kilowatts as they leave the plant. The equation doesn't end there, of course, the average US Coal plant has a capacity factor of 85%, Nukes 90%, wind power a mere 30%, and solar less than 25%. So Even if the busbar cost of solar and wind does drop below the busbas cost of coal and nukes they would have to be 1/3rd or less of the cost to provide a true comparison.

Looking at this another way had Germany spent the money that they have spent over the past decade on solar power building nukes, they would be producting twice as much power as the best day of solar power, and they would be producing it 24 hours a day for 17 out of every 18 months (the German standard for well run Nukes). The coal fleet could be retired or at worst run only during the summer months when added capacity was needed. Total power plant carbon emissions would be near zero instead of actually going up.

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

One of the big advantages of solar is that roof top solar can block the heating of a building, thus helping to cut demand. Solar thermal can also match peak capacity to peak demand.

And the artificial economies that happen when there is a desired technology can be helpful toward the goal.

That is true, but most of that advantage is actually matched by merely painting the roof white--which is something that is cheap and only isn't done because apparently people don't want white roofs.

The last sentence is where I completely agree with you. However, I still think Germany and the rest of the world have jumped the gun on this and focused on the wrong things. Here in the US we should be building a high-voltage DC grid and developing new energy storage technologies like batteries and superconductors and hydrogen cells. We have a whole Southwest corner of the country which could provide enough power even with todays inefficient solar cells, for the entire nation--if only we had a way to push the power across the country (HVDC where Germany leads the way) and a way to store that power when the sun goes down (pneumatic energy storage anyone?)

[kladner]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Yes.

And if it's a "cat 3" or so, that the mountings don't tear the roof off trying to hold on to it (I'm not joking)....

I am sure you're not. I'm from the Gulf Coast. Of course, if it's a "cat 6e", all bets are off!

[kladner]

Originally Posted by chappy

[snip].....

That is true, but most of that advantage is actually matched by merely painting the roof white--which is something that is cheap and only isn't done because apparently people don't want white roofs.

True on both counts, though there is a trade-off in cold climates where the heat absorption could be welcome. Still, solar-thermal does cost more than white paint, though it could answer the needs of both situations. I watch the developments in sheet S-E materials which can double as roofing (and can be light colored.) So far, they're not as efficient I think, but you get a lot a area without the cost of mounting conventional panels.

The last sentence is where I completely agree with you. However, I still think Germany and the rest of the world have jumped the gun on this and focused on the wrong things. Here in the US we should be building a high-voltage DC grid and developing new energy storage technologies like batteries and superconductors and hydrogen cells. We have a whole Southwest corner of the country which could provide enough power even with todays inefficient solar cells, for the entire nation--if only we had a way to push the power across the country (HVDC where Germany leads the way) and a way to store that power when the sun goes down (pneumatic energy storage anyone?)

The Southwest is a prime area for solar concentrator tech, too, which lends itself to thermal storage. I haven't seen much about pneumatic. In fiction I have encountered the concept of flywheel storage. I'm not sure how the efficiency/maintenance cost equations work out on such things. Obviously, the more moving parts that are involved, the more things there are which can break.

HVDC transmission plays a vital role in schemes to power Europe (and elsewhere) from the Sahara. If that were attempted, I'd like to see a matching KWH for Africa for every KWH that crossed the Mediterranean.

[Andi_HB]

Some of the arguments from chappy are correct - but not all.
1. The "best" nuclear power station can never be safe like the Power of Wind and Sun.
2. Also is the final repository of the atomic waste is a unsolved problem for the next hundred generation. No Problem with wind and/or sun.
3. The costs of Energy produced with Wind & Sun are sinking in the Future - from other Energy the costs will rise because the Resources will decrease.

Correct is that at the moment the dirty brown coal is very cheap and benefit from the situation now. The Problem are the cheap CO2-certificate.

All in are imho the renewable energys the right way for the future.
But allways existing more then 1 road lead to rome.

Regards Andi_HB

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Andi_HB

Some of the arguments from chappy are correct - but not all.
1. The "best" nuclear power station can never be safe like the Power of Wind and Sun.

Based on what evidence? Please provide same.

[Andi_HB]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Based on what evidence? Please provide same.

Here is a List of nuclear accidents.
http://www.reaktorpleite.de/ines-und...oerfaelle.html

Another List of Horror nuclear accidents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_o...tive_incidents

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Andi_HB

Here is a List of nuclear accidents.
http://www.reaktorpleite.de/ines-und...oerfaelle.html

Another List of Horror nuclear accidents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_o...tive_incidents

OK. Thanks for this.

Iff nuclear power was properly managed, it might not be that big of a big deal. But at the end of the day, you've got some rather dangerous stuff to deal with when it's depleted.

Then you have the option of digging up some carbon from the ground, burn it, and then release the CO2 (and CO et al) into the atmosphere.

Then you have the option of intercepting photons from the Sun, and converting them into electrons. Interesting that this was how carbon became complex...

All these options, and yet there are so many arguments...

Hmmmmm.....

[kladner]

Then too, the uranium mining also has a carbon footprint, as does refining, manufacturing, and transporting it. It also leaves very nasty mine tailings; and the leftovers from refining get converted into even nastier military projectiles.