Sharpend
"It Just Is"
Food for thought that Solar isn’t the answer?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65602519
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65602519
Not so green after all?
- Thread starter Sharpend
- Start date
Help Support Talk Electrician Forum:
The article starts with a factually incorrect statement, the lifespan of solar panels is more than 25years. Most panels now come with a 30 year,80% performance warranty, and I would expect them to last more like 35 years.
However, they are correct in that our wonderful government is failing to invest in recycling in the UK.
However, they are correct in that our wonderful government is failing to invest in recycling in the UK.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2009
- Messages
- 14,673
- Reaction score
- 828
The only time you need to recycle them is when they fail completely and generate no power.
Even at a guess say 40 years old, if they are only generating 50% of what they did originally, they will long since have repaid their investment, so why not just leave them generating 50% of what they used to? Why would you choose at that point to spend effort removing them and recycling them?
Even at a guess say 40 years old, if they are only generating 50% of what they did originally, they will long since have repaid their investment, so why not just leave them generating 50% of what they used to? Why would you choose at that point to spend effort removing them and recycling them?
Lifespan of nuclear 40-50years, gas 25years, coal 50-60 years, and nuclear still has a massive waste issue. So cost of building such infrastructure is massive compared to solar or wind which offer cheaper energy than any of the above. It would be interesting to find out how much material is used to build each option, and how much of that material can be recycled. I shall do some googling..
Using Solar is a huge step forward ......... next we need more wind turbines, hydro and tidal schemes
if the newer panels could generate far more power than the original could, then the cost of replacing them with something that could generate 2-3 times what it currently is may be worth the cost. and many homes can't just leave existing and fit new alongside since there probably isn't space to do so. and even if there is space, then back to if they can generate more power then it may still be worth replacing the old
FTFY
panels have only increased in efficiency by around 7% in 12 years, it would need a technology step change of some sort to really boost power. Even then our underinvested national grid isn't going to allow more than 16A back feed from domestic proerties, so I can't really see an economic argument for changing older panels currently.
offgridAndy
Active member
panel efficiency increase over the last 20 years is actually 50%. Ie was 15 or 16% efficient and are now 22% so an increase of 50% or so. Just one way of viewing things. My oldest panels are now 18 years old and still perform close to their stated outputs.
Interestingly I did some research on this when Mr Elon decided to start citing getting rid of power plants and putting solar farms on the land instead which will generate more power
... Well from my research this is incorrect the solar farm would need to be approx. 6-10 times the size of the largest current solar farm to produce the same as the largest producer of nuclear, which also means the solar farm would take up around 4 times more space than the nuclear site.Nuclear downside is they bury the waste underground but that waste will stay present for 100,000s years.
I regard nuclear as a necessary evil, unless someone finally cracks the Fusion technology. If they do that apparently you can use spent radioactive waste as fuel for fusion, thereby solving the waste issue.Interestingly I did some research on this when Mr Elon decided to start citing getting rid of power plants and putting solar farms on the land instead which will generate more power
Nuclear downside is they bury the waste underground but that waste will stay present for 100,000s years.
To power the UK with solar would need 0.41% of the land area. To power the world an area the size of Hungary would be needed. Not massive areas in the scheme of things.
Ideally you would site solar farms somewhere like the Sahara and transmit the energy back to Europe, but geopolitical issues make that unrealistic. We have more than enough roof space to achieve most of what we need. There's a rediculous amount of commercial roof space without solar on, which is down to the landlords of the buildings preventing installation.
A little figure for you to ponder, the sun irradiates the planet with enough energy to power the world every hour.
My relatively small 6.7kWp array has managed to keep our home and car running for the last 8 days, including air conditioning. We have also managed to export a little. If everyone did similar including factories and public buildings etc, we would be in a much better place with regards to energy.
The best thing about solar on roof spaces is the energy is generated at point of use, which saves the 12% transmission losses of the grid. I still dispair at all the new build estates going up with barely a solar panel to be seen. They don't even orientate the roofs to South to suit any purchaser who may want to retrofit panels.
It staggers me too, around Gainsborough over the last 2 years over 1000 new houses have been built, numerous factor units and none of them have got solar, it's criminal in my book. I also struggle understanding DNO's restricting export, surely thats helping to remove load from their distribution and therefore helping the infrastructure load.
.
With the DNOs it's down to the fact their infrastructure is old and knackered ( no excuse on new build estates). They don't like their transformers being backfed more than 30% of their capacity. They also get problems with voltages floating too high if say a whole estate has solar fitted, like a social housing estate. So I understand their problems, it's another issue from lack of investment in the UK.
Sharpend
"It Just Is"
How about if all houses businesses were to be self generating and feeding into the grid, how could the National Grid then justify their charges in supplying electricity? And how could they then charge those that are actually generating to the grid?
Wouldn’t that be like charging you for something you’re supplying?
That's like saying everyone has their own car so don't need to pay for the roads. Perhaps not the best analogy but I think you get my drift. It does cost money to run the infrastructure that moves energy around the grid, but in theory it would reduce the need to do that as much. Except mid winter when the sun isn't shining and it's cold. If you are generating, then you save on buying from nuclear, gas, wind farms etc.
Very few home solar PV systems will be sufficient to support the property 365 days per year so some grid support would be needed. But it would massively reduce the support needed and make some of the solar farm projects that are in the pipeline round here surplus to requirements. It makes absolute sense from all angles if everyone could generate a healthy percentage of their power.
Something I have been looking into! I Travel around numerous places for work and see so many unused rooftops and now even find myself counting how many panels could fit! (sad times ay!). Developers, unfortunately, do not care about eco, 12500 new homes are being built near one of my places of work, and around 1% are said to be having solar (but we all know the developers will claim to have hit cash flow problems and will not install them).
I have had my council (Bracknell Forest) leafletting regarding group buying in the area to tender the workout and the best price wins the contract, not sure how successful these schemes are, and feel they also then dictate what you are having for your money.
OH Binky I do love a statistic!!!
