Solar panel the country?
Discussion
The amounts of money touted regarding building the new Hinckley Point reactor sound insane to me.
Wouldn't it be possible to use that money instead to put solar panels on all the residential (who agree to it) and office buildings? Would the electricity harvested be enough to delay the need for such a reactor? Obviously there are limitations with Solar, but if you then consider how much more cash people would have in their pockets vs the tariff they are talking about for Hinckley, is this really a crazy idea!?
Wouldn't it be possible to use that money instead to put solar panels on all the residential (who agree to it) and office buildings? Would the electricity harvested be enough to delay the need for such a reactor? Obviously there are limitations with Solar, but if you then consider how much more cash people would have in their pockets vs the tariff they are talking about for Hinckley, is this really a crazy idea!?
Back of an envelope calculation here.
Average domestic solar installation averages about 0.5 kw (varying between zero and 5KW according to light levels) and costs around £6000. So around £12 per watt.
Hinckley C is expected to cost around £18 billion and produce 3,200,000 KW on demand> So around £6 per watt.
Average domestic solar installation averages about 0.5 kw (varying between zero and 5KW according to light levels) and costs around £6000. So around £12 per watt.
Hinckley C is expected to cost around £18 billion and produce 3,200,000 KW on demand> So around £6 per watt.
I make no claims as to the efficacy of this data, was from here
However if Hinckley & the solar you're talking about are comparable then solar fails massively on EROI & cost compared to nuclear (and everything else!).
7 is economical break even, 1 is energy in the above graph.
And that's before you fix the dispatchability issue,
regards,
Jet
Dr Jekyll said:
Back of an envelope calculation here.
Average domestic solar installation averages about 0.5 kw (varying between zero and 5KW according to light levels) and costs around £6000. So around £12 per watt.
Hinckley C is expected to cost around £18 billion and produce 3,200,000 KW on demand> So around £6 per watt.
Interestingly, this article talks about £37Bn rather than £18Bn ( https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/07/hi... ). I have no idea regards anyones agenda in that article, but if that were so, it'd be about equal £/watt!Average domestic solar installation averages about 0.5 kw (varying between zero and 5KW according to light levels) and costs around £6000. So around £12 per watt.
Hinckley C is expected to cost around £18 billion and produce 3,200,000 KW on demand> So around £6 per watt.
ReallyReallyGood said:
Interestingly, this article talks about £37Bn rather than £18Bn ( https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/07/hi... ). I have no idea regards anyones agenda in that article, but if that were so, it'd be about equal £/watt!
Even if they cost the same, one produces it's power on demand, the other is highly variable and produces nothing at night.To my simple brain solar must surely be the energy source of the future considering the planet is bombarded with limitless amounts of the stuff, and we know how to convert it into useful energy.
However, it seems today's technology is some way off being a viable solution for the UK unless we can find a way to store it or transport it. It's probably quite unlikely we'll be using today's energy technology in 50 years time so it would be risky to commit to one particular solution.
It looks like what'll happen is there will be all sorts of different energy sources for different parts of the planet. A lot of Australia could use solar while Iceland uses geothermal, for example.
The best thing about that is that by looking at multiple, local solutions for the short term, we're far more likely to figure out a global long-term solution. It's a hell of a challenge for the STEM folk.
However, it seems today's technology is some way off being a viable solution for the UK unless we can find a way to store it or transport it. It's probably quite unlikely we'll be using today's energy technology in 50 years time so it would be risky to commit to one particular solution.
It looks like what'll happen is there will be all sorts of different energy sources for different parts of the planet. A lot of Australia could use solar while Iceland uses geothermal, for example.
The best thing about that is that by looking at multiple, local solutions for the short term, we're far more likely to figure out a global long-term solution. It's a hell of a challenge for the STEM folk.
paulrockliffe said:
Even if they cost the same, one produces it's power on demand, the other is highly variable and produces nothing at night.
Yes but I'm not talking about making the UK Solar-only, just as a replacement for Hinckley C. Burn more coal/gas at night!Edited by ReallyReallyGood on Monday 15th August 13:13
What you forget with your proposal is that Hinkley is a government project.
Your suggested solar panels, replacing Hinkley, will also be a government project.
Therefore, the £6000 per solar installation will, after allowing for the efficiency created by a government tendering and management process, be closer to £36,000.
Your suggested solar panels, replacing Hinkley, will also be a government project.
Therefore, the £6000 per solar installation will, after allowing for the efficiency created by a government tendering and management process, be closer to £36,000.
Flooble said:
What you forget with your proposal is that Hinkley is a government project.
Your suggested solar panels, replacing Hinkley, will also be a government project.
Therefore, the £6000 per solar installation will, after allowing for the efficiency created by a government tendering and management process, be closer to £36,000.
Your suggested solar panels, replacing Hinkley, will also be a government project.
Therefore, the £6000 per solar installation will, after allowing for the efficiency created by a government tendering and management process, be closer to £36,000.
That is a very good - and depressing - point.
ReallyReallyGood said:
Yes but I'm not talking about making the UK Solar-only, just as a replacement for Hinckley C. Burn more coal/gas at night!
I really would like to think that we've progressed beyond the point where we rely on digging things out of the ground and setting fire to them to produce our energy. Coal seems so Victorian!
jas xjr said:
i have an idea. it is to do with energy generation . it is simple technology and does not need much development. trying to find the best organisation to approach.
i do not want to patent it , i would rather approach a company and sell the idea under an nda.
any ideas?
git hubi do not want to patent it , i would rather approach a company and sell the idea under an nda.
any ideas?
jas xjr said:
i have an idea. it is to do with energy generation . it is simple technology and does not need much development. trying to find the best organisation to approach.
i do not want to patent it , i would rather approach a company and sell the idea under an nda.
any ideas?
Kickstarter or equivalent.i do not want to patent it , i would rather approach a company and sell the idea under an nda.
any ideas?
ReallyReallyGood said:
paulrockliffe said:
Even if they cost the same, one produces it's power on demand, the other is highly variable and produces nothing at night.
Yes but I'm not talking about making the UK Solar-only, just as a replacement for Hinckley C. Burn more coal/gas at night!Edited by ReallyReallyGood on Monday 15th August 13:13
Both of these are reasons why idiots argue that wind and solar are viable; by forcing them into the mix they push up the price of normal power generation so that the renewables then look almost reasonable once you've added some subsidies. In the end all that happens is that it costs more to do stuff and hurts our economy, while benefiting developing economies who haven't got embroiled in this crap.
Monty Python said:
I think the biggest problem at the moment is not power generation but power storage. You can generate all the electricity you want but if the demand isn't there, what can you do? If demand suddenly increases but it's not windy/sunny, where is the power going to come from?
The largest short term storage system we have in the UK is the Dinorwig Pumped storage facility, which is only 9GWhrs and 1.7GW (peak).You would only have to run Hinkley Point C at half power for just 6 hrs and it would be full.......
(And it cost £425M in the late 1970's early 1980s to build......)
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff