17 comments on Photovoltaic Contribution to UK Electricity
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
17 comments on Photovoltaic Contribution to UK Electricity
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Another problem would be land - the panels should be near power lines and access roads and equipment and technological distances between solar batteries will most likely at least double the land requirements.
In conclusion I think it is obvious that to initiate such a program at the current state of the technology would be madness. 38 bln per year is the price tag of good 20-25 nuclear reactors that would replace our whole NG usage just for a couple of years.
This money will offset the upkeep costs and a proportion will have to go towards the purchase of the 'next generation' in 25 years time.
However I think the direction of the question is not so much; "Can we afford to do this sort of thing"
but more
"Can we afford NOT to do this sort of thing.."
If the area Chris describes was made up of (primarily) roofing on houses. If the householder was given tax incentives to install PV / CHP / Small Wind - then all of these really big numbers become divided by millions at a stroke, and then begin to make a difference.
Solar in isolation is not the answer (just like Gas or nuclear...) but increasing the mix is (IMHO) a valid initiative.
Chris's calculation shows that the cost of the solar energy derived this way would be some 20p/kwth. I just added that this cost will likely never come down (absent a technology breakthrough) because of the maintainance and replacement costs. Whether concentrated in large solar farms or subsidised by us taxpayers individual panels on the rooftops doesn't really matter - someone will be paying for it.
Now I think the real question we should ask the people is are they willing to pay 20p/kwth and more? I suspect that the answer will be "hell no". People would accept some small scale solar plants, but once the bills grow to unbearable heights the pressure will grow towards the cheaper sources and there is the chance that solar will be compromised completely. I think something similar is happening in Germany and Denmark which have already gone well down this path.
The bottom line is that it is not the time yet for this - subsidised small scale to stimulate the development of the technology - yes; large scale plants or "rooftop" programs - I don't think so.
However even then other electricity generation techniques may end up being significantly cheaper permanently relegating PV to niche applications.
Nevertheless I support photovaltaics as much as I support nuclear fusion (and maybe even more). And just like with fusion I would object to spend disproportional share of our limited resources for an unproven technology that can turn out to be a dead end.