Renewable Energy Shows Strong Gain In U.S. (arstechnica.com) 285
WheezyJoe writes: According to the US Energy Information Administration, solar, wind, and gas dominate new US generating capacity in 2016. This year is notable because it will see the first new nuclear plant brought online in 20 years, contributing 1.1 GigaWatts to the grid. But that contribution will be dwarfed by renewable power sources, which together account for nearly two-thirds of 2016's new capacity. Part of the boom in renewables came because the tax incentives for their installation were in danger of expiring, so utilities rushed to get projects through the pipeline ahead of the end of the year. 9.5GW of capacity is expected to come online from solar -- more than the past three years combined. Another 6.8GW is expected from planned additions of wind power, largely spread across the Great Plains. Of new fossil fuel plants, the vast majority are going to be burning natural gas; there are no planned additions of coal plants.
Why gas? (Score:2)
Of new fossil fuel plants, the vast majority are going to be burning natural gas; there are no planned additions of coal plants.
Sure, natural gas produces less CO2 than coal, but doesn't it have smaller reserves? Also, I think natural gas is more useful.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"natural gas produces less CO2 than coal" It's more than that, coal also produces ash that ends up warming the snow it lands on by absorbing sunlight. Re: arctic.
Re:Why gas? (Score:5, Insightful)
"natural gas produces less CO2 than coal" It's more than that, coal also produces ash that ends up warming the snow it lands on by absorbing sunlight. Re: arctic.
Well fine, but if you're going to use natural gas, make sure you burn it and not just let it escape to the atmosphere. Sadly, the latter happens all-too-often. [pbs.org]
As a greenhouse gas, methane (the principal component of natural gas) is much worse than carbon dioxide.
Re:Why gas? (Score:5, Interesting)
The principle advantage I have seen claimed for natural gas other than the lower carbon content is that the generators used for natural gas in electricity production can be quickly ramped up and down to adapt to demand. A possible marginal benefit is that infrastructure for natural gas distribution in heating could also start mixing in biogas, perhaps even replacing it completely with a renewable. Also it is probably easier to get a PEM fuel cell to work on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure coal suppliers could also start mixing in simple solid biomass, too. Charcoal, in particular, comes to mind. So that's decidedly NOT an advantage of natural gas over coal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Over the course of perhaps a thousand years.
Where do you have your idiotic ideas from?
1.1 Gigawatts (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, so close. Just 110 megawatts short, Doc.
We could do better, much better (Score:5, Informative)
TFA tells us that in 2016, 18.1GW (9.5GW of solar and 8.6GW of wind) renewable energy is expected to come online in America
Very good
On the other hand ...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/... [bloomberg.com]
According to bloomberg's article
China eyes at least 15 gigawatts of solar power additions ...
... in the same year, China gonna have at least35GW of new renewable energy coming online
We could do better
In fact, we should do better
Re: (Score:3)
China has 4 times as many people.
But yes, we can do better. Especially if we can get the obstructionists to step down.
Re: (Score:2)
How about they stop subsidising renewable energy developments the very second after all fossil fuel subsidies and tax breaks stop and oh yeah, the fossil fuellers start paying tax instead of off shoring the profits in tax havens and oh yeah, and fossil fuel executives start going to jail for killing people with short cuts and oh yeah, fossil fuel companies pay for the total cost of the pollution they generate and oh yeah, fossil fuel companies pay the full liabilities of toxic incidents and oh yeah, fossil
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing is spending 2 to 3 trillion dollars and 4,000 young united states citizen's lives isn't even considered a subsidy for oil... and it is.
Sooner we reduce dependency on oil, the sooner ISIS and the like get starved out for cash.
We don't need to eliminate oil to do that. just a 5% reduction in consumption will do it. With storage as full as it is, even 1 to 2% will extend the decline by another year or two.
Personally, I find the republicans to be much more authoritarian than democrats.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing is spending 2 to 3 trillion dollars and 4,000 young united states citizen's lives isn't even considered a subsidy for oil... and it is.
There's a good reason it isn't. Because that money and lives spent would be vastly inefficient as a subsidy for oil. While the subsidies for renewable energy are pure. We're not making a fair comparison.
Sooner we reduce dependency on oil, the sooner ISIS and the like get starved out for cash.
It also starves nice people of cash. Global trade, including that of oil, is the number one tool for making everyone's lives better.
Re: (Score:2)
Expensive oil helps 5% of the population at the expense of the other 95%.
Yes, that money and lives spent are vastly ineffecient. But the oil companies have externalized their security costs onto the rest of the citizens.
If that 2 to 3 trillion dollars was paid by the oil companies instead, gasoline and oil products would be much higher. By having them paid for with taxes it provides the illusion that oil isn't as expensive as oil really is.
Re: (Score:2)
Expensive oil helps 5% of the population at the expense of the other 95%.
Then explain how "Funny thing is spending 2 to 3 trillion dollars and 4,000 young united states citizen's lives" had anything to do with making oil more expensive.
If that 2 to 3 trillion dollars was paid by the oil companies instead, gasoline and oil products would be much higher.
If that 2 to 3 trillion dollars was paid for by somebody's own money, then it would be much less (assuming they even wanted to invade Iraq instead of some lesser goal). And low "gasoline and oil products" would not be "expensive oil". You just claimed that these alleged subsidies made oil both more expensive and less expensive. Or even worse, that
Re: (Score:2)
And the number one tool for making everyone's lives worse. We abhor war, but apparently this is juuust fine.
Re: (Score:2)
And the number one tool for making everyone's lives worse.
If that is true, then you should have evidence of it, right?
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to get them to step down, stop subsidizing solar corporations with their money, you authoritarian fucktard.
Well, I was pretty much convinced of the opposite, but your cunning use of the word "fucktard" won me over to your line of reasoning.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We could do better, much better (Score:4, Informative)
Everybody but you thinks the U.S. economy is 70% larger than the Chinese economy.
The US economy is bigger is you compare using current exchange rates. If you instead use PPP [wikipedia.org], then China's economy is bigger. In many ways, PPP is a more meaningful comparison.
Not really dwarfed (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really dwarfed.
1.1 GW * 0.903 capacity factor [wikipedia.org] = 0.99 GW actual production by nuclear
9.5 GW * 0.145 capacity factor = 1.38 GW actual production by solar
6.8 GW * 0.25 capacity factor = 1.7 GW actual production by wind
I mean we get it, renewables = good. But comparing based on installed capacity is like comparing farmland based solely on land area, not how much of that land is actually arable.
Re: (Score:2)
I used to wish journalist wouldn't do this, and use the "enough to power X homes" energy measure, on principle (choosing that energy measure because it is easy enough for journalists to understand.) Now I wish they wouldn't do it just because of the number of replies it generates on Internet threads to point out the error.
Deliberate weasel comparison (Score:3, Insightful)
The above poster should be ashamed of their idealogical driven apples vs oranges comparison. This is supposed to be a tech site and not a political cheerleading site.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for how you improperly applied capacity factor to power (GW) rather than energy (GWh), you're basically right.
For your next assignment, though. consider the time of day the power is generated with the time of day the power is used. For example, it's all fine and good that a nuclear plant can produce 1.1GW with 90% uptime, but you generally don't need 1.1GW all the time anyway. The result is your nuclear plant spends a lot of time very under-utilized - a bad thing considering how expensive they are.
On
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps you like to explain to us what you actually want to express with that comparision of CFs?
Right now your post is as pointless as pointing out that Toyota mostly sold red cars and Crysler mainly black ones, so what?
Yep all 100% brand new. (Score:5, Informative)
They are talking about the Watts Bar Unit 2
They started building it back in 1973 then took a short lunch break in 1988 resumed work in 2007 and finished in 2015.
Since it was 80% done in 1988 that means at least 80% of the reactor unit is at least 27 years old now.
http://thebulletin.org/watts-b... [thebulletin.org]
http://www.latimes.com/busines... [latimes.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Still nice to see another plant online shame took 42 years to finish it especially since it was only given a 40 year operating licence.
Re: (Score:2)
Still nice to see another plant online shame took 42 years to finish it especially since it was only given a 40 year operating licence.
This is a misleading statement. From the wikipedia article you linked:
TVA declared construction substantially complete in August 2015 and requested that NRC staff proceed with the final licensing review; on October 22, the NRC approved a forty-year operating license for Unit 2...
So the license wasn't issued 42 years ago. Also, while 80% of the plant may have been complete in 1988, it was likely parts of the construction that don't factor into the lifetime of the reactor.
Re: (Score:2)
The other thing is the "new" nuclear designs like the AP1000 are really 1970s tech anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Does that mean its magical CF is only roughly 1%??
Great.... (Score:3, Funny)
I pass by a wind turbine on the way to work and it's been down for about six months now. It's Chinese built and the township can't get a part from the firm that built it.
They have received an offer to purchase the site. And no, Enron isn't the company that offered to purchase it.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you're not implying that, because of this one data point, wind turbines aren't a viable form of energy production. The lesson I'd tend to take home is that, as with anything else, buying junk from the lowest bidder may end up costing you more in the long run.
Yeesh, what's the world coming to when a Republican is defending green / alternative energy production?
Cool but so small (Score:2)
If my reading and math are good, this year will add 17.4 gigawatts of solar, wind, or nuclear. That's good, and it's also good that there will be no new coal plants this year. However, Wikipedia says that the United States uses 4 petawatt-hours of electricity per year. So I imagine we have a long way to go.
1.1 Gigawatts!? (Score:3)
This year is notable because it will see the first new nuclear plant brought online in 20 years, contributing 1.1 GigaWatts to the grid
How is THAT supposed to get us excited.... it's not even enough to power a single time-traveling DeLorean.
Welcome (Score:2)
I for one welcome our new clean energy overlords...
Great Scott! (Score:2)
This year is notable because it will see the first new nuclear plant brought online in 20 years, contributing 1.1 GigaWatts to the grid.
That's a missed marketing opportunity. They could probably have doubled support for nuclear power in this country overnight if they could have made it to 1.21 gigawatts instead.
Re:Geo Political Interference (Score:4, Funny)
Not to worry. The Koch Brothers will never permit renewables to overtake oil. Jesus loves oil and will send every single advocate or developer of renewal technologies to hell after having them assraped by demons. The Koch's will give Congress and State legislatures enough hookers and blow to create a new constitutional amendment allowing alternative energy researchers to be hunted down and killed for sport.
Re:Geo Political Interference (Score:5, Interesting)
The Koch Brothers will never permit renewables to overtake oil.
Turn on the TV and watch the news. The Kochs exercise their influence through the Republican Party establishment, which is in the process of being shredded by Donald Trump. The Republicans have thrived by building a coalition of social conservatives, who tend to be less educated middle class people, and economic conservatives that mostly do not share their interests, but control the political establishment. That coalition is collapsing. Trump doesn't give a crap about the establishment. In the general election, where he is almost certainly headed, he is going to hit Hillary from the right with social populism, and from the left with economic populism. As one pundit put it, Hillary's political machine is like a super-tanker ... that is about to be boarded by Somali pirates.
Donald may lose in November, but the Republican Party is going to be changed forever. Trump has shown that he can win without the party establishment, and that rank-and-file Republicans will vote for somebody that speaks their language and channels their anger, rather than someone that shares their ideology. Even this year, this change will have a big effect down-ballot, in house and senate races. The influence of people like the Koch brothers is fading. Their money certainly didn't do much to help Jeb Bush.
Re:Geo Political Interference (Score:5, Informative)
The Republicans have thrived by building a coalition of social conservatives, who tend to be less educated middle class people, and economic conservatives that mostly do not share their interests, but control the political establishment.
There are two types of Republicans: millionaires and suckers.
-- author unknown
Re: (Score:2)
I reserve the right to steal that and change it to:
There are two types of Tory, Millionaires and Suckers
Suckers' not very British is it.
Um...
and Idiots. ...
and Morons.
and The Gullible Working Classes
and The Racist Underclasses
and The Great Unwashed
I'll work on that.
Re: (Score:2)
and the hoi polloi - how's that?
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting because I know 0% of democrats will vote for Trump and I've seen *recent* polls (on 538.com) showing that 47% of republicans will stay home rather than vote for Trump.
I get the facist, authoritarian appeal of the man. It's scary because this is how democracies are lost. But... I don't think you can be elected with 53% of the republican vote.
OTH, the 35% who hate Hillary and would never vote for her are mostly republican anyway.
It's hard for me to judge between her and Bernie. Bernie is
Re:Geo Political Interference (Score:5, Informative)
Hillary supports expanding H1-B visas.
Bernie opposes the H1-B visa program.
Pretty obvious difference, which should matter a lot to this audience.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Geo Political Interference (Score:4, Insightful)
It's interesting because I know 0% of democrats will vote for Trump
Don't be so sure. Trump is a political chameleon, and on economic issues he is more of a left-wing populist than right wing. On trade, entitlements, etc. he is closer to Bernie Sanders than to the Republican mainstream. His supporters care less about what he says, and more about how he says it. So far, he has paid no consequences for flip-flopping, so he is free to adjust his positions to anything that appeals to the general electorate. If Hillary stumbles (or is indicted), she could easily lose.
Re:Geo Political Interference (Score:4, Interesting)
The way he is tearing into the other Republicans is more vicious than any comedy act - it's far stranger than fiction.
Re: (Score:2)
It's really bizzare that an extremely blatant liar is seen as "authentic",
It's because he doesn't speak the usual politico-speak. He doesn't tend to weasel word, preferring absolutes instead and he makes a big fuss about speaking "tough truths" a.k.a politicially incorrect stuff which others "dare" not speak. This all sounds qualatatively different from how politicians speak and politicians are considered as deeply untruthful. This is comibned with a big dose of rudeness, which is often mistaken for honesty
Re: (Score:3)
That's the incredibly weird thing since he says that after used car salesman tricks, blatant lies, deliberately insane fantasies and frequent backflips. That's the deliberate showmanship but for some reason people swallow it as authentic.
The even more strange thing is an old money born Republican who used his party contacts to get his balls out of the fire four times, not to mention exploiting it to get deals, is seen as an "outsider". A bit over as couple
Re: (Score:2)
That's the deliberate showmanship but for some reason people swallow it as authentic.
Yes, yes they do. I have several related hypotheses for why.
Firstly, people WANT to like Trump. Either way he's not a career politician and thus seen as less "establishment" than the others. And compared to, say, Jeb of the Bush dynasty, he IS less of the establishment. Combine that with people being absolutely sick to the back teeth of the slew of usual candidates. The established parties (doesn't really matter which) just
Re: (Score:2)
> So there you go, that's why I think people are so in favour of Trump
Absolutely. The question is not "why Trump" as much as "why the rest of the party can't do anything about it". There is utter dread in the GOP, although that might have been replaced by resignation by this morning, and yet they haven't managed to do a thing.
> The established parties (doesn't really matter which) just keep on offering more and more of the same
I don't think one can possibly consider Bernie to be "more of the same". Ye
Re: (Score:2)
In short: honesty is often rude, but rude is not often honest.
Re: (Score:2)
More than that, you have reliably conservative publications openly deriding him [nationalreview.com] as a "Dorito-tinted proto-fascist" and declaring that anyone who endorses him is a political whore in editorials.
Strange times, indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
> It's interesting because I know 0% of democrats will vote for Trump and I've seen *recent* polls (on 538.com)
> showing that 47% of republicans will stay home rather than vote for Trump
But what is the number that wouldn't vote for one of the others?
> OTH, the 35% who hate Hillary and would never vote for her are mostly republican anyway.
I'm not sure about that. I do however, *believe* that the numbers are in her favour in this respect. That is, the number of traditional republicans who won't vote
Re: Geo Political Interference (Score:2)
Those polls are interesting, but like the head-to-head matchups, they mean little this early. There are still major factors left, like vice presidential picks, that can shift things. Trump looks like he might be picking Christie (he's been in Trump's presence for a few days now), which could be helpful, though maybe not enough to head off a Clinton victory. Clinton could make an abysmal choice on a Palin level, which would definitely shift things towards the Republican nominee, though that kind of pick is u
Re: (Score:2)
I don't like the idea of trading two billionaires who are pulling the puppet strings for one billionaire loudmouth asshole, personally. It would be interesting to watch, if I wasn't afraid that it will end the Republic as we know it.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely you must admit that Jesus loves oil more than all other energies, and that irreparable harm will be done to the Koch's investment port... er I mean the economy if we should ever move from fossil fuels. How can you possibly argue with the fact that it evil communists want to kill freedom with wind farms and solar panels. Such people should be tortured, executed, and mutilated bodies driven down the road to show that Congress and God will not tolerate communist energy production methods.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Burn it all down, so the Russians can't have it. "
Why WOULDN'T we want the Russians to have the Middle East? After a few generations of good old colonial exploitation, the ME will have completely forgotten about hating the US and, depending on the effectiveness of Russia's indoctrination and cultural reprogramming, could emerge as the "India" of the 23rd or 24th century.
Re: (Score:2)
Talk about your poisoned chalice.
Oh go oooon. Look at all the oil!
And gold!
Who them? Friendly locals, nothing to worry about...
Re:No tax breaks ? (Score:5, Informative)
Aren't you also interested in seeing if the coal industry and the oil industry are able to continue without tax breaks?
http://www.taxpayer.net/librar... [taxpayer.net]
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/... [usnews.com]
http://www.investopedia.com/ar... [investopedia.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't you also interested in seeing if the coal industry and the oil industry are able to continue without tax breaks?
http://www.taxpayer.net/librar... [taxpayer.net]
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/... [usnews.com]
http://www.investopedia.com/ar... [investopedia.com]
And that's a wrap! AC down below has forgotten - or refuses to account for the huge amount of subsidies received by Coal, Oil and Natgas.
Now of course, the crowning acievement of subsidized energy Nookyalar! http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-... [ucsusa.org]
https://lucian.uchicago.edu/bl... [uchicago.edu]
I'm not even anti-nuc, but dammit, I'll wager a cup of crap that they are "free market" advocates. Those billions for that, and the taxpayers bearing the reisks of nuc plants sounds like the invisible hand of the free market is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Quite a lot but that discussion has been going on for a couple of decades and the investors know what they are in for. High maintenance costs and short periods between required shutdowns but zero fuel costs. At some point a bit over ten years ago it balanced out and became viable.
Re:Everyready (Score:4, Insightful)
Another article talking 'capacity' but not talking about how many MWh's each source will actually produce. Capacity alone is a meaningless unit. Natural Gas is the biggest addition by far in terms of how much electricity will be produced.
First it was this is physically impossible.
then it was there isn't enough wind or solar - Germany is sunnier than the USA.
Now it's not about capacity, but how much is being produced at any given moment?
Hey - we'll get off your lawn, mister.
Re: (Score:2)
First it was this is physically impossible.
First, they ignore us.
then it was there isn't enough wind or solar - Germany is sunnier than the USA.
Then they laugh at us.
Now it's not about capacity, but how much is being produced at any given moment?
Then they fight us.
Hey - we'll get off your lawn, mister.
Then we win.
Re: (Score:2)
Then we win.
One of my favorites!
It's just a shame there are so many buggy whippers on Slashdot.
Meanwhile, the solar panels and wind turbines go up. Meanwhile they go on line. Meanwhile the EV's roll out. And if you dont like them, its okay to lie: http://techland.time.com/2013/... [time.com]
I think this pretty much sums up the state of the altenergy deniers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
That should be an obligitory link on all of these threads.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You know, there's also this thing called "insulation." All you have to do if you want to be adequately warm (or cool, for that matter) without requiring a lot of energy is not build your dwelling with the idea that it's perfectly ok to allow heat to leak between your building's interior and the great outdoors. The tech is fully up to it, and it isn't even expensive. it *does* require actual thinking, so we don't see it much, but to imply that one must shiver or sweat "because wind/solar"... it just isn't tr
Re: (Score:2)
With nukes those fuel rods are decaying over time no matter what you do so that's another reason to have them run flat out until it's time to shut down for maintainance or refuelling.
Wind, gas, solar etc with their very small unit sizes and very low cost of keeping in reserve take up the slack. Opponents of those energy types like to pretend that such things are inferior because they are capable of bei
Re:Everyready (Score:5, Informative)
With nukes those fuel rods are decaying over time no matter what you do so that's another reason to have them run flat out until it's time to shut down for maintainance or refuelling.
Technically, yes they decay, but no it doesn't actually have a significant effect. U235 (the fissile fuel in enriched uranium) has a half life of 700 million years, so even if you waited that long, you'd still have half the fuel left. MOX uses a mix of U235, Pu239, and U233. The shortest (Pu239) has a half life of 24,000 years, so even if you left it standing for 100 years, you'd still have 99.7% of the plutonium left. The other sort-of fuel is U238, which absorbs a neutron turning into Pu239 which is a fuel during the reactor operation. U238 has a half life of 4.5 billion years.
In other words, you can leave the fuel sitting around for human timescales without a problem or significant loss.
eg. worshippers of 1970s nuke tech who say we should build dozens of nukes now instead of incremental improvement then dozens of nukes that may be half-decent
I do wish we had 2010 eara nuke plants.
Re: (Score:3)
With nukes those fuel rods are decaying over time no matter what you do so that's another reason to have them run flat out until it's time to shut down for maintainance or refuelling.
Technically, yes they decay, but no it doesn't actually have a significant effect. U235 (the fissile fuel in enriched uranium) has a half life of 700 million years, so even if you waited that long, you'd still have half the fuel left. MOX uses a mix of U235, Pu239, and U233. The shortest (Pu239) has a half life of 24,000 years, so even if you left it standing for 100 years, you'd still have 99.7% of the plutonium left. The other sort-of fuel is U238, which absorbs a neutron turning into Pu239 which is a fuel during the reactor operation. U238 has a half life of 4.5 billion years.
In other words, you can leave the fuel sitting around for human timescales without a problem or significant loss.
Unused fuel rods don't decay much, it's true, but once you start using them, they fill up with short-lived fission products which will decay and produce heat at a high level over days and weeks, even if you quench the fission reaction entirely. You have to remove that heat (which is why some form of cooling is needed in nuke plants for weeks after they shut down to stop the fuel melting or burning) and so it is economically very desirable to use it to generate power and to use that power.
So using a fission
Re: (Score:2)
Good point.
Re:Everyready (Score:5, Interesting)
> So using a fission reactor to respond to day or week long variations in demand is horribly inefficient and expensive
That depends on the plant design. The US midwest does just this because they're using the Westinghouse reactors that throttle daily. France does it because they have all of their plants on a national grid and can do some really fancy load following that wouldn't be possible elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have links? I'd be interested in knowing more about the Westinghouse designs in particular.
Re: (Score:2)
In those situations it's either the act of an ignorant fanboy (eg. worshippers of 1970s nuke tech who say we should build dozens of nukes now instead of incremental improvement then dozens of nukes that may be half-decent) or deliberate lies. Stuff like that derails discussions especially when someone like the GP only talks about a single energy source in what is supposed to be a complementary mix.
The contrariness is probably a little bit of both. I often get bitchslapped based on my ideas for modern nuc power stations, as in small, least stressed designs in many locations. That has the advantage of safer design, less loss over the lines, and strategic robustness. But no, we have to make them balls to the wall, and as few as possible. It was a lot of fun arguing with my nucE friends. Those guys I can have a good discussion with. In here it tends toward me just being called a jerk or worse. Or a scien
Re: (Score:2)
The second and third part of your comments are the same.
I propose stacked solar panels. We'll just put them on top of each other thus improving the capacity per square meter. No longer will our 1GW solar farm need several acres of land, we can do it in 1sqm with a sufficiently high tower.
Re: (Score:2)
I know you're joking but we are actually doing that in a way. The upper limit of efficiency for a solar cell is about 30% - and we're still about 10% below that on even the best experimental designs.
So how do we make solar panels that have higher efficiency than that ? By layering cells on top of each other, so the second layer will use some of the photons that the first layer let through etc. etc.
I believe (but I may be wrong) that the common commercial panels these days use three-layer cells.
Re: (Score:2)
> I believe (but I may be wrong) that the common commercial panels these days use three-layer cells.
You are wrong. The VAST majority of cells are single-layer silicon. There are a few exceptions, but they are used solely in niche applications - Unisolar's three-layer aSi was flexible (was, they are now bankrupt), while Boeing and Emcore make three-layer GaAs cells for aerospace use. Practically everything else is a single layer, whether it be Si or CdTe.
Re: (Score:2)
The inefficiency is not in in photos going through un-absorbed, but a consequence of thermodynamics: Solar panels get hot, and heat reduces their efficiency. You can even see this effect in action: manufacturers publish data on their panels on how their open circuit voltage varies with temperature! This is important to know when designing systems since, on a really cold day, system voltages can get high enough to damage equipment if not taken into consideration.
IIRC the only work done on multi-layer PV was
Re: (Score:3)
No it is not. Especially it has nothing to do with "Laws of Thermodynamics" at all.
Solar PV cells are energy conversion devices and are absolutely subject to thermodynamic efficiency limits. At no point is the conversion of photon to electrical potential energy 100% efficient, nor can it be.
If photons below the band gap threshold can't be absorbed, that's just another problem hindering efficiency in a practical application.
And yes, the efficiency of a PV cell is dependent on temperature: Actively cooled panels perform better than passively cooled panels. Output voltage can vary by as much
Re: (Score:2)
Update your figures. There are no less than 3 companies manufacturing panels above 20% efficiency, two of which are shipping in volume:
http://www.greentechmedia.com/... [greentechmedia.com]
Panasonic and SunPower are at 22.x% efficiency and shipping. SolarCity / Silevo have manufactured at small scale a 22% panel, and are building a HUGE factory in New York to mass produce.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no real upper limit for the efficiency of solar cells (except you take 100% as the limit). ...
Commercial cells are all around 20%. High end cells (galium arsenid or telurium based) are between 40% to 45%.
Multiple layers wont help. Convertion of photons into electricity depends on 'the colour' of the light. It is not so that half if the photons miss, and can be used in another layer. I is so that most photons 'don't fit' to cause an electron to jump into the current
Was that layman enough?
Re: (Score:2)
In Germany, power utilities are MANDATED to buy power from solar roofs for MORE than those same power utilities sell it to BACK to you.
That's not really true anymore. The current feed in rate is something like one third of the residential electricity rate. The rates were progressively decreased in line with solar capital costs decreases.
Re: (Score:3)
The current feed in rates are still far above competition. Especialky for old plants.
Only new set up solar plants have lower rates, and they are still high enough to make building new plants competitive.
Re:Germany, where you can sell your power for more (Score:5, Insightful)
Electricity production was and is a highly subsidized area of the economy. They funded up nuclear and they will have to subsidize the storage of nuclear wast for centuries to come. They subsidize coal in Germany, which is totally counter productive if you want to phase the shit out. Anyway, to give solar and wind a chance they subsidize it. While the subsidize model for renewables is not perfect, it resulted in an improvement in efficiency in production and cost. Nowadays in production a MWh is cheaper coming from a on shore wind turbine than from a coal plant.
Apart from our government which is unable to have a plan, we will make this move to renewables in the decades to come. FYI: Denmark will reach this level in 2020 and the north German state of Schleswig-Holstein produced more energy from wind power than they consumed. And they assume that they will able to triple the output in 2025 selling the surplus to the other countries and states to the south.
The main issue at the moment in energy management and storage, but we will find a way to solve these issues.
Re:Germany, where you can sell your power for more (Score:5, Insightful)
Socialism. It'll hang on a bit longer than Communism. A bit longer.
Holy smoke AC. Most of the world would kill to have the economic prowess of little Germany.
Better look at some of the numbers before you open your mouth to insert your foot.
Re: (Score:2)
Holy smoke AC. Most of the world would kill to have the economic prowess of little Germany.
No problem, all you need is a shared currency to keep appreciation down while you run an export economy to have a favorable balance of trade.
Re: (Score:2)
Holy smoke AC. Most of the world would kill to have the economic prowess of little Germany.
No problem, all you need is a shared currency to keep appreciation down while you run an export economy to have a favorable balance of trade.
Huh, I thought that the invisible hand of Laissez-faire economics was the only system that could ever work. Who knew?
Re:Germany, where you can sell your power for more (Score:5, Informative)
We are not so good at World Wars and Empires. Therefore, we decided to have a smaller military and spend the money on social and ecological stuff. After all we have (or had) the image of being good engineers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> It still isn't, but for the huge subsidies on both production and demand side
Ugh. Another claim utterly devoid of numbers presented as if it's true. This is in spite of the numbers being in the linked article and trivially easy to compute. DO THE FUGGING MATH. Here are the production-adjusted CAPEXs:
Natgas: $1.00 / .45 CF = $2.22 effective .35 CF = $4.30 effective .20 CF = $7.50 effective .95 = $8.40 effective
Wind: $1.50 /
Solar: $1.50 /
Nuclear: $8.00 /
That means wind is about double the expensive of a
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how much Wind would cost if every wind installation faced numerous lawsuits at every stage of construction, as well as environment studies that take 5 years to complete and are litigated multiple times.
Nuclear is expensive because people have succeeded in making it expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how much Wind would cost if every wind installation faced numerous lawsuits
It would cost a lot more. But wind faces less opposition, because if a wind turbine fails, nobody gets irradiated and no land gets poisoned.
Nuclear is expensive because people have succeeded in making it expensive.
And rightly so -- people succeeded in making it expensive because if it ever fails, it's an unrecoverable disaster that renders entire counties uninhabitable. The one thing you don't want is a a cheap, shoddy, half-assed nuclear plant that was built by the lowest bidder.
Re: (Score:2)
Most lawsuits don't have anything to do with the actual construction or safety, but with the bureaucratic process.
Don't dot the I's or cross the T's and it's millions and millions in delays. It's a game the environmentalists have learned well. And wind, if subjected to the same abuse would see skyrocketing costs.
Re:Everyready (Score:5, Insightful)
You spout make-belief.
(1) It was never 'physically impossible', it was not very practical.
Depends on who you were talking to. A lot of folks I've dealt with in that past considered lead-acid cells the alpha and Omega of electric vehicles, IOW, golf carts.
It still isn't, but for the huge subsidies on both production and demand side.
We'll chat about that after the subsidies go away for all.
(2) Germany has a surplus for a few hours. For the other part of the day, they import nuclear from France and Sweden.
That's how progress works. None of this stuff spouts fully formed from the ocean like Venus, and if we demand it does, we won't get anywhere.
While once upon a time we had some things like Bell Labs doing research, modern US corporatism is too risk averse to fund basic science and startups that are as likely to fail as succeed.
But as more and more of this activity is shifted to countries who are willing to put in the basic research, we'll just sit back and become an also-ran.
Re: (Score:3)
There are plenty if links where you can watch Germanies import and export of power in real time ;)
You are an idiot.
Re:Everyready (Score:5, Informative)
> First it was this is physically impossible.
The idea that renewables cannot supply power 24/7 and that the grid could not handle a fully renewables is trivially easy to find. I assume you simply couldn't be bothered to google it because many examples come up in the first page of hits:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323699704578328581251122150
http://www.businessinsider.com/green-energy-isnt-compatible-with-us-power-grid-2013-12
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/02/nation/la-na-grid-renewables-20131203
And my favourite:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/designing-the-grid-for-renewables/
Which starts with "Americans have been repeatedly told a series of lies about accommodating renewables onto the power grid: That it can't handle large amounts of intermittent power generation. That standby fossil-fueled capacity must be maintained at 100 percent of demand for those times when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. That brownouts and blackouts will inevitably result from depending on renewables. That nuclear is the only power source that can meet our needs in the future. And so on."
This has, of course, been widely debunked by, literally, hundreds of studies.
> Germany is sunnier than the USA.
This was a widely spread meme from a while back, the argument being made that it is not possible for the US to replicate Germany's policies because Germany is sunnier, which is, of course, very much opposite of the truth:
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/08/fox-news-can-you-get-any-more-insane-germany-is-sunnier-than-the-us-video/
If you're not even aware of *this* story, you're clearly not interested in the power industry, which leads me to ask why are you here?
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, solar capacity factor in Germany is still around 10%, and their best solar plants only reach around 13 or 14%.
Re: (Score:3)
And what exactly do you want to tell us with noting CFs of german solar plants (which are wrong, btw)?
For me your statement: By the way, solar capacity factor in Germany is still around 10%, and their best solar plants only reach around 13 or 14%. bears no meaning. It is as if I would say: at night it is colder than outside.
Re:Clean Coal (Score:5, Informative)
> Clean coal technology is carbon neutral
a) it doesn't exist
b) no it isn't, obviously.
> actually much better for the environment that producing solar panels
No it isn't, as has been widely and repeatedly demonstrated.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf
> massive amounts of energy and dangerous chemicals
Neither is true. A cleanser used in the factory is a hazardous material, but it is contained within the factory (unless you believe the stories from China) and has no downstream risk.
http://solarindustrymag.com/online/issues/SI1309/FEAT_05_Hazardous_Materials_Used_In_Silicon_PV_Cell_Production_A_Primer.html
> We actually replaced two electric furnaces in our house with a pair of coal stoves
Which isn't clean coal by any means. However, given that heating coal is actually rather hard to get in lots of places these days I'm guessing you're writing from Ireland or the UK. Having been coal heated in the former, and having to suffer through continuous asthma as a result, anyone describing coal as clean is having a serious case of cognitive dissonance, is lying, is a shill, a troll, or some combination thereof.
Re: (Score:2)
You are still burning carbon chains, and that carbon is still going up the pipe. You are still releasing different oxidized gases. You are still letting lose unscrubbed particulate matter. And, that coal isn't just found laying on the ground somewhere, it still has to be dug out of a mountain, which isn't exactly the picture of 'clean' either.
Your definition of "clean" is far different than many others.
Re: Clean Coal (Score:5, Insightful)
Shill and idiot. You're stove took energy to produce too. And you know what it doesn't produce clean energy. Where as solar does.
Like you, I disagree strongly with the idea that coal is somehow 'cleaner' than solar energy etc, but I don't think it is justified to start calling people idiots for stating their views, even if they appear uninformed. But what I REALLY take issue with is when people are modded 'Troll' simply because they have a different opinion; that is the stupidest way to respond, no better than schoolyard bullying. Insults and bullying can only hurt the viewpoint you appear to be supporting.