Global solar panel glut

[reddog]

Must admit I am a big fan of Tim Morgan and Chris Martenson, who both continually rubbish renewals due to a low EROEI (I.e. the technology doesn't not look that good when you consider the amount of energy used as an input vs the amount of energy that is outputted over the life time of the solar panel or windturbine).

 

Did a bit of googling, and there does not seem to be too much info on this subject for solar panels.  This report though says the EROEI is very low (intact it says a panel requires more energy to produce it, than it will produce in 25 years):

http://euanmearns.com/the-energy-return-of-solar-pv/

 

Any comments?  Obviously I am happy to be corrected.

 

[Ballyk]

Wind turbines take ~ 6 months to pay back the energy that goes into their production and installation (varies slightly with wind turbine type and location).

Solar panels installed in Southern Europe take between 0.5 years and 1.4 years to pay back, and under 3 years in Northern Europe where there is less radiation.

Google 'energy payback time' for more info.

[reddog]

21 minutes ago, Ballyk said:

Wind turbines take ~ 6 months to pay back the energy that goes into their production and installation (varies slightly with wind turbine type and location).

Solar panels installed in Southern Europe take between 0.5 years and 1.4 years to pay back, and under 3 years in Northern Europe where there is less radiation.

Google 'energy payback time' for more info.

I googled it, and you are right, it comes back with the figures you say, which look very good.

 

But still when I google to EROEI, those figures look very bad.

 

I suspect that they are not measuring the same thing (maybe EPBT is not measuring absolutely every energy input?)

 

I need to go away and do some research to find out why the discrepancy exists.

[Peter Hun]

It doesn't make any sense that the energy used in production exceeds that produced over its lifetime.  If it was true it would mean the manufacturer is giving it away below the cost of production.

If the payback time for solar is 2 years, it means the energy cost of production is 12x (2x12=24 years minimum life-time of solar cells) the sale price.

If solar cell  manufacturers have access to energy at 1/12 or less the price available to use, why don't they give up making solar and sell their unlimited low cost energy source?

Edited December 31, 2016 by Peter Hun

[mattyboy1973]

1 hour ago, Peter Hun said:

If solar cell  manufacturers have access to energy at 1/12 or less the price available to use, why don't they give up making solar and sell their unlimited low cost energy source?

It could still make sense (even though it doesn't apply here). It is quite common for industries that require a lot of energy to site themselves somewhere just because of energy cost/availability - aluminium smelting comes to mind, as a process that uses an extraordinary amount of energy - some of them have even built their own hydro power stations. The wider point being that electricity is not particularly portable, so it can be cheaper in some places than others. For example, imagine a solar farm somewhere hot and empty, set up specifically to serve a solar panel factory.

[spunko2010]

10 hours ago, Ballyk said:

Tesla stock appears very expensive compared to say Daimler (Mercedes).

However, Tesla has some big advantages - 

1.  It can produce batteries at much lower costs than competitors.  It is building its big battery 'gigafactory' which will massively reduce costs.  Other carmakers are dependant on battery suppliers with currently higher costs;

2.  It is far ahead of the opposition in terms of understanding battery / electric motor technology.  Its Model S was launched in 2012 and nobody has come up with a car that even gets close to its range or performance.  Meanwhile Tesla just keeps getting better;

3.  Its cars are very much 'computerised' and most of the 'fleet' are feeding back to Tesla massive data on the miles they have driven.  No other carmaker has this connection with their fleet, and it gives Tesla a big advantage when it comes to developing self driving technology.  Google and others may be attempting to create self driving cars, but they do not have 100,000 cars feeding back data to them;

4.  Tesla owns all its dealers.  Therefore 100% of the profit of their cars is captured by the company (including sales of pre-owned cars);

5.  They might not enjoy an 'economies of scale' advantage in mainstream components, but they sell more automotive 'battery power' than any other manufacturer.  Nissan sells more Leafs, but the value of Tesla's sales of electric cars dwarfs Nissan due to their higher prices and the Tesla batteries are much larger.  BMW / Mercedes, etc really need to drive volumes of their electric cars to achieve battery / electric motor economies but they are very much a niche for them;

6.  Tesla will start producing their 'mass market' Model 3 late next year which will bring their volumes up to 500,000 in a couple of years, about 25% of what BMW / Mercedes do in total currently.  2016 Tesla sales will be about 80,000.  They will keep growing, and largely without any paid advertising.

So I would say Tesla has a bright future.  I have a fair number of Tesla shares, for full disclosure.  The argument against is of course that they face huge competition from the currently highly profitable and cash generating likes of BMW and Mercedes.  This is true, but in my view the incumbents will see a lot of red ink if they start writing off their investment in engine factories, etc, and will be left behind by not having a full grip on the electric technology, or a real commitment to it.

 

One key factor that Tesla fans overlook is that their cars are bland and insipid to look at to most people. The S looks like a Ssang Yong.

[spyguy]

12 hours ago, Ballyk said:

Wind turbines take ~ 6 months to pay back the energy that goes into their production and installation (varies slightly with wind turbine type and location).

Solar panels installed in Southern Europe take between 0.5 years and 1.4 years to pay back, and under 3 years in Northern Europe where there is less radiation.

Google 'energy payback time' for more info.

Im a fan of off shore wind turbines.

Less so of onshore ones.

Im waiting to see who the Dogger bank wind farm turns out.

Couple windymills with wave power and I reckon the UK will be sorted.

Shove in some Nuclear plants too - just in case. Why cannot the nuclear industry pull its finger and sort itself out FFS?

Bury the waste in the middle of the Sahara.

[Simon Taylor]

On 31/12/2016 at 4:29 AM, StainlessSteelCat said:

I can't see demand decreasing as the price decreases personally. I reckon solar will be the energy equivalent of mobile in Africa once it gets cheap enough i.e. they won't bother with a traditional infrastructure approach.  We're definitely on a path where it'll be feasible to install in the UK - even without a feed-in tariff/optimal positioning - and that's great news. Add in growing numbers of electric cars - and the potential to use them as storage for excess capacity - and I think we'll be looking at more and more people saying sayonara to the grid in the 2020s.  One day, perhaps it'll seem as bonkers to rely on a grid to supply your energy (and pay a standing charge for it) as the BBC's licence fee currently does to some of us. 

It already is.  For a business with a large daytime use,  solar on the roof of a warehouse,  factory,  chill plant,  hospital etc,  solar PV makes perfect commercial sense without any subsidy.  Current installed prices for systems 50kWp plus  deliver electricity at around 5p/kWh (for a min 25 years) versus 10-12p/kWh from the grid.  Go above 500kWp and the price goes below 4p.  If demand at site suddenly rises,  to charge a fleet of electric cars or vans,  for example,  solar PV is the cheapest and quickest way to meet that additional demand.  Just think what grid electricity will cost in 10,  15,  25 years time and you can see why a business would see an investment in solar as a long term,  strategic investment in competitiveness rather than a chance to signal green virtues.

The solar fields which grew so quickly with generous subsidies don't make sense without them - you have to pay for the land on which they sit and then pay substantial connection and transmission costs to feed into the grid - but solar on commercial rooftops and over car parks is good business and is no longer about harvesting subsidies.  

Meanwhile,  in the UAE desert,  solar is producing electricity at around 2.5p/kWp...

 

https://www.mypoweruk.com/news/a-new-800mw-scheme-in-dubai-new-low-cost/

[spunko2010]

1 hour ago, Simon Taylor said:

It already is.  For a business with a large daytime use,  solar on the roof of a warehouse,  factory,  chill plant,  hospital etc,  solar PV makes perfect commercial sense without any subsidy.  Current installed prices for systems 50kWp plus  deliver electricity at around 5p/kWh (for a min 25 years) versus 10-12p/kWh from the grid.  Go above 500kWp and the price goes below 4p.  If demand at site suddenly rises,  to charge a fleet of electric cars or vans,  for example,  solar PV is the cheapest and quickest way to meet that additional demand.  Just think what grid electricity will cost in 10,  15,  25 years time and you can see why a business would see an investment in solar as a long term,  strategic investment in competitiveness rather than a chance to signal green virtues.

The solar fields which grew so quickly with generous subsidies don't make sense without them - you have to pay for the land on which they sit and then pay substantial connection and transmission costs to feed into the grid - but solar on commercial rooftops and over car parks is good business and is no longer about harvesting subsidies.  

Meanwhile,  in the UAE desert,  solar is producing electricity at around 2.5p/kWp...

 

https://www.mypoweruk.com/news/a-new-800mw-scheme-in-dubai-new-low-cost/

They're still building solar farms near me , in fact there's one just down the road. Are they likely to be mothballed with no subsidy? It's pretty huge i wouldn't want to imagine the startup cost. 

[spyguy]

6 minutes ago, spunko2010 said:

They're still building solar farms near me , in fact there's one just down the road. Are they likely to be mothballed with no subsidy? It's pretty huge i wouldn't want to imagine the startup cost. 

Yes.

Solar in the UK is nuts.

 

[spunko2010]

11 minutes ago, spyguy said:

Yes.

Solar in the UK is nuts.

 

Of all the things I've read on it, most of these investment funds claim to want to be rid of the subsidy. 

 

Is it a bad time to invest in them? i considered it last summer. 

Edited January 1, 2017 by spunko2010

[Simon Taylor]

19 minutes ago, spunko2010 said:

They're still building solar farms near me , in fact there's one just down the road. Are they likely to be mothballed with no subsidy? It's pretty huge i wouldn't want to imagine the startup cost. 

These will be schemes which were registered before the subsidies were slashed; its unlikely that any which missed the cut-off date will ever be built until the price of grid energy rises substantially.  The other driver may be a removal of CAP farm payments -  this may reduce the cost of renting the land to place these schemes on.  And yes,  once registered, they will continue to receive the subsidy for the agreed period.  

 

15 minutes ago, spyguy said:

Yes.

Solar in the UK is nuts.

 

Not if you use all the electricity you generate it isn't.  It works for a business for whom electricity costs are a significant chunk of their overhead.  Investing in solar forward buys a large chunk of that consumption at a low price -  4-5p/kWh which will never go up.    (Plug your car in during daylight hours whilst you are at work and you have very cheap motoring...)

There are several drivers which will push up the costs of grid energy in the short and medium term;  the difficulties facing the French nuclear industry,  our dependence on imported gas and the fixed cost of running the grid as more electricity is generated locally from wind and sun.  Solar on a factory roof is a sensible hedge against these rising costs.  And the FiT subsidy is now so small it makes no material difference to the investment case and could be removed altogether.  Shame the same cannot be said for Hinckley C..

[spyguy]

Just now, Simon Taylor said:

These will be schemes which were registered before the subsidies were slashed; its unlikely that any which missed the cut-off date will ever be built until the price of grid energy rises substantially.  The other driver may be a removal of CAP farm payments -  this may reduce the cost of renting the land to place these schemes on.  And yes,  once registered, they will continue to receive the subsidy for the agreed period.  

 

Not if you use all the electricity you generate it isn't.  It works for a business for whom electricity costs are a significant chunk of their overhead.  Investing in solar forward buys a large chunk of that consumption at a low price -  4-5p/kWh which will never go up.    (Plug your car in during daylight hours whilst you are at work and you have very cheap motoring...)

There are several drivers which will push up the costs of grid energy in the short and medium term;  the difficulties facing the French nuclear industry,  our dependence on imported gas and the fixed cost of running the grid as more electricity is generated locally from wind and sun.  Solar on a factory roof is a sensible hedge against these rising costs.  And the FiT subsidy is now so small it makes no material difference to the investment case and could be removed altogether.  Shame the same cannot be said for Hinckley C..

Well, yes. If it you are using it.

Its a nuts invesmnt from a wholesale point and will never be large scale.

 

[spyguy]

Just now, spyguy said:

Well, yes. If it you are using it. esp. if you have the acreage.

Its a nuts invesmnt from a wholesale point and will never be large scale.

 

 

[ARIMA]

17 hours ago, Peter Hun said:

2 strokes are indeed twice as efficient as four strokes and the optimum solution was recently analysed to be a hybrid.

So I think your German friend was on to something.

Not saying I wouldn't buy one if it is the right tool for the job, but as someone who enjoys the burble of a V8 (and my current 3.5l V6) I do find the idea of whiney moped-esque cars rather miserable.  At least with full electric you get that  nice whoosing sound.  I guess if the 2 stroke does catch on manufacturers will invest more time in the exhaust system to make it sound a bit more funky. 

[Guest TheBlueCat]

On 31/12/2016 at 9:39 AM, Funn3r said:

Should be made illegal. People are stealing the sunlight which actually belongs to the government and the electricity companies. 

The electricity industry will be calling for levies in them soon enough in the same way the music industry tried to with blank cassette tapes back in the 80s.

[newbonic]

Prof MacKay (physics) has done one of the best analyses I've read re the feasibility of the UK moving wholesale to renewables. It's available for free at: https://www.withouthotair.com/ (under 27 Five energy plans for Britain)

Edited January 1, 2017 by newbonic
mad formatting fixed

[Simon Taylor]

22 hours ago, Ballyk said:

Tesla stock appears very expensive compared to say Daimler (Mercedes).

However, Tesla has some big advantages - 

1.  It can produce batteries at much lower costs than competitors.  It is building its big battery 'gigafactory' which will massively reduce costs.  Other carmakers are dependant on battery suppliers with currently higher costs;

2.  It is far ahead of the opposition in terms of understanding battery / electric motor technology.  Its Model S was launched in 2012 and nobody has come up with a car that even gets close to its range or performance.  Meanwhile Tesla just keeps getting better;

3.  Its cars are very much 'computerised' and most of the 'fleet' are feeding back to Tesla massive data on the miles they have driven.  No other carmaker has this connection with their fleet, and it gives Tesla a big advantage when it comes to developing self driving technology.  Google and others may be attempting to create self driving cars, but they do not have 100,000 cars feeding back data to them;

4.  Tesla owns all its dealers.  Therefore 100% of the profit of their cars is captured by the company (including sales of pre-owned cars);

5.  They might not enjoy an 'economies of scale' advantage in mainstream components, but they sell more automotive 'battery power' than any other manufacturer.  Nissan sells more Leafs, but the value of Tesla's sales of electric cars dwarfs Nissan due to their higher prices and the Tesla batteries are much larger.  BMW / Mercedes, etc really need to drive volumes of their electric cars to achieve battery / electric motor economies but they are very much a niche for them;

6.  Tesla will start producing their 'mass market' Model 3 late next year which will bring their volumes up to 500,000 in a couple of years, about 25% of what BMW / Mercedes do in total currently.  2016 Tesla sales will be about 80,000.  They will keep growing, and largely without any paid advertising.

So I would say Tesla has a bright future.  I have a fair number of Tesla shares, for full disclosure.  The argument against is of course that they face huge competition from the currently highly profitable and cash generating likes of BMW and Mercedes.  This is true, but in my view the incumbents will see a lot of red ink if they start writing off their investment in engine factories, etc, and will be left behind by not having a full grip on the electric technology, or a real commitment to it.

 

all this plus, Tesla has none of the legacy issues that the big established car firms have. No pension deficits and more importantly, no existing floorplan architecture which has cost billions of investment dollars/euros and on which investors will expect a certain level of return.

Cars structures designed for ICEs are totally unsuitable for EVs. Electric cars don't need space for fuel tanks, engines, transmission tunnels and all the other stuff needed in petrol and diesel cars. So the dilemma for these firms is, do they scrap all this investment and go flat out on EVs or do they try and squeeze the very last drop of cash from their existing model line up and watch others gain advantage with EVs.

Some will make the wrong call and I think we will some long established marques go the way of SAAB.

[Peter Hun]

 

BMW designed the I3 from the ground up as Electric. The Germans will not mess about. Car design is about absolute efficency and no car manufacturer can afford anything but a good design.

Redesigning a floor plan is something they do when required, they won't continue to use inappropriate designs to recover sunk costs,it's bonkers

 

Edited January 1, 2017 by Peter Hun

[Ballyk]

2 hours ago, Peter Hun said:

 

BMW designed the I3 from the ground up as Electric. The Germans will not mess about. Car design is about absolute efficency and no car manufacturer can afford anything but a good design.

Redesigning a floor plan is something they do when required, they won't continue to use inappropriate designs to recover sunk costs,it's bonkers

 

BMW designed the i3 from the ground up, the problem is it is not very good.  It is extremely expensive and has a low range, a fact they acknowledge by them offering a range extender option.  But their biggest problem is that they are dependent on suppliers for the batteries, and pay a high price for them.  Until they can really get the cost of their batteries down, the i3 remain be a low volume 'greenwash' product.  They really need to put their best engineers into their electric programme, the problem is their engineering 'A team' remain focused on ICE vehicles, and a lot of their electric experts have defected to other companies (presumably at least partly due to BMW's lack of commitment to the technology).

GM is doing something similar with the Bolt, and source a very high proportion of its components from LG (Korean battery / electronics company).

I believe the big OEMs can come up with compelling EVs, but it requires a cultural acceptance that electrics are the future, and an acknowledgement that their current lineups represent the past.  Which is a very difficult thing for them to accept.

[nnails]

I am pretty sure the new tesco as solar panels built in to roof. 

[Kurt Barlow]

14 hours ago, spunko2010 said:

They're still building solar farms near me , in fact there's one just down the road. Are they likely to be mothballed with no subsidy? It's pretty huge i wouldn't want to imagine the startup cost. 

They won't be mothballed as most the costs are upfront and already sunk. You might as well run the farm to its life end. Contrary to popular opinion the land can still be used - sheep grazing, free range poultry, piggies.

[Kurt Barlow]

2 hours ago, nnails said:

I am pretty sure the new tesco as solar panels built in to roof. 

Supermarket roofs are the ideal spot for solar with all that refrigeration needing 24/7 power.

[Kurt Barlow]

14 hours ago, spyguy said:

Yes.

Solar in the UK is nuts.

 

Not at 50c a W ;-)

[200p]

It doesn't make any sense that the energy used in production exceeds that produced over its lifetime. 

This assumes the replacement cost for the next 25 years is constant or lower. Peak oil?