That solar panels take up a lot of space and so do wind farms is a simple fact that can hardly be argued with because of its high visibility. That the space aspect of wind and solar could become a problem much bigger than the “Not in my back yard” opposition seen in parts of the U.S. was not something I’d given much thought until recently.
agree its a country by country issue too like saudi, some australia states are receiving alot of sun and arid land great for solar n wind in scale, issue only arise during wet season which are limited to few months at best and the occasionally typhoon
great article - excellent points - And countries like Saudi Arabia can fund solar and wind with their profits from oil and gas. A country by country plan for energy security is the right way to go! Thanks.
Is the real world EROEI of solar even positive? Optimists claim that the EROEI of solar is 4 to 7 over the lifetime of a solar project. Do they understand how bad that is?
EROEI of solar is not too much of a problem unless solar intermittency is balanced by energy storage, in which case EROEI may go negative (as storage such as batteries has no energy return on investment whatsoever).
Good post Irina. I have done some work along these lines myself. The math isn't hard superficially, but no one in decision making authority seems to be able to do it. Every where we turn we find out how hollow the green energy promise is. Cheers
Although I generally agree with this piece, the power density assumptions from the 2013 MacKay paper appear to be out of date.
Looking at public data from five utility scale solar farms in California built circa 2016, sized 235 to 550 MW(ac), yields an average power production density of 310 MWh/acre per year, or 77 kWh/m² per year. This power density includes all the area of the solar farm site, not just the panel area.
The given Britain consumption figure of 1.25 W/m² can be converted to annual production: 1.25x24x365 = 11 kWh/m² per year.
With UK solar capacity factor at about 11%, versus these locations in California desert at 30%, we can estimate Britain solar production at 28 kWh/m² per year with similar panels.
So, circa 2016 panel efficiency, we would "only" need to cover 40% of Britain with solar farms. But of course all the other issues remain with intermittency and the amount of overbuilding and storage required to maintain availability.
Great article even if I'm reading it 5 months late. The insistence on net zero targets ranging from 1 to 3 decades is a lie, a childish, fairytale fantasy at best, I refuse to believe our political policy makers are ignorant of this fact. I find it laughable that most domestic solar installations have no hybrid functionality to provide the owner power if the grid goes down yet they'll happily pay 2x the real cost of the system usually financed at variable interest rates over many years.
Solar is a great and liberating technology for those living in the right climate but definitely not a global panacea to energy problems.
agree its a country by country issue too like saudi, some australia states are receiving alot of sun and arid land great for solar n wind in scale, issue only arise during wet season which are limited to few months at best and the occasionally typhoon
Yeah, that's the trouble with climate versus power plants: climate means seasons.
Excellent thoughts!
great article - excellent points - And countries like Saudi Arabia can fund solar and wind with their profits from oil and gas. A country by country plan for energy security is the right way to go! Thanks.
Don't forget the energy "cost" to mine the massive amounts of raw materials needed for solar and wind.
Is the real world EROEI of solar even positive? Optimists claim that the EROEI of solar is 4 to 7 over the lifetime of a solar project. Do they understand how bad that is?
I suppose that would depend on the costs. How do fossil fuels compare with those solar numbers? I haven't looked into this.
EROEI of solar is not too much of a problem unless solar intermittency is balanced by energy storage, in which case EROEI may go negative (as storage such as batteries has no energy return on investment whatsoever).
Good article. Thanks.
Good article, David MacKay was taken away too soon.
Good post Irina. I have done some work along these lines myself. The math isn't hard superficially, but no one in decision making authority seems to be able to do it. Every where we turn we find out how hollow the green energy promise is. Cheers
Yes, the maths is simple enough for me to understand and this means really simple.
Although I generally agree with this piece, the power density assumptions from the 2013 MacKay paper appear to be out of date.
Looking at public data from five utility scale solar farms in California built circa 2016, sized 235 to 550 MW(ac), yields an average power production density of 310 MWh/acre per year, or 77 kWh/m² per year. This power density includes all the area of the solar farm site, not just the panel area.
The given Britain consumption figure of 1.25 W/m² can be converted to annual production: 1.25x24x365 = 11 kWh/m² per year.
With UK solar capacity factor at about 11%, versus these locations in California desert at 30%, we can estimate Britain solar production at 28 kWh/m² per year with similar panels.
So, circa 2016 panel efficiency, we would "only" need to cover 40% of Britain with solar farms. But of course all the other issues remain with intermittency and the amount of overbuilding and storage required to maintain availability.
I'm sure efficiency gains have been made in the past ten years, thanks for pointing this out.
Great article even if I'm reading it 5 months late. The insistence on net zero targets ranging from 1 to 3 decades is a lie, a childish, fairytale fantasy at best, I refuse to believe our political policy makers are ignorant of this fact. I find it laughable that most domestic solar installations have no hybrid functionality to provide the owner power if the grid goes down yet they'll happily pay 2x the real cost of the system usually financed at variable interest rates over many years.
Solar is a great and liberating technology for those living in the right climate but definitely not a global panacea to energy problems.