Waking up to the solar dawn
Every week Suntech, the world’s biggest photovoltaic manufacturer, is pumping out hundreds of thousands of solar panels to power households and businesses across the globe. Dozens of other companies in China, Germany, Korea and elsewhere are doing the same.
The solar photovoltaic manufacturing industry is a prime example of renewable energy’s growing success story. In 2010, the world’s solar PV factories could produce in excess of 38 gigawatts of panels in just one year. By the end of 2011, that production capacity will have expanded to 50GW of solar panels (24GW will be installed).
Taking advantage of the 50GW of PV manufacturing capacity globally, the world’s PV factories can hammer out the annual electricity of 10x 1000MW nuclear power plants. With forecasts of 300GW of production capacity in 2020, a year’s worth of production installed around the globe will displace the annual output of 60 large old nuclear power stations. That’s a lot of nuclear power plants-worth of electricity, minus the community outrage, minus the political sparring, and minus the decades, or even centuries-long site and waste management issues that are part and parcel of nuclear power. And unlike a nuclear plant or a coal-fired plant, all those silicon solar panels can be collected, recycled and made into brand new solar panels at the end of their 25-year plus lifespan.
In a happy coincidence, due to the correlation between sunlight hours and higher energy demand on the world's electricity grids, solar photovoltaic is capable of powering one quarter of the worlds energy needs. Whereas nuclear is currently powering just 12 per cent of the world’s electricity and is in decline.
Not to mention that, in most countries, the daily peak of solar PV production coincides with peak power prices. Energy production also drops off at night, so solar PV generators never have to struggle to find a market for electricity from 11PM to 7AM, unlike nuclear generators.
Supplementing that photovoltaic production with wind power and solar thermal with storage – two of the fastest-growing energy sources in the world – as well as pumped-storage hydro, rounds out an energy profile that would be able to fulfill almost all of the Australia’s needs.
Photovoltaic installations, wind farms, pumped-storage hydro projects and solar thermal power plants obviously have different capacity factors and are operational at different times. Yet this is no barrier to widespread deployment.
Depending on location, wind power frequently produces in the morning and evening, complementing photovoltaic production before it reaches its peak. It’s also a fuel saver, allowing other plants to shut down and reserve their fuel supplies. Solar thermal with storage can provide between 14-17 hours of power without sun, allowing generation during nighttime hours and overcast conditions. And pumped-storage hydro plants, which often only hold enough water to produce electricity for a dozen hours, can be kept offline until high-price peak events occur – for instance, when everyone turns on their air conditioners.
Governments that put off delivering adequate support to the nascent renewable energy industry are simply delaying the inevitable. In the meantime, the consumer has to wait longer for lower energy prices.
Imagine if politicians had performed the same foot-dragging maneuvers when it came to installing our telecommunications infrastructure. The first telegraph lines were immensely expensive. With the help of initial government incentives, phone companies are now at a point where their networks can handle billions of calls and deliver internet services to hundreds of millions of households.
The time and money needed to support solar photovoltaic deployment across the country is nowhere near what the telecommunications sector needed. In Australia, it will take four to five years – not 100 – to see cost-competitive solar energy enter the grid, driven by consumer demand and reductions in wholesale power prices, thanks to the merit order effect. It’s entirely conceivable that, one day soon, we will generate 15-25 per cent of the nation’s electricity from solar photovoltaic power. If we go all the way and electrify our transportation and eliminate gas heating, that would be 15-25 per cent of all our energy needs.
Australia is the world’s sunniest country. It’s only natural that we should harness its energy to power our lives. With a plan for a large-scale rollout of solar, Australia, too, can be part of the renewable energy success story.
Matthew Wright is executive director of Beyond Zero Emissions and 2010-11 Young Environmentalist of the Year
Comments on this article
Matthew Wright's tertiary qualifications.
Mr Wright,
1) Do you know what you are talking about? as you have still do not say what your tertiary qualifications are?
3) I have seen you on so many 'Green-energy' web-site forums ramming your opinion down people's throats.
Merit Order Effect isn't designed REPLY Sam Richards
Sam,
The Merit Order Effect isn't designed, it actually is. You can observe it as it plays out in the market. Once you introduce, additional clean renewable energy into the market, you get a resultant dampening effect on the pricing extremes that are unique to Australia. This unique problem needs a unique solution and the perfect solution for the job (saving 85%) is the introduction of solar photovoltaic into the grid, and the simplest way to do that is through a Feed-in-Tariff
NSW power bills REPLY Matthew Wright
NSW power bills have risen dramatically, in my opinion, due to the after effects of all the “action” on climate change. Investment has been halted by uncertainty, cheap power options are not acceptable, current investments are feared to be worthless.
Even the report you listed stated the CPRS is the second biggest driver. Another report the NSW Govt tried to bury stated that the spending on Solar PV and other renewable projects was not cost effective and likely to drive up power bills dramatically.
The Merit Order Effect seems to be designed to stick it to the utility power stations making them jump through hoops to supply power. The madness is that the MOE makes the power suppliers with the most cost effective, stable and predictable power generation vary their power output at the whim of when the renewables can actually generate significant power.
Lastly, it is undeniable that NSW could have dramatically cheaper power if the Govt allowed the building of a giant new generation coal power plant using technologies the Chinese are using. These use high temperature techniques to significantly increase efficiency. The kicker is that doing this would actually reduce emissions. The reality is that cheap coal power in now not acceptable and much more costly gas power is used for new installations as renewables cost too much.
Wow, where can I buy that
Wow, where can I buy that sort of Koolaid?
Matthew Wright is obviously ingesting something amaziing
RE: Nuclear - True cost REPLY Sam Richards
The true cost of nuclear power to Japan (or any other country that is stupid enough to go down the same path) is the same as the cost of having to defend against an invading Military force
Japan has 17.3% availability at the moment. 9 / 54 plants are available to generate.
That's one and a half Australia's worth of electricity not being generated.
If that was Australia that would be no aluminium smelters, no alumina smelters, no zinc smelters, no car manufacturing plants, no car component plants, no supermarkets, no traffic lights, no life support, no government, etc
It would be very ugly if we were to have that much electricity out in Australia.
Do you understand how much 350TWh of electricity per annum missing in action is?
And how huge the economy wide impacts would be? The cost to Japan is like being under attack from an invading military force. That is the true cost of Nuclear power.
Sam, what are you going to say to the millions of people affected by the calamity and not being able to realise their economic dreams or even have access to the basics because much of Japan's industrial base is unpowered?
NSW Bills have doubled in 5 years due REPLY Sam Richards
NSW Bills have been going up predominately due to increases in regulated distribution network charges.
This includes delayed infrastructure spending but is mostly due to the provision of network capacity for ever growing one off peak demand events.
Are you being deliberately misleading or are you just ignorant to the situation in NSW with regards to the main driver of cost increases to NSW consumers?
http://www.ipart.nsw.gov.au/files/Fact%20sheet%20-%20Review%20of%20regul...
In fact to take it a step further, are you aware of the Merit Order Effect and the fact that Photovoltaics on rooftops actually suppresses the underlying weighted average wholesale price and reduces electricity bills for all consumers?
Nuclear
Why are you hung up on nuclear Matthew?
To use a term recently used by Malcolm Turnbull, you have "confused the end with the means".
The end is an orderly reduction of CO2 emissions to near zero. The reasons? To address fears of climate change, to reduce environmental pollution such as acid rain and lastly for sustainability. Whatever method achieves this should be welcomed.
But no, you have an anti-nuclear agenda just like the watermelon greens and anti-globalisation nuts. Your end seems to be a world powered by solar and wind, ready or not.
By the way, I welcome the scrutiny on nuclear power, the Japanese became complacent and took shortcuts. You should welcome the scrutiny on the cost of solar and wind energy developments for similar reasons.
Renewable energy will never be accepted if it is not affordable, there will be a huge backlash if you force it down people’s throats when it is not ready. NSW power bills have doubled in five years due to climate action shenanigans.
There is no room for zealotry in this debate it is too serious for environmental and/or financial reasons.
French Socialist / Greens to close 24 nuclear reactors by 2025
Now even the French are getting on with phasing out Nuclear.
The Fall out from Fukushima is too great. As the era comes to an end on Nuclear, Coal and Gas the Sun is rising on renewables.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-01/atomic-spat-rocks-french-election-as-sarkozy-rival-backs-halts.html
Qualifications
Noted.
Nuclear Phase out countries
The following countries are abandoning costly nuclear power.
Austria,
Belgium,
Germany,
Italy,
Philipines,
Sweden,
Switzerland,
Slovenia,
Croatia,
50GW of PV = 78TWh = one third of Australia's electricity
Photovoltaic is is winning compared to nuclear globally.
The world's industrial machine has the capability of rolling out 78TWh of annual production and that capability is growing every year.
The nuclear industry failing to deliver ANY 3rd generaiton plants. Not one. The so-called (hyped) Nuclear renaisance countries of South Korea, Taiwan and China are abandoning future 2nd generation plant construciton.
And the UAE are ready to drop the 5 2nd generation plants they were set to build.
The Nuclear industry has fallen out of favour.
Nuclear powers 12% of the world's electricity and falling every day.
That's less of the world's electricity tomorrow than today and less the day after.
While Solar Photovoltaic will easily power 20-25%
THis will be coupled with Solar Thermal w/storage 15-25%
Pumped Hydro Storage, Wind Power 50% and Biomass/Wave/Tidal for the rest.
Nuclear was a great idea at the time, and it will go the way of the typewriter, rotary phone,VCR,
Qualifications
An answer please.
TEPCO battles fresh nuclear plant leak
A leak of highly radioactive water from Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant has underscored the continued technical challenges facing engineers battling to bring its tsunami-crippled reactors under full control.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/994569a6-1f2d-11e1-90aa-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1fhRVD8xw
Waking early could be a nightmare
Matthew you make a number of spurious arguments here that quite frankly shock me, I will mention only two.
Firstly, Comparing early PV solar deployment to the Telegraph in the 1800's. The alternative to the Telegraph was the stage coach and the sailing ship, Hours for worldwide communication by telegraph or months by traditional methods, It was a massive improvement and the huge cost was worth it.
Solar PV compared to coal/gas/nuclear is more costly, less reliable and frankly not yet ready for prime time. Investigate it sure, massive conversion to it NO!.
Secondly, saying that delaying Solar PV will delay lower prices. The opposite is true and proven time and time again to be true. Solar PV is NOT ready and very expensive.
You need to talk to more less gullible people outside your little group.
Qualifications
Just like I have asked every climate sceptic to indemnify me and my children from the future they assert will not occur because apparently doubling CO2 levels will have zippo impact.
Dear John re Nuclear
John, at one point the Liberal party proposed to put a nuclear power plant on the coast about 25 km from where I live. Apparently they need to be near population centres for maximium efficiency. I don't want it. You are most welcome to it. Apart from it being an eyesore, there are two words that nuclear power brings to mind and they are Fukishima and Chernobyl. I will happily increase my rooftop solar and go off-grid before I suck nuclear into my house!
Qualifications
I have asked this on previous occasions,could Mathew Wright please advise us as to his academic qualifications?
RE: Wave Power Ready Response: Limen Winkle
Limen,
Carnegie is great, I have met with the CEO and he agrees that they are at the commercialisation stage. Meaning they need money to get their first big commercial sized plants up and running. They are not at the point where they can do serial and parallel deployment. Bringing forward the time when this can occur is something BZE supports. The technologies that need commercialisation support and the policies to make that happen will be in our Commercialisation opportunities and our policy options documents that relate to each plan (in this case stationary energy)
R&D needs to also occur in parralel. Whether it's for PV, Solar Thermal w/storage, Wave, tidal, ground source and airsource heat pump technology, biofuel combustion, electric vehicle efficiency, rail technology efficiency etc.
Winter & Night-time Power???
As someone in the solar industry I am all for the mass deployment of PV across Australia. However, there are still massive issues as to how renewables provides baseload power. I see an energy future with pv and other renewables replacing coal generation (NOT NUCLEAR), nuclear expanding to provide baseload and night-time generation and gas peaking plant to provide the rapid response component.
Wave Power is ready
Matthew,
What more basic research is required to demonstrate the power in ocean waves? It is all very simple. Waves, buoys and pumps have been understood for centuries. Combine the fluid output line with a Pelton wheel turbine and you have electric power. Australian companies like Carnegie Wave have already demonstrated with full scale in-ocean units that the mechanical power is there for the taking. All it needs is some backing for commercial scale roll out but, as usual, this is not available in Australia. Even the Federal government has given no support whatever.
An additional spin-off that can fulfil a key Australian need is desalinated water for coastal cities.
Australia has the prime positioned and length of coastline in the world for a high intensity wave climate generated by thousands of kilometres of Southern Ocean.
As for solar PV manufacturers, do wave power generators have to go off shore as well?
Should BZE not do a bit more homework?
Limen
Japan nuclear at 17.3% capacity factor across fleet
This compares to Australian wind sites that are running 35 (SA/Vic)-50% (Geraldton) capacity factor.
Wind turbines are a jolly site cheaper and faster to build than nuclear power plants.
http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/ElectricPower/8648913
Japan scraps nuclear power project in countries north
Fukushima plant operator abandons new plant construction
With economic costs highlighted.
The Higashidori nuclear power plant was to have been an advanced boiling water reactor with a capacity of nearly 1.5 million kilowatts.
But its operator - the Tokyo Electric Power Company - has decided to abandon construction, set to be completed in five years time.
The company is blaming the cost of compensating victims of the meltdowns at its Fukushima nuclear plant, which is expected to run into tens of billions of dollars.
RE:Japan 45 out 54 reactors shutdown & useless RE: John Bennets
Nuclear power has serious problems, failing to delivering baseload.
Out of 54 Nuclear reactors that were operating prior to the tsunami and disaster at Fukushima only 9 nuclear plants are now operating in Japan.
That's no power through the winter or the summer.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/02/us-nuclear-japan-active-idUSTRE7B104B20111202
Fortunately all the other assets on the Japanese grid are operating and that demand reduction /energy efficiency is allowing the Japanese economy to continue on.
If this situation continues then no nuclear plants will be operating in Japan by May next year.
Not a good bet if you have big industry to run. The resillience and redundancy you get from many smaller distributed renewable generators 1.5kW(Solar)-7.5MW (Wind)-217MW(Solar Thermal plant) is a much safer bet for any economy.
What is the percentage monthly delivered electricity (November) from 45 reactors that are turned off?
or the percentage of monthly delivered(November) of 9/54 reactors?
Wave Power RE: Barry Hopkins
Barry,
I agree that wave power has promise. We are sticking to what is commercially available and off the shelf at significant scale. Wave power is not there yet.
What wave power needs to be proven is
1. Considerable upswing in R&D Funding for Private and Public (University etc) research
2. Considerable money on offer for commercialisation demonostrations with those technologies that can get decent scale (multi megawatt) commercial plants operating.
Carnegie from our preliminary look is a promising wave technology.
Beyond Zero Emissions will be completing a Research Directions, Policy Options, Commercialisation Opportunities and Behavioural options paper for each of our 6 plans. (Stationary Energy, Transport, Buildings, Land Use, Industrial Processes, Replacing Fossil Fuel Export Revenue)
Renewables
Please do not forget the role of wave power.
This is a 24 hours per day source of energy,originally generated by wind but not as fickle.
A reliable generator is near with installations in WA ,Reunion Island,the Bahamas and Ireland.
See Carnegie (CWE) for details.
More of the same old tripe
Matthew has obviously been drinking the Koolaid. With a tremendous ability to ignore the reality of the storage problem which his high cost unreliable electricity sources foisting onto our world, he has come here again with unadulterated spin and little else.
The storage systems which he lists are either much too small to achieve a satisfactory result or are unbelievably expensive for little real gain, such as warm salt storage for solar thermal which not even capable of getting through a winter's night, let alone through a wet week. Where's the rest of the storage coming from, and at what cost, Matthew?
What usage constraints are you demanding that individuals put up with?
By all means, plan to decarbonise our energy systems, but why this war of empty words regarding nuclear energy? After all, it is proven safer than coal and even your chosen models and is reliable and scaleable, which neither wind nor solar are able to claim with honesty.
When energy becomes a religion, as in Andrew's case, logic flies out the window.