Grad-scale batteries (Li-ion, LFP, etc.) has changed that. Check out the Edwards & Sanborn solar/battery installation that's partially on Edwards Airforce base land.
Australia is another example where grid-scale storage plus renewables plus traditional energy sources have all been built out together to provide greater grid stability and cheaper costs.
It's not a green issue (solar panels, the batteries, rare earths, etc., are not exactly green!), but a cost and efficiency issue.
I installed solar panels on my house a bit shy of 10 years ago. I've seen roughly 80-90% of my electrical usage covered purely by my solar, and I've replaced several appliances with pure electric. I broke even around year 6-7. At some point I am planning to get a large Li-ion battery installed so I can flip a switch and go off grid if needed.
Yup! A SK farmer put in some solar panels, good ones that self-aim at the sun (one array of 2 did) and kept detailed records. He blogged about it for 2 years.
They almost never hit 100% of capacity which is critical. A 10MW Solar array will NOT generate an average of 10MW in a day, but a maximum in perfect conditions for an hour. He did know that, he did his homework, but he never expected 40% which was his 2 year average.
They will never pay for themselves, especially considering how much hands-on maintenance they require. A light dusting of dust or snow can knock the output in half. Most winter mornings were spent sweeping off the panels in addition to all his chores :/
Parts of Australia have embraced renewables, specifically Wind & Solar. You can tell what % is W&S by how high their electric bills are. More W&S = higher bills. Why? Because when those don't work properly, which is often, they have to import electricity from neighboring districts. At the highest possible premiums since their W&S isn't working either!
They "plan to have" various "grid storage" eventually, but every time they field test these they are abject failures.
An example was a "pumped water" test site. They'd use excess W&S power to pump water from down low to up high, then send that higher water down to generate power when needed. Sounds great!
It cost (these numbers are iirc, of course, but not off by much) 3x as much as "estimated" to construct the test equipment. All their "estimates" turned out to have been made by policy makers, not engineers. The water turned out to be 2x as energy demanding to pump us as estimated, and produced 1/4 as much power when sent down.
Had the large-scale plan been carried out? Each gW/h would easily cost 20X the estimate and provide a few hours of back-up, not days! And this was one of the best sites available.
Grad-scale batteries (Li-ion, LFP, etc.) has changed that. Check out the Edwards & Sanborn solar/battery installation that's partially on Edwards Airforce base land.
Australia is another example where grid-scale storage plus renewables plus traditional energy sources have all been built out together to provide greater grid stability and cheaper costs.
It's not a green issue (solar panels, the batteries, rare earths, etc., are not exactly green!), but a cost and efficiency issue.
I installed solar panels on my house a bit shy of 10 years ago. I've seen roughly 80-90% of my electrical usage covered purely by my solar, and I've replaced several appliances with pure electric. I broke even around year 6-7. At some point I am planning to get a large Li-ion battery installed so I can flip a switch and go off grid if needed.
I agree Solarpanels make amazing sense for Australia (most electricity is used for AC)
But If you moved all the batteries from Australia to a Northern Hemisphere country like Ireland- it would power their grid for only a few hours.
Ireland can go many weeks without sunlight during winter…
I've spoken to several neighbours (Canada) and the break even point here is about 20 years.
And that's only because the government pays a massively inflated price for the power fed back to the grid.
Yup! A SK farmer put in some solar panels, good ones that self-aim at the sun (one array of 2 did) and kept detailed records. He blogged about it for 2 years.
They almost never hit 100% of capacity which is critical. A 10MW Solar array will NOT generate an average of 10MW in a day, but a maximum in perfect conditions for an hour. He did know that, he did his homework, but he never expected 40% which was his 2 year average.
They will never pay for themselves, especially considering how much hands-on maintenance they require. A light dusting of dust or snow can knock the output in half. Most winter mornings were spent sweeping off the panels in addition to all his chores :/
Absolutely. I would not argue for largescale solar in Ireland! Wind, perhaps, but I find the turbines really obnoxious.
offshore wave generators make sense on an island
Parts of Australia have embraced renewables, specifically Wind & Solar. You can tell what % is W&S by how high their electric bills are. More W&S = higher bills. Why? Because when those don't work properly, which is often, they have to import electricity from neighboring districts. At the highest possible premiums since their W&S isn't working either!
They "plan to have" various "grid storage" eventually, but every time they field test these they are abject failures.
An example was a "pumped water" test site. They'd use excess W&S power to pump water from down low to up high, then send that higher water down to generate power when needed. Sounds great!
It cost (these numbers are iirc, of course, but not off by much) 3x as much as "estimated" to construct the test equipment. All their "estimates" turned out to have been made by policy makers, not engineers. The water turned out to be 2x as energy demanding to pump us as estimated, and produced 1/4 as much power when sent down.
Had the large-scale plan been carried out? Each gW/h would easily cost 20X the estimate and provide a few hours of back-up, not days! And this was one of the best sites available.