Could we power the country solely with solar energy?

bigjigwig77

This is more of a calculation to see if it would be possible and how much Km2 it would require.

My calculations so far:

Ireland uses 25 TWh per year or 25,000,000,000 KWh to power the entire country.

A 1 m2 PV solar panel in Ireland will generate about 900Kwh of power per year.

That would equate to about 28,000 Km2 of solar panels to power the country for a year.

About 1/3 of the total land area of the country.

Do this calculation hold up?

Obviously I realise that we receive much more sunlight during the summer months than the winter but this is just a rough calculation for the entire year.

greasepalm

i believe it could as i looked at a program using special glass in windows in an office complex and they had solar capabilities of providing power and at a touch of a button change crystal clear glass to shady like sun glasses .the whole building was self reliant and had sensors in ceiling to switch off lights on floors when no movement was monitored in a set time.
think the cost of building was over twice the cost of normal and in an ice age that people say is coming?

something they did over in usa many years ago.
http://cascadiacenter.info/

maybe buildings of the future will have panels fitted into roof for leccy and hot water? available now.

PeteHeat

In this report Click Here the claim is it would take 254 square kilometres to power the whole world.

It's a thesis submitted in 2005 the area required is stated around page 25 / 26, no it's not mine I'm afraid I would not dare claim to be qualified to make the calculations and write a thesis 186 pages long.

Enjoy,
.

quentingargan

The problem isn't just energy production, but having the energy at a time when it is needed. So if you cover that amount of land in solar panels, you would have a huge surplus of power during the summer days and be shivering in the dark on winters nights.

But wind and solar complement each other across the seasons. Wind often produces even more than we could usefully use at night, so it high time we incentivised some solar PV to balance the renewable component of our grid.

The low hanging fruit is factory roofs, then household roofs. No point in wasting good land. But factories cannot get paid anything for surplus power exported to the grid, and householders get 9c per Kw hr - much the same price as is paid for electricity from gas, and only slightly higher than wind farms.

That's a bit stingy. Solar PVs produce most electricity at a time of high consumption when the wheels of industry are turning, and unlike wind there is no surplus.

Solar and wind combined would still need either huge batteries (totally unrealistic) or some backup from fossil fuels. Better to have a large grid combining multiple regions with different weather at any one time.

PeteHeat

I agree with Quentin, the challenge for Solar P.V, Solar Thermal and Wind is how to store the excess energy produced when the technology works at it's best to make up for the times when we have short days or low wind speeds.

That said the only reason why we are not using what we have available to us today appears to be the capital outlay, the arguments for peak oil and carbon emissions appear to have been sacrificed because of the state of the global economy and of course the "wonder" of fracking for natural gas.

One of the problems I see is the cost of development of the technology we need is going to increase while all the "cheap" fuels are being used up.

Today we see the first signs of what is to come, Governments are afraid to annoy Russia because Russia can cut up to 33% of Europe's gas needs in winter.

Energy is now power in more ways than one.
.

MOTM

PeteHeat wrote: »

In this report Click Here the claim is it would take 254 square kilometres to power the whole world.

It's a thesis submitted in 2005 the area required is stated around page 25 / 26, no it's not mine I'm afraid I would not dare claim to be qualified to make the calculations and write a thesis 186 pages long.

Enjoy,
.

I can't open it but I think I've seen this before. It was 254*254 km rather than 254km2. Careful now.

Boskowski

MOTM wrote: »

I can't open it but I think I've seen this before. It was 254*254 km rather than 254km2. Careful now.

Huh? So whats a square then? You will find its exactly that. 2 * 2 = 2². Still early in the morning I suppose

Edit: Took me a moment to understand what you mean. 254km² = 64516 * 1km² instead of 254 * 1km². I suppose it probably has confused people before: 1 km² = 1,000,000 m².

MOTM

Boskowski wrote: »

Huh? So whats a square then? You will find its exactly that. 2 * 2 = 2². Still early in the morning I suppose

Edit: Took me a moment to understand what you mean. 254km² = 64516 * 1km² instead of 254 * 1km². I suppose it probably has confused people before: 1 km² = 1,000,000 m².

Yes 254km * 254 km is not 254km2. It's 64516km2. About 80% the area of Ireland.

PeteHeat

MOTM wrote: »

I can't open it but I think I've seen this before. It was 254*254 km rather than 254km2. Careful now.

The long way, copy and paste into your browser, keep in mind the numbers are to power the world, not just our fair isle

http://www.dlr.de/tt/Portaldata/41/Resources/dokumente/institut/system/projects/Ecobalance_of_a_Solar_Electricity_Transmission.pdf

.

ted1

bigjigwig77 wrote: »

This is more of a calculation to see if it would be possible and how much Km2 it would require.

My calculations so far:

Ireland uses 25 TWh per year or 25,000,000,000 KWh to power the entire country.

A 1 m2 PV solar panel in Ireland will generate about 900Kwh of power per year.

That would equate to about 28,000 Km2 of solar panels to power the country for a year.

About 1/3 of the total land area of the country.

Do this calculation hold up?

Obviously I realise that we receive much more sunlight during the summer months than the winter but this is just a rough calculation for the entire year.

A 1m2 won't produce 900kwh. That's how much solar radiation is received. You won't get that outputed.

See page 18. http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Renewables_Publications_/Solar_Power/Best_Practice_Guide_for_PV.pdf

8*1.3m2 panels will only produce 1.1Mw.

air

ted1 wrote: »

8*1.3m2 panels will only produce 1.1MWh.

FYP

quentingargan

quentingargan wrote: »

Solar PVs produce most electricity at a time of high consumption when the wheels of industry are turning, and unlike wind there is no surplus.

It's not that simple, domestic PV is relatively low voltage on a grid scale, at best you power your neighbours it doesn't transport very well due to voltage drop.
There'd have to be a significant outlay of localised transformers to power industry from domestic roofs.


I think everyone is missing the point though, meeting an increasing demand is a false economy imho. Increase energy awareness and live on less. I've reduced my energy demand tenfold to make renewables a practical energy source and I have a v. small hybrid system (which currently has the generators idling and has been for days because it's too effective in Summer and I'm having issues with short-cycling batteries). Sure you can just throw silicon wafers at every sloping surface until the cows come home, that attitude got us here.

PeteHeat wrote: »

Energy is now power in more ways than one.

Energy has always been the currency of the world and each discovery makes huge advances. First was fire, then domestication of beasts of burden, then slaves, then fossil fuels.

ted1

Sir Liamalot wrote: »

I think everyone is missing the point though, meeting an increasing demand is a false economy imho.

I wouldn't say that. I've been working In Energy management for ten years and have seen vast changes in people and how they use energy. The ecolabel on appliances, move away from incandescent lamps, increased energy cost and dare I say it but the BER have all changed people's attitude with regards energy consumption and the ability to do the same task but with a reduced load.

T. Edison

Fair point it is coming a long ways.

Problem is as I see it most people don't understand Watts: what they are, where they come from, the material cost to produce, the waste in production and distribution how to achieve the exact same result with less.
Most people only seem to latch onto what they cost and they are too cheap.
Manufacturers are making more energy efficient products and people are still leaving them on all day long just because...

T. Edison wrote:

We will make energy so cheap only the rich will burn candles.

Meeting the required demand from a clean source I'm all for and I imagine in most domestic environments that can be achieved with 30% less power waste and little alteration to lifestyle just attitude.

I have a colleague who installed a triple coil cylinder to heat his water from solar, oil and solid fuel. Recently he discovered he can heat his house with the immersion. :rolleyes:

Light pollution is another one. It astounds me how much street lighting we think we need to see compared to Germany for instance.

quentingargan

Sir Liamalot wrote: »

Problem is as I see it most people don't understand Watts: what they are, where they come from, the material cost to produce, the waste in production and distribution how to achieve the exact same result with less.
Most people only seem to latch onto what they cost and they are too cheap.
Manufacturers are making more energy efficient products and people are still leaving them on all day long just because...

The price of solar PV coming down in price, driving more production, further dropping the price. It is now at a price that producing electricity, even in Ireland, from solar, is not much more than gas. The distribution costs are virtually zero because the power can be produced close to where it is being consumed.

15kw system can be installed now for €15K on a factory roof. Over its 25 year lifespan, that will produce about 270,000Kw hrs, so the cost of power from it is about 5.5c per watt. I know that's crooked maths and there is bank interest, energy inflation etc.

But we're not doing it.

On the other side of the coin, oil that was uneconomical from shale became viable when the price went over $140 a barrel. Then the volume of shale production increased, so economies of scale applied and the price of doing it came down. So peak oil has got pushed back a few years, and we can backslide on renewable energy.

I'd prefer to see solar coming down in costs than shale or fracking.

Fossil fuels are price matching PV, simple business.
We vote for what we buy.

quentingargan

quentingargan wrote: »

Over its 25 year lifespan,

That's just the warranty period to 80% rating Q. they can last much longer with a marginally declining output. Some even decline slower. There's installations still going after 30 years built with 1980's technology.

PeteHeat

I think people (in general) tend to be happy with what they can afford, the tears of woe tend to start when they see the prices going up faster than any possible increase in their pay packets, going back a couple of years we had a very strong Euro against the Dollar, causing the price of heating oil to drop instead of increasing, very few people looked on it as a blip caused by market gamblers correcting or changing their money making ventures and some actually cancelled orders for renewable options in their homes even though the grants were generous at the time.

I think the answer in the long term is education which has started in our schools with the children doing projects learning about alternatives, they are bringing the knowledge home and many parents are learning from their children possibly because they are so busy earning the money the family needs they don't have the time to teach themselves or even ask the questions.

We can take Quentin's example of the 15Kw system on the factory roof, why isn't it being done on every roof?

A further saving difficult to quantify are the savings that can be made be from the UV being absorbed by the panels and not the water proof covering on the roof which will extend the serviceable life of the roof, cut down on the excess heat transfer into the building which even in Ireland is often being controlled using air conditioning especially over offices.

Many businesses today are looking at meeting today's electricity bill (amoung a lot of others) instead of how to reduce the bills over the long term, the point that money is scarce at the moment is a valid one, what is not valid is management are not planning on spending the €15,000 because energy and similar resources are being looked after by "others".

The "others" are the energy providers who may have their own corporate interests at heart, and Government who aren't in the energy business and really don't know much about it unless there is an E.U. or Kyoto agreement requirement that they must meet.

Forward planning is a difficult sell be it to the business or home owner for as long as the light comes on when they flip the switch and the building is heated or cooled again at the flip of the switch for energy they can afford to pay for today.

There have been and will continue to be a lot of mistakes made when looking for the ideal alternatives, there has also been a lot of investment required for every improvement we have seen over the past few years, I often wonder where renewable / alternative energy would be today if the oil crisis of the 1970's had continued for a little longer.
.

ted1

PeteHeat wrote: »

We can take Quentin's example of the 15Kw system on the factory roof, why isn't it being done
.

Well other than his questionable figures ( inatallation, switch gear etc need to be added)

The payback period is way too long.
The money would be better spent on energy conservation. E.g replacing old lamps, compressors, pumps.The payback period can be very good. Replacing drives with Variable speed ones. Heat recovery/ free cooling/ CHP. In most cases these can offer payback periods that are acceptable.

I've yet to see an ESCO which included PV, this would indicate that it's not fincislly viable

quentingargan

ted1 wrote: »

Well other than his questionable figures ( inatallation, switch gear etc need to be added)

The payback period is way too long.

On a Trapezoidal steel roof, mounting systems and solar modules in that sort of volume can be found for a combined price of less than 70c/watt. Inverters, depending on brand, are 10c to 20c per watt. Cable, installation and the rest can be done for well less than €3K on that sort of roof if you have a skilled crew working on that sort of project all the time (something you won't find in Ireland).

But you are right, the payback is seen as being too long. That depends on your point of view and whether the business puts any value on its environmental credentials, or the hidden costs to society of the carbon used to make electricity.

ted1

quentingargan wrote: »

. That depends on your point of view and whether the business puts any value on its environmental credentials, or the hidden costs to society of the carbon used to make electricity.

I'm going to call you out on this. That's a stupid comment. Companies do care about their CSR. But that is no reason to spend money on systems that don't payback as well as alternatives.

I have a huge range of Ireland's largest energy users as my clients and they do take energy usage and environmental foot print seriously, but they are profitable companies and don't piss money up againest the wall.

I also have a number of government agencies on my books and they have splashed out on turbines, PV and other alternative energy solutions and TBH not one has offered a pay back of less than 35 years and not one has offered an return equal to or greater than 70% of that stated.

As I do EMS I have verified data that backs this up,

You stated about them not caring about their carbon footprint, and I replied with a number of solutions to reduce energy consumption which has the same effect. You appear to have a vested interest in solar, have you?

quentingargan

We are straying a bit off the subject. I totally agree that efficiency and conservation is the low hanging fruit. And many companies are concerned about carbon - particularly those who would go to you as clients, but this is a thread about solar PV, and I think that in its own right, it stands up. Peteheat asks why it isn't happening, and the truth is that a return on investment of about 9% is not enough, unless you factor in hidden costs of pollution.

Production of solar is very predictable compared to wind. I agree that promised production by small wind turbines has been extremely optimistic on most sites.

PeteHeat

I recently went to a company in an industrial estate expecting to use to be using the ground floor, they were using the first floor with their own entrance, not so unusual in these times where work space is at a premium in some locations.

The difference is the entrance hall way is dark when you open the door but immediately you step inside the hall lights come on, as you climb the stairs the lights continue to come on with the lights behind you going off, yes I looked behind me to confirm that this was a 2014 solution to the high energy costs for business, (electricity for business is double the cost of domestic).

Not so long ago the usual was two options, 1) climb the dark stairs towards the light at the top or 2) lights left on all day to comply with health & safety / insurance requirements.

Retro fit may be a bit expensive as the lights must not flicker on start up (instant light) and the sensors must be good quality able to respond as and when needed, also must work both ways for those entering and leaving the building, in this case they were installed when the unit was being fitted out, the owner was not sure as to how long it would take to pay for itself but he claimed if nothing else it was worth the talking point for so many of their customers.

Yes there is low hanging fruit to be picked where energy conservation is concerned however like everything it comes at a cost, in many cases the initial outlay is too high for the business to justify especially a "Start Up".

We have installed wood pellet boilers with up 400Kw output for large retailers, sadly not in the South of Ireland because the incentives were not up to the UK incentives, yes the green badge for heating and refrigeration (incl. heat recovery from the aisle cabinets) is one the companies can proudly display however, the upper management (Board Level) readily admit that the customer is more concerned at the 2p difference in a kilo of sugar than they are in the energy efficiency of the store they purchase it from.

Solar PV and Solar Thermal could have been mounted on the south facing walls of the large buildings, Quentin's 15Kw example would have been lost in the array there was room for, personally I thought it a loss both on energy efficiency and marketing that they were not using the area to display their "Green Credentials".

The answer I got was the marketing departments thought the systems were "To much in the customers face" and could give the idea that goods in the outlets would be expensive.

Appears costs must be counted in more ways than one and there are times when the cost of energy today is still cheap enough to forget the practicalities.
.

ted1

PeteHeat wrote: »

(electricity for business is double the cost of domestic).

no its not. AUP for domestic users is about 19c/kwh it sbaout 14.5c/kwh for business users.

PeteHeat wrote: »

We have installed wood pellet boilers with up 400Kw output for large retailers, sadly not in the South of Ireland because the incentives were not up to the UK incentives, yes the green badge for heating and refrigeration (incl. heat recovery from the aisle cabinets) is one the companies can proudly display however, the upper management (Board Level) readily admit that the customer is more concerned at the 2p difference in a kilo of sugar than they are in the energy efficiency of the store they purchase it from.

I know of several places in Ireland (incl 5 star hotels) thjat have literally f**ked out there wood pellet boilers because they were costing more than the gas or oil equivalent.

PeteHeat

ted1 wrote: »

no its not. AUP for domestic users is about 19c/kwh it sbaout 14.5c/kwh for business users.

We pay approximately double for our business than we do for our home, our office and showroom are low usage even less than our home.

Maybe the major users can negotiate the rates they pay we certainly can't.

ted1 wrote: »

I know of several places in Ireland (incl 5 star hotels) thjat have literally f**ked out there wood pellet boilers because they were costing more than the gas or oil equivalent.

I have no doubt you are right, many home owners have too, that said we didn't supply and fit them all.
.

ted1

PeteHeat wrote: »

We pay approximately double for our business than we do for our home, our office and showroom are low usage even less than our home.

Maybe the major users can negotiate the rates they pay we certainly can't.



I have no doubt you are right, many home owners have too, that said we didn't supply and fit them all.
.

You need to change supplier...

PeteHeat

ted1 wrote: »

You need to change supplier...

Thanks Ted,
I will look into alternatives.
.

ted1

PeteHeat wrote: »

Thanks Ted,
I will look into alternatives.
.

whats your average monthly Consumption?

PeteHeat

ted1 wrote: »

whats your average monthly Consumption?

Not high enough to bargain with, I don't have the details here, almost sure the last winter account I looked at came to about €70.00.
.

quentingargan

PeteHeat wrote: »

Not high enough to bargain with, I don't have the details here, almost sure the last winter account I looked at came to about €70.00.
.

If everyone was as parsimonious with their electricity, the answer to the question posed by the OP is definitely yes!