If every roof had a solar panel.....

[vrsmxtb]

...would we even need power stations?

I know its a huge cost in the real world, but theoretically, if every building in the UK had solar panel roofing and a means of storing excess energy for gradual use overnight / when low light levels etc. would there still be a need for centralised power sources?

Ah just noticed there's a Science forum, sorry mods.

[MartG]

Yes - because the average sized roof isn't big enough for a panel that would supply sufficient energy to run the building even on the sunniest day, never mind in winter.

[ecs]

Storage is also an issue - you can use a solar panel to charge a battery on a small scale but powering a large home, let alone a whole country, that way would suck.

[john2443]

MartG said:

Yes - because the average sized roof isn't big enough for a panel that would supply sufficient energy to run the building even on the sunniest day, never mind in winter.

In which case, how is it if you have solar panels you get an income from selling the excess into the grid? (Not sure about the exact details but I know people who have them and expect the cost of the panels will be recouped by the feed to the grid. I haven't checked the details of this but as some of them is the tightest person I know - should have been born in Yorkshire, but was actually born in Derbyshire!)

[Foliage]

MartG said:

Yes - because the average sized roof isn't big enough for a panel that would supply sufficient energy to run the building even on the sunniest day, never mind in winter.

Id like to see a link to where you got that info?

[ecs]

You can sell back on hot sunny days in the summer when you're using very little power to heat and light your home, but in the winter you'll be consuming a lot of power. It averages out throughout the year and if you've got a very modern, energy efficient home then you can break even/have very low bills.

If you've got a 1950's semi-detached with a bit of roof insulation (or a stty new build made out of paper) then you're unlikely to break even. Also, the storage issue comes in again if everyone used solar panels.

[MartG]

john2443 said:

MartG said:

Yes - because the average sized roof isn't big enough for a panel that would supply sufficient energy to run the building even on the sunniest day, never mind in winter.

In which case, how is it if you have solar panels you get an income from selling the excess into the grid? (Not sure about the exact details but I know people who have them and expect the cost of the panels will be recouped by the feed to the grid. I haven't checked the details of this but as some of them is the tightest person I know - should have been born in Yorkshire, but was actually born in Derbyshire!)

They have excess during the day when folks are out at work so no heating, lights, TV, PC etc. using power, but in the evening ( when the panels are no longer working ) they then draw power from the grid. The energy the put in is then offset against what they take out - the reduction in their net energy bill is what then pays for the panels - but only with the help of substantial government subsidies.

[CrutyRammers]

An then you throw industry into the mix which uses massive amounts, and yeah, you need power stations.

[karona]

Excess solar generation has bankrupted the electricity industry in Bulgaria, brought down a government, and led to desperate people setting fire to themselves in front of the parliament buildings.

Forced to install a set percentage of renewable energy by the EU to avoid massive fines, hundreds of massive 'solar parks' were built. Now, on a sunny day there is far more energy produced than the grid can cope with, all massively overpriced due to the high feed-in tariffs.

Meanwhile the Nuclear and coal fired power stations which produce much cheaper electricity have to be run down during the day. They can't be turned off, they run at full power through the night. Hundreds of coal miners have been sacked.
They used to export electricity to Greece, but that stopped when Greece's economy went tits-up.

The government have tried all sorts of shenanigans to reduce the impact of the solar parks, charging 'network access' fees, taxing the feed-in payments at 20% above the normal income tax, and selective disconnection, but the EU have declared them all to be illegal.

Meantime the unit cost to the customer has doubled in three years, the natives are revolting. There's been two general elections, but no one actually wants to govern the country, because the fuse is already burning on a very explosive situation.

[jkh112]

john2443 said:

In which case, how is it if you have solar panels you get an income from selling the excess into the grid? (Not sure about the exact details but I know people who have them and expect the cost of the panels will be recouped by the feed to the grid. I haven't checked the details of this but as some of them is the tightest person I know - should have been born in Yorkshire, but was actually born in Derbyshire!)

The Govt scheme pays a set amount for all electricity generated. It also pays a smaller amount for electricity exported to the grid, but as the meters are not capable of measuring electricity exported the scheme assumes 50% of electricity generated is exported.

That is the arrangement agreed on the early solar panel scheme, it may be different on the latest scheme. The amounts paid for generating and exporting have decreased with each iteration of the scheme.

[robinessex]

If this country hadn't been run by complete muppets for the last 50yrs, we could've cut our energy needs by an enormous amount. But of course, we were, so hair brained schemes like this come along, all somewhere down the line subsidised to make it 'pay'.

Just an illustraion of what we could've achieved.

Malmo in Sweden will achieve 100% Renweable Energy by 2030.

http://cityclimateleadershipawards.com/2014-projec...

[Lost soul]

john2443 said:

In which case, how is it if you have solar panels you get an income from selling the excess into the grid?

My Uncle does this , in winter he gets £2-£300 a quarter in spring summer he gets up to £8-£900 a quarter

[v8250]

robinessex said:

If this country hadn't been run by complete muppets for the last 50yrs, we could've cut our energy needs by an enormous amount. But of course, we were, so hair brained schemes like this come along, all somewhere down the line subsidised to make it 'pay'.

Just an illustraion of what we could've achieved.

Malmo in Sweden will achieve 100% Renweable Energy by 2030.

http://cityclimateleadershipawards.com/2014-projec...

Thank you, robinessex, the first sensible answer. Op's original question is perfectly sensible and most logical. The simple answer falls into two parts.

1. Will it work? Yes. The misconceptions that solar thermal and solar PV could not provide the electrical and thermal loads for the UK are utter tosh. Providing the correct solar collectors [thermal and PV] are specified 100% of power requirement will be supplied by both direct and indirect supply i.e. direct during daily peak solar, thermal storage via correctly specified calorifiers and electrical supply distributed to the grid. The nay-sayers simply can not think big enough to make this happen...which is why the arse end has fallen out of global solar collector market.

2. Government. The UK Government is unable to design a sound working financial model that will support existing taxation revenues from supporting a national roll-out of solar technology. UK Gov't utility supply revenues are a significant proportion of GDP, it's not just us end users paying our VAT on electricity & gas used...their revenues start at the point of energy production, continuing throughout the distribution pyramid. Therefore, UK Gov't could never 100% endorse solar technologies; it's simply not financially viable...and therefore, there is no political will...and if there's no political will, it will not happen. To date, all the short term schemes and grants have not been generated by UK Gov't. They have been targeted schemes forced upon EU States by Brussels, then interpreted by each country. Some regions have been immensely successful in their deployment of renewable technology, the Malmo region being one. The UK's performance has been abysmal with the majority of claims, success rates, figures et al being political bks. I work within mid-large scale energy generation and I sometimes shake my head in disbelief at the lack of thorough understanding of this sector...by Government, industry users and by the general public. It's not rocket science, just simple physics and simple design technology. The world would be a far greater place if solar technology was deployed effectively and for the betterment of all.

[Bill]

Malmo uses hydro to be self sufficient, surely? In this country, mid winter when it's cloudy and the lights etc are on from 4pm I struggle to believe we'd get enough sun to manage.

[h8tax]

I think I read somewhere that every day the energy falling on the earth from the sun is 6000 times greater than total global energy use.

If that figure is true, it wouldn't actually take much of a technological leap (but an expensive infrastructure one) to be self sufficient in energy surely?

[hidetheelephants]

vrsmxtb said:

...would we even need power stations?

I know its a huge cost in the real world, but theoretically, if every building in the UK had solar panel roofing and a means of storing excess energy for gradual use overnight / when low light levels etc. would there still be a need for centralised power sources?

Ah just noticed there's a Science forum, sorry mods.

A gargantuan cost and there's also the need for as-yet uninvented power storage that's cheap, efficient and durable.

[annodomini2]

h8tax said:

I think I read somewhere that every day the energy falling on the earth from the sun is 6000 times greater than total global energy use.

If that figure is true, it wouldn't actually take much of a technological leap (but an expensive infrastructure one) to be self sufficient in energy surely?

You may want to understand that a vast amount of that energy goes into heating our planet so we (and all other living things on this planet) can actually survive.

While the bulk of energy generated eventually gets converted into heat, covering the entire planet in solar energy converters of some form is never going to be practical.

[MrCarPark]

Bill said:

Malmo uses hydro to be self sufficient, surely? In this country, mid winter when it's cloudy and the lights etc are on from 4pm I struggle to believe we'd get enough sun to manage.

Hydro is over half Sweden's energy supply. Try that in the UK!

It also depends on nuclear for a third of its supply, and has abandoned its nuclear phase-out plans.

An interesting read: (not really)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in...


Not much solar in Sweden!

[eldar]

This gives an interesting insight to where the UK power is coming from.

http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

[Brother D]

eldar said:

This gives an interesting insight to where the UK power is coming from.

http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

I forgot about that site - it's absolutely awesome. Slightly depressing how lack of investment in little Nuclear Energy is used, it should really be up to covering the base load. And how variable the wind generating capacity is.