FOX News: Solar Power pointless because insufficient sun!

[GRA]

IMO, government support of solar in Germany is of the worst examples of government interference in energy options around. Germany is cloudy, but NW europe has lots of wind. Solar is ridiculous there.

 

[surfingslovak]

IMO, government support of solar in Germany is of the worst examples of government interference in energy options around. Germany is cloudy, but NW europe has lots of wind. Solar is ridiculous there.

I can't speak to their energy policy, but I was told that solar and wind are complementary, and they have been busy installing both. Have a look at this Fraunhofer report. It's in English, and it might answer a question or two.

I also hope you realize that your statement is the direct opposite of what Shibani Joshi said on Fox. You can think anything you like about Germany, but I fear for the future of this country when MBAs from Ivy League schools demonstrate such an utter lack of knowledge.



Click to open

 

[dgpcolorado]

When you look at the graphic in the Slate article Phil referenced in the OP, you will note that the PNW is represented with the same color like most of Germany. This means that the amount of solar radiation over the year is roughly comparable. Klaupazius said something along those lines further upthread, and he grew up in Germany and now lives in Seattle. I agree that federal and local government buildings should lead the way, especially knowing that this investment will amortize before long. Efficient lighting and electric and partially electric vehicles for their fleets would be the next logical step, and would help lower operational costs.

Interesting graphic. I am surprised to see that my solar resources are the same or a bit better than southern Spain, despite frequent summer thunderstorms and winter snow. I would have guessed otherwise; might be an altitude thing.

 

[surfingslovak]

I would have guessed otherwise; might be an altitude thing.

If you replaced altitude with latitude, I would agree with you

 

[dgpcolorado]

I would have guessed otherwise; might be an altitude thing.

If you replaced altitude with latitude, I would agree with you

I'm at 38º ~12' N latitude, about the same as the southern portion of Spain... My stereotype of southern Spain is sunny and dry, as opposed to my mountain-influenced weather. But, of course, high altitude (7670 feet) means very high sun intensity when it is sunny.

 

[surfingslovak]

But, of course, high altitude (7670 feet) means very high sun intensity when it is sunny.

Yes, of course. That said, you apparently did not realize how southerly your the latitude really was. That's not uncommon. In my experience, we tend to misjudge the effects of latitude and prevailing weather patterns lot more than other factors. It seema we all like to believe whatever we want to believe, just as Shibani Joshi from Fox demonstrated.

When you look at the map closely, you will see that much of Colorado is comparable to Western Nebraska, which is arguably at lower altitude. Don't you find that a bit strange? Is there any way to quantity the effect of altitude on net solar production?

 

[dgpcolorado]

But, of course, high altitude (7670 feet) means very high sun intensity when it is sunny.

Yes, of course. That said, you apparently did not realize how southerly your the latitude really was. That's not uncommon. In my experience we tend to misjudge the effects of latitude and prevailing weather patterns lot more than other factors. We all like to believe whatever we want to believe, just like Shibani Joshi from Fox demonstrated.

When you look at the map closely, you will see that much of Colorado is comparable to Western Nebraska, which is arguably at lower altitude. Don't you find that a bit strange? Is there any way to quantity the effect of altitude on net solar production?

??? I've always known what my latitude is, I have big maps of my area on my wall. I also know what my climate is like, having lived in this spot for thirteen years and more than twenty-eight years in this state. But my impression that southern Spain—same latitude—would be better for solar because of a sunnier, drier climate appears incorrect. I've never been to Spain so I confess ignorance of what the climate there is really like.

As for Nebraska, some people aren't aware that Denver is located on the high plains, not in the mountains. But it is located next to the mountains, so the weather is affected somewhat by that proximity. Nebraska is also located on the Great Plains, although somewhat lower and well away from the Rocky Mountains, and is bisected by the 100th meridian. That line of longitude is generally used to delineate the drier West from the wetter middle part of the country. So, yes, I would expect western Nebraska to have similar solar resources to eastern Colorado. For the record: I live 300 (road) miles and a whole lot of mountains southwest of Denver.

 

[abasile]

Is there any way to quantity the effect of altitude on net solar production?

I do not yet have solar panels on my home, so I do not speak from first-hand experience. However, I would expect solar production to be better at higher altitudes, for two reasons. First, temperatures are cooler. I've read that photovoltaic panels operate more efficiently at lower temperatures. Second, as has been pointed out, solar intensity is greater.

Since our particular mountain range is generally above the coastal marine layers, we have less overall cloud cover than the cities of SoCal. That might not be true in the Colorado Rockies when comparing with nearby, lower altitude areas.

If snow is an issue, a roof rake might help some. Our particular issues with solar are that large pine trees cast shadows on our roof for much of the day, and our available roof area is not that large.

 

[surfingslovak]

??? I've always known what my latitude is, I have big maps of my area on my wall. I also know what my climate is like, having lived in this spot for thirteen years and more than twenty-eight years in this state. But my impression that southern Spain—same latitude—would be better for solar because of a sunnier, drier climate appears incorrect. I've never been to Spain so I confess ignorance of what the climate there is really like.

Well, excuse me then, I incorrectly inferred that from your post above. My apologies. Please have a look at the chart below. That's the best I could do on a short notice. As I said earlier, I believe that latitude, followed by the ratio of sunny-to-cloudy days will have an overwhelming impact on solar energy production. This is one of the main reasons why the US is generally better off than Germany, since their territory is north of the 47th parallel. That's almost as far north as Canada. Most people, including the Fox reporter, probably don't realize that. Thanks for the geographic data on Nebraska and Colorado, interesting read.



Source: 20 Years of Solar Measurements: The Solar Radiation Research Laboratory (SRRL) at NREL

 

[surfingslovak]

Here is the solar irradiation map for the rest of Europe for better context:


Source: Institute for Energy and Transport

 

[LEAFfan]

Dpg, any topographic feature 2000 ft. or more above sea level is classified as a mountain.

 

[dhanson865]

Dpg, any topographic feature 2000 ft. or more above sea level is classified as a mountain.

I wish it were that simple

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; says the United States Geological Survey (USGS) concludes that these terms do not have technical definitions in the US (referring to mountains vs hills)

fwiw I live in a foothill/mountainous region and it is a very ambiguous line between the two as I drive around east TN.

Many of the "hills" I drive over are higher in elevation than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Si" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; which is officially a mountain in WA state at 1,576 feet but is only 460 feet above the local terrain.

 

[dgpcolorado]

Dpg, any topographic feature 2000 ft. or more above sea level is classified as a mountain.

I wish it were that simple

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; says the United States Geological Survey (USGS) concludes that these terms do not have technical definitions in the US (referring to mountains vs hills)

fwiw I live in a foothill/mountainous region and it is a very ambiguous line between the two as I drive around east TN.

Many of the "hills" I drive over are higher in elevation than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Si" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; which is officially a mountain in WA state at 1,576 feet but is only 460 feet above the local terrain.

I suppose it does depend on what one is used to. Since I am surrounded by mountain peaks in the 12,000 to 14,000 foot range and live on a high mesa 1000 very steep feet above the river valley below, I generally use the term "hill" to refer to any extended slope. But I am aware that a hill in Michigan, say, is rather different from the ones I drive on a daily basis.

For me "mountain driving" would be what abasile does getting to and from his home in the San Bernardino Mountains (a drive I did dozens of times many years ago), what I do when using the "Million Dollar Highway" to cross the San Juan Mountains to get to the Nissan dealer in Durango (you really have to see it to believe it), or what my fellow Coloradans do when they drive from the Denver metro area to the ski areas on the other side of the Continental Divide. The rest is just "hills" to me: lots of elevation change but nothing radical.

 

[dgpcolorado]

...Please have a look at the chart below. That's the best I could do on a short notice. As I said earlier, I believe that latitude, followed by the ratio of sunny-to-cloudy days will have an overwhelming impact on solar energy production. This is one of the main reasons why the US is generally better off than Germany, since their territory is north of the 47th parallel. That's almost as far north as Canada. Most people, including the Fox reporter, probably don't realize that. Thanks for the geographic data on Nebraska and Colorado, interesting read.


Source: 20 Years of Solar Measurements: The Solar Radiation Research Laboratory (SRRL) at NREL

Yes, altitude does make a significant difference in solar panel performance. On a sunny day here the UV index is always pegged at the maximum; this has a downside: Colorado has one of the highest melanoma rates in the country. Thin air means more intense solar radiation, as any mountain climber knows. Broad brimmed hats and sunblock are a good idea here. And the generally cooler temperatures at altitude make for greatly improved PV performance, as abasile mentioned above. I see the shift in solar panel performance due to temperature in my own data; for a given sun angle and day length the colder the better.

As for the relatively poor solar resources in northern Europe, the fact that they are quite far north is the biggest part of it but they also have the weather influence of the Gulf Stream. I've heard that the climate of Belgium is particularly grey and damp. Your map shows northern Germany as being much the same. At least the Seattle and Portland folks get some lovely summer weather!

 

[klapauzius]

Interestingly during summer time, solar power in Germany is a substantial quantity. According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and other articles I read on the topic, up to 1/3 (22 GW ! or the equivalent of 22 nuclear power plants) of the total demand can come from solar on a sunny day in Germany!

Over the year, the total energy produced is just 3%, so rather low, but its a start!

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

100 G's and counting!

http://www.electric-vehiclenews.com/2013/02/worlds-solar-pv-capacity-passes-100-gw.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FpEcq+%28Electric+Vehicles%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Interestingly during summer time, solar power in Germany is a substantial quantity. According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and other articles I read on the topic, up to 1/3 (22 GW ! or the equivalent of 22 nuclear power plants) of the total demand can come from solar on a sunny day in Germany!

Over the year, the total energy produced is just 3%, so rather low, but its a start!

actually its latitude like WA. although the angle it not ideal, we get a TON of daylight in Summer (which we pay for in Winter) and that is why Germany is so high. its Sun up at 4:30 AM and Sundown after 10 PM during the longest days. makes for good solar

 

[GRA]

IMO, government support of solar in Germany is of the worst examples of government interference in energy options around. Germany is cloudy, but NW europe has lots of wind. Solar is ridiculous there.

I can't speak to their energy policy, but I was told that solar and wind are complementary, and they have been busy installing both. Have a look at this Fraunhofer report. It's in English, and it might answer a question or two.

Sure, they're complementary, but that doesn't mean solar is cost-effective at current module prices, just look at the charts on pages 4 and 5, comparing installed capacity and output. I've designed hybrid systems, and there are places where they make perfect sense. Germany, and NW Europe generally, isn't one of them given current economics. If anyone thinks that's an intelligent use of government funds, I suggest we encourage them to get the government of Ireland, well-known (at least, presumably by Fox News talking heads) for its abundant sun, to do the same.

If some individual wants to put PV modules on their roof in Dusseldorf, go for it. But the government shouldn't be subsidizing it, and they sure as hell shouldn't be subsidizing commercial solar, at least in Germany. The kind of capacity factors that are possible require far too much surface area and cost way too much to be cost-effective, until solar modules are no more expensive than roof shingles (or ARE roof shingles, as a couple of companies have tried to develop).

If you're willing to throw unlimited amounts of money at the problem, I can design you a PV/battery system that will provide for the year-round needs of the Amundsen-Scott base at the South Pole, but you'd have to be insane to do it. Idiocies like the Bavarian solar park were and are some of the worst examples of government incentivizing the wrong technology. Amazingly enough, even the Germans have started to admit this:

http://solarindustrymag.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.10624#.URmQLay8DwMas" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For those who'd like to compare solar resources in various parts of the world without resorting to charts, here's a table:

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c6/page_46.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I also hope you realize that your statement is the direct opposite of what Shibani Joshi said on Fox. You can think anything you like about Germany, but I fear for the future of this country when MBAs from Ivy League schools demonstrate such an utter lack of knowledge.

Why on earth should I care what some clueless media talking head has to say about solar, or AE systems in general? See my sig.



Click to open[/quote]

 

[GRA]

...Please have a look at the chart below. That's the best I could do on a short notice. As I said earlier, I believe that latitude, followed by the ratio of sunny-to-cloudy days will have an overwhelming impact on solar energy production. This is one of the main reasons why the US is generally better off than Germany, since their territory is north of the 47th parallel. That's almost as far north as Canada. Most people, including the Fox reporter, probably don't realize that. Thanks for the geographic data on Nebraska and Colorado, interesting read.


Source: 20 Years of Solar Measurements: The Solar Radiation Research Laboratory (SRRL) at NREL

Yes, altitude does make a significant difference in solar panel performance. On a sunny day here the UV index is always pegged at the maximum; this has a downside: Colorado has one of the highest melanoma rates in the country. Thin air means more intense solar radiation, as any mountain climber knows. Broad brimmed hats and sunblock are a good idea here. And the generally cooler temperatures at altitude make for greatly improved PV performance, as abasile mentioned above. I see the shift in solar panel performance due to temperature in my own data; for a given sun angle and day length the colder the better.

You'll also get a benefit from sunlight reflecting off snow in front of the panels, if your panels aren't mounted too high above the ground. If I wanted an ideal location for PV, it would theoretically be on top of Mt. Chimborazo in Ecuador. Oh, and if there are some nice puffy cumulus around, when the sun just touches them you'll get what's known as cloud-edge effect, which will boost the output even more, albeit briefly.

 

[klapauzius]

If some individual wants to put PV modules on their roof in Dusseldorf, go for it. But the government shouldn't be subsidizing it, and they sure as hell shouldn't be subsidizing commercial solar, at least in Germany. The kind of capacity factors that are possible require far too much surface area and cost way too much to be cost-effective, until solar modules are no more expensive than roof shingles (or ARE roof shingles, as a couple of companies have tried to develop).

Well, it is bringing prices down and encourages development...so money spent in Germany on solar initially wasn't so bad, because it created technology jobs and the development of an industry, which was not there before.

It is true that Germans are now complaining about the extra cost of electricity, because the solar subsidies are just slapped onto the regular energy prices. But for a people, who in severe a case of irrational fear and panic decided abandon nuclear power because of an earthquake on the other side of the globe, it serves them right now to pay up for renewable energy.

And in the long term it might turn out to be a prudent investment.