”if you live somewhere with little sun and low electricity costs (and an already clean grid, like in Quebec and Ontario), then solar makes no sense at all”
I’d like to see them as complementary. The CO2 emissions from solar cell manufacturing is recouperated within months, and as long you are grid connected to any production plant that ca…
”if you live somewhere with little sun and low electricity costs (and an already clean grid, like in Quebec and Ontario), then solar makes no sense at all”
I’d like to see them as complementary. The CO2 emissions from solar cell manufacturing is recouperated within months, and as long you are grid connected to any production plant that causes emissions you are offsetting those. Nuclear can’t be regulated fast enough for grid stability, so if you aren’t blessed with hydro there will be some emissions from some plant somewhere.
I live in Sweden at a latitude eq to Fairbanks, Alaska and was part of commissioning a 36 kW roof solar project back in 2018, and even with low Swedish energy prices we have gotten a sound return in these 5 years. We are also situated within a few miles from Swedens largest hydroelectric plant. Conditions may be different in Canada, but here it made sense and continue to do so. We are however beginning to see the effects of increasing solar and wind production, with sometimes negative electricity prices early summer when spring flood forces hydro plants to produce at the same time as wind and solar does. Hydroelectric pump and grid tie battery storage projects are under way to tap into that arbitrage. The market will find a way to accommodate emissions free energy production one way or the other.
I am nevertheless a big fan of nuclear. Sweden has decomissioned half of its nuclear reactors the last two decades, the majority of them due to stupid political decisions. The effects have been obvious since the last decommissioning in 2020 with high volatility in pricing.
These aren't the numbers I've seen. The energy payback on solar panels can be years, especially at norther lattitudes like in Germany or Sweden. You can look up the extremely hot furnaces powered by natural gas used to melt and purify the polysilicon used to makethe panels, they are very energy intensive. Then there's the materials used around the panels (steel, concrete for large scale farms).
The energy packback on building a nuclear power plant is around 6 weeks.
"Nuclear can’t be regulated fast enough for grid stability, so if you aren’t blessed with hydro there will be some emissions from some plant somewhere."
I don't understand this, but I don't think it's correct. Nuclear tends to be used as baseload so is rarely needs to load follow, but it's a myth that it can't, as it has been load following in France for decades. It's just not the ideal way to use most nuclear power plants because in most places they don't have the majority of the grid nuclear, so it's better to load follow with natural gas or hydro.
Most places don't have large hydro reservoirs like Quebec and Scandinavia. Places that do are lucky to have more flexibility, but lots of other places have run of the river hydro.
Solar is great, but the idea places where it should go first are not necessarily where panels are being deployed these days, which is wasteful. And the ideal amount to have on a grid is probably in the 20-30% range, not the 80%+ range that some would like to see.
I highly recommend the Decouple Podcast, they have interviews with all kinds of energy experts (wind power experts from Denmark or Taiwan, nuclear engineers, grid operators, researchers, etc):
”if you live somewhere with little sun and low electricity costs (and an already clean grid, like in Quebec and Ontario), then solar makes no sense at all”
I’d like to see them as complementary. The CO2 emissions from solar cell manufacturing is recouperated within months, and as long you are grid connected to any production plant that causes emissions you are offsetting those. Nuclear can’t be regulated fast enough for grid stability, so if you aren’t blessed with hydro there will be some emissions from some plant somewhere.
I live in Sweden at a latitude eq to Fairbanks, Alaska and was part of commissioning a 36 kW roof solar project back in 2018, and even with low Swedish energy prices we have gotten a sound return in these 5 years. We are also situated within a few miles from Swedens largest hydroelectric plant. Conditions may be different in Canada, but here it made sense and continue to do so. We are however beginning to see the effects of increasing solar and wind production, with sometimes negative electricity prices early summer when spring flood forces hydro plants to produce at the same time as wind and solar does. Hydroelectric pump and grid tie battery storage projects are under way to tap into that arbitrage. The market will find a way to accommodate emissions free energy production one way or the other.
I am nevertheless a big fan of nuclear. Sweden has decomissioned half of its nuclear reactors the last two decades, the majority of them due to stupid political decisions. The effects have been obvious since the last decommissioning in 2020 with high volatility in pricing.
Hi Martin,
These aren't the numbers I've seen. The energy payback on solar panels can be years, especially at norther lattitudes like in Germany or Sweden. You can look up the extremely hot furnaces powered by natural gas used to melt and purify the polysilicon used to makethe panels, they are very energy intensive. Then there's the materials used around the panels (steel, concrete for large scale farms).
The energy packback on building a nuclear power plant is around 6 weeks.
"Nuclear can’t be regulated fast enough for grid stability, so if you aren’t blessed with hydro there will be some emissions from some plant somewhere."
I don't understand this, but I don't think it's correct. Nuclear tends to be used as baseload so is rarely needs to load follow, but it's a myth that it can't, as it has been load following in France for decades. It's just not the ideal way to use most nuclear power plants because in most places they don't have the majority of the grid nuclear, so it's better to load follow with natural gas or hydro.
Most places don't have large hydro reservoirs like Quebec and Scandinavia. Places that do are lucky to have more flexibility, but lots of other places have run of the river hydro.
Solar is great, but the idea places where it should go first are not necessarily where panels are being deployed these days, which is wasteful. And the ideal amount to have on a grid is probably in the 20-30% range, not the 80%+ range that some would like to see.
I highly recommend the Decouple Podcast, they have interviews with all kinds of energy experts (wind power experts from Denmark or Taiwan, nuclear engineers, grid operators, researchers, etc):
https://www.decouplemedia.org/
Speaking of Sweden, I just saw this: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-09/sweden-needs-to-treble-nuclear-power-as-electricity-demand-soars