Ik zie schaliegas toch niet zo gauw de rol van zonne-energie overnemen. Zonne-energie gaat alleen nog maar goedkoper worden en mensen hoeven de panelen alleen maar op het dak van hun huis te leggen en ze kunnen off-grid gaan. Bij schaliegas ben je nog steeds afhankelijk van leveranciers en er is genoeg discussie rondom schaliegas omdat het het bodemwater kan verontreinigen en de bodem kan destabiliseren.quote:Op maandag 3 december 2012 10:19 schreef Pietverdriet het volgende:
Schalie gas is nu zo goedkoop dat het zonneenergie de nek omdraait in de VS, en die hebben meer zon dan wij
http://www.wired.com/business/2012/08/mf_naturalgas/
[ afbeelding ]
Eerst minder verbruiken, dan pas opwekken wat je nodig hebt, heb je ook minder m2 nodigquote:Op maandag 3 december 2012 17:57 schreef Adfundum het volgende:
Mooi,de prijzen gaan inderdaad hard naar beneden maar ik zou nog steeds zo'n 15m² aan panelen nodig hebben. Dat is een veel te groot oppervlak, aangezien mijn dak niet geschikt is (riet). Tijd dat ze effeciënter worden zodat ik aan een paar panelen in de tuin genoeg heb. Met nanotechnologie moet dat kunnen. Van 16% naar 70% efficiëntie per paneel is geloof ik mogelijk.
Dit is onderdeel van de derde industriële revolutie en wij maken daar nu het begin van mee.quote:Op zondag 14 april 2013 17:15 schreef tfors het volgende:
Heerlijk, wat positieve berichten naast al die negativiteit op het nieuws. Hopelijk dat het niet "this time it is different".
HVDCquote:Op maandag 15 april 2013 14:10 schreef tfors het volgende:
Zijn er ook al echte oplossingen bedacht voor het probleem dat 's nachts de zon niet schijnt en in de winter veel minder?
Wat vooral lachwekkend is, is dat we idd weer kolencentrales aan t bouwen zijn. Geeft het gebrek aan visie wel aan bij onze politici.quote:Op donderdag 18 april 2013 19:44 schreef tfors het volgende:
Dit artikel wijst op deze ontwikkeling:
http://www.nuzakelijk.nl/(...)de-ontwikkeling.html
En dat is mede waar het met de energiewende in Duitsland om te doen is: de burger zelfbeschikking geven in zijn keuze voor lokale energie opwek en daar horen geen grote multinationals bij die alleen hun monopolie beschermen.quote:Het is dan ook niet verbazingwekkend dat de Zwitserse Investeringsbank UBS onlangs in een rapport adviseerde om uit de aandelen van energiebedrijven te stappen, omdat zij de komende jaren tot wel 8-10 procent van hun omzet en dus winstmarge gaan verliezen.
http://www.guardian.co.uk(...)hina-solar-trade-warquote:More than 1,000 firms demand end to EU-China solar PV trade war
april 9, 2013
Solar installers and customers urge Brussels not to impose import duties on Chinese panels
The extent of the split within the European solar industry over proposals for Brussels to impose tariffs on imported solar panels from China was laid bare yesterday, when it emerged that over 1,000 companies from across the industry have written to the European Commission warning import duties could have a grave impact on the industry.
The European Commission recently launched an anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigation against Chinese solar manufacturers, after European solar manufacturers lodged a series of complaints alleging that Chinese rivals were benefitting from unfair subsidies.
Speculation is now mounting that the EU could follow in the footsteps of the US and impose import tariffs on Chinese solar panels, while also pursuing a complaint to the World Trade Organisation about Chinese government subsidies.
Predictions the Commission could impose tariffs were given further credence last month, when it ordered customs officials to keep a record of the number of Chinese solar panels being imported in order to allow for retrospective levies to be imposed.
But while European and US solar technology manufacturers would welcome such action, installers and prospective purchasers of solar technology are increasingly concerned that such a move will drive up the cost of solar panels, leading to a slowdown in the deployment of the technology and job losses across the industry.
Now the Alliance for Affordable Solar Energy (AFASE), a coalition of over 350 companies opposed to introduction of import tariffs, has orchestrated a letter signed by 1,024 companies that warns of the potential negative impacts of any protectionist measures.
The letter, addressed to European Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht, argues the problems faced by European solar manufacturers are more the result of over-capacity in the global solar market caused by the economic slowdown than competition from China.
It also warns that "the imposition of anti-dumping and/or countervailing duties will severely hamper the growth of solar energy in the EU to the detriment of the entire EU solar PV value chain and without significant positive effect for the EU solar producers".
"All experts emphasize that photovoltaics will exit from the current bust cycle by continued cost cutting through cost rationalisations and economies of scale thereby sustaining and increasing demand," it adds. "We are convinced that it is precisely this inability to sufficiently cut costs at a crucial stage in the industry's development which has injured EU producers but it could also be the avenue forward for their success. Imposing additional duties is in blatant contradiction with the decrease in costs that is needed for the industry to survive."
(Bron)quote:While solar currently accounts for less than 1% of the energy supply, it is an exponentially improving technology, both in terms of price (14%/year) and pace of construction (60%/year). Already it is approaching parity with other energy sources in the Western US. Assuming this trend continues for another 10 to 20 years, and there’s no reason not to, solar power will become 5 to 10 times more cost effective than it is today. This raises an interesting question. What happens if solar becomes an order of magnitude cheaper than other sources of power?
(Bron)quote:You can see where this is going, can’t you. As network prices surge, rooftop solar PV prices are falling even more dramatically in the other direction. As the Edison Electric Institute and leading US utilities have pointed out this year, customers now have the option of sourcing electricity from their own resources at a cheaper cost, and will be tempted to use the grid only as a backup. This, of course, is a major threat to their business model. It’s what AGL Energy, and Hawaii’s network operator have both described as the “death spiral.”
http://www.nytimes.com/20(...)?pagewanted=all&_r=0quote:Solar Industry Anxious Over Defective Panels
The solar panels covering a vast warehouse roof in the sun-soaked Inland Empire region east of Los Angeles were only two years into their expected 25-year life span when they began to fail.
Coatings that protect the panels disintegrated while other defects caused two fires that took the system offline for two years, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost revenues.
Worldwide, testing labs, developers, financiers and insurers are reporting similar problems and say the $77 billion solar industry is facing a quality crisis just as solar panels are on the verge of widespread adoption.
No one is sure how pervasive the problem is. There are no industrywide figures about defective solar panels. And when defects are discovered, confidentiality agreements often keep the manufacturer’s identity secret, making accountability in the industry all the more difficult.
But at stake are billions of dollars that have financed solar installations, from desert power plants to suburban rooftops, on the premise that solar panels will more than pay for themselves over a quarter century.
The quality concerns have emerged just after a surge in solar construction. In the United States, the Solar Energy Industries Association said that solar panel generating capacity exploded from 83 megawatts in 2003 to 7,266 megawatts in 2012, enough to power more than 1.2 million homes. Nearly half that capacity was installed in 2012 alone, meaning any significant problems may not become apparent for years.
“We need to face up to the fact that corners are being cut,” said Conrad Burke, general manager for DuPont’s billion-dollar photovoltaic division, which supplies materials to solar manufacturers.
The solar developer Dissigno has had significant solar panel failures at several of its projects, according to Dave Williams, chief executive of the San Francisco-based company.
“I don’t want to be alarmist, but I think quality poses a long-term threat,” he said. “The quality across the board is harder to put your finger on now as materials in modules are changing every day and manufacturers are reluctant to share that information.”
Most of the concerns over quality center on China, home to the majority of the world’s solar panel manufacturing capacity.
After incurring billions of dollars in debt to accelerate production that has sent solar panel prices plunging since 2009, Chinese solar companies are under extreme pressure to cut costs.
Chinese banks in March, for instance, forced Suntech into bankruptcy. Until 2012, the company had been the world’s biggest solar manufacturer.
Executives at companies that inspect Chinese factories on behalf of developers and financiers said that over the last 18 months they have found that even the most reputable companies are substituting cheaper, untested materials. Other brand-name manufacturers, they said, have shut down production lines and subcontracted the assembly of modules to smaller makers.
“We have inspectors in a lot of factories, and it’s not rare to see some big brands being produced in those smaller workshops where they have no control over quality,” said Thibaut Lemoine, general manager of STS Certified, a French-owned testing service. When STS evaluated 215,000 photovoltaic modules at its Shanghai laboratory in 2011 and 2012, it found the defect rate had jumped from 7.8 percent to 13 percent.
[..]
Non-Chinese manufacturers have had quality problems as well. The defective panels installed on the Los Angeles area warehouse, for instance, were made by an American manufacturer. A reporter was granted access to the project on the condition that the parties’ identities not be disclosed because of a confidential legal settlement.
Hangt ervan af, de VS hebben al langer het plan om gigantische panelen in de ruimte te bouwen en de energie naar de andere te stralen, het is mogelijk en volgens mij wouden ze dit jaar al beginnen met het project. Die panelen zullen altijd zon opvangen.quote:Op zondag 12 mei 2013 17:07 schreef pietje9k het volgende:
Volledig overstappen op zonne-energie zal waarschijnlijk nooit gebeuren. In de huidige situatie halen wij energie uit verschillende bronnen zoals gas, olie en kolen. Dat zal in de toekomst niet anders zijn.
Er zijn een boel verschillende manieren om energie op te wekken uit duurzame bronnen zoals zon, wind en water. Per gebied zal een combinatie van mogelijkheden de beste oplossing zijn.
Eén van de conclusies van NASA's SERT programma: om economisch haalbaar te zijn mag launch cost niet meer bedragen dan 100 tot 200 $/kg. Het laagste bedrag dat ik vind komt van Yuzhmash (Ukraïne) voor de Dnepr-1: launch cost is 3784$/kg volgens wikipedia (data is erg onvolledig, launch cost is bij slechts 16 van 229 systemen vermeld; de Falcon Heavy zou met 2000$/kg goedkoper zijn maar die heeft nog nooit gevlogen).quote:Op donderdag 30 mei 2013 09:03 schreef Eyjafjallajoekull het volgende:
[..]
Hangt ervan af, de VS hebben al langer het plan om gigantische panelen in de ruimte te bouwen en de energie naar de andere te stralen, het is mogelijk en volgens mij wouden ze dit jaar al beginnen met het project. Die panelen zullen altijd zon opvangen.
Wat is significant, dat wordt nergens gekwalificeerd? Bovendien de Williams neemt die claim nergens in de mond, ook niet op zijn website. Overigens verkoopt Dissigno advisering en asset managemnt diensten.quote:The solar developer Dissigno has had significant solar panel failures at several of its projects, according to Dave Williams, chief executive of the San Francisco-based company.
Hoeveel underperforming? Maar liefst 5% gemiddeld! Maar dat zeggen ze er niet bij want dan klinkt het niet zo indrukwekkend meer.quote:But a review of 30,000 installations in Europe by the German solar monitoring firm Meteocontrol found 80 percent were underperforming.
Bij één leverancier en 'defect' in deze context betekend niet dat de betrokken panelen niks meer produceren, net als dat een auto ook nog wel rijdt met een deuk 'defect' in de bumper. Een verkleuring van de cel of inactief gebied in een cel wordt als 'defect' aangemerkt, wat natuurlijk heel wat anders is dan dat het paneel defect is. Maar dat is wel wat de lezer er van mee krijgt.quote:Testing of six manufacturers’ solar panels at two Spanish power plants by Enertis Solar in 2010 found defect rates as high as 34.5 percent.
Dat zie ik echt niet gebeuren.quote:Op donderdag 30 mei 2013 09:03 schreef Eyjafjallajoekull het volgende:
[..]
Hangt ervan af, de VS hebben al langer het plan om gigantische panelen in de ruimte te bouwen en de energie naar de andere te stralen, het is mogelijk en volgens mij wouden ze dit jaar al beginnen met het project. Die panelen zullen altijd zon opvangen.
|
Forum Opties | |
---|---|
Forumhop: | |
Hop naar: |