Can Germany Decentralize Power Production?

Decentralized power is much more robust in the event of a war, terror attack, or a natural disaster.

It appears to be well underway, from my roof (without one!), I can see 6 installations within a few hundred meters....

This is typical nowadays.

Also "forests" of windmills all over....

The systems installed at this time, of course still need the "mains" as they require the frequency "clock".....

But the technology is still inefficient to my mind.

Its only fairly recently that water cooled Photovoltaic has taken off, far too slowly....I have still not seen one myself yet....the idea/technology is not that new either.....and it boosts total efficiency dramatically....if the warmed water is used to supply say domestic hot water or house heating in winter...

PV liquid cooling boosts efficiency dramatically? Care to take a stab at the increase in productivity percentage on an annual basis. It seems similar to the tracking technology that is largly ignored in favor of increased size of fixed arrays. Slight increases in productivity will not pay for the increased cost of equipment and maintanance.

Then you (if I understood your comments correctly, you were unclear!) have not studied the differences between a conventional Photovoltaic and a water cooled one. It was on CR4 in the last couple of years or so.

I would personally NEVER advise anyone to use a tracking system. The gains are offset by complexity and less overall reliability.

Plus the overall efficiency achieved by cooling and using the heat obtained for various things such as ht water and heating, completely forgetting for the moment the increased photo voltaic efficiency, which drops substantially when they get too hot, plus aging happens faster when hot, MUCH faster.

Aging alone is to my mind the single worst problem of the usual cells in use today....

Look at the links I have posted, you may be pleasantly surprised!!

Just a cooling system is mentioned here:-

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090447913000403

It is mentioned well down the page here:-

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

Here:-

http://spie.org/newsroom/technical-articles/5011-combining-photovoltaic-and-thermal-systems-for-efficiency-gains

Here:-

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijp/2009/732093/

Here:-

http://www.engineering.com/ElectronicsDesign/ElectronicsDesignArticles/ArticleID/6123/Photovoltaic-Thermal-System-Achieves-86-Efficiency.aspx

If you search on the web there are many further examples....Happy?

I was asking you to take a stab at the estimated increase in productivity of a commercially available product. (I am not aware of one) I could then try to analyze the cost effectiveness of the premise, or contrast it with tracker technology.

Trackers are availaviable. They get used. and the fact that you would never reccommend them is important if you are in the business of recommending. (I am, and don't).

Finally, cell degradation is not an issue in any project I know of. What specifically are you referring to. 20% in 25 years.

Its an interesting subject. I have not found the original CR4 document which I needed, which was really well put, but I haven't given up.

I did find an interesting white paper on accelerated aging of solar cells here:-

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/imic.200990016/pdf

Which "stresses" (pun intended) that thermal cycling ages the solar cells quite dramatically. Their final conclusion is shown below:-

Conclusion In situ transmission electron microscopy is a versatile tool for investigation of structural and compositional changes on nanometer and micrometer scale. Life imaging of the structural changes is possible. Testing the growth of the NiSi layer in solar cells during ageing is important. Si-based solar cells with such layers are commercialised for about 10 years and the knowledge of the ageing behaviour of the NiSi layers is poor. Furthermore no standards for testing Si based solar cells are available at the moment. For a more quantitative approach more temperatures and longer exposure times have to be analysed.

Interesting don't you agree? So nobody knows for certain, but my take is and always has been that thermal stressing cannot be good for such a crystal....

This website comes to similar conclusions with a 20% efficiency loss REASONS UNKNOWN!!:-

http://erc.europa.eu/erc-stories/brighter-future-anti-ageing-treatment-solar-panels

There are many papers on this subject, take your pick online.

Look for Solar "Hybrid" systems, they are the ones to install nowadays. Dual Sun is a possible name of a company.

I also liked this explanation too:-

http://www.nakedenergy.co.uk/product/how-it-works/

Having seen how the Sun's rays affect other things (not forgetting our own skin aging!!), I tend to find that sun is not altogether good even for solar cells.....but that (like me) work better when cool....

I wish you luck.

PS. All the big fields of Solar are ALL fixed here in Germany, no tracking. There has to be a reason why!!

You guys can all discuss. While in the meantime

I am enjoying solar, like I did 50 years ago in Africa, with self made PV solar panels and

do now again with a series 125 Watts panels (50 pieces), same format, the oldest are 18 years old and the newest 3 years.

And they produce all still the same, in full tropical sun 125 Watts each and peaking up to 145 Watts in summer. And the glass becomes that hot, that I can fry eggs on it.

The investment I did has paid for itself now about 7 times already and counting. (6000 Watts inverter included)

While I am applying solar in the caribbean, a tracking system doesn't make that of a difference HERE. I just install some more fixed panels instead of having the tracker headache on top.

However, more North, a tracking system will prove to contribute a lot to the efficiency.

Photo-voltaic (PV) solar panels lose approx 0.5% efficiency for every 1ºC rise in temperature. In Northern Europe, where both Andy and I live, solar panels typically have an operating temperature of between 60-80ºC in summer. (Subject to wind conditions) Combined photo-voltaic/thermal (PVT) panels typically run at 30-35ºC in equivalent conditions. That equates to a 15-22.5% increase in panel efficiency plus added hot water. With standard PV we would expect an annual yield of about 175KWh/m² of installed area which with PVT would raise to 200-210 KWh/m² electrical output plus an annual equivalent heating input of about 100KWh/m². In somewhere like Colorado, where the PV base line annual yield is nearer 440KWh/m² and the running temperature is much higher, the electrical efficiency increase would be about 30-35% with the heating bonus on top. Capital cost of PVT panels are about 10-15% higher but installation is more expensive because of the plumbing involved.

I disagree with Andy re tracker technology. Increases in output are typically 50%. Up time of tracker systems is in excess of 95% and even if the tracker is broken the panel can be centered and run at the same efficiency as a non-tracker installation.

You are confusing the question I put to Andy. What is the empirical total improvement in solar plant kwh production on an annual basis, and how much does that cost. You are siting point statistics and trying to interpolate that data into longterm practical results. Your analysis is theoretical, deficient in operating data, and not applied. Solar panels operate at a potential capacity of between 0 and 100% at all times. It is important to recognize that momentary variables (like temperature and insolation) have a non linear impact on harvest and most importantly, total annual kwh production, because they are intermittant. And then there is the impact of increased upfront and O and M costs, which serve to reduce efficiency of capital, which seems to be the focus of most of my clients. A tracker optimizing azimuth is not providing benefit when it is not sunny.

For instance, my IC engine is 50 times more efficient when it is operating in a coasting mode down a 7% grade at 40kph than when it is going up that same grade at 80KPH. It would be wonderful if I could always operate downhill, and I'll leave that discusion to the fringe. It may also make sense to optimize the IC operating parameters to achieve the least amount of pollutants. But that might limit my maximum power, which admittedly, will be required only in a very small window, and the effect on my mpl is also very small. But it would suck not having it.

Like trackers, the cost of the improvement is greater than the enhanced returm, currently. That is why you don't see them often, if at all.

I liked your post.

I feel we can agree to disagree on Trackers.

I would rather have more fixed cells, maybe with a simple totally mechanical 2 or 3 position Angle system, to catch maximum energy at different times of the year....but thats the upper limit for me personally...

Trackers need flexible hoses or special unions to allow movement when water is also involved. All of which can affect reliability. Hoses don't like Sun over a few years too.....

I am a believer in "KISS".....if you hadn't already guessed.....

Happy New Year!!

Wind, not good....

http://notrickszone.com/2015/02/07/germany-2014-report-card-is-in-its-25000-wind-turbines-get-an-f-averaged-only-14-8-of-rated-capacity/#sthash.PbdMmjoa.dpbs

"Solar power in Germany consists almost exclusively of photovoltaics (PV) and accounted for an estimated 6.2 to 6.9 percent of the country's net-electricity generation in 2014."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany

They've still got a long way to go....It was a bold move and the path to success is not clear...

Assuming you were partially addressing my post as well, I can only say that what you posted would all appear to be correct, and no argument from me personally. I am dumbfounded as to the timeline Germany has set.....we could land back in the stone age at some point!!

I still fail to understand how/when they can consider Nuclear to be finished with.......fusion is slowly getting there, but I haven't seen if they even consider Fusion to be nuclear or not!!

Not searched for that either online...sorry!

As you mention, windmills are not only expensive to install and maintain, but have never lived up to their promise with power delivery, though I had an incorrect higher value of 25% average in the back of my head, instead of the less than 15% actual that you posted.....we should eat more beans!!!

My point was actually very little to do with what you posted, but I was referring to the fact that water cooled photo voltaic has a far better efficiency than without water cooling. Especially when the warm water is used to heat a house and for warm water etc.. Though it will probably need "pumping up" to make it really useful.

The water cooled PV cells are even more efficient than when getting "overheated" in direct sunlight, also because of being cooled, the aging rate of such cells is seriously reduced as well....A double plus.....there was an interesting post on CR sometime in the last few years, so its not new, but I have still to see such an install!!

If you read my posts, I am sure you would understand better what I was alluding to.........nothing that you posted about!!

If you were not addressing my comments forget what I wrote, and thanks for the posts anyway!!

Happy New Year!

I had not read your post yet....It's my understanding that the solar insolation at your latitudes is insufficient to support the economics of solar thermal systems, which are by design more efficient than pv, but only with adequate radiation...now in actual practice I lack empirical evidence, so I defer to your onsite observations for any loopholes in this logic....all that being said, it seems to me that Germany is seeking a leadership role at any cost, in the alternative energy forefront...the wisdom of this strategy seems shaky at this point in time, but who can say in the long run how things will play out...I hope nuclear fusion can be solved in my lifetime, but taking no bets...

http://www.greenrhinoenergy.com/solar/radiation/empiricalevidence.php

I am surprised by and suspicious of this graph. There seems to be no reduction in fossil output to compensate for the peaks in solar. Electricity is generated to meet a demand curve, not a supply curve. As the supply and demand must be matched, and demand fluctuations will not have changed substantially since before all this solar was installed, the graph implies that there is a lot of fast response power plant lying idle in Germany at present. This is not an efficient way to run a national power supply utility.

Oh so true, they are selling excess generation to other countries...with the consequence of driving up prices....