Energy Supply

North Africa and the Arab peninsula are among the best insolated regions on earth. There are very few other areas with comparable duration and intensity of sunshine. If anywhere, it is in the huge Arab desert areas that solar electricity could be generated at competitive terms, provided it will be possible to cope with the dust problem.

So far Arab countries have failed to exploit this golden resource, preferring to live on their huge oil and gas wealth.

This situation is slowly starting to change, not because of fears about climate change but because of the need to find long-term alternatives for depleting oil and gas resources. Several countries therefore aim at developing solar power capacities for replacing oil and gas in domestic electricity generation, reserving oil and gas for exports and as feed stuff for their rapidly expanding petrochemical industries.

However, only a few Arab countries have ambitious plans for investing in solar or wind energy. Algeria, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are the most advanced in terms of volume of planned investments and policy formulation.

• Algeria aims at covering one third of its energy demand from renewable sources by 2030 and investing $ 100 billion to that end.
• Saudi Arabia wants to generate 54 GW electricity from solar and wind by 2032 to free scarcer oil for exports.
• The UAE are in the process of preparing a comprehensive regulatory framework including a feed-in tariff incentive scheme. The Emirates Solar Industry Association supports the government in pushing ahead the use of solar power.

But these three countries counter-act their drive for solar power by subsidies on fossil energy, which exceed 50 per cent of the full cost of supply.

As a group the 22 Arab League member countries are among the worst climate polluters on earth. In terms of per capita C02 emissions they easily beat Western champions like USA, Canada or Australia.

As long as most Arab countries keep subsidising fossil fuel and refuse to impose even minimal excise taxes, solar power will not be competitive and no more than a fig leaf.

From a global climate perspective, they should focus on reducing their excessive fossil fuel consumption rather than promoting solar or wind energy. Phasing out fossil fuel subsidies must be the first priority. This should be the key message for the EU-Arab policy dialogue and economic cooperation.

 

During May 2013 a solar-fuelled plane, piloted by two entrepreneurial Swiss citizens, is crossing the USA from California to New York, with a few stop-overs in major cities. It is an unprecedented event aiming to encourage policy makers and business to adopt sustainable energy solutions.

The SOLAR IMPULSE has been conceived by its two pilots, Bertrand Piccard and André Borschberg, and developed with the support of dozens of engineers and technicians of the Technical University of Lausanne during the last 10 years.

The crossing of the USA serves as a test for an even more ambitious tour around the earth, scheduled for 2015 in an improved version equipped with a pressurised cabin for two pilots.

SOLAR IMPULSE weighs no more than a car. It is composed of specially developed super light carbon-composite material. Its wings stretch over 60 m, comparable to those of an Airbus 380; its cruising speed is about 70 km/h.

Thanks to its 12 000 photovoltaic cells and its rechargeable lithium polymer batteries it can fly by day and night at altitudes up to 10 000 m. This is a major progress compared to the remotely piloted solar-fueled planes developed and launched by NASA in 2008 for long-duration scientific flights.

The SOLAR IMPULSE has cost € 120 million to build, largely financed by more than 80 mostly European partners and sponsors, among them many big names of European business, from Omega, to Schindler, Swiss Re, Bayer and Deutsche Bank, who have found it worthwhile to be associated with this experiment of solar flying.

Because of technical constraints PV will never be able to power large commercial air craft. But it may very well give an impetus to amateur flying which may become much cheaper because of fuel costs solar.

The main merit of the transcontinental flight, however, is to have demonstrated a new application for PV power. So far we have used it for road signs, remote electricity generation and, recently, grid-connected power plants.

But nobody would have guessed 25 years ago that in 2013 a plane would be able to cross the United States by means of electric engines driven by PV cells.

60 years after Bell Laboratories have produced the first practical photovoltaic cell we should pay tribute to European imagination and technical curiosity for having developed its most advanced application so far.

Brussels 10.05. 2013 Eberhard Rhein

The energy director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development has made astonishing statements about coal investments prompting Bankwatch’s EBRD campaign team to react.

posted on the Bankwatch blog by Fidanka Bacheva-McGrath, Bankwatch EBRD campaign coordinator

At about the same time as scientists declared an unprecedented and increasingly dangerous CO2 concentration in the earth’s atmosphere, the Energy Director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Mr. Ricardo Puliti, warned in an interview with the guardian against an “ideological” approach to financing energy projects that only takes climate change into consideration. Clearly as a reaction to a widespread call to end coal financing, Mr. Puliti specifically ruled out a “No” to coal.

The news has been received with surprise and open criticism not only by environmental organisations. [*] Colleagues here at Bankwatch were particularly astonished by Mr. Puliti’s understanding that what scientists repeatedly called for was “ideological”: to reduce carbon emissions as quickly as possible. (We were also surprised by the claim the EBRD only financed two coal-related projects between 2006 and 2012. A quick look at the database for 2006-2011 – one that includes natural resources projects and is based on Bankwatch’s own methodology – shows 16 coal-related projects worth more than EUR 600 million.) [**]

Yet, Mr. Puliti is not the only one at the bank talking about balancing [the apocalyptic threat of] climate change with other priorities such as security of supply and affordability. We have heard the same repeatedly in the corridors and meetings at the EBRD’s annual meeting in Istanbul last week, which is why it is time to make a few points in reaction:

Ideology vs. science

First of all, intensified efforts to halt climate change are not urged by ideologists, but for decades by climate scientists, on the one hand, and by respected institutions like the International Energy Agency, on the other hand. Bankwatch’s demand to exclude coal projects from the EBRD’s portfolio is informed by these scientific analyses and supported by calls from several other international institutions (including other development banks) for a discontinuation of fossil-fuel subsidies and by the warnings about the economic “cost of inaction”.

Climate science suggests one meaningful target, to keep the rise in global temperature under a maximum of 2 degrees if catastrophic climate change is to be prevented. Seemingly blind to this goal, the EBRD has expressed great satisfaction and pride with ANY contribution to CO2 reductions, even if it enforces the status quo by entrenching coal in the energy mix of countries for decades to come.

A case in point is the Kolubara lignite mine which provides more than half of Serbia’s electricity. The EBRD’s investment will bring estimated emission reductions of 200 000 tonnes CO2 equivalents while the mine’s remaining lignite reserves will produce 540 million tonnes if burned. (Other examples are the Sostanj lignite power plant in Slovenia and potentially a lignite power plant in Kosovo.)

Does excluding coal contradict affordability?

Mr. Puliti suggests affordability as one possible reason to keep coal in the mix. But affordability calculations often favour fossil fuels, because promoters

• look at a relatively short time horizon, as fossil fuel prices are hard to predict for the life-time of a facility;
• excludes the related health costs: an estimated price tag of coal power generation is from EUR 15 to 40 billion per year in Europe as a recent report has calculated;
• counts renewables subsidies, but overlooks fossil fuels subsidies.

Security for whom and what?

A 2012 report by Corner House vividly discusses the pitfalls of “energy security” (and security of supply), both as policy and as rhetoric.

[T]he more that the term “energy security” is invoked, the less clear it is just what is being “secured” as a range of different interest groups use it to signify many often contradictory goals. The multiple meanings of “energy security” are an obstacle to clear thinking and good policymaking. They are also an open invitation for deception and demagoguery, making it easy for politicians and their advisers to use fear to push regressive, militaristic social and environmental programmes.

I’m certainly not accusing the EBRD of demagoguery or militarism, but our experience with the bank has often been that where security of supply is the core justification, alternatives to the damaging energy sources have not properly been assessed.

If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading

I have been struggling to understand why in our communication with the EBRD we seldom come to a shared understanding. In the endless policy consultations in which the banks engages us these days, if we get to agree, usually it is an agreement to disagree. In Istanbul we reached one conclusion with the bank’s staff, that perhaps our disagreements have to do with our incompatible definitions of ‘sustainability’. Why else would we consider the Sostanj lignite power plant an outrageous investment that will lock Slovenia into a high carbon future while the EBRD places it under its Sustainable Energy Initiative?

If the EBRD believes in a low-carbon transition and indeed wants to act as a responsible “active citizen” (Mr. Puliti) it should invest in projects that enable the fundamental shifts in industrial, institutional, social and political relationships that are needed in our region for an effective response to the climate threat. Anything less than that will not be fit for purpose.

---

[*] The EBRD’s Director of Communications stated on twitter that Mr. Puliti has been misquoted in the guardian article, referring, however, to the notion of a possible expansion of coal funding by the EBRD, not the points discussed in this blog post. By the time of publication, no correction has been made on the guardian’s website.

[**] More details, including an outline and explanation of Bankwatch’s methodology can be found in the report Tug of War: Fossil fuels versus green energy at the EBRD

Related articles

• European energy chief puts forward case for funding coal (guardian.co.uk)
• EBRD with disastrous start in Kosovo, European Parliament not amused (bankwatch.blogactiv.eu)
• Serbia’s unabated quest for coal causes tremors among mining communities | Claire Provost (guardian.co.uk)
• Arab organisations speak out against EBRD  dailynewsegypt.com)

The EU is in the process of defining its energy/climate policy beyond 2020.

This is timely for two reasons:

• European business needs to be fixed on the policy framework for their long-term investments related to energy, transport, buildings, grids etc.
• The EU must have advanced on its medium-term climate strategy before engaging in the negotiations on an international agreement in 2015.

There is a wide consensus on the need for ambitious 2030 targets.

By 2050 the EU aims at having reduced its C02 emissions by 80-95 per cent over 1990. By 2020 it will have achieved at best 20 per cent reduction! We are therefore far away from the ultimate objective and have to speed up the process.

2030 being mid-term towards the middle of the century, the EU needs to have reduced its emissions by at least 45 per cent over 1990! That may come as a shock; but it is time to make citizens aware of the implications of a low carbon society.

The crucial issue is how to achieve a much more ambitious target in 2030.

Should the EU again fix separate targets for the share of renewable sources in the energy mix and the rise of energy efficiency? This is what part of the business community, especially the solar and wind industries, claim.

Or is it preferable to stick to one over-riding target – 45 per cent of C02 emission reduction – and focus on concrete policies for implementing it.

Defining more ambitious targets for renewable energies will become tough. To be meaningful, wind and solar electricity would have to supply about two thirds of EU power consumption in 2030. That seems unrealistic without a generous EU-wide system of incentives. But more important, we would need 28 targets, as the comparative advantages for generating renewable energies vary widely among member states. In some of them renewable energies are very difficult to generate at competitive costs, while others have enough land, wind or the sun to generate essentially all their electricity demand even without granting any subsidies.

To achieve a quantum leap in the reduction of C02 emissions within the next 15 years the EU will need to put in place an effective policy framework. This requires a balanced inter-action between EU and member states.

Member states should bear the main responsibility for implementing the average EU emission target, which should continue to be differentiated according to per capita emissions.

The new framework should introduce a regular policy dialogue between Commission and energy ministries of member countries, under which member states will have to report to Commission and all member states on the concrete policy measures they intend to take and their effective transposition.

At EU level the main policy instruments should be reinforced:

• A reformed carbon cap and trading (ETS)

  The pace of annual C02 reductions will have to be lifted in according with the tougher 2030 target and provide for possibilities of adjustment to avoid the violent fluctuations of carbon prices that have impaired the effectiveness of EU climate policy during the last few years.

• Tough energy efficiency standards wherever possible.In the automobile sector these are under preparation for cars, light utility vehicles and trucks.
• Accelerated energetic renovation of public buildings

  The pace of renovation needs to be accelerated.

  A € 200 billion programme for energetic renovation of private buildings, enabling the EU to tackle its biggest source of C02 emissions, to be financed by EIB and structural funds.

• Phasing out all subsidies on fossil energies

  This job is progressing slowly, due to political obstacles. But the principle to tax fossil energies according to C02 emissions is largely accepted, except for heating fuel and gas.

  The EU must lift taxes on heating fuel/gas in view of encouraging house owners to improve insulation and heating systems. This politically unpopular measure will boost employment in the construction and mechanical industries.

In conclusion, the EU has the unique chance of putting in place a comprehensive strategy by which to tackle its excessive C02 emissions and show the rest of the world that such a strategy pays. The Commission must urgently come up with effective recipes to enable EP and Council to adopt the new package before the end of the present legislature in May 2014.

Eberhard Rhein, Brussels

The proposal to address the issue of indirect land use change (ILUC) in European biofuel policy has advanced in the European Parliament, as MEP Corinne Lepage of France released her draft report in the Environment Committee. ILUC refers to unintended consequences of making biofuels—for example, if a policy preference for corn ethanol creates incentives for farmers to replace carbon-absorbing forests with cornfields, or to raise food prices by diverting corn to fuel. Some biofuels—often called “second generation”—made from non-edible crops like jatropha and algae that can thrive on currently non-productive land, avoid many of these ILUC effects.

Lepage’s proposal will incorporate specific ILUC “factors” into the sustainable criteria of the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive and Fuel Quality Directive. This will account for differences in biofuels performance, while the Commission suggested to cap at 5 percent the share of conventional biofuels (biodiesel and bioethanol) in transport under the Renewable Energy Directive. Public subsidies for these biofuels will end by 2018.

To promote second-generation biofuels, the report calls for a carveout for woody biomass and agricultural residues. Lepage sought to protect prior investments, so she would delay until 2018 the ILUC factors on each member state’s share of biofuel consumption in the year 2010—provided that the grandfathered biofuels result in greenhouse gas reductions of at least 45 percent.

The grandfathering would benefit biodiesel, which accounted for 80 percent of European biofuel production in 2010. According to some news reports, however, bioethanol performs better on Lepage’s ILUC factors than biodiesel, evening out the advantage.

The Sustainable Aviation Fuel Users Group (or SAFUG, a consortium of airlines and aerospace firms of which Boeing is a part) has called for policymakers to consider mechanisms that reduce ILUC effects of biofuels. SAFUG has called for the EU to limit the share of food crop-based fuels; its members are committed to biofuels that do not displace food crops. SAFUG also calls for the European Parliament to establish incentives for biofuels that are certified as low-risk for ILUC effects, using a model like the Low Indirect Impact Biofuels (LIIB) standard. SAFUG members also support incentives for biofuels made from waste, algae, and ligno-cellulosics — but no further incentives for feedstocks.

The aviation industry is committed to developing high-efficiency, second-generation sustainable biofuels. These fuels can reduce the sector’s carbon footprint, provide a more diverse (and thus resilient) supply of energy, and develop a new, environmentally progressive industry. And as the industry develops these fuels, it is taking care to ensure they avoid ILUC effects.

For example, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines took a bold step for sustainable aviation last month by launching the first in a series of “Optimal Flights” using a 777 between New York and Amsterdam. Boeing is proud to be their partner in this effort that combines renewable fuels with advanced technology. This means not only using sustainable biofuels, but other smart technologies and concepts to improve the airplane’s operational efficiency while saving fuel and reducing carbon and noise emissions. Basically, we’re taking multiple flight efficiency projects and rolling them into one program to create the most environmentally progressive flight possible.

The Sustainable Aviation Fuel Users Group (or SAFUG, a consortium of airlines and aerospace firms of which Boeing is a part) is of the view that, because of the potential negative impact, ILUC must be addressed in government policies promoting the production of sustainable fuels. SAFUG has called for policymakers to consider mechanisms to lower the contribution of high ILUC risk biofuels and create incentives for sustainable biofuels that have been certified as low risk of ILUC. Any legislation addressing ILUC should consider the possibility of project-level mitigation approaches, including, but not limited to, the Low Indirect Impact Biofuels (LIIB) methodology currently under development by Ecofys, EPFL and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

Football fans know the value of a hat-trick – the triumvirate of goals that prove success for any striker. Though difficult to achieve, the hat-trick is worth striving for.

The European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) also wants to score a hat-trick. Their new publication proposes three targets to drive EU energy policy after 2020: renewable energy, greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficiency.

“This would yield more benefits for European citizens and industries than a one-legged policy” based on a greenhouse gas only approach, say EREC.

“The message is simple: if you want to lower costs, create jobs, replace fossil fuel imports and drive innovation, competitiveness and investment, then a hat-trick of climate and energy goals works best”, said Rainer Hinrich-Rahlwes, President of EREC.

EREC are talking about 2030 targets now, as the current EU plans only go as far as 2020 – less than a decade away, which in terms of planning infrastructure for the energy business is the blink of an eye. A 2030 target is a vital signal for investors, as it decreases uncertainty which in turn reduces risk, and therefore cost. It would also ensure that the net growth in GDP that the EU currently gains from renewable energy would continue. In addition, a 2030 target would decrease the need for support mechanisms, reduce the costs of decarbonisation, allow Europe to maintain its “first mover advantage” in renewable technology, replace fossil fuels imports, create jobs and create a cleaner environment.

“The successful economies of the next decades will be those which decrease resource use and greenhouse gas emissions while creating new businesses through technology leadership, technology deployment and increasing employment the way renewable technologies do” said Hinrich-Rahlwes.

The EU does not yet have 2030 targets, but the European Commission’s recent Green Paper on a “2030 framework for climate and energy policies” presents 2030 targets as a key policy option. The EU does have the European Commission’s Energy Roadmap 2050, which identifies renewable energy, energy efficiency and infrastructure as “no regrets options”, meaning that in any given scenario they are critical for future decarbonisation.

The European Parliament and the Energy and Climate Action Commissioners support 2030 targets, however there is disagreement in the European Council – made up of ministers and representatives from national governments in the EU. EWEA has urged the Council to join the Parliament and Commissioners in agreeing to a 2030 renewable energy target alongside a carbon cutting target. (See EWEA Press Release EU Commission’s 2030 energy policy needs binding renewables target).

Regrets are certainly what the EU will have if it has to send representatives to the next international climate negotiations without a 2030 target. In typical understatement, Josche Muth of EREC described the job of negotiating in Paris in 2015 without new emissions targets as “hard”. Targets are concrete examples of European commitment to reducing emissions, and the strongest hand to play when convincing others that we are taking renewable energy, the climate and our citizens’ health and wealth seriously.

Read the EREC report Hat-trick 2030 – An integrated climate and energy framework

 

Already Brussels is looking beyond 2020 for its climate and energy targets, with the European institutions in recent weeks endorsing 2030 goals and opening public consultation on the 2030 policy framework.

Leading questions include – what type, nature and level of climate and energy targets should be set for post-2020? How can coherence between different policy instruments be attained? How can the energy system best contribute to EU competitiveness?

Günther Oettinger, EU Commissioner for Energy said: “We need to define our climate and energy policy framework for 2030 as soon as possible to ensure proper investment that will give us sustainable growth, affordable competitive energy prices and greater energy security. The new framework must take into account the consequences of the economic crisis, but it must also be ambitious enough to meet the necessary long-term goal of cutting emissions 80-95% by 2050.”

Current EU policy is centered on the three headline targets (20-20-20) to be achieved by 2020:

• GHG emission reductions of 20%
• a 20% share for renewable energy sources
• 20% savings in energy consumption

Looking beyond 2020, the Energy Roadmap 2050 provides a basis for developing a long-term policy together with all stakeholders. First adopted by the European Commission in December 2011, the roadmap was developed in line with the objective of reducing GHG emissions by 80 to 95% by 2050 (compared to 1990 levels), as part of necessary efforts by developed countries as a group. How to achieve the EU’s decarbonisation agenda while at the same time ensuring security of energy supply and competitiveness is a challenging issue, to say the least.

As a staging post on the Energy Roadmap 2050, the Green Paper on the 2030 policy framework is open for public consultation until 2 July 2013. On the basis of the views expressed, the Commission intends to table the EU’s 2030 framework for climate and energy policies by the end of this year.

Connie Hedegaard, EU Commissioner for Climate Action, said: ”Europe’s dependence on foreign fossil fuels is growing every year. That means more expensive and unaffordable energy bills for Europeans. This is not very wise. It’s obviously not wise for the climate, but it’s also not wise for our economy and our competiveness. That is why we have decided that in Europe we want a low-carbon society for 2050. We have targets for 2020, but for most investors 2020 is around the corner. It’s time to define the targets for 2030. The sooner we do that, the more certainty we get to our companies and our investors. And the more ambitious these targets are, the better for the climate.”

Fighting words – but the devil’s in the details. Should the targets be at EU, national or sectoral level and be legally binding? Some argue that the existing targets – and policies to reach them – are not necessarily coherent or cost efficient, or that competitiveness, economic viability and maturity of technologies are not taken sufficiently into account. Also, concerns have been expressed that the EU’s commitment to tackling climate change is not fully reciprocated elsewhere, impacting on the bloc’s economic competitiveness.

ManagEnergy opines that there are at least two aspects of behavioral economics that could impact on setting – and reaching – real climate and energy goals. Optimistically, there may be a positive effect from hyperbolic discounting – meaning that people will be farsighted when planning if both costs and benefits occur in the future. What kind of world do you want in 2030? In 2050? However, in the absence of international binding targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions – and the associated perception of free-loading – will the tendency towards pro-social behavior and fairness be diminished?

Have your say –

try coming up with answers to the questions listed here

For more, see

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/consultations/20130702_green_paper_2030_en.htm

 

We are a long way off solving the problem of climate change. One need only to think of the string of failed climate negotiations or the recent massive investments in tar sands and shale gas to appreciate this. It is a problem rooted in the fact that national governments do not prioritise renewable energy. They happily spend hundreds of billions of dollars on fossil fuel subsidies, while investing only a fraction of this amount in renewables.

Within the general target group of ‘public authority’,regional and local authorities were identified as having a higher priority, both with ca. 72 % or the answers, while national authorities were ticked by 56 % of participants.

In response to the question ‘Which sector should IEE III focus on?’ The public sector received 47% of the answers, then transport just over 46% and households 45%.

The inputs from this stakeholder consultation will be taken into consideration in shaping the IEE II successor programme – the ‘Market Uptake of Energy Innovation’ priority area of Horizon 2020′s Energy Challenge on Secure, clean and efficient energy.

Read the full report here

By Zoë Casey

If all the costs of fossil fuel power generation were detailed in German power bills they would exceed the costs of renewable energy “by a wide margin”, a study by Greenpeace Energy Germany and the German Wind Energy Association (BWE) says.

Currently German power bills clearly outline the cost of the EEG – the support that is channelled to renewable energy and charged to the consumer as a levy – but the costs of conventional fuels are hidden. “State incentives for nuclear and coal are sometimes part of rules that increase the price of power and sometimes part of government budgets. In both cases consumers cannot directly see the full cost in their power bills,” the report says.

In 2012 the EEG levy cost the consumer €c3.59 per KWh, while the report estimates that if there were a similar levy for fossil fuels it would cost €c10.2 per KWh – almost three times as high as the EEG.

The news comes as Germany enters a critical period of debate on the cost of its stepped-up “Energiewende” – or energy transition away from nuclear and fossil fuels towards renewables following a decision taken by the German government and Chancellor Angela Merkel in May 2011. On 1 January, the EEG – which effectively pays for Germany’s energy transition – was raised to €c5.3, a move which prompted German Environment Minister Peter Altmaier to announce in late January a two-year freeze on the EEG and a cap on raises after that.

While the final outcome of the debate is still to come, it is worth bearing in mind that not only are some fossil fuel and nuclear costs are hidden in power bills, but that fossil fuels and nuclear have been subsidised for decades at a cost of many more billions than subsidies to renewables. Moreover, the societal and environmental costs of fossil fuels and nuclear are high and will remain high.

In figures, the report highlights that the German government has paid a lot more to conventional fuels compared to renewables in direct and indirect energy subsidies between 1970 and 2012. While hard coal-fired electricity generation received a total of €177 billion in financial support, lignite received €65 billion, and nuclear received €187 billion. All renewables, meanwhile, received €54 billion over the same period, the report said.

The study then looks at the additional costs to society and the environment of fossil fuels and nuclear compared to renewables – which are only included to a minor extent in power bills. “The resulting price per of a kilowatt-hour of wind power for society in 2012 is €c8.1…in contrast, the total cost of power from lignite and hard coal add up to €c15.6 and €c14.8 respectively, with nuclear reaching at least €c16.4 per KWh,” the report says.

 

By solar panel efficiency we refer to the rate at which a photovoltaic panel converts solar energy into electrical energy. In general, a typical efficiency level of PV panels ranges between 12-16%, though recent technological improvements suggest we will soon be talking of efficiencies in the range well above 20%!

Solar panel efficiency

Solar panel efficiency is a measure of the solar cell’s ability to convert the solar energy to which it is exposed to into useful electrical power.  The solar panel’s energy conversion efficiency is expressed as a percentage of the cell’s output power (watts) over the input sunlight energy (irradiance in W/m²) and the surface area of the solar panel (in m²). Considering a solar panel with a surface area of 1 meter sq. (m²) and with solar panel efficiency of 20%, at standard test conditions, i.e. amongst other conditions at clear weather with irradiance of 1000 W/ m² and temperature of 25 °C, it will produce an output of 200 watts.

Consequently, the solar panel used in our illustration above, will produce more power than the power output of (STC) on a clear day with the sun high in the sky and less power on a cloudy day or when the sun is low.

Given a constant rated power for two different solar panels, e.g. 250 watts, their efficiency level will determine their surface area respectively. For example, a solar panel with efficiency 10% will have twice the surface area of a panel with efficiency 20% given they have the same rated output wattage – see what size of solar panels for home

Factors affecting solar panel efficiency

From above definitions, it can be easily understood that Solar panel efficiency is influenced by many factors. The most significant are gathered and presented below:

Types of solar panels

• Monocrystalline silicone photovoltaic cells, or single crystalline solar panels have been considered to be more efficient primarily because they have been found to exhibit a higher peak efficiency; consequently, monocrystalline solar panels were historically used for residential installations where installation area is limited. However, the statement that monocrystalline panels are more efficient than polycrystalline solar panels is rather controversial and subject to manufacturers’ specifications.
• Polycrystalline solar panels have, up to now, been considered less efficient when compared to monocrystalline sola panels. However, given latest technological evolvement, polycrystalline silicon has managed to cover this gap, if not to surpass the performance of monocrystallic, especially at temperatures higher than STC.
• A third type of solar panel is thin-film solar panels which are less efficient than crystalline silicon cells but also cost less. Being less efficient implies that they need a lot more surface area than crystalline silicon based cells, but they are highly flexible, thin and can be installed onto many different surfaces especially on buildings (commercial or residential solar panels – see Solar panels for green buildings and Best research-Cell Efficiencies (NREL)

Temperature

Depending on where you live, temperature may become a significant source of solar panel efficiency deterioration, especially if you live in a hot climate. The performance of solar panels may drop significantly at temperatures above (STC). One practical way of combating this is to use any means of ventilating installed solar panels to make them more efficient.

Tilt and orientation

To maximise effective exposure of the solar panel to sunlight requires that solar panels are faced to true South (for location sites within the North hemisphere) and vice versa. The inclination angle depends on the season and latitude of the site’s location; to increase exposure of solar panels to sunlight we can adjust our solar panels orientation 2 or 4 times a year according the season. Alternatively we can use a solar tracker, for maximised results, though trackers are mainly used to commercial application and not for residential applications, primarily due to higher costs and town planning restrictions.

Shades

Undoubtedly, shading will greatly affect the output performance of a solar panel. IT is important to note that when solar panels are connected in a module with one single inverter, the maximum module output is determined by the minimum performing cell; thus, in case of shade falling on a particular panel, it will influence the whole row circuit of solar panels connected together. That is why, especially in residential applications where shadings are more likely to occur, it is important to examine installation site, e.g. the roof of the building, and note any sources of shade in order to design the solar panel system accordingly. One possible solution to avoiding this solar panel bottleneck is with the use of micro-inverters; in any case, if you are planning to install solar panels for your home, it is advisable to ask for a proper installation design from potential solar panel installers in your area – you may want to see solar panels for home.

Humidity

By exposing solar panels to sunlight, they are also exposed to all nature’s conditions, including rain and humidity. If humidity manages to penetrate into the solar panel frame, photovoltaic performance will be reduced significantly and might lead to permanent deterioration of the modules performance.

Lifetime and age

Manufacturers always quote expected efficiency levels of their solar panels across their life span. For example, a common quoted is manufacturer’s performance warranty of minimum efficiency within 10 first years to be above 90% of quoted solar panel efficiency and the respective figure between 10 and 20 years around 80% or 85%. A Typical degradation rate is 0.5% per year of use.

Cleaning and maintenance

Solar panels usually require minimum maintenance as they do not incorporate mechanical moving parts; however, because they operate on sunlight passes through glass to reach the solar cell, sunlight quality is of ultimate importance and thus cleaning of the solar panel, especially the panel glass, is very crucial. As solar panels are exposed to natural conditions they gather dirt, dust, bird droppings, etc. which lead to reduction of the effective sunlight reaching the solar cells thus reducing solar panel efficiency and generated output. In cleaning roof mounted residential panels it is always advisable to seek some professional solar panel cleaning advice as any misconduct in doing so may lead to scratching the photovoltaic glass and creating a permanent more serious problem. Usually, solar panels are cleaned with lukewarm light soaped water solution and a soft non-abrasive cloth.

Monitoring performance

Keeping an eye on solar panel performance and efficiency levels through real time on-line platforms is extremely important and highly beneficial. Having access to this continues real-time data will ensure high quality control and security over the photovoltaic investment and subsequently safeguarding energy production. Deterioration or sudden decreases in photovoltaic performance are spotted immediately, thus providing early warning to act proactively and effectively against threats. On line monitoring can provide useful data for deciding on solar panel cleaning frequency, solar panel orientation corrections, and on any sources of malfunction from an early stage.

The importance of solar panel efficiency

Simply put, solar panel efficiency influences how much electricity a solar panels system is generating; this means generating more or less electricity given a constant area of solar panels, i.e. space limitations on a roof, and constant solar panel wattage (solar panel capacity).  The factors influencing the output of your solar panel installation have been outlined and consist of exogenous, such as weather and location conditions, as well as endogenous sources to your solar panels, such as sola panel efficiency – you may want to refer to solar panels properties in solar energy pros and cons.  Irrespective of the solar irradiation potential at your area, obtaining the highest possible output, given your budget for solar panel investment, is a primal requirement. Solar panel efficiency directly influences your output yield in generated electricity (e.g. kwh/year) and consequently influences generated income from rebates or FITs for on-grid installations. Eventually, solar panel efficiency is a primal factor influencing financial viability of your solar panels investment and the end repayment of your solar panels cost. Apart from solar panel efficiency it is crucially important to note that we are always interested in the efficieny and output performance of a solar photovoltaic system as a whole. Efficiency of solar panels, on a single panel level, is only one variable in the solar system. Learn how efficiency of your solar panel system can be affected and how it can be optimised by shoosing the appropriate type of solar inverter in micro-inverter vs string inverter.

Resources:

http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/

cell efficiency records (NREL)

http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/images/efficiency_chart.jpg

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51664.pdf

The decision by BP to sell off 4.6 GW capacity of wind power plants and projects in North America puts an end to an expensive dream to combine renewable with fossil energies that has cost BP some $ 6.5 billion since 2005. Through their investment in 16 wind farms across nine US States, BP had become one of the big investors in wind energy world-wide.

No other oil company had followed BP with a comparable zeal; Royal Dutch has already disposed of its wind parks,while TOTAL keeps no more than tiny investments in solar power. None of the US oil majors nor any of the state owned companies in Russia, China, Brazil or the Gulf have ever thought of undertaking major investments in renewable sources of energy.

From a business point of view the sell-out is perfectly understandable and even overdue:

• Like most investors in wind and solar energy BP has lost a lot of money, which demonstrates that renewable energy continues to be dependent on subsidies. Especially after the discovery of non-conventional gas energy companies find it much more thrilling to explore and drill new gas or oil fields, however expensive and risky this may be. That is what all oil companies, big or small, public or private have been doing during the last few years.

• Oil and gas production does not marry ideally with power generation, whether from fossil or renewable sources, as they offer hardly any synergies.

• Contrary to received views, oil and gas have a very long life time ahead. By the middle of the century the industry will continue to flourish, even if peak oil will long have been reached. More worrying, the industry seems determined to bet on “dirty” oil shale/sands in Venezuela, Canada or Kazakhstan,whatever the higher C02 emissions they generate.

Policy makers have to accept these realities. They cannot force investors to go for solar or wind.

But they can make fossil energy less attractive by imposing high excise taxes on gas, fuel and gasoline, while making wind and solar more attractive by generous, but degressive subsidies

So far, almost all countries are doing the opposite by not taxing fuels at least $ 25 per ton of C02 emissions, the cost of climate change.

Eberhard Rhein, Brussels

By Eberhard Rhein Investments in the energy sector require long planning horizons. Companies need to plan investments decades ahead. To minimise inherent uncertainties they should be able to rely on a regulatory framework stretching far into the future. The EU energy policy framework with its three key targets – 20 per cent reduction of green house gas emissions, 20 per cent increase of energy efficiency and 20 per cent share of renewable sources – reaches until 2020. For European industrial, energy, construction, engineering, car making or transport companies that is too short.

Wind power generated enough electricity to power four out of 10 UK homes last week – and that during a freezing March day and at a time when gas prices were at a seven year high.

From 9.30pm last Thursday night for the rest of the night and day, wind power generated 5 GW of electricity consistently over the 24 hour period, meeting over 10% of the country’s electricity needs.

Last week UK gas prices reached a seven-year-high after a pipeline connecting the UK and Belgium was shut down due to a technical fault.

“What this shows is that wind is a stable and reliable source of power generation on the scale we need, when we need it most,” Maria McCaffery, Chief Executive of industry body RenewableUK, said. The news on gas “serves as a timely reminder of the vulnerability of supply and the price volatility of imported fossil fuels,” she added.

While the UK’s recent record is impressive it falls behind countries like Spain – in April last year Spain reached a new wind power record by producing 317 GW hours of electricity, covering 61% of the country’s electricity demand.

Meanwhile in Denmark, wind power has met nearly all of the country’s electricity needs. Copenhagen Capacity reported that wind produced 3,987 MW of power one day in March this year – just 800 MW short of Danish electricity demand.

 

By Eberhard Rhein 2012 has seen new records in newly installed solar and wind power capacity. Globally installed capacity has now reached almost 400 GW, of which 300 GW wind and 100 GW solar PV. In the last 10 years solar PV has expanded more rapidly than wind power, essentially due to a steep decline of module prices resulting from incredible productivity increases and cut-throat competition that has led to the bankruptcy of the world’s biggest manufacturer, SUNTECH, a week ago.