Solar Panel Guide Discussion

Ok, let’s run your numbers, so you claim 3 times the export.

Cardew wrote: »

That means that the electricity consumer pays less than half for each kWh they subsidise. In fact with the solar farms, unlike private houses, exporting all generated electricity the subsidy will provide around three times as much electricity.

But, that includes your fictitious ‘extra export’, so really you are back to 2 : 1.

But, that’s based on your fictitious 40p v’s 20p rates, when the real numbers appear to have been 44.85p (43.3p +1.55p) v’s 33.8p (30.7p + 3.1p), so really you are back to 1.33 : 1

But, that doesn’t take account of distribution losses, transformer losses raising the voltage for transmission, rather than immediate distribution at domestic voltage for domestic PV.

But, that doesn’t take account of the reduction in demand most PV’ers are reporting due to greater energy awareness.

But that doesn’t take account of the raised awareness that PV panels in a domestic situation promote, as opposed to those tucked away in the countryside. We do want to raise awareness of AGW don’t we?

But that doesn’t take account of the best economic use of the FITs monies in establishing and promoting a viable domestic and commercial roof install industry, that will bring greater long term benefits.

Of course, another way of looking at it, is simply to ask what the problem is? Your numbers suggest that PV farms were receiving 55.6% of domestic tariffs. Actual numbers were 75.36%. Current numbers are 63.56%, rising in November to 65.6% - so they are all reasonably comparative. So if you, or anyone else wants to build a PV farm, very little now is different. In fact today’s rates are better than the ones you’ve been touting.

So it would appear that this whole exercise has simply been a hopeless diversion, based on fictitious numbers. Or a more simple description – Team GC standard tactics.

Mart.

Cardew wrote: »

Is that really the best you can do?

I'm not even breaking a sweat. I put it down to the lack of competition.

Cardew wrote: »

1. Firstly 'fictious' extra export.

Sub 4kWp systems on houses can use as much of their generated electricity in-house as they wish. There is a huge amount of effort(understandably) by occupants to use as much of the generated electricity as possible - appliances on at times of peak generation and devices to divert as much electricity to immersion heaters as possible. Indeed IIRC you stated you use around 25% of your generated electricity in-house.

A purpose built solar farm would have virtually all generated electricity available for export. Can you not see how that provides a higher percentage of electricity for export?

Yep, fictitious extra export. Happy for you to use my system as an example. I export approx. 75% (for which I get paid for 50%) and reduce my demand on the grid by 25%. 75% + 25% = 100% simples!

Cardew wrote: »

4. The Minister nor any other knowledgeable publication I have read have raised your reservations about the effectiveness of solar farms. Commercial organisations were prepared to go ahead and install farms; they obviously hadn't the benefit of your numbers.

Regarding larger-scale PV, I have no problems with that, in fact I believe it’s me that has been saying all year that larger commercial installs will reach viability first (possibly now), through lower install costs, without the land and annual running costs of PV farms, and benefitting from leccy savings against import rates, not wholesale rates. Slap em all over factory and supermarket roofs. Simples!

You appear obsessed with PV farms (standalone), and export only, without really understanding what export is, or that the effects on the grid, regarding increased supply / reduced demand, are actually the same. Simples!

Regarding the numbers, if they made sense to you a year ago, then given the similarities now they should also make sense to you today, so go for it, build your farm, what’s the problem. Simples!

Try applying less hysteria, and a little more logic.

Cardew wrote: »

6. Lastly I am fed up with your illogical posts; so will try and resist the temptation to reply in future.

Is that meant to be a threat, or a promise? :T

Mart.

I'm confused (and not for the first time).

How can building massive solar farms address the original issue that initially inflamed this thread of the poor subsiding the rich through FITs? All you are doing there is moving the subsidies from home owners to landowners.

I think certain posters have contradicted themselves so much that any semblance of common senses and logic has disappeared altogether on this thread.

I'm off to talk 'bout my generation" .

Cardew wrote: »

Hi,

Firstly I assume that is a typo - and should be 5MWp?

Sorry but I really don't agree that it is a diversion; and cannot see your logic for that statement.

It is central to the point I have been making; there would have been large solar farms that would have been more cost effective.

The reason the FIT was reduced to 8.5p/kWh at short notice for systems 250kWp to 5MWp was to prevent those large systems 'swallowing' the FIT pot.



So of course there aren't any schemes because the FIT was cut to a level, at short notice, to ensure large systems were not viable.

However they allow A Shade Greener with 10,000+ x 3.3kWp(33.3MW if my arithmetic is correct) to collect 41.3p/kWh on those installations.

Hi

Yes the 0 was a typo and has been corrected, not that it really made any real difference to the discussion with the 5MWp upper limit being far beyond the largest system installation within the scheme anyway ....

Regarding diversion .... if we continue to get bogged down on a theoretical discussion regarding the potential high level FiT payments for 'farm-scale' 5MWp systems which were available for a limited period of time in the past, were not taken up by anyone whilst available so haven't cost anyone any money so far and never will, then comparing that position to the large payments which could be available to the same size installations at the reduced tariff, of which there are currently absolutely none registered, then it must be diverting the ability to maintain a serious debate ... the argument as it exists is effectively that noone took-up the offer of the high level FiT whilst it was available, so there is absolutely no evidence that reducing the level of FiT at that time could logically be described as "... Their plans being scuppered when the Government stopped the 20p FIT for these systems... ".

If there is consensus on there being no systems in the largest FiT bands to provide evidence on which to base a theory of instances of large MCS system installs being seriously curtailed by the tariff reduction then we must logically look at the largest tariff band where installations exist and see what has happened there ... this is the banding (>50kWp) which I have provided analysis and supporting data for and it is clearly evident that the number of installation >50kWp is rising, despite the fall in tariff ... QED, moot point to bed.

Regarding the FiT reduction on large systems, I agree, large systems were actually starting to consume a considerable proportion of the available FiT pot, however, analysis will show that the majority of the installations which were doing this were in the sub 50kWp banding, where the returns were better than the larger systems .... I know a number of people who actually have large installations in this banding who haven't 'maxed-out' the size of their systems and have installed both prior to, and post reduction of the tariff. Something which hasn't been considered in this discussion so-far is that a significant contribution to their decision to install wasn't really the return available, it was how their 'quality' rating as a supplier was improved as a result of reduction of the level of embedded energy in their product .... most people would be very surprised at the amount of energy consumed to bring food to their table ...

Regarding 'cost effective' ... I think that due to the various viewpoints which could be taken 'cost effective' could be better be described as 'subsidy intensive' ... something which is cost-effective would usually be considered as being the one with the best return for the buyer, and in this case it would likely be the smallest banded system where the tariff is higher .... :D

Regarding RaR ... this has been discussed ad-nauseum and I agree, and most(?) agree and the government agrees, and DECC agrees, but as the installations were not aggregated and the RaR operators definately disagree, it would take a very courageous minister to bring in retrospective legislation to change the fact .... suffice to say that for the 'make hay' days for these businesses the sun is much lower in a partly-cloudy sky ... <sunglasses on .. :cool: .. ah, that's better>

HTH
Z

zeupater wrote: »

Hi


Regarding diversion .... if we continue to get bogged down on a theoretical discussion regarding the potential high level FiT payments for 'farm-scale' 5MWp systems which were available for a limited period of time in the past, were not taken up by anyone whilst available so haven't cost anyone any money so far and never will, then comparing that position to the large payments which could be available to the same size installations at the reduced tariff, of which there are currently absolutely none registered, then it must be diverting the ability to maintain a serious debate ... the argument as it exists is effectively that noone took-up the offer of the high level FiT whilst it was available, so there is absolutely no evidence that reducing the level of FiT
Z

Hi Z,

We are totally at cross-purposes.

There was ample evidence that plans were being made for large scale solar farms. The sole reason for the short notice slashing of the FIT to 8.5p/kWh was to kill those projects.

In justifying those cuts the Minister stated:

"Without action, the scheme would be overwhelmed," Energy and Climate Change Minister Greg Barker said.

Cost
According to a release from DECC, every five megawatt (MW) solar project would cost about £1.3 million per year at the previous tariff rate. Twenty schemes of this size would cost approximately £26 million

REA’s chief executive Gaynor Hartnell said: "Larger-scale PV [photovoltaic] has been demoniseed, when it is the most cost-effective approach

It is not therefore a 'theoretical' discussion. Large solar farm projects were effectively quashed by lowering the FIT to a rate where they were not viable.

Surely you are not arguing that installing sub 4kWp on roofs houses all over the UK is more cost effective method of producing solar electricity than giving solar farms a lower but commercially viable subsidy?