Main site > MoneySavingExpert.com Forums > Who & Where are You? > Green & Ethical MoneySaving > Does anyone here have an ideological objection to... (Page 5)

IMPORTANT! This is MoneySavingExpert's open forum - anyone can post

Please exercise caution & report any spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous post to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com

  • Be nice to all MoneySavers
  • All the best tips go in the MoneySavingExpert weekly email

    Plus all the new guides, deals & loopholes

  • No spam/referral links
or Login with Facebook
Does anyone here have an ideological objection to Solar?
Reply
Views: 16,051
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
# 81
Martyn1981
Old 04-12-2012, 11:53 AM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kaardiff
Posts: 2,732
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardew View Post
One of the many figments of your imagination, or misunderstanding of posts- mine or Graham's.

Perhaps you can show me where I have made such a claim!

This is typical of your Modus operandi - you make a statement and attribute it to me(or an 'opponent') repeat and repeat the statement until it becomes your reality.
Are you now dropping your claims that subsidy payers get more leccy (or potatoes) for their money, from export rather than reduced import?

If so why did you recently spend a solid week arguing with me (and Zeup) on the Solar Panel Guide Discussion thread?

To refresh your memory, you argue that having a PV farm subsidy that is half the domestic gives a 2:1 increase in PV for FIT. You then increased that figure to 3:1 by pointing out that not all domestic generation is exported (a lot is used to offset import).

Recent potato version:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardew View Post
Taking my potatoe analogy further.

We pay Farmer A a subsidy of, say, £50 a ton to produce potatoes and we get his whole crop.

We pay Farmer B £100 a ton to produce potatoes. Now if we got his whole crop the the potatoes would cost us twice as much - or 2:1

However Farmer B can use as many potatoes - for which he has received a subsidy - as he wishes; in theory he could use all the potatoes and we would have none for our subsidy.

If he used 50% of all the potatoes for his own use, that means that we are paying a subsidy of £200 (or four times as much) for each ton of his crop we get or 4:1

If he used only one third of the potatoes 'in-house' then the figure would be 3:1

If you can't understand that - I give up!

Do you now agree that:

a. if a farmer grows a potato, then takes that potato to the market and places it on the shelf, or

b. a householder grows a potato, then eats the potato, negating their need to remove a potato from the market shelf, that

in both cases the market has one more potato on the shelf than it would have had without the farm/domestic potato.

If you do agree, then you need to accept that domestic or farm PV provide the grid / subsidy payers with exactly the same amount of leccy.

Now if you want to move on to additional consumption by householders that did not take place prior to PV install, that's fine, but it is a separate argument.

Mart.

PS. If this has now been put to bed, will you finally explain why you kept claiming a 2:1 differential between farm and domestic PV subsidies, when the true differential was 'only' 1.3:1.
Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (2.4 ESE & 1.18 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
Martyn1981 is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
# 82
Martyn1981
Old 04-12-2012, 12:19 PM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kaardiff
Posts: 2,732
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardew View Post
I

I am happy to concede my case being modified to having Solar Farms close to the 'point of use'* as it doesn't detract from the thrust of my argument.
Arguments:

Solar farms produce more leccy than domestic - nope, shared technology and little to no efficeincies of scale.

Solar farms are cheaper, economies of scale - nope, after including life-long running costs, there will be little to no difference.

Solar farms benefit the grid more as they only export - nope, offsetting import is exactly the same.

Transmission losses are not significant - nope, there are cost issues, and losses are not entirely dependent on distance as transformer and switchgear losses will impact too. This should balance out any generation gains from better cooling.

Subsidies are less - nope, the government never meant for FITs to be attractive to commercial scale installs and tried to maintain lower levels, specifically to discourage farms.

Solar farms will become viable sooner than domestic - nope, since costs are similar, but income streams are significantly different (wholesale price v's a combination of wholesale and retail).

Anything else? It seems to me that are no significant benefits to a PV farm, so leading on from there, domestic installs direct subsidies back into the general population, increase awareness of renewables, encourage involvement in our energy needs and educate our children.

If you don't like PV or FITs, fine, but please stop trying to criticise it on the grounds that PV farms are better. If you need to go down that route, then I'd suggest you switch to commercial installs (eg Tesco's), which benefit from lower install costs (per kWp), similar low overheads as domestic, and possibly benefiting from 100% consumption at 'their' retail leccy price.

Mart.
Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (2.4 ESE & 1.18 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
Martyn1981 is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
# 83
Cardew
Old 04-12-2012, 1:01 PM
Deliciously Dedicated Diehard MoneySaving Devotee
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 23,297
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martyn1981 View Post
Arguments:

Solar farms produce more leccy than domestic - nope, shared technology and little to no efficeincies of scale.

Who argues that they are not the same technology! Once again you attribute a nonsense statement to ???? and base a counter-argument on something that has never been stated.

Solar farms are cheaper, economies of scale - nope, after including life-long running costs, there will be little to no difference.

Absolutely stupid statement. Then why does the government savagely cut the FIT for large scale installations?

Solar farms benefit the grid more as they only export - nope, offsetting import is exactly the same.

Can you not understand it is the finance that is the issue? We pay huge subsidies for sub 4kWp generation and house owners need not export any electricity.

You keep going on about offsetting import - which has never been disputed. I note you haven't found the statements you attribute to me on that subject

Transmission losses are not significant - nope, there are cost issues, and losses are not entirely dependent on distance as transformer and switchgear losses will impact too. This should balance out any generation gains from better cooling.

Subsidies are less - nope, the government never meant for FITs to be attractive to commercial scale installs and tried to maintain lower levels, specifically to discourage farms.

'Subsidies are less - nope??' Really? you cannot be serious! The second half of that statement explains why subsidies are less - to discourage farms.

Of course the Government never meant FITs to be attractive for farms - that is our criticism of the Government!

Solar farms will become viable sooner than domestic - nope, since costs are similar, but income streams are significantly different (wholesale price v's a combination of wholesale and retail).

See above

Anything else? It seems to me that are no significant benefits to a PV farm, so leading on from there, domestic installs direct subsidies back into the general population, increase awareness of renewables, encourage involvement in our energy needs and educate our children.

If you don't like PV or FITs, fine, but please stop trying to criticise it on the grounds that PV farms are better. If you need to go down that route, then I'd suggest you switch to commercial installs (eg Tesco's), which benefit from lower install costs (per kWp), similar low overheads as domestic, and possibly benefiting from 100% consumption at 'their' retail leccy price.

Mart.
You have once again absolutely excelled in demonstrating your lack of logic.
Cardew is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
# 84
grahamc2003
Old 04-12-2012, 1:23 PM
Serious MoneySaving Fan
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,748
Default

Lol Cardew! While I don't mind defending anything I say, it did get to me after a while having to comment on a multitude of simplistic and incorrect straw men arguments attributed to me which, of course, I never said/implied/thought or ever crossed my mind!

I said 'I don't mind', but that's assuming what is typed is actually considered before it is replied to, which it often patently wasn't.

I think there are fundamental problems with engineers on a thread like this. While systems are judged on their inherent characteristics by engineers, by others, the consideration seems to be something like the high personal financial gain which determines whether or not a system is efficient or sensible, with inherent characteristics absolutely irrelevant. - apart from to be denied when pointed out.

One aim of fit at a house level is the stakeholder aspect. A stakeholder, especially one making money, is generally a supporter, irrespective of any other consideration. Nothing to do with an efficient method of electricity generation (in fact, hard to think of some generation technology less cost effective).

I won't respond to the expected flurry of responses saying solar is actaully very cost effective, with a web reference to support it.
grahamc2003 is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to grahamc2003 For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 85
Energetic
Old 04-12-2012, 2:55 PM
MoneySaving Convert
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 94
Default

Guys this thread has moved entirely in another direction to what i set to acheive with it. I have started another one to assist people who have technical and pricing questions about renewabels. Please feel free to keep out of it if you only wish to discuss the incentive mechanism.

The facts are this, the FiT offers a great return at the domestic level in the right scenario and makes people pretty happy that the are contributing to the energy mix generally and their own energy specifically.

I do have some sympathy with your arguments on the negative side but you arguing it here is utterly pointless, people will do what is best for them and their family and microgeneration fits that bill in many cases. Complaining on forums will not change government policy so i really feel you are wasting your time and quite a lot of energy in doing so, thats up to you though.
Energetic is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to Energetic For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 86
EricMears
Old 04-12-2012, 3:08 PM
Serious MoneySaving Fan
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: N.E Derbys
Posts: 1,448
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kernel Sanders View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardew
Remember fields with panels on frames so cattle etc can graze underneath.



Best not push this point lest you have people querying how lush the new grass will be when growing in permanent shade
There is of course another point against that. A field reserved for grazing this year won't necesarily stay in grass for ever. But with 'little glass umbrellas' all over the field our farmer would never be able to plough it up and plant with clover for a couple of years.
N Derbyshire.
4kwp S Facing 17.5deg slope (dormer roof).
EricMears is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
# 87
Martyn1981
Old 04-12-2012, 3:28 PM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kaardiff
Posts: 2,732
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardew View Post
Can you not understand it is the finance that is the issue? We pay huge subsidies for sub 4kWp generation and house owners need not export any electricity.

You keep going on about offsetting import - which has never been disputed. I note you haven't found the statements you attribute to me on that subject
I'm sorry I really didn't think you were serious about me demonstrating your argument, given you've been using it for so long.

Sadly I note that the main discussion on the Solar Panel Guide Discussion thread, 2nd week of September has now gone, but these extracts from your later posts restate the position:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardew View Post

I don't have any 'numbers', and don't need any numbers. I explained above in very simple terms that there were business organisations that wanted to install large solar PV systems and were prepared to do so for 20p/kWh subsidy. Do you think they didn't 'do the numbers' in their business plan before deciding to invest scores/hundreds of thousand pounds?

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.

Can you really not appreciate that regardless of any percentages, if a project is viable with a business plan based on a subsidy of 20p/kWh, it might not be viable based on a subsidy of 7.1p/kWh?
I've marked some of the key bits in bold. So using your false tariff of 20p you create a 2:1 differential (instead of the real 1.3:1). Then by eliminating consumption, you boost this to 3:1.

Quick check then, using your tariffs, we would for our money get an example 2,000kWh (PV farm) and 1000kWh (domestic) = 2:1.

If we deduct an approximate average domestic consumption of 35%, we get 2,000kWh (PV farm) and 650kWh (domestic) = 3:1.

So looks like you've been deducting all consumption. Also, that's the position you've been arguing ever since (with or without potatoes).

Can we simply drop this now, since you appear to have conseeded the point, and hopefully will no longer 'tamper' with the figures in this way?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardew View Post
Absolutely stupid statement. Then why does the government savagely cut the FIT for large scale installations?
You're going in circles, when the cost of installs fell, the govt cut the FIT to prevent it being used for large installs - effectively they made it uneconomic.

Rather than trying to work backwards all the time, and assume farm costs by interpreting FIT rates, just do some research and read a few reports on the subject.

It's hard to keep up with the prices as they are falling so fast, but my guess today would be approximately £1,400/kWp for domestic (4kWp), and £1,000/kWp for commercial or farm (50kWp+).

From there you need to decide if the connection fees, land, insurance and security costs per kWp will be substantially more or less than £400/kWp in total over 25 years or so (or £16pa).

My guess is they'll end up much of a muchness. So if cost of production is the same, we have to look at the sales price to determine relative profitability / viability. Domestic then races ahead as it's price (retail + wholesale) is substantially higher than farm (wholesale only).

Have fun.

Mart.
Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (2.4 ESE & 1.18 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
Martyn1981 is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
# 88
zeupater
Old 04-12-2012, 4:08 PM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: East of the Welsh ....
Posts: 2,590
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardew View Post
Come on Z you can do better than this!

Why the Lizzard? Previously discussed - who by? Might suit your theory but not something I have suggested.

Who said multi-GW installations?

Why not on the outskirts of Plymouth or Bristol? Remember fields with panels on frames so cattle etc can graze underneath.

You cannot seriously be suggesting that silly little sub 4kWp systems on houses dotted all over UK justify the huge subsidies solely on 'transmission losses'

You know full well that it is a red herring and that you are mischieviously attempting to justify a nonsense FIT scheme on a throw-away remark like 'preferably in the South west.
Hi Cardew

Why the Lizard ? - well, it's probably as far SW as you could reasonably be expected to develop to be able to take advantage of the maximum insolation on the British mainland which is constantly raised as being an argument for concentrating pv farms in the region. Such developments are well suited to government land and therefore somewhere like Predannack airfield would be well suited ... further development around the Goonhilly satellite dish arrays would likely also attract relatively little objection and provide a possible additional hightech/green visitor resource (avoiding the SSSIs of course) .... there are also a number of other airfields in the area which would be suitable ... St Mawgan, St Eval etc ....

Who said multi GW systems ? ... well, in effect that's what you've been raising by suggesting that instead of distributing generation throughout the country we should concentrate them in the SW .... by default that suggests that there would be a need to construct pv capacity measured in GW. As it currently stands, following the logic you have championed and placing all installations to date in the SW would have concentrated almost 1.5GWp of systems into the region, therefore effectively a cluster of systems which would together be 'multi-GW' in situ already if the 'maximise efficiency' logic had been followed.

Why not Plymouth or Bristol ? ... well, why not ... but we're starting to move the debate further away from the area of maximum insolation, thus weakening the argument for concentrating pv in the SW with every mile East (/NE) so why not the South Downs or Dovedale or Barmouth or Southwold ? .... actually Southwold would be ideal considering that Sizewell A has been shut-down and Sizewell C hasn't been started yet, so plenty of spare transmission infrastructure ...

Regarding "You cannot seriously be suggesting that silly little sub 4kWp systems on houses dotted all over UK justify the huge subsidies solely on 'transmission losses" ... no, that's not the point at all, therefore there must be a total misunderstanding of what has recently been posted, which is that the cost of serious upgrades to the grid to enable the transmission of energy from the SW to the likely point of use (Midlands/SE ?) would need to be added to the electricity bills of all consumers ... this would be levied utilising existing legislation and would have exactly the same effect as the FiT scheme, ie, higher bills ..... this has conveniently been ignored when weighing FiTs against concentrating pv farms in the SW. Importantly, the cost of FiT subsidy is rapidly falling and will eventually reach grid-parity, whilst the alternative cost of infrastructure construction & maintenance will likely never fall, therefore the solution which you champion for pv would have an ongoing effect on all bills ... forever (well until the sun goes supernova or simply goes out ! )

Regarding .... "You know full well that it is a red herring and that you are mischieviously attempting to justify a nonsense FIT scheme on a throw-away remark like 'preferably in the South west" ..... Nonesense ?, mischief ?, well there's none originating from this side of the debate ... I'm simply ensuring that the total cost of alternative solutions to microgeneration are given equal consideration ... they are not cost free and should not be assumed to be when justifying costs .... afterall fair-is-fair ! .... as for 'throw-away remark', well the SW has been raised time-and-time-and-time again when arguing against microgeneration scale pv .... it must therefore be a considered and central component of the reasoning for debating against microgeneration and can therefore not simply be classified as 'a throw-away remark' ...

HTH
Z
"We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle

Last edited by zeupater; 04-12-2012 at 4:34 PM.
zeupater is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
# 89
Cardew
Old 04-12-2012, 4:22 PM
Deliciously Dedicated Diehard MoneySaving Devotee
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 23,297
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martyn1981 View Post
I'm sorry I really didn't think you were serious about me demonstrating your argument, given you've been using it for so long.

Sadly I note that the main discussion on the Solar Panel Guide Discussion thread, 2nd week of September has now gone, but these extracts from your later posts restate the position:



.
You have really 'lost it'.

You have 'accused' me of stating;

Quote:
It is Cardew's math trick that I object too, where he has for years claimed that a unit generated and consumed (as per normal) does not benefit the grid
Now just find where I have made such a statement and post it here.

None of your rubbish in your last post above is anything to do with that statement.

Can you not understand that the objection to FIT is that we(the electricity consumer) pay huge subsidies for houses to produce electricity and, in theory, none of it could reach the grid.

It is a matter of value for electricity consumers.
Cardew is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
# 90
Cardew
Old 04-12-2012, 4:50 PM
Deliciously Dedicated Diehard MoneySaving Devotee
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 23,297
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeupater View Post
Hi Cardew

Why the Lizard ? - etc

Seriously you are using exactly the same Modus operandi as Martyn. I said nothing about the Lizzard. You raised that as a location - not me - and then proceed to give reasons why the location you have chosen isn't ideal.


Who said multi GW systems ? ... well, in effect that's what you've been raising by suggesting

Again you are raising multi-GW systems not I

Why not Plymouth or Bristol ? ... well, why not ... but we're starting to move the debate further away from the area of maximum insolation, thus weakening the argument for concentrating pv in the SW with every mile East (/NE) so why not the South Downs or Dovedale or Barmouth or Southwold ? .... actually Southwold would be ideal considering that Sizewell A has been shut-down and Sizewell C hasn't been started yet, so plenty of spare transmission infrastructure ...

Yes by all means move them further East and/or North.

Regarding "You cannot seriously be suggesting that silly little sub 4kWp systems on houses dotted all over UK justify the huge subsidies solely on 'transmission losses" ... no, that's not the point at all, therefore there must be a total misunderstanding of what has recently been posted, which is that the cost of serious upgrades to the grid to enable the transmission of energy from the SW to the likely point of use (Midlands/SE ?) would need to be added to the electricity bills of all consumers ... this would be levied utilising existing legislation and would have exactly the same effect as the FiT scheme, ie, higher bills ..... this has conveniently been ignored when weighing FiTs against concentrating pv farms in the SW.

No it has not been ignored. I have stated my 'gut feeling' is that the additional generated output from the sunnier South West, will compensate for any additional transmission infrastructure.
Note 'gut feeling' quite prepared to accept that may not be the case.

Many of the proposed solar farms are in Devon and Cornwall



Importantly, the cost of FiT subsidy is rapidly falling and will eventually reach grid-parity, whilst the alternative cost of infrastructure construction & maintenance will likely never fall, therefore the solution which you champion for pv would have an ongoing effect on all bills ... forever (well until the sun goes supernova or simply goes out ! )

We are talking about the present - sub 4kWp systems getting close to 50p/kWh in subsidy for the next 20+ years - including scores of thousands installations hgiving that subsidy direct to R-A-R firms.

Regarding .... "You know full well that it is a red herring and that you are mischieviously attempting to justify a nonsense FIT scheme on a throw-away remark like 'preferably in the South west" ..... Nonesense ?, mischief ?, well there's none originating from this side of the debate ... I'm simply ensuring that the total cost of alternative solutions to microgeneration are given equal consideration ... they are not cost free and should not be assumed to be when justifying costs .... afterall fair-is-fair ! .... as for 'throw-away remark', well the SW has been raised time-and-time-and-time again when arguing against microgeneration scale pv .... it must therefore be a considered and central component of the reasoning for debating against microgeneration and can therefore not simply be classified as 'a throw-away remark' ...

HTH

Z
The South West aspect was, and is, a throw away remark and not germane to the central issue of the deficiencies of the FIT system.
Cardew is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
# 91
zeupater
Old 04-12-2012, 5:48 PM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: East of the Welsh ....
Posts: 2,590
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardew View Post
The South West aspect was, and is, a throw away remark and not germane to the central issue of the deficiencies of the FIT system.
Hi

If you were to stop selectively quoting and addressing partial text without considering the context, then maybe the referenced post would not have needed so much argument in red ... many of the points being addressed in what had been selectively ommitted ...

Again, I selected the lizard and gave reasons why, reasons which match your own logic- ie to maximise generation to investment and any applied subsidy ...

"Again you are raising multi-GW systems not I" ... no you didn't raise GW, but that's what you have implied, and here is the text which you conveniently ommitted when quoting text to reply .... "well, in effect that's what you've been raising by suggesting that instead of distributing generation throughout the country we should concentrate them in the SW .... by default that suggests that there would be a need to construct pv capacity measured in GW. As it currently stands, following the logic you have championed and placing all installations to date in the SW would have concentrated almost 1.5GWp of systems into the region, therefore effectively a cluster of systems which would together be 'multi-GW' in situ already if the 'maximise efficiency' logic had been followed." ... as can be seen by all, the reply had already been answered .... 'pv capacity measured in GW' does not necessarily refer to a single site, it is simply the aggregated generating capacity from as many farm sized systems as would equate to the total distributed capacity installed throughout the rest of the country, simply relocated to the SW ....

"No it has not been ignored. I have stated my 'gut feeling' is that the additional generated output from the sunnier South West, will compensate for any additional transmission infrastructure.
Note 'gut feeling' quite prepared to accept that may not be the case." .... within the context of this please consider the following post from some time ago where I attempted to 'flesh-out' the relative benefit of pv farms in the SW, a discussion thread in which you yourself were active, both before and after this was submitted, actually being the instigator of the SW discussion a few posts earlier ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeupater View Post
Hi

Agree .... and that's a point which is always missed .... let's look at hypothetical scenario of placing something like 1GWp of solar pv on the Lizard peninsula .... a pretty reasonable position for a solar farm in the S/W, Goonhilly Downs satellite dishes already have direct line access to London for communications so there's a ready corridor, and there's relatively little chance of NIMBYism as a)there are few local residents, b)the natural environment already has a blight in the dishes and c)the pv farms could be another attraction for the grockles ....

Site located, lets link it to the world .... well, it's pretty remote so there's very little chance that the power generated would be used locally .... so lets link it to the nearest large centre of population .... Plymouth, pretend that this single link would be the only grid upgrade required and also, considering that it's in a tourist area with areas of natural beauty the NIMBYs would come out to play, let's put the cables underground. One final assumption to keep the cost down and not skew the figures in favour of microgeneration, the ~3000acres required and any access infrastructure is provided for free ...

Scene set, what's the cost benefit ....

Firstly the capital bit .....
90km of new grid connection at say £20m/km = £1.8bn
1GW Solar farm at say £1.80/Wp = £1.8bn
Cost = £3.6bn (£3.60/Wp)

So comparing the capital outlay cost against roof installations and assume them to be £2.60/Wp (yes, this is a little high ) from December the cheaper option actually costs £1bn(38%) more ....

Secondly the power benefit bit ...
Insolation benefit for concentrating on S/W vs Average ... Helston(953kWh/kWp)/Meriden(843kWh/kWp) = +13%
Embedded distance transmission losses (1.5% transmission+6.5% distribution) v microgeneration approach = -8%

Benefit in energy generated for centralising in the S/W .... 13%-8%=5%

So the conclusion of this back of an envelope exercise is that 5% more usable energy could be produded per Wp installed for a capital investment which is 38% higher ... the result a benefit of -34.9% (((100*1.05*(1-0.38))-100) on capital employed ..... well isn't that a turnup for the books ....

Double the 1GW, 6000 acres, throw a 120km mixed pylon/underground link to Hinkley point, the main hub for the S/W, crossing Dartmoor & Exmoor into the mix, cost ? .... +£1.2bn ? .... okay, we're almost out of the S/W , but Hinkley B is an 870MW station so any more power would likely need grid upgrades to the Midlands and towards London ... cost ????? .... perhaps the idea of covering Cornwall with glass is starting to look a little fragile (pun intended ) ...

HTH
Z
... note that the cost of pv installation has fallen significantly over the period which has elapsed since it was made, if it didn't stack-up then, it certainly wouldn't now ....

HTH
Z
"We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle

Last edited by zeupater; 04-12-2012 at 7:40 PM. Reason: -sup +re
zeupater is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to zeupater For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 92
Martyn1981
Old 04-12-2012, 8:06 PM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kaardiff
Posts: 2,732
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardew View Post
Now just find where I have made such a statement and post it here.

None of your rubbish in your last post above is anything to do with that statement.

Can you not understand that the objection to FIT is that we(the electricity consumer) pay huge subsidies for houses to produce electricity and, in theory, none of it could reach the grid.

It is a matter of value for electricity consumers.
As already posted above:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardew View Post

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.
and you state it yet again in your post:

"Can you not understand that the objection to FIT is that we(the electricity consumer) pay huge subsidies for houses to produce electricity and, in theory, none of it could reach the grid."

The whole point you are now missing again, despite claiming earlier to agree, is that consumption at source offsets import. Reduced import is the same as export.

So you keep claiming that the grid, and subsidy payers are not getting the leccy, when in reality they are. So it's a false claim and is used to bolster your already false 2:1 up to 3:1.

Too logical for you?

Do you stand by your 20p tariff claim?
Do you stand by your 3:1 ratio claim?

Mart.
Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (2.4 ESE & 1.18 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.

Last edited by Martyn1981; 04-12-2012 at 8:08 PM.
Martyn1981 is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to Martyn1981 For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 93
zeupater
Old 04-12-2012, 10:07 PM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: East of the Welsh ....
Posts: 2,590
Default

Hi All

What's really being missed is that the power produced is both not potatoes or fossil-fuel generation, the FiT scheme not being designed to market potatoes or provide everyone with subsidised energy .... it's there to reduce CO2 being output as a byproduct of generation and kick-start the renewables pv sector, therefore the important point is that whether energy is used 'in-house' or exported, as long as the generation displaces carbon based sources then the scheme has partially achieved one, if not both, of it's primary objectives ....

As for the argument 'at what cost', well, the average cost of the subsidy is reducing each time a new system is added to the pv generating pool, the average for a sub 4kWp system at a point last year used to be as high as £0.433, now it's less ... the reasoning, well as of Dec'11 there were around 0.6GWp of installations registered for FiTs, by March '12 this had increased to 1GWp, by June 1.2GWp and by Oct(latest) 1.4GWp, this means that the proportion of higher level FiTs payments for those who invested considerably more into their pv system has already been considerably diluted by the influence of the lower FiTs payable against more recent, less costly installations .... no too bad really, around the equivalent of two nuclear reactors of peak generation installed within 12 months .... .... I wonder how many new reactors were designed, ordered, assembled & commissioned within the last year ? ... perhaps that's the reason behind the change of attitude towards UK civil nuclear by a number of large energy suppliers has recently changed, the emergence of microgeneration to a scale where, although not being a serious contender in strategic baseload supply, it is starting to be recognised as being able to moderate monopolistic control of energy pricing, thus reducing potential future margin enhancement ... I wonder whether this will be seen as being the real legacy of the FiTs scheme, a brake on long-term energy price rises, perhaps it's not a bad idea afterall ....

HTH
Z
"We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle

Last edited by zeupater; 04-12-2012 at 10:17 PM.
zeupater is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to zeupater For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 94
Cardew
Old 04-12-2012, 10:16 PM
Deliciously Dedicated Diehard MoneySaving Devotee
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 23,297
Default

I honestly think you have 'lost it'!

'It' being logic and reasoning!

Read this S L O W L Y.

Quote:
"Can you not understand that the objection to FIT is that
we(the electricity consumer) pay huge subsidies for houses to produce electricity and, in theory, none of it could reach the grid."


If you really cannot understand that has nothing to do do with 'reduced import is the same as export' but is about what the customers get in the way of value for their subsidy - then I give up!



Cardew is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
# 95
zeupater
Old 04-12-2012, 11:34 PM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: East of the Welsh ....
Posts: 2,590
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardew View Post
I honestly think you have 'lost it'!

'It' being logic and reasoning!

Read this S L O W L Y.



If you really cannot understand that has nothing to do do with 'reduced import is the same as export' but is about what the customers get in the way of value for their subsidy - then I give up!
Logic and reasoning .... consider the following ...

FiTs were introduced at a high level to kick-start the pv sector and provide an incentive for manufacturers to invest in plant & machinery in order to increase capacity & introduce economies of scale .... has this worked ? .... yes ... the proof ? ... the level of installations and the reduction in prices .... was it a logical approach ? ... the proof of success seems to confirm that it was ...

FiTs schemes were introduced with both time and 'fund-pool' limited scope. They are not open-ended .... Is this logical ? .... yes, because it ensures that the manufacturers install capacity at a rate which takes advantage of the higher initial FiT payments to cover investment in plant&machinery and research .... has it worked ? ... yes .... the proof ? ... the increase in manufacturing capacity.

The long-term goal of the FiT schemes are to build manufacturing capacity but not to simply publicly fund the maintenance of margins for the manfacturers and supply chain, achieving this through managed incremental reduction in the FiT payment .... has it worked ? ... yes ... the proof ? .... the global reduction in FiT payments whilst maintaining installation volumes.

Logic covered so far .... now for reasoning based on logic ....

It is reasonable to expect that due to the success of the FiT scheme so-far that funding will continue to be reduced at a rate which is faster than originally envisaged, resulting in the withdrawal of subsidised incentive when installation pricing is at, or is very close to, a level where returns equate to grid parity energy pricing ... is this reasoning reasonable ? ... yes .... Proof ? .... none, but simply analysing typical installation prices and ongoing FiT tariff reductions would suggest that it is a logical deduction ....

Would it be logical or reasonable to consider both related tangible & even intangible benefits ? ... yes .... such as ? ... well consider the the UK energy market will soon probably be approaching £500billion/year, if the result of FiTs reduces the rate of price increase by just 1%, in just one year of the 20/25 years which the scheme is designed to operate, then the compounded effect of the saving would likely return the cost of the entire scheme to the consumer many times over (£1.064billion budget as at Jan'12) ... Is this a logical consideration .... yes ? .... is it correct ? .... well, the reasoning is sound and certainly deserves consideration ...

Logic & reasoning .... "The whole is more than the sum of it's parts" (Aristotle) .... but first you must identify all of the parts which need to be considered ....

HTH
Z
"We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle

Last edited by zeupater; 04-12-2012 at 11:41 PM.
zeupater is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to zeupater For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 96
Martyn1981
Old 05-12-2012, 7:24 AM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kaardiff
Posts: 2,732
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardew View Post
I honestly think you have 'lost it'!

'It' being logic and reasoning!

Read this S L O W L Y.

"Can you not understand that the objection to FIT is that
we(the electricity consumer) pay huge subsidies for houses to produce electricity and, in theory, none of it could reach the grid."


If you really cannot understand that has nothing to do do with 'reduced import is the same as export' but is about what the customers get in the way of value for their subsidy - then I give up![/COLOR]
I have no issue with the THEORY that consumers would object to paying FITs to produce leccy if none of it reached the grid.

What I object to is the FACT that this doesn't happen. You 'devalue' the amount of leccy reaching the grid by an amount equal to average domestic consumption (approx 35%), boosting your already false 2:1 ratio up to a rabble rousing 3:1.

So forget the theory, unless people stick a heater in the garden, the grid will get the full benefit of all generated electricity. However I accept that the small amount now being used to heat water (a separate argument) does mean that high grade leccy is being exported as low grade gas, oil, lpg, E7 etc.

Too logical for you?

So .... back to the very, very, very simple questions:

Do you stand by your 20p tariff claim?
Do you stand by your 3:1 ratio claim?

Or do you now admit that the true differential between farm and domestic PV back in Aug 11 (based purely on subsidy rates) was approx 1.3:1?

It's time to be straight, no obfuscation please.

Mart.
Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (2.4 ESE & 1.18 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
Martyn1981 is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to Martyn1981 For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 97
Martyn1981
Old 05-12-2012, 7:50 AM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kaardiff
Posts: 2,732
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeupater View Post
Hi All

I wonder how many new reactors were designed, ordered, assembled & commissioned within the last year ? ... perhaps that's the reason behind the change of attitude towards UK civil nuclear by a number of large energy suppliers has recently changed, the emergence of microgeneration to a scale where, although not being a serious contender in strategic baseload supply, it is starting to be recognised as being able to moderate monopolistic control of energy pricing, thus reducing potential future margin enhancement ... I wonder whether this will be seen as being the real legacy of the FiTs scheme, a brake on long-term energy price rises, perhaps it's not a bad idea afterall ....

HTH
Z
Hiya Zeup, appreciate you weren't trying to go down this route, but thought I'd mention something that occurred to me a week or so ago, that I've been pondering:

PV costs v's new nuclear. I appreciate that one is a baseload provider, and the other principally a gas reducer, and I'm not suggesting that PV can be used instead of nuclear, but thought I'd compare costs. (all prices and subsidies in todays money)

A 1GW reactor will cost approx £6-£8bn. Running costs approx 2p/kWh. De-commissioning possibly £1.5bn. Allowing for 'mass' production of the reactors, I'll summarise costs @ a modest £12bn.

Subsidies estimated at 6 to 9p/kWh for lifetime

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ion?intcmp=122

Next I compared current domestic PV costs @ approx £5.5k giving over 2million domestic installs (obviously carried out on a mass scheme model costs would be even lower).

Subsidies today 15.44p/kWh for 20 years.

Both systems should produce for approx 40 years. Domestic PV needs to be de-rated by 10 to 20% to account for 20 to 40% loss of performance over lifetime. Similarly nuclear needs to take account of scheduled (and un-scheduled) shutdowns, and network losses. Both options delivering approx 8,000GWh's pa.

So, purely for financial comparison, I think (dangerous to think!) that domestic PV today can match nuclear both on a cost of infrastructure and subsidy basis.

Now imagine how those prices will compare in 10-12 years time when nuclear may arrive, how much more will PV prices and subsidies have fallen.

Again, not trying to set them up as competitors, simply trying to bring logic and rationality to the cost/subsidy debate regarding renewables and established nuclear.

(Note: at this level of penetration (10% of households) I have ignored any storage costs as I doubt that would be an issue)

What do you reckon Zeup, are the numbers close enough to run with?

Mart.
Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (2.4 ESE & 1.18 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.

Last edited by Martyn1981; 05-12-2012 at 9:27 AM.
Martyn1981 is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to Martyn1981 For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 98
zeupater
Old 05-12-2012, 1:00 PM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: East of the Welsh ....
Posts: 2,590
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martyn1981 View Post
... What do you reckon Zeup, are the numbers close enough to run with? ....
Hi

There's no need to ask me, ask the energy generation & supply industries ... they've done the calculations and, probably due to being vertically integrated, they seem to have decided that they don't want to invest in any form of generation which can't be controlled by carbon fuel market pricing .... a significant price stabalising generation capacity such as renewables or nuclear provides competition to their bottom line, especially so considering the current strong calls for market transparency.

Nuclear & Renewables generation wholesale pricing generally moves in line with carbon-based fuel wholesale levels, this is rediculous and transparency will cause the obvious questions to be asked .... how many times have we recently seen headlines where the large energy corporates have pulled out of renewables or nuclear projects ? - there must be a reason behind it, it looks like Hitachi can see a business case where others can't, which at least seems to suggest something ....

Whenever an issue such as the self consumption argument arises all that is needed is the application of extremes logic ... If everyone generated their own electricity or grew their own potatoes would the argument still exist ? & if everyone purchased all of their energy or all of their potatoes would the argument still exist ? ... considering that the answer at the two extremes would almost certainly be 'no' then the gradient from 'no' to 'no' which exists between the two extremes must be pretty flat ....

My view ... well if the suggested solution is that all microgeneration is exported to the grid at a wholesale price and then repurchased at consumer pricing levels in order to levelise microgeneration subsidy and farm scale renewables subsidy, then the only result would be an enhanced profit for the energy sector, the taxation funded FiT incentive payment would be just the same, therefore the only group who would logically support this would be the energy sector themselves, there would also be a platform to suggest that the FiT tariff level would need to be raised to compensate for the reduced average returns, thus costing the 'taxpayer' more (Ringfenced FiT funding, however raised is classified by HMG as taxation) ..... Seeing that there is no advantage to those who provide the subsidy, I find it hard to understand how anyone can claim that there is a link or advantage ...

Hengis Pod, being an early engineer, developed the square wheel, but on seeing that a better engineering solution existed in the form of a round wheel immediately accepted that his idea was outdated and redefined the solution as being a window frame (glassless of course ! ) .... obviously a poor technical engineer, but at least a realist and open to self-review, therefore showing a decent grasp of logic ...

HTH
Z
"We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
zeupater is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to zeupater For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 99
Martyn1981
Old 05-12-2012, 1:56 PM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kaardiff
Posts: 2,732
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeupater View Post
Hi

There's no need to ask me,

HTH
Z
Thanks Zeup, I just thought it was a fun exercise (yes I'm that sad) to put some perspective on how far PV has come. Still gobsmacked at this years price reduction, I thought a year ago that things had started to slow down.


Quote:
Originally Posted by zeupater View Post
Hi

Whenever an issue such as the self consumption argument arises all that is needed is the application of extremes logic ... If everyone generated their own electricity or grew their own potatoes would the argument still exist ? & if everyone purchased all of their energy or all of their potatoes would the argument still exist ? ... considering that the answer at the two extremes would almost certainly be 'no' then the gradient from 'no' to 'no' which exists between the two extremes must be pretty flat ....

HTH
Z
Actually I did start down the extreme logic route and typed up the simple statement 'if you add a power station to the grid, then power generation is increased by the amount of that station', but changed my mind after re-thinking about your recent "GW" fun and games!

Mart.
Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (2.4 ESE & 1.18 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
Martyn1981 is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Martyn1981 For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 100
Martyn1981
Old 05-12-2012, 2:02 PM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kaardiff
Posts: 2,732
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grahamc2003 View Post
Lol Cardew! While I don't mind defending anything I say, it did get to me after a while having to comment on a multitude of simplistic and incorrect straw men arguments attributed to me which, of course, I never said/implied/thought or ever crossed my mind!

I said 'I don't mind', but that's assuming what is typed is actually considered before it is replied to, which it often patently wasn't.

I think there are fundamental problems with engineers on a thread like this. While systems are judged on their inherent characteristics by engineers, by others, the consideration seems to be something like the high personal financial gain which determines whether or not a system is efficient or sensible, with inherent characteristics absolutely irrelevant. - apart from to be denied when pointed out.
Well, what a nice day it’s turned out to be.

Just when I was losing all faith in Graham’s ability to learn new tricks (regarding PV), he posts this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by grahamc2003 View Post
I would think ......
A regurgitation of what I (and others) told him here after this post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by grahamc2003 View Post
I'm not sure it's such a good idea underspeccing the inverter.
Shame he spent a week and so many posts scaremongering ‘good PV folk’ with exploding inverters. As I keep saying, give it a little time and PV will become fully accepted, even in the UK.

And the sun’s shining!

Mart.
Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (2.4 ESE & 1.18 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
Martyn1981 is offline
Reply With Quote Report Post
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Martyn1981 For This Useful Post: Show me >>
Reply

Bookmarks
 
 




Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 Forum Jump  

Contact Us - MoneySavingExpert.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All times are GMT. The time now is 3:47 PM.

 Forum Jump  

Free MoneySaving Email

Top deals: Week of 17 December 2014

Get all this & more in MoneySavingExpert's weekly email full of guides, vouchers and Deals

GET THIS FREE WEEKLY EMAIL Full of deals, guides & it's spam free

Latest News & Blogs

Martin's Twitter Feed

profile

Cheap Travel Money

Find the best online rate for holiday cash with MSE's TravelMoneyMax.

Find the best online rate for your holiday cash with MoneySavingExpert's TravelMoneyMax.

MSE's Twitter Feed

profile