Does anyone here have an ideological objection to Solar?

doughnutmachine wrote: »

perhaps if fits for small hydro were higher hydro would come down in price as well? i've always thought small hydro would be suitable for being manufactured in kit form.

after all, the turbine/ generator could come prefabricated in a small shipping container. the upstream inlet structure could be a couple of concrete manhole rings. the pipework could be flexible reinforced rubber pipes. All stuff that a small builder could install on site.

if only fits was increased so some pump turbine manufacturer could get some economies of scale.

Try some of the renewables sellers, the kit is out there:

http://www.navitron.org.uk/category.php?catID=70

The mass produced Chinese 'stuff' is pretty cheap (quality!?!).

Mart.

doughnutmachine wrote: »

the amount of flooding in the UK seems to be increasing, perhaps more hydro (with associated water storage) would reduce the amount of flooding.

Farmers are getting (more) subsidies for installing "wash" lands (ie areas deliberately designed to flood in a controlled manner).

You know those maps of the fens show "new" rivers dug more directly to the sea and with a wide margin between them and the previous rivers?

The dykes surrounding the island so created is lower than that on the other bank of the rivers, so that in flood conditions it is the island that floods.

Perhaps the man with the mill site can do a deal with a local farmer to both of their mutual advantage?

Personally I would go for a mill on a chalk stream.

doughnutmachine wrote: »

if you've had experience of looking at small hydro i'd be interested in reading about it if you start at thread? it's something i've always wanted to do.

Will do, when I have the time.

doughnutmachine wrote: »

if i asked a first year university engineering student the best green energy that the UK should invest in i would be disappointed if he said solar. imho solar panels are a political gimic to look green to the electorate.

Yep, politics is a very highly tuned art - I'd never have thought the 'stakeholder' strategy was so universally powerful to get many to simply suspend rational thought and analysis enough to somehow think it's a sensible way of generating electricity in the UK. Of course many - but by all means not all - never had that ability in the first place. Many - again not all - think they are saving the planet while being paid very well to do so and see no contradiction. Some philosophers trump the best scientists in terms of clarity of thought, understanding implications and group effects.

The 'solution' the government have belatedly (and incorrectly) come up to address the lights going out is gas. Loads of relatively inefficient small gas fired power stations to be built, burning gas from a 2000 mile long pipe, passing through many countries all of which can close the valves should it be in their interests to do so, assuming the party at the other end of the pipe keeps supplying it. Greens should be up in arms - burning a fuel which could be burnt more efficiently directly in the home. Where are they shouting about the co2 from burning gas? Small gas turbines are the very last generation to be scheduled when meeting demand due to their relatively high cost - and yet that's the way we're heading. It's only a single step away from the government solution being to build more wind and solar, in that at least this theoretically works.

The sole rational solution in Nuclear. If Nuclear power hadn't been invented and was discovered today, it would be seen as virtually the saviour of mankind. It's only a ridiculous 50 year campaign by so called 'greens' which has virtually made most in the UK paranoid against it - and yet it is still the same thinking which is today driving our energy strategy.

doughnutmachine wrote: »

most of the conventional power stations are coming to the end of their useful life, there is a real danger that the lights will go out within the next 10 years. it would just be nice if fits helped address this problem.

But I'm still struggling to see where you are coming from. Previously you said hydro and anerobic digestion would help. Well they get FITs too, but now you say FITs won't help? You keep suggesting problems, but aren't supporting any of them!

doughnutmachine wrote: »

a pound spent on solar is a pound that can not be spent elsewhere, i think countries should try and invest their money where there is some competitive advantage. since the uk has the most coastline in europe i would prefer fits to encourage tidal/ wave/ etc.

On a R&D basis I agree with you, but again, the point here is not sitting back and letting economics sort the wheat from the chaff, we are artificially shortening the development of solar (and wind and nuclear) by pumping in a lot of money. The objective is to develop all the tools.

Tidal and wave are research projects. I also think they have great potential, but where is the product that we can sell to householders, commerce, and investors today?

There isn't a single budget for a single solution, because there isn't a single solution.

doughnutmachine wrote: »

if i asked a first year university engineering student the best green energy that the UK should invest in i would be disappointed if he said solar. imho solar panels are a political gimic to look green to the electorate.

Why? Look at the issue again, and strip away all the noise and distraction.

They 'only' generate during daylight. Yes, that's all they ever did, and all they were ever sold as doing. Pointing out winter evening peaks, serves no purpose. PV's role is carbon reduction and that's what it does.

We should put our money into other schemes. We do. The PV FITs budget is actually quite small (if you can call £8bn over 27(ish) years small) but it's potential is big.

It detracts from other technologies. Does it? Show me? Not only does FITs support many technologies, but we also have huge investment in wind farms, and R&D.

It's ineffective in a UK climate. It's simply a matter of generation to cost. It's less profitable here than closer to the equator, but that doesn't make it unviable.

It's too expensive. Look at the numbers. It's now starting to slip inside nuclear and off-shore wind costs. Should we abandon them too? The UK has about 40% of Europe's useable wind energy. Prices are still falling, it's too early to call, but it's starting to look good for PV 'even' in the UK.

It's expensive and gets a big subsidy. Current domestic 15.44p. Let's strip that subsidy down a bit: The FIT is FAT again (due to falling costs), offering returns similar to late Summer 2011, so there is room to fall. Current leccy prices don't include the true cost of carbon. Current leccy prices don't include nuclear subsidies which are hidden in general taxation (just the decommissioning budget each year is £2.5bn).

Each of those factors is probably worth about 3p each, and as I said prices are still falling. So we need to look at the big picture, and not be distracted by all the negative noise and distractions.

Step back for a moment and think about the aims of FITs (particularly as they relate to PV). To lower PV prices internationally. To lower PV prices nationally. To develop the UK solar industry. To get companies (not just generating companies) and householders to invest in infrastructure. To involve the public in micro-generation. To raise awareness of energy needs and carbon emissions. Has it done all of these? Have the public accepted PV? Have prices fallen as expected (or far, far further)?

We have a scheme with aims. So far it has delivered those aims and far exceeded expectations, so why are we still knocking it?

Or to put it another way, we need to stop finding problems with solutions, and start finding solutions for problems.

Mart.