Does anyone here have an ideological objection to Solar?

17810121336

Comments

  • Martyn1981
    Martyn1981 Posts: 14,713
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    edited 4 December 2012 at 8:08PM
    Cardew wrote: »
    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:
    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.

    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.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
  • zeupater
    zeupater Posts: 5,353
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    edited 4 December 2012 at 10:17PM
    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 .... :think: .... 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 .... ;):D

    HTH
    Z
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    B)
  • Cardew
    Cardew Posts: 29,036
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post Rampant Recycler
    Forumite
    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!



  • zeupater
    zeupater Posts: 5,353
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    edited 4 December 2012 at 11:41PM
    Cardew wrote: »
    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
    B)
  • Martyn1981
    Martyn1981 Posts: 14,713
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    Cardew wrote: »
    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.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
  • Martyn1981
    Martyn1981 Posts: 14,713
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    edited 5 December 2012 at 9:27AM
    zeupater wrote: »
    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 .... ;):D

    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/environment/blog/2012/may/04/expense-nuclear-power-energy-coalition?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.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
  • zeupater
    zeupater Posts: 5,353
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    Martyn1981 wrote: »
    ... 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 ! :D) .... 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
    B)
  • Martyn1981
    Martyn1981 Posts: 14,713
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    zeupater wrote: »
    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.

    zeupater wrote: »
    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! :D

    Mart.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
  • Martyn1981
    Martyn1981 Posts: 14,713
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    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:
    I would think ......

    A regurgitation of what I (and others) told him here after this 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.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

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

  • Shame he spent a week and so many posts scaremongering ‘good PV folk’ with exploding inverters.
    !!!!!!? That doesn't happen... Dont hang your wet washing on them though...
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards