Solar ... In the news

Martyn1981 · 19 October 2016 at 2:00PM

Oh Dear, he's off again!

Dearest Cardew, it's over, face the facts, it's over.

Your 6 year anti-PV campaign, complaining about subsidies going to households rather than to France and China for your nuclear, or your failure to realise PV doesn't generate at night, or your obsession with how much generation people consume on site, because you didn't understand that export and offset are both 'felt' by the grid the same, despite your 'detailed explanations' about potato farmers ...... was all a waste of time.

The subsidy worked, PV works, the UK populace loves PV, it's already far cheaper than new nuclear (even domestic PV!) so a massive success.

Most noticeable is that the highest earliest PV subsidies which began in 2010 (to 2012) will have ended by 2037. May I direct you to the 60 years of subsidies that nuclear has already enjoyed, and the new (larger than PV) subsidies they will be receiving from 2028(ish) through to 2063(ish). [As always I'm trying to help you out as you might not realise what a complete hypocrite you come across as.]

You mention that the impact from the UK on world PV prices would have been small. Yes that's completely correct. I suspect your confusion dates back several years where everytime myself or anyone else suggested that the UK had contributed, you always replied, misquoting what was said, and claiming that we'd stated that the whole reduction in prices was down to the UK. It seems you've actually started to believe your own spin - how sad!

With specific regard to your constant bleating about my posting articles from the solar press ...... well ...... think about it, where do you think you'll find the most info? I probably read 10 or 20 articles per day, because I'm interested. Some I post on a 'Solar in the news thread' as others might be interested.

If you don't like reading such articles, then please don't feel obliged to, or simply put myself on a block filter so you don't have to keep torturing yourself reading all the good news about PV.

BTW you haven't posted extracts (without links (suspiciously)) from climate denial sites for a while. Have you decided that wasn't such a good idea now, on a Green & Ethical board?

Mart.

PS It's over, cheer up and enjoy the PV century.

Cardew · 19 October 2016 at 11:23PM

zeupater wrote: »

Hi All, including 'new readers' ..

... and to bring some balance to the above for the 'benefit of new readers', the FiT was initially set high in order to encourage take-up of the new technology and, as Cardew knows, needed to be so because installations at the time that the scheme was being created (2009) a ~4kWp system typically cost £20k-£25k+ and had an anticipated performance of around 850kWh/kWp, thus returning around £1400/year, so somewhere in the region of 6% to 7%, this being in line with long-term investment returns at the time ....

Z

The FIT fixed at 41.3p/kWh was, and is, absurdly high.

Your logic - I use the term loosely - is that the FIT had to be that high because the cost of a PV system was £20k-£20k.

So if a PV system cost double £40k-50k then that would have justified fixing FIT at 82.6p.

Which comes first: the chicken or the egg.

Yet you, and the Guru, spend your time bleating about the subsidies given to the Nuclear power. A generating source that operates 24/7 in all weathers.

If you want to amuse yourself, look back at the arguments you, and in particular the Guru constantly aired about the uselessness of solar farms. Now we are treated to all the every piece of propaganda put out by the solar industry on huge farms.

My point, as you well appreciate, is this forum is neither balanced or objective about solar matters and is a club for those who have solar. Look at all your 'thanks'!

The Guru can be forgiven for his stance, he can't help himself!

Martyn1981 · 20 October 2016 at 8:07AM

Cardew wrote: »

Yet you, and the Guru, spend your time bleating about the subsidies given to the Nuclear power. A generating source that operates 24/7 in all weathers.

Just for clarification, and to prevent your continued misrepresentation of arguments and opinions. I criticise the subsidies for Hinkley Point C not nuclear. However, I understand why you (in particular) would fail to understand this as:-
1. You don't read, you don't listen, you simply try to create arguments.
2. HPC is at present the only example we have of 'new' nuclear, so until we see a more sensible subsidy rate, it suggests that nuclear is now uneconomical in the UK.
3. For your benefit, since you dislike subsidies for PV, especially if they go to households, I've pointed out that the PV subsidies are 'new' and 'first round' subsidies, whereas HPC will be receiving '2nd round' subsidies, since the industry has already enjoyed 100's of £bn's of subsidies already, over the last 60 years.
4. You were very vocal about the cost and efficiency of PV, repeatedly claiming that you could do better with hamsters on wheels. Yet PV (in the UK!) is already producing leccy, and displacing FF from the grid at a lower cost than nuclear.
5. Nuclear, your chosen 'technology' is I suspect, the only technology in history to get more expensive over time.

I have said, in order to avoid coming over like you (hypocritical) that whilst I don't like nuclear, and would rather we don't build anymore, I do accept that it is low CO2, so if it could be built economically (perhaps £60-£70/MWh) then I wouldn't be as concerned.

For clarity, and this is only my understanding, but I don't think Z has ruled out nuclear, nor spoken against it, he has however suggested that HPC is too expensive, and that if we build nuclear that could split investment from RE, so it may be better to make a bold decision now and move on. [@Z If I've misunderstood, please correct me. M.]

Cardew wrote: »

If you want to amuse yourself, look back at the arguments you, and in particular the Guru constantly aired about the uselessness of solar farms. Now we are treated to all the every piece of propaganda put out by the solar industry on huge farms.

Again for clarification, this is not my position on PV farms, it is actually the false spin (and trolling) argument that you've put out for many years.

I was quite clear that I believe demand side PV is more economically viable than supply side PV. Whilst PV farms can produce leccy at a lower cost, it's not cheap enough to offset the higher income stream that demand side PV benefits from.

I also believe that PV should be reserved for demand side generation simply because it's the only technology that works well (economically) on the demand side. So whilst my opinion is unfair on PV farms, punishing them for the failures of small scale wind/hydro, I still think it's a fair and valid position.

However, what is more important is that we have PV, be it demand side or supply. Whilst I think one is better, both are great, and I have never described PV farms as useless.

With regard to Z, I appreciate that he doesn't need me to stand up for him, but I think it's only fair to state that I don't think he's ever spoken out against PV farms. You have created that.

He did explain to you why your argument that all PV should be on farms in the SW of the UK wouldn't work, as you'd failed to take into account the huge cost of the multi-GW interconnectors needed.

He also defended me (as did others), by pointing out that I hadn't said demand side PV was cheaper than PV farms, and explained - to you - how my 'economically more viable' argument worked. As far as I recall he didn't state that my argument was right, simply that you had failed to understand it.

Mart.

Martyn1981 · 20 October 2016 at 8:13AM

Dearest Cardew.

Some time back I asked you a question, but you failed to reply, so I'll ask it again.

As I understand you have 2 children, congratulations. The current child benefit payments for 2 children is around £1,500pa for 18 years. This is roughly comparable to the early PV subsidies, though of course the window of opportunity for PV was only 2.33 years, not the many decades for child benefit.

Now I see no problem in subsidising your decision to invest in the future of the UK, it being a wholly worthwhile venture. So why do you have such an issue with those of us who decided to invest in the future of the UK?

Mart.

michaels · 20 October 2016 at 12:51PM

How much would the output of a typical domestic 4kw installation be worth if valued at grid 'spot' at the point it is generated?

If instead it was valued at typical consumer price (10p/kwh) how much would a system with panels, invertor and storage (to allow 100% of generation to be utilised) need to cost for ti to be price neutral compared to using grid electricity?

Martyn1981 · 20 October 2016 at 2:01PM

michaels wrote: »

How much would the output of a typical domestic 4kw installation be worth if valued at grid 'spot' at the point it is generated?

If instead it was valued at typical consumer price (10p/kwh) how much would a system with panels, invertor and storage (to allow 100% of generation to be utilised) need to cost for ti to be price neutral compared to using grid electricity?

Good questions.

Can I say 4,000kWh for a typical domestic install? I appreciate that systems like mine generate less per kWp, but lets concentrate first on the better locations, with perhaps 900-1,100kWh/kWp.

Q1. - Current average prices are very low, sub £40/MWh. They did peak around 2008 (I think) at about £80. The current price is being depressed by the low gas price (linked to the low oil price).

So a domestic system priced at wholesale rates would generate about £160's worth of leccy. The NAO expect prices to reach £70 before dropping down to £60 in the long term. So around £240 worth of leccy.

Q2 Part 1 (no storage) - I had a go at this some time back, I knocked together a spreadsheet with the PV cost spread out over a 25yr repayment mortgage. I took this approach to avoid any arguments about lost interest/cost of capital. I added £1k at month 144 to simulate an inverter replacement, then played to see what monthly figure was need to get the balance to zero in month 300.

Using this model, you can then play with the initial capital cost, and I tried a few interest rates, perhaps 4% for a mortgage on a new build with PV, or 1%-2% on a self funded install, where you become the mortgage lender, effectively borrowing the money from yourself. The new build will be cheaper as it's simpler and avoids additional scaffolding costs.

You then take the monthly repayment multiple by twelve and divide by 4,000kWh.

The results:
£5,000 @ 2% = 7.36p/kWh
£4,000 @ 4% = 7.32p/kWh
£4,000 @ 2% = 6.1p/kWh
(the last representing prices dropping and the potential of a retro-fit at £4k).

Without storage and assuming 1/3 self consumption then today using your 10p figure and current wholesale rates of 4p, we get a weighted average of 6p/kWh, so we are a little short.

Assuming higher wholesale rates, or retail rates, or no standing charge accounts and we should easily hit viability soon, so long as costs don't go up, due to a shrunken and damaged supply chain.

Q2. Part 2 (with storage) - Don't know?

Perhaps I can work my spreadsheet backwards. If you use all the generation (and we ignore any losses) then you'd get 4,000kWh valued at 10p each, so £400 income. That's a monthly 'repayment' of £33.33. Shoving that repayment into my spreadsheet necessitated a capital cost of £7,080 @ 2%. Does that work for you as an answer?

But, in reality, you'd need much more storage (and therefore expense) to make use of 100% of generation, as you'd need to size the storage to accept max generation in the summer.

Perhaps a sensible figure/compromise for the future, would be a target figure of £6k. £4k for PV and £2k for storage (6kWh useable) and the ability to make use of around 80% of generation.

Fun exercise, no idea if I answered your question, or got anywhere near the 'truth'.

Mart.

zeupater · 20 October 2016 at 4:17PM

Cardew wrote: »

The FIT fixed at 41.3p/kWh was, and is, absurdly high.

Your logic - I use the term loosely - is that the FIT had to be that high because the cost of a PV system was £20k-£20k.

So if a PV system cost double £40k-50k then that would have justified fixing FIT at 82.6p.

Which comes first: the chicken or the egg.

Yet you, and the Guru, spend your time bleating about the subsidies given to the Nuclear power. A generating source that operates 24/7 in all weathers.

If you want to amuse yourself, look back at the arguments you, and in particular the Guru constantly aired about the uselessness of solar farms. Now we are treated to all the every piece of propaganda put out by the solar industry on huge farms.

My point, as you well appreciate, is this forum is neither balanced or objective about solar matters and is a club for those who have solar. Look at all your 'thanks'!

The Guru can be forgiven for his stance, he can't help himself!

Hi

... 'round, and 'round and 'round we go .... (Again !) ...

"Which comes first: the chicken or the egg." ... Darwin would obviously answer 'egg' for obvious natural selection reasons and applying current thinking on genetics would logically tend to agree .... as for .. "Your logic - I use the term loosely - is that the FIT had to be that high because the cost of a PV system was £20k-£20k." .. the logic is pretty sound when you consider that the idea was to encourage the public to invest their savings which were earning around 6% in term savings accounts into what was at the time an unknown (and therefore relatively untrusted) technology ....

On to "constantly aired about the uselessness of solar farms" ... from 5 years ago ....

Originally Posted by Cardew
Why not take your principle one step further?

If you want PV solar positioned where it produces the greatest output then it should be installed in large solar farms on factory/supermarket roofs or Brownfield sites in Devon and Cornwall.

Additionally we(the electricity consumer) wouldn't have to subsidise the present ridiculously inefficient tiny installations dotted all over the country - scaffolding, labour, equipment, accounting, as well as the ongoing maintenance issues on these far flung properties.

Hi

And, as touched on before, the efficiency losses for long distance transmission of the electricity counter a good proportion of the higher insolation available. Regarding costs, not generating on a microgeneration basis requires upgrade and relocation of grid resource (new pylons/underground) which is likely to counter much of the capital cost efficiencies of having large arrays in the first place ......

If there's an argument for having large pv arrays then those arrays need to be close to centres of population. Yes, put arrays in the S/W to provide energy to the (small) population there and, as long as the existing grid could cope, they could even 'export' from Cornwall to the rest of the UK. However, let's not forget all of the nice countryside and warehouse size buildings around London and other large urban areas ..... just think, you'd not only get the efficiencies of large scale arrays, but you'd also get to spend less on upgrading the grid and gain the benefit of a local 'tourist' attraction on your doorstep ....

HTH
Z

( http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=48755583&postcount=256 ) ... quite apt and amusing really because 5 years later we can all appreciate that what's in the post is exactly what's happened, distributed pv systems throughout the country ... evidence ?, well we've got 3 totalling (~15MWp) within a couple of miles! ... importantly though, despite contrary misrepresentation, my position hasn't changed.

As for ... .".. bleating about the subsidies given to the Nuclear power. A generating source that operates 24/7 in all weathers" ... surely logic would dictate that a technology which had such a capacity and load factor advantage would both need & attract a lower subsidy? .. there's also the case that relative cost of technology generally fall rapidly as they mature .... the most modern existing UK nuclear plant (Sizewell

is said to have cost £2733million two decades ago and building a second unit to the same design at Hinckley point was estimated as being £1.7billion, so why would we accept the currently estimated build cost of HinckleyC as being £18-£25billion and will likely attract somewhere around £50billion in cfd payments over a 35year period without question ... to place into context, the £50billion 'subsidy' to a single 3.2GWe plant would equate to supporting the installation of around 28GWp of pv at current support levels, with the annual generation for each being roughly equal (20TWh+). However, the advantages for energy awareness and associated reductions would give the pv approach a huge overall consumption reduction advantage, possibly in the region of a further ~10TWh+ - Like many, I'd have no problem with nuclear if we, the consumers, weren't being taken advantage of ... £1.7Billion vs £18-£25Billion resulting in a financed cost of ~£50Billion describes an issue which is hard to ignore, so on purely economic grounds ... "Baaaaa", I'll stay with the flock who seem to understand relative economics ..

"... My point, as you well appreciate, is this forum is neither balanced or objective about solar matters" .... the irony in that deduction is almost hilarious, so a reality check may be required. After around 30 years of solar pv availability global prices were hugely uneconomical with the market being small, specialised and mainly controlled from within the energy sector (BP, Shell etc). In order to clear the roadblocks towards pv becoming an obvious candidate for becoming a 'consumer product' there was a global concerted effort to support 'kick-starting' the industry which has been highly successful, so what, on a 'green & ethical' forum could be expected ... balanced ? , yes it certainly is as most would confirm ... objective ?, yes it certainly is too ... I, like everyone else, can't afford to build a nuclear power station or any other form of large-scale plant in my back garden and therefore have little/no say on the matter, but I do have the option to adopt high levels of insulation, efficient appliances, solar thermal, solar pv, biomass and heat-pump technologies in order to help make a difference, and importantly, have done so whilst many others simply choose to moan & complain whilst ignoring 'the big picture ...

Then comes storage ....

HTH
Z

Cardew · 20 October 2016 at 4:37PM

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Dearest Cardew.

Some time back I asked you a question, but you failed to reply, so I'll ask it again.

As I understand you have 2 children, congratulations. The current child benefit payments for 2 children is around £1,500pa for 18 years. This is roughly comparable to the early PV subsidies, though of course the window of opportunity for PV was only 2.33 years, not the many decades for child benefit.

Now I see no problem in subsidising your decision to invest in the future of the UK, it being a wholly worthwhile venture. So why do you have such an issue with those of us who decided to invest in the future of the UK?

Mart.

Your 'research' on the number of children I have, has produced results as inaccurate as most of your statistics.

All my children have graduated from university and are in employment and paying taxes.

Presumably you don't have children? or work? or depend on any social security?

As you apparently go back years to study my posts, you surely will have noticed I have frequently posted comments similar to that posted above in Post#1551:

Also for the 'benefit of new readers' there can be no criticism of those who took advantage of a stupidly generous scheme. However perhaps there should be a more balanced view portrayed on this forum, rather than posting constant bleating from the solar industry.

So in case you cannot/will not understand, my beef is with the Government who set up this scheme with such absurd subsidies, not those who take advantage of the system. So do you understand that? I mean really understand?

LOL

P.S.

So why do you have such an issue with those of us who decided to invest in the future of the UK?

How noble!

Martyn1981 · 20 October 2016 at 4:53PM

Cardew wrote: »

Your 'research' on the number of children I have, has produced results as inaccurate as most of your statistics.

All my children have graduated from university and are in employment and paying taxes.

So you do have children (at least 2?), and have therefore received child benefit?

Could you now please explain why your receipt of subsidies (equal to £1,500 pa these days for 2 children) is ok, but other forms of investment in the future of the UK is not?

Mart.

BTW No research was necessary, I simply recall you mentioning at least two children in the past. Something about Uni, and another time when you were explaining how to get money on board a cruise ship (or was it that you didn't need cash on a cruise ship, I can't remember), but I do recall you saying something like 'the many family cruises we go on each year'.

Cardew · 20 October 2016 at 7:24PM

Martyn1981 wrote: »

So you do have children (at least 2?), and have therefore received child benefit?

Could you now please explain why your receipt of subsidies (equal to £1,500 pa these days for 2 children) is ok, but other forms of investment in the future of the UK is not?

Mart.

BTW No research was necessary, I simply recall you mentioning at least two children in the past. Something about Uni, and another time when you were explaining how to get money on board a cruise ship (or was it that you didn't need cash on a cruise ship, I can't remember), but I do recall you saying something like 'the many family cruises we go on each year'.

You are seriously mixed up and your powers of recall are really deficient. Or perhaps you can point out the post(s) about 'many family cruises we go on each year'.

You obviously haven't understood:

Also for the 'benefit of new readers' there can be no criticism of those who took advantage of a stupidly generous scheme. However perhaps there should be a more balanced view portrayed on this forum, rather than posting constant bleating from the solar industry.

I did ask nicely if you understood about there 'being no criticism of those who collect the subsidy'. However it is patently obvious you do not understand my point. I am at a loss to understand how to explain it in a simpler manner. Perhaps one of your fans can explain what it means.

Can you not appreciate that if I make no criticism of those receiving the subsidy, it is irrelevant if I received child benefit, unemployment benefit, sickness benefit etc. In any case isn't child benefit paid to the wife?

So as you are interested in my family, our holidays and my receipt of child allowance, would it be impertinent to ask if you have children, work for a living or are in receipt of any social security payments? Or is it only you who can ask questions and comment about personal matters.

Solar ... In the news

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free