Does anyone here have an ideological objection to Solar?

Cardew wrote: »

Z

Sorry but i don't agree with you.

IMO the question of distribution losses is peripheral to the thrust of my argument.

Rather than get embroiled in discussions on that aspect, to the detriment of the major issues, I will readily concede that solar farms at 'point of use' is the preferred option.

P.S.

Anyone would think that 'The South West' was Outer Mongolia and not contain cities like Plymouth and Bristol; as well as the Nuclear power station at Hinkley Point.(with a further two reactors planned)

Incidentally Dounreay Nuclear facility is as far North in Scotland as possible and a further two in North Wales/Anglesey - which are hardly near their 'point of use'.
[/INDENT]

Hi

As previously discussed, the most likely area for siting vast pv farms in the SW would be the Lizard peninsula ....

Considering that to make a significant difference to farmscale pv in the UK, multi-GW peak generation needs to be considered, which probably represents the equivalent of at least a pair of nuclear reactors on one site....

Helston - Plymouth (pop 260000) ~79miles
Helston - Bristol (pop 428000) ~184miles
Helston - Bridgwater (Hinkley Point - possible/likely end node for a major upgrade to HV) ~147miles
Holyhead(Anglesey) - Liverpool (pop 470000) ~100miles
Trawsfynydd - Closed 20 years ago (NW or Midlands ~100miles)
Dounreay was a reasearch reactor centre, the site chosen due to it's remoteness incase of accident .... the largest reactor was the prototype MOX fueled 250MW reactor, which again was closed arount 20years ago .....

Leaving aside the period that has expired between the closure of a number of the mentioned power stations, at least they would have had existing infrastructure to deliver the energy ... unlike the SW. Plymouth would be the first (/last) significant population centre in the SW and that's around 80 miles from where the panels would be, therefore demand within this part of the SW would be significantly less than the capacity of the pv generation, thus requiring significant infrastructure upgrade (/cost) ....

Infrastructure cost is paid for by the electricity consumer, it therefore has exactly the same effect on consumer bills as the subsidy on pv, both being paid for in the same way, both subject to legislation and paid by charge/levy .... FiTs on the one hand and Transmission charges on the other (http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/network/deliv_access/deliv_access.aspx) ... simply extending the infrastructure to accommodate a massive concentration of pv farms would add to bills in the same way as FiTs do, therefore if there is an argument against FiTs, then there's exactly the same argument against extending the grid in order to gain a marginal additional kWh/kWp ...

I'm pretty sure that the last time we discussed this a calculation was made to gauge the relative benefit of point-of-use generation in the Midlands vs the transmission and distribution losses for the higher insolation for energy originating in the SW, the resultant was, from memory, a considerably reduced advantage for the farmscale generation in the SW.

So, having conceeded that distribution losses are "peripheral to the thrust of my argument" can this be the last time we see automatic reference to 'the SW' hand-in-hand with farmscale pv ? .... whatever the answer, there still seems to be a general disagreement with the logic which was presented, therefore there must simply be disagreement with the premise that extenting the grid is paid for by the energy consumer, because that's the only point which was raised which was not conceded ....

Is it just me, or are there others which find it hard to follow anti-logic sometimes applied on these threads ? .... how can a minor point be conceded then the concession position immediately qualified, therefore effectively withdrawing the concession, whilst effectively not addressing the main point raised, that being distribution infrastructure cost, not distribution efficiency losses ? ....

HTH
Z

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

As previously discussed, the most likely area for siting vast pv farms in the SW would be the Lizard peninsula ....

Considering that to make a significant difference to farmscale pv in the UK, multi-GW peak generation needs to be considered, which probably represents the equivalent of at least a pair of nuclear reactors on one site....

Helston - Plymouth (pop 260000) ~79miles
Helston - Bristol (pop 428000) ~184miles
Helston - Bridgwater (Hinkley Point - possible/likely end node for a major upgrade to HV) ~147miles
Holyhead(Anglesey) - Liverpool (pop 470000) ~100miles
Trawsfynydd - Closed 20 years ago (NW or Midlands ~100miles)
Dounreay was a reasearch reactor centre, the site chosen due to it's remoteness incase of accident .... the largest reactor was the prototype MOX fueled 250MW reactor, which again was closed arount 20years ago .....

Leaving aside the period that has expired between the closure of a number of the mentioned power stations, at least they would have had existing infrastructure to deliver the energy ... unlike the SW. Plymouth would be the first (/last) significant population centre in the SW and that's around 80 miles from where the panels would be, therefore demand within this part of the SW would be significantly less than the capacity of the pv generation, thus requiring significant infrastructure upgrade (/cost) ....

Infrastructure cost is paid for by the electricity consumer, it therefore has exactly the same effect on consumer bills as the subsidy on pv, both being paid for in the same way, both subject to legislation and paid by charge/levy .... FiTs on the one hand and Transmission charges on the other (http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/network/deliv_access/deliv_access.aspx) ... simply extending the infrastructure to accommodate a massive concentration of pv farms would add to bills in the same way as FiTs do, therefore if there is an argument against FiTs, then there's exactly the same argument against extending the grid in order to gain a marginal additional kWh/kWp ...

I'm pretty sure that the last time we discussed this a calculation was made to gauge the relative benefit of point-of-use generation in the Midlands vs the transmission and distribution losses for the higher insolation for energy originating in the SW, the resultant was, from memory, a considerably reduced advantage for the farmscale generation in the SW.

So, having conceeded that distribution losses are "peripheral to the thrust of my argument" can this be the last time we see automatic reference to 'the SW' hand-in-hand with farmscale pv ? .... whatever the answer, there still seems to be a general disagreement with the logic which was presented, therefore there must simply be disagreement with the premise that extenting the grid is paid for by the energy consumer, because that's the only point which was raised which was not conceded ....

Is it just me, or are there others which find it hard to follow anti-logic sometimes applied on these threads ? .... how can a minor point be conceded then the concession position immediately qualified, therefore effectively withdrawing the concession, whilst effectively not addressing the main point raised, that being distribution infrastructure cost, not distribution efficiency losses ? ....

HTH
Z

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.

Kernel_Sanders wrote: »

But consuming more of them for heating (as I am) instead of gas, does not. As explained here...

Hiya Kernel, I totally agree, and have explained that point previously here:

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Roger I agree with everything you say there,

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 - ignoring the fact that, that unit displaces a unit of import. Lately he has begun to sneak in the 'additional' consumption argument such as Immersun's, in what I believe is an attempt to confuse the issue and avoid admitting his long standing error.

I attempted to head-off that move here:

Martyn1981 wrote: »

PS, I note your reference to export, now includes water heating, does this subtle revision finally mean you realised your mathematical/accounting error, in claiming that panels on roofs don't have the same net effect on the grid as panels in a field?

Also regarding this bit:

Kernel_Sanders wrote: »

Best not push this point lest you have people querying how lush the new grass will be when growing in permanent shade

Whilst such issues may arise, that is not actually the important bit. Use of land is not free, even if you own it, as it carries an 'opportunity cost'.

When considering the total costs of farm v's domestic PV you have to include land costs. If you rent the land, then that bit is easy and obvious. If you own the land it is less obvious, but the opportunity cost will be the lost rent you could receive, or alternatively the interest income on the money if you sold the land.

These costs (plus others) will negate most install savings from building bigger.

Strangely, Cardew seems happy to apply opportunity costs to domestic installs, when he reminds people to deduct the lost interest on the money that they spend!

I should point out again, just in case, that I've nothing whatsoever against PV farms, I'm simply trying to point out that over 25 years they are not necessarily any cheaper than domestic. Roof mounted commercial, 20kWp+, now that's another matter all together .....

Mart.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

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 - ignoring the fact that, that unit displaces a unit of import. Lately he has begun to sneak in the 'additional' consumption argument such as Immersun's, in what I believe is an attempt to confuse the issue and avoid admitting his long standing error.

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.

What has been stated is that solar or wind generation does not reduce the UK's 'conventional' generating capacity by a single watt. The peak load on the grid is on a winter's evening when solar is contributing zilch and the wind might not be blowing!

As you full well know my 'target' is the FIT that pays a huge subsidy to little systems on roofs, and then allows the occupants to use all that generation and export, in theory, nothing.

In my potato analogy(that you like so much) if we paid a huge subsidy for home owners to grow spuds in their garden, and then allowed them to eat the whole crop, and export nothing, we would have followed the solar PV FIT model!

Cardew wrote: »

There is no 'contempt' for microgeneration - just the system of subsidy(FIT)

Large solar farms have, and are, been constructed to allow cattle etc to graze underneath(and crops grown?) -presumably the grass is not in permanant shade! From another post on MSE:

The array you mention - in portugal - is perhaps too sunny for grass to grow well.
Solar panels in that location may actually improve grass production, due to the shade meaning the grass is less stressed, and reducing daytime evaporation.
I question that this will be the case in the UK.