Solar Panel Guide Discussion
Comments
-
Blossom2528 wrote: »Doesn’t look like he’s gonna answer. Probably can’t get the numbers to say what he wants. Nothing new then.
Also when he keeps going on about farms exporting but houses using the electric is there any difference. Putting more in or take less out what’s the difference. More for everyone else.
Am I being stupid but they are the same thing aren’t they. Does he have a point or just spouting more Monbiot paragraphs without thinking first.
Why do I need to guess at figures like the mighty Guru, when lots of businesses/councils/farmers etc who wanted to set up large solar systems(solar farms if you like) were content to receive a subsidy(FIT) of 20p/kWh? Their plans being scuppered when the Government stopped the 20p FIT for these systems. The reason the Government gave was that the money alllocated to FIT(from the electricity customers) would be exhausted.
These organisations presumably had 'done the figures' and were prepared to go ahead at 20p/kWh. If all these organisations had got their figures wrong and would be operating at a loss on 20p/kWh, what is the problem? They could carry on operating at a loss, or dismantle the installations; in which case they would get no FIT.
As for me 'having a point'.
1. Organisations were prepared to generate solar electricity for 20p/kWh subsidy.
2. All of this electricity would be available for export to the grid.
3. Instead the Government stopped the 20p/kWh subsidy for large systems and allowed small sub 4kWp systems to get a 41.3p/kWh.
4. That of course meant large commercial Rent a roof organisations(even with over 10,000 systems) would collect 41.3p/kWh. If you can manage the arithmetic, work out the FIT collected by A Shade Greener who said on their website, before the 41.3p FIT was reduced, they had installed over 10,000 systems - each producing on average 3,000kWh pa.
5. Additionally those with sub 4kWp systems would be allowed to use as much electricity in-house as they could manage; in theory they could get 41.3p/kWh subsidy for all generated electricity, and export nothing. Understandably these houses are taking measures to use as much in-house as possible and export as little as possible.
6. Now bearing in mind that all electricity customers pay the FIT subsidy. We should have had the choice of our subsidy paying
a. 20p/kWh for electricty all of which would be available for export, or
b. 41.3p/kWh of which only a fraction will be exported.
So which system would be the better value for the 99% who do not have solar PV panels?
In a long list of illogical statements, this must take the prize!No, not stupid, when you think about it, it is the same thing. A PV farm exporting 1kWh puts an extra 1kWh into the system for others to use, whilst a domestic/commercial install that consumes a kWh instead of importing it, leaves an extra 1kWh in the system for others to use. The net effect is the same, give or take distribution losses.
Mart.
Now instead of some rather pathetic insults, would it be possible for you and The Green Hornet to present a coherent argument against the above?0 -
I think you need to take a step back and think about what you are saying.
For a start why is it so important to you that the electricity is exported? Why not explain why my statement is illogical – back up your claims for a change. At some point you have to stop making statements and start supplying facts. Oh, and by the way, in preparation of your usual back-pedalling, re-quoting Monbiot’s article is not support, it is simply a circular argument going nowhere.
What difference does it make whether a panel is on a house roof or in a PV farm? Both produce a unit, one adds to supply, one reduces demand. So we have the same grid with an extra unit, or the same grid with a unit less of demand, the net change to other customers is the same, one unit better off. You really need to get your head around the ‘negative demand’ side of PV. Then there is the simple fact that the feed in tariff is for infrastructure costs (think a one – off grant, but here is dependant on performance and suitability), the export tariff is for exports, and if anything is under paid. Can we please put this nonsense of ‘and they can use it’ to bed.
As for your farms argument, I see that you are slowly trying to twist away from your claims that a farm can be viable before roof installs. Now you are desperately trying to argue via subsidies. I thought the whole point of this disagreement was that roof mounted PV was becoming more viable, and more quickly than expected – so FITs (PV) has done exactly what it was supposed to do.
So still no numbers on why a farm is more viable?
You claim that previously farms could be built despite the tariff being 50%, but the tariff is still almost 50% (7.1p v’s 16p pre November and 15.44p v’s 7.1p after), or 64% if you add on the sales which are at 4.5p for all units, not 50% of units (18.25p v’s 11.6p). Using your numbers, previously a farm would have got 20p +4.5p (approx. market rate), a domestic property 41.3p + 1.6p 24.5/42.9 = 57%, compared to 64% today. So if they were content, as you put it, at 57%, why not 64%? Why aren’t they being built?
It’s easy to throw out comments regurgitated from Monbiot’s article, but harder to justify them, when asked. So, once again, what are the financial pro’s (and con’s) of PV farms over domestic and commercial installs? Why do you feel farms will reach viability first, especially in the UK?
Mart.
PS What do you hope to gain with all this anti PV/FITs campaigning? Two and a half years on, what have you achieved, the scheme has been successful and the co-ordinated approach to PV promotion has worked well?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.0 -
Martyn1981 wrote: »So still no numbers on why a farm is more viable?
QUOTE]
I will say this just once more S L O W L Y in the hope you will understand. - except of course we all know you understand but you hope obfuscation will succeed!
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.
You keep making personal attacks, and telling me what I am trying to do or say, instead of addressing issues and you have clearly lost the argument.
Just try and ansewr the question posed in this quote:6. Now bearing in mind that all electricity customers pay the FIT subsidy. We should have had the choice of our subsidy paying
a. 20p/kWh for electricty all of which would be available for export, or
b. 41.3p/kWh of which only a fraction will be exported.
So which system would be the better value for the 99% who do not have solar PV panels?
Presumably you think answer 'b''!You claim that previously farms could be built despite the tariff being 50%, but the tariff is still almost 50% (7.1p v’s 16p pre November and 15.44p v’s 7.1p after), or 64% if you add on the sales which are at 4.5p for all units, not 50% of units (18.25p v’s 11.6p). Using your numbers, previously a farm would have got 20p +4.5p (approx. market rate), a domestic property 41.3p + 1.6p 24.5/42.9 = 57%, compared to 64% today. So if they were content, as you put it, at 57%, why not 64%? Why aren’t they being built?
Is that a serious question?
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?0 -
I was under the impression that FITs was all about microgeneration i.e. generate the power where it is needed.
So where does solar farms come into this? Surely that is a different issue altogether...0 -
same 2 !!!!heads talking the same sh1te
hello cardew, hello grahamc2003
aw well, back to as before
*pulls up chair*
*gets out popcorn*
*munch munch*
And your point is? Instead of getting out the popcorn, why don't you get out the calculator and see if you can tell these "shiṫheads", as you call them, where their calculations and figures are wrong?
Because they seem to be the only ones coming up with solid, reference fact-based evidence, whereas most of what's on here is barely more intelligent an argument than "yer mum smells of wee".0 -
digitaltoast wrote: »And your point is? Instead of getting out the popcorn, why don't you get out the calculator and see if you can tell these "shiṫheads", as you call them, where their calculations and figures are wrong?
Because they seem to be the only ones coming up with solid, reference fact-based evidence, whereas most of what's on here is barely more intelligent an argument than "yer mum smells of wee".
When did I call them that?
You called them that 0 -
-
jeepjunkie wrote: »I was under the impression that FITs was all about microgeneration i.e. generate the power where it is needed.
So where does solar farms come into this? Surely that is a different issue altogether...
Not really.
When FIT was introduced it paid a subsidy for all forms of 'Green' electricity generation - wind, solar PV etc.
http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Generating-energy/Getting-money-back/Feed-In-Tariffs-scheme-FITs
<H2>About the scheme
</H2>
Most domestic technologies (and larger systems up to 5 megawatts) qualify for the scheme, including:- solar electricity (PV) (roof mounted or stand alone)
- wind turbines (building mounted or free standing)
- hydroelectricity
- anaerobic digesters
- micro combined heat and power (CHP).
Note: large installations up to 5 megawatts qualified.
The 'discussion' above is about the way the FIT scheme has evolved with installations that would produce electricty with a low subsidy(the term is relative) being curtailed to enable small installations with a high subsidy to flourish.0 -
Blossom2528 wrote: »When did they get offered 20p, how many were rushing to install at 20p?
Are you saying that when the FIT was high people wanted to build farms, but when the FIT was low they didn't. Does that suggest it's hard to make a farm work.
You said that farms more viable, so why not show some numbers.
Why are you now hiding behind subsidies. This all started with the argument that domestic would be viable first, so support that and get rid of the subsidy. Then you said it wasn't, and when asked to provide numbers you start on about subsidies.
Can you not read? - or at least read and understand?
Business organisations considered that farms were viable at a subsidy of 20p/kWh. They had made a business plan and come to that conclusion.
So why do you need MY numbers?
Why not just discuss the facts and answer the question I posed in my reply to you earlier.
6. Now bearing in mind that all electricity customers pay the FIT subsidy. We should have had the choice of our subsidy paying
a. 20p/kWh for electricty all of which would be available for export, or
b. 41.3p/kWh of which only a fraction will be exported.
So which system would be the better value for the 99% who do not have solar PV panels?
I have carefully explained my position, why not say where my facts are incorrect instead of becoming a Martyn clone.0 -
The 'discussion' above is about the way the FIT scheme has evolved with installations that would produce electricty with a low subsidy(the term is relative) being curtailed to enable small installations with a high subsidy to flourish.
Well, PV installations on roofs are what we need. There is much competition for other land, bearing in mind that there is a worry that growing biomass displaces food production. The only sensible place for solar farms in in the desert.4kWp, Panels: 16 Hyundai HIS250MG, Inverter: SMA Sunny Boy 4000TLLocation: Bedford, Roof: South East facing, 20 degree pitch20kWh Pylontech US5000 batteries, Lux AC inverter,Skoda Enyaq iV80, TADO Central Heating control0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards