Does anyone here have an ideological objection to Solar?

1679111236

Comments

  • Martyn1981
    Martyn1981 Posts: 14,713
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    Cardew wrote: »
    I

    I am happy to concede my case being modified to having Solar Farms close to the 'point of use'* as it doesn't detract from the thrust of my argument.

    Arguments:

    Solar farms produce more leccy than domestic - nope, shared technology and little to no efficeincies of scale.

    Solar farms are cheaper, economies of scale - nope, after including life-long running costs, there will be little to no difference.

    Solar farms benefit the grid more as they only export - nope, offsetting import is exactly the same.

    Transmission losses are not significant - nope, there are cost issues, and losses are not entirely dependent on distance as transformer and switchgear losses will impact too. This should balance out any generation gains from better cooling.

    Subsidies are less - nope, the government never meant for FITs to be attractive to commercial scale installs and tried to maintain lower levels, specifically to discourage farms.

    Solar farms will become viable sooner than domestic - nope, since costs are similar, but income streams are significantly different (wholesale price v's a combination of wholesale and retail).

    Anything else? It seems to me that are no significant benefits to a PV farm, so leading on from there, domestic installs direct subsidies back into the general population, increase awareness of renewables, encourage involvement in our energy needs and educate our children.

    If you don't like PV or FITs, fine, but please stop trying to criticise it on the grounds that PV farms are better. If you need to go down that route, then I'd suggest you switch to commercial installs (eg Tesco's), which benefit from lower install costs (per kWp), similar low overheads as domestic, and possibly benefiting from 100% consumption at 'their' retail leccy price.

    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.
  • Cardew
    Cardew Posts: 29,036
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post Rampant Recycler
    Forumite
    Martyn1981 wrote: »
    Arguments:

    Solar farms produce more leccy than domestic - nope, shared technology and little to no efficeincies of scale.

    Who argues that they are not the same technology! Once again you attribute a nonsense statement to ???? and base a counter-argument on something that has never been stated.

    Solar farms are cheaper, economies of scale - nope, after including life-long running costs, there will be little to no difference.

    Absolutely stupid statement. Then why does the government savagely cut the FIT for large scale installations?

    Solar farms benefit the grid more as they only export - nope, offsetting import is exactly the same.

    Can you not understand it is the finance that is the issue? We pay huge subsidies for sub 4kWp generation and house owners need not export any electricity.

    You keep going on about offsetting import - which has never been disputed. I note you haven't found the statements you attribute to me on that subject

    Transmission losses are not significant - nope, there are cost issues, and losses are not entirely dependent on distance as transformer and switchgear losses will impact too. This should balance out any generation gains from better cooling.

    Subsidies are less - nope, the government never meant for FITs to be attractive to commercial scale installs and tried to maintain lower levels, specifically to discourage farms.

    'Subsidies are less - nope??' Really? you cannot be serious! The second half of that statement explains why subsidies are less - to discourage farms.

    Of course the Government never meant FITs to be attractive for farms - that is our criticism of the Government!

    Solar farms will become viable sooner than domestic - nope, since costs are similar, but income streams are significantly different (wholesale price v's a combination of wholesale and retail).

    See above

    Anything else? It seems to me that are no significant benefits to a PV farm, so leading on from there, domestic installs direct subsidies back into the general population, increase awareness of renewables, encourage involvement in our energy needs and educate our children.

    If you don't like PV or FITs, fine, but please stop trying to criticise it on the grounds that PV farms are better. If you need to go down that route, then I'd suggest you switch to commercial installs (eg Tesco's), which benefit from lower install costs (per kWp), similar low overheads as domestic, and possibly benefiting from 100% consumption at 'their' retail leccy price.

    Mart.

    You have once again absolutely excelled in demonstrating your lack of logic.
  • grahamc2003
    grahamc2003 Posts: 1,771 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.

    One aim of fit at a house level is the stakeholder aspect. A stakeholder, especially one making money, is generally a supporter, irrespective of any other consideration. Nothing to do with an efficient method of electricity generation (in fact, hard to think of some generation technology less cost effective).

    I won't respond to the expected flurry of responses saying solar is actaully very cost effective, with a web reference to support it.
  • Guys this thread has moved entirely in another direction to what i set to acheive with it. I have started another one to assist people who have technical and pricing questions about renewabels. Please feel free to keep out of it if you only wish to discuss the incentive mechanism.

    The facts are this, the FiT offers a great return at the domestic level in the right scenario and makes people pretty happy that the are contributing to the energy mix generally and their own energy specifically.

    I do have some sympathy with your arguments on the negative side but you arguing it here is utterly pointless, people will do what is best for them and their family and microgeneration fits that bill in many cases. Complaining on forums will not change government policy so i really feel you are wasting your time and quite a lot of energy in doing so, thats up to you though.
  • EricMears
    EricMears Posts: 3,230
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Cardewviewpost.gif
    Remember fields with panels on frames so cattle etc can graze underneath.



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

    There is of course another point against that. A field reserved for grazing this year won't necesarily stay in grass for ever. But with 'little glass umbrellas' all over the field our farmer would never be able to plough it up and plant with clover for a couple of years.
    NE Derbyshire.4kWp S Facing 17.5deg slope (dormer roof).24kWh of Pylontech batteries with Lux controller BEV : Hyundai Ioniq5
  • Martyn1981
    Martyn1981 Posts: 14,713
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    Cardew wrote: »
    Can you not understand it is the finance that is the issue? We pay huge subsidies for sub 4kWp generation and house owners need not export any electricity.

    You keep going on about offsetting import - which has never been disputed. I note you haven't found the statements you attribute to me on that subject

    I'm sorry I really didn't think you were serious about me demonstrating your argument, given you've been using it for so long.

    Sadly I note that the main discussion on the Solar Panel Guide Discussion thread, 2nd week of September has now gone, but these extracts from your later posts restate the position:
    Cardew wrote: »

    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.

    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?

    I've marked some of the key bits in bold. So using your false tariff of 20p you create a 2:1 differential (instead of the real 1.3:1). Then by eliminating consumption, you boost this to 3:1.

    Quick check then, using your tariffs, we would for our money get an example 2,000kWh (PV farm) and 1000kWh (domestic) = 2:1.

    If we deduct an approximate average domestic consumption of 35%, we get 2,000kWh (PV farm) and 650kWh (domestic) = 3:1.

    So looks like you've been deducting all consumption. Also, that's the position you've been arguing ever since (with or without potatoes).

    Can we simply drop this now, since you appear to have conseeded the point, and hopefully will no longer 'tamper' with the figures in this way?

    Cardew wrote: »
    Absolutely stupid statement. Then why does the government savagely cut the FIT for large scale installations?

    You're going in circles, when the cost of installs fell, the govt cut the FIT to prevent it being used for large installs - effectively they made it uneconomic.

    Rather than trying to work backwards all the time, and assume farm costs by interpreting FIT rates, just do some research and read a few reports on the subject.

    It's hard to keep up with the prices as they are falling so fast, but my guess today would be approximately £1,400/kWp for domestic (4kWp), and £1,000/kWp for commercial or farm (50kWp+).

    From there you need to decide if the connection fees, land, insurance and security costs per kWp will be substantially more or less than £400/kWp in total over 25 years or so (or £16pa).

    My guess is they'll end up much of a muchness. So if cost of production is the same, we have to look at the sales price to determine relative profitability / viability. Domestic then races ahead as it's price (retail + wholesale) is substantially higher than farm (wholesale only).

    Have fun.

    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 4:34PM
    Cardew wrote: »
    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.
    Hi Cardew

    Why the Lizard ? - well, it's probably as far SW as you could reasonably be expected to develop to be able to take advantage of the maximum insolation on the British mainland which is constantly raised as being an argument for concentrating pv farms in the region. Such developments are well suited to government land and therefore somewhere like Predannack airfield would be well suited ... further development around the Goonhilly satellite dish arrays would likely also attract relatively little objection and provide a possible additional hightech/green visitor resource (avoiding the SSSIs of course) .... there are also a number of other airfields in the area which would be suitable ... St Mawgan, St Eval etc ....

    Who said multi GW systems ? ... well, in effect that's what you've been raising by suggesting that instead of distributing generation throughout the country we should concentrate them in the SW .... by default that suggests that there would be a need to construct pv capacity measured in GW. As it currently stands, following the logic you have championed and placing all installations to date in the SW would have concentrated almost 1.5GWp of systems into the region, therefore effectively a cluster of systems which would together be 'multi-GW' in situ already if the 'maximise efficiency' logic had been followed.

    Why not Plymouth or Bristol ? ... well, why not ... but we're starting to move the debate further away from the area of maximum insolation, thus weakening the argument for concentrating pv in the SW with every mile East (/NE) so why not the South Downs or Dovedale or Barmouth or Southwold ? .... actually Southwold would be ideal considering that Sizewell A has been shut-down and Sizewell C hasn't been started yet, so plenty of spare transmission infrastructure ... ;)

    Regarding "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" ... no, that's not the point at all, therefore there must be a total misunderstanding of what has recently been posted, which is that the cost of serious upgrades to the grid to enable the transmission of energy from the SW to the likely point of use (Midlands/SE ?) would need to be added to the electricity bills of all consumers ... this would be levied utilising existing legislation and would have exactly the same effect as the FiT scheme, ie, higher bills ..... this has conveniently been ignored when weighing FiTs against concentrating pv farms in the SW. Importantly, the cost of FiT subsidy is rapidly falling and will eventually reach grid-parity, whilst the alternative cost of infrastructure construction & maintenance will likely never fall, therefore the solution which you champion for pv would have an ongoing effect on all bills ... forever (well until the sun goes supernova or simply goes out ! :D)

    Regarding .... "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" ..... Nonesense ?, mischief ?, well there's none originating from this side of the debate ... I'm simply ensuring that the total cost of alternative solutions to microgeneration are given equal consideration ... they are not cost free and should not be assumed to be when justifying costs .... afterall fair-is-fair ! .... as for 'throw-away remark', well the SW has been raised time-and-time-and-time again when arguing against microgeneration scale pv .... it must therefore be a considered and central component of the reasoning for debating against microgeneration and can therefore not simply be classified as 'a throw-away remark' ...

    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
    Martyn1981 wrote: »
    I'm sorry I really didn't think you were serious about me demonstrating your argument, given you've been using it for so long.

    Sadly I note that the main discussion on the Solar Panel Guide Discussion thread, 2nd week of September has now gone, but these extracts from your later posts restate the position:



    .

    You have really 'lost it'.

    You have 'accused' me of stating;
    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

    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.
  • Cardew
    Cardew Posts: 29,036
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post Rampant Recycler
    Forumite
    zeupater wrote: »
    Hi Cardew

    Why the Lizard ? - etc

    Seriously you are using exactly the same Modus operandi as Martyn. I said nothing about the Lizzard. You raised that as a location - not me - and then proceed to give reasons why the location you have chosen isn't ideal.


    Who said multi GW systems ? ... well, in effect that's what you've been raising by suggesting

    Again you are raising multi-GW systems not I

    Why not Plymouth or Bristol ? ... well, why not ... but we're starting to move the debate further away from the area of maximum insolation, thus weakening the argument for concentrating pv in the SW with every mile East (/NE) so why not the South Downs or Dovedale or Barmouth or Southwold ? .... actually Southwold would be ideal considering that Sizewell A has been shut-down and Sizewell C hasn't been started yet, so plenty of spare transmission infrastructure ... ;)

    Yes by all means move them further East and/or North.

    Regarding "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" ... no, that's not the point at all, therefore there must be a total misunderstanding of what has recently been posted, which is that the cost of serious upgrades to the grid to enable the transmission of energy from the SW to the likely point of use (Midlands/SE ?) would need to be added to the electricity bills of all consumers ... this would be levied utilising existing legislation and would have exactly the same effect as the FiT scheme, ie, higher bills ..... this has conveniently been ignored when weighing FiTs against concentrating pv farms in the SW.

    No it has not been ignored. I have stated my 'gut feeling' is that the additional generated output from the sunnier South West, will compensate for any additional transmission infrastructure.
    Note 'gut feeling' quite prepared to accept that may not be the case.

    Many of the proposed solar farms are in Devon and Cornwall



    Importantly, the cost of FiT subsidy is rapidly falling and will eventually reach grid-parity, whilst the alternative cost of infrastructure construction & maintenance will likely never fall, therefore the solution which you champion for pv would have an ongoing effect on all bills ... forever (well until the sun goes supernova or simply goes out ! :D)

    We are talking about the present - sub 4kWp systems getting close to 50p/kWh in subsidy for the next 20+ years - including scores of thousands installations hgiving that subsidy direct to R-A-R firms.

    Regarding .... "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" ..... Nonesense ?, mischief ?, well there's none originating from this side of the debate ... I'm simply ensuring that the total cost of alternative solutions to microgeneration are given equal consideration ... they are not cost free and should not be assumed to be when justifying costs .... afterall fair-is-fair ! .... as for 'throw-away remark', well the SW has been raised time-and-time-and-time again when arguing against microgeneration scale pv .... it must therefore be a considered and central component of the reasoning for debating against microgeneration and can therefore not simply be classified as 'a throw-away remark' ...

    HTH

    Z

    The South West aspect was, and is, a throw away remark and not germane to the central issue of the deficiencies of the FIT system.
  • zeupater
    zeupater Posts: 5,353
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    edited 4 December 2012 at 7:40PM
    Cardew wrote: »
    The South West aspect was, and is, a throw away remark and not germane to the central issue of the deficiencies of the FIT system.
    Hi

    If you were to stop selectively quoting and addressing partial text without considering the context, then maybe the referenced post would not have needed so much argument in red ... many of the points being addressed in what had been selectively ommitted ...

    Again, I selected the lizard and gave reasons why, reasons which match your own logic- ie to maximise generation to investment and any applied subsidy ...

    "Again you are raising multi-GW systems not I" ... no you didn't raise GW, but that's what you have implied, and here is the text which you conveniently ommitted when quoting text to reply .... "well, in effect that's what you've been raising by suggesting that instead of distributing generation throughout the country we should concentrate them in the SW .... by default that suggests that there would be a need to construct pv capacity measured in GW. As it currently stands, following the logic you have championed and placing all installations to date in the SW would have concentrated almost 1.5GWp of systems into the region, therefore effectively a cluster of systems which would together be 'multi-GW' in situ already if the 'maximise efficiency' logic had been followed." ... as can be seen by all, the reply had already been answered .... 'pv capacity measured in GW' does not necessarily refer to a single site, it is simply the aggregated generating capacity from as many farm sized systems as would equate to the total distributed capacity installed throughout the rest of the country, simply relocated to the SW ....

    "No it has not been ignored. I have stated my 'gut feeling' is that the additional generated output from the sunnier South West, will compensate for any additional transmission infrastructure.
    Note 'gut feeling' quite prepared to accept that may not be the case." .... within the context of this please consider the following post from some time ago where I attempted to 'flesh-out' the relative benefit of pv farms in the SW, a discussion thread in which you yourself were active, both before and after this was submitted, actually being the instigator of the SW discussion a few posts earlier ...
    zeupater wrote: »
    Hi

    Agree .... and that's a point which is always missed .... let's look at hypothetical scenario of placing something like 1GWp of solar pv on the Lizard peninsula .... a pretty reasonable position for a solar farm in the S/W, Goonhilly Downs satellite dishes already have direct line access to London for communications so there's a ready corridor, and there's relatively little chance of NIMBYism as a)there are few local residents, b)the natural environment already has a blight in the dishes and c)the pv farms could be another attraction for the grockles ....

    Site located, lets link it to the world .... well, it's pretty remote so there's very little chance that the power generated would be used locally .... so lets link it to the nearest large centre of population .... Plymouth, pretend that this single link would be the only grid upgrade required and also, considering that it's in a tourist area with areas of natural beauty the NIMBYs would come out to play, let's put the cables underground. One final assumption to keep the cost down and not skew the figures in favour of microgeneration, the ~3000acres required and any access infrastructure is provided for free ...

    Scene set, what's the cost benefit ....

    Firstly the capital bit .....
    90km of new grid connection at say £20m/km = £1.8bn
    1GW Solar farm at say £1.80/Wp = £1.8bn
    Cost = £3.6bn (£3.60/Wp)

    So comparing the capital outlay cost against roof installations and assume them to be £2.60/Wp (yes, this is a little high ;)) from December the cheaper option actually costs £1bn(38%) more ....

    Secondly the power benefit bit ...
    Insolation benefit for concentrating on S/W vs Average ... Helston(953kWh/kWp)/Meriden(843kWh/kWp) = +13%
    Embedded distance transmission losses (1.5% transmission+6.5% distribution) v microgeneration approach = -8%

    Benefit in energy generated for centralising in the S/W .... 13%-8%=5%

    So the conclusion of this back of an envelope exercise is that 5% more usable energy could be produded per Wp installed for a capital investment which is 38% higher ... the result a benefit of -34.9% (((100*1.05*(1-0.38))-100) on capital employed ..... well isn't that a turnup for the books ....

    Double the 1GW, 6000 acres, throw a 120km mixed pylon/underground link to Hinkley point, the main hub for the S/W, crossing Dartmoor & Exmoor into the mix, cost ? .... +£1.2bn ? .... okay, we're almost out of the S/W , but Hinkley B is an 870MW station so any more power would likely need grid upgrades to the Midlands and towards London ... cost ????? .... perhaps the idea of covering Cornwall with glass is starting to look a little fragile (pun intended :)) ...

    HTH
    Z
    ... note that the cost of pv installation has fallen significantly over the period which has elapsed since it was made, if it didn't stack-up then, it certainly wouldn't now ....

    HTH
    Z
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    B)
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