Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 7th Jan 13, 5:36 PM
    • 3,487Posts
    • 4,258Thanks
    zeupater
    Solar ... In the news
    • #1
    • 7th Jan 13, 5:36 PM
    Solar ... In the news 7th Jan 13 at 5:36 PM
    Hi All

    Thought it was about time we had a thread specifically to discuss relevant press articles relating to solar pv & thermal ..... so here goes ...

    Z
    Last edited by zeupater; 07-01-2013 at 5:48 PM.
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
Page 78
    • michaels
    • By michaels 5th Oct 16, 8:20 PM
    • 18,111 Posts
    • 82,994 Thanks
    michaels
    I'd like to think Hinkley C is to do with the electrification of transport and domestic heating...however it is much more likely it is to do with deals making connected people money, keeping the French and Chinese happy, a bit of a panic to be seen to be open for investment post the Brexit vote (LHR 3rd runway anyone), etc.
    Cool heads and compromise
    • gefnew
    • By gefnew 5th Oct 16, 9:11 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    gefnew
    Hi
    Is hpc for our keeping our nuclear stock up to date for our trident system.
    regards
    geoff
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 6th Oct 16, 8:56 AM
    • 4,941 Posts
    • 8,519 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Couple of PV items in the news:

    REC achieves +20% efficiency for mass production of multicrystalline solar cells

    For reference a 'normal' sized 285Wp panel is around 17% efficient.


    UK: Moixa launches affordable home solar+storage kit

    Not exactly cheap, but interesting.

    Mart.
    Just 'call me Mart'. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (2.4 ESE & 1.18 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 7th Oct 16, 9:38 AM
    • 4,941 Posts
    • 8,519 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Gonna need a bigger batt.
    Further to postings from long ago, here's an update on UK trials of domestic storage, and an item on the rollout of a large (1.68MW) flow battery.

    Scottish Power and UK ‘smart battery’ maker deploy 50 systems in non-government funded trial

    Mart.
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    Further to this post, the components are starting to arrive

    First redT energy storage machines arrive at Gigha

    Mart.
    Just 'call me Mart'. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (2.4 ESE & 1.18 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 11th Oct 16, 5:19 PM
    • 4,941 Posts
    • 8,519 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    What do the inermittency costs arise from? If it is from contracting backup diesel generation than whilst not being a cost problem, it could be an environmental one - firing up the diesel during a settled temperature inversion in November is potentially rather damaging both locally as well as CO2 wise.
    Originally posted by michaels
    Further to your question, this article goes into a bit more depth on the intermittency costs and benefits of PV generation when combined with battery storage.

    Solar intermittency costs removed by 2030 with the help of battery storage argues new report

    The issue is quite important as intermittency costs (for all intermittent generation, but especially PV due to its low capacity factor (about 11%)) are important so that we can more fairly compare costs.

    As I've previously said, on another forum some nuclear fans have suggested the additional costs for PV are £50/MWh. The government have previously suggested £10-£20/MWh (perhaps £10/MWh for wind).

    Therefore PV costs not only have to be lower than other technologies, but by a margin that covers these costs.

    However, if the actual cost is much lower, around £6.80/MWh, or potentially negative, then the pressure is off.

    Currently, for comparison, last year's PV contracts were for £83/MWh, whilst Hinkley C is at £102. PV contracts issued in Germany this year were close to £60, and costs seem to still be falling ....... where PV is well supported!

    Mart.
    Just 'call me Mart'. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (2.4 ESE & 1.18 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 12th Oct 16, 5:15 PM
    • 4,941 Posts
    • 8,519 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    ... or cost just under £5k, so around £200/kWh (£5k/24) on prices which are probably around 18months+ too expensive in real terms ...

    So, £200/kWh on a Power-wall type domestic setup would be around £1500 add something akin to an SMA battery charge control inverter+power monitoring and we have a target basic price before installation of around £2.5k, so £3k fully installed ?. A 7kWh Power-wall battery system should be ~$3000, so around £2300 in real money ... again, prices are around 18months old so should be due a volume related reduction pretty soon ...

    So, based on a Leaf battery price we have a 7kWh domestic install cost of ~£3k against a direct Power-wall comparison of £3800 ... not too bad a comparison, but remember that the mark-up for automotive spares is huge, the battery prices are both based on 18month-old economics (which are moving rapidly) and that anyone currently charging considerably more isn't really interested in ecology or long-term business prospects ....

    HTH
    Z
    Originally posted by zeupater
    Hi Z. I was reading up on the new Zoe battery, and the shock news that its weight is only marginally more than the old one despite having nearly twice the capacity. Then I noticed the guesses at prices (such as in the comments section on this article) and thought of you ...... well your post.

    It does seem that car batts are getting quite cheap, with figures here of €8,000 for 46kWh/41kWh useable. Just need that to translate over to plug-n-play domestic units, as that's very much in line with my hoped for price of 5kWh/4kWh useable for £1,000, somewhere in the future .... plans.

    Mart.
    Just 'call me Mart'. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (2.4 ESE & 1.18 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 15th Oct 16, 8:06 AM
    • 4,941 Posts
    • 8,519 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    What do the inermittency costs arise from? If it is from contracting backup diesel generation than whilst not being a cost problem, it could be an environmental one - firing up the diesel during a settled temperature inversion in November is potentially rather damaging both locally as well as CO2 wise.
    Originally posted by michaels
    Hiya. Further to your post again, I posted this article on the green news thread as it's not PV specific, but refers to general back up needs.

    However it does address the 'dirty' side of backup (coal/diesel) as you mentioned:

    Energy storage vital to keep UK lights on, say MPs

    Redrawing these regulations could benefit cleaner generation such as wind farms and solar power, as well as newer technologies such as large-scale batteries and systems to manage energy, called demand-side response.

    John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, backed the call for reform: “This report from a cross-party group of MPs is an urgent wake-up call for Theresa May’s government. It’s embarrassing that Britain, one of the world’s leading economies, has to hand out taxpayer-funded subsidies to clunking old coal plants and highly polluting diesel generators to keep the lights on. The right mix of renewable energy, battery storage and efficiency measures offers a much better alternative.”
    Mart.
    Just 'call me Mart'. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (2.4 ESE & 1.18 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • michaels
    • By michaels 16th Oct 16, 4:32 PM
    • 18,111 Posts
    • 82,994 Thanks
    michaels
    Hiya. Further to your post again, I posted this article on the green news thread as it's not PV specific, but refers to general back up needs.

    However it does address the 'dirty' side of backup (coal/diesel) as you mentioned:

    Energy storage vital to keep UK lights on, say MPs



    Mart.
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    Grr greenpeace. Black and white thinking is always so ineffective. Wind plus solar plus diesel backup may be the cleanest solution even if the diesel bit is very dirty as it may just be a stop gap to battery and demand side management.
    Cool heads and compromise
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 19th Oct 16, 8:52 AM
    • 4,941 Posts
    • 8,519 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Solar not to blame for UK's renewable subsidies overspend

    It is well documented that solar has fallen out of favor of the British government, and one clear reason that had been presented for this was the GBP 2 billion overspend on renewable subsidies under the Levy Control Framework (LCF). However, a National Audit Office (NAO) report shows that solar only accounts for 6% of the overspend, which brings into questions the harsh treatment of the solar industry within the country.
    However, despite the minor role that solar played in the overspend, the industry still suffered the harshest consequences as a result. The government has ripped the subsidy schemes away from solar technology, resulting in a popular technology stagnating in the U.K.

    “The unexpected growth in solar power was repeatedly fingered as a key reason for the overspend on renewables,” commented Solar Trade Association CEO Paul Barwell. “In fact, NAO analysis shows solar accounts for only 6% of the overspend – but solar has borne the brunt of corrective measures. That’s a great shame when the technology has become so popular and is now so affordable. We hope the new Department will take stock of the low cost impact of solar and act to restore confidence to the sector.”
    Mart.
    Just 'call me Mart'. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (2.4 ESE & 1.18 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • Cardew
    • By Cardew 19th Oct 16, 11:10 AM
    • 26,069 Posts
    • 12,533 Thanks
    Cardew
    Do you not get tired of posting propaganda from the solar industry?

    If the Government hadn't fixed the FIT so high initially, there might have been more money in the pot.

    For the benefit of new readers the subsidy(FIT) was for small systems(sub 4kWp) was 41.3p/kWh for everything the panels generated, this is inflation linked for 25 years. In addition house owners received additional payments for 'export' for 50% of the generated electricity regardless of how much they exported. So these early adopters are now getting around 50p/kWh for everything they generate, without the need to export anything.

    To add insult to injury the Government allowed Rent-a-Roof firms to cash-in on this bonanza and install scores of thousands of systems.

    The argument of the more blinkered enthusiasts on this forum is that their pioneering efforts in UK was instrumental in driving down worldwide prices of solar panels. China no doubt increased their output by a fraction of 1% to cater for the increased demand from UK!!

    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 of bleating from the solar industry.
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 19th Oct 16, 1:51 PM
    • 3,487 Posts
    • 4,258 Thanks
    zeupater
    Do you not get tired of posting propaganda from the solar industry?

    If the Government hadn't fixed the FIT so high initially, there might have been more money in the pot.

    For the benefit of new readers the subsidy(FIT) was for small systems(sub 4kWp) was 41.3p/kWh for everything the panels generated, this is inflation linked for 25 years. In addition house owners received additional payments for 'export' for 50% of the generated electricity regardless of how much they exported. So these early adopters are now getting around 50p/kWh for everything they generate, without the need to export anything.

    To add insult to injury the Government allowed Rent-a-Roof firms to cash-in on this bonanza and install scores of thousands of systems.

    The argument of the more blinkered enthusiasts on this forum is that their pioneering efforts in UK was instrumental in driving down worldwide prices of solar panels. China no doubt increased their output by a fraction of 1% to cater for the increased demand from UK!!

    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 of bleating from the solar industry.
    Originally posted by Cardew
    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 ....

    It is also relevant and to the 'benefit of new readers' to realise that the total (UK) installed capacity prior to work on FiT was ~22MWp (2008) and is now around 12GWp, growing at the following rate (Figures at December year end) ...


    2008 :22
    2009 :27 *Typical price for 4kWp system ~£20k/£25k
    2010 :96 *FiT scheme launched
    2011 :997 *High tariff ends - Typical 4kWp price early 2012 ~£10k
    2012 :1766
    2013 :2884
    2014 :5476
    2015 :9581
    2016 :11037 (to August) *Typical 4kWp price ~£4.5/£5k

    ( Source : https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/solar-photovoltaics-deployment )

    It is estimated that when taking account of all UK systems (Incl those outside the various schemes) the total grid-tied capacity is now above 12GWp..

    .... as can be deduced, for the 'benefit of new readers', the initially high rate of support applies to approximately 9% (1000/12000) of installations, therefore is irrelevant for the 91% of capacity which attracts far lower levels of support. or none all ...

    It may also be to the 'benefit of new readers' to mention that as of the end of 2015 the UK accounted for approximately 4% of global PV capacity, a level which is falling at a steady rate as PV installation rapidly accelerates in developing countries, something which would not (and could not) have happened so quickly if there had not been a concerted effort to kick-start competitive industrial growth by many of the 'advanced' economies .... after-all, solar in the UK after just 6 years is set to attract less subsidy (per unit energy) than "too cheap to meter" nuclear is set to achieve after 60 years of UK generation ...

    HTH
    Z
    Last edited by zeupater; 20-10-2016 at 7:18 PM. Reason: +2016 typical price
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 19th Oct 16, 2:00 PM
    • 4,941 Posts
    • 8,519 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    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.
    Last edited by Martyn1981; 19-10-2016 at 2:10 PM. Reason: Poor grammar
    Just 'call me Mart'. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (2.4 ESE & 1.18 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • Cardew
    • By Cardew 19th Oct 16, 11:23 PM
    • 26,069 Posts
    • 12,533 Thanks
    Cardew
    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
    Originally posted by zeupater
    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
    • By Martyn1981 20th Oct 16, 8:07 AM
    • 4,941 Posts
    • 8,519 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    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.
    Originally posted by Cardew
    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.]


    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.
    Originally posted by Cardew
    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.
    Just 'call me Mart'. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (2.4 ESE & 1.18 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 20th Oct 16, 8:13 AM
    • 4,941 Posts
    • 8,519 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    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.
    Just 'call me Mart'. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (2.4 ESE & 1.18 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • michaels
    • By michaels 20th Oct 16, 12:51 PM
    • 18,111 Posts
    • 82,994 Thanks
    michaels
    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?
    Cool heads and compromise
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 20th Oct 16, 2:01 PM
    • 4,941 Posts
    • 8,519 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    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?
    Originally posted by michaels
    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.
    Just 'call me Mart'. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (2.4 ESE & 1.18 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 20th Oct 16, 4:17 PM
    • 3,487 Posts
    • 4,258 Thanks
    zeupater
    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!
    Originally posted by Cardew
    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 B) 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
    Last edited by zeupater; 20-10-2016 at 7:33 PM. Reason: Clarification ...
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • Cardew
    • By Cardew 20th Oct 16, 4:37 PM
    • 26,069 Posts
    • 12,533 Thanks
    Cardew
    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.
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    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!
    Last edited by Cardew; 20-10-2016 at 4:56 PM.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 20th Oct 16, 4:53 PM
    • 4,941 Posts
    • 8,519 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    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.
    Originally posted by Cardew
    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'.
    Last edited by Martyn1981; 20-10-2016 at 4:56 PM. Reason: Added a BTW
    Just 'call me Mart'. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (2.4 ESE & 1.18 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,470Posts Today

6,363Users online

Martin's Twitter