Free solar panel discussion

Nang

grahamc2003 wrote: »

It's strange isn't it? Those who have declared their hand as being either a chartered engineer, or have worked for NGC, or both (and I'll declare mine - I did get to PhD level, sponsored, in fact, by cerl, the research labs of the cegb, and then went to work for many years in senior engineering positions for the NGC) seem unanimously opposed to solar PV panels and these 'free' UK schemes(along with Monbiot too - a turn up for the books there!).

Why should it come about that those trained in engineering and/or NGC experienced all come to the same conclusion? Is it a consiparcy, or is there something fundamentally wrong in subsidising inefficient generation?

Are the solar supporters seeing something those who should know the ins and outs of solar and its effect on the grid aren't?

I must say, some of the pro posts are along the lines of 'I can get all my daytime electricity for nowt' and that appears to be all the (incorrect) analysis necessary to convince them it's a great idea.

Engineers will always look at the total effects of any system, and make a judgement on that. Imo, the total effects of solar involve a massive waste of resources which would be much better (an order of magnitude better) deployed elsewhere.

Translates to :-

Waving a badge saying.. Hey I know more than you cos I am qualified. So what!!!, the topic is up for debate hence why you are on here talking about it, right? Everyone has the right to contribute.

Saying I know more than you because... is not a constructive argument. More like a p1ssing contest.

Often people put a post on here and get told they are ignorant, uneducated (I should know) when they ask a question or have a differing view, it just puts you off trying to get involved.

Gizmosmum_2

Of course you can see why Grahamc2003 and Digital Toast have come to the same conclusion - they talk the same language :rotfl:.

I could name many contributors on the thread that manage to convey their opinions in a strong, but inoffensive, manner and their contributions are to be welcomed.

Being a numpty from the Norf with only a Masters, I couldn't possibly come close in terms of education or experience to those with a phd who are happy to patronise and condescend. It's a tad annoying

Cardew

Nang wrote: »

Great thanks, that's what I was fishing for

Its a nice idea, and I think it looks nice too (might be on my own here though).

I reckon the problem would be getting any individual (or group of) to stump up for it. With the "I am making my own electric hook" you have a very attractive pitch to a purchaser. Also wouldn't we still have the issue described earlier where the grid could not cope with the unpredictable nature of the generation? Sounds from earlier posts like the current infrastructure (national grid) doesn't support the technology. This would appear to me to be the biggest hurdle.

Can you infrastructure be changed to suit the technology? or are we stuck with it?

It is all a question of financial incentive.

The starting point has to be that solar generation is incredibly inefficient in a number of ways.

So we pay many thousands of people(and rent a roof firms) a huge subsidy of 41p for each kWh they generate as long as their system is less than 4kWp.

Those systems cost many thousands of pounds each to install.

If the average domestic system is 3kWp, instead of paying, say, 2000 people 41p/kWh for the output of their combined 6,000kWp systems, wouldn't it make more sense to have a single 6,000kWp system situated in SW England and pay, say 20p/kWh to a firm who installed that solar farm. Note: that German system shown above was installed by EON.

I have no idea if 20p/kWh is appropriate(I suspect it might be less). However as the whole point of the move to Solar is in order to be 'Green', surely it makes sense to have the panels in an area of UK which gives the greatest output, the installion costs and resources would be a fraction of that for putting a few panels on domestic roofs, as would ongoing maintenace costs.

Of course it would make even more sense to site all solar farms in the Sahara(with the kind permission of Muammar Ghadafi) and simply feed the electrity to Europe - an idea that was muted, but to secure the site against the lunatic factions in the world made it impractical.

grahamc2003

Nang wrote: »

Translates to :-

Waving a badge saying.. Hey I know more than you cos I am qualified. So what!!!, the topic is up for debate hence why you are on here talking about it, right? Everyone has the right to contribute.

Saying I know more than you because... is not a constructive argument. More like a p1ssing contest.

Often people put a post on here and get told they are ignorant, uneducated (I should know) when they ask a question or have a differing view, it just puts you off trying to get involved.

Strange since you introduced the topic of qualifications.

And I haven't said I know more than you, and you are very welcome to your opinion. And I have never, and nor would ever, call any contributers on here uneducated.

I just posed a few questions as to why the few qualified (and I repeat you started on the topic) all agree it is a waste of resources. I'm not sure why posing questions (which afterall is the ultimate inclusion and the opposite of your implied exclusion) seems to grate. Would you like to adress that question, as opposed to just attempting to score some points?

Nang

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Strange since you introduced the topic of qualifications.

And I haven't said I know more than you, and you are very welcome to your opinion. And I have never, and nor would ever, call any contributers on here uneducated.

I just posed a few questions as to why the few qualified (and I repeat you started on the topic) all agree it is a waste of resources. I'm not sure why posing questions (which afterall is the ultimate inclusion and the opposite of your implied exclusion) seems to grate. Would you like to adress that question, as opposed to just attempting to score some points?

Read what I said again, I said I was NOT Educated to PHD level.

daytona600_2

could be that don,t want you renting a roof you don,t actually own as yet , as you say ge make pv modules and inverters
ge stands for general electric after all

fit your own system , and keep all the earnings yourselve
, but don,t use ge gear


maybe

Denzelpuppy wrote: »

My mortgage company GE Money, will not give permission for me to have the panels installed. PV Solar have approved my application for Free Panels, i notified GE Money but they have said No but will allow if i get PV Solar to insert a break clause in the 25 year lease agreement, have a structural engiuneer report appointed by them and not PV Solars Structural Engineer' report and also approval from my buildings insurer.

Just wandering if anyone else is experiencing the same or similar problems with their mortgage lenders?

PV Solar say it's because mortgage Lenders are trying to get a share of the Feed in Tarrif, to make up for lost interest due to the low rates at the moment, so are making it as difficult as possible for people to get free panels. DAft thing is GE Parent company actually make the panels ansd recommend people fit them, so figure that one. When i spoke to GE and filed an official complaint , they reckon they might not ba able to sell the house if they forclosed on me, someone might want to buy it and not want free electricity apparantly, what planet do these people live on???

Nang

grahamc2003 wrote: »

And I haven't said I know more than you, and you are very welcome to your opinion. And I have never, and nor would ever, call any contributers on here uneducated.

True enough, but I note the post containing the words "wilfully ignorant" received your support by way of a thanks.

grahamc2003 wrote: »

I just posed a few questions as to why the few qualified (and I repeat you started on the topic) all agree it is a waste of resources. I'm not sure why posing questions (which afterall is the ultimate inclusion and the opposite of your implied exclusion) seems to grate.

It doesn't grate, and you assume that I don't think it is a waste of resources. The truth is I would like to think it's not a waste, cos I signed up for it.

But I can't. I read this forum, and pick my way through the chest beating and often blatant intimidation to try to work it out. There is an awful lot of good augments on here to suggest that it is a waste, and I can't and won't ignore that. I am sure this scheme it's not really going to fix anything in the short term but I remain hopeful that the act of moving forward with renewables will yield some good in the long term.

In terms of the venture capitalists getting their money, they will always get it by some means or another. And you can guarantee it will always be from the poorer. If it's not energy prices its the price of your mortgage. Who do you think is in control? Do you think this thread can change that?

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Would you like to adress that question, as opposed to just attempting to score some points?

That last sentence sounded like someone trying to score some points.

Nang

Cardew wrote: »

It is all a question of financial incentive.

The starting point has to be that solar generation is incredibly inefficient in a number of ways.

So we pay many thousands of people(and rent a roof firms) a huge subsidy of 41p for each kWh they generate as long as their system is less than 4kWp.

Those systems cost many thousands of pounds each to install.

If the average domestic system is 3kWp, instead of paying, say, 2000 people 41p/kWh for the output of their combined 6,000kWp systems, wouldn't it make more sense to have a single 6,000kWp system situated in SW England and pay, say 20p/kWh to a firm who installed that solar farm. Note: that German system shown above was installed by EON.

I have no idea if 20p/kWh is appropriate(I suspect it might be less). However as the whole point of the move to Solar is in order to be 'Green', surely it makes sense to have the panels in an area of UK which gives the greatest output, the installion costs and resources would be a fraction of that for putting a few panels on domestic roofs, as would ongoing maintenace costs.

Of course it would make even more sense to site all solar farms in the Sahara(with the kind permission of Muammar Ghadafi) and simply feed the electrity to Europe - an idea that was muted, but to secure the site against the lunatic factions in the world made it impractical.

Okay thanks, I get the arguments against the FITS.

What I am unclear of now, is whether any type of solar generation is compatible with the power infrastructure (national grid) we have in place.

I refer to digital toast posts earlier. From what he was saying, because you cannot predict the sun, you cant manage the output and you just cant manage the loading on the grid for this technology.

Which is quite a big show stopper.

Cardew

Nang wrote: »

Okay thanks, I get the arguments against the FITS.

What I am unclear of now, is whether any type of solar generation is compatible with the power infrastructure (national grid) we have in place.

I refer to digital toast posts earlier. From what he was saying, because you cannot predict the sun, you cant manage the output and you just cant manage the loading on the grid for this technology.

Which is quite a big show stopper.

I am sure you have seen with your system(or will in the summer) when it is belting out more than 3kW and a cloud will cast a shadow on your panels and in seconds your output will drop to, say, 0.5kW.

It would be very difficult to manage the grid with that happening if Solar PV contributed a substantial percentage of power to the grid.

However surely the biggest drawback of solar(and wind) generation is that it doesn't reduce our requirement for conventional generating capacity. Maximum demand on the Grid is always on a winter's evening.

Nang

Cardew wrote: »

I am sure you have seen with your system(or will in the summer) when it is belting out more than 3kW and a cloud will cast a shadow on your panels and in seconds your output will drop to, say, 0.5kW.

Probably goes down to 1-1.5, but your point still stands.

Cardew wrote: »

However surely the biggest drawback of solar(and wind) generation is that it doesn't reduce our requirement for conventional generating capacity. Maximum demand on the Grid is always on a winter's evening.

What worries me is it actually sounds worse than that. I assume you have seen the thread but, I was trying to ascertain whether or not solar power could be used to supplement unexpected peak on a sunny day. He reckons even this is not possible, (I am trying to work out why from the supplied links) which leaves me wondering if there is any way this technology could be currently applied in the UK at all.