Free solar panel discussion

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

For information, the post was actually made because I don't see many posts or posters on the forum which fall into the category which caused the claim ....

'What is very obvious from reading this thread (and I've only bothered to read a few pages) is that there are a very vocal minority on here who are just out to bash solar generation, no doubt with some hidden agenda.'

... what does seem to happen from time to time is that spamming installers & suppliers post illogical and/or unsupportable claims on their product or services, alternatively, mainly uninformed 'green zealot' types turn up and try to preach to the converted on a subject they probably should research further in order to not hinder their own cause. You must admit, that within a few recent posts, some statements which were obviously made in order to have an impact have been injected, and this has been done without fully researching the community which may have thereby been insulted. I do suggest that anyone joining the debate at a late stage reads a little more of the thread in order to better understand the viewpoints of individuals, whichever side of the debate they may post.

HTH
Z

Beautifully phrased!

PeterZ_2

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

I totally agree, a mix of technologies is needed.

For information, the post was actually made because I don't see many posts or posters on the forum which fall into the category which caused the claim ....

'What is very obvious from reading this thread (and I've only bothered to read a few pages) is that there are a very vocal minority on here who are just out to bash solar generation, no doubt with some hidden agenda.'

... what does seem to happen from time to time is that spamming installers & suppliers post illogical and/or unsupportable claims on their product or services, alternatively, mainly uninformed 'green zealot' types turn up and try to preach to the converted on a subject they probably should research further in order to not hinder their own cause. You must admit, that within a few recent posts, some statements which were obviously made in order to have an impact have been injected, and this has been done without fully researching the community which may have thereby been insulted. I do suggest that anyone joining the debate at a late stage reads a little more of the thread in order to better understand the viewpoints of individuals, whichever side of the debate they may post.

HTH
Z

Well, thanks for the suggestion but there is no way I'm going to read all 107 pages of posts, I'll be here until Chirstmas....

I would agree with your view that some of the posts by the anti solar vocal minority may well offend some, but everyone has a view and while I feel that some very obviously have an agenda, they are of course entitled to their view.

PeterZ_2

Just been having a browse on the National grid website, they are very supportive of renewable energy, UK energy security and climate change.

Here's a little snippet from http://www.nationalgrid.com/corporate/Our+Responsibility/Our+Impacts/energysecurity/

"In the UK, the energy sector faces significant challenges relating to the declining gas reserves in the North Sea. Our latest forecast is that the UK will import around 46% of its gas requirements by 2010/11 and 69% by 2018/19. Other challenges include meeting the government’s targets on renewable generation and the retirement of significant parts of the current generation capacity."

PeterZ_2

The national grid themselves are involved in some pretty big solar pv projects:

http://www.nationalgrid.com/corporate/Our+Responsibility/Our+Impacts/energysecurity/relatedcasestudies/casestudysolar.htm

"Field work has begun at four of the five sites. The first site is expected to be complete by early spring, while the rest of the projects are set to begin in the late winter, with the goal of being up and running by next summer. At that time, they will generate enough electricity to power about 1,000 homes for one year and some 2,700 tonnes less CO2 each year when compared to conventional, fossil-fuelled generation. The company estimates that designing and building the five new solar sites will cost about £45 million."

zeupater

PeterZ wrote: »

The national grid themselves are involved in some pretty big solar pv projects:

http://www.nationalgrid.com/corporate/Our+Responsibility/Our+Impacts/energysecurity/relatedcasestudies/casestudysolar.htm

"Field work has begun at four of the five sites. The first site is expected to be complete by early spring, while the rest of the projects are set to begin in the late winter, with the goal of being up and running by next summer. At that time, they will generate enough electricity to power about 1,000 homes for one year and some 2,700 tonnes less CO2 each year when compared to conventional, fossil-fuelled generation. The company estimates that designing and building the five new solar sites will cost about £45 million."

Hi

Notice that they're all in the USA & the total for the five sites is around 6% of the capacity of the largest single site in Germany .... mind though, five sites of this size in the UK would provide much more efficient use of pv subsidies than distributing the same capacity over the required number of roofs.

Z

Cardew

PeterZ wrote: »

The national grid themselves are involved in some pretty big solar pv projects:

http://www.nationalgrid.com/corporate/Our+Responsibility/Our+Impacts/energysecurity/relatedcasestudies/casestudysolar.htm

"

Not good at geography myself - but thought Massachusetts was in the USA.

have won the pre-approval of the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities to be built by National Grid. Once complete, they will be the five largest solar sites in the region.

That will solve our problems in the UK.

EDIT
Beaten by zeupater.

Nang

How come post 2114, has me quoted, saying something about Coal fired power stations.

What I know about coal fired power stations can be summed up by a secondary school trip to Didcot power station.

Any chance the quote can be edited, back to its true owner please?

PeterZ_2

Cardew wrote: »

That will solve our problems in the UK.

Where did I say that it would solve our problems in the UK?

FYI - National Grid operate in the both the UK and US.

The point is that there are doomers on here saying that the national grid cant cope with solar pv, if that is the case then are national grid themselves building massive solar pv arrays?

grahamc2003

PeterZ wrote: »

Where did I say that it would solve our problems in the UK?

FYI - National Grid operate in the both the UK and US.

The point is that there are doomers on here saying that the national grid cant cope with solar pv, if that is the case then are national grid themselves building massive solar pv arrays?

The current and proposed solar power will not be a problem for the grid, in fact, it is of such tiny proportions the grid will barely notice it. If we spent many many billions on solar, then perhaps it could have an effect, but the country couldn't afford that.

The point is, we are spending large and growing amounts on both installing and subsidising solar output for a minute contribution to our demand. We could - and do - produce approx 18 times the generation for the same cost, and furthermore, schedule that generation as required, which isn't the case with solar.

If that weren't bad enough, as has been pointed out many times, however much solar we install, absolutely none of it contributes to peak demand, so we have to have schedulable power which does - i.e. we have to have duplicity of generation.

Also, a further point probably not appreciated is that generation is a capital intensive industry. The really large costs come from building the equipement - running it (coal, manpower) is a relatively low cost.

Any non-schedulable generation which the grid is obliged to take (via renewables obligation) merely causes very expensive equipment to operate at a lower level, and that leads to very little benefit overall. Effectively, solar (and wind) mean spending at the very least twice the amount necessary for the same generation.

PeterZ_2

grahamc2003 wrote: »

The current and proposed solar power will not be a problem for the grid, in fact, it is of such tiny proportions the grid will barely notice it. If we spent many many billions on solar, then perhaps it could have an effect, but the country couldn't afford that.

The point is, we are spending large and growing amounts on both installing and subsidising solar output for a minute contribution to our demand. We could - and do - produce approx 18 times the generation for the same cost, and furthermore, schedule that generation as required, which isn't the case with solar.

If that weren't bad enough, as has been pointed out many times, however much solar we install, absolutely none of it contributes to peak demand, so we have to have schedulable power which does - i.e. we have to have duplicity of generation.

Also, a further point probably not appreciated is that generation is a capital intensive industry. The really large costs come from building the equipement - running it (coal, manpower) is a relatively low cost.

Any non-schedulable generation which the grid is obliged to take (via renewables obligation) merely causes very expensive equipment to operate at a lower level, and that leads to very little benefit overall. Effectively, solar (and wind) mean spending at the very least twice the amount necessary for the same generation.

Yes, I agree that the current solar pv contribution is so small that it will not be a problem for the grid. And in all honesty, solar pv will only ever be making a small contribution.

Its certainly capital intensive, its one of the major problems with nuclear and why the government does not want to fund it.

Based on todays figures, renewables might not make financial sense, but in the future when we have to compete with China for our energy supplies having our own home grown supplies will start to pay back.

Our best bet is to invest heavily in nuclear with renewables contributing around 20%, However, with the current problems in Japan people are now going to think twice about nuclear.

There is no easy answer. Whichever way we choose to address the energy crisis there will be some pain, that may financial pain or environmental pain.

With the price of oil ever increasing the demand for electricity will start to increase as transportation and heating switch over to electric.