Free solar panel discussion

zeupater

magyar wrote: »

Absolutely. I would love to see the Severn Barrage get built. Cost is high at £3.5-4m / MW (higher than offshore wind) but it's controllable and would last far longer.

Hi

I've not really looked at this in depth, but would have thought that wind generation was measured at a nominal nameplate capacity, as would the Severn barrage, solar pv, nuclear powerstations etc. However, unlike wind and solar, the Severn barrage would meet full nameplate design criteria for a significant period of time every day making the resource fully schedulable and therefore of higher strategic value than both wind & solar, which very rarely operate at nameplate capacity and are nowhere near being reliable schedulable resources.

Perhaps it's just a case of changing the method of calculating the relative cost of installing capacity which needs to be looked at, then maybe the Severn barrage will finally get the go-ahead ..... I'd even be up for the position of overseer and would gladly crack the whip to ensure that all NIMBYs and protectors of 'the poor little birdies' carry their fair daily share of quarried rock on their backs as an act of just penance for causing past delays ... you'd probably find that to use manual labour in this manner even Spartacus would have agreed ... "I am S....." :D

Z

Discodave

as anyone in the North East / Tyne & Wear area had, or is looking to have Solar Panelling installed?

magyar

zeupater wrote: »

I've not really looked at this in depth, but would have thought that wind generation was measured at a nominal nameplate capacity, as would the Severn barrage, solar pv, nuclear powerstations etc. However, unlike wind and solar, the Severn barrage would meet full nameplate design criteria for a significant period of time every day making the resource fully schedulable and therefore of higher strategic value than both wind & solar, which very rarely operate at nameplate capacity and are nowhere near being reliable schedulable resources.

You're correct.

And this is not either/or. Wind and solar are great from the perspective of having free fuel, so the combination of wind, solar and hydro/tidal barrage is wonderful. And yes, nuclear, too.

People do tend to have their 'favourite' technologies and thing they're the single solution to everything, whereas the best solution is usually a mix of them all.

cathd6

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

As a linguist you will obviously recognise that to 'flex' can be used to describe the alteration of form. In this case it would effectively be altering the form of a set of nominal figures based on averaged conditions to reflect actual conditions, thus bending something which exists in one form to suit another purpose by introducing some form of influence ... similar to 'flexing' a flat card to form an arch by introducing a force at either end ...... I hope that it's use is therefore acceptable

Hiya. Thanks. it was a genuine question, not a snip. I've not come across that jargon.
Anyway, cheers again and I appreciate you giving some other users a lesson in how to behave on a public forum

cathd6

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Well yes, you're correct, I don't want to 'challenge' you on your statement. But not for the reasons you think. I could explain (yet again) why your view is incorrect, but you are in the frame of mind not to accept any form or reason (maybe you are always in that frame of mind possibly), so it would be pointless, plus I have already explained this point.

That's convenient
OK, I'm sorry for herding you into a corner on this one. I don't really believe that you actually meant what you said, which would be ludicrous.
What I suspect has happened here is a lot of projection. It is very easy to misunderstand what someone is saying in an email or on a forum, and to jump to conclusions about the kind of person they are and the kind of arguments they would make. You then read all their subsequent correspondence through that filter you have created. Ie that I'm some kind of dippy cheerleader for the solar industry, who moreover has no scientific knowledge, right? Well fine, but I've not made any impossible claims (my own readings have now been backed up independently by Zeupater) or any off-the-wall arguments that anyone's been able to overturn so far. It's maybe best to judge people by what they say rather than jumping to conclusions about what they do for a living, what their experience is and what books they may or may not have read.

I'm just someone who's had a very good personal experience with my own installation (clearly far better than Dave) and can see the strengths of the FIT scheme. It's much more complex than just "is it the cheapest way for us to achieve increased capacity from renewables" - the answer to that is clearly no.

If you want to discuss wind power further then another thread is probably the better place. Hydroelectric power is certainly a good partner for wind power, but there are a great many other ways to make wind power not only viable but extremely valuable. Digitaltoast can tell you that as he's read "Sustainable energy without the hot air" (which I had for Christmas 2009 - see what I mean about projection? - why would a person assume they know anything about the reading habits of anyone they don't know at all? Astounding!)

Cardew

cathd6 wrote: »

It is very easy to misunderstand what someone is saying in an email or on a forum, and to jump to conclusions about the kind of person they are and the kind of arguments they would make.

Well fine, but I've not made any impossible claims (my own readings have now been backed up independently by Zeupater) or any off-the-wall arguments that anyone's been able to overturn so far. It's maybe best to judge people by what they say rather than jumping to conclusions about what they do for a living, what their experience is and what books they may or may not have read.

Firstly you have made impossible claims, and the important claim on a Free solar panel thread has not been backed up by zeupater.

Your input to this thread would best be described as disingenuous and then full of obfuscation.

The discussion on ‘Free Solar PV’ was centred on the savings on electricity bills from PV generated electricity and your initial statement on this subject was unambiguous:

I should have mentioned that I've had my own PV system installed and have saved £100 off electricity in the first quarter(from 01 Dec) without any additional energy saving measures.

Followed by:

Because if one individual household has not used £100 worth of dirty electricity in one quarter then that's a pretty significant carbon saving when upscaled - do you dispute?
in the same way that I've reduced my own burden by not using my modest £100/quarter.

I saved £100 over the first 3 months post-installation.

When that statement was challenged – by everyone – including zeupater! You started to wriggle!

It's rough science but my electricity bill was £100 less that quarter (despite it being the winter and entertaining family for 2 weeks over Christmas / NY)
Unacceptable as evidence I know!

I said when I posted it that my £100 saving over those months was clearly not proof of anything.

Finally when asked 'Are you seriously suggesting that you were not implying that the £100 saving in a winter quarter was down to your PV installation?' Your reply was:

I wouldn't have thought anyone would assume that, no.I seem to have been proved wrong though.

From absolute certainty that you had used £100 of PV generated electricity in a Dec to Feb quarter, you now apparently cannot understand how anyone would think that was what you meant!!!!

cathd6

Oh for christ's sake.

I've made a reasonable assumption that as I we did not otherwise change our behaviour or install any additional measures from one quarter to the next, the reason why my bill was (approx!!) £100 less was due to the obvious factor, ie. the new roof covering. Any intelligent person will be aware that no-one's electricity bill is exactly the same from one quarter to the next as it will be affected by a plethora of factors (surely?!). £100 indicates to me that there is something major going on though.

When I said that £100 was a significant carbon saving, I did not think that anyone would relate this to my earlier statement to mean that previously I must have meant £100 NOT MORE, NOT LESS in this one case came from the solar panels AND THE SOLAR PANELS ALONE. I hold up my hands that I was using extremely sloppy language. Had I realised that I was being cross-examined by Pedants Utd rather than participating in a friendly conversation, I would have been more careful to annotate my response with appropriate disclaimers.

As it is, none of this detracts from the points I was making which were:

1) Our electricity bill for the first quarter post-installation as compared with the last bill covering the pre-installation period was significantly reduced (and Zeupater has shown above how this is plausibly likely to have been equivalent to circa £100 from the panels - FYI he (I assume) is correct and we don't choose our electricity provider solely because they are offering the cheapest tariff for 3 months)

2) £100 worth of electricity (which is a statistically useless figure on its own, if you're not talking in general terms) IS a significant carbon saving. £400 over a year, which I'm expecting to hit, is also significant.

So what's your point? If you have one then spit it out. If it's only that I've generalised, then I beat you to it.

magyar

cathd6 wrote: »

Had I realised that I was being cross-examined by Pedants Utd rather than participating in a friendly conversation, I would have been more careful to annotate my response with appropriate disclaimers.

There should be a full stop after Utd.

I'll get my coat. :beer:

Cardew

cathd6 wrote: »

So what's your point? .

I made my point in the second line of my post above!

There was no ambiguity in your initial posts claiming that your PV generated electricity saved £100 off your bill in a winter quarter!

Your subsequent posts, including your last, are simply bluster!

cathd6

:rotfl:
A late entry!

(referring to magyar, to avoid confusion - Cardew was just too razor-sharp in his timing if not his wit!)