So now I have a solar PV system how do I make the most of it???

zeupater

digitaltoast wrote: »

...... We don't, in general, find THE most inefficient and unreliable method known to man with by far the highest cost-per-ton of carbon savings ....

Hi

Although I agree with the general position you have posted, I believe that there are three separate issues which are being conveyed within one argument.

Firstly there's efficiency. In efficiency terms, I cannot really think of another form of generation where the ongoing costs, being made up of fuel and, due to the absence of mechanical components, the level of ongoing maintanance, would be anywhere as efficient.

The second issue is cost and the current method of encouraging the adoption of the technology ... yes, the cost is high, but fully installed actual system prices have halved in the past two to three years, so allowing for 5% inflation too it's probably more like a 60% reduction in real terms, it'll probably do the same over the next three years too. Solar pv as a form of generation is not inefficient, it's cost inefficient. The FiT scheme should be changed to formalise a link between payments and system prices ... global system prices would make even more sense, so that UK installers have no incentive to maintain artificially high pricing.

Third and last is the ability to match generation to demand or store energy. That's not really anything to do with solar pv in particular and applies equally to wind or wave power and definatey also to the current level of hydroelectric capacity in summer drought conditions ... and this is definately a situation which has an engineered solution, remembering that a storage solution would also reduce the total required capacity for nuclear too, so could be financed through a partial reduction in nuclear or other capacity.

HTH
Z

keith_r59

digitaltoast wrote: »

Keep in mind that the primary purpose of PV is to provide a tangeable asset to make the transfer of £8.2bn from the poor to the rich palettable to "the left" (this £8.2bn poor-to-rich scam is Labour's baby, remember).

Labour had to do something to meet their commitments to the legally binding targets they signed the UK up to in their introduction of the Climate Change Act in 2008, and as they had no original ideas of their own they simply copied the feed in tariff system used by other countries.

John_Pierpoint

thenudeone wrote: »

An unbiased view anyone???

Whenever people criticise solar PV (or any other renewable) schemes they never seem to have the answers to two simple questions:
1) How do we provide for increased world demand for power in an age of significantly declining fossil fuel availability without providing a kick-start to speed up the inevitable efficiency improvements in renewables?
2) How do we stop the catastrophic effects of climate change (which is almost universally accepted by the scientific community, although not by all politicians) without replacing fossil fuels with renewables?

If anyone can satisfactorily answer those two questions, there would be no need to provide a temporarily skewed market in renewables. Go on - just about every developed country in the world is listening.

Insulation, Insulation, Insulation.

Smart meters might be useful (but if you read the thread about the Siemens meter reading electricity going in both directions you will ask yourselves how there can be smart meters administered without smart brains in customer services.:rotfl:)

thenudeone

digitaltoast wrote: »

We start by looking for engineering solutions and performing tests and calculations. We don't, in general, find THE most inefficient and unreliable method known to man with by far the highest cost-per-ton of carbon savings, then subsidise it by taking money from those least likely to be able to afford it, and pay that money to vast "rent-a-roof" companies. Or do we? I don't know - is that how you'd like things done?

Renewable energy is at a very early stage in its life-cycle. Efficiency will increase and costs will fall as it develops. It's already happening and that will continue. The faster that happens the better. Accelerating that development so that efficiency improves faster is worth paying for IMO. The alternative is to leave the markets to decide whether renewables are a good investment - I comment on that later.

Why are rent-a roof companies any different to any of the multiple for-profit companies currently involved in the energy market, all of whom work to maximise their profit within the legislative framework they find themselves in. If you believe, as I do, that paying to accelerate the speed of efficiency improvements in renewables is worthwhile, I have no objections to private companies being involved. Why do you?

Markets aren't very efficient at saving the planet. If it was left to market forces to decide, there would be very little development in renewables because fossil fuels are currently much cheaper, which is in turn because the users do not have to pay to repair the damage caused by emissions of CO2 (even if it were possible).
Climate change affects the very poorest much more than it affects those who create it (the developed world). http://www.oxfam.org.uk/oxfam_in_action/issues/climate.html
Is that fair?

digitaltoast wrote: »

So maybe YOU can be the one to answer this:

Electricity is not storable (longer than the 2 hours emergency pumped storage the UK has). Base load is defined as that much "known" reliable provision (nuclear, fossil etc). Generators cannot just be spun up when needed - and in fact, when running in "hot reserve" mode because they're not needed (ie: lots of sun shining) they are *LESS* efficient.

Even so, they still generate less kg of CO2 than they would if they were generating electricity. So the overall CO2 generated per kW of electricity is lower. What's difficult to understand about that?

Perhaps the fossil fuel generating stations need to improve their efficiency so that they work in the new model and be turned on and off much more efficiently?

Why can't you believe that things have to, and will, change??

digitaltoast wrote: »

So, given that 5pm on a winter's evening is peak demand, we define that as our "base load". Can you take a guess how much power is being generated by ALL the UK's solar PV combined at that time?
... zero.

So - Solar PV doesn't work when it's dark. Not a surprise, but not a good enough reason to reduce fossil fuel generation when it does work.

Of course there are a million other ways to reduce CO2 - insulation, appliance efficiency, smart monitoring, intelligent appliance control; and other ways to generate electricity in low CO2 ways. No-one ever said that solar PV was the answer to everything. It's a part, possibly only a small part, of a wide range of measures.

Perhaps your experience in the industry has led you to a blinkered view that fossil fuels and a free market will solve all the problems. Fortunately most politicians realise that that is simply not going to work.

digitaltoast

thenudeone wrote: »

Why are rent-a roof companies any different to any of the multiple for-profit companies currently involved in the energy market, all of whom work to maximise their profit within the legislative framework they find themselves in. If you believe, as I do, that paying to accelerate the speed of efficiency improvements in renewables is worthwhile, I have no objections to private companies being involved. Why do you?

Because it's not "a market". The participants don't have a choice.
See my burger analogy here and various other arguments and points here.

I have issues with "for profit" companies taking FiT payments which almost always come FROM little old ladies electricity bills and go TO giant farm buildings and the likes of Michael Eavis.

Incidentally, where did you hear that solar PV had halved in price in the last few years?

Wikipedia says:

The price of solar panels fell steadily for 40 years, until 2004 when high subsidies in Germany drastically increased demand there and greatly increased the price of purified silicon

thenudeone wrote: »

Even [fossil fired power stations in spinning reserve] still generate less kg of CO2 than they would if they were generating electricity. So the overall CO2 generated per kW of electricity is lower. What's difficult to understand about that?

Where did you hear that?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/27/carbon-emissions-smart-fridges-environmentally-friendly-appliances

To anticipate this sort of spike in demand, the grid engineers quickly need to bring extra power plants online. Extra time played in the game could mean they bring the power on too early, risking tripping fuses on the grid. Bring it online too late, however, and blackouts could result.

It's a fine balancing act, and also highly expensive and polluting. A key component of being able to match these sudden spikes in demand is what is known as 'spinning reserve' – essentially keeping a power station running but only using a part of its output, ready to ramp up to full power at a moment's notice.

Because this kind of use is unsuited to nuclear power plants, which take days to come on- or offline, and can potentially damage the more modern and sensitive natural gas plants, it tends to be the workhorse coal power stations that fulfil this 'balancing' role. One estimate suggests that more than 2.1 million tonnes of CO2 are produced every year simply keeping these power stations 'ticking over', waiting for us to flip the kettle on.

Read also: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c26/page_186.shtml and the paragraph titled "1. FLUCTUATIONS IN GENERATING CAPACITY" here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/195/195we59.htm

thenudeone wrote: »

So - Solar PV doesn't work when it's dark. Not a surprise, but not a good enough reason to reduce fossil fuel generation when it does work.

*sigh* - it simply doesn't work like that.

thenudeone wrote: »

Of course there are a million other ways to reduce CO2 - insulation, appliance efficiency, smart monitoring, intelligent appliance control; and other ways to generate electricity in low CO2 ways. No-one ever said that solar PV was the answer to everything. It's a part, possibly only a small part, of a wide range of measures.

Let me fix that paragraph for you:

Of course there are a million better ways to reduce CO2 - insulation, appliance efficiency, smart monitoring, intelligent appliance control....

thenudeone wrote: »

Perhaps your experience in the industry has led you to a blinkered view that fossil fuels and a free market will solve all the problems. Fortunately most politicians realise that that is simply not going to work.

Most politicians haven't a clue when it comes to energy. But don't listen to me - why not listen to the pro-greenies, like George Monbiot http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/01/solar-panel-feed-in-tariff or The Low Carbon Kid: http://lowcarbonkid.blogspot.com/2010/03/does-pv-solar-electricity-work-in-uk.html

It's ALWAYS better to SAVE a therm/kilowatt/whatever, than it is to generate it. Imagine in the £8.2bn spent subsidising glittering little emblems of pointlessness had been spent on insulation, double glazing, research into thorium reactors, smarter grids - all that money, down the drain, for nothing.

Oh, incidentally, I laid out my credentials, the books I've read on the subject, the renewable facilities I've toured, the company I worked for... I notice that the one question you didn't answer was what your relevant experience is?

Cardew

thenudeone wrote: »

Why are rent-a roof companies any different to any of the multiple for-profit companies currently involved in the energy market, all of whom work to maximise their profit within the legislative framework they find themselves in. If you believe, as I do, that paying to accelerate the speed of efficiency improvements in renewables is worthwhile, I have no objections to private companies being involved. Why do you?

I don't agree with the thrust of your post about PV in our latitudes - it seems to be straight out of the 'if it's Green it is wonderful' book. Even George Monboit thinks it is crazy.

However lets just address one point in your post - namely the subsidies that we, the consumer, pay to Rent a Roof companies.

If our Political Masters decree that we must have PV, why do they allow these firms to install thousands of tiny systems on roofs anywhere south of John O'Groats and pick up subsidies clearly meant for individual properties.

Wouldn't it make sense to have huge solar farms on factory/supermarket roofs or scrub land in Devon/Cornwall. The benefits of higher output, economies of scale and less use of resources are obvious.

Yet instead of encouraging this approach, they have drastically cut subsidies for large scale soplar farms.

grahamc2003

thenudeone wrote: »

An unbiased view anyone???

Whenever people criticise solar PV (or any other renewable) schemes they never seem to have the answers to two simple questions:
1) How do we provide for increased world demand for power in an age of significantly declining fossil fuel availability without providing a kick-start to speed up the inevitable efficiency improvements in renewables?
2) How do we stop the catastrophic effects of climate change (which is almost universally accepted by the scientific community, although not by all politicians) without replacing fossil fuels with renewables?

If anyone can satisfactorily answer those two questions, there would be no need to provide a temporarily skewed market in renewables. Go on - just about every developed country in the world is listening.

Answer 1 - If you think solar is any sort of solution to either increasing world demand or increasing uk demand, then, imo, you are very mistaken. It is, in an engineering sense, a totally rediculous method of generating electricity in the uk, and it helps solve nothing at all. My view, like Digital's, is formed from an engineering background and working at National Grid.

Answer 2 - If climate change has any catastrophic effects, then I'm afraid we'll just have to live with them, man being defenceless and powerless against the effects of nature, as has been demonstrated many times throughout man's history. As to man causing climate change, I believe the evidence presented in support of those theories has been shown to be often exagerated, weak 'science', weak methods, and often non-scientific at all. New evidence from Cern (which is about the best science you'll get) is adding further question marks over man's effect on the climate.

Micky2

digitaltoast wrote: »

Eh? I don't understand that - can you explain a bit more?

Eh?! Is this to try and "soak up" some of the power generated?

How much is a tumbledryer?
How much does it cost to run per hour? When are you least likely to tumble-dry clothes? What are your costings?

HI the other instaler implied company B could only do the system for the price because they cut corners .. and was a bit ify ,

Tumble dryer could be used in the middle of the day ... would cut the cost down .. a little ... ok a very little :rotfl:

digitaltoast

Micky2 wrote: »

HI the other instaler implied company B could only do the system for the price because they cut corners .. and was a bit ify

Holy crap - a shady sales company saying another company is duff? You surprise me

Micky2 wrote: »

Tumble dryer could be used in the middle of the day ... would cut the cost down .. a little ... ok a very little :rotfl:

A very, very little. Back of the beermat sums here - correct me if I'm wrong:

If you're in a position to install solar panels, I'm guessing you've got at least a little bit of garden too. So, unless you're a bit bonkers, you wouldn't be tumble-drying your stuff if you could hang it outside. Which you would do only if it was sunny. £0 saved.

But let's say I got the garden bit wrong and you have no other choice.
If you managed to find yourself in the house right in the middle of a hot, sunny day, and you managed to guarantee that no cloud would pass, it's quite possible you could drive a 2.4kw tumble dryer for free, yes.

Assuming you used it 8 times a month for an hour each time, and you co-incided with our notoriously glorious endless days of summer sunshine, you, sir, would be richer to the tune of £1.15p a month.
Now, I've assumed you'd normally run it off-peak, but given that the middle of the day isn't an off-peak rate, you'd be saving yourself £2.30 that you probably wouldn't have spent anyway.

With savings like these to be had from solar for at least 4 months a year, you'll soon be on your way to a lifestyle of yachts, champagne and dancing girls. Why, with the average savings of £70 a year from those rent-a-roof schemes, none of us need worry about our retirement plans ever again!

(This, in part, is why I'm petitioning the government to teach economics on school...)

digitaltoast

grahamc2003 wrote: »

As to man causing climate change, I believe the evidence presented in support of those theories has been shown to be often exagerated, weak 'science', weak methods, and often non-scientific at all. New evidence from Cern (which is about the best science you'll get) is adding further question marks over man's effect on the climate.

And this, dear readers, is where evidence-based science comes into play.

I, personally, think that based on the majority of the evidence given, that man has had some effect on the climate. I also think climate change has been used to dream up and fund some appallingly hare-brained and pointless schemes like carbon emissions trading. And I think that we SHOULD be making better use of resources. What's the harm? After all, if 90mpg can be squeezed out of a diesel engine (I should know, I drive an ecomotive and it's a sporty little number!), then there's no excuse to be making 20mpg gas guzzlers.

However, like Graham, I think we're totally peeing in the wind if we think that unplugging our phone chargers or having glittery totems to the God of Green on our roofs is going to save the world, when China are building 2 new coal fired power stations a week.

However, despite our slightly differing opinions on climate change, we've both arrived at our common opinion on how we deal with energy use through knowledge, experience, physics and science, four things greatly missing from most debates on this matter.

If Graham and myself got together, he'd present his points with evidence, and I'd present my points, with evidence. We might reach a consensus, we might not, but what wouldn't happen is one of us standing up shouting the other one down for "using all this stupid, confusing, like science and all this ... evidence. I mean, just shut up with your hating on the planet, man. You're polluting and raping the earth, man! Anyone coming outside for a smoke?" (*The previous sentence is based on a true encounter.)

You'll notice that I back up almost all my points with links to white-papers, peer-reviewed journals, books by leading academics in the field, and articles and blogs by authors with relevant experience. (reading that back, it sounds a little pompous. but hey - deal with it!)

I've yet to see one pro-panel poster link to anything to support their claim that this £8.2bn swindle benefits anyone but salesmen, Tesco/Homesun et al, and a few Chinese PV factories (yes I know there's a couple in the UK, but guess where the majority come from?)