Solar Panel Guide Discussion

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

<Deconstructing mode on>

Consider .... "in 50 years time, after £billions spent" solar PV will no longer need subsidy of any kind. Subsidy for pv is so obviously a temporary measure designed to kick-start the market and finally allow the technology to be consumerised. We are already seeing dramatic falls in pv system costs with current generation panels which are based on expensive framed glass units which, if the trend continues for a little longer, will likely result in the removal of subsidy for new system installations within a few years. Looking not-too-far ahead we can expect to see much cheaper pv based on rolls of flexible pv material which will really make things interesting ....
Z

For the life of me I cannot see why massive subsidies for 25 years for tiny PV systems on the roof of houses dotted all over the UK achieves that aim.

Is not the solar in Germany and the rest of the world sufficient to 'kick-start the market and finally allow the technology to be consumerised'?

If it was considered necessary for the UK to contribute to solar, why do we have to have a dozen panels on many thousands of roofs(each getting FIT) instead of many thousands of panels in a dozen solar farms?

Thus we get Japan and China to manufacture the same number of panels for the UK, with a fraction of the subsidy, and at least export the solar farm's electricty; instead of each house(if MSE PV owners are typical) trying to ensure they export as little electricity as possible whilst still getting the subsidy;)

It is this notion that massive subsidies to those with PV panels in UK has been instrumental in driving down costs that is unsupportable.

I think the term 'grotesque subsidy' for FIT is totally appropriate; albeit there is no criticism of those cashing in; just spare us from the self-righteous justification.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

For the life of me I cannot see why massive subsidies for 25 years for tiny PV systems on the roof of houses dotted all over the UK achieves that aim.

Perhaps it’s your perspective that prevents you from seeing this more clearly. The subsidies are not massive. The total cost is the same as the bottom estimate of 1 new nuclear plant. Or 8 years of nuclear decommissioning. Or ¼ of the projected cost of the HS2 rail link. The systems are not tiny since they can generate on average the equivalent of about 70% or so of an average households annual consumption, pretty impressive.

Cardew wrote: »

Is not the solar in Germany and the rest of the world sufficient to 'kick-start the market and finally allow the technology to be consumerised'?

So it’s ‘I’m all right Jack’, no need for the UK to do it’s share. Nice. Hardly the lesson we should be teaching the next generation who'll be inheriting AGW.

Cardew wrote: »

If it was considered necessary for the UK to contribute to solar, why do we have to have a dozen panels on many thousands of roofs(each getting FIT) instead of many thousands of panels in a dozen solar farms?

As I’ve explained many, many times to you, it’s simple economics. Solar farms have large (additional) annual costs, land, insurance, security, admin etc. Plus they would sell the leccy at wholesale rates, not save the cost of purchasing leccy at retail costs, making it much harder for them to reach viability. You keep bringing this up, but never run any numbers – give it a shot. I find it odd that you keep bringing this up, but never explain why it would be economically effective, especially since the tariffs for such farms exist?

Also concentrating panels into a small area, would, I assume, cause greater fluctuations in supply due to localised clouds than panels spread over a greater area?

Cardew wrote: »

Thus we get Japan and China to manufacture the same number of panels for the UK, with a fraction of the subsidy, and at least export the solar farm's electricty; instead of each house(if MSE PV owners are typical) trying to ensure they export as little electricity as possible whilst still getting the subsidy;)

Not sure how you can still be struggling with the concept of micro-generation still! It is trying to maximise consumption that will lead to viability. Domestic PV isn’t supposed to be seen as positive supply, it’s negative demand. If a suitable house could make use of 100% of it’s generation now, then that install would probably be viable TODAY without any subsidy! Your constant obsession with PV'ers not exporting everything, may be the crux of your problem in understanding this scheme.

Cardew wrote: »

It is this notion that massive subsidies to those with PV panels in UK has been instrumental in driving down costs that is unsupportable.

According to you. I think the scheme’s done well, roll out and acceptance has been great.

Cardew wrote: »

I think the term 'grotesque subsidy' for FIT is totally appropriate; albeit there is no criticism of those cashing in; just spare us from the self-righteous justification.

What is it about PV FITs that sets you off all the time, with your self-righteous rants? Is it because it’s different, is it because you can’t convince people that you’re right? Is it because you thought you weren’t allowed to install them and missed the higher rate? Is it the transparency (interesting idea Blossom) so you fixate on this little subsidy, but ignore all the huge ones that would require greater effort? Surely there is something more important you could be doing?

Mart.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

For the life of me I cannot see why massive subsidies for 25 years for tiny PV systems on the roof of houses dotted all over the UK achieves that aim.

Is not the solar in Germany and the rest of the world sufficient to 'kick-start the market and finally allow the technology to be consumerised'?

If it was considered necessary for the UK to contribute to solar, why do we have to have a dozen panels on many thousands of roofs(each getting FIT) instead of many thousands of panels in a dozen solar farms?

Thus we get Japan and China to manufacture the same number of panels for the UK, with a fraction of the subsidy, and at least export the solar farm's electricty; instead of each house(if MSE PV owners are typical) trying to ensure they export as little electricity as possible whilst still getting the subsidy;)

It is this notion that massive subsidies to those with PV panels in UK has been instrumental in driving down costs that is unsupportable.

I think the term 'grotesque subsidy' for FIT is totally appropriate; albeit there is no criticism of those cashing in; just spare us from the self-righteous justification.

Hi Cardew

I do note the selective nature of quoting the source above ....

Perhaps it would be possible to comment on the ommission ...

"There must be a realistic comparison made to all other forms of generation ... will nuclear (possibly including Thorium), CCS, windpower or even the farming of biofuels be possible without subsidy in the same 50 year timescale, so what's the relative subsidy expenditure over the same timescale for each of the technologies as that's the only way that there can be a fair comparison ..."

... maybe someone could establish what the total cost of UK subsidy is for all sources of generation over something like the next 50 years would be in order to put a little perspective on the subsidy issue ... would nuclear be subsidised to 100 or 1000 times the level of pv, what about the EU subsidy to farming for biomass production ... who gets the money ... is farming biomass a progressive ot regressive form of transfer of wealth and who pays, the rich or the poor - or both ? ...

The issue which has been missed again is 'consumerisation' .... for far too long money has been spent on research facilities with the only ones to gain being the researchers and the institutes themselves. There is no real motivation for most research facilities to consumerise their product as it simply results in the withdrawal and reallocation of funding to product development & marketing instead, hence the woeful performance of bringing the majority of university research to market .... this is a common issue in many fields .... I wonder how much taxpayer money (research subsidy) is being saved by breaking NASA's near-monopoly of the US space program by effectively opening everything up to market-led competition ?

Regarding 'grotesque subsidy' .... at what point does the level of any subsidy become 'grotesque' ? ... conversely, and more importantly considering that FiTs and system prices have fallen so quickly, at what point does a 'grotesque subsidy' simply become a subsidy .... add to this a different perspective - is it more, or less 'grotesque' to have a time or total value limited subsidy, or one without realistic limits on scale or time ??

Whether anyone is pro or anti pv on subsidy grounds is likely more related to a quasai-political standpoint than a one based on logic ... I would suggest that the logic of using a coordinated subsidy approach has been extremely successful to date as evidenced by the rapid reduction of subsidy levels .... all that's needed now is a better form of distributed generation using fossil and bio-fuels in order to match generation to demand (reduce/remove spinning reserve capacity) and a number of other generating subsidies could be history too .... microgeneration/districtgeneration plants anyone ???

HTH
Z

Cardew

Hi Z,

I believe the UK has less than 1% of the world wide total of solar PV panel installed. Virtually all of our panels are made abroad - mainly China and Japan(Sharp in Wales just assembles panels)

From that you seem to draw the conclusion that the UK FIT has been ' extremely successful to date as evidenced by the rapid reduction of subsidy levels'

We(UK) made all the difference eh! UK FIT presumably was the incentive for the countries, who develop and produce PV, to double their efforts to produce cheaper products.

Dave_Fowler

Time for Michael Winner to step in I think.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

From that you seem to draw the conclusion that the UK FIT has been ' extremely successful to date as evidenced by the rapid reduction of subsidy levels'

We(UK) made all the difference eh! UK FIT presumably was the incentive for the countries, who develop and produce PV, to double their efforts to produce cheaper products.

zeupater wrote: »

I would suggest that the logic of using a coordinated subsidy approach has been extremely successful to date as evidenced by the rapid reduction of subsidy levels

How strange, Z makes a statement on international policy, so you cut it down, then try to imply that it was a national statement.

I've wondered for some time about your style of cutting and pasting, that's why I've said so many times that you seem to have 'accidentally' misunderstood the full statement.

But today, you're not even trying hard to disguise your shiftyness! Didn't anyone ever teach you that cheats never win?

Mart.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Hi Z,

I believe the UK has less than 1% of the world wide total of solar PV panel installed. Virtually all of our panels are made abroad - mainly China and Japan(Sharp in Wales just assembles panels)

From that you seem to draw the conclusion that the UK FIT has been ' extremely successful to date as evidenced by the rapid reduction of subsidy levels'

We(UK) made all the difference eh! UK FIT presumably was the incentive for the countries, who develop and produce PV, to double their efforts to produce cheaper products.

Hi

I take it that the meaning of "I would suggest that the logic of using a coordinated subsidy approach has been" immediately prior to the quoted "extremely successful to date as evidenced by the rapid reduction of subsidy levels" was overlooked in error and therefore the context was misunderstood ..... if so, the post above should really be reconsidered as the UK cannot possibly operate both an isolated & coordinated approach regarding pv FiTs at the same time ...

It is the very fact that FiTs have been introduced in a generally coordinated international effort which has created the levels of simultaneous global demand which have created market conditions to drive prices down. Without the parallel existance of FiT schemes demand would still have existed, but at levels where economies of scale wouldn't have been able to effect prices and a limited number of manufacturers would be operating in niche markets conditions, with all of the margin benefits which exist in such markets ..... conditions such as these would not have resulted in reductions in FiT subsidy on a global basis and therefore the coordinated approach to FiTs couldn't logically be considered as being anything other than successful ...

HTH
Z

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

How strange, Z makes a statement on international policy, so you cut it down, then try to imply that it was a national statement.

Hi

Beat me to it (see above post) - that's what happens when you start a post whilst watching TV ..... of course, everything should be considered within the context in which it is/was delivered ... that is the only logical approach ....

Z

Cardew

Blossom2528 wrote: »

You're getting so confused or egomaniacal that you now claim your rants are actually George's. You even tell us what he meant, then shortly after claim he said it. So only the rich get PV, just making it up as you go along now.
You make endless comments, dribbling on about the FITs taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich. You claim it's grotesque and those participating are cashing in. Then in your next breath each time state that you've never criticised anyone for getting PV. Are you actually in touch with reality.
Or are you just an angry little man, frustrated that we don't all see how superior you are, so you keep throwing out insults, then running away crying I never said it, I never said it.
There are hundreds, maybe thousands of subsidies, you can't benefit from em all, so get over it.
Oh and of course, I've never actually criticised you for anything. That didn't sound very good, I guess I'm just not as good a hypocrite as you.

Hypocrite indeed.

You should go and have a nice cup of cocoa(with Martyn) and try and relax.

This is an internet forum and someone quoting Monbiot's very logical arguments should not cause you to resort to personal abuse.

Z manages to argue without abuse.

digitaltoast

Cardew wrote: »

You should go and have a nice cup of cocoa(with Martyn) and try and relax.

Indeed! I can see a couple of members are going to have a headache in the morning.
Whatever they've been smoking/drinking this evening certainly hasn't helped them form a coherent argument, so I thought it better to leave it until they're slept it off at about mid-day and can reform their thoughts into something more cogent...