Solar Panel Guide Discussion

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

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

Hiya Zeup, nothing ever changes. I know I've got a weird memory remembering so many posts, but this doesn't half remind me of one of my very first posts on PV, probably late December:

I said that global FIT schemes had helped to bring the price of PV down. Cardew quoted me, then said so you're saying that the fall in global PV prices was due to UK FITs!

What was really funny (or worrying!) was that he hadn't actually edited me, his quote had the full sentence - Global FIT schemes ......

Mart.

grahamc2003

Blossom2528 wrote: »

Wrong yet again, are you going for a personal record this week. Telling us what Monbiot meant then pretending he said it. Insane and maniacal. How much more are you going to make up, or misquote. How many more times are you going to throw abuse at PV'ers then cry that you're not. The truth may be out there, but you've obviously never met it. At least Graham has explained his concerns and accepts that subsidies will be needed for nuclear. You just make up claims then misquote or dodge or hide before popping back up with the same old nonsense and venom. Like an angry little terrier snapping away at peoples ankles.

Blossom, you don't know how happy it makes me knowing that my posts now meet with your approval (sort of). I've been reading and learning a great deal from your posts, always delivered with such panache, knowledge and respect for others and never with even a hint of abuse.

Now if only the mutli-millionaire and self confessed mathematical and memorytastic genius extrordinaire Martyn could also give a hint that there maybe just a teeny bit of understanding in my posts I'll know I'll have taken my first teeny step on my quest to be the intellectual giants you and Martyn are.

orrery

digitaltoast wrote: »

Because in 50 years time, after £billions spent, at 5pm solar PV will STILL be contributing a big fat zero at the evening peak. Given that wind is unreliable, we'll never have enough tidal and pumped storage is unviable in the quantities required, then we'll either be getting our reliable base load from fossils or nuclear.
....
Yes, we have to do something. But we need to do the right thing.

Yes of course, but the load that is offset when the sun is shining can then be used in small local gas-fired stations to get over the peak loads. If we have masses of solar then we can look at various other storage schemes (pumped storage, hydrogen generation etc etc) to deal with peak loads.

There isn't a 'do the right thing' argument. The projections I've seen show that we will never get enough renewables. We need it all - solar, wind, tidal (plus nuclear, but even that will run out in a short period) and we need intelligent appliance management to shift the peak loads.

Cardew

Blossom2528 wrote: »

Wrong yet again, are you going for a personal record this week. Telling us what Monbiot meant then pretending he said it. Insane and maniacal. How much more are you going to make up, or misquote. How many more times are you going to throw abuse at PV'ers then cry that you're not. The truth may be out there, but you've obviously never met it. At least Graham has explained his concerns and accepts that subsidies will be needed for nuclear. You just make up claims then misquote or dodge or hide before popping back up with the same old nonsense and venom. Like an angry little terrier snapping away at peoples ankles.

Obviously the cocoa(did you take my advice?) and a night's sleep have done little good.

As you seem to feel I am misrepresenting the thrust of Monbiot's stance on the PV FIT scheme, perhaps you could comment on his and Lawson's views.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-good-riddance-to-the-great-solar-scam-6262348.html

Incidentally the latter coined the phrase 'grotesque subsidy' - not I; albeit I consider the term appropriate.

P.S.

so you keep throwing out insults,





How many more times are you going to throw abuse at PV'ers

Perhaps you can point me to where I throw abuse at PV'ers?

Martyn1981

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Now if only the mutli-millionaire and self confessed mathematical and memorytastic genius extrordinaire Martyn could also give a hint that there maybe just a teeny bit of understanding in my posts I'll know I'll have taken my first teeny step on my quest to be the intellectual giants you and Martyn are.

Rejoice Graham, I've always recognised and acknowledged your great talents as regards communicating PV information.

As I've now got a PV extension, does that make me a mutli squared millionaire, or just a mutli like you?

Onto more serious things, which I'm sure you won't thank me for, nor be interested, but having spent a lot of time recently reading tech and spec sheets for (too) many inverters, I thought you might be interested in SMA's new SB1600TL inverter.

It's about the same price retail (circa £600+vat) as a SB1700, but about 3% more efficient. Just a thought as a future replacement, or with a good enough secondhand price for the 1700 a possible swop now, depending on generation.

I'd offer to help with the maths, but I can't remember how to switch the calculator on.

Mart.

ronlizpatsimon

A couple of days ago I entered, on this thread, a routine report on my annual panel income. This has given several of you budding politicians and master electricians the chance to shout at each other, digging up lots of old arguments.
May I suggest that you restrict your comments to something new or interesting.

Cardew

Blossom2528 wrote: »

Do you really separate the constant name calling of the scheme with those that take part in the scheme.
QUOTE]

Affirmative!

Why not discuss issues instead of personal comments in every post?

Why do you consider George Monbiot and Lawson wrong in their stance on the PV FIT scheme?

grahamc2003

Cardew wrote: »

Blossom2528 wrote: »

Do you really separate the constant name calling of the scheme with those that take part in the scheme.
QUOTE]

Affirmative!

Why not discuss issues instead of personal comments in every post?

Why do you consider George Monbiot and Lawson wrong in their stance on the PV FIT scheme?

May I have a stab at the answer?

I don't think George or Dominic can afford solar panels, so they've missed the boat and their ridiculous views are borne of jealosy.

Either that, or they are trolls who crave attention, wheeling out the same tired old arguments which have been answered so many times before.

Either that, or they simply don't appreciate how many people could be employed in the rapidly growing solar industry. I know from my own personal experience that, in exchange for 25 years worth of generous payments, I employed 2 people for nigh on a full day, plus some Chinese and possibly some offshore shipping employees to bring my panels half way around the world (at several tens of gallons per mile of fossil fuel).

Or simply that George is a venomous anti-environmentalist and knocks green imperatives at every opportunity.

I think that covers it, but would be pleased if others could point out any other answers to your question.

digitaltoast

Is anyone going to actually say anything or come up with any facts, figures, references or rebuttals to any of the points Graham, Cardew, myself or George M has made, or are we just going to have endless vaguely autistic rants dancing around semantics? Almost a whole page of posts and almost nothing useful said.

Tell you what, to drag it back on topic, does anyone fancy taking a crack at answering either any of Graham's post here: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=55579407&postcount=1578 or how about how someone explains how we deal with the yawning great elephant in the room, the evening energy gap when the sun goes down. And I mean, using reality, not "magical pixies will come and blow the windmills".

Martyn1981

digitaltoast wrote: »

Tell you what, to drag it back on topic, does anyone fancy taking a crack at answering either any of Graham's post here: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=55579407&postcount=1578 or how about how someone explains how we deal with the yawning great elephant in the room, the evening energy gap when the sun goes down. And I mean, using reality, not "magical pixies will come and blow the windmills".

Fair enough, great question.

Obviously storage is the major issue with PV and wind, not so much with hydro and bio-mass. Of course if there was a magical solution, nuclear and fossil fuels would also benefit by constructing less, but running 24/7. So thoughts and ideas:

Pumped storage, such as Dinorwig (and others) but the UK is pretty limited to roll out much more.

More interconnectors, on top of what we have, and what are proposed. It's possible that there could be no wind across Ireland, N. Ireland, UK and Western Europe though. But interconnectors to Iceland for Geothermal, Norway for hydro and pumped storage hydro, plus linking to others nuclear (and UK outwards too), for maximum benefits.

Expanding the interconnector idea even further, and paying to construct hydro in Norway, or additional catch lagoons for pumped storage then exporting and 'storing' excess renewables (mostly night time wind).

Newer developments in renewables storage, such as under sea compressed air bags.

Trying to shift some peak consumption to flatten the spikes. Smart meters with variable pricing (used in California trials I think?).

Batteries - loses and costs very high still, so not really practical, but all ideas need to be considered within a 10 to 12 year timescale as new nuclear won't be around before then.

Tidal/Wave - variable, though tidal is predictable, but won't necessarily coincide with peaks.

Changes to leccy pricing, though this can only be 'forced' upon people if there is acceptance that AGW is real, so energy sits outside normal economic parameters (the more you buy the less you pay). By reversing pricing (S. Korea?) so that prices go up as consumption rises, should encourage demand reduction + link to smart meter high demand prices possibly.

Flipping leccy pricing would boost renewables viability and encourage energy saving as the top units being trimmed would have higher values.

As above, but using VAT in the same way that VED is used with cars. Low consumption, low VAT (0%) moving to 5% then 10% etc.

Renewables do their share as and when, then gas and bio-gas kick in for peaks - yes duplicity of power generators, but similar to owning a bike and a car. The bike can't remove the need for a car, but can reduce the fuel bill.

Clean(er) coal and gas via CCS. Real shame that the proposed UK test sites keep getting canceled. This needs to be tested if only to rule it out and clarify options.

I'm running out. Big big problem I agree. I hope these aren't classed as magical pixies, but thought I'd throw out the ideas for dissection.

Mart.