Solar Panel Guide Discussion

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

The point 'I have been attempting to convey for a long time' is that neither my Faber slide-rule or your Sinclair calculator(and the many calculators that it spawned) received at any time a subsidy - and certainly not for 25 years;)

Market forces over a period of time determined the success or failure of a technology.

But nuclear has been subsidised for 50 or 60 years and is expected to be subsidised for another 40 to 60 years of production and possibly another century afterwards of decommissioning.

Whereas PV has been a successful technology for 40 years or so, and now those successes are to be shared worldwide, by artificially reducing the time period needed to lower it's costs.

Technically nothing different has happened, the $4/watt panels had to be built and bought, then so did the $3.99/watt panels and so on, it's just that the whole process has been condensed timewise to get us to the $1/watt panels, and now to the 55p/watt and less panels.

It's probably similar numbers of panels, and similar totals of money, just an artificially short time period, as needs are pressing.

Mart.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Would you care to hazzard a guess at how much 2 years of subsidy to some UK consumers, with a further 23 years to go, have contributed to the situation where Spain can have a grid viable PV farm?

Hi

I guess a better way of looking at it would be to consider the positive effect on the balance of trade which the export of some panels has brought about alongside the effect of the cost reductions on the import values ...

The issue being missed again is the semi-coordinated approach of FiT schemes on global prices, the German scheme has benefited prices in the UK just as the UK scheme benefited costs in Spain as has the French benefited the German ... what the relative benefit of each national scheme has been to the price falling is probably intangible due to the complexities of overall supply and demand relative to global production capacity, what is apparent though is that there has been a massive reduction in global prices as a result of the combined schemes and that the overall cost to the UK exchequer is no more than comparable to many other participants, with the exclusion of Germany who have done the 'heavy lifting' on this front ....

A simple analysis of pv pricing over the last 25 years or so will reveal a step-change in the rate of cost reduction which is pretty closely related to the introduction of subsidies, this is either related or it's simply a very unbelieveable coincidence ...

Consider a point where pv installations prices have reached a level where grid cost-parity is achieveable and then remove all further forms of direct and indirect generating and supply subsidies, whatever the technology - what would happen ?? .... I would suggest that the cost of PV would initially remain stable, but other mainstream sourced energy prices would rise to reflect the full cost of commissioning and running plant & equipment (don't forget the generous tax incentives available to capital investment in this area). What would effectively happen would be a further move to pv and other renewables to compensate, effectively a level, unsubsidised playing field where the 'legacy' generators would need to improve efficiencies & margins in order to survive .... it's exactly the same as introducing any new technology ... and it's been inevitable that pv would become a player in the energy market for years, despite the thinly disguised attempts of the oil companies to keep pv as a niche product - just consider who the major panel manufacturers were owned by before the competition arrived ... all the subsidy has done is compress the timescale for pv becoming a cost-viable product ....

How could you justify the cost of the UK FiT scheme ?? ... well simply get the price of pv well below the grid-parity price and then install pv on all public buildings ... there's an idea ... see pv subsidies could even make a difference and payback the total cost of the subsidy in our own lifetimes (well, some of us !) ....

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Would you care to hazzard a guess at how much 2 years of subsidy to some UK consumers, with a further 23 years to go, have contributed to the situation where Spain can have a grid viable PV farm?

Extremely dodgy guess at 1.6%!

Some follow up questions:
1. How does that compare with your calculations?
2. Would you care to hazzard a guess at how much Spanish spending on PV has contributed to the situation where the UK could lower FITs so quickly?
3. What do you believe can be drawn from this?
and
4. As CO2 and global warming are international issues, would it be completely inconceivable for the UK to put money into a 'CO2 reducer' located outside of the UK? Whilst this is a largely fictional thought, I'm thinking money being spent directly on addressing AGW rather than energy generation.

Mart.

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

How could you justify the cost of the UK FiT scheme ?? ... well simply get the price of pv well below the grid-parity price and then install pv on all public buildings ... there's an idea ... see pv subsidies could even make a difference and payback the total cost of the subsidy in our own lifetimes (well, some of us !) ....

HTH
Z

Z (or anyone else), I've been trying to work out the viability point for larger installs, but I simply can't find out what unit price larger companies pay for leccy. Eg Tesco's, B&Q, McDonalds etc. Any ideas?

I'm working on the basis that 20kWp+ systems can be installed (or included in construction) for about £1,200/kWp or less. And that many of these companies would consume 100% of generation.

I'm surprised that the larger installs get such a generous FIT, but assume that this is a stumbling block - grid supply needs more support, than demand reduction - maybe a split tariff is needed (supply/demand).

Mart.

grahamc2003

As a general point, I think a little humility wouldn't go amiss - to realise what exactly our views are based upon, and therefore the validity or not of them in the real world. Best not to hold too strong beliefs on anything from which most of the knowledge is googled, imv. If I needed a heart transplant, I'd prefer a surgeon with both practical and theroetical experience of heart transplants, rather than someone very 'passionate' about heart transplants who simply cannot know all the factors and implications from reading google. We all can hold and state views of course, but if we are talking about something we don't really fully undrestand (and that's what we all do, most of the time), it's probably best not to be too fixed in them and too certain that we are correct.

On another point, the new Energy scretary John Hayes is sceptical of anthropogenic global warming theories, and the efficacy of windfarms, so I expect the future will see some changes - and imv for the better - in energy policy. My doubt that my guaranteed 25 year subsidy for my solar panels will in fact be paid for 25 years has just grown stronger - and that is a step in the right direction imv.

Charles Hendry, who has held the energy brief for four years and has described wind power as “vital”, was replaced by fellow Tory John Hayes in Tuesday’s reshuffle.

Mr Hayes has been quoted as saying wind farms are a “terrible intrusion” and “renewable energy needs to pass the twin tests of environmental and economic sustainability and wind power fails on both counts”.

zeupater

grahamc2003 wrote: »

As a general point, I think a little humility wouldn't go amiss - to realise what exactly our views are based upon, and therefore the validity or not of them in the real world. Best not to hold too strong beliefs on anything from which most of the knowledge is googled, imv. If I needed a heart transplant, I'd prefer a surgeon with both practical and theroetical experience of heart transplants, rather than someone very 'passionate' about heart transplants who simply cannot know all the factors and implications from reading google. We all can hold and state views of course, but if we are talking about something we don't really fully undrestand (and that's what we all do, most of the time), it's probably best not to be too fixed in them and too certain that we are correct.

On another point, the new Energy scretary John Hayes is sceptical of anthropogenic global warming theories, and the efficacy of windfarms, so I expect the future will see some changes - and imv for the better - in energy policy. My doubt that my guaranteed 25 year subsidy for my solar panels will in fact be paid for 25 years has just grown stronger - and that is a step in the right direction imv.

Charles Hendry, who has held the energy brief for four years and has described wind power as “vital”, was replaced by fellow Tory John Hayes in Tuesday’s reshuffle.

Mr Hayes has been quoted as saying wind farms are a “terrible intrusion” and “renewable energy needs to pass the twin tests of environmental and economic sustainability and wind power fails on both counts”.

Hi

I tend to agree .... my personal experience is not based on massive centralised generating kit and it's control systems, but it is just about enough, in a limited form, to understand/implement automated power control systems in major manufacturing plant environments, including grid failure supply continuity to plant & equipment, this being mainly in the UK but includes the commissioning of plant in countries where the grid supply is a little, let's say, "unpredictable" .... (has anyone tried building manufacturing plant in an area where grid supply is delayed to a point which is considerably later than production is required ?) .... all of this without the need to access any source other than the 'grey matter' ....

Anyway, regarding windpower .... looking at the incoming minister's constituency relative to the coast I would have thought that there would always be a bias for offshore wind to onshore ... it keeps the voters happy & it potentially keeps jobs in the area too. If you really think about it, onshore wind is a particular problem to the Conservative party ... whatever happens in Scotland doesn't effect them as they have so few MPs, you don't usually build large turbines in the middle of cities where Labour have their core vote so that leaves the rural areas, the Conservative homeland where there's a strong correlation between party activists and NIMBYism and that's why I believe the phrase 'terrible intrusion' was used .... I actually also think that an appointment which will cause debate within the ministerial team is a much better approach than only having back patting yesmen(/yespersons tbpc ? ) ....

What is needed in the windpower sector is a full analysis of the actual cost of the turbines ... you only need to look at the relationships between the manufacturers and the operators to establish what level of competition exists in the sector .... I'd be pretty certain that the sector would be unable to justify the build costs if confronted with decent costed research and would be pretty open to agreeing to subsidy reductions ..... again, the large turbine sector is not one which can be 'consumerised', so the operators would simply expect to milk the highest subsidy possible for as long as possible (for ever ?) therefore there's no incentive to reduce costs, yes a little arm-twisting by a more windpower-sceptical minister is probably just what's needed ....

HTH
Z

jimjames

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Z (or anyone else), I've been trying to work out the viability point for larger installs, but I simply can't find out what unit price larger companies pay for leccy. Eg Tesco's, B&Q, McDonalds etc. Any ideas?

I'm working on the basis that 20kWp+ systems can be installed (or included in construction) for about £1,200/kWp or less. And that many of these companies would consume 100% of generation.

I'm surprised that the larger installs get such a generous FIT, but assume that this is a stumbling block - grid supply needs more support, than demand reduction - maybe a split tariff is needed (supply/demand).

Mart.

Sainsburys are now the largest PV generator in Europe with over 69,000 panels fitted to stores so the cost to them must be worthwhile for their investment

http://uk-solarpanels.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/sainsburys-biggest-solar-generator.html

Martyn1981

jimjames wrote: »

Sainsburys are now the largest PV generator in Europe with over 69,000 panels fitted to stores so the cost to them must be worthwhile for their investment

http://uk-solarpanels.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/sainsburys-biggest-solar-generator.html

Thanks Jim, that's quite an eyeopener. Almost as shocking as the add for Tesco panels next to the Sainsbury's article. I wonder who fitted the panels.

Oddly, the article suggests that FITs wouldn't be available to Sainsburys, but I'm not sure why? If they haven't received FITs then my eyes have been opened even further, but I'd suspect that they would get the money.

Still wondering if the economics for such installs adds up yet, at least in the southern half of UK, or not. Excluding environmental image, greenwash etc, I'm wondering what level of return such companies need before normally investing in such tech to reduce bills 5%, 10%? And if extra savings are possible via depreciation tax write offs etc.

Mart.

orrery

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Mr Hayes has been quoted as saying wind farms are a “terrible intrusion” and “renewable energy needs to pass the twin tests of environmental and economic sustainability and wind power fails on both counts”.

... or, simply translated as:
1. We need the popular vote, and
2. It's our policy to slash spending

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Also I believe Spain are planning an unsubsidised PV farm next year - that means grid viable.

Mart.

Silly of them not to install it in small systems on roofs around Spain;) - after all when solar farms in UK(rather than small systems) were muted:

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