Solar Panel Guide Discussion

Cardew

Blossom2528 wrote: »

I'd love to read 20p, but I can't find it. Hope you're not making stuff up as usual.
Are you going to support your viable farms argument or just hide behind subsidies.

I would just stick to thowing(ineffective) insults - you obviously cannot submit a reasoned argument.

Cardew

orrery wrote: »

Well, PV installations on roofs are what we need. There is much competition for other land, bearing in mind that there is a worry that growing biomass displaces food production. The only sensible place for solar farms in in the desert.

Like roofs of supermarkets, factories, office blocks, schools etc?

Loads of scrub land, brownfield sites that would be suitable.

They can, and do, have solar PV panels on farmland mounted on frames where animals can graze underneath, or crops grown.

Pennylane

I've lost the plot. What are people still arguing about?

All I can say is I love mine and am really glad we have them. We're saving loads on the leccy bill and we're happy bunnies. We were the first around here to get them and have noticed several people have got them now and they all seem happy enough.
I just love the idea that sunlight/daylight is being used effectively and I'm quids in.

As far as I can make out people who have them like them and people who may have missed the boat or couldn't make their minds up or couldn't afford them get snotty because they're not saving any money.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

I will say this just once more S L O W L Y in the hope you will understand. - except of course we all know you understand but you hope obfuscation will succeed!

I don't have any 'numbers', and don't need any numbers. I explained above in very simple terms that there were business organisations that wanted to install large solar PV systems and were prepared to do so for 20p/kWh subsidy. Do you think they didn't 'do the numbers' in their business plan before deciding to invest scores/hundreds of thousand pounds?

Say it as slowly as you like, but you are still avoiding the issue. Dancing around historic moving targets, simply to avoid supporting your own claims.

For PV farms to be viable they will need to make a profit at wholesale prices. Do you believe that is possible in the short term and before commercial / domestic installs?

Cardew wrote: »

Is that a serious question?

Can you really not appreciate that regardless of any percentages, if a project is viable with a business plan based on a subsidy of 20p/kWh, it might not be viable based on a subsidy of 7.1p/kWh?

Perfectly serious. You said that PV farms were doable at only 50% of domestic tariff. So if the current rates are approx 50%, then they must be doable now! I'm only running with your logic on this bit. Personally I think it's a hopeless tangent that will get us nowhere, so suggest you look at the numbers and put your case forward.

Here's the old link for you, one of the many times I've tried to get you to put some solid numbers and facts together, rather than all this noise and distraction to avoid admitting that FITs is working well - it is creating another tool for us to use as we approach the next decade:-

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Found this, please note the many, many caveats regarding costs. Have fun.

"Regarding solar farms, I think Zeupater has addressed the distribution losses side several times since Nov. But I thought I'd have a punt at the economics.

All complete guesses of the top of my head, so feel free to play around as necessary.

10,000 panel farm (costs broken down, into 16 panel portion for comparison to £8k domestic system).

Feel free to criticise, I'd suggest changing domestic price to £6,500 now, and the site panel cost to approx £1,600.

Have fun.

Mart.

grahamc2003

Pennylane wrote: »

I've lost the plot. What are people still arguing about?

All I can say is I love mine and am really glad we have them. We're saving loads on the leccy bill and we're happy bunnies. We were the first around here to get them and have noticed several people have got them now and they all seem happy enough.
I just love the idea that sunlight/daylight is being used effectively and I'm quids in.

As far as I can make out people who have them like them and people who may have missed the boat or couldn't make their minds up or couldn't afford them get snotty because they're not saving any money.

Err no Penny.

As you exemplify so well, those who think they are great see them from a personal (i.e. selfish in the true sense of the word) perspective. Those who think the pv fit system is wasteful and inefficient nonsense look at things from a global (dare I say holistic) perspective.

I have them. I don't particularly like or dislike them. I dislike the system which is unfair on so many and driving more into fuel poverty just to pay generous subsidies to a few, mainly better off owners (but some I expect less well off yet obsessive).

The net gain by you isn't anything like you believe. The main benefit goes to your panel owners, you get a scrap of free electricity, most of which I expect you can't use. But your bills (like everyone else's) are increased to pay for the subsidy, and other similar 'green' subsidies. Knock off your 'green' extras on your bill from the value off the solar electricity you use, and I doubt you end up positive.

Anyhow, thanks for stating your case without abuse, something most other PV supporters (from their selfish perspective) on here should learn from.

Martyn1981

digitaltoast wrote: »

Because they seem to be the only ones coming up with solid, reference fact-based evidence, whereas most of what's on here is barely more intelligent an argument than "yer mum smells of wee".

Sorry that this is exploding in front of you, but it's nothing new. If you accept (and you don't have to) that PV can provide some energy for the UK in the future - maybe max out at around 10% - then getting there artificially quickly can help given the environmental pressures and time constraints.

It's not perfect, but I don't believe any single solution is. But if increased supply (mostly through negative demand) can be gained without subsidies and with private monies, then I really can't see the problem with FITs as an investment to that end.

If it appears that I and others are being a little heavy handed, that is because nothing here is new. Cardew will keep introducing tangents to prevent a straight discussion on getting domestic / commercial PV viable asap. All of these points have been answered before, but usually rather than engage, he simply ducks before popping up again on another thread with the same claims, like some demented game of Whack-a-Troll.

And Graham, whilst claiming great knowledge on this subject, has historically provided an enormous amount of dis-information, whilst claiming intellectual superiority. In fact I could probably write a book with the list of 'Grahamisms' I can remember. Though I'm still uncertain if these are deliberate to mis-inform, or simply a lack of real PV information.

No discussion will work, or be allowed to work by Team GC. That has been the case for two and a half years, and I can't see it changing anytime soon.

Apologies again for my part in this sillyness, I would welcome a debate on the future mix of our energy supply, that is why I've tried to supply actual numbers where possible and linked references.

I'm not against George Monbiot, but I do feel that his PV piece was astonishingly weak when written, and since then has collapsed faster than PV prices have fallen.

All the best.

Mart.

don0301

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Err no Penny.

As you exemplify so well, those who think they are great see them from a personal (i.e. selfish in the true sense of the word) perspective. Those who think the pv fit system is wasteful and inefficient nonsense look at things from a global (dare I say holistic) perspective.

I have them. I don't particularly like or dislike them. I dislike the system which is unfair on so many and driving more into fuel poverty just to pay generous subsidies to a few, mainly better off owners (but some I expect less well off yet obsessive).

The net gain by you isn't anything like you believe. The main benefit goes to your panel owners, you get a scrap of free electricity, most of which I expect you can't use. But your bills (like everyone else's) are increased to pay for the subsidy, and other similar 'green' subsidies. Knock off your 'green' extras on your bill from the value off the solar electricity you use, and I doubt you end up positive.

Anyhow, thanks for stating your case without abuse, something most other PV supporters (from their selfish perspective) on here should learn from.

Another Classic statement posting on a MoneySaving Forum

you crack me up

I suppose you got them as you knew you had serious shading problems to fight back at the system?

Oh no, you didnt know until after paying £000's rofl

don0301

Cardew wrote: »

Not really.

When FIT was introduced it paid a subsidy for all forms of 'Green' electricity generation - wind, solar PV etc.

http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Generating-energy/Getting-money-back/Feed-In-Tariffs-scheme-FITs

</H2>
More sh1te

Not really

When FiT was introduced it paid a subsidy with many different tariffs for all forms of 'Green' electricity generation - wind, solar PV etc.

yes, they missed a trick with RaR companies to begin with, but that's been addressed now for a while so is a non-argument now?

Anyway, thanks for subsidising my FiT

Martyn1981

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Err no Penny.

As you exemplify so well, those who think they are great see them from a personal (i.e. selfish in the true sense of the word) perspective. Those who think the pv fit system is wasteful and inefficient nonsense look at things from a global (dare I say holistic) perspective.

Could you be more patronising and arrogant? PV is clean renewable energy. FITs aims to roll PV out faster by reducing the time it takes to reach viability. So your plans to supply the UK with only nuclear power is holistic? Your views on green and ethical are interesting to say the least!

grahamc2003 wrote: »

I have them. I don't particularly like or dislike them. I dislike the system which is unfair on so many and driving more into fuel poverty just to pay generous subsidies to a few, mainly better off owners (but some I expect less well off yet obsessive).

PV accounts for the largest share of FITs expenditure so far. Estimates are of an additional £5 - £8 pa per household. Your beloved nuclear costs households £100's pa. Yet you want more nuclear, which will always require subsidies and enormous decommissioning costs, whilst PV costs and subsidies are falling fast, very fast, extremely fast and are time limited. Plus, once viable, we will see PV installs providing more energy without any public monies.

grahamc2003 wrote: »

The net gain by you isn't anything like you believe. The main benefit goes to your panel owners, you get a scrap of free electricity, most of which I expect you can't use. But your bills (like everyone else's) are increased to pay for the subsidy, and other similar 'green' subsidies. Knock off your 'green' extras on your bill from the value off the solar electricity you use, and I doubt you end up positive.

Interesting that you make so many judgments on Penny's bill, without having all the facts, and seemingly against the savings that she has suggested.

The whole Green Tariff on leccy bills is 10%, including all FITs, Carbon Emission Reduction Targets (CERTS), Renewables Obligations (ROC's), EU Emissions Trading Scheme.

I can only guess at Penny's bill, but would hazard it at around £450 pre PV, so the whole Green Tariff would be approx £45. Again only guessing, but Penny seems to have supplied info suggesting savings much greater than that. In fact a household can easily achieve £100 savings with little effort if they adopt a PV friendly lifestyle.

in addition, I remain confused why you keep attacking the Green Tariff, especially on a Green and Ethical forum. Shouldn't we take some responsibility for our actions / emissions?

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Anyhow, thanks for stating your case without abuse, something most other PV supporters (from their selfish perspective) on here should learn from.

Your assumption that PV supporters are selfish, is incredibly judgemental, somebody has to do something, so judging those at the front is hardly just. As for abuse, this from one of Team GC who have tried on 5 separate occasions to discredit me by wrongly stating that I have a career or links to the PV industry, in order to suggest I have an ulterior motive.

Also, after a week of being tag-teamed by Team GC back in December, I really couldn't see any point in continuing these discussions, but decided to keep posting after receiving several PM's thanking me for putting the pro side forward. All of the PM's contained the words bully, bullies, or bullying regarding their experiences discussing PV with Team GC. I also received a PM from an engineer (M.Eng), with the simple line, "if a man needs to state his qualifications, he's already lost the argument."

Abusive is, as abusive does?

Mart.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I also received a PM from an engineer (M.Eng), with the simple line, "if a man needs to state his qualifications, he's already lost the argument."


Mart.

Irony or what!