Solar Panel Guide Discussion

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

It is not a case of admitting anything because I have never stated, claimed or implied your nonsense accusation about reducing import etc. It really is a figment of your imagination; and so typical of your Modus operandi.

If you can't remember saying it many times, here's a clue:-

Cardew wrote: »

That means that the electricity consumer pays less than half for each kWh they subsidise. In fact with the solar farms, unlike private houses, exporting all generated electricity the subsidy will provide around three times as much electricity.

Then you repeat, not saying it again here:-

Cardew wrote: »

However Farmer B can use as many potatoes - for which he has received a subsidy - as he wishes; in theory he could use all the potatoes and we would have none for our subsidy.

If he used 50% of all the potatoes for his own use, that means that we are paying a subsidy of £200 (or four times as much) for each ton of his crop we get or 4:1

If he used only one third of the potatoes 'in-house' then the figure would be 3:1

So you keep removing own consumption before calculating how much the market (the grid) benefits. Your potato story works the same, because if the farmer doesn't need to 'import' as many potatoes, then the subsidy has freed up the same number of potatoes on the market.

To repeat it once again, if a property generates 1,000 units, the grid will benefit by 1,000 units. Even if the property consumes 500 units, the grid still benefits, since 500 less units of import were needed, freeing up an additional 500 for everyone else. The net effect is always 1,000 units. So trying to deduct it from the numbers will wrongly distort the true position.

So, your original 3:1 claim is false, and should have remained at 2:1.

Now having cleared that up, can we now move on to the next 'fact' that you haven't supplied any proof of a 40p v's 20p position. So if, as I have stated the position was 44.85p v's 33.8p then your ratio should have been 1.33:1.

Mart.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

....
Let me give you an analogy so you can understand the issue.

We(the consumers) have a fixed pot of money to subsidise a farmer to grow potatoes.

1. We have choice of paying Farmer A to grow the potatoes and because he has a large farm and is efficient, he only requires a low subsidy for each ton of potatoes he produces. We get all of his crop.

2. We can also pay Farmer B to grow potatoes. However as he only has a small field, he requires a larger subsidy from us for each ton of potatoes he produces.

However Farmer B is allowed to keep as many potatoes as he can use , even though we have paid him a high subsidy for those potatoes he uses himself. He devises methods to be able to use as many potatoes as possible.

Which Farmer gives us(the consumer) best value?

Now it surely doesn't take the brains of an Archbishop to compare Solar Farms with the Farmer A scenario, and Farmer B with the scenario of sub - 4kWp systems on private houses.

There is no question that Farmer B produces xxtons of potatoes(albeit requiring a higher subsidy than Farmer A) and the potatoes he uses himself would reduce the import of potatoes HE would otherwise have to buy. ....

Can I play with this ...

A tale of two Farmers
(A story depicting the plight of the potato buyers demoralized by the baron-farming aristocracy) .... (Apologies to Charles Dickens )


Farmer A has supplied all of his crop of potatoes for over 50 years, buying the seedcrop from a distributor each year. Although the subsidy/tonne is low, due to the scale of the farm, Farmer A gets paid a great deal of money each year and this is likely to continue 'ad infinitum' - that's if Farmer A has any influence, and he is content that he does, therefore the subsidy will always be there .... what's more, as Farmer A has been using polluting chemicals on his land for years, the public have agreed to clean-up at no cost to the estate if Farmer A ever dies, or even to do the same should Farmer A decide to change landuse and milk cows. Farmer A, being a very large concern, has various shareholders to share profits with and therefore, being in control of market prices, has been raising the cost of potatoes year-on-year for a considerable time ....

<If in a pantomime mood ... please feel free to boo & hiss Farmer A here>

Farmer B comes along with a different business plan, one based on a sustainable method of potato production which will not require chemicals, and therefore no implicit agreement to clear the land is required and a new automated technology which will both reduce the cost of land preparation and harvesting as well as providing a sustainable source of seed-crop for the next season .... the basis of the business plan is that Farmer B runs a smallholding which grows potatoes, 25% of which will feed his family and 75% being sold to market ....

Farmer B has a problem, he has cash in the bank, but the cost of the new technology, being relatively new and in low volume supply, means that the market price of his crops cannot compete with established and long-time subsidised Farmer A, he therefore shelves his idea and buys his potatoes from the market, thus keeping Farmer A very happy ...

A group of farmers and Farmer B are oneday having a pint in the local pub and get to talking about cars and someone mentions that they'd read in the weekend's broadsheet that car prices had increased by around 20x since 1900 whilst income had increased by a factor closer to 250x ... this of course sparked further discussions and ideas started to form .... if you can build lot's of an item it becomes relatively cheaper :idea: .... siezing on this thought farmer B immediately goes to work on a cunning plan .....

Farmer B approaches his local MP and the appropriate government agency agrees that his plan will likely work .... On the basis that they government doesn't have enough money to buy what could eventually be millions of the automation technology devices up front, they agree to pay a subsidy to Farmer B and others based on the total tonnage of the crop grown .... the subsidy would be limited, both in scale and timescale and would be set at a level which would encourage others to become involved at an early stage and reduced in line with equipment prices .... it becomes apparent that there is a point at which potatoes supplied by Farmer B will be able to compete without subsidy with ones being supplied by farmer A, who will still be requesting subsidy be paid ....

The plan is put into effect and a legislation regarding the subsidy is passed and the large supermarket chains are tasked with collecting tax and payment of the subsidy from a mandatory additional levy(tax) on the price of all potatoes sold ...

Over the next couple of years more companies start making the required automated potato-farming equipment, so, as expected, the prices fall as does the subsidy ...

Farmer A is not too concerned at the scale of the early take-up of the new scheme, but decides to monitor what is happening and how Farmer B's scheme could impact their future ability to control the market price of potatoes ...

....

At the time of publishing the First Edition automated potato-farming equipment prices continue to fall faster than originally anticipated, the subsidy is therefore reduced for new systems to reflect this ... however, Farmer A still increases the price of his crop .... Will Farmer B's scheme subsidy be effective ?, will there soon be a need for the small scale subsidy ? .... will Farmer B potato prices be lower that those of Farmer A ? ... will the potato buyer benefit at the checkout over time ? ... will Farmer A strike back ?

Farmer B will return in .... PotatoWars

Context ..
HTH
Z

Martyn1981

This is what we want, to stop all the bickering, large commercial installs (avoiding land waste / costs), and presumably a very high level of consumption, to maximise viability. I know I keep saying it, but I honestly believe that schemes like these are the ones that will win the day for PV.

http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/ikea_will_install_more_than_39000_solar_panels_over_10_uk_stores_5478/

And if you're going to build a PV farm, then really build a PV farm, and use trackers. If the cost of trackers gets low enough, then that has to boost the economics of PV farms even in the UK.

http://gigaom.com/cleantech/behold-apples-massive-solar-farm-from-the-sky-photos/

Lastly, not a great day for nuclear in Japan. Looks like they're 'doing a Germany'. Let's hope they manage to roll out the renewables and CCS before the deadline.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19595773

Mart.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

If you can't remember saying it many times, here's a clue:-



Then you repeat, not saying it again here:-



So you keep removing own consumption before calculating how much the market (the grid) benefits. Your potato story works the same, because if the farmer doesn't need to 'import' as many potatoes, then the subsidy has freed up the same number of potatoes on the market.

To repeat it once again, if a property generates 1,000 units, the grid will benefit by 1,000 units. Even if the property consumes 500 units, the grid still benefits, since 500 less units of import were needed, freeing up an additional 500 for everyone else. The net effect is always 1,000 units. So trying to deduct it from the numbers will wrongly distort the true position.

So, your original 3:1 claim is false, and should have remained at 2:1.

Now having cleared that up, can we now move on to the next 'fact' that you haven't supplied any proof of a 40p v's 20p position. So if, as I have stated the position was 44.85p v's 33.8p then your ratio should have been 1.33:1.

Mart.

I specifically stated that the electricity has been generated or the potatoes grown in sub-4kWp/farmer B case. That has never been disputed.

However we, as consumers, are paying 2 or 3 times as much for electricity to reach the grid, or potatoes to get to the market.

One last attempt.

Take the 'ultimate' case where houseowners generate , say 3000kWh pa or Farmer B grows 1 ton of potatoes.

However the houseowner manages to use all that 3,000kWh in-house and Farmer B manages to use the whole ton of potatoes himself.

In that case we(the consumer) have paid the householder a subsidy to produce 3,000kWh electricity and nothing reaches the National Grid or paid the Farmer a subsidy to produce potatoes and none reach the market. i.e. we have paid a subsidy for the householder/farmer to use all the electricity/potatoes themselves.

Nobody is arguing(which seems to be your point) that the electricty hasn't been generated or the potatoes grown.

Now take any differential in the subsidy you wish to use, and any percentage of electricity/potatoes used in-house and the principle is exactly the same.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

.... We pay Farmer A a subsidy of, say, £50 a ton to produce potatoes and we get his whole crop.

We pay Farmer B £100 a ton to produce potatoes. Now if we got his whole crop the the potatoes would cost us twice as much - or 2:1

However Farmer B can use as many potatoes - for which he has received a subsidy - as he wishes; in theory he could use all the potatoes and we would have none for our subsidy.

If he used 50% of all the potatoes for his own use, that means that we are paying a subsidy of £200 (or four times as much) for each ton of his crop we get or 4:1 ....

Hi Cardew

Everything revolves around the definition of 'we' which is being applied ....

If 'We' is (and read this carefully) defined as being the overall amount of energy generation required from non-pv sources which is displaced by the energy supplied from pv ... then 2:1 stays as being 2:1

If 'We' is (and again read this carefully) defined as accounting only for the energy which is exported, which I believe is your point, then the self consumption needs to be considered .... think of it as being double entry bookkeeping where the totals must balance out, it seems that the self consumption is being ignored and it simply can't be ....

If 'We' are the electricity consumer (billpayer) without pv, then it doesn't rally matter because we're still paying for the energy we import at the same rate whether the pv array next-door is exporting 100% or nothing, so whatever the ratio there's actually no difference ....

Think of a solar powered radio which has a USB port which can be used to charge a phone at the same time. You want the radio on to listen to music and you also want to charge your phone .... is the total energy demand the same or different if (i) - the radio is running and charging the phone from the integral solar cell during the day ..... or .... (ii) - the radio is running and charging the phone from an external supply during the night ? ....

In both cases above the radio is on and the phone is being charged, it just seems that the energy consumed is being accounted for differently by yourself and Martyn(&others) ..... Your calculation seemingly would be (1+1-1) : (1+1), which isn't logical as the same energy is obviously consumed by the devices on both sides of the ratio, evidenced by the radio playing and the phone charging, against Martyn's (1+1) : (1+1) which is logical ....

On the one side of the equation theres a supply and on the other side consumption (demand), there is nothing else, there is no negative supply, because negative supply is demand, so it stands that there is no negative demand, which is would be supply, so why complicate matters .... it's supply, from whatever source, and demand whichever side of the meter it exists ....

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

In that case we(the consumer) have paid the householder a subsidy to produce 3,000kWh electricity and nothing reaches the National Grid or paid the Farmer a subsidy to produce potatoes and none reach the market. i.e. we have paid a subsidy for the householder/farmer to use all the electricity/potatoes themselves.

Absolutely, 100% mis-representation. The house used to take 3,000kWh from the grid, thanks to subsidy supported investment (no argument there) the house now generates 3,000kWh. By not importing 3,000kWh, the grid is 3,000kWh better off. No maths tricks, no confusion, no longer importing (what you used to) is exactly the same as export.

Try using a numerical exercise.

a. (no PV) The grid has 1,000,000 units, the house imports 3,000 units, the grid has 997,000 units.

b. (with PV) House generates and exports 3,000 units, house still imports 3,000 units, the grid has 1,000,000 units - it's 3,000 units better off.

c. (with PV) House generates and consumes all 3,000 units, so the house doesn't import any units, so the grid has 1,000,000 units.

In both b and c the grid is better off to the tune of 3,000 units.

Take a step back and think about it. Blossom's example is much better than mine, farm to grid to factory, or farm to factory, or farm on factory roof, it all balances out the same.

Can we now drop that ratio to 2:1 so we can start discussing where you got those tariff rates from?

Mart.

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

On the one side of the equation theres a supply and on the other side consumption (demand), there is nothing else, there is no negative supply, because negative supply is demand, so it stands that there is no negative demand, which is would be supply, so why complicate matters .... it's supply, from whatever source, and demand whichever side of the meter it exists ....

HTH
Z

Hi Zeup, yes it's true that the term is confusing, but I used it to try to show how you can support our electrical supply either by increasing what goes into the grid (positive supply), or by reducing the amount you take out of the grid (negative demand).

But I'm happy to agree and simply say that a house that starts generating a few MWh's pa, when it wasn't previously, can only really be described as exporting, since national supply has increased (a teeny weeny bit!).

A similar thing can also be achieved by simply becoming more efficient, and exporting those savings as reduced demand. As everyone on here (regardless of views) appears to be doing.

Mart.

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hi Zeup, yes it's true that the term is confusing, but I used it to try to show how you can support our electrical supply either by increasing what goes into the grid (positive supply), or by reducing the amount you take out of the grid (negative demand).

But I'm happy to agree and simply say that a house that starts generating a few MWh's pa, when it wasn't previously, can only really be described as exporting, since national supply has increased (a teeny weeny bit!).

A similar thing can also be achieved by simply becoming more efficient, and exporting those savings as reduced demand. As everyone on here (regardless of views) appears to be doing.

Mart.

Hi

As it doesn't exist in any form other than conceptually then why complicate the issue ? .... I am extremely familiar with the concept of transactional processing based on issues and receipts ... a negative issue exists as does a negative receipt, however these are only used in a virtual way in order to reverse errors ... physically there is no difference, so applying the same logic as you would in processing transactions as there is no error to correct, there is no need to use the terminology ...

Our pv generates and supplies energy, our appliances act as a demand and consume energy .... When there is surplus generation we supply our own demand and help satisfy that of the grid .... When there is a shortfall in our own generation then our demand is satisfied by a combination of our own supply and supply from other sources via the grid .... there are no conceptual negatives in that arrangement ... it's simple.

HTH
Z

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

Hi Cardew

Everything revolves around the definition of 'we' which is being applied ....

If 'We' is (and read this carefully) defined as being the overall amount of energy generation required from non-pv sources which is displaced by the energy supplied from pv ... then 2:1 stays as being 2:1

If 'We' is (and again read this carefully) defined as accounting only for the energy which is exported, which I believe is your point, then the self consumption needs to be considered .... think of it as being double entry bookkeeping where the totals must balance out, it seems that the self consumption is being ignored and it simply can't be ....

If 'We' are the electricity consumer (billpayer) without pv, then it doesn't rally matter because we're still paying for the energy we import at the same rate whether the pv array next-door is exporting 100% or nothing, so whatever the ratio there's actually no difference ....


HTH
Z

This is just getting silly.

There is no dispute* that if a house receives a subsidy to generate 3,000kWh pa, and uses all that electricity in-house that 3,000kWh less electricity has to be generated elsewhere.

Just the same as Farmer B receiving a subsidy for producing a ton of potatoes, but feeds it all to the pigs, means that a ton less potatoes will have to be grown elsewhere.

The point is that we(the electricity consumer) are paying out a subsidy for solar electricity to be generated and none reaches national grid. Thus not only is the house owner getting the subsidy we pay him for generating electricity, but he has all that electricity free of charge.

He should quite obviously pay the going rate for the electricity he uses in-house. Just as the farmer who receives a subsidy for growing potatoes should pay the going rate for the potatoes he uses in-house.

If we have a solar farm, that uses nothing in-house, we pay a lower rate of subsidy and they provide electricity to the National Grid

The extension of your argument is that it would be OK for a solar farm to receive a subsidy for producing electricity and use all that electricity to heat a swimming pool for the owners and pay nothing.

Don't we expect the huge solar farms linked to in other posts to export electricity? Can they use it all, without payment, on site to, say, grow tropical fruit in greenhouses

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

This is just getting silly.

There is no dispute* that if a house receives a subsidy to generate 3,000kWh pa, and uses all that electricity in-house that 3,000kWh less electricity has to be generated elsewhere.

Just the same as Farmer B receiving a subsidy for producing a ton of potatoes, but feeds it all to the pigs, means that a ton less potatoes will have to be grown elsewhere.

The point is that we(the electricity consumer) are paying out a subsidy for solar electricity to be generated and none reaches national grid. Thus not only is the house owner getting the subsidy we pay him for generating electricity, but he has all that electricity free of charge.

He should quite obviously pay the going rate for the electricity he uses in-house. Just as the farmer who receives a subsidy for growing potatoes should pay the going rate for the potatoes he uses in-house.

If we have a solar farm, that uses nothing in-house, we pay a lower rate of subsidy and they provide electricity to the National Grid

The extension of your argument is that it would be OK for a solar farm to receive a subsidy for producing electricity and use all that electricity to heat a swimming pool for the owners and pay nothing.

Don't we expect the huge solar farms linked to in other posts to export electricity? Can they use it all, without payment, on site to, say, grow tropical fruit in greenhouses

Hi

The post suggests that you seem to have misunderstood the concept yet again ....

As I understand it, large scale solar farms will have installed meters and will be paid for their metered export, not relying on a deemed export calculation ... if they want to heat their pool then they won't be exporting their production and will be missing out a negotiated export payment based on far more than even the recently raised 4.5p/kWh which is applicable to new MCS systems .... their subsidy is in the form of ROCs which are a form of monopoly money which has a market value for conversion into what we all can spend .... the ROCs will be awarded based on their metered generation whether they use it in house or export it, therefore ...."If we have a solar farm, that uses nothing in-house, we pay a lower rate of subsidy and they provide electricity to the National Grid" .... is incorrect, they receive the same number of ROCs in both cases and actually lose out on their contracted supply price by wasting their production, however this is a commercial arrangement between the pv farm and their customer which doesn't form part of the subsidy ...

Additionally, regarding heating swimming pools .... the largest pv farms currently in existance have the potential to easily boil the contents of an Olympic sized pool from cold well within 1Hr on a sunny day, leaving the rest of the day's production available for export, the following day the pool will still be hot and which means that more hours of production are available for export ... that's if you could manage to source the equivalent of somewhere between 50000 and 80000 standard 3kW immersion heaters and could find someone who likes swimming in an oversized kettle....

HTH
Z