Solar Panel Guide Discussion

grahamc2003

haughtonomous wrote: »

Actually the winners will be all of us. Hasn't the penny dropped yet? We can't go on burning up fossil fuels to power our lifestyles, or we will end up not having much of a lifestyle anyway.. !

Perhaps you should ask about the lifestyle of the growing number of people in fuel poverty due, in part, to these and similar schemes. Ask again in five years when their lifestyle will be even more deteriorated when energy costs are much higher, and probably accompanied by regular power cuts too. (Soiar does nothing to improve that situation, as has been pointed out many times, since they contribute zero - however many there are - when the power is needed the most).

If you are concerned about reducing co2, then you want to reduce the maximum co2 for the amount you want to spend doing so. On any measure, solar power in the uk is a poor idea, because the cost of it is so very high compared to any benefit (including co2 reduction).

Because of the nature of the particular subsidies to small scale solar, the high costs are borne by everyone, including those least able to afford it, yet the benefits are disproportionately squewed to the better off, or companies set up to exploit the subsidies. The environment experiences a very small drop in co2 emissions, much less than if the money were spend on different much more efficient technologies.

Cardew

haughtonomous wrote: »

Er, yes and no. The net loss to the UK over the next 20 years of the solar PV system is £8.2bn. The way the scheme works almost guarantees that the winners will be homesun etc/QUOTE]

Actually the winners will be all of us. Hasn't the penny dropped yet? We can't go on burning up fossil fuels to power our lifestyles, or we will end up not having much of a lifestyle anyway.. So the more homes that generate solar power (even if it doesn't benefit the home owners directly) the better. We are orbiting around a huge nuclear fusion generator, so we might as well make the most of the energy it is pouring towards us, anyway we can. Only fools would not.

All this nonsense about "it will only save you £30 per year" is balony - if someone approached you once a year and thrust £30 into your hands, would you object? (That's a rhetorical question.) I think there are bigger savings at stake. Climates and so on.

I don't spend a lot of time looking at my roof. Frankly I don't care what's up there as long as the roof still works!

Solar energy at these latitudes is just about the most inefficient method of producing electricity it is possible to envisage.

However if it is decided that Solar is a 'must', then install huge PV systems(solar farms) on factory/supermarket roofs or scub land in South West UK where at least the economies of scale will apply and solar output is highest.

Instead we encourage the installation of scores of thousands of tiny systems on roofs all over UK - including Scottish crofters cottages - and pay 44.85p for every kWh produced. We pay that money to those who own houses and can afford £10,000+ - or even worse pay it to venture capitalists like ASG who I assume provided your system?

Bear in mind that the money to pay the 44.85p/kWh comes from all electricity consumers. That includes those who cannot have a system because they rent, live in flats or have unsuitable roofs. Included amongst those are the very poorest in the land, pensioners etc.

You might not care what your roof looks like - many of us do. A reason incidentally why my council bans solar panels in my conservation area - thank goodness!

Lastly regarding Rent a Roof systems, £70(on average) is a pitiful return IMO for renting out your roof on a 25 year legally binding agreement that applies to any future owner of that house.

Cardew

haughtonomous wrote: »

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If you are currently using gas to heat your water, don't change. If solar power reduces your gas consumption to heat the water, that's good; if it doesn't you're no worse off than before. Either way you lose nothing.

I hope from the posts above, you might realise that it is your post that doesn't make a lot of sense.

If you need further explanation please ask!

bjohnson

digitaltoast wrote: »

Yes, but we're not "making the most" of it. We're spending £BILLIONS making pitifully and insignificantly small use of it in the most inefficient way possible at the wrong time of day. At least with solar thermal there's a chance it can be stored. With PV, it's money straight down the drain that could be used to insulate houses, provide more efficient boilers etc.

But the power from PV could be stored. The technology exists and is very simple. It's just that we choose not to because of the expense but possibly in the future .....

digitaltoast

bjohnson wrote: »

But the power from PV could be stored. The technology exists and is very simple. It's just that we choose not to because of the expense but possibly in the future .....

Really? One that doesn't explosive banks of acid batteries and doesn't involve the upheaval of entire communities to make pumped storage?
This is news to me - and I worked for The National Grid!
Enlighten us - feel free to be as technical and detailed as you like.

bjohnson

digitaltoast wrote: »

Really? One that doesn't explosive banks of acid batteries and doesn't involve the upheaval of entire communities to make pumped storage?
This is news to me - and I worked for The National Grid!
Enlighten us - feel free to be as technical and detailed as you like.

SMA make a back-up system that uses VRLA batteries that do not release hydrogen but on the data sheet they say that it uses VRLA/FLA/NiCD so I don't know whether you get a choice or it uses all three.

I reckon that looking ahead a few years there will be lots of half-used lithium battery packs available that have been taken out of battery-powered cars and there must be some way of incorporating them into a PV system.

Cardew

I assume you are being serious with that storage facility? I have some rechargeable AAA batteries that might help!

However let us say that someone, somewhere invented a cheap, practical storage system for electricity, why would they store solar electricity and not electricity from, say a nuclear power station that can't be shut down.

bjohnson

Cardew wrote: »

I assume you are being serious with that storage facility? I have some rechargeable AAA batteries that might help!

However let us say that someone, somewhere invented a cheap, practical storage system for electricity, why would they store solar electricity and not electricity from, say a nuclear power station that can't be shut down.

I was under the distinct impression that most of our nuclear power stations are due to be shut down and that we need to start building new ones fast!

grahamc2003

bjohnson wrote: »

I was under the distinct impression that most of our nuclear power stations are due to be shut down and that we need to start building new ones fast!

Well you're correct with that view at least.

The problem is, the government seem intent on encouraging solar panels and windmills (which don't solve the problems we are soon to face) and paying lip service to solutions which would.

It's not only Nukes being decommissioned (quite reasonably, since they are nearing the end of their design lives) - perfectly good very large coal fired stations are also to be closed (under current plans).... with nothing planned to replace them on the scale required in the time required. I really think the government and the dept of energy genuinely think solar panels can replace them!

John_Pierpoint

The only good thing about modern technology is that, given a log burner for heat and hot water, it is possible to live a reasonably civilized life style, based on a car battery or two.
People who live in boats and caravans often manage this trick - even though they might dram of being on the grid.