MSE News: Solar subsidies to be slashed under government plans

grahamc2003

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

I agree with parts of the post, but where it all falls down is the reliance on concentrating on solar pv as a standlone solution from an engineering viewpoint and not adequately considering at what point the cost and effort in developing pv as part of an integrated solution becomes viable.

Take the extreme .... if pv cost 1p/Wp installed would the perspective change ?, of course it would, any engineer or accountant would agree too .... so the engineering and finance solution is to reduce the cost to an affordable level, whatever that is deemed to be .... it's just a case of finding a way to do so. Add in the climate change lobby/issue and you get a little urgency .... so how do you achieve an affordable solution urgently other than subsidising industry to develop whilst not producing (R&D), or driving the market directly with something like FiTs which encourages industry to react to competition and finance their own R&D from sales ? .... I suggest that there aren't too many alternative solutions ....

Regarding 'very high cost duplicity', yes that is a problem, but an enginner should stand back and look for a solution to the problem posed .... that's what engineers are for and are good at, solving problems .... so how do we store vast quantities of unused energy from multiple sources ? .... should it be centralised through massive pumped water reservoirs, or should it be distributed as per the microgeneration model and have lots 50 tonne weights winched 10 metres vertically ? .... plenty of PE there to run a freezer or TVs for a while when it's dark ... problems have solutions, the problem isn't pv, or windpower, or nuclear or the peak time difference between the UK and France, it's simply cheap, reliable energy storage ...

HTH
Z

I'm not saying anyone expects solar to be the sole generation technology, and I'm not judging it in that respect, so my argument doesn't fall down at all.

What you say could equally be applied to any technology you could dream of - i.e. it's only a part of the mix, other technologies can correct for its weaknesses, prices will come down (and why is that always the assertion - they may in the short term, but the raw materials may mean they rise in the long term)?)etc, but lets take an extreme example, to which all your arguments also apply. I'm sure you'd be against subsidising hampsters on hampster wheels connected to a generator as a generating technology. The reason you think that would be madness is purely because its further along the line of cost-effectiveness than solar. But where do your arguments as presented here reject it? It's just that in the arbitrary line of what people feel sensible is set somewhere between solar and hampster, and not between solar and Coal for example (obviously that's where I set it).

As to storage, I'm pleased you know there is a (cost effective) solution. Many grid engineers have worked for many years on storage. They build Dinorwig (and a couple of smaller pumped storage) well before there was any 'green' pressure to do so (because it was extremely cost effective to do so, even though incredibly expensive (the most expensive civil engineering contract in the world at the time). The cost wasn't justified on purely storing a source of energy, but on its response time, meaning it could supply 'reserve', the 'insurance' which enables a reliable grid.

So if you have ways of storing energy on the scale required (that's an important bit), cost-effectively (another important bit), then please tell the brilliant brains at ngc (where all the PhDs from their research lab were deployed when it closed).

There have been a couple of 'no chance of success' mass storage systems partly developed by others in the industry, before being canned.

As far as I'm concerned, there's no engineering justification for solar at all and I'm not sure many try to say there is, as you are doing. It's a token really, a sort of ideological statement designed to make people 'stakeholders' and therefore likely supporters. The fact it simply wouldn't exist to any significant extent in the UK without massive subsidies also indicates that.

John_Pierpoint

Changing the subject a bit; did I hear correctly that one now must live in something approaching an ECO-home to qualify for future FiT's.

Is there some sort of conspiracy going on to force us to demolish any pre WWII detached properties?

I had persuaded my self that generating electricity and installing a wood burner, would be me "doing my bit" towards the world's uncertain future, at the hands of its 7 billion citizens.

Surely if it is OK to put a large PV installation on a barn, it should be OK to put a small one on a pre-war home?

magyar

grahamc2003 wrote: »

A test for any electricity generation proposal should be - Can it be relied upon with at least 99% certainty to generate at the period of maximum demand?

I would argue the right test is 'what's the best overall energy generation mix for the country' rather than focusing on any one technology.

There are three things which matter:
- best overall value for the bill payer in the medium and long term
- ability to cope with demand sufficiently
- minimised reliance on uncontrollable factors, which include weather, foreign countries, wars, market forces.

Clearly gas and coal are cheap in the short term and provide great flexibility, well established technologies. However both are subject to market pressures (which most analysts see only going upwards) and if carbon prices rise further may not prove good investments in the long term.

Conversely, solar, wind and nuclear are expensive in the short term, but provide a natural hedge against those other risks.

Going too 'long' in renewables/nuclear may end up being unnecessarily costly. Gong too long in gas and coal may be gambling with future costs.

For me, I think the strategy is just right - a sensible blend of them all.

magyar

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Changing the subject a bit; did I hear correctly that one now must live in something approaching an ECO-home to qualify for future FiT's.

After April 2012 yes, you'll need to be C-rated or better. But I think the theory is you can get loans to insulate your house to this standard which is then (more than) repaid by the FITs.

anitainjune

I have the impression that you think only the wealthy are having panels installed. I'm definately not wealthy, I am using funds saved while I work beyond my present retirement age. I'm doing it because I'm terrified of the increasing cost of energy and the fear as we get older that I will be in fuel poverty. Also the savings I have in an ISA are earning nothing. "Which" have worked out that in 25 years at current pay back I might have increased my investment by a possible £2000 more than leaving it where it now is.
I hope this gives people a more realistic view.

stewgreen

..still seems like hype to me
.. I'd like to see proof of savings made just just talk of "you will save"
- Maybe someone can tell us of a website where we can see scans of FITs on real electricity bills accompanied by a price breakdown of FULL costs.. the panels, the inspection cost, the installation cost, commissions, cleaning cost etc.

someone in the UK must have some good experience by now ? so there must be a proof website somewhere

grumpyoldsteve

grahamc2003 wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned, there's no engineering justification for solar at all and I'm not sure many try to say there is, as you are doing. It's a token really, a sort of ideological statement designed to make people 'stakeholders' and therefore likely supporters. The fact it simply wouldn't exist to any significant extent in the UK without massive subsidies also indicates that.

Forgetting about costs, FIT's and subsidies for a minute, I would say the engineering justification for solar, as with wind or in fact any form of renewable energy is that whilst they are producing they are reducing the consumption of non-renewable resources, because don't forget that one day, by definition non-renewable resources will run out, or at the very least become very difficult and very expensive to source in enough quantities to keep those turbines going non-stop, so even they won't keep the lights on at peak demands.
As has been pointed out in other posts all forms of energy generation are important parts of the mix, and without investment in solar now by whatever means, the next generation of more efficient solar will never materialise, but energy demands will keep rising and accelerating the demise of those precious non-renewable resources.
There, I have said my piece and I never even mentioned global warming

Cardew

anitainjune wrote: »

I have the impression that you think only the wealthy are having panels installed. I'm definately not wealthy, I am using funds saved while I work beyond my present retirement age. I'm doing it because I'm terrified of the increasing cost of energy and the fear as we get older that I will be in fuel poverty. Also the savings I have in an ISA are earning nothing. "Which" have worked out that in 25 years at current pay back I might have increased my investment by a possible £2000 more than leaving it where it now is.
I hope this gives people a more realistic view.

The term 'Wealthy' is relative and just terminology.

To fit Solar PV for your own benefit is very probably a sensible decision, and there is nobody I have seen criticising anyone for taking such a course of action.

To fit solar PV you must own a house and it be big enough to fit panels, and be able to afford £10,000+

Whilst that is not a definition of 'wealthy' it certainly means in the majority of case that person is better off than a council house tenant(who in any case doesn't have the opportunity to fit solar PV) and they, in increased electricity bills, are directly paying the subsidies to you and the others who can afford, and have the opportunity to fit solar.

grahamc2003

grumpyoldsteve wrote: »

.
As has been pointed out in other posts all forms of energy generation are important parts of the mix,

So have you been out to buy a hamster yet?

zeupater

grahamc2003 wrote: »

I'm not saying anyone expects solar to be the sole generation technology, and I'm not judging it in that respect, so my argument doesn't fall down at all.

What you say could equally be applied to any technology you could dream of - i.e. it's only a part of the mix, other technologies can correct for its weaknesses, prices will come down (and why is that always the assertion - they may in the short term, but the raw materials may mean they rise in the long term)?)etc, but lets take an extreme example, to which all your arguments also apply. I'm sure you'd be against subsidising hampsters on hampster wheels connected to a generator as a generating technology. The reason you think that would be madness is purely because its further along the line of cost-effectiveness than solar. But where do your arguments as presented here reject it? It's just that in the arbitrary line of what people feel sensible is set somewhere between solar and hampster, and not between solar and Coal for example (obviously that's where I set it).

As to storage, I'm pleased you know there is a (cost effective) solution. Many grid engineers have worked for many years on storage. They build Dinorwig (and a couple of smaller pumped storage) well before there was any 'green' pressure to do so (because it was extremely cost effective to do so, even though incredibly expensive (the most expensive civil engineering contract in the world at the time). The cost wasn't justified on purely storing a source of energy, but on its response time, meaning it could supply 'reserve', the 'insurance' which enables a reliable grid.

So if you have ways of storing energy on the scale required (that's an important bit), cost-effectively (another important bit), then please tell the brilliant brains at ngc (where all the PhDs from their research lab were deployed when it closed).

There have been a couple of 'no chance of success' mass storage systems partly developed by others in the industry, before being canned.

As far as I'm concerned, there's no engineering justification for solar at all and I'm not sure many try to say there is, as you are doing. It's a token really, a sort of ideological statement designed to make people 'stakeholders' and therefore likely supporters. The fact it simply wouldn't exist to any significant extent in the UK without massive subsidies also indicates that.

Hi

How selective can a post actually be .

Does .... "I'm not saying anyone expects solar to be the sole generation technology, and I'm not judging it in that respect, so my argument doesn't fall down at all." .... really address the point .... "where it all falls down is the reliance on concentrating on solar pv as a standlone solution from an engineering viewpoint and not adequately considering at what point the cost and effort in developing pv as part of an integrated solution becomes viable." ... no it doesn't because it takes the point out of context and makes no attempt to address and actually goes a long way to conceal the real issue which is "not adequately considering at what point the cost and effort in developing pv as part of an integrated solution becomes viable" ....

I agree with the assertion regarding being applicable to any technology, well almost any, but that's the point isn't it .... other technologies have only been developed through the massive use of subsidies ... you yourself seem to raise nuclear on a regular basis, and have mentioned CCS a number of times both technologies which would/will be completely dead without massive subsidy .... that's the exact point that I raised.

Regarding cost, I do note the skillful navigation around the main point "so the engineering and finance solution is to reduce the cost to an affordable level" ... this is the valid point being raised and I would hope that anyone employing one iota of commonsense would agree .... regarding the regurgitation of the hampsters, well, if you're suggesting that you could install an array of hampsters capable of generating anywhere near the level of an average pv installation, maintain that array for the expected lifespan of a panel based system and do this for the cost equivalent to the capital outlay of a panel sytem then it's worth considering, however, if you can't do that I have no idea why it was raised, because we both know that it's irrelevant .... the relevant part, in context, is reducing the cost to an affordable level and that's what has happened over the last couple of years .... whilst the hampsters are a theoretical folly, although a relevant and quite funny one one if used in it's best context , the cost effectiveness gap between solar and the coal you mention has, by definition of coal having it's own cost, more than halved, therefore now being that much closer to coal than it was when you first made the hampster analogy it must fall further towards, or even well into the zone of acceptance formed by the arbitary line you defined yourself in the above referenced post .... see, using your own logic, you are slowly being converted, even though you may not realise it yet .... ... mind you, there's always the possibility that the arbitary line of cost effectiveness would be moved beyond where coal currently is if it is based on idealogical grounds as opposed to purely engineering ....

You rightly mention that there will be a point at which prices will not be able to fall any further, but totally fail to consider what the pricepoint will be, so let's consider that of the total weight of a panel (~20kg ?) probably somewhere approaching 99% is within the main materials of glass, silicon and aluminium which although energy intensive to manufacture cannot really be classified as being made from rare elements which are in short supply and subject to undue market manupulation .... in context, the earth's crust is Si:28%, Al:8%, O:46%, Na: 2%, Ca: 4% and the least abundant of the main elements required is C at 0.02%, so there's nothing which is too rare to exactly cause a shortage and force prices too far upwards .... so it's all down to manufacturing process efficiency and manufacturing energy intensity, both issues which we must rely on engineers to provide input on ..... then again, there are also new lower cost and less energy intensive developments down the line which although less efficient will likely be far more cost effective ....

Regarding storage ... again how does the point which was raised ... "so how do we store vast quantities of unused energy from multiple sources ? .... should it be centralised through massive pumped water reservoirs, or should it be distributed as per the microgeneration model ?" .... get fully addressed by concentrating on what was created as a centralised solution years ago when decentralised microgeneration wasn't really an option being tabled .... there's a problem with storage which physics and chemistry both say is solvable, so why is it impossible for an engineer to conceed that there could be a solution, be it chemical, thermal or mechanical .... and more importantly, why would it necessarily need to be based on a centralised grid based option where the engineer led R&D and construction costs would be absolutely huge and would probably require heavy taxpayer subsidy ....

In conclusion, your final paragraph view that "there's no engineering justification for solar at all " does seem to be a little extreme for an engineer to make without qualification .... what about off grid, I suppose that anyone not linked to a coal or nuclear plant via the grid would possibly disagree ... perhaps on reflection you may agree that they would have a point, remember, prices have fallen for them too. Also, addressing the very end of the post "ideological statement designed to make people 'stakeholders' and therefore likely supporters. The fact it simply wouldn't exist to any significant extent in the UK without massive subsidies also indicates that," , surely you're describing nuclear power every bit as much as solar in this statement, or is there a belief that next generation nuclear will be a totally commercial venture without subsidy, and even if this is the case, wouldn't it also be true to say that it's commercial viability is only as a result of past subsidy, therefore proof that current pv subsidies will likely achieve the same goal .....

Apologies to all for such a laborious post, but it is (sort of) on topic if considering that its is to do with subsidies ....

HTH
Z