MSE News: Legal battle launched over solar subsidy cuts

Cardew

albyota wrote: »

so why is it that other countries are actually doing it......?

Just during 2005-2010, Portugal vaulted from 17% to 45% renewable electricity.[8]
QUOTE]

This of course is a case of lies and statistics and Wikipedia getting 'facts' from a pro -renewable publication.

In the context of the Wikipedia report you could be forgiven for thinking that Portugal supplied 45% of its electricity needs from renewable sources.

Well I remember reading some while ago about Portugal failing to meet its EU committments - so that quote seems strange.

It transpires that Portugal imports some 90% of its energy from Spain(or via Spain) and its actual electricity production is low - so I believe this means it provides about 5% of its needs from renewables.

In any case Portugal has huge Hydro-electric schemes that account for most of the renewable(I will be fishing in one of the lakes later this year:T)

However the answer to your first question is surely that if you make subsidies large enough - you will get a huge increase in renewable energy - as the solar FIT saga has shown in Germany and UK.

On the subject of solar which is what this thread is about, I looked up the following about Portugal.

A large photovoltaic power project, the Serpa solar power plant, has been completed in Portugal, in one of the Europe's sunniest areas.[1] The 11 megawatt plant covers 150 acres (0.61 km2) and comprises 52,000 PV panels. The panels are raised 2 metres off the ground and the area will remain productive grazing land. The project will provide enough energy for 8,000 homes and will save an estimated 30,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year.[2][3]


The Moura photovoltaic power station is located in the municipality of Moura, in the interior region of Alentejo, Portugal.Its construction involves two stages, with the first one being constructed in 13 months and completed in 2008, and the other will be completed by 2010, at a total cost of €250 million for the project.


The power station will have an installed capacity of 62 MWp, counting a total of over 376,000 solar panels, almost 190,000 panels (32 MW) are fitted on fixed structures, 52,000 (10 MW) on single-axis trackers, which follow the sun across the sky, and a further 20 MW of power capacity will be added during phase two of the project. It will occupy an area of 618 acres (250 hectares), capable of producing 93 GWh of electrical energy per year.

A 116 Megawatt plant near the city of Beja, also in the Alentejo region is planned.[4]

It seems that they haven't taken into account the difficulties with transmission losses of such big solar farms(outlined in this thread) and missed a trick by not putting all those panels on the roofs of houses.;)

Anyway we all know that as a member of the Euro-Zone with an economy supported by Germany and France:T - they can afford huge subsidies for renewables.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

I really cannot believe this discussion is taking place!

The sole argument against the obvious economy of scale of solar farms is to play the 'distribution card'.

We have a generating capacity of 3,650MW at a single location in North Yorkshire.

Probably the largest generating capacity(Nuclear and conventional) in UK is to be found in Cumbria - not near any centre of population that I am aware of!; ditto Hinkley point in Somerset(Bristol?) ditto Sizewell in Suffolk. Ditto Interconnector in Kent.

As said above, we have a stack of small bio-mass power stations(e.g Glanford 13MW) dotted around the country.

Yet to somehow justify putting sub-4kWp installations on often unsuitable roofs in far flung locations all over UK and paying them huge subsidies(even at 21p/kWh) the 'distribution card' has to be played.

The fact that a huge subsidy is paid for each kWh generated, but 25% to 50% of that generated output is not exported(it is used in the house) is conveniently ignored. That 'loss' in export is a different order of magnitude to transmission losses.

Well if the South West is a 'show stopper' then how about solar farms dotted all over the UK? Factory/Supermarket roofs, brownfield sites etc.

As the Brat once shouted 'you cannot be serious'!

This seems wholly unfair, and unkind to all those that have responded to you.

The reason for this discussion was to answer the points that you raised in posts #119 and #122. Several people have spent time running through all of the other factors. And you yourself have taken those points on board above.

So this discussion did exactly what it was supposed to do and help spread and share information, I found it interesting.

As regards the sole factor, you are still ignoring annual land, admin, security and insurance costs which will seriously bump up the unit costs.

You also go back to criticising small scale PV on the grounds of subsidies, so you're still arguing against tomorrows PV on the grounds of todays subsidies. Subsidies which are in the process of being halved.

You even complain about demand side PV (commercial and domestic) as not all generation will go to the grid. Of course it won't, if individuals or companies spend their own money (post subsidies) on reducing their energy demand from the grid, then that is their prerogative, and serves a useful purpose by reducing net demand. This is exactly the same as installing a more efficient boiler and requiring less overall gas. This is demand side PV not supply side - there is a crucial difference which I've been pointing out for 2 weeks now.

PV subsidies are not for today, they are to create an additional source of energy to help meet the future shortage which is rapidly approaching, like a perfect storm;
declining nuclear, with no new plants on line for at least 10 years,
declining domestic gas production, requiring increased dependence on more expensive foreign supplies,
the requirement to reduce CO2 levels, putting further pressure on coal and gas generation.

The solution (worldwide) is to increase all forms of renewables, and to look at commissioning more nuclear. The massive expansion in bio-mass, wind, and PV will require peak loading solutions. This should not be used as a weapon to knock them, it's happening regardless so we have to get on with it.

Cheers & great discussion to all.

Mart.

zeupater

albyota wrote: »

so why is it that other countries are actually doing it......? ....

Hi

The problem is probably because we're late to the table and the decision making & planning process has historically been so slow.

<rant mode on> ... deep breath .....

If we actually had a structured government (local & national) made up of elected representatives who actually had clue instead of 'career politicians' who sideline important decisions in preference of operating as a 'grammar school' debating society and less weight was afforded to NIMBYism and 'anti-everything' movements then things might be different ....

Countries with a significant renewables lead over the UK have this because where we discuss and delay, they do .... we in the UK have been in a rut for years, totally incapable of seeing the 'big picture' with vested interest infighting and having a total lack of ability in converting ideas into a solid reality, so almost every decent idea ends up as being exported, creating employment elsewhere, yet our political leaders are still totally dillusioned and keep telling both themselves and us that the UK will be the 'world leader' in some sector or other .... we can either do something about it or just give up .... Denmark has gone down the 'wind' avenue, France - nuclear, Iceland - geothermal, Norway - hydroelectric, Germany - a decent mix to date but mainly heading towards biomass & biofuels, etc, etc .... whilst the UK, well apart from playing with a few windfarms, which in relation to the population is utterly pathetic we haven't a clue yet, despite having one of the most advantageous positions on earth for harnessing tidal resources which others could only envy ..... we have a looming energy-gap crisis and potential disasterous climate change along with a requirement to kickstart the economy and where do the government place their priorities ? ... yes you've guessed it, building a faster train service so that they can get back to their constituencies half an hour earlier on a Thursday .... :doh::wall:

That's why 'other countries are actually doing it' and we aren't ....

<rant mode off> .... exhale :shhh:

HTH
Z

albyota

It really shouldn't be down to us to be buying solar PV and sticking it on our rooves, we only did it because there was money to be had....because people with savings in the bank were not getting any return, banks caused that one. of all the people I go to visit are not doing it to be green, I think we have established that.

The National Grid should be providing us with the alternatives to fossil fuel power generation, but they will only pass on the costs of the building of new nuclear plants to us via taxes and higher utility costs.

On days like today where it was both very windy AND bright sunshine, dual axis Solar PV tracking arrays and large wind turbines would be constantly (from 6am through 8pm for solar PV) powering several water pumps, pumping water up to higher reservoirs and the water constantly flowing back down through large turbine generators. Start with smaller plants local to towns and villages. This will reduce the transmission losses from the likes of Drax Cumbria, Hinkley point, Sizewell etc. we would use Biomass, CHP boilers generating steam turbine electric power, Tidal/river power constantly generating day and night..

Forget the 5pm on a winters evening peak demand in the future, smart metering and smart appliances will remove any power surges peaks and troughs, LED lighting will have advanced and be in full use, the government will have forced more flexible working hours, all the TV scheduling and advert breaks, even half time at major sport events, royal weddings etc can be staggered by a few seconds or a couple of minutes, digital TV has made this possible by area.

Householders power supplies will be allowed to be used with clever tariff’s similar to the States and France, (kvA capping), industry / commerce, will have to manage their power usage more tightly using spinning reserve, air conditioning would only be allowed in extreme circumstances – not just because a building is badly designed to cope with today’s demands.

More and more electric usage is coming on stream…. Electric cars will need recharging stations at every supermarket, garage or service station home and workplace, and with the increasing take up of new domestic and commercial heating systems using ground and air source heat pumps, new building regulations state all new buildings and homes will be airtight, thus all will require mechanical heat recovery ventilation.

Electrically operated medical equipment, monitors, blood pressure machine, IDU, MRI / CT scanners / X-RAY.
Schools, colleges, universities ICT classrooms, interactive wipe boards, computerised this, that and the other, ATM Cash machines, shop tills, phone chargers, PC’s, games stations, SKY, crikey I could go on all day.

so.....

if no nuclear plants are going to be built for another 10 years
if we think solar PV is of no use and don't install any more solar panels, PV farms etc.
if we allow the NIMBY’s to keep rejecting large wind turbines.
if we don't build pumped storage large dam reservoirs and build hydro electric turbine powered generators, biomass steam turbine generators.
if we do nothing, and keep burning the last of our gas, coal, and oil to fire our power stations which generate electricity for our power and lighting...and if we don't reduce our energy consumption/CO2.

What then?

all of us will be paying a lot more than £15 a year extra on our utility bills, and the 'poor' and the old will suffer first and we will all be completely without power.

zeupater

Blossom2528 wrote: »

Z thanks. But why do some people not want us to talk about the future and keep complaining. I'm a bit concerned as my friends are too. isn't it right to think ahead.

Why does graham keep attacking what Martyn says. every thread I read he trys to help people like me and gives long answers with information. What is so wrong with renewables. it odesn't sound like we can cope without them.

Hi

When you look at it from an objective point of view you'll really see that the viewpoints forwarded by Graham are mainly totally sound when looking at it from a current economics 'value for money' engineering solution position. Cardew has a full set of excellent viewpoints too .... many/most I actually agree with, the only real difference we have is on subsidy, I see it as a temporary necessity which is funded globally in order to accelerate volume production and economies of scale as opposed to being an unaffordable tax aimed uniquely at the UK's poor and elderly.

Without these opposing positions we would likely have no-one to keep many with vested interests in the various renewables industries 'honest' and that's what they do, day in, day out ..... positions and claims should always be open to challenge, if the position stands up to rigerous challenge it probably stands on decent foundations ....

Regarding your friends talking about renewables, see that as a good thing, it's better to talk than not, so enter into the discussions, but listen to all sides and question anything which doesn't make sense, whichever side it comes from ....

HTH
Z

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

This seems wholly unfair, and unkind to all those that have responded to you.

Martyn,

Unfair?


Unkind?


This is an civilised internet forum where grown-ups can put their views as forcibly as they wish; so with respect, I don’t accept any censure from you, or your self-appointed position as some kind of Umpire.

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

Cardew has a full set of excellent viewpoints too .... many/most I actually agree with, the only real difference we have is on subsidy, I see it as a temporary necessity which is funded globally in order to accelerate volume production and economies of scale as opposed to being an unaffordable tax aimed uniquely at the UK's poor and elderly.


HTH
Z

The main thrust of my argument on subsidies, is that for the same level of subsidy,(that we pay) all of your objectives above would be met with output several times higher if we had solar farms.

Martyn1981

Fair enough Cardew, wasn't trying to censure you. Just pointing out that the discussion you couldn't believe was in response to issues you'd raised.

Regardless of whether you intended to start it or not, I thought it was a very good debate and highly enjoyable and informative, so thanks.

Mart.

Martyn1981

Blossom2528 wrote: »

Z thanks. But why do some people not want us to talk about the future and keep complaining. I'm a bit concerned as my friends are too. isn't it right to think ahead.

Why does graham keep attacking what Martyn says. every thread I read he trys to help people like me and gives long answers with information. What is so wrong with renewables. it odesn't sound like we can cope without them.

Thanks Blossom, but don't worry it's all fun in the end. We're actually all BFF's really. As long as you know more at the end than the start then something has always been achieved.

I know you're thinking 5 years ahead about PV, and that should be fine whatever happens.

Either price reductions will have allowed subsidies to be removed. Or,
failure to meet expectations, will result in subsidies being removed.

Even if we only see prices drop from £8k to £6k by then, you'll still have the opportunity to invest long term in PV if you want. You'll just have to weigh up future energy price rises, and the opportunity to lock-in some of your consumption for up to 40 years. I'm sure someone will be around in 2016+ to help with any maths. But it'll be up to you to factor in the personal environmental side of the investment.

Thanks again, and keep reading as Z says.

albyota

martyn1981, If there is no subsidy, what is going to encourage takeup, surely not the lower cost of installation of 4k or 5k, or even the lower generation average of around 1,500 kWh / yr (worth £165) off their annual bill, even at £5,000 for a 3kWp system, this gives ROI of 30 years not counting replacement / repairs or loss of interest. who is that green?