Solar PV Feed In Tariffs - Good or Bad?

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

There has never been any argument about solar panels working or not; and their outputs are not disputed.

Similarly there is no criticism of house owners fitting solar systems.

The debate is about their effectiveness and the wisdom of paying huge subsidies, paid for by all electricity customers, to a tiny proportion of house owners and venture capitalists owning Rent a roof companies.

Well now, that wouldn't be entirely true would it.

I seem to remember 1 or 2 (or 50) posts claiming that generation is tiny (ignoring the fact that PV is new) and that they only generate when electricity is both cheap and plentiful. Hardly a debate, more mis-information and anti renewables propaganda.

Now a debate on subsidies, that's a great idea, we all subsidise things we don't like or don't use, but that's life in a semi-socialist country and continent. I have no issue with this tiny subsidy, which in total will work out at about 1/4 of the cost of the new HS2 train line.

However, underhand methods to spread fictitious ulterior motives, or unprovoked attacks on a woman for having the audacity to read, yes shock horror, read these threads - well, that kind of rubbish I'll leave to Don to sort out. Oh I see he's already nailed it in his last post!

The sun's out and it's all good.

jamesingram

Cardew, How does PV subsides compare with other such government back business stimulation schemes with regard to profit of the few at the expense of the larger population?

I was under the impression ( perhaps wrongly) that this sort of activity has gone on regularly through out our recent economic times ( 100 year +market capitalism ? )
When an industry or service is subsidised, there will always be those that unfairly ( or fairly , depending on your view of the value of capital investment ) profit from it .
To me it seems strange that for a change its also included those lower down the chain , the people installing it on thier home, rather than just big busniess an its share holders, that have been allowed to benefit.

As to the best way to spend our money for a given result , the first question would be , what is the result we're looking for ?

If its to develope mircogeneration as a very small part of the UK energy mix , then it seems effect (though expensive)
If its to increase the percentage of UKs low carbon energy production then perhaps it may of been better spent.
But the question what result do you think we're looking for with these subsidise?

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I'll leave to Don to sort out. Oh I see he's already nailed it in his last post!

With your logic in postings you and 'Don' are ideal partners.

grahamc2003

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Well now, that wouldn't be entirely true would it.

I seem to remember 1 or 2 (or 50) posts claiming that generation is tiny (ignoring the fact that PV is new) and that they only generate when electricity is both cheap and plentiful. Hardly a debate, more mis-information and anti renewables propaganda.

.

Perhaps someone said that because solar generation is tiny, and that solar only generates when generation is both cheap and plentiful? In which case it's not misinformation and not propaganda. In which case your post definately is misinformation.

Of course, you may not view the total annual output of home solar being generated by a single power station every few minutes as being tiny, but I supsect most would.

Geeration costs are cheap at night, a little more expensive around midday, and extremely expensive early evening in the winter.

When smart meters come along and the electricity price set for each half hour period, the value of midday solar output will be more visible, rather than invisible at the moment. You may get 2 or 3p/kwh for your solar, but you'll be charged ime 50p-100p/kwh for electricity used a few hours later at 5pm in December.

Cardew

jamesingram wrote: »

Cardew, How does PV subsides compare with other such government back business stimulation schemes with regard to profit of the few at the expense of the larger population?

I was under the impression ( perhaps wrongly) that this sort of activity has gone on regularly through out our recent economic times ( 100 year +market capitalism ? )
When an industry or service is subsidised, there will always be those that unfairly ( or fairly , depending on your view of the value of capital investment ) profit from it .
To me it seems strange that for a change its also included those lower down the chain , the people installing it on thier home, rather than just big busniess an its share holders, that have been allowed to benefit.

As to the best way to spend our money for a given result , the first question would be , what is the result we're looking for ?

If its to develope mircogeneration as a very small part of the UK energy mix , then it seems effect (though expensive)
If its to increase the percentage of UKs low carbon energy production then perhaps it may of been better spent.
But the question what result do you think we're looking for with these subsidise?

I am quite happy to have a grown-up debate on the issue and your points in particular – not a practice that some posters find easy.

Yes there are always cases of Government subsidies to many branches of industry. In the case of Energy, we can take Nuclear as an example. Whatever the merits/demerits of Nuclear the subsidy is paid by the Taxpayer to enable cheaper production of electricity from which all electricity customers benefit.

In the case of solar the subsidy is paid by all electricity customers in higher bills – being emotive, including the poorest in our society, pensioners etc. It is paid to those who are home owners and can afford the £10,000+ for an installation or venture capitalists funding Rent a Roof companies who have found a loophole in the regulations to claim a subsidy intended for individuals.

There are some 200,000 < 4kWp installations – roughly 1% of the properties in UK. Many of these are the property of Rent a Roof companies(one company alone has over 10,000) so this subsidy is going to less than 1% of the population.

On the principle of solar FIT the thoughts of the Environmentalist anmd Champion of ‘all things Green’ – George Monbiot are worth reading.

Those who hate environmentalism have spent years looking for the definitive example of a great green rip-off. Finally it arrives, and nobody notices. The government is about to shift £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes. It expects a loss on this scheme of £8.2bn, or 95%. Yet the media is silent. The opposition urges only that the scam should be expanded.

On 1 April the government introduces its feed-in tariffs. These oblige electricity companies to pay people for the power they produce at home. The money will come from their customers in the form of higher bills. It would make sense, if we didn't know that the technologies the scheme will reward are comically inefficient..............


In other words, the government acknowledges that micro wind and solar PV in the UK are between seven and nine times less cost-effective than the alternatives.

Well the Government have decided that we are to have solar PV electricity. I hardly could think of a less cost effective method of spending the subsidy that we all pay. To give huge subsidies for people to put tiny systems, on often unsuitable roofs, in far flung locations is bad enough. However instead of all that very high priced electricity being exported, to add insult to injury owners can use as much of that electricity in their own house, theoretically nothing need be exported for the £1,500+ they can be paid.

If solar must be used, then it makes sense to generate it in large solar farms – that export all generated electricity – and pay a much lower subsidy. That way for the same subsidy, that we all pay, we get more green electricity generated.

zeupater

albyota wrote: »

I take your point ze, re flash testing on the production line, it is amazing how easily one (me) can be misinformed, I take it that its only when a modification/new model, Wattage, Module, Frame, Glass, forces a new certificate...?

Hi

That's right, they're testing compliance to specification from submitted samples and providing performance data for/and approval certificates, many/most industries refer to this as being 'homologation'.

Regarding 'wattage' .... pv manufacturers will push product down the production line without being sure what will come out at the other end, the flash test measures the nominal performance of the panel after which it will be allocated a part number, that's why the manufacturers have a range of panels (235W/245W/250W etc ..) available in the same physical package.

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Perhaps someone said that because solar generation is tiny, and that solar only generates when generation is both cheap and plentiful? In which case it's not misinformation and not propaganda. In which case your post definately is misinformation.

Of course, you may not view the total annual output of home solar being generated by a single power station every few minutes as being tiny, but I supsect most would.

Geeration costs are cheap at night, a little more expensive around midday, and extremely expensive early evening in the winter.

When smart meters come along and the electricity price set for each half hour period, the value of midday solar output will be more visible, rather than invisible at the moment. You may get 2 or 3p/kwh for your solar, but you'll be charged ime 50p-100p/kwh for electricity used a few hours later at 5pm in December.

If only the national grid new what you know!

Last 24 hours:

http://www.nationalgrid.com/ngrealtime/realtime/realtime1daylarge.aspx

Do you think anyone is buying your nonsense? Does the phrase 'working 9 to 5' ring any bells? How many more times can you keep stating this dis-information? When will you ever reference your claims?

Mart.

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

That's right, they're testing compliance to specification from submitted samples and providing performance data for/and approval certificates, many/most industries refer to this as being 'homologation'.

Regarding 'wattage' .... pv manufacturers will push product down the production line without being sure what will come out at the other end, the flash test measures the nominal performance of the panel after which it will be allocated a part number, that's why the manufacturers have a range of panels (235W/245W/250W etc ..) available in the same physical package.

HTH
Z

Z - I've heard exactly the same. Semi standard panels that get rated according to output testing. Sounds quite logical really.

M.

grahamc2003

Martyn1981 wrote: »

If only the national grid new what you know!

Last 24 hours:

http://www.nationalgrid.com/ngrealtime/realtime/realtime1daylarge.aspx

Do you think anyone is buying your nonsense? Does the phrase 'working 9 to 5' ring any bells? How many more times can you keep stating this dis-information? When will you ever reference your claims?

Mart.

Congratulations on being able to cut and paste that graph.

Could you respond to the points you disagree with in my post in actual words rather than the trailing 24hour demand curve, which, while some probably think vey impressive, being a graph and all that, doesn't address any of the points I made. For example, are you saying - for reasons unknown - the peak demand isn't early evening in winter?

A little colder today than yesterday on average, wasn't it.

Also, is there any particular department in NGC which you think doesn't know what I know? They had a library of sorts where all the NGC expert group reports I participated in were stored, so I expect they (whoever 'they' are) do know really.

HalloweenJack

how did linking the nation grid website constitute copy/pasting a graph? thats real time data....

the national grid seem to disagree with your `opinion` , and since they are the industry they would know.....