Solar PV Feed In Tariffs - Good or Bad?

ed110220

grahamc2003 wrote: »

For example, are you saying - for reasons unknown - the peak demand isn't early evening in winter?

You seem to be constructing a classic straw-man argument of one single peak demand on winter early evenings that an electricity source has to supply in order to be useful, when in reality demand is well above baseload for all of the time that solar is active.

If solar panels were producing from 11pm-4am you'd have a point, but they're not.

grahamc2003

ed110220 wrote: »

You seem to be constructing a classic straw-man argument of one single peak demand on winter early evenings that an electricity source has to supply in order to be useful, when in reality demand is well above baseload for all of the time that solar is active.

If solar panels were producing from 11pm-4am you'd have a point, but they're not.

Sorry, I'm not sure of the point you are making.

Yes, solar will give a bit of energy during the day, which is more valuable than at night, but nowhere near as valuable as at the peak.

The industry is currently and in the coming years spending billions on attempting to lower demand at the peak. That's basically what smart meters and variable opricing will do, along with contracts to large industrial users allowing ngc to effectively reduce power when required.

Maybe - a longshot I admit - ngc and the iindustry have got it wrong in lowering the peak, and the industry experts on here who have googled for at least 20 minutes, are correct?

It's quite simple really - reliable dispatchable capacity has to satisfy demand at the peak (plus contingency). Capacity is very expensive in this capital intensive industry. Much of the cost of generation is the funding of the capacity. Lowering the peak lowers the need for an incremental station, possibly saving billions in build costs. Even if the UK were covered in solar panels it would deliver nothing at the peak, so we need other generation which does. And if we have that other generation, we don't need the uk covered in solar panels. Our choice is to spend billions on new reliable capacity (to replace the capacity about to be decomissioned in the near future), or we spend billions (or whatever the solar budget is) on solar, plus exactly the same billions on the reliable capacity. I'm quite environmental and dislike the mega resource wastage of that situation.

As to generation - well the fact we have recently been paying 40 times the market value for imported solar power speaks for itself.

Meanwhile, the number in so called fuel poverty (with all the implications of the misery that indicates) rises every day.

Martyn1981

Ok, I need to check something here Graham.

I've been assuming all along that your constant digs at PV of only generating when electricity is cheap and clean, were you spreading dis-information. Possibly for the purposes of fun.

however, it's starting to dawn on me today, that you might actually believe this, and that you think it's PV's responsibility to solve the winter evening peak, as opposed to specialists, such as pumped storage like Dinorwig.

I don't want to get a reputation for 'kicking puppies' or anything similar, so if you really believe that 8am to 4pm is not above baseload, and the national grid are wrong and you are right, then it might be kinder if we all stopped correcting you, constantly, since your health is probably more important than a silly argument aimed at improving your knowledge.

I think PV generation to daytime loading is evident to all of the rest of us (and the NG), so maybe we should just leave him to it?

Mart.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

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.

I'm not sure if you are accidentally or deliberately misrepresenting this subsidy.

Unsuitable roofs - why does that keep concerning you? The subsidy for installation costs is paid on a generation basis, unit by unit. A less suitable roof would receive less funding. Nothing for you to worry about there.

Nothing need be exported - correct again, that is why this comes under micro-generation, not macro-generation. The government wants people to take on some responsibility for their own electricity demand (PV provides negative demand). If nothing is exported, then the system is surely more efficient. The installation of smart meters, would identify this, and no export subsidy (3.1p) would be paid. Nothing for you to worry about there.

Regarding pensioners - they are extremely well looked after through the Green Tariff, as they rightly should be, and all of the free improvements it brings. Nothing for you to worry about there.

PV farms - been answered tirelessly by many for months. Re-asking every couple of days on varying threads, odd?

Every time you attack PV and PV subsidies, you approach it on a 'today' basis. If we were only looking at today, we wouldn't have PV, nor a subsidy. Failing to see the big picture, is failure to grasp the whole point of this, or any subsidy for that matter. We are investing in the industry for tomorrow, why would you not want us to have as many tools as possible in our toolbox?

The continued roll-out of PV, with lower and lower subsidies, then with no subsidies, could lead to 10% or even 20% (circa 2025) reduction in electrical demand during the hours of 8am to 4pm (6am to 9pm in high summer). This is the period when the most electricity is consumed during the day, on average (8am to 8pm).

All of this could post subsidies, be achieved through private money. We would all benefit as the reduction in annual demand will improve the price via supply and demand economics, or at the very least, help to slow down further rises. E.g. If 50% of those households with poorly performing gas boilers, spent their own money on installing more efficient models, then the reduction in demand (over all) for gas, would improve the price for the other 50%. Big picture economics.

In government spending terms, this is a very, very small budget, but could bring an extremely large amount of supply (via negative demand), during the key daytime hours.

I'll leave the 6pm winter peak, to it's specialists, this is not, nor ever has been the task of PV. It is simply a distraction, a red herring, a pointless point!

Thank you.

Mart.

John_Pierpoint

Have we mentioned the need to build "a second national grid" as coal tended to generate electricity over coal fields and renewables tend to work best in Western coastal or mountainous situations.
Do we lose 10 - 15% of the power heating the toes of the birds sitting on the wires?
PV might just manage to help in this situation?

grahamc2003

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Have we mentioned the need to build "a second national grid" as coal tended to generate electricity over coal fields and renewables tend to work best in Western coastal or mountainous situations.
Do we lose 10 - 15% of the power heating the toes of the birds sitting on the wires?
PV might just manage to help in this situation?

Hi John, quite a few points there. It's not really a second grid we will build, just pretty large expansion of the current grid. The cost is in the billions for the projected offshore windfarms. It's not simply the (incredibly) high cost of 'bringing the electricity to the shore' (as you know), but also the cost of ensuring resulting transmission constraints are minimised due to the effect of a large capacity (note capacity, not generation) connected at a single node, on the very edge of the network. Here again, the grids will be upgraded to handle the maximum capacity of the windfarm, and yet it will rarely deliver that, often producing nothing at all, so the rate of utilisation of that expensive resource will be low.

Regarding solar (and any local generation) - then yes, when it generates there'll be no transmission losses, obviously. The overall effect? Well, given that last year, Drax produced the total yearly prodution of home generated solar every 12 minutes (on average). Maybe next year, it may take 20 minutes for Drax to produce the annual home solar output, but you get my drift. So you tell me - how much transmission loss will be avoided in total? It's a little like saying we can lower the high tide of the Atlantic Ocean by taking out a drop of sea water - while true, it doesn't really help much, especially if it costs £1500 for every drop removed for 25 years.

As to reducing the grid expansion - well, no, solar won't affect that on eiota. Not because the solar output is within the noise, but because it doesn't generate at the peak, and it's the peak which everything around the grid is designed. Lower the peak, and there are enormous benefits for everybody and the environment.

Martyn1981

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Regarding solar (and any local generation) - then yes, when it generates there'll be no transmission losses, obviously. The overall effect? Well, given that last year, Drax produced the total yearly prodution of home generated solar every 12 minutes (on average). Maybe next year, it may take 20 minutes for Drax to produce the annual home solar output, but you get my drift. So you tell me - how much transmission loss will be avoided in total? It's a little like saying we can lower the high tide of the Atlantic Ocean by taking out a drop of sea water - while true, it doesn't really help much, especially if it costs £1500 for every drop removed for 25 years.

12 mins, interesting, very interesting, and there was me suggesting you sometimes misrepresent the real figures.

Others of course may not be as trusting as me. In fact some might even suggest that you are out by nearly 1000:1

But what would a simple googler like me know?

Mart.

HalloweenJack

Drax also happens to be the largest coal fired power station in western europe @ 3960 mw.......

its also going bankrupt (again)

as well as coal it burns biomass , and a 12 turbine wind farm is under consent next to it

Martyn1981

HalloweenJack wrote: »

Drax also happens to be the largest coal fired power station in western europe @ 3960 mw.......

its also going bankrupt (again)

as well as coal it burns biomass , and a 12 turbine wind farm is under consent next to it

HJ - also the UK's biggest emitter of CO2, despite attempts to burn more bio-mass. And Europe's single largest emitter of NOx. Lovely place! Real poster child for the UK's energy supply image.

There have been plans to install carbon capture and storage (CCS), but the cost is frightening. Difficult to get exact numbers, but I think CCS pushes the predicted cost of coal generated electricity past that of on-shore wind. Need a hell of a lot of wind though, reminds me of most of my posts!

Mart.

grahamc2003

Martyn1981 wrote: »

12 mins, interesting, very interesting, and there was me suggesting you sometimes misrepresent the real figures.

Others of course may not be as trusting as me. In fact some might even suggest that you are out by nearly 1000:1

But what would a simple googler like me know?

Mart.

Time to put up or shut up Martin.

Show your logic showing my statement that drax generated in 12 minutes the total annual output last year of all home solar is a factor of 1000 out.

If you can't, or want to weasel out of your statement, tell me who the 'some' who would suggest that are, and I'll ask them.

As to what a googler such as you would know about the electricity supply industry - well that is clear for all to see.

(PS Mart, there's nothing wrong with being ignorant about certain things. We are all mostly ignorant about most things, and all know quite a bit about a few things. For example, I know next to nothing of brain surgery or what bank clerks do. But then again, I don't spend 10 minutes googling the topics and then tell brain surgeons and bank clerks that they are talking cr*p when talking about brain surgery or bank clerking).