Can we treat the governments policies on saving energy seriously?

Martyn1981

cepheus wrote: »

Developing large scale PV in countries with plenty of Sun has it's merits, sticking PV on roofs in the UK and Germany is most definitely not. A growing and largely fixed proportion of the cost are labour costs for fitting, this tends to be proportionally greater on small scale installations.

Yes, to a degree, but not a huge difference, since PV farms, require lots of work installing the ground mounts, and ground prep, so large scale demand side is the best bet, such as supermarkets etc.

If you look at costs, you'll see that in both Germany and the UK demand side PV has reached and passed socket parity, whilst large scale supply side is still a very long way off grid parity. The trick now is to maximise installs that can make the most use of their generation, improving their economics against a mix of socket (import) and grid (export) income.

You'll also notice, that a subsidy for domestic installs equal to large scale PV .... perhaps 7 to 8p/kWh is actually financially viable for properties in the south (below M4?) with south facing roofs. For new builds, the costs are much lower again.

cepheus wrote: »

Even the more economic renewables are only competitive for low penetration. Once they start to supply more than ten to twenty percent, then the stand by requirement becomes excessive and expensive. Whilst there are some ways around this it requires large scale collaboration and regulations, especially at a continental level, of the type which are an anathema to government ideology.

Very true, we really do need to update and upgrade everything, and that is a hard one to sell.

However my point was to say that if you are knocking PV subsidies in comparison to on-shore wind, then the difference is no longer substantial, and is falling fast. Also PV has recently taken a knock with the EU:China pricing deal.

By the end of this decade, and before any new nuclear reactors come on line (2023?) both technologies should be receiving 15yr CfD's that are lower than the 35yr nuclear CfD. Not that I'm writing off nuclear, since it brings predictability to the table, and that in itself has financial worth.

Back to the chiller doors, I think it was France that recently made this mandatory. Good on them.

Mart.

tunnel

cepheus wrote: »

There is certainly a political component. Offering the illusion of energy self sufficiency with photovoltaics is far more popular than installing large onshore turbines in windy locations which is at least vaguely competitive. If they had offered wind as a commercial concern for the local community rather than an earner for a private company, then things might be different.

QUOTE]


But wind has been offered as a commercial concern for local communities


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20008033




Have a read, some communities embrace it yet some don't(ok, ones in a dip and the other isn't but the thought is there.) Its why solar is popular, people that want to make a difference can, they can wilfully install panels without having to worry about the NIMBYs

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Never let the truth get in the way of anti-PV propaganda I see!


... not that you'd know it listening to those still stuck in 2010, regurgitating the same old nonsense and trying to save face.




Mart.

The objections raised in 2010 are still absolutely valid. Those who installed PV then are now getting close to 50p/kWh in subsidy for each kWh generated; and will be getting this inflation linked for the next 20+ years. They don't even have to export any of that electricity.

The principle is still the same with the lower FIT rates - the Government still 'shifting money from the poor to the middle classes - and Rent a Roof companies' via the Green Levy.

Your preposterous 2010 argument that tiny sub-4kWh systems on roofs dotted all over the country(with little being exported) are more efficient, than large scale solar farms with a lower subsidy and all electricity exported, is equally as silly in 2013.

since PV farms, require lots of work installing the ground mounts,

I bet all those preparing their business plan for solar farms had never thought about that aspect.;) can you really not do better!

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

The objections raised in 2010 are still absolutely valid. Those who installed PV then are now getting close to 50p/kWh in subsidy for each kWh generated; and will be getting this inflation linked for the next 20+ years. They don't even have to export any of that electricity.

I see we have the usual December/Xmas anti PV rants from you.

I pointed out that you are living in the past, and you drag up the original FiT again. I appreciate that you are getting desperate to save face, but quoting the oldest rate, simply illustrates how much the tariff has fallen, and therefore how successful this scheme has been. It's aim was always to launch an industry and lower the costs, which it has.

Come Apr 2014, with only 4 years under its belt, the 6th PV FiT rate will be ~75% less than the first. This is good news, excellent news, fabulous news, despite your attempts at spin.

Cardew wrote: »

The principle is still the same with the lower FIT rates - the Government still 'shifting money from the poor to the middle classes - and Rent a Roof companies' via the Green Levy.

Constantly quoting GM's £8.6bn lie, won't make it true, especially since he doesn't stand by it. Remember the thread that was set up just to point out all the errors for you?

Also, it shouldn't need pointing out that many middle class households without PV are subsidising poorer communities:

Cross Keys launches Peterborough free solar scheme

Forrest agrees £120 million residential ‘free solar’ deal

Cardew wrote: »

Your preposterous 2010 argument that tiny sub-4kWh systems on roofs dotted all over the country(with little being exported) are more efficient, than large scale solar farms with a lower subsidy and all electricity exported, is equally as silly in 2013.

Just to remind you yet again, that I said small scale demand side PV was more 'economically viable' than large scale supply side. I did not say more efficient, nor cheaper, as you are aware.

This is simply understood once you appreciate both the difference in costs, and crucially income. I doubt I need to explain this any more times to you.

I have also asked you several times now, to stop trolling me with these false claims and misrepresentations of what I have said, and I believe, said quite clearly (remember how others tried to explain this to you, too?) Please stop it, you are only embarrassing yourself now.

Cardew wrote: »

I bet all those preparing their business plan for solar farms had never thought about that aspect.;) can you really not do better!

As above, no need to point this out to anyone, as it should be perfectly clear to all, that the differing install methods have differing costs, and I'm sure all of the companies are well aware of it - even if you still aren't.


Roll on January, when you start to cool off again.

Mart.

kevin6666

If all the investment that's gone into renewables had gone into nuclear all of the public would have benefited and we would have long term sustainable power supply with cheaper energy bills. Instead FIT has provided the middle class with a misguided/smug belief that they're in someway helping save the planet and also a nice little money spinner paid for by those who can't afford these systems. You know somethings wrong when farmers have filled their fields with spinning solar panels instead of using them for farming! All these little PV systems are pointless as far as the grid is concerned so we still need proper investment in large scale energy production and renewables just can't cut it.

cepheus

But wind has been offered as a commercial concern for local communities
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20008033

Have a read, some communities embrace it yet some don't(ok, ones in a dip and the other isn't but the thought is there.) Its why solar is popular, people that want to make a difference can, they can wilfully install panels without having to worry about the NIMBYs

doesn't this confirm what I was saying though, that giving the locals a commercial stake in wind turbines is far more likely to be successful? The one which is being opposed is a conventional corporate application.

EricMears

People perhaps overlook the fact that reducing electricity demand is more important than increasing the amount available.

By being paid to generate my own electricity, I am of course encouraged to buy less and indeed my increasing awareness of what I actually use cannot help but further reduce how much I buy.

The 'subsidies' were never intended to reflect the cost of local generation - simply to encourage more people to take part in it.

kevin6666

EricMears wrote: »

People perhaps overlook the fact that reducing electricity demand is more important than increasing the amount available.

By being paid to generate my own electricity, I am of course encouraged to buy less and indeed my increasing awareness of what I actually use cannot help but further reduce how much I buy.

The 'subsidies' were never intended to reflect the cost of local generation - simply to encourage more people to take part in it.

The 'subsides' were introduced because microgen doesn't make economical sense without them. Frankly it doesn't make environmental sense regardless.

Martyn1981

kevin6666 wrote: »

The 'subsides' were introduced because microgen doesn't make economical sense without them. Frankly it doesn't make environmental sense regardless.

Isn't it a tricky tight-rope to walk, to criticise subsidies, and talk about the environment whilst supporting nuclear?

By the end of this decade and certainly by 2023/2025 (when the first new reactors might come on line) large scale on-shore wind and PV 15yr subsidies will be lower than the incoming 35yr nuclear subsidies. This despite the 50 or so years of subsidy support that nuclear has already enjoyed.

And whilst the continued reduction in PV costs around the world, now reflects the roll-out of PV on all scales, the initial cost reductions were largely due to the large volume, of small scale installs in Germany (and Italy).

It's also worth noting that fossil fuels are also subsidised, often through simply not charging for their full and actual impact on the planet. This is estimated at around $1tn pa.

New scientist, this week, ran an article where the health impact of coal generation in Europe is calculated at €43bn per year. With an estimated 1,600 deaths in the UK per year attributed to air pollution from coal-burning power plants.

For context, and I admit this is probably too flawed a calculation, but worth a shot. If UK takes 10% responsibility for those costs, and 35% is then attributed to domestic consumption, then that works out at a hidden subsidy of approx £60pa per UK household. You also see a similar amount, when attributing the NDA's (Nuclear Decommissioning Authority) annual budget down to a household level.

So we seem blithely unaware of what we have been and are still spending on fossil fuels and nuclear, but do like a good moan about the 'new stuff'.

As I've said before, I'm actually a reluctant nuclear supporter, since I value the zero carbon generation, but I don't for one second deny the actual long term costs of nuclear. Nor the fact that in countries with better solar levels than the UK (not hard!) PV is probably already level with, or ahead of new nuclear.

Why people keep using one technology to bash another I'll never know, when we so clearly need a mix of all of them (apart from coal ..... bash, bash, bash! )

Mart.

cepheus

EricMears wrote: »

People perhaps overlook the fact that reducing electricity demand is more important than increasing the amount available.

Indeed, but it doesn't increase GDP which seems to be the irrational goal of all the non-green parties!