Solar PV - Green but not ethical?

grahamc2003

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I'll try my best to explain it to you, but I doubt you will see reason.

.

At last, something you say makes a bit of sense.

I read your 'explanation' and there was no reasoning there whatsoever.

Bearing in mind the enormous gap in educational achievement and directly relevent industry experience between us, do you think it's wise to adopt an extremely misplaced patronising attitude in your posts?

Mind if I try to help a little with your total inability to follow points and give relevent rational answers, and why those who's thought processes are logic based (where debate involves making points and answering points made) rapidly see the pointlessness of trying to put points to you or answer yours?

Take this extract. I posted

'Is solar generation a sensible method of electricity generation in the UK' to which the answer most with any experience of electricity generation who appreciate the implications will answer 'no, not by any stretch of the imagination', but many with no experience will answer 'yes'.

And your specific reply to that point was

There is no longer any need to stretch your imagination, instead simply look to other countries such as Germany to see the beneficial gains that PV and other renewables can bring, to all customers.

Can you see how your response doesn't address the points raised at all and is simply a random, unrelated illogicality in that context? All your responses follow the same lack of logic. Do you see why others as well as myself see the futility of engaging in correcting the many erroneous statements you make in your many many posts? (I'm pretty certain you can't).

celerity

grahamc2003 wrote: »

'Is solar generation a sensible method of electricity generation in the UK' to which the answer most with any experience of electricity generation who appreciate the implications will answer 'no, not by any stretch of the imagination', but many with no experience will answer 'yes'.

Let's forget the FiT for a moment and consider use cases where electricity is predominantly used during daytime hours. For example, schools or offices.

How much would you need to save per year to make the investment worthwhile? Some ballpark figures: 4kWp array for £7.5K over 25 years you would have to save £300 per year. I would say such modest savings are easily achievable. Is my suggested price reasonable? I honestly don't know, I haven't checked the price of panels recently, but I do know they are way cheaper now, which I attribute to the FiT scheme.
As we are forgetting the contentious FiT from our calculations, we are no longer constrained to 4kWp, so could easily scale our example array to 10kWp or more, which will lower the cost per W.

I also haven't factored the inevitable rise in electricity bills over the next quarter of a century, so in practise, the example of £300 per year is likely to rise above inflation on average.

So, it can be seen that we have already reached the point where it can make financial sense for certain organisations to consider solar PV in this country, even without the incentive of the FiT. Would that have still been the case without the boom brought about by the FiT? In my opinion, no. So, looking as objectively at this as I can, I feel the FiT scheme was a success and can honestly say I believe I would feel the same even if I didn't have a suitable roof myself.

Was the FiT implementation flawed and could it have been done in a fairer, more effective manner? Undoubtedly, yes. But even though it was somewhat botched, the benefits are (to me) clear to see.

As well as falling prices, it has increased public awareness, the effect of which should not be discounted. If a business owner or director sees how well the panels perform at home or on their neighbour's house, they are more likely to approve the cheque for their company to install a system.

Going back to the original point of whether solar PV makes sense in the UK, I always feel the people that say no only look at their own use case and ignore the energy needs of larger organisations.
Does solar PV make sense for *individual households* without the FiT? At the moment, and in my opinion, no. But eventually the hope is this will change, and the prices are certainly moving in the right direction.

Seeing as we're all repeating ourselves on this thread anyway, I'll close by saying I very much hope that over the next few years, there are tens of thousands of new PV installations on the roofs of schools, offices, factories, restaurants (etc etc) and the price of panels comes down enough that more households have the opportunity to invest, even with a modest FiT or, eventually, no FiT at all.

/\dam (on an iPad, please excuse any typos)

Cardew

Celerity,

You are not addressing the question the OP asked in this thread.

Nobody is disputing that the 1% who have solar panels - and the owners of Rent a Roof companies - have a lucrative 'investment.'

His question concerns the 99% who pay for their profit. The vast majority of them cannot ever have solar PV. They live in flats, or are tenants or simply have unsuitable roofs.

Yet everyone pays for the 1% profit in increased electricity prices - even - being emotive - the poorest in the land.

I do agree with you that larger solar displays would enable more electricity to be generated for the same money(solar farms) but this was stopped by the Government by dropping the subsidy.

Instead a stupidly high subsidy is paid for tiny systems on roofs dotted around UK, and these people don't even have to export any of their electricity if they can use it in the house.

However the overall objection is that it is(as George Monboit stated) the FIT scheme is a transfer of money from the poor to the well off.

Martyn1981

celerity wrote: »

Let's forget the FiT for a moment and consider use cases where electricity is predominantly used during daytime hours. For example, schools or offices.

Hiya. I ran some similar (FITs free) numbers at Christmas, though I was less optimistic then and only hoped for prices to reach £8k by the end of the Summer. I’ve already seen lots of mentions of £7k to £8k now.

My thoughts were that prices could reach £5k in 5 years time, with electricity price savings and export rates at around 15p and 5p respectively. £5k seems a significant point to me, as we're entering the territory of kitchen / bathroom refits, new GCH, a couple of years car depreciation, or maybe a family fortnight abroad.

A good system (obviously it would be the larger, southern, south facing systems that reach viability first) could earn £300+ pa. Not exactly a lottery win, or a world changing investment, but ok, and as prices rise each year (as you said), the gains increase.

25 years is now a conservative figure for the lifetime of a PV system, 40 years is probably fairer, though performance will probably fall by around 0.25% to 0.5% pa.

Larger systems, definitely, especially as the panel costs become a smaller and smaller percentage of the outlay, and a larger inverter does not add a significant amount. Perhaps instead of a 4kWp system, a 6kWp system mounted across two roofs East and West. Solid generation from (min) 9am to 4pm or (max) 6am to 9pm. Or even a North roof (hard to believe), but if the angle is 30deg or less then generation will be around 60% of South roof, but the additional costs of the larger system should be less than 60% extra.

In fact there are no limits to the variations of domestic and commercial installs that are, and will be possible. Even today, Tesco’s could probably stick a 40kWp system on their roofs for £50k, and consume all of the generation. That might earn them £4k pa or an investment return of 8%, before tax deductions such as depreciation. In 5 years time that cost might be £30k, with higher electricity savings.

You don’t have to look far to see how much has changed in just the last 2 years.

Mart.

celerity

Cardew wrote: »

Celerity,

You are not addressing the question the OP asked in this thread.

I'm addressing a comment by Graham, which is very clearly quoted and on-topic matey .

The OP's question is more complex in my opinion. I've already agreed the FiT isn't as fair as it could have been, so if I had to give a simplistic yes or no answer, I would have to say that it is not ethical.
However, I still feel the benefits outweigh the flaws in the scheme.

Like I say, it's complex, and I think the scale needs to put into perspective. If the FiT added say, £50 per year to every household, I would be against it. If it only added £1 per household I would expect some detractors in here would be for it. I believe the actual cost is about £8 per year, which for me seems fair enough, but I wouldn't criticise someone who disagreed with me.

So, my position is very clear - the FiT was flawed, but better than nothing, and I wholeheartedly endorse the principle of promoting a green micro-generation energy source in this country, for reasons I mentioned previously.

I'd even go further, and say I would prefer our government tried something which is "relatively" cheap like this and have it be a total failure, than try nothing at all. Like I say though, I think it has been a success - history will show whether I'm right or not.

I appreciate you have strongly opposing views, but this is a case where both of us have access to the same data, and have come to different conclusions. Life would be rather boring if that never happened...

/\dam

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Celerity,

You are not addressing the question the OP asked in this thread.

That's is wholly incorrect. Firstly Celerity is addressing Graham's (out-dated) claims that PV can't be viable in the UK.

Secondly the information given suggested the potential of non subsidised PV, which would appear to perfectly address the OP's point, by removing any ethical issues.

If you don't agree with that optimism, then rather than cry foul, you could of course provide some new evidence, science post, news article, accounting report etc that does not agree. But that would, of course, require posting something new, or something relevant to the pricing, production and acceptance levels of PV today, rather than 2 years ago!

Lastly, a few days ago, you yet again claimed that there are other technologies 7 to 9 times more cost effective than PV. Could you expand on that? Times 7 would do if you're pushed for time?

If possible could you please not use a smoke-screen of abuse to evade the questions. Thanks.

Mart.

Blossom2528

Martyn1981 wrote: »

If possible could you please not use a smoke-screen of abuse to evade the questions. Thanks.

Mart.

Wow Mart you are an optimist.
I don't have PV, so usually just read the posts but as I've told you before hopefully when we have enough money we'll get PV even if FIts has gone. I think 5,000 pounds is worth it if you look at it long term. More so if you add in environment gains.
People have mentioned net metering a few times. What if the export was more, then Fits could be less?
Spelling still terrible but taking a little more care!!!!;)

Cardew

Firstly I addressed my post to Celerity who is more than capable of answering; indeed a lot more capable than yourself.

Secondly re the 7 to 9 times more effective; I suggest you read again to see who made the claim - and when!. Try to understand what was written before dashing to operate keyboard!

Thirdly, new points are not required when old points made are still perfectly valid. i.e. The FIT scheme achieves the transfer of wealth from the poor to the well off. 1% gain and 99% pay.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Firstly I addressed my post to Celerity who is more than capable of answering; indeed a lot more capable than yourself.

Secondly re the 7 to 9 times more effective; I suggest you read again to see who made the claim - and when!. Try to understand what was written before dashing to operate keyboard!

Just checked, and you made the claim on 6th April 2012 at 3.34pm. If you post a statement, then it must be assumed that you agree with it, unless you state otherwise!

Cardew wrote: »

Thirdly, new points are not required when old points made are still perfectly valid. i.e. The FIT scheme achieves the transfer of wealth from the poor to the well off. 1% gain and 99% pay.

If the old point is still valid (despite the mixed messages you seem to be giving me), then could you please point me to the technology that is ‘currently’ 7 to 9 times more cost effective than PV? We wouldn’t want any thread readers to be mislead by the use of out of date information.

Go on, say something new backed up by a current reference, please? I’d ask again for you not to hide behind abuse, but it appears that boat sailed in your opening sentence.

Mart.

Martyn1981

Blossom2528 wrote: »

Wow Mart you are an optimist.
I don't have PV, so usually just read the posts but as I've told you before hopefully when we have enough money we'll get PV even if FIts has gone. I think 5,000 pounds is worth it if you look at it long term. More so if you add in environment gains.
People have mentioned net metering a few times. What if the export was more, then Fits could be less?
Spelling still terrible but taking a little more care!!!!;)

Hiya Blossom, haven't heard from you for a while. Yes I'm a hopeless optimist, and it appears you were right! Oh well.

Net metering comes up quite a lot, and could resolve most of the issues here. Winding a meter backwards (more likely having a smart meter installed) would mean PV making savings against tier 1 prices as well as tier 2, so for an average house consumption, larger PV installs could possibly save £400 or so pa, making an install subsidy free viable now(ish).

But whilst most people would probably find less objection with this approach, it would still be subsidised since PV'ers wouldn't be contributing as much (or at all) to grid and manangement (of accounts) costs.

A first step I feel would be to bump up the export rate by a couple of pence, and drop the FIT by a couple. PV'ers would lose out, but the scheme quickly becomes over generous with price reductions after each review anyway.

If the export rate is supposed to reflect the cost of the electricity, then shouldn't it be linked to energy inflation, rather than general inflation. Electricity went up 15% last year (+20 followed by -5), that would have lifted export rates from 3.1p to 3.6p, rather than 3.2488p rounded down! A reduction in prices would quite rightly cause a reduction in export rate, regardless of overall inflation.

Mart.