Does anyone here have an ideological objection to Solar?

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

No I don't. A commercial install such as you describe would be much cheaper, perhaps £1,000/kWp as opposed to say £1,400/kWp for domestic (my guesses). And for a year now I've been arguing that such installs are the most viable, being cheaper, having little to no running costs (like domestic) and benefitting from a very high consumption rate, so saving money against the retail cost of leccy.

.

Leopard and spots come to mind.

You have argued, with little logic, that domestic sub-4kWp systems on houses dotted all over UK was the way to go!

Energetic_2

Here we go again...

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Leopard and spots come to mind.

You have argued, with little logic, that domestic sub-4kWp systems on houses dotted all over UK was the way to go!

Still struggling to keep up I see!

In viability terms:
1. Commercial installs.
2. Domestic installs.
3. PV farms.

Show me where I've said different?

Quote from 1 year ago:

Martyn1981 wrote: »

1. Retail prices are easier to approach than wholesale prices.

But the sub 4kWp installation has a tougher fight than a commercial installation in the 10 to 50 range due to consumption of generated units

2. You may be right that a solar farm can produce at half the price, I don't honestly know. But the annual running costs may have a large effect on this. Plus even at 25% consumption, a domestic system (1/4 retail price savings and 3/4 wholesale export earnings) breakeven price target is twice that of the farm.

All of this is subjective however. If the aim is to remove subsidies, then commercial may be the start we needed. If maximum generation of clean energy is the target, and fast, then investment in PV farms, where they are most economical.

Hope that helps.

Mart.

So as I have consistently argued, for viability domestic is ahead of farms (but not commercial). But if your only aim is to maximise generation from within the original subsidy pot - with no consideration for long term goals nor lifetime costs - then PV farms.

Since you seem obsessed with the subsidy, shouldn't we be aiming for long-term progress, rather than short term gains?

Just because you change your arguments (each and every time they are shown to be baseless and un-researched) doesn't mean I do.

Mart.

Edit: should say that I assumed you were trying to insult me - para 2, inconsistency. Rather than paying me a compliment - para 1, consistency. If I've got it the wrong way round, then I apologise, but perhaps you could try to be a little more clear / consistent within your posts? M.

Martyn1981

doughnutmachine wrote: »

yeah, i agree solar power cant be that far from non subsidised viability.

i seem to see a lot of domestic systems with less than perfect set ups: ie shade from neighbouring trees/ buildings, roof slope not at optimum angle, and not facing south (as you mention). it would just seem better to have solar panels in locations where these problems can be overcome.

To maximise the use of the kit (and the investment behind it), you're right, but remember that the subsidy is paid out on a unit generated basis. So it's the invester, not the subsidy payer that loses out.

So a 'less than perfect' set-up (like mine in fact), receives exactly the same amount of FIT and export per unit generated as would a southern based, south facing system. But as I get less units per year per kWp installed (than an ideal install) I simply get less return on the money I invested. Or, to put it another way, the ideal set-ups, get more. Seems fair to me.

As you say, viability can't be that far away for domestic systems, but obviously, it'll be the more southerly, south facing, higher percentage of generation consuming, properties that reach that point first. And east/west roofed houses in the bottom of a Scottish valley that reach it last, if at all!

Mart.

Edit: Not being pedantic, but you may find it interesting that roof slope is not that important. There is an optimum angle for maximum annual generation (around 35deg) but the difference from 20deg to 50deg is very, very small. In fact it might even be a benefit to have differing angles as generation through the year will vary, with steep panels outperforming shallow panels in the winter, and vice versa in the summer. M.

doughnutmachine

Energetic wrote: »

Hi Money Savers,

I am a renewable energy installer. I want to stress that i am not here to try to get work directly or promote my company. I'm a bit frustrated that the national media has become so anti renewables so I am here to answer questions, promote renewable technologies generally and hopefully dispel myths that renewables are 'so 2011'...

Lots of people, including many people who had PV installed last year believe solar has been killed off by the current feed in tariff. I am here to tell you that this is NOT THE CASE. Returns are still in the 10 - 15% region as installation prices have dropped significantly. We've recently requoted a customer from early summer last year and the returns are better now than they were then.

maybe the media are anti renewable because the PV installers are making big fat profits on installations? i bet every time the fit is dropped the pv installers will somehow manage to drop their price....

dont get me wrong, i'm all for green energy, however solar isnt going to keep many houses warm on a cold winters night...

The_Green_Hornet

doughnutmachine wrote: »

dont get me wrong, i'm all for green energy, however solar isnt going to keep many houses warm on a cold winters night...

Maybe not but your annual FIT payments will...

...mmmm toastie.

Martyn1981

doughnutmachine wrote: »

maybe the media are anti renewable because the PV installers are making big fat profits on installations? i bet every time the fit is dropped the pv installers will somehow manage to drop their price....

Hiya DM, remember that there is a 'chicken or the egg' situation here. Tariffs get cut each time that PV installs become too profitable (cheaper), ie the income to cost ratio grows. If installers really wanted to make big fat profits, they would form a cartel and maintain high prices, leading to smaller returns for householders.

The situation we have now, is that the potential returns for householders are again growing larger, as install prices are reduced, but the subsidy remains the same (Ok down from 16p to 15.44p in Nov).

The current review process is quite logical, it is based each qtr on the number of installs. The tariff is reduced proportionately. So as prices drop, returns rise, installs rise and the tariff is cut further.

As to who to blame for prices, well first prices have fallen dramatically, so is a blame game necessary, but if householders blame installers, installers will blame wholesalers, and wholesalers will blame manufacturers. Whether or not any one is to blame, what we have seen since January is a price reduction on installs of approximately 45%.

doughnutmachine wrote: »

dont get me wrong, i'm all for green energy, however solar isnt going to keep many houses warm on a cold winters night...

Without some additional storage means, solar will keep 'no' houses warm. But please be careful, you can't criticise PV for failing to do something that it has never claimed to do in the first place.

If you were considering road transport alternatives on that basis, then very quickly, all methods would be rejected:

Motorbikes can't carry 5 people in comfort on a long journey - dismiss.

Cars can't carry one person, very economically, and get through congestion and jams, whilst almost guaranteeing a parking spot at the other end - dismiss.

and so on.

Instead you need to focus on the positives that each product brings to the table, otherwise you'll catch that lazy British disease of only pointing out the negatives (which is easy), rather than considering the positives (which takes more effort).

Taking this even further (apologies I tend to do this), you can even review whether one persons criticism is a negative or a positive. Consider, PV (with current technology) will probably in the UK only ever supply 10% to 15% of our leccy. But, when you consider where it's generated, and when, you then realise that those levels will be consumed immediately, at or near source, with little alteration to our current grid, and without any need to consider storage (the bane of variable supply renewables).

Whereas with wind, which has far greater potential in the UK, you will need to consider grid reinforcement, grid extensions and storage in order to reach it's potential.

Mart.

doughnutmachine

"remember that there is a 'chicken or the egg' situation here"

people have said on this thread that solar needed fits to encourage economies of scale so that solar would go down in price, it just seems to me that fits is in fact keeping the price of solar up... i also doubt solar power needed subsidies to come down in price, most electronic goods start expensive and come down in price over time (just look at tellys)

"Without some additional storage means, solar will keep 'no' houses warm. But please be careful, you can't criticise PV for failing to do something that it has never claimed to do in the first place."

but why should we be encouraging power generation by a method that doesnt provide power when we need it most? there are other green power methods that do provide power at peak times ie tidal/ hydro and anaerobic gas. i'd rather fits supported them more.

the only way solar really works is if a method of storing electricity is found or smart metering encourages consumers to use electricity when there is a surplus (ie cheaper electricity when the sun is shining)

Cardew

[QUOTE=doughnutmachine;58116325

"Without some additional storage means, solar will keep 'no' houses warm. But please be careful, you can't criticise PV for failing to do something that it has never claimed to do in the first place."

but why should we be encouraging power generation by a method that doesnt provide power when we need it most? [/QUOTE]

You really mustn't use logic in this part of the MSE forum.;)

Martyn1981

doughnutmachine wrote: »

people have said on this thread that solar needed fits to encourage economies of scale so that solar would go down in price, it just seems to me that fits is in fact keeping the price of solar up... i also doubt solar power needed subsidies to come down in price, most electronic goods start expensive and come down in price over time (just look at tellys)

I think you've answered your own point there, PV prices came down when production went up. Production went up dramatically when PV FITs (internationally) were launched. If you look at PV prices, you'll see the incredible drop in prices that was a result.

Totally agree about electronic goods falling, and PV would have done the same, but over a longer time period. Normally that would make perfect economic sense, with normal market forces dictating. However, due to the problem of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) the world couldn't wait, so the market was artificially altered, mostly by the richer nations.

I don't follow how FITs has kept prices up, given that PV costs/watt have fallen about 80% over the last 10 years?

doughnutmachine wrote: »

but why should we be encouraging power generation by a method that doesnt provide power when we need it most? there are other green power methods that do provide power at peak times ie tidal/ hydro and anaerobic gas. i'd rather fits supported them more.

Why wouldn't you encourage it? As I explained previously, if it does the job it's designed to do perfectly, why wouldn't you want this tool in your CO2 fighting toolbox too?

If you look at the Grids live demand graph:

http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/Data/Realtime/Demand/demand24.htm

you'll see that demand during PV generation, approx 9am to 3pm winter, and 6am to 8pm summer, is substantially above baseload. So all PV generation matches high leccy demand, even if all high leccy demand doesn't match PV generation.

FITs does support micro-hydro too, but the other larger schemes, including large scale PV are supported elsewhere (ROCs I think?). So PV doesn't distract from the others. Also, as discussed yesterday, PV has dropped so much (thanks to FITs ) that it has moved from the back of the renewables field right up to the front, and is becoming viable, even on a grid supply only basis (the toughest challenge), in many countries.

doughnutmachine wrote: »

the only way solar really works is if a method of storing electricity is found or smart metering encourages consumers to use electricity when there is a surplus (ie cheaper electricity when the sun is shining)

It's only when you reach German like scales of PV, approx 30GW now, and an intention to go up to about 50GW+, that storage becomes an issue. As mentioned previously, since PV generation matches demand so perfectly, there really is no need for storage. PV's role should really be seen as a daytime gas reducer. It just gets on with it's job, ticking along nicely.

Smart metering could be a real plus for PV, especially if it incorporated variable tariff rates. But hopefully PV already performs this role a bit, as it encourages those with PV to put devices such as washing machines, dishwashers on during the daytime. Personally we use a slow-cooker a lot now, consuming approx 150W each hour in use, for a nice evening meal.

The big picture, for PV, is very bright and sunny, if you'll excuse the pun.

Mart.