Does anyone here have an ideological objection to Solar?

Cardew

ILoveSolarMe wrote: »

Instead of posting inane, pointless comments

Try using reasoned argument backed up by interesting information like others here

Anyone else concur?

Why don't you go back in the different threads and read some of the nonsense posted. Reasoned argument??

The start point for some posters is that 'I have solar and must defend my position and to hell with any logic'

However with your user name it doesn't seem that you will approach any discussion with an open mind.

As for a rather pathetic plea for people to 'concur' I am sure you will get plenty of 'Thanks' - to help your score I have thanked you myself!

The_Green_Hornet

Now now IloveSolarMe have you not learnt anything?

If you engage a troll in conversation you will never ever get rid of them.

Just stick them on your ignore list and move on.

Martyn1981

The_Green_Hornet wrote: »

Now now IloveSolarMe have you not learnt anything?

If you engage a troll in conversation you will never ever get rid of them.

Just stick them on your ignore list and move on.

I know you're right, but it just seems sad to leave such nonsense unchallenged. And just to stand by whilst such a campaign is run on this site.

Maybe this will be the last year of such sillyness, since 2012 is probably the year that all of the wheels fell off Team GC's bandwagon.

I guess what I find so strange is why anyone would spend so much time promoting an argument, then when cornered, simply deny their own position.

EG, recently when Zeup totally dismantled Cardew's 'let's have all the PV in the S. West, and with a 20p tariff (that he made up) double it' argument. His escape route, was to challenge Zeup for calling 'all PV' Multi GW, a particular combination of characters that he hadn't used. Wow!

Or the whole year he has spent arguing with me that subsidy payers don't get the benefit of any units consumed on site by domestic PV, (an entirely false, but rabble rousing claim) despite the fact that the grid gets the benefit of the offset units.

His defence, that he never said it!

denying it here:

Cardew wrote: »

You keep going on about offsetting import - which has never been disputed. I note you haven't found the statements you attribute to me on that subject

and denying it again here

Cardew wrote: »

You have really 'lost it'.

You have 'accused' me of stating;

"It is Cardew's math trick that I object too, where he has for years claimed that a unit generated and consumed (as per normal) does not benefit the grid "

Now just find where I have made such a statement and post it here.

Though, oddly, later in the same post he states it??????

Cardew wrote: »

Can you not understand that the objection to FIT is that we(the electricity consumer) pay huge subsidies for houses to produce electricity and, in theory, none of it could reach the grid.

It is a matter of value for electricity consumers.

So why post this argument a year ago:

Cardew wrote: »

If we were to make a true comparison with solar, don't forget that 25% or even 50% of the electricity generated is used in the house and not exported. So take one of the people who claim to use 50% of generated electricity in the house. For every 2 kWh they generate we presently pay them 86.6p + 3.1p = 89.7p. However they only export 1kWh so we, the electricity consumer are paying 89.7p/kWh for electricity.

and repeat it shortly after:

Cardew wrote: »

Whilst I see no point in your guess at figures, in your posts you ignore the fact, as stated above, that electricity isn't being exported to the grid for the FIT price. If someone uses 50% of their generated electricity in their house, each exported kWh costs over double the FIT rate.

So if the FIT was 21p/kWh, each exported kWh, in house using 50% of their generated electricity, would cost US (the electricity consumer) 45.1p/kWh.

Using 25% in the house, each exported kWh would cost us 31p/kWh.

I guess MSE is sadly being used to argue in a lawyer / politician way, rather than with simple, logical, accurate, honest and consistent information. This is not something I have seen elsewhere (short of a Daily Mail comments page).

Let's hope 2013 brings some sunshine and clarity.

Mart.

Martyn1981

doughnutmachine wrote: »

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

Hiya DM, been thinking some more about this, and a couple of things sprang to mind, carbon & infrastructure costs.

Looking at a few companies breakdowns of their leccy bills, they seem to be suggesting that approx 55% of the total bill is for purchasing leccy. So if a unit (all in) costs about 15p, then the cost of a supplied unit would be approx 8.25p. Deduct the oft quoted wholesale cost per unit of 4.5p, and we get 3.75p which presumably is the cost of building (and financing) the plant.

Next consider carbon costs, the assessment of the actual cost to us of releasing CO2, which is (I believe) approx £70/tonne. So with PV replacing some gas consumption, that should be ..... modern gas plant approx 0.4T/MWh = £70*0.4 = £28/MWh, or approx 3p/kWh.

So the savings to the leccy company of domestic PV generation might be (and I probably need Zeup's help with this) about 6.5p/kWh.

The next question therefore is could a southern based south facing install be viable, on a 6.5p subsidy, plus export earnings, plus leccy savings?

So let's say 4,000kWh's pa, with only a 35% consumption rate =

4000@ 6.5p = £260
2600@ 4.5p = £117
leccy savings = £150 (approx)

Total = £527pa against an investment of approx £6k or less.

We might already be there? Depends if and when (and how) carbon costs are applied to leccy generation.

Mart.

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

....

4000@ 6.5p = £260
2600@ 4.5p = £117
leccy savings = £150 (approx)

Total = £527pa against an investment of approx £6k or less.

We might already be there? Depends if and when (and how) carbon costs are applied to leccy generation ...

Hi

I don't think that the above would be seen as being a fair comparison if you were to sit back and consider what has been overlooked .... fixed overheads need to be taken into account, not taken out of the equation.

Whether you're looking at pv or windfarms, unless there is a national centralised strategy for large-scale energy storage (pumped ?) or a serious breakthrough in battery technology, there will still be the need for traditional generation capacity which, although standing idle or ticking over for long periods, still needs to be financed - it's effectively a form of asset depreciation ..... halving the generation from these sources simply results in doubling the recovery rate per unit supplied .... this applied equally for all other fixed costs such as administration, transmission/delivery infrastructure etc ...

With national pv installed capacity in the range of 1.5 - 2.0GW it really is pretty insignificant, however, scale that up to the level of pv penetration in the German energy market and it would become quite a problem with generation from expensive assets becoming unnecessary for long periods thus making the sources much more uncompetitive, but, importantly, still necessary. As the balance changes, the fixed costs remain the same, the price increases .... .

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

Thanks Zeup, I can see what you mean, and maybe including asset costs was a stretch. I was thinking small levels of PV .... well .... smallish maybe 10GW.

It's the generation to demand characteristics I'm thinking of. With the storage needed for excess wind, and not for PV. But perhaps I'm guilty of playing one of against the other, rather than looking at the whole package of mixed generation from 2020 onwards (perhaps 2025 to include nuclear?) with shared storage.

Do you think we'd ever go for 'German like' PV levels with our wind resources? Or is that too unfair a question to ask, since it'll probably all depend on prices. Sorry just pondering as usual.

Mart.

doughnutmachine

Martyn1981 wrote: »

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

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?

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.

i just bet every time fits is reduced the solar panel installers will have to cut their prices. fits must distort the market somehow.

i just think one of the ways fits can be judged a success is how many "traditional" power stations are not built/ dismantled. like it or not solar power has not caused one power station to be dismantled...

if we lived somewhere warm like spain it's likely that solar would reduce the amount of "traditional" power stations required during the long hot summer when people have the aircon on. it just seems more sense to me for the uk to invest in wave/ hydro power, energy sources that are more productive when the uk needs energy.

i'm not against solar, its just i think the uk could have got more value for money by encouraging other green methods.

scotsblood

doughnutmachine wrote: »

i'm not against solar, its just i think the uk could have got more value for money by encouraging other green methods.

Whilst I agree to some extent I wonder if there is a way for microgeneration to the personal level I can achieve with solar pv type costs with another method I can employ with a modern detached house in an estate location?

I'm sure there are methods that may more accurately suit power demand but at what cost, perhaps Energetic could comment on his experience of costs for other style of generation?

Martyn1981

doughnutmachine wrote: »

i'm not against solar, its just i think the uk could have got more value for money by encouraging other green methods.

Hiya DM. Maybe the test then is to think about the other green methods. FITs also supports micro wind, hydro and CHP. Whilst other schemes like large wind and hydro are supported elsewhere. Plus research into other methods / ideas. And the proposed new nuclear plants and their considerable subsidy levels.

If any one scheme affects another, then that may be an argument, but FITs (as a whole) is quite a small subsidy. Don't get me wrong, I don't place PV at the top, I simply don't see any reason to beat it down, given it's simple nature - it does what it does, as expected. If you like, think of it as a demand reducer (by lowering a households import) just like energy efficiency devices attempt to do.

If PV reaches a level where subsidies aren't needed, or are negligible, then why would you not want a household to install it, at their expense, and reduce overall demand. So the $64,000 question is, can that point be reached? I don't know, but I'd certainly consider it possible looking at recent events. Plus, install costs are still falling, and leccy prices might rise to meet PV, with carbon taxes, carbon capture and sequestration costs, non subsidised nuclear etc. all to be added on - unless they are hidden in general taxation.

I appreciate that meeting our growing national leccy demand is a major issue, but reducing the grid's carbon intensity is also extremely important, that's why I favour supporting everything now, and seeing how it all works out later.

Just a note, but I live by the Bristol Channel, and used to holiday at Lavernock Point, one possible end of the Severn Barrage. I've always loved the idea of a tidal barrage, and it's future is looking better all the time. However, it's financial potential is very similar to off-shore wind, so it might not make it unless it looks to be cheaper, or the potential of 2 massive forecastable generating periods each day is appreciated. Fingers crossed.

Nice to chat, and have a great Xmas.

Mart.

Edit: Sorry to waffle on again, but you might want to compare FIT rates. You'll see how far PV has fallen. It's now one of the lower rates and still falling fast(er).

PV

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/fits/tariff-tables/Documents1/FIT%20Tariff%20Table%201%20February%202013%20PV%20Only.pdf

non PV

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/fits/tariff-tables/Documents1/FIT%20Tariff%20Table%201%20December%202012%20Non%20PV.pdf

doughnutmachine

scotsblood wrote: »

Whilst I agree to some extent I wonder if there is a way for microgeneration to the personal level I can achieve with solar pv type costs with another method I can employ with a modern detached house in an estate location?

I'm sure there are methods that may more accurately suit power demand but at what cost, perhaps Energetic could comment on his experience of costs for other style of generation?

i think microgeneration is a romantic idea, but i think its cheaper for electricity to be made in huge power stations as opposed to personal level. its the way most things are done in our economy....