Does anyone here have an ideological objection to Solar?

Martyn1981

doughnutmachine wrote: »

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....

Hiya DM, hope Xmas is going well.

Normally (historically) this is true. But can you support your argument for PV?

3 possible methods:

1. Try to cost it out. I had a go a year ago, here is a re-posting of it:

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Found this, please note the many, many caveats regarding costs. Have fun.

It's out of date now, but if you look at some recent installs and figures people have posted on MSE, for a 4kWp install £5,600 is a low figure, so that's £1,400/kWp installed.

A quick tally of some basic costs for a 'farm' per 1kWp would be approx £100 per panel, so £400, plus £100 for ground mounts, plus perhaps £150/kW of inverter. So £650 already. Add on cabling, fixings, ground preparation, ground fixings, labour fees, legal fees, planning fees, licencing fees. Then the biggee, grid connection fees, which will probably entail 10's or even 100's of thousands of pounds for a farm. So I think £1,000/kWp sounds reasonable.

Next add on 20+ years of annual costs, land, insurance, security (which don't apply to domestic PV) and you probably breakeven back at £1,400/kWp.

Even if the farm is still ahead, now consider the income stream, farm = wholesale income @ approx 4.5p, domestic = a ratio of wholesale and retail @ approx 12p, let's say 65% wholesale, 35% retail = 7.1p. Giving an earnings ratio of 4.5p : 7.1p or 0.63. So just to match domestic a farm has to have total costs of £1,400*0.63 = £882/kWp.

That's still before considering comparative costs of capital. Most households would accept approx 3%, I think the current commercial figure is 7% (but I may be out of date). Also the farm has to make money after tax.

2. Relative economies & efficiencies of scale

Most technologies enjoy economies when going bigger. Building a wind turbine with 1,000 times more output, doesn't cost 1,000 times more ... but ....

with PV there are little economies of scale, buying a ship load of panels will be cheaper than an installer pays wholesale, but this will not be substantial .....

with PV there are little to no efficiencies of scale. The same panels are used, and inverter efficiencies are similar at approx 96% .....

and obviously the energy source is the same.

3. Subsidy Ratios.

I've argued the farm v's domestic debate with Cardew for a year now, repeatedly suggesting he run the numbers himself, but he prefers to fall back on a subsidy based assumption, that costs can be implied from the relative subsidy rate:

Cardew wrote: »

3. As for the figures you request. Well when FIT rates were announced, and <4kWp systems were to get 41.3p/kWp, plenty of organisations/farmers/councils planned to have large systems which would receive a FIT of 20p/kWp. However the Government quickly curtailed those large schemes by reducing FIT to a point where it was not financially viable.

Giving an implied cost ratio of 2.065:1
There are a few problems with this approach however.
Firstly because he didn't use the real tariff rates which were;
domestic 44.85p (43.3p FIT + 1.55p Export), and
farm 33.8p (30.7p FIT +3.1p Export), giving,

an actual ratio of 1.33:1

Secondly, ignoring the fact that FITs was designed for small and medium scale generation, so the tariff was deliberately designed to favour domestic (and commercial), and deter farm scale (for which other schemes exist). So the true figures would have lain somewhere inbetween, and been even closer together.

Interestingly though, the 1.33:1 ratio is very similar to my guess at the comparative install costs of domestic and farm, before annual running costs are applied.

So whether you investigate 1, 2 or 3 (or none) of the above, you might want to re-consider, for PV, and only PV, whether "its cheaper for electricity to be made in huge power stations as opposed to personal level"?

If there's no advantage to 'going big' (though I still like commercial scale (supermarkets etc) the best) and if you accept PV, and of course you don't have to, then what's wrong with utilising or own roofs for energy generation?

Sorry for the length of this post, I was just trying to be thorough.

Mart.

doughnutmachine

thanks for your post martyn, my christmas was ok hope yours was as well

i'll admit that having 100kW of panels in one location is not likely to produce a lot more power than 4kW of panels in 25 separate locations.*

but do you not think from an environmental viewpoint it better to install PV in a few centralized areas? it just seems crazy having teams of salesmen/ scaffolders/ electricians etc driving about the country installing these things on a house basis, while they could save a lot of time and petrol by installing larger systems in a few locations.

if society has decided global warming is to be addressed i'd rather get as much "bang for buck" as possible from fits. if that means having fewer, but larger, systems that should be the way to go. it just seems strange to encourage small scale production when for the same money you could get more capacity installed. i think "supermarket" size would give the most value for money.

it stills seems a bit absurd having a green power source that produces no power on a winters night. it just doesnt seem efficient having gas/ coal powerstations doing nothing for most of the year then switching them on november...

i spend a lot of time in the middle east, there is still a lot of gas flaring. perhaps if we had more gas power plants in the UK the price of gas would rise and there would be more economic incentive to capture/ sell this gas.... i'd rather it be burnt for electricity than just burnt to get rid of it..

* i would still argue that larger systems will produce a little more power due to less shading/ optimum angle to sun etc. have you seen those solar panels that move to face the sun? do you know how much extra power they produce?

Martyn1981

doughnutmachine wrote: »

thanks for your post martyn, my christmas was ok hope yours was as well

i'll admit that having 100kW of panels in one location is not likely to produce a lot more power than 4kW of panels in 25 separate locations.*

but do you not think from an environmental viewpoint it better to install PV in a few centralized areas? it just seems crazy having teams of salesmen/ scaffolders/ electricians etc driving about the country installing these things on a house basis, while they could save a lot of time and petrol by installing larger systems in a few locations.

if society has decided global warming is to be addressed i'd rather get as much "bang for buck" as possible from fits. if that means having fewer, but larger, systems that should be the way to go. it just seems strange to encourage small scale production when for the same money you could get more capacity installed. i think "supermarket" size would give the most value for money.

* i would still argue that larger systems will produce a little more power due to less shading/ optimum angle to sun etc. have you seen those solar panels that move to face the sun? do you know how much extra power they produce?

But these are the points I've been addressing. Do you get more bang for the buck? It's easy to state it, but can it be supported? That's why I simply can't see any benefit of farm scale over domestic.

As to commercial scale, I think we both agree on that. But think about the longer term. Supporting domestic installs brings householders into the mix. It educates, and adds 30+ year giant billboards to roofs, letting people know that AGW is here. If PV becomes viable on a domestic scale, then there really isn't any argument against it. Also remember that commercial and domestic PV takes place using private funding. I appreciate that this is currently subsidised over 20 to 25 years from energy users, but again, long-term picture.

As I said earlier, if your neighbour was going to install PV unsubsidised and reduce their demand on the grid, then what's the problem? That's a big question, so I'll repeat myself, if a house can utilise its roof to generate viable leccy in the future, does it matter if that leccy costs a bit more to generate than it costs Tesco's?

Regarding tracker systems that follow the sun, they've become less popular over time. At first they made great sense as they maximised the use of the highly expensive panels. But trackers are pretty expensive, so as panel costs fall, it tends to just get cheaper to install more panels. Also in the UK you'd need to install twin axis trackers, that also track pitch, rather than just single axis that point the panels East then slowly revolve to point up, before finishing West. The technology and the computer tracking programs are available, but if the total cost goes up by a percentage greater than the gain in leccy then it becomes un-economic.

I do chat with a man in France who designed and had fabricated a couple of models, and is looking to make some more. Very interesting if you can do it DIY. I think the gains are about 20%, I think that is net after deducting leccy consumed. So in the UK you could add an extra kWp of panels to a 4kWp system, giving you 25% more for approx £1k, or buy 2 2kW sized trackers, probably costing £1k+ each.

doughnutmachine wrote: »

it stills seems a bit absurd having a green power source that produces no power on a winters night. it just doesnt seem efficient having gas/ coal powerstations doing nothing for most of the year then switching them on november...

But again, PV has never claimed to be a solution to that problem, it doesn't make that issue worse, and you haven't shown how PV funding detracts from other sources that might offer twin roles - low carbon + peak time generation.

If you want to zero in on specific weaknesses of each technology, then wind only generates when the wind is blowing, hydro fluctuates with rainfall, pumped hydro generates less energy than it consumes, and so on.

There is no catch all, unless perhaps we look at nuclear, but the costs there are huge, and after 50 years of support have got no less.

Coal is now on it's way out, to be replaced by another 'dash for gas', at least gas plants are more variable, so all renewables will reduce gas use, and that is PV's primary role, to reduce the carbon intensity of the grid.

Also note that PV can contribute to peak demand for 6 months of the year. And if we do invest in large scale storage, then we could role out even more PV and use it at peak times, but I really feel the scale and seasonality of PV (in the UK) means that it will largely be a day time gas reducer, via a reduction in demand placed on the grid. Leaving wind to do the heavy lifting, and requiring storage.

Hope you don't think I'm just trying to disagree with you, all I'm really asking is for you to support your claims. The main one is, do you think PV funding detracts from any other renewables, if so show me, if not, then why worry since it's now coming through as one of the most viable technologies (did you compare those two FIT tables?)?

Mart.

Cardew

doughnutmachine wrote: »

thanks for your post martyn, my christmas was ok hope yours was as well

i'll admit that having 100kW of panels in one location is not likely to produce a lot more power than 4kW of panels in 25 separate locations.*

but do you not think from an environmental viewpoint it better to install PV in a few centralized areas? it just seems crazy having teams of salesmen/ scaffolders/ electricians etc driving about the country installing these things on a house basis, while they could save a lot of time and petrol by installing larger systems in a few locations.

if society has decided global warming is to be addressed i'd rather get as much "bang for buck" as possible from fits. if that means having fewer, but larger, systems that should be the way to go. it just seems strange to encourage small scale production when for the same money you could get more capacity installed. i think "supermarket" size would give the most value for money.

it stills seems a bit absurd having a green power source that produces no power on a winters night. it just doesnt seem efficient having gas/ coal powerstations doing nothing for most of the year then switching them on november...

i spend a lot of time in the middle east, there is still a lot of gas flaring. perhaps if we had more gas power plants in the UK the price of gas would rise and there would be more economic incentive to capture/ sell this gas.... i'd rather it be burnt for electricity than just burnt to get rid of it..

* i would still argue that larger systems will produce a little more power due to less shading/ optimum angle to sun etc. have you seen those solar panels that move to face the sun? do you know how much extra power they produce?

You are of course absolutely correct.

However I suggest there is little point however in using logic in this section of MSE.

A good example of twisted logic is this gem!

Secondly, ignoring the fact that FITs was designed for small and medium scale generation, so the tariff was deliberately designed to favour domestic (and commercial), and deter farm scale (for which other schemes exist).

Martyn seems incapable of understanding that the whole point of the argument against the FIT system is that it provides an financial incentive for little sub-4kWp systems dotted on roofs all over the UK, and penalises larger systems with their obvious advantages in economy of scale.

So the defence of the plainly stupid FIT system is that it was 'deliberately designed' that way.

The simple fact is that many commercial organisations and councils were planning large scale solar farms - even at a much lower FIT than the sub-4kWp systems - and the Government 'pulled the plug'(apt term) by savagely cutting the FIT.

Another gem!

And if we do invest in large scale storage, then we could role out even more PV and use it at peak times,

EricMears

doughnutmachine wrote: »

I'll admit that having 100kW of panels in one location is not likely to produce a lot more power than 4kW of panels in 25 separate locations.*

But do you not think from an environmental viewpoint it better to install PV in a few centralized areas? it just seems crazy having teams of salesmen/ scaffolders/ electricians etc driving about the country installing these things on a house basis, while they could save a lot of time and petrol by installing larger systems in a few locations.

Convenience of installation is very 'short term'; any economies there would become irrelevent over the next 20 years. Putting lots of panels in the same place might sound attractive but you then have to get the electricity from where it's produced to where it is needed. Grid transmission is not 'free'. The wires & transformers need maintenance and some of the power is lost in transmission.

Lots of SPs on a huge block of flats might be useful; similar 'mini-farms' above supermarkets, offices or light industrial units better still. For low density housing, individual power plants matched (as far as possible) to the consumption of each house would produce the most efficient scheme.

SPs are of course ideal during summer daytimes but not so good without sunshine. Small scale wind turbines or CHP systems might be a useful adjunct to SPs from the point of view of generation at source.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Martyn seems incapable of understanding that the whole point of the argument against the FIT system is that it provides an financial incentive for little sub-4kWp systems dotted on roofs all over the UK, and penalises larger systems with their obvious advantages in economy of scale.

So the defence of the plainly stupid FIT system is that it was 'deliberately designed' that way.

You are just going in circles, making the same claims over and over, without ever supporting them.

If the economies of scale are so obvious, then why for a whole year have you refused to put any numbers together to validate your argument?

How much do you think farm PV (per kWp) costs across its lifetime compared to domestic PV?

How do you compare income levels? How do you compare viability?

Yes, the FIT system was deliberately designed that way, with alternative funding schemes for farm scale PV – hasn’t Zeup already explained this to you?

Cardew wrote: »

The simple fact is that many commercial organisations and councils were planning large scale solar farms - even at a much lower FIT than the sub-4kWp systems - and the Government 'pulled the plug'(apt term) by savagely cutting the FIT.

As for ‘much lower FIT’ does this finally mean you have dropped your use of false tariffs to artificially misrepresent the argument? Do you think 1.33:1 is highly significant? Do you understand that the true difference would have been even less, had the tariffs not been designed to favour micro, and deter macro generation?

If the farm subsidy was adequate, how do you explain the fact that domestic PV was taking place 15 months earlier? Doesn’t that suggest to you that it wasn’t until costs fell and domestic FIT was too high, that farm FIT became viable?

Why are you so scared of supporting your own arguments? What have you got to hide? Just do the numbers!

Mart.

grahamc2003

doughnutmachine wrote: »

it stills seems a bit absurd having a green power source that produces no power on a winters night. it just doesnt seem efficient having gas/ coal powerstations doing nothing for most of the year then switching them on november...

?

Yes, this is the crux.

If society spends billions on solar, then it doesn't alter by a penny how much has to be spent on conventional reliable generation, since solar produces zero at the period of peak demand. So other cpapcity has to be there to supply the peak.

This is a capital intensive business - the main costs are construction costs and the cost of capital to enable it. Everyone (well almost everyone) realises that in capital intensive indistries, the plant built has to operate for long periods for it to make the best sense. Obviously, the reliable capacity of the grid has to exceed the maximum demand - the amount it is sensible to exceed that depends on the risk the government wish to take with the max demand not being satisfied. Any intermittent generation (like wind and solar) can't be used in that simple calculation, since it can't be relied upon to produce anything at that time (and we know solar will produce nothing).

In an engineering sense, solar is simply madness - but it isn't meant to be an engineering solution to anything - it is simply subsidised for other reasons. No one sensible would even try to justify it as any sort of engineering solution (i.e. the 'best' solution to a particular problem, taking into account all factors). Even if 'solar' was dictated, then the engineering solution to that would be large solar arrays using economies of scale rather than house roof sized systems (indicating the 'stakeholder' effect trumps any engineering considerations). If it weren't subsidised, and if there were no obligation for the local grid to accept solar power, then none whatsoever would be voluntarily 'bought' by a supplier or any other industry player.

There aren't many things I can produce where someone else has the obligation to buy it - why others can't see that this all by itself is an incredible 'subsidy' beyond the financial escapes me.

Cardew

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Yes, this is the crux.

If society spends billions on solar, then it doesn't alter by a penny how much has to be spent on conventional reliable generation, since solar produces zero at the period of peak demand. So other cpapcity has to be there to supply the peak.

Ah but you have forgotten this 'gem' of a solution.;)

And if we do invest in large scale storage, then we could role out even more PV and use it at peak times,

That reminds me the kids will need some more AA & AAA batteries recharging!

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Why are you so scared of supporting your own arguments? What have you got to hide? Just do the numbers!

Mart.

Why would I, like yourself, just pluck some 'numbers' out of the ether and base a case on those invented figures.

The organisations that were planning solar farms at a much lower level of FIT subsidy had presumably 'done the numbers' in their business plan. Perhaps they should have employed you as a 'technical expert'(I use the term loosely) to advise them their business plans were flawed.

Apart from the deficiencies of solar as a means of generation, can you not understand that it is the FIT scheme that flawed?

With your unique logic, you seem to justify such a scheme with the defence that it was 'designed that way' and in any case 'the numbers' that you invent prove solar farms can't be viable!

Cardew

EricMears wrote: »

Putting lots of panels in the same place might sound attractive but you then have to get the electricity from where it's produced to where it is needed. Grid transmission is not 'free'. The wires & transformers need maintenance and some of the power is lost in transmission.

Whilst that undoubtedly is a factor:

1. We import Nuclear generated electricity from France - imported via the interconnector in Kent.

2. Most of the UK wind farms are in remote locations or out at sea.

3. The UK's nuclear power stations are not near 'where power is needed'.

4. Ditto hydro-electric schemes.