Does anyone here have an ideological objection to Solar?

John_Pierpoint

Here we are an (expensive) installation on London's only chalk stream, where the trout taste of petrol.



Meanwhile a pint of M&S milk helps to subsidise other possibilities:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/25/hydropower-turbine-river-thames

and the Queen has signed up for micro hydro produced electricity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/03/microhydro-hydro-mills-electricity-wales

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_hydro

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Somerset_Hydropower_Group

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-13709981

doughnutmachine

Martyn1981 wrote: »

But I'm still struggling to see where you are coming from. Previously you said hydro and anerobic digestion would help. Well they get FITs too, but now you say FITs won't help? You keep suggesting problems, but aren't supporting any of them!

i was looking at anaerobic gas for my employer, there are very few anaerobic gas plants in the UK. it seems FITs has a rate that is so low that no one wants to take it up. there also seems to be few new hydro schemes built in the last few years.

it just seems that the only real power generation installed due to fits is solar. my opinion is that fits could have done something to reduce greenhouse gases and provide a energy supply when it was most needed.

ed110220

Another advantage of solar is that it scales down well in comparison with many other technologies. A solar PV system roughly big enough to power a single household does not have the same disadvantages that a similarly small hydro scheme would have. I would imagine that the installation and maintenance costs of a small scale hydro scheme wouldn't scale down well from a large scheme, just as very large coal fired power stations are more efficient than smaller ones and a single-household nuclear power plant would be inconceivably impractical.

grahamc2003

ed110220 wrote: »

Another advantage of solar is that it scales down well in comparison with many other technologies. A solar PV system roughly big enough to power a single household does not have the same disadvantages that a similarly small hydro scheme would have. I would imagine that the installation and maintenance costs of a small scale hydro scheme wouldn't scale down well from a large scheme, just as very large coal fired power stations are more efficient than smaller ones and a single-household nuclear power plant would be inconceivably impractical.

Not sure why you think single household Nuclear is impractical. Plenty of people are walking around with a Nuclear plant in their bodies keeping their hearts beating correctly - the longest having been working for about 25 years and still going strong with no maintenance. Afaiaa, the recipient still has a single head. There are probably few engineering problems in scaling it up to provide a constant 1kW. Just one thousand of those and you could either close, or not rebuild, a coal/oil fired powerstation. Something you can't do no matter if every roof was covered in solar panels, and every bit of countryside littered with windmills.

There have been plenty of proposals for small Nuclear stations for neighbourhood scale electricity. Of course, there's no way they'll ever get built in the forseeable future - we'll have to wait for several blackouts with the prospects of more before people will come around to thinking they may be a good idea, especially for those with windmills in their garden and a roof full of solar panels perplexed as to why they are getting the powercuts when they have done everything the greens have asked of them.

Don't confuse impracticality with (current) political unacceptability.

pwllbwdr

ed110220 wrote: »

Another advantage of solar is that it scales down well in comparison with many other technologies. A solar PV system roughly big enough to power a single household does not have the same disadvantages that a similarly small hydro scheme would have. I would imagine that the installation and maintenance costs of a small scale hydro scheme wouldn't scale down well from a large scheme, just as very large coal fired power stations are more efficient than smaller ones and a single-household nuclear power plant would be inconceivably impractical.

True in that small capacity hydro is disproportionately expensive. So what? Isn't the whole purpose of the FIT system to take such matters into account. If I had the option of a 1kw hydro system for the same cost to me as a 1kw pv, I know which I would choose.

grahamc2003

ILoveSolarMe wrote: »

I think you'll find they are nuclear batteries not 'plant'.

Nuclear batteries work on decay.

Nuclear plants work on fission.

A bit of a difference you may find.

I do hope the Government aren't reading this and forming policy on your amusing suggestions.

Thanks for clearing that up. I must admit, I often wondered how they got the boilers, turbines and cooling towers into such a small space. You live and learn eh? .....

So you 'correct' something I said which was correct, yet the incorrect bit you didn't comment on. Why's that?

Oh, and also you didn't answer what your previous usernames were, and why you need to change them?

grahamc2003

ILoveSolarMe wrote: »

Help me out here, 1kWx1000=1MW?

How many 1MW coal/oil fired power stations are there in the UK?

In Feb 2012, total solar installed generating capacity was 1GW (1000MW, just to help you with the figures).

So 2 and 3/4 hours after prompting by me, you find the error ... well done!

I take it you aren't going to disclose why you keep dumping your old usernames. No probs, I'm sure it will soon become obvious to all.

Edit - before your recent 'contributions' some of us were about to start discussing small scale Nuclear power. It would be interesting is those sensible posters could carry on discussing it, and not get diverted by your inane and incorrect comments.

Martyn1981

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Edit - before your recent 'contributions' some of us were about to start discussing small scale Nuclear power. It would be interesting is those sensible posters could carry on discussing it, and not get diverted by your inane and incorrect comments.

Well go ahead then.

I've argued that small scale PV has similar efficiencies of scale to large PV (same panels, same efficiency inverters).

Since large scale nuclear isn't supply cost viable, and after 50 years has not closed the gap at all, then for small scale nuclear to be a serious consideration it would not only have to be equally cost efficient as large scale, but actually be more cost efficient. Will it?

[Again, I accept that nuclear is low carbon, and provides important baseload and peak supply. Both of which have additional value.]

Mart.

Martyn1981

doughnutmachine wrote: »

i was looking at anaerobic gas for my employer, there are very few anaerobic gas plants in the UK. it seems FITs has a rate that is so low that no one wants to take it up. there also seems to be few new hydro schemes built in the last few years.

it just seems that the only real power generation installed due to fits is solar. my opinion is that fits could have done something to reduce greenhouse gases and provide a energy supply when it was most needed.

Morning DM, fair points, but doesn't that suggest that FITs for 'other things' is too low, rather than FITs for PV is too high?

Thinking about your last line 'and provide', and an earlier posting of yours that said 'a pound spent on solar is a pound not spent ...', I've been thinking (watch out - here we go again).

Isn't that the whole crux of supporting PV (in particular) and aiming for viability. We can have both pounds!

If PV becomes viable on a commercial (supermarket) and domestic scale, then we get the pound spent from outside the leccy industry. The industry, government and R&D investors still have their pound to spend. Think PFI without the need to repay the external capital investment.

This is the point I tried to make a few times when I asked - if your neighbour was to install PV at their expense and reduce their electrical demand, what is the problem?

So, going full circle right back to our first posts, can PV become viable in the UK. I'm an optimist, but I'm not simply going to say yes, that is unfair. However, if you consider what I've posted this last week;

domestic PV doesn't suffer the efficiencies of scale, nor (all) the economies of scale that usually work against small scale generation,

domestic PV makes use of roofs, without any industry 'land' costs, or to the detriment of any other possible use,

PV prices are still falling fast, as are install prices,

panel cost limitations are interesting, since the small amount of aluminium, glass and electronics are relatively cheap. The main factor is silicon based tech, and what have we learnt about costs when mass producing silicon tech,

PV FIT is currently FAT,

leccy prices do not reflect true costs, as a considerable amount is hidden in general taxation, or simply not (yet) taken account of,

AGW has now become far more 'real' in 2012, the Heartland Institute imploded, BEST completely reversed their position, Exxon Mobil boss announced it was real etc, so the public are coming around to the need to address CO2 emissions, and the monetary value of such action. However I don't think most people realise how bad things are, wait for the IPCC's 2014 review - the 2007 'scary' report has turned out to be an understatement already.

Add all this together, and there is a real chance that we will see unsubsidised (or perhaps very low subsidised (2/3p?)) PV being installed from private investment, leaving the industry with it's 'pound' to spend elsewhere.

If that happens, then what is the problem?

Mart.

pwllbwdr

Defensive??? No idea what you're talking about.

My two paras do add up without issue if you take into account the fact that solar is in antiphase to much energy demand whereas hydro is in phase with it.

But if your intention is to shout others down, fine.