Does anyone here have an ideological objection to Solar?

spgsc531

Hello

I see your points. I would imagine moving forward more ways will be found to 'control' energy usage. No doubt smart meters will feature in that.

But to begin with, the fact that every household will have one of these things, surely a growing percentage of people will adjust their behaviour with their usage in front of their eyes? I would hope so.

spgsc

zeupater

spgsc531 wrote: »

Hello

I see your points. I would imagine moving forward more ways will be found to 'control' energy usage. No doubt smart meters will feature in that.

But to begin with, the fact that every household will have one of these things, surely a growing percentage of people will adjust their behaviour with their usage in front of their eyes? I would hope so.

spgsc

Hi

... you would have thought so, but in reality that is already possible with simple low-cost energy monitors ... but people still don't use these to adjust their energy usage patterns ...

As it is, the energy suppliers are simply providing smartmeters which are costing them somewhere well under £50 and charging the householder over £500 spread over a number of years via increasing the standing charge or tier1 tariff, with the only tangible benefit being a remote display. The suppliers will not need to read meters on such a regular basis, thus reducing their fixed costs, however, I can't find a reduction in the standing charge or tier1 tariff to reflect this, so presumably, the efficiency gain simply passes to the bottom line in their accounts .... were DECC & Ofgem asleep when this was raised ? - it certainly makes you think !!

A good proportion of the 'smartmeters' installed to date will need to be replaced or upgraded due to non-compliace with the communications standards, which have only recently been confirmed/published after many years of debate & ponder ... it's pretty important to note that this was achieved considerably later than the commitment to implement the project ....

http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/consultation/smart-metering-equipment-technical-specifications-2/6129-consultation-second-version-smets.pdf

http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/tackling-climate-change/smart-meters/7338-smart-meters-equip-tech-spec.pdf

... anyway, as good (:rotfl:) as the specifications are, they only really cover metering features and supply-side communications ... the communications which would be required for smartgrid consumer devices operation require the finalisation and adoption of the HANI standard (Home Area Network Interface) by all smartmeter and smartequipment manufacturers .... It is quite easy to note that the DECC specification concentrates almost purly on the billing and remote display element of the interface and is extremely sparse when refering to consumer devices, which I find a little odd considering that the raison d'etre for smartmeter provision is based on this very ability ...

HTH
Z

doughnutmachine

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Smartgrids are at first a great idea, then, if you are blessed with an independent mind and apply a couple of logical & typical scenarios, you start to think ......

Take now for example .... it's the mid winter and we have visitors ... we've recently had a meal which was cooked by electricity, but now we only have five low energy lights & a hifi on and that's it for the non-baseload energy consumption, so what's possible to save from non-essential baseload management with a smartgrid apart from the fridge & freezer ? - absolutely nothing. Is this a problem now, probably not because smartgrid management would see this as a low-load period and therefore allowing the fridge & freezer to run according to their own thermostatic cooling demand requirements, but we probably cooked our meal and had hot drinks afterwards at around the same time as the average household and that would be a time when, if the fridge & freezer were running at the same time they would only be consuming less than 10% of the household load ... which in real terms is pretty insignificant when you consider that domestic energy doesn't form the only source of instantaneous power demand .... yes it's a technique for smoothing demand a little, but it's not the great panacea which many claim - it's actually very likely that smartmetering is simply a ploy to introduce HHM (Half Hourly Metering) and therefore bill peak demand energy supply at a punitive rate in order to increase supplier profit margins ....

I agree that energy storage is key, however, although there are a number of technologies for energy efficient storage being developed, the only really practible & cost effective technology in current use is pumped hydro - and country folk tend to get a little upset when city dwellers tell them that they are going to flood their valleys so that they can light their billboards, streetlights and houses when the sun isn't shining and the air is calm.

HTH
Z

[FONT= ]But if the price of electricity varies people will start using electricity when it is cheaper, if using a washing machine costs less on a Sunday morning at 8am people will switch their washing habits.[/FONT]
[FONT= ] [/FONT]
[FONT= ]I’ve seen on occasions that wind farms have to be switched off because there is too much windpower going into the grid. If the price of electricity for households in the local area was dropped during these occasions (to say 1 pence) people will switch off their gas heating and use electric heating…. Then sooner or later people will invest in storage heaters that use this cheap electricity. Then some entrepreneur will design a device that can store hot water for weeks (maybe like a giant thermos flask)…..[/FONT]
[FONT= ] [/FONT]
[FONT= ]If electricity can be bought cheap and sold expensive it is likely that every backyard inventor will come up with ways to store electricity and sell it. Might be a good idea if a British firm came up with the goods and became the next google/ apple….[/FONT]

doughnutmachine

Martyn1981 wrote: »

On a general note, and to address all these questions about PV, what if it detracts from this, or that, or those, that nobody seems to be substantiating, or even, it works better elsewhere which seems irrelevant, just unfortunate. Why not just step back and ask 2 simple questions:

1. Can PV become an economic source of leccy in the UK within a reasonable timescale (perhaps 10 years)?

2. Does PV detract from other means?

There are other issues, like meeting peaks, or encouraging public involvement/investment, that add or subtract to the benefits. But if it does 1 without 2, then, as they say, "move along, there's nothing to see here".

Mart.

[FONT= ]I’m not against solar, I just think there are other, better, renewable power sources for the UK to invest in. the department of environment and climate change state how many fits installations there are:[/FONT]
[FONT= ] [/FONT]
[FONT= ]Approx. 200,000 solar installations, 17 anaerobic gas, 132 hydro schemes.[/FONT]
[FONT= ] [/FONT]
[FONT= ]Total power generated by anaerobic is 72GWh, 52GWh from hydro, and 259GWh from solar. So note that circa 62 anaerobic gas plants would produce the same power as the UKs solar panels - we built two last year. [/FONT]
[FONT= ] [/FONT]
[FONT= ]The Scottish Sothern Electricity Glen Doe hydro scheme (built 2009) scheme cost[/FONT][FONT= ]£[/FONT][FONT= ]160m with a 100MW capacity. Predicted annual energy produced 180GWh. So two of them would trounce the power produced by solar…. SSE say they have another 4 potential hydro schemes with a total forecast capacity of 360 to 660MW. How much would they cost[/FONT][FONT= ]?[/FONT][FONT= ] Maybe a billion tops[/FONT][FONT= ]? I’d much rather FITS encouraged this type of scheme than solar. After all, how much has 200,000 domestic solar schemes cost us?[/FONT]
[FONT= ] [/FONT]
[FONT= ]Then you consider all the valleys in wales/ Yorkshire etc. There must be GWs of potential hydro in the UK, if only it got some support from FITS…. All energy that is there when we actually need it. Flooding in the UK does seem to be getting worse, all these new dams would likely save the country billions in flooded homes etc.[/FONT][FONT= ][/FONT]
[FONT= ] [/FONT]
[FONT= ]To me it just seems that we are picking the solar apple from the top of the tree, while the hydro apple is right in front of us.[/FONT]
[FONT= ] [/FONT]

Martyn1981

But DM, you're still going in circles trying to criticise PV by concentrating on one idea or installation at a time.

Why won't you supply any answers?

Do you think we can meet future energy needs just from hydro? Or for that matter from nuclear, gas, wind or solar?

Why do you keep saying things like instead of FITs , or rather FITs did this. Show me where FITs has taken money from these other schemes? Or where PV FITs has taken money from other FITs?

Are you aware that aside from small scale PV, FITs also supports other small scale generation (wind, anaerobic, hydro, CHP)? Why do you keep suggesting we are getting PV instead of ...?

Why would you suggest large scale hydro instead of PV FITs (or any other FITs) when such schemes are supported by ROCs, not FITs? FITs is actually quite small, compare it to off-shore wind investment?

Can you name any hydro apples not being picked because of FITs (or PV FITs)?

Why would you compare an established technology like hydro, plus one of the highest head hydro facilities against current PV? I appreciate that pound for pound compared to PV today, that example probably produces nearly twice as much leccy, but how many more such facilities can be built?

I really feel quite passionate about hydro, but was surprised at just how little potential the UK has, that includes Wales. We're simply not as 'bumpy', with high enough heads as you might at first think.

60,000 houses could match that scheme, and before deducting about 10% for distribution losses. Domestic PV potential is about 20%, so approx 4m houses.

We can't sit back and patiently adopt technology as and when it becomes viable, we have to throw money at the problem. You might not like that fact (I certainly don't) but that's the situation we've got ourselves in, so we need to research, develop and install now, not when the price is right.

So going back to my earlier test, if PV can become viable, and doesn't distract from other schemes, then why not?

Mart.

PS I note you emboldened energy when we 'actually' need it. Isn't all energy demand needed? Otherwise why does that demand exist? PV helps towards demand 'that we actually need' when the sun is out, and addresses the problem it is being financed to do, by reducing carbon emissions, which we 'actually' need to do. Constantly beating PV with the 'winter peak' is pointless noise and distraction - it's never claimed to work at night, has never been tasked with that role, and doesn't make that situation any worse. M.

zeupater

doughnutmachine wrote: »

But if the price of electricity varies people will start using electricity when it is cheaper, if using a washing machine costs less on a Sunday morning at 8am people will switch their washing habits.

I’ve seen on occasions that wind farms have to be switched off because there is too much windpower going into the grid. If the price of electricity for households in the local area was dropped during these occasions (to say 1 pence) people will switch off their gas heating and use electric heating…. Then sooner or later people will invest in storage heaters that use this cheap electricity. Then some entrepreneur will design a device that can store hot water for weeks (maybe like a giant thermos flask)…..

If electricity can be bought cheap and sold expensive it is likely that every backyard inventor will come up with ways to store electricity and sell it. Might be a good idea if a British firm came up with the goods and became the next google/ apple….

Hi

In theory .... but .... cheap rate electricity already exists and many people who have E7 don't wash overnight, or run the dishwasher, or any other high load device, even though the cost of the energy is around 1/3 the price.

Regarding storing high volumes of hot water ... many do this at the moment, we certainly do, but 'hot water for weeks' would involve an incredible volume of water to be able to make any use of what is being stored ... a simple rule of thumb (but close enough) would suggest that 1kWh of energy would raise 1tonne of water by 1C, therefore storing enough water for a day of winter heat demand (say 60kWh) to a minumum useful heat of say 30C would require storage of a tonne of water at 90C until needed, so say 1cubic meter of water thermal mass per days heat requirement for a smallish, or well insulated house .... 7days=7tonnes=7m3 etc .... then there's the incredible volume of insulation which would be required for long(ish) term storage at 90C, so 7m3 of water storage would likely need somewhere around 80m3 of space, that's approximately the same as a 40' shipping container ....

HTH
Z

zeupater

doughnutmachine wrote: »

I’m not against solar, I just think there are other, better, renewable power sources for the UK to invest in. the department of environment and climate change state how many fits installations there are:

Approx. 200,000 solar installations, 17 anaerobic gas, 132 hydro schemes.

Total power generated by anaerobic is 72GWh, 52GWh from hydro, and 259GWh from solar. So note that circa 62 anaerobic gas plants would produce the same power as the UKs solar panels - we built two last year.

The Scottish Sothern Electricity Glen Doe hydro scheme (built 2009) scheme cost£160m with a 100MW capacity. Predicted annual energy produced 180GWh. So two of them would trounce the power produced by solar…. SSE say they have another 4 potential hydro schemes with a total forecast capacity of 360 to 660MW. How much would they cost? Maybe a billion tops? I’d much rather FITS encouraged this type of scheme than solar. After all, how much has 200,000 domestic solar schemes cost us?

Then you consider all the valleys in wales/ Yorkshire etc. There must be GWs of potential hydro in the UK, if only it got some support from FITS…. All energy that is there when we actually need it. Flooding in the UK does seem to be getting worse, all these new dams would likely save the country billions in flooded homes etc.

To me it just seems that we are picking the solar apple from the top of the tree, while the hydro apple is right in front of us.

The issue which is being overlooked is that, due to topography, the majority of sites which are suitable for hydroelectric power generation in the UK simply don't have large enough catchment areas and are therefore only suitable for pumped storage schemes.

Pumped storage adds absolutely nothing to overall energy generation, it actually has a negative net-energy contribution to the whole, consuming more energy than it supplies. The advantage of these systems lies in the way they are used ... soaking up excess power when it's available, then releasing it at times of peak demand or low availability from non-schedulable sources such as pv or windpower .... it's simply a battery, something which is pretty useless from a carbon-reduction point-of-view without unschedulable, or constant load (nuclear), generating sources first being in place .... the questions and priorities therefore change when considering the disparate generating technologies with a view to constructing any form of coherent integrated energy policy.

HTH
Z

spgsc531

hmm, wanted to post a link but can't

EricMears

spgsc531 wrote: »

hmm, wanted to post a link but can't

Afraid that follows from your 'newbie' status. Only another couple of dozen postings to go then you will be able to.

But you'd probably get away with posting someting like :-

(you'll need to add the 3 Ws) BBC dot co dot uk / weather

unless of course it's regarded as spam and a lot of us report you.:D

spgsc531

Not spam

Daily Mail article about a study saying wind turbines last a lot less than previously thought

I wonder how true the article is