Does anyone here have an ideological objection to Solar?

Cardew

spgsc531 wrote: »

Solar is not alone in not (all year round) supplying the peak so why single it out?

spgsc

Surely the answer to that question is that firstly solar never has, and never will, contribute to peak demand - which is on a winter's evening.


Secondly electricity customers are paying a higher subsidy(FIT) for PV and that subsidy is aimed toward tiny sub-4kWh systems on the roofs of houses dotted all over UK. To add insult to injury house owners don't even need to export any of their generated electricity.

spgsc531

Cardew wrote: »

Surely the answer to that question is that firstly solar never has, and never will, contribute to peak demand - which is on a winter's evening.


Secondly electricity customers are paying a higher subsidy(FIT) for PV and that subsidy is aimed toward tiny sub-4kWh systems on the roofs of houses dotted all over UK. To add insult to injury house owners don't even need to export any of their generated electricity.

Was solar ever going to fulfil that role? So why mention it? How many other forms of generation don't either? So why pick on solar?

I would think the purpose of solar was to reduce our carbon commitment, and to educate the public.

I don't understand your next point, 'electricity customers are paying a higher subsidy(FIT) for PV'

I think using roofs is a good place to put solar panels. Why do they need to export any? If it's used, it's used surely? does it matter if used in that house or the next one?

Really don't see what point you have.

Anyway, HNY

spgsc

Martyn1981

doughnutmachine wrote: »

[FONT= ]The british hydro org say there is potential hydro of 2,593,317kW in Scotland, this would generate an estimated 10,644,403MWh a year. The BHA say that 657,259kW of this hydro is economically viable, this viable hydro would produce 2,766,682MWh a year. I’d also imagine there would be some financially viable hydro in England and wales.[/FONT]
[FONT= ] [/FONT]
[FONT= ]Solar produced 259,198MWh of power last year…. So financially viable hydro in scotland could produce ten times as much power as solar is producing now.[/FONT]
[FONT= ] [/FONT]
[FONT= ] [/FONT]

I think you need to check your data. Installed domestic PV capacity at the end of 2011, was 500GWh, not 259GWH, and that's ignoring any installs during 2012.

Also I note the 'cheat' in your statement - comparing potential hydro in Scotland, to current PV. Why didn't you compare potential with potential? Also what are the relative timescales, and the upfront costs / lead times?

Also you refer to viable hydro, the whole point of my posts is to ask you to look forward to viable PV, which is getting closer, and much faster than I ever thought possible. If you think my 3p example is reasonable (it's only an idea), then PV becomes more viable than the particularly high-head hydro example you gave. Should we then abandon hydro investment for PV - using your 'a pound spent here' argument, or continue to do both?

1. Why is my statement that we (as leccy customers) can ignore the capital investment by householders (if it's not subsidised) confusing? That's a major point regarding the future of PV.

2. Why is my statement that PV generates when it does, and not during the winter peak confusing?

3. Why have you just twice criticised PV as it might cause conventional power stations to stand idle for 6 months? Isn't that exactly what we want? Let me repeat that one, the role of renewables is to reduce CO2 output, by reducing generation from conventional means. So why are you criticising PV for doing its job?

So you've taken three major advantages of PV, and tried to exclude them, or even call them criticisms! Why?

I'm still interested to know why people keep singling out PV for criticism in the renewables field, when it is looking like becoming one of the cheapest forms of renewable generation, and is one of the simplest to operate, and quickest to install?

Mart.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Surely the answer to that question is that firstly solar never has, and never will, contribute to peak demand - which is on a winter's evening.

If you're now admitting that there has never been any confusion over this issue, then why keep repeating it? PV's role (like all renewables) is to reduce CO2.

Cardew wrote: »

To add insult to injury house owners don't even need to export any of their generated electricity.

Have you changed your mind again about export? Recently you conceeded that consuming a unit of generation, and therefore not importing a unit from the grid was export. In another post you stated that you'd never challenged the issue of off-set. And in another post you said that it was simply the fact that people would object to the 'theory' of paying for generation, if they didn't get it, (even though it doesn't happen).

So why have you repeated this false argument again? Constantly stating a false fact is surely not the point of this forum, or debate, it's only purpose would be to 'rabble rouse' and mislead, wouldn't it?

Mart.

Cardew

spgsc531 wrote: »

Was solar ever going to fulfil that role? So why mention it? How many other forms of generation don't either? So why pick on solar?

Can you not appreciate that it is a valid criticism of a system of subsidies that has been set up for a generating source that by definition will never generate at times of maximum demand.

I would think the purpose of solar was to reduce our carbon commitment, and to educate the public.

How are they educated? and at what price?

I don't understand your next point, 'electricity customers are paying a higher subsidy(FIT) for PV'

Some house owners and 'Rent a Roof' firms are getting close to 50p a kWh and will do for the next 23 years. Seems to me a pretty high subsidy. Paid for of course by all electrical customers - including the poorest in the land.

I think using roofs is a good place to put solar panels.

I expect you do -that doesn't mean you are correct!

Why do they need to export any? If it's used, it's used surely? does it matter if used in that house or the next one?

If we, the customers, pay huge subsidies for the production of electricity, surely it is reasonable that the electricity we have paid for should be exported. It would be if we had solar farms and we would pay a lower subsidy for that electricity.

Stand by for PMs from Martyn!

spgsc531

Why did you respond within my quote, so i can't link or quote your replies?

spgsc

Cardew

spgsc531 wrote: »

Why did you respond within my quote, so i can't link or quote your replies?

spgsc

You made several points and it enabled me to respond to specific points/questions - a common technique on MSE.

If you want to reply, just 'copy and paste' e.g.

[/QUOTE]Some house owners and 'Rent a Roof' firms are getting
close to 50p a kWh and will do for the next 23 years. Seems to me a pretty high subsidy. Paid for of course by all electrical customers - including the poorest in the land.
[/QUOTE]

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

If we, the customers, pay huge subsidies for the production of electricity, surely it is reasonable that the electricity we have paid for should be exported. It would be if we had solar farms and we would pay a lower subsidy for that electricity.

Are you claiming this piece of false anti-PV propoganda to be true again?

Why each time when I push you to justify it, do you keep running away? Claiming, you never said it, or you've never questioned off-set, or your statement is purely theoretical.

Yet each time you pop back up a few days or a few weeks later, claiming it again. It's purely a maths trick that you've tried unsuccessfully to pass off as fact.

So here we are again, with you, for some strange reason, trying to misuse MSE to rabble rouse people into thinking they've been ripped off, when they haven't. Why would you do that? What do you (or anyone else) gain from such deceptions?

So, once again, and slowly for the cheap seats:

A PV farm generates a unit and sends it to the grid. The grid has one more unit available to it, than it would have had, without the PV farm.

A house (or commercial) install generates a unit, then uses that unit instead of importing a unit. Not taking that unit, means that the grid has one more unit available to it, than it would have had, without the house (or commercial) install.

So I'll repeat the question. Given that you know (and have acknowledged) that this is a fake argument, why do you keep trying to mislead readers by re-posting it (repeatedly)?

Mart.

grahamc2003

spgsc531 wrote: »

I would think the purpose of solar was to reduce our carbon commitment, and to educate the public.



spgsc

Just a quick reply

Regading 'educating the public', I'd say, judging by some of the posts on here, it has certainly brainwashed plenty into unthinking acceptance of illogical views based on ignorance to be repeated parrot fashion, but that can't really be described as educating them.

Solar has also reduced our carbon output by only a tiny amount in the grand scheme of things, at an extremely high cost. If carbon reduction were a prime requirement, then there are plenty of other ways of reducing it much more, for much less cost while at the same time having the capability of supplying more primary reserve to the grid, and contributing fully to the peak.

spgsc531

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Just a quick reply

Regading 'educating the public',

By educating the public, I meant solar panels are very visible in the community to show the rapidly changing world we are in. I'm sure people with solar panels will be telling others of the benefits of them.

I'd say, judging by some of the posts on here, it has certainly brainwashed plenty into unthinking acceptance of illogical views based on ignorance to be repeated parrot fashion, but that can't really be described as educating them.

I'm only new here, but that's a pretty rude thing to say about people.

Solar has also reduced our carbon output by only a tiny amount in the grand scheme of things, at an extremely high cost.

As compared to what? And to what measurement? Solar has only just relatively started in this Country. From acorns grow mighty oaks and all that. You can't just look at things now, you have to look to the future too.

If carbon reduction were a prime requirement, then there are plenty of other ways of reducing it much more, for much less cost while at the same time having the capability of supplying more primary reserve to the grid, and contributing fully to the peak.

I didn't say it was a prime requirement of solar, surely you will agree that it's a purpose of solar panels?

spgsc