Does anyone here have an ideological objection to Solar?

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

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.

I will try just once more and spell it out S L O W L Y so you might just understand.

Apart from the deficiencies of Solar – uncertain generation and cannot contribute to peak load – we are talking about the value of any subsidy, to those people paying that subsidy.

To pay approaching 50p for each kWh generated can in no way be considered good value. To then allow those collecting the 50p/kWh to not even export that electricity to the Grid makes it even worse value.

Regarding ‘false anti-PV propaganda’ – I cannot believe any thinking individual is not aware that large scale production of PV will represent far better value to those paying the FIT subsidy.

There were a whole raft of large scale PV schemes in the pipeline for councils and commercial organisations. They based their business plans on a considerably lower subsidy(FIT) than that for sub 4kWp systems. Yet the Government in its wisdom savagely cut even that lower FIT at short notice and scuppered the plans.

Now all of these proposed large systems would have had a Business Plan that showed their schemes were financially viable. Yet you alone apparently think that all these organisations were deluded and they would not have produced more electricity for a lower subsidy than sub 4kWp systems.

So of course the electricity customer has been ripped-off by a crazy system.

spgsc531

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.

If you said by definition will never generate at times of maximum demand in the depths of winter, then you may have more of a point (in the depths of winter)


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?

they are a very visible renewable energy source in the community. Price? Well clearly one the Government is willing to fund.


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.

You seem to not understand the reason of and for FiTs. I believe payments now are far below half what you quoted.
Do you have solar panels? Or ever considered getting them? Or is your house not suitable? Or did you miss the boat? DECC is paying £3bn a year and for many more years to come to decommission nuclear. Paid for of course by all taxpayers - 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!

I think between Code for Sustainable homes & new building regulations, all new homes will have solar panels by something around 2017? Why is a roof not a good place to put them?


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.

Why does it need to be exported?

spgsc

Cardew

spgsc531 wrote: »

Price? Well clearly one the Government is willing to fund.

You do not seem to understand the FIT system.

The subsidy(FIT) is NOT funded by the Government. It is funded by a levy on everyone's electricity bills.

So those in flats, with unsuitable roofs, including the poorest in the land, pay for those house owners able to afford a PV system and venture capitalists in Rent a Roof companies.

Geoge Monboit, the Green Guru, summed it up nicely as '

This is just one of the means by which money is being taken from the poor and
given to the rich.

In an article in The Guardian he states:

Two years ago, I warned that the feed-in tariff, a tax on energy
bills which pays for people to produce their own low-carbon electricity, would be deeply regressive. To install solar electricity, for example, you would need your own roof plus £10,000 or more in cash. If you were lucky enough to possess
both these assets, you would be making, at other people's expense, one of the most lucrative of all possible investments.

It would give you a state-guaranteed return of 5-8%, fixed for 25 years, which was both index-linked (making a nominal return of 7-10%) and tax free.

Those who angrily denounced my analysis claimed that it could in fact be a progressive scheme, as communities of poorer people could be helped to cash in. They're still claiming it, even though the facts deserted them long ago. Today,
Andrew Pendleton of Friends of the Earth insists in the
Guardian that there are "countless" examples of community feed-in tariff schemes in the UK.

They're not countless; they've been counted by the energy regulator, Ofgem, in its annual report. There are 403 such schemes, as opposed to 29,265 domestic installations. The community projects have, on average, been larger than the domestic ones, but they still account for only 5%
of the total capacity, while private home owners' schemes account for 82%.

(Thanks to Mike Kirwin for pointing me to the Ofgem report).

The feed-in tariff is just what Andrew Pendleton says it isn't: "a
middle-class subsidy". No amount of cherry-picking by Friends of the Earth, which throws around figures without providing comparisons, will change that. This group, which is usually a force for good, needs to look long and hard at the social impact of the policies it supports.

The transfer of money from the poor to the middle classes and the rich engineered by the feed-in tariff will do almost nothing to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. The government's 2050 carbon pathways calculator allows you to choose the most extreme of all possible solar options: using "all suitable roof and
façade space" in the UK: a remarkable 9.5 square metres of solar panels per person.

Were we to fund a programme on this scale, it would be likely to bankrupt the United Kingdom, yet, by 2050, it would reduce the amount of energy provided by fossil fuels by a grand total of just 9%.

Read the full article here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/jan/13/green-deal

spgsc531

Ah yeah, badly worded

I meant to say one the Government was willing to setup

John_Pierpoint

zeupater wrote: »

... remember, the majority of appliances which are being sold today which are suitable for smart-control (fridge, freezer etc) will still be in daily use in 15-20 years time ... this just leaves HHB (Half Hourly Billing) at peak demand times to discourage consumers from using energy through a visual or audible alarm signal, the question would then revolve around how many would simply ignore the warnings and continue to use energy at a peak-time punitive tariff .... who gains ? ... yes, it's the suppliers that have been lobbying for smartmetering under the currently 'in-vogue' guise of protecting the world from 'climate change' .... if only the relevant government departments and our 'political elite' had the ability to 'think' as well as 'talk' this would have been considered ....

HTH
Z

Would we not just buy a "digibox" for our existing freezer and that would do the turning on / turning off?

spgsc531

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Would we not just buy a "digibox" for our existing freezer and that would do the turning on / turning off?

Don't think of solutions, think of problems!

doughnutmachine

Martyn1981 wrote: »

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 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?

Mart.

[FONT= ]Why do you not check your data[/FONT][FONT= ]? I do doubt that there is 500GW of installed solar capacity in the world…. The 259GWh I referred to was power produced in the UK in 2011/12 by solar. If you think the 259GWh figure is wrong why do you not take it up with the Department of Environment and Climate Change….[/FONT]
[FONT= ] [/FONT]
[FONT= ]Viable solar in the future? But we have financially viable hydro schemes now….. Should we not be using FITS money to build these hydro schemes just now?[/FONT]
[FONT= ] [/FONT]
[FONT= ]So if you can ignore the cost of the householder when comparing solar against hydro surely I can do the same. So if I ignore the costs of SSE when they built Glen Doe Hydro that means a 100MW hydro scheme cost nothing at all!! How can Solar possibly compete against that? Just remember that I’m using the same accounting principles that you used to justify solar.[/FONT]
[FONT= ] [/FONT]
[FONT= ]So you’re now saying that solar not producing electricity at the time of peak demand is an advantage? Why would that be an advantage? I’m really struggling to see your point of view on that one. [/FONT]
[FONT= ] [/FONT]

grahamc2003

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Would we not just buy a "digibox" for our existing freezer and that would do the turning on / turning off?

No, if you are on an appropriate tariff where you gain some benefit by allowing your fridge freezer to be controlled remotely (with appropriate safeguards so you don't get salmonella and suchlike), then, initially, the supplier/countrparty will either give you a box, or more likely a new fridge containing the appropriate electronics.

It may seem extravagant, but the fridge will then supply 2 or 3 hundred watts of primary reserve - a commodity which is very costly - it's usually supplied by holding steam at a higher pressure in boilers than is necessary for the generation, meaning as well as extra wear and tear on the station, the genset itself is operating away from its maximum efficiency point - hence the mega costs. (Primary reserve is the automatic response for small discrepancies between generation and demand which, if left uncorrected for more than a couple of seconds, would cause frequency limits to be breached and the resultant load shedding (i.e. blackouts for big parts of the country).

EricMears

Cardew wrote: »

we are talking about the value of any subsidy, to those people paying that subsidy.

Subsidies don't necessarily need to provide any benefit to the people who pay them. It would be nice if they did but there are countless examples where the government have decided that a subsidy should be paid and raise our taxes to provide one.

grahamc2003

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?


spgsc

You ask 'Was solar ever going to fullfil the role of supplying power at the period of peak demand'.

Given that sensible generation always has the capability to supply at the peak, you might as well ask 'Was solar ever meant to be a sensible method of electricity generation'.

The answer to both is 'no'.

That's why those who understand the implications of connecting solar (or any other intermittent generation) to the grid see it as such a waste of resources (and therefore, being such a waste of resources, not environmental at all).

Incidentally, you said you didn't understand my post detailing some characteristics of the grid and how it works - no problem with that, not many do actually understand. My problem is seeing how you can form the opinion that solar is a good method of electricity generation when connected to the grid if you (understandably) don't know how the grid works and therefore the implications of connecting solar to it?