Does anyone here have an ideological objection to Solar?

zeupater

pwllbwdr wrote: »

Er no. The BHA website is mostly about hydro generation, not pumped storage - you seem to have made an assumption there.

Continuous flow falling over a decent head gives potential for continuous generation, except perhaps in summer if the water course becomes low flow.

Okay ... read report in question ....

http://www.british-hydro.org/UK%20Hydro%20Resource/Scottish%20Hydro%20Resource%20Study%20Aug%202008.pdf

Quite liked the way it dealt with intermittent generation and the number of caveats surrounding the study .... If that's the way that the Scottish public want to go, as opposed to the industry, then the 'potential' described will become a reality, well some of it at least .... :D

One issue which isn't clear from the report is whether there are any sites which have been identified that actually impact on planned/potential pumped storage areas .... I would be very surprised if there was no overlap, especially on the high-head locations where efficiency is maximised - there may be little flow, but terrific potential energy ....

We looked at a watermill a number of years ago with a view to generating our own power, but found that there were right-of-way issues which put us off. The race (stone) had been filled in but looked to be in a decent condition, the only problem I saw at the time was that although the flow volume would be substantial, the head was really low, so the solution would need to be pretty expensive (the wheel had long-gone ... ) .... looking at the report, the property we looked at wouldn't even have been considered .... looks like anything much under 100kW has been discounted with the average system being close to 650kW, so not exactly 'personal use' scale.

The important point is that converting all of the viable potential into reality and realising the planned performance would provide around 2.7TWh of (partially) seasonally variable generation towards a UK demand of around 374TWh(2011) ( http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/stats/publications/dukes/5955-dukes-2012-chapter-5-electricity.pdf ) ... not insignificant as a contribution towards a mixed 'renewables' energy policy, but not significant enough to concentrate on at the expense of other sources which are not as restricted by topography ....


HTH
Z

pwllbwdr

Intermittent generation really depends on the nature of the river and the requirements of the EA. There are lots and lots of mill sites around with v low head but high river flow for much if not most of the year. The technology exists to harness hydro right down to a few kw but the costs are high.

I will do a thread when I have time with some figures from my situation. I don't have anything installed but I do have very detailed figures.

spgsc531

pwllbwdr wrote: »

Intermittent generation really depends on the nature of the river and the requirements of the EA. There are lots and lots of mill sites around with v low head but high river flow for much if not most of the year. The technology exists to harness hydro right down to a few kw but the costs are high.

I will do a thread when I have time with some figures from my situation. I don't have anything installed but I do have very detailed figures.

I'm sure it will be interesting to see your figures when you have time. Out of interest, are the numbers anywhere near where Solar PV was 2-3 years ago? I guess ease (relatively) of installation of Solar PV helped it being taken up more readily, as well as so many people having roofs but not brooks or rivers on their land.

John_Pierpoint

Electricity

In 1868, a hydraulic engine was installed, with water being used to power labour-saving machines such as laundry equipment, a rotisserie and a hydraulic lift. In 1870, water from one of the estate's lakes was used to drive a Siemens dynamo in what was the world's first hydroelectric power station. The resultant electricity was used to power an arc lamp installed in the Gallery in 1878. The arc lamp was replaced in 1880 by Joseph Swan's incandescent lamps in what Swan considered 'the first proper installation' of electric lighting.
The generators, which also provided power for the farm buildings on the estate, were constantly extended and improved to match the increasing electrical demand in the house.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cragside
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fellwalker1/6337275314/

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

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.

Once again, (S L O W L Y) you already know that off-set is the same as export, you've admitted it recently, so why persist with this propaganda?

Cardew wrote: »

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.

Then support your argument. Explain why every report on PV accepts that the economics of a farm makes it harder to reach viability than that of a domestic or commercial install. Why do you refuse to do any numbers that take into account the additional annual costs of a farm (land, security, insurance). Also that farms income is at wholesale rates, not retail rates. A massive disadvantage. Also remember that a commercial cost of capital is about 7%, but householders will accept a rate of about 2 to 3% as a cost when considering alternative investments.

Cardew wrote: »

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.

You know that mis-representing what I say will never work. I have never said that those large schemes at 33.8p (compared to domestic at 44.85p) were not viable. If you believe I have, then show me?

I have stated that farms face harder economics, and therefore future viability is harder. Your example is a clear mis-representation of the situation in Summer 2011, or a deliberate attempt to delude.

Domestic installs were taking place 15 months earlier at the higher FIT, but also with much higher prices £16k v's £12k (a ratio of 1.33:1). So when the farms approached viability, at a FIT rate that was also 1.33:1 lower, this did not make farms more viable, it simply meant that domestic FIT was too viable. Try thinking about what you are saying. BTW, thanks for not posting your fake 20p farm tariff this time.

Cardew wrote: »

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

FITs and this case PV FITs was to launch and boost PV in the UK, it was not to supply economic electricity, it is to lead to economic electricity. To date it has achieved far, far more than was ever expected at this stage. So rather than criticising the subsidy for not yet being complete, you should celebrate it for being so successful, and ahead of schedule.

Mart.

Martyn1981

doughnutmachine wrote: »

[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]

I can only ask you to check again.

Firstly I did not say 500GW, I followed your lead and said 500GWh. Your figure of 259GWh is probably closer to the generation of domestic PV in 2011.

By the close of 2011, installed domestic PV was about 600MW, with an estimated annual (forward) generation of approx 500GWh. So 2012 would be that plus generation from new installs added during the year. 550GWh to 600GWh (don't really know yet?)

doughnutmachine wrote: »

[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]

I don't understand why you keep trying to set up a conflict between hydro and PV, they are complimentary. Why do you think we should only have one, why not both, plus the other renewables being invested in? FITs is targeted towards micro-generation, ROCs is targeted towards macro schemes. Off-shore wind is more expensive than the high-head hydro example you gave, but off-shore wind is absorbing vast amounts of money. Should we stop that too, for hydro, or do them all?

doughnutmachine wrote: »

[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]

As I explained, the capital cost of domestic installs without subsidy, or with small subsidies is born by the household. This is on the demand side of the electricity bill. Large scale hydro expenditure takes place on the supply side, by leccy supply generators, so the investment appears in our bills. If your neighbour (sorry to keep harping on about your neighbour), invests in PV, or any leccy saving measure, such as more efficient appliances, this cost is borne by them, but you see the benefit of reduced demand on the grid.

Also, all hydro export is paid for, domestic PV off-set, is not paid for (currently payment is made on a deemed 50% export basis). So if a household with a domestic PV system generate and use 1,000kWh's instead of importing those units from the grid, then the grid has the benefit of 1,000 more units than it would have otherwise had, without any additional cost.

As I said, there are some different issues regarding micro-generation (to macro), and the accounting process.

doughnutmachine wrote: »

[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]

I don't know what this statement refers to? I don't recall saying that, or anything that can be misconstrued as such?

A renewable energy source that can do both would be an advantage, but PV has not claimed to do that, so it should not be 'further' judged for not doing something it was never tasked to do.

PV helps to reduce CO2 emissions during daylight hours. If it can do this economically (you did say a week or 2 back that you thought it wasn't that far from unsubsidised viability) then there really seems no point in complaining about it.

Note: I do understand your points about spending the money only on the 'best thing' today, but that simply isn't the actual situation. We are currently investing in all forms of renewables, as none will do the job on their own. We are also investing in R&D and technical assessments of new ideas.

Consider the process of scientific research, prototypes, development, test roll outs, actual roll out, then expansion to the point of viability. PV is now somewhere between the roll out and viability phases. Why not finish what we started?

Mart.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Then support your argument. Explain why every report on PV accepts that the economics of a farm makes it harder to reach viability than that of a domestic or commercial install. Why do you refuse to do any numbers that take into account the additional annual costs of a farm (land, security, insurance).


.

Trying to get you to understand anything is impossible.

I have explained very carefully on several occasions that Councils and Commercial organisations had plans for solar farms at a lower FIT.

Even you might be able to understand that with a lower subsidy(FIT) more solar electricity will be generated for a finite sum of money.

Now can you not accept that the people drawing up their business plans might have done some research and were happy with their figures? Or should they have consulted you for 'the figures'?

In any case even if they had got their figures wrong, we would still have had the benefit of solar electricity at a lower subsidy(FIT)

The Government were also obviously convinced that the schemes would have been financially viable, so they cut the FIT savagely at short notice. Indeed the minister made a statement to that effect; justifying the cuts on the grounds that these schemes would have used up all the funds authorised for the FIT kitty.

Obviously since the drastic reduction in FIT for larger systems the financial viability is in question - that is the whole point of the issue being discussed. i.e. we(the electricity customer) would have had more solar electricity generated for a lower cost(FIT subsidy) had the solar farm FIT not been cut; and that generated electricity would have been available for the Grid. Thus making it even better value for the electricity consumer.

You persist in this stupid argument that if a kWh is generated it doesn't matter where it is used. Again can you not appreciate that if we pay a subsidy for that electricity to be produced, and it is consumed by the house that generates that kWh, it represents even worse value for those of us paying the subsidy. (please note the word VALUE)

I note you haven't commented on George Monboit's article - perhaps you should write to him and explain in your inimitable style how he has got it wrong - a few of 'your figures' would no doubt enlighten him.

grahamc2003

Cardew - you're obviously doing too much thinking and not enough 'thunking'. I think the two methods of brain activity (I use the term loosely) will always lead to differing results.

For example, thinking involves contact with reality, and logical deductions based on experience and training to formulate something sensible.

Thunking requires a thunk of a word to put into google, then a little more thunking to sift through the results to the one you like but still don't really understand, and the googlethunk result posted whether or not it is any sort of answer to a previous post, which also was not comprehended anyhow, due to being the product of a thought rather than a thunk.

There are thinkers and thunkers, and never the twain shall meet, even if it's a debate on the absolute basics such as whether power is measured in W or Wh.

doughnutmachine

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I don't understand why you keep trying to set up a conflict between hydro and PV, they are complimentary. Why do you think we should only have one, why not both, plus the other renewables being invested in?
Mart.

because on most measures hydro is the better power source. as someone that pays an electricity bill (and hence fits) i want fits money to be spent in the best way.

tbh, your lack of ability to see the arguments of others has put me off the green movement. from now on i'll be a lot more sceptical of whatever the climate change protestors say.

Hadrian

I am having solar panels fitted as the energy prices are too high. :T
PS: Is this forum for physics professors?