Does anyone here have an ideological objection to Solar?

The_Green_Hornet

doughnutmachine wrote: »

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.

What did you really expect when you come onto a forum used predominantly by people with Solar PV just to criticise Solar PV FITs?

Criticising others (either directly or indirectly) and not expecting a response is a little naive wouldn't you agree?

I'm sure there are many things you benefit from which others subsidise. Live and let live.

ed110220

Given the urgency of reducing our carbon emissions it is not a case of one low carbon technology or another. According to the latest IPCC report our emissionspath puts us on track for a best estimate of about 4C of warming globally by the end of the century. We will need solar, wind, hydro, tidal and perhaps nuclear power to avoid the full extent of that rise.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

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.

Why do you persist in misrepresenting my views.

Once again, and as you like to say S L O W L Y. I didn't say that the planned farms weren't viable. As you and Graham have stated many times, a high enough FIT would make anything viable.

I am simply pointing out to you, that you can not draw conclusions from two differing FIT rates (domestic and farm) when the domestic rate (admittedly higher) resulted in installs when PV prices were much higher.

All you are saying - if you stop for one moment and think about it - is that when prices fell far enough, the farm FIT became viable TOO!!

You've taken two FIT rates, ignored the fact that domestic was too fat, and then run with an entire argument that farms offer better value. You've made an illogical leap of faith at the very start of your calculations.

Rather than pay companies the FIT at 1.33:1 less, you could have cut the domestic rate by the same amount, since prices had fallen approx 25%.

I think you've simply confused yourself by thinking two different rates at the same time, must be equally viable, when they clearly weren't.

Cardew wrote: »

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 only persist in the argument as your claims are false. I totally agree that it is stupid, and have no idea why you keep going in circles dropping it, then re-claiming it again.

Does this mean you've changed your mind yet again? If so, then why did you recently conceed the point, recently claim off-set was never an issue, and recently claim never to have said this in the first place? So is off-set export or not (now)?

Mart.

Martyn1981

doughnutmachine wrote: »

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.

Sorry you feel like, but if you re-read my replies to you, I have never failed to see your arguments, I have simply responded to each of them.

We don't get to pick and choose one renewable at a time, so we are investing in all of them.

Throughout my replies to you, I have asked you if you thought my numbers (on which my conclusions were based) were realistic. You never challenged them.

I also said repeatedly that I didn't want to get into a PV v's hydro argument, as we do not need to choose, and one doesn't affect the other, they are all complimentary.

Regarding the spending of your FITs money, if you look at those FITs rates again, you'll see that micro hydro gets a higher FIT than micro PV, and macro PV is set at a rate to prevent any take up. So I still don't follow your claims that PV or FITs is detracting from hydro? You might not like my responses, but I have simply gone where you have lead each time.

If my explanations as to how PV can FIT (sorry!) in to the package of a renewables future has put you off the green movement, then I'm very surprised. How exactly did my support of all renewables, including hydro, put you off?

I appreciate that I'm passionate about renewables, but I did ask you many, many times to show me how large hydro was losing out.

Mart.

doughnutmachine

The_Green_Hornet wrote: »

What did you really expect when you come onto a forum used predominantly by people with Solar PV just to criticise Solar PV FITs?

Criticising others (either directly or indirectly) and not expecting a response is a little naive wouldn't you agree?

I'm sure there are many things you benefit from which others subsidise. Live and let live.

i'm not criticising people that have taken up the solar fits, i'm criticising the way the system was "designed". if we're all honest a renewable energy that delivers no energy on a cold winters night is slightly flawed...

doughnutmachine

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Throughout my replies to you, I have asked you if you thought my numbers (on which my conclusions were based) were realistic. You never challenged them.


Mart.

i think in post 219 i gave a strong argument that hydro was better value than solar. your response was that if you ignored the capital cost of solar it worked out cheaper (but of course still considering the full capital cost of hydro). not an accounting method i'm familiar with.

at work i'm designing a solar pond (try wikipedia). i've been investigating ways to use the heat generated, ie stirling engine or organic rankine cycle. do you have any professional experience in renewable energy?

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I didn't say that the planned farms weren't viable. As you and Graham have stated many times, a high enough FIT would make anything viable.



You've taken two FIT rates, ignored the fact that domestic was too fat, and then run with an entire argument that farms offer better value. You've made an illogical leap of faith at the very start of your calculations.

You have spent months and months telling everyone that farms were not viable. I can produce loads of your statements to this effect.

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.

I haven't done calculations and don't need to do the calculations - how would I know cost of land and all the factors involved?

I keep telling you that it was the Councils and commercial firms(not myself) were planning the solar farms using the lower FIT rate. They drew up business plans and decided it was financially viable. The Government knew this as well - that was the reason for cutting the FIT for farms, suddenly and savagely.

Do you honestly think that all of these organisations had made a mistake with their calculations? and you alone had got it correct.

OR, if you are now conceding solar farms can produce solar electricity for a lower subsidy than sub 4kWp systems on roofs of houses - then our disagreement is settled; and I cannot understand your stance ever since you joined MSE. Also why do you want me to produce numbers when you have now agreed the farms were financially viable in this statement.

I didn't say that the planned farms weren't viable.

Still no comment on George Monboit's article? too painful?

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

..... 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 .....

Hi

Is this not a null argument to persist on raising ? ....

Firstly, the premise that FiT payments only benefit the rich .... DECC published a report which attempts to analyse installations at a point in time, cutting and producing the data in many disparate ways ... http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/stats/energy/energy-source/5648-trends-deployment-domestic-solar-pv.pdf .... the main conclusion which you would likely highlight would be that ... 'domestic PV installations are typically located in the more affluent, higher energy consuming households ' ... however, take some time to look at the entire report and it's likely that this conclusion will be seen as being very different to 'benefiting the rich'.

Anyway, councils .... when did they stop installing ?

Eastleigh(2012) ... http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/waste-recycling-environment/sustainability/council-taking-action/solar-pv-scheme.aspx .... "Even though the FIT rates reduction has impacted both the viability of some smaller schemes and the industry as a whole, the picture is still very positive ... "

Wrexham(2012) ... http://www.wrexham.gov.uk/english/council/news/previous_news/hot_spot.htm ... "... Council is on target with its ambition to fit 3,000 of its social houses with solar photovoltaic panels ... "

Ditto ... Bristol, Stoke, Hounslow, Bournemouth ..... etc

Then there are Co-op schemes which are being supported by councils such as (2012) ... http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/eco/co-op-rolls-out-pv-plans-across-south-london/6523640.article

Yes there have been some schemes which have been put on hold or cancelled due to FiT reductions, such as Liverpool, but many others simply revisited their business cases.

Large Scale systems

The argument that the reduction in FiTs has killed off large scale systems and farm-scale systems simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny ... The following DECC report details the installations, scheme costs, FiT tariffs and changes during 2011/2012 which would be the basis of any concerns which could be raised on this front .... http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/fits/Documents1/FITs%20Annual%20Report%202011-2012.pdf .... however, DECC is currently concerned that there is a 'sweet' area in the upper banding of the FiT scheme where there is an overlap with ROCs which could be used by large-scale installers to maximise returns, hence the current consultation ... http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/consultation/ro-banding/6338-consultation-on-proposals-for-the-levels-of-banded.pdf

Within the consultation the following seems to be at odds with the idea that large-scale installations are no longer viable ...

53. In analysing deployment data from FITs for projects that are most closely matched in size, e.g. those installations that are between 4 and 5MW, our analysis shows that some deployment is occurring and is becoming increasingly attractive. According to Ofgem data, in December 2011 there were 18 projects sized 4-5MW amounting to 86MW cumulative installed capacity whereas in June 2012, there were 22 projects10 sized between 4 and 5MW, amounting to approximately 107 MW cumulative installed capacity.

.... as does the estimation of large scale capacity in table 4.

Large Scale Solar PV (MW)
2011/12 - 0.0
2012/13 - 63.1
2013/14 - 94.8
2014/15 - 187.0
2015/16 - 200.0
2016/17 - 175.4

.... as can be seen, it is anticipated that large-scale installations are expected to increase, not decrease ...

HTH
Z

spgsc531

doughnutmachine wrote: »

i'm not criticising people that have taken up the solar fits, i'm criticising the way the system was "designed"....

Could you please clarify that for everyone so people can answer?

doughnutmachine wrote: »

.if we're all honest a renewable energy that delivers no energy on a cold winters night is slightly flawed..

what renewable energy is guaranteed to deliver energy on a cold winters night?

zeupater

doughnutmachine wrote: »

i think in post 219 i gave a strong argument that hydro was better value than solar. your response was that if you ignored the capital cost of solar it worked out cheaper (but of course still considering the full capital cost of hydro). not an accounting method i'm familiar with.

at work i'm designing a solar pond (try wikipedia). i've been investigating ways to use the heat generated, ie stirling engine or organic rankine cycle. do you have any professional experience in renewable energy?

Hi

There is an issue with hydroelectric potential also being variable, although seasonally, as the referenced report acknowledges, the installations considered are not 'domestic scale', averaging ~650kW, and therefore bringing the full potential to fruition would require over 1000 individual planning consents, including 128 new dam projects with all of the impact reports which would be associated with them .... I would expect the planning process to be considerably extended in many instances, with a good proportion being blocked or refused, and all of this would contribute around 0.7% to the UK's annual electricity generation demand. Concentrating on this form of generation at the detriment to all other forms of renewables generation would actually achieve very little, whereas developing hydro in parallel to other schemes makes complete sense ....

HTH
Z