Does anyone here have an ideological objection to Solar?

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Funny how the roll out of viable farm PV is actually criticised for potentially depressing daytime leccy prices

QUOTE=Martyn1981 - as previously, farms are not as viable as domestic.

Just think how cheap they could produce electricity if they had domestic sub-4kWp systems;)

Energetic_2

Cardew wrote: »

Just think how cheap they could produce electricity if they had domestic sub-4kWp systems;)

CtrlC ctrlV every thread...

Not productive...

John_Pierpoint

Perhaps this thread could be made a "sticky", with a warning that it is for the use of PhD economics students?

To me it is looking like the global power market is the first to run up against the "limits to growth". The old classic nostrums, built on the observations of Adam Smith and used to build the British Empire, no longer work, even in the guise of a failing dollar hegemony.

At the moment the standard political solution to most things is to try to kick the can down the road, because there are no simple solutions (*). Steady state has never been an option, especially now as change, good and bad, speeds up.

[PHD: Post Hole Borer or Papa Has Doe]

(*) Well there are, but they are too awful to think about & we don't want to live under a despot, we prefer being bribed by politicians - most of whom have a very rudimentary grasp of the facts, let alone the options.

Does anyone want to huff & puff about this latest use of tax payers money.

Does this mean that if you are rich enough to live in a detached antique building, then you will be offered a renewable heat incentive to lag it with "frozen smoke"?
How long will it take for these "frozen smoke" subsidised buildings take, to drive down the price of "frozen smoke" to compete with polystyrene lining paper?

http://www.buildingtalk.com/building-products-and-structures-/insulation-/wall-insulation-/aerogel-as-blown-in-insulation-to-be-developed-for-effesus-project/405780.article



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Martyn1981 - as previously, farms are not as viable as domestic.

Just think how cheap they could produce electricity if they had domestic sub-4kWp systems;)

Simple question - do you believe that supply side farm PV, is more economically viable than demand side domestic PV?

Mart.

zeupater

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Perhaps this thread could be made a "sticky", with a warning that it is for the use of PhD economics students?

To me it is looking like the global power market is the first to run up against the "limits to growth". The old classic nostrums, built on the observations of Adam Smith and used to build the British Empire, no longer work, even in the guise of a failing dollar hegemony.

At the moment the standard political solution to most things is to try to kick the can down the road, because there are no simple solutions (*). Steady state has never been an option, especially now as change, good and bad, speeds up.

[PHD: Post Hole Borer or Papa Has Doe]

(*) Well there are, but they are too awful to think about & we don't want to live under a despot, we prefer being bribed by politicians - most of whom have a very rudimentary grasp of the facts, let alone the options.

Does anyone want to huff & puff about this latest use of tax payers money.

Does this mean that if you are rich enough to live in a detached antique building, then you will be offered a renewable heat incentive to lag it with "frozen smoke"?
How long will it take for these "frozen smoke" subsidised buildings take, to drive down the price of "frozen smoke" to compete with polystyrene lining paper?

http://www.buildingtalk.com/building-products-and-structures-/insulation-/wall-insulation-/aerogel-as-blown-in-insulation-to-be-developed-for-effesus-project/405780.article



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel

:think: .... That all looks a little random for this time of day .... on the pop early today John ? ... :beer: .... here's something to help with the trip back .... :coffee:


Z

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Simple question - do you believe that supply side farm PV, is more economically viable than demand side domestic PV?

Mart.

You have 'done the figures' andyou contend that domestic is more economically viable than a commercial farm. Thus the solar developers in Spain apparently have got it wrong.

Obviously I have zero confidence in your figures? I would have more faith that the Spanish developers had 'done the figures' correctly.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

You have 'done the figures' andyou contend that domestic is more economically viable than a commercial farm. Thus the solar developers in Spain apparently have got it wrong.

Obviously I have zero confidence in your figures? I would have more faith that the Spanish developers had 'done the figures' correctly.

No idea how you've got here. Oh well!

Anyways, back to the simple question - do you believe that supply side farm PV, is more economically viable than demand side domestic PV?

Mart.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

You have 'done the figures' andyou contend that domestic is more economically viable than a commercial farm. Thus the solar developers in Spain apparently have got it wrong.

Obviously I have zero confidence in your figures? I would have more faith that the Spanish developers had 'done the figures' correctly.

Hi

I think that there are a couple of issues here, namely the FiT regime in the southern European countries where these large arrays are, the relative insolation and probably the fact that if the investor/developer wants to make a large return (in terms of value, not percentage) then a huge number of panels need to be installed .... add to this the relative cost of land in southern Europe, which is presumably of low productivity where the massive development will be (clear sky, high insolation, low rainfall).

If I was responsible for the scheme I'd be looking at keeping things simple, even if the result would likely be a lower percentage return, hence one contract for supply/lease of land as opposed to negotiating multiple contracts for smaller installations, which is completely different from individual domestic scale decision making where 1 customer = 1 roof = 1 contract = 1 system ....

What needs to be remembered is that for the schemes to be commercially viable without subsidy the first ones will be huge, benefiting from the economies of scale resulting from being able to have dedicated full-time management, maintenance and security in order to maximise efficiency levels .... however, this does not mean that the percentage returns will not be similar (or higher) on domestic scale systems due to the effect of the differential between wholesale prices and the value of domestic energy displacement.

HTH
Z

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

If I was responsible for the scheme I'd be looking at keeping things simple,

benefiting from the economies of scale resulting from being able to have dedicated full-time management, maintenance and security in order to maximise efficiency levels ..
Z

Hi Z,

The bottom line is that plenty of organisations were(and some now are) prepared to finance solar farms for a lower FIT than sub 4kWp systems on a roof.

Now it would be reasonable to assume that these organisations had(to use the immortal phrase) 'done the figures' and were prepared to go ahead. Presumably they took into account all the factors involved in their business plan - land costs - security etc etc.

If they had got their figures wrong - that is their problem, the solar farm would still exist.

My consistent argument has been that it would be a far better use of the subsidy we pay, to have solar farms, ideally situated. The 'economies of scale' are obvious - and people were, and now are, prepared to fund such farms.

So for £xmillion subsidy we would get more PV panels used and more PV electricity generated if that subsidy went to farms and not sub 4kWp systems on roofs.

However over the past year or more any sensible discussion on solar farms has been stymied by Martyn taking it as a personal affront to his, frankly illogical, stance that all these organisations must have 'done their figures' incorrectly and domestic PV is more cost effective.

He(like myself) has no idea of the costs involved in setting up a farm, and they will obviously be different for each project. However is it feasible that they have all made a mistake with their business plans?

It is also perfectly valid to argue, from a value aspect, that the majority of the output from PV Farms would be available to the grid. Instead of us paying a higher subsidy for the domestic PV production and house owners given every incentive to use that electricity in-house and export as little as possible to the grid; - and with Immersun etc using electricity instead of gas.

As said many times, nobody has criticised anyone for taking advantage of the system - not even the R-A-R firms. My criticism is directed at the Government for allowing such a crazy system.

However I cannot help thinking that much of the defence of the high FIT for domestic systems is less than objective!

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Hi Z,

The bottom line is that plenty of organisations were(and some now are) prepared to finance solar farms for a lower FIT than sub 4kWp systems on a roof.

Now it would be reasonable to assume that these organisations had(to use the immortal phrase) 'done the figures' and were prepared to go ahead. Presumably they took into account all the factors involved in their business plan - land costs - security etc etc.

If they had got their figures wrong - that is their problem, the solar farm would still exist.

My consistent argument has been that it would be a far better use of the subsidy we pay, to have solar farms, ideally situated. The 'economies of scale' are obvious - and people were, and now are, prepared to fund such farms.

So for £xmillion subsidy we would get more PV panels used and more PV electricity generated if that subsidy went to farms and not sub 4kWp systems on roofs.

However over the past year or more any sensible discussion on solar farms has been stymied by Martyn taking it as a personal affront to his, frankly illogical, stance that all these organisations must have 'done their figures' incorrectly and domestic PV is more cost effective.

He(like myself) has no idea of the costs involved in setting up a farm, and they will obviously be different for each project. However is it feasible that they have all made a mistake with their business plans?

It is also perfectly valid to argue, from a value aspect, that the majority of the output from PV Farms would be available to the grid. Instead of us paying a higher subsidy for the domestic PV production and house owners given every incentive to use that electricity in-house and export as little as possible to the grid; - and with Immersun etc using electricity instead of gas.

As said many times, nobody has criticised anyone for taking advantage of the system - not even the R-A-R firms. My criticism is directed at the Government for allowing such a crazy system.

However I cannot help thinking that much of the defence of the high FIT for domestic systems is less than objective!

Hi

The missing component in the above position is that for solar pv to become viable without subsidy within a reasonable timescale the technology needed to be 'consumerised' in order to create the requisit level of competition.

It's pretty easy to develop & sell a product which people can see a use for ... cars transport people from A to B, so they buy them, TVs provide hours of entertainment and provide relief from boredom, clothes keep you warm and say something about your lifestyle and aspirations, watches tell the time, phones allow you to stay-in-touch at a distance, dishwashers save you time washing dishes , etc, etc .... but what do solar panels provide ? - electricity - which is available anyway - so who would buy enough panels to kick-start demand-driven cost reductions ? ...... I would suggest noone, apart from a few instances where 'off-grid' power is required and some very specific applications, which is exactly the situation which existed for almost half-a-century ....

So how do you convince people (individuals or corporates) to buy something which they don't currently want or see a need for apart from incentivise it to create a market, create competitive forces, expand production capacity and therefore establish downwards pressure on product prices ....

In my mind it is a certainty that without incentives/subsidies to kick-start the process neither domestic-scale or farm-scale installations would be viable, therefore it's pretty counterintuitive to maintain a position which is anti-incentive, but pro a solution which could not possible exist without those very incentives.

It's very likely, bordering on an almost-certainty, that providing incentives only for farm-scale generation would have resulted in vertical integration of the pv manufacturing, supply and generation sectors to an extent where it would not be in the interest of the industry to become more cost effective, therefore support levels would need to be maintained, possibly indefinately if the industry had any say .... this is the reason that providing incentives to consumerise pv into the domestic sector is better than farm-scale support alone as it's much more likely that the incentive can be considered as being a short-term measure ...

I really can't see how a logical debating position which doesn't recognise & appreciate the reasoning & impact of consumerising pv take-up through FiT based incentives can be maintained by anyone on either a pure-economic or a pure-engineering basis, or even a combination of the two. I can just about accept that maintaining the position of debate on an extreme 'left-wing' or 'anti-capitalism' political basis, or even from the viewpoint of an industry intent on maintaining a cozy margin within a marketplace with very limited competition .... apart from that I start to get a little stumped ....

HTH
Z