Does anyone here have an ideological objection to Solar?

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

... He(like myself) has no idea of the costs involved in setting up a farm, and they will obviously be different for each project ....

Hi

Stake in the ground .... capital investment starts at <€1/Wp fully installed, based on unproductive land and massive 'utility-scale' installations .....

"... plans to build a 150-megawatt solar park near Toledo for less than 150 million euros ..." ... ( source : http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/12/first-large-scale-solar-plants-without-subsidies-seen-in-spain?cmpid=rss )

HTH
Z

Energetic_2

You guys have some time on your hands. Heres a nice story somebody in the industry sent me when i sent them a link to this thread.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread826545/pg1

Cardew

I suspect for every 'shill' on MSE there are several with a vested interest in promoting products.

Or don't want a balanced discusion on a choice they have made.

Presumably you feel that George Monboit who states the FIT system for solar PV is a disaster, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/jan/13/green-deal

comes into the 'Shill' category?

John_Pierpoint

zeupater wrote: »

: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

I am just bored, not drunk.
The argument (domestic roof versus solar farm) has too many cost benefit parameters and depends on too many political factors and vested interests to ever have a simple rational outcome.
I am not learning anything new as the discussion goes round in circles.

Roll on the day when I can point my sister in the direction of "aerogel" insulation subsidies, for her crumbling "heritage" home.

Martyn1981

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.

Wow! Where to start.

Firstly I have never said that those organisations have got their numbers wrong. My position is quite simple, domestic PV is more economically viable than farm scale PV.

It is you that have read this with your eyes, but with your brain, have recorded 'PV farms are not viable in Spain', or 'subsidised PV farms are not viable in the UK'. As to quite how you made that logic(?) jump, I can't surmise, but assume it's a PEBCAK issue.

A couple of things I note, firstly, you fail to answer (again) the very simple question - do you think farm PV is more economically viable than domestic PV? So it's hard to know whether you agree or disagree with me. and,

secondly, I've noted your careful choice of words on this subject, where you say more efficiently, or more cheaply, but never more economically? A farm will be built for less money, and produce more efficiently, however these gains will be very small (unlike other forms of energy generation that benefit from large economies and efficiencies of scale) and will be further reduced due to annual running costs, grid connection fees and distribution losses. But the difference in income streams is enormous, put all the factors together and you'll see why domestic viability is greater.

In the UK, domestic PV costs can fall far enough to make it viable against 'socket' costs of 12p+. I see no way whatsoever, how farm scale costs can fall far enough to make an unsubsidised profit against a 4.5p 'busbar' revenue stream. Can you?

Now, I appreciate that the purpose of these arguments is purely to maintain division and diversion on each and every PV thread that dares to say anything positive about PV or FITs. What I don't understand, is why?

Mart.

Martyn1981

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

I am just bored, not drunk.
The argument (domestic roof versus solar farm) has too many cost benefit parameters and depends on too many political factors and vested interests to ever have a simple rational outcome.
I am not learning anything new as the discussion goes round in circles.

John, I apologise for my part in boring you, but in my defence, I have repeatedly asked Cardew to research this subject and read some of the reports that are available (rather than take (or not) my word for it). My post yesterday #300 details a short, but interesting report on the subject.

I'll happily admit that a farm v's domestic debate is of little to no value. PV, in all its forms, is here to stay, and I for one, think that's a very good thing.

Mart.

Energetic_2

Cardew wrote: »

I suspect for every 'shill' on MSE there are several with a vested interest in promoting products.

Or don't want a balanced discusion on a choice they have made.

Presumably you feel that George Monboit who states the FIT system for solar PV is a disaster, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/jan/13/green-deal

comes into the 'Shill' category?

Yes i believe George Monbiot is pushing an agenda but i suspect you would say the same of me. George has in the past IMO been guilty of presenting opinion as fact, I'm very careful to make clear what is my opinion and i work within the framework provided by Ofgem, My intention presenting the spanish solar farm article was to show how far the cost of PV has fallen and also that low cost production is not necessarily what TPTB want.

I actually agree with George on the Green Deal, It's a mechanism for making tenants pay for landlords energy improvments designed for social housing landlords, many of who are already receiving FiTs. Some might argue its a rediredtion of benefits in many cases back into another scheme.

Ultimately ALL generation is backstopped and made viable by a mimimum guarenteed price/kwh. I dont see how the FiT or the ROC is any worse than whats been guaranteed the new Hinkley Point Neuclear stations or allowing EDF generation to sell to sell its Gas Turbine generated power to the highest bidder which is always EDF's retail arm. I won't even start on the cost of supporting friendly governments in oil producing lands and the value of a human life in imposing our will in these regions. Again I reiterate that FiTs are a very small fraction of government spending and not nearly the most wasteful.

On Zep' latest point, the generous FiT in 2011 brought wholesalers here from the continent when there was effectively only one here beforehand, it brought many installers into the industry who are now sqabbling for a quarter of the work, margins for us and the wholesalers have halved in this time. A soft start would not have acheived this.

I am going to be less frequently involved here, business is picking up, people want PV as the returns and benefits at domestic and commercial level are excellent at the moment.

All the best... e

doughnutmachine

Energetic wrote: »

Thats my favourite part, not viable because makes daytime energy too cheap... Show the forces really at work in our system.

And why you have to do what you can as a consumer to protect yourself...

in a country that has peak electricity demand on summer days solar power does make sense...

it would have made more sense for fits to pay spanish householders to install solar in spain.... after all solar is all about saving the planet? it makes most sense to install solar where you get the most sun.....

John_Pierpoint

Energetic wrote: »

You guys have some time on your hands. Heres a nice story somebody in the industry sent me when i sent them a link to this thread.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread826545/pg1

Unfortunately the black arts of "Spin Doctoring" are well established in cyberspace, not just burying bad news for politicians.

Here is an advert that paid to interrupt this morning's Nick Clegg's phone in performance:

https://uk.reputation.com/?page_id=31

[Perhaps a more sensible investment than being ripped off by the fees at "Sue Grabbit & Runne"].

I'll only comment if and when I see a new angle that has not been thrashed to death in the previous 319 postings.

PEBCAK = Picnic ? Is this ad hominem?

grahamc2003

Energetic wrote: »

On Zep' latest point, the generous FiT in 2011 brought wholesalers here from the continent when there was effectively only one here beforehand, it brought many installers into the industry who are now sqabbling for a quarter of the work, margins for us and the wholesalers have halved in this time. A soft start would not have acheived this.

I

\

Just as a matter of interest, what were the margins a year ago when the fit was 43p/kWh - when a typical 4kWish system had an install cost of say £13,000?