Does anyone here have an ideological objection to Solar?

Martyn1981

This PWC report might make for interesting reading, regarding the review of larger PV systems in Aug 2011. It might clarify any misunderstanding that the resultant drop in larger installs was a mistake, or an unforeseen circumstance. In fact it was a deliberate action taken by the government.

http://www.ukmediacentre.pwc.com/imagelibrary/downloadMedia.ashx?MediaDetailsID=2004

Some quotes:

‘The Government’s FiT review and reduction for larger systems appears sensible given its focus on the roll out of smaller systems. It is unfortunate that FiT spending envelope constraints have limited the scope for larger systems, but it was never the Government’s intention to support solar farms with the FiTs.’


‘One unexpected development was the interest in standalone solar farms, which was significantly higher than the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and many observers had predicted.
This interest was unsurprising given the experiences of other European countries, although the Government had intended to make the ROI unattractive to financial investors (c.5-7%). However, a significant decline in module costs and the availability of debt funding drove up returns and stimulated demand for large installations.’


‘In November 2010, the newly formed coalition Government announced the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR), which included Feed in Tariffs.
The CSR, capped FiT payments for all technologies to £867m until April 2015, this included an additional requirement of c.10% savings in 2014/15.
In order to remain within this envelope (and retain as much funding as possible for smaller, domestic systems), the Government completed a fast track review of larger systems and chose to reduce the levels of FiTs available for PV systems over 50kW significantly.’

I now become guilty of using hindsight, but I’ve never been able to work out why they didn’t take the opportunity then, to knock domestic down too (to say 35p) and prepare the industry for a further review. Ho hum!

This ‘chat’ is quite interesting. And note the date – they don’t know what’s about to hit em.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr16KuQ9FG8

@ Energetic - Sorry if this brings back bad memories! Has the market settled a little now? Do you anticipate the 3 month reviews levelling things out, or do you think there may be another PV boom when people catch on to the current prices and possible returns, followed by another bust at the next 3 month digression?

Mart.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Indeed it had been discussed, but my post was a reply to post #52 who asked the question.

It is pertinent to point out that some of us follow the discussions from the beginning, other come in later and haven't(presumably) read other threads where the subject is discussed.

I am happy to concede my case being modified to having Solar Farms close to the 'point of use'* as it doesn't detract from the thrust of my argument.

* Personally I don't believe 'distribution losses' is a significant factor; we get huge amounts of electricity fed to the Grid from France via the interconnector arriving in Kent. - and hydro generation in the Scottish highlands.

My gut feeling is the significantly higher output from the South West will more than compensate for any transmission losses.

Hi

Interconnectors would invariably be HVDC point-to-point with appropriate HVDC/HVAC conversion at each node. The thrust of the 'SouthWest' argument is based on long distance delivery to point-of-use, therefore, if there were to be large scale installations in the SW (eg Lizard Peninsula ?) then there would either need to be a serious upgrade to the regular grid connectivity to this area, or a dedicated HVDC conduit towards significant areas of population, ie most likely the SE or the Midlands ....

If it was possible to convince investors to build GW scale generating capacity in the SW with current levels of subsidy, or even without subsidy isn't the main point, it's the cost (/'subsidy') which would be required to upgrade the delivery network, whether HVAC or HVDC ... this would not be an insignificant amount and would be paid for by all energy customers in their bills .... I cannot really perceive why one who abhors forms of direct subsidy of pv installations, the levels of which are falling rapidly, would support an alternative additional cost to the consumer in the form of an indirect subsidy which would have absolutely no chance of future cost reduction and would require ongoing maintenance ....

HTH
Z

Cardew

Z,

To repeat:

I am happy to concede my case being modified to having Solar Farms close to the 'point of use'* as it doesn't detract from the thrust of my argument.

Having the farms in the SW is not a show stopper!

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Z,

To repeat:



Having the farms in the SW is not a show stopper!

Hi

Then there was no need to reinforce the argument by posting a qualification ....

"* Personally I don't believe 'distribution losses' is a significant factor; we get huge amounts of electricity fed to the Grid from France via the interconnector arriving in Kent. - and hydro generation in the Scottish highlands.

My gut feeling is the significantly higher output from the South West will more than compensate for any transmission losses."

... immediatly after conceding the following ....

"I am happy to concede my case being modified to having Solar Farms close to the 'point of use'* as it doesn't detract from the thrust of my argument."

You will obviously have noted that the crux of the position which I have maintained against concentrating on the SW for pv generation does not particularly revolve around the inefficiencies of long distance transmission, although this should certainly be taken into consideration, but rather the associated costs for infrastructure upgrade ... population and population density in the SW does not currently warrant the same level of grid-infrastructure to 'import' energy to the region as would be required to 'export' from a high concentration of pv farms.

Whereever large-scale pv farms are located there will invariably be some form of local infrastructure change requirements which realistically need to be taken into consideration when comparing levels of public (or consumer) funded investment, the only way to avoid this extra investment is to generate at point-of-use, which is exactly what microgeneration helps provide ....

HTH
Z

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Then there was no need to reinforce the argument by posting a qualification ....

Z

Sorry but i don't agree with you.

IMO the question of distribution losses is peripheral to the thrust of my argument.

Rather than get embroiled in discussions on that aspect, to the detriment of the major issues, I will readily concede that solar farms at 'point of use' is the preferred option.

P.S.

Anyone would think that 'The South West' was Outer Mongolia and not contain cities like Plymouth and Bristol; as well as the Nuclear power station at Hinkley Point.(with a further two reactors planned)

Incidentally Dounreay Nuclear facility is as far North in Scotland as possible and a further two in North Wales/Anglesey - which are hardly near their 'point of use'.

Energetic_2

@mart, Such blissful ignorance. That was the day the EST leaked the cuts, it made it to their website for a couple of hours before they took it down and denied any of it was true. We spent the weekend securing gear for everything we had in the pipeline at the time. By tuesdayy every supplier in the country had been wiped out with european manufactured stock being shipped back from as far as Australia!

Love the bit at the end where they say the governments preferred route is sustainable gradual expansion and not boom and bust....!

The state of the market is improving, we are working on several quotes at present, we've had a bit of a flurry come in this weekend, perhaps in sympathy with last year?

There is a real possibility that with current pricing and returns we could see another rush heading into the next cut in April. I'm pretty optimistic about things at the moment, we are speaking to a lot of ordinary families who want to make a difference to their energy consumption.

It's been a hard year but a great business to be in, we don't have a single unhappy customer!

EricMears

Cardew wrote: »

I will readily concede that solar farms at 'point of use' is the preferred option.

But perhaps best of all from the point of distribution losses would be ultra-small solar farms on each property ? Not only would that avoid the distribution losses on power exported to grid, it would also reduce amount of power needing to be imported from grid and the losses one might expect from that.

[Deleted User]

EricMears wrote: »

But perhaps best of all from the point of distribution losses would be ultra-small solar farms on each property ? Not only would that avoid the distribution losses on power exported to grid, it would also reduce amount of power needing to be imported from grid and the losses one might expect from that.

Genius and could be called microgeneration or words to that effect... It'll never catch on though

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Incidentally Dounreay Nuclear facility is as far North in Scotland as possible and a further two in North Wales/Anglesey - which are hardly near their 'point of use'.

Have a quick thunk, and it might occur to you why nuclear power stations are generally located further away from major populations? And why roof top nuclear fission plants are unlikely to ever catch on.

Rule 1 when in a hole - stop digging!

Mart.

Cardew

I know, and you all know, you have no argument and are just clutching at straws - transmission losses indeed!