Solar ... In the news

Martyn1981

Saudi Arabia plans to install 41GW of PV in next two decades:

http://www.solardaily.com/reports/Sign_of_the_times_Saudis_go_solar_999.html

"The newly inaugurated 3.5MW photovoltaic plant may be the kingdom's biggest but it's small fry in terms of global solar projects, even compared to the world's largest single-unit solar power plant, a 100MW project known as Shams-1.

That's nearing completion in oil-rich Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia's eastern neighbor.

But the kingdom plans to spend at least $109 billion over the next 20 years on a solar power network as it moves toward a post-oil future."

Mart.

rogerblack

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Saudi Arabia plans to install 41GW of PV in next two decades:

Done right, in ideal locations, solar can be really, really cheap.

This can lead to industrial applications - for example - in many ways aluminium is solid electricity.
The production process is simple and cheap - apart from the massive cost of electricity in the middle.
A HUGE amount of saudis energy needs are for air conditioning.
This can be met almost perfectly by solar.
There are unfortunate political problems that mean it's not really practical for them to put a few dozen gigawatt electricity connector up to Russia.

Cardew

It seems now that solar farms are being embraced on this thread, after a couple of years of arguing that in UK sub-4kWp systems on the roofs of houses, and attracting huge subsidies paid for by all electricity consumers*, was by far the most efficient method of producing solar electricity.

* Including the poor!!

zeupater

rogerblack wrote: »

Done right, in ideal locations, solar can be really, really cheap.

This can lead to industrial applications - for example - in many ways aluminium is solid electricity.
The production process is simple and cheap - apart from the massive cost of electricity in the middle.
A HUGE amount of saudis energy needs are for air conditioning.
This can be met almost perfectly by solar.
There are unfortunate political problems that mean it's not really practical for them to put a few dozen gigawatt electricity connector up to Russia.

Hi

I think that the real point here is that the plan is to install that much pv capacity despite sitting on the 4th largest known natural gas reserves in the world (somewhere around 10trillion cubic metres) ..... ( http://www.saudiaramco.com/content/mobile/en/home/our-company/at-a-glance.html?switchToMobile=1 ) .....

Taking an objective look at the plan for such a large scale implementation, I'd say that they are laying down the infrastructure for low-carbon manufacturing rather than domestic energy supply .... low carbon smelting of locally extracted bauxite into aluminium followed by 'added value' milling/rolling/pressing through to complete consumer products all in one low-carbon environment would be a virtual panacea for many manufacturers, moreso from their product's embedded carbon footprint than the cost of materials .... no wonder Jaguar are looking at building an assembly plant there ...

Interesting ....

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

It seems now that solar farms are being embraced on this thread, after a couple of years of arguing that in UK sub-4kWp systems on the roofs of houses, and attracting huge subsidies paid for by all electricity consumers*, was by far the most efficient method of producing solar electricity.

* Including the poor!!

I'm assuming that you are just trying to spoil yet another thread!

However if you really can't understand any of the discussions on viability, then post your concerns on here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4312777

and I (or someone else) can try again to explain, how all PV is good, but some is more economically viable than others.

Also, I notice, that despite your many criticisms of PV, or is it renewables and the support being given to them, you still haven't opted to explain how you would meet the UK's energy needs and CO2 commitments on the new thread?

Mart.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

It seems now that solar farms are being embraced on this thread, after a couple of years of arguing that in UK sub-4kWp systems on the roofs of houses, and attracting huge subsidies paid for by all electricity consumers*, was by far the most efficient method of producing solar electricity.

* Including the poor!!

Hi

I don't think that that's ever been the issue .... large pv farms close to areas of population/manufacturing in sunny areas make perfect sense to me ... and that's what I believe most have said on the subject, it's just that the economics say that self consumption provides a better return than selling the energy in a competitive market, this being the case either with or without subsidy.

From the recent reports on pv uptake in large systems, the continuing reduction in the cost of panels and the expansion in manufacturing capacity, it actually looks like the majority of the 'heavy-lifting' which a limited-scope pv subsidy was designed to do has been done and we're entering a new phase of pv roll-out ....

Twenty years, or so, of cost reduction compressed into around three with all of the benefits that the accelerated development will bring ... all looks pretty successful to me !!

HTH
Z

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I'm assuming that you are just trying to spoil yet another thread!

However if you really can't understand any of the discussions on viability, then post your concerns on here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4312777

and I (or someone else) can try again to explain, how all PV is good, but some is more economically viable than others.

Also, I notice, that despite your many criticisms of PV, or is it renewables and the support being given to them, you still haven't opted to explain how you would meet the UK's energy needs and CO2 commitments on the new thread?

Mart.

Firstly I will post where I wish on MSE.

'Spoil a thread'? How by exposing your lack of logic.



in your normal manner, perhaps you could sort out with Z who is correct about solar farms;

large pv farms close to areas of poulation/manufacturing in sunny areas make perfect sense to me ... and that's what I believe most have said on the subject,

Or will you change your argument again.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Firstly I will post where I wish on MSE.

'Spoil a thread'? How by exposing your lack of logic.

in your normal manner, perhaps you could sort out with Z who is correct about solar farms;

Or will you change your argument again.

Quick answers:

Never changed my argument, as you are well aware.:D

No disagreement with Z, in fact I think he summed things up very well there, leaving no wriggle room for you.

Longer answer:

As you are well aware, the whole argument about which was better value for money, farms or domestic, was created by yourself trying to attack the PV policy in 2011 (BTW it's now 2013!). Every single aspect of your argument has been unpicked, cost of additional infrastructure, your fake tariffs, your fake accounting regarding off-set, your lack of knowledge on the costs/economics, your hopeless assumption that two tariffs at the same time must have equal viability, and so on.

In short, that argument didn't work, and all your attempts to revisit it, or to misrepresent the arguments to spoil another thread only reveal your desperation to campaign against PV and FITs.

With the help of a multitude of FIT schemes PV is working, worldwide - so it's time for you to find something else to complain about (pointlessly).

@ Zeup, sorry, great thread, really didn't want to aid Cardew in his campaign to spoil each PV thread.

Mart.

Cardew

Read back through your contributions. Yo have steadfastly rubbished solar farms and championed sub 4kWp systems on roofs - justifying the high FIT.

Yet you claim to have never changed your argument??

Wouldn't it be easier if you just ignored my posts? It is not mandatory for you to add your comments to every post.

Incidentally, do you not feel that your responses to your 'mates' are just a touch sycophantic! 'Zeup, sorry, great thread' Yuk!

spgsc531

Cardew wrote: »

Read back through your contributions. Yo have steadfastly rubbished solar farms and championed sub 4kWp systems on roofs - justifying the high FIT.

Yet you claim to have never changed your argument??

Wouldn't it be easier if you just ignored my posts? It is not mandatory for you to add your comments to every post.

Incidentally, do you not feel that your responses to your 'mates' are just a touch sycophantic! 'Zeup, sorry, great thread' Yuk!

I think their posts are steadfastly rubbishing you, not solar farms.

Energetic wrote: »

Graham and Cardew you two seem to have an endless capacity to criticise and even attack others viewpoints, how about answering mart's question constructiuvely?

What should the UK energy policy for the next 25 years be? in a nutshell please include how it would be sourced, funded and where necessary disposed of... And do it in another thread, this one is about news...

Got a good point, hasn't he?