Solar ... In the news

zeupater

michaels wrote: »

Anyone done a spreadsheet on what price point per kwh and cycles:
Storage becomes cost effective with PV
Storage becomes cost effective with E7

Hi

Battery storage for grid-tied systems only really starts to get interesting when installed prices fall below £200/kWh, so somewhere below £1500 for a Tesla/Panasonic type/size system. If there's no scheme to support initial roll-out it'll takes quite a while to reach this price-point, however, I can't really see substantial numbers of unsubsidised installations happening at anywhere much above £120/kWh (installed), with many seeing £100/kWh as a major threshold. This likely means that larger capacity systems will need to become popular first due to the diluting effect of capacity on installation and control equipment (inverter, monitoring etc) ...

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

michaels wrote: »

Aren't there transmission efficiency savings in having local storage (I guess especially for PV)?

Yes. But the problem is the very large cost per unit difference due to economies of scale.

I suppose a compromise might be storage at a DNO level, rather than grid. But even that won't save much as the main losses are on the local grid (distribution network) rather than on the main (national) grid. I think the breakdown is roughly 2% transmission losses (national grid - long wires warming birds feet) and 6% distribution losses (local network - more connectors, transformers and switches), so a total loss in the UK of approx 8%.

A third option, sort of mid way, would be semi large storage in some factories, industries, high users etc, that may well have time of day leccy rates. These could benefit from on-site generation, and some tactical leccy purchasing.

Personally, I'm pretty much spot on with Z's comments. £1.5k might work for me, but only as a plaything, I'd really need to see sub £1k for 4kWh+ of useable storage.

It's sounds too far away, but there's a lot of suggestion of PV like price reductions as the industry expands massively.

Mart.

silverwhistle

Cardew wrote: »

Somebody asked a question on a forum you dominate - but don't own!

Martyn always gives considered responses (see the storage posts above) but the same cannot be said of you, who appears here for one reason and one reason only. I doubt if you'll answer his direct questions, just as you ignored mine some time ago when I thought it worthwhile to engage.

There are plenty of inequities within government policy, but the FIT scheme has achieved what it was meant to. Perhaps you would care to campaign on a more significant cause?

As I idly muse over my cuppa I wonder if they'll introduce a 'nuclear levy' due to the high cost of Hinckley when (if?) it eventually gets built. Will Cardew be railing against PV owners who aren't using enough grid electricity or would he disappear in a puff of paradox?

Martyn1981

silverwhistle wrote: »

As I idly muse over my cuppa I wonder if they'll introduce a 'nuclear levy' due to the high cost of Hinckley when (if?) it eventually gets built. Will Cardew be railing against PV owners who aren't using enough grid electricity or would he disappear in a puff of paradox?

More boring background, but Hinkley will be financed via a levy on all consumers bills.

The subsidy is called contracts for difference (CFD's) this mechanism is also used for bids from wind and PV, or at least it was in early 2015, but looks like on-shore wind and PV will be excluded from future auctions, which may be exclusively off-shore wind.

CFD's work thus, a contract is issued by the government with an agreed income for the leccy. The company then sells its generation on the open market as usual, and the price is monitored to make sure there are no dodgy goings on. The price is then topped up by the subsidy to the CFD rate.

The Hinkley CFD deal was at £92.50/MWh, and will run index linked for 35 years (wind and PV get 15 year deals). Also, due to the lengthy build out, the deal is index linked up to the start date, possibly 2025, but could now be 2028.

Hinkley is estimated in 2016 to now be £99/MWh, and could be £118 (or so) by 2025.

So, market prices were about £50/MWh on average (though they vary through the day), but have recently dipped to nearer £40. If Hinkley sells at £40 then the subsidy will add £59. If it sells in the night at £20, the subsidy will add £79. If it sells in the evening peak at £110, then it refunds £11. [Just imaginary examples.]

Impact on bills. This is very speculative, but if generating today, and the average spot price is £40, then the subsidy will be £59/MWh x 3,200MW x 24hrs x 365 days = £1,653,888,000 pa.

Assuming 30% of leccy consumed by households, and 25m households, that works out at £20 per household pa. Note, this is not the cost of nuclear, just the cost of the Hinkley C subsidy.

Edit: Probably worth noting that if we use Monbiot maths, and apply the costs solely to poor households (no idea why, but one poster likes that method) then the cost is £1,653,888,000 / 5m = £330 per household pa.

If we then scale up* from the 3.2GW Hinkley C to the governments planned 16GW nuclear rollout, the £20 figure rises to £100, and the Monbiot style calc rises to £1,650.

*Within the Hinkley deal was a negotiated reduction in the CFD if more reactors are commissioned. This would drop the 2012 £92.50 deal down to £89.50, a 3.24% reduction. So the actual figures would be slightly lower.

Mart.

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

I can't really see substantial numbers of unsubsidised installations happening at anywhere much above £120/kWh (installed), with many seeing £100/kWh as a major threshold.

Funny you should say that, just been trawling the news and ...... the motoring press lit up yesterday following a slip on an investor Teleconference for Tesla Motors (or was it clever marketing), that their battery costs are already below $190/kWh for assembled battery packs and that's before the GigaFactory has taken effect.

$190 = £120

I didn't see that coming, yet!

Mart.

Cardew

silverwhistle wrote: »

Martyn always gives considered responses (see the storage posts above) but the same cannot be said of you, who appears here for one reason and one reason only. I doubt if you'll answer his direct questions, just as you ignored mine some time ago when I thought it worthwhile to engage.

There are plenty of inequities within government policy, but the FIT scheme has achieved what it was meant to. Perhaps you would care to campaign on a more significant cause?

As I idly muse over my cuppa I wonder if they'll introduce a 'nuclear levy' due to the high cost of Hinckley when (if?) it eventually gets built. Will Cardew be railing against PV owners who aren't using enough grid electricity or would he disappear in a puff of paradox?

I really think that you miss the point. So the sequence of posts was:

Originally Posted by Martyn1981 View Post

But can imagine the anti-FiT boys spitting blood if it generates on a rainy night.

post #1281

Of course when the Guru posts, it is not trolling!

That prompted a question from 'Lifes Grand Plan' - a member since 2010

I'm new to this thread (and solar generally) but find it strange that anyone would be anti-FiT. Why are they?

That seems to me to be a reasonable question in a forum that is probably the most biased, and least objective, on MSE, so I, as an 'anti-FITer' answered.

Note: that was a answer to Lifes Great Plan.

In jumps the GURU and you can read his 'considered responses'
in Posts #1289,


Quote:

Originally Posted by Lifes Grand Plan View Post

I'm new to this thread (and solar generally) but find it strange that anyone would be anti-FiT. Why are they?

It's probably just down to saving face these days.

Cardew has posted many thousands of anti-PV and anti-FiT comments on the Green & Ethical board during the 6 years of FiT.

Recently however (after I'd been asking him for many years) he finally admitted that he supported nuclear. In that context we can address his concerns.

He complains about the subsidy cost of PV, but PV is now cheaper than nuclear, despite nuclear having already received 60 years of support. So that one's dead.

He complains about all consumers paying for the subsidy, but surely the end users should be the ones that subsidise the greening of the industry.

He complains that not all households receive the FiT. But of course the subsidy goes to the owners of the 'green powerstations', which seems fair. And this of course also raises the issue of hypocrisy, since no households receive the nuclear subsidies, they all go to giant corporations ..... probably the reason why he tried to hide his love of nuclear.

He regularly raises the issue that households can use as much of the generation as they like. Despite being aware that export and offset have the same effect on the grid. This is just a red herring that he uses hoping to antagonise anyone who doesn't realise this.

He will always comment that PV doesn't generate at night (he's the only person that I know who finds this a surprise). But of course this is just the old anti-renewables cry against each individual technology .... wind turbines don't work without wind etc.

He ignores the development of storage that will benefit renewables, and the fact that any nuclear deployment beyond 10GW to 15GW would also need increased storage.

He ignores the fact that solar is supported by around 80% of Britons, whilst nuclear gets about 35% support.

He regularly tries the tired trick of pensioners in all electric flats, ignoring the fact that 100's of thousands of installs have been on the rooves of council/social housing, bringing leccy bill savings to the occupants, without any expenditure on their behalf at all.

He responds to almost any post by referencing a 6 year old article which was a complete joke when it was written. The first paragraph claims that the whole FiT budget would be paid by poor domestic customers, rather than the true distribution across all sectors and all consumers. Despite this he recently said the article was still true, but when I asked him to confirm just some of the statements



Quote:


Originally Posted by Martyn1981 View Post

Anyways, back to your claim that Monbiot is as true now, as then, so are you claiming the following are all true:-

he (as usual) ran away again, waiting for another opportunity (such as your post) to repeat the nonsense.


In essence, he seems to be against subsidies he doesn't get, and the faster the FiT rate for PV dropped (proving its success) the angrier he gets. Go figure!

Mart.

post 1295

Thank you for confirming what I've said.

The statement was completely false when it was originally made. The quoted FiT budget of £8.6bn (actually £6.7bn) was to be paid by all consumers from all sectors, not just the poor element of the domestic sector.

So, it seems your case is based on an entirely false claim, that you fell for hook, line and sinker.

What is sad, is that despite knowing for around 4 years or more, that the claim is false, you still use it as the central foundation of 'your case'.

Cardew, it's time to move on, it's over. Monbiot's article is a ridiculed nonsense, and PV and FiT have been massively successful in the UK and around the world. Repeatedly attacking PV and FiT on the basis of a totally false claim, is borderline trolling!

Mart.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cardew View Post

Is that really the best you can do to discredit his article? -'Completely false' because you dispute £8.6bn and that not all consumers who pay for the FIT are poor.

Talk about not seeing the big picture! Can't you even understand the principle involved?

I understand the principle perfectly. The £8.6bn (technically £6.7bn) that Monbiot claimed would be paid by poor households, was/is to be paid by all households, and all sectors.

He claimed that about 3% to 6% of people paid it all (assuming 10% to 20% of households are classed as poor and domestic consumption accounts for ~30% of leccy demand).

So he pretended that 3% to 6% equaled 100%, and that's before we note that something like 20% of installs have taken place on council/social housing rooves, lowering the leccy bills for tenants, without them having to pay any install costs whatsoever.


More importantly, you know all this already. Yet you have repeatedly stated recently that the article is still true. You can no longer pretend that you are simply stupid or misinformed. Instead you are quoting statements that you know aren't true, just to create argument and division.

I believe that action is normally described as trolling?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cardew View Post

Even the most fervent and biased advocate of the FIT subsidy should be able to see that that subsidy is being paid by other electricity consumers, many of whom will be poorer than those receiving that subsidy; and yes that includes pensioners living in an all electric rented flat.

And even the most fervent and biased advocate of nuclear power should be able to see that that subsidy is being paid by all electricity consumers, all of whom will be poorer than those receiving that subsidy; and yes that includes pensioners living in an all electric rented flat.

[Edit: At least PV is Green & Ethical!]

Mart.

Post #1309

Quote:


Originally Posted by Cardew View Post

The source explained the principal objection to the subsidy; an objection that was valid at the time FIT was introduced, and is valid now.

Then you'll have no problem confirming that Monbiot's claims are still true then:-

1. Only poor households are to pay the FiT budget.
2. That PV is comically inefficient, and generation should be judged on processing efficiences not economics.
3. That PV generation costs 7 to 9 times more than wind and hydro.
4. That Germany reduced its FiT rate in 2010 because it was turning its back on PV, rather than because PV costs were falling.
4a. That Germany reduced the scale of PV rollout from 2010, rather than increased it.
5. That houses don't have to meet minimum efficiency standards to receive FiT.
6. That PV'ers will wire incoming mains to the TGM's and fraudulently earn a fortune.

Well?

Mart.

You might note that the posts are the usual
attacks on myself.

Attempting to discredit Monbiot without addressing the principle that the FIT can paid for by poor people to homeowners. Look at the reasons he gives for stating Monboit's article is 'completely false' - considered response? or a fixation with 'Kleinigkeiten'

Lastly his defence of PV subsidies seems solely dependent on comparing it with Nuclear and conventional generation. Of course it is completely irrelevant to the GURU that only thing we can depend upon with PV is it won't generate at night.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

I really think that you miss the point.

Such a long post, but you still haven't answered the very simple question:

If you believe Monbiot's article is as true now, as it was then - then you'll have no problem confirming that Monbiot's claims are still true:-

1. Only poor households are to pay the FiT budget.
2. That PV is comically inefficient, and generation should be judged on processing efficiences not economics.
3. That PV generation costs 7 to 9 times more than wind and hydro.
4. That Germany reduced its FiT rate in 2010 because it was turning its back on PV, rather than because PV costs were falling.
4a. That Germany reduced the scale of PV rollout from 2010, rather than increased it.
5. That houses don't have to meet minimum efficiency standards to receive FiT.
6. That PV'ers will wire incoming mains to the TGM's and fraudulently earn a fortune.

Well?

Mart.

michaels

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Funny you should say that, just been trawling the news and ...... the motoring press lit up yesterday following a slip on an investor Teleconference for Tesla Motors (or was it clever marketing), that their battery costs are already below $190/kWh for assembled battery packs and that's before the GigaFactory has taken effect.

$190 = £120

I didn't see that coming, yet!

Mart.

I saw this - it was in connection with whether Tesla could afford to sell the model 3 at 35k usd. Given this has a lot to do with a new funding round for Tesla I guess salt should be pinched.

However if battery gets that cheap that quickly is it time to ask the lithium availability question again?

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

If you believe Monbiot's article is as true now, as it was then - then you'll have no problem confirming that Monbiot's claims are still true:-

[/QUOTE)


I also believe in one of his paragraphs he used a semi-colon when a full stop would have been more appropriate.


To answer the query why people are anti-FIT, the principle of Monbiot's article applied then, and applies now, namely that the poor are paying a levy toward the subsidy received by the better off.


Do you understand what 'principle' means?


Cue, diatribe against Nuclear & coal. Praise for solar systems in India, Africa & USA - none of which answers the query posed.

Martyn1981

Cardew, it's a simple question, why won't you answer it?

Mart.