Solar ... In the news

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

As expected, the FIT degression for domestic installs up to 4kWp will be 3.5%, taking the rate down to 14.90p for installs from the 1st of July 2013.

Note: Rate change is 1/7/13 not 1/8/13 as DECC have changed the review periods slightly.

News story:

http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/ofgem_confirms_july_feed_in_tariff_rates_2356

OFGEM FIT tariff bands for all sizes of PV:

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/SUSTAINABILITY/ENVIRONMENT/FITS/TARIFF-TABLES/Documents1/FIT%20Tariff%20Table%201%20July%202013%20PV%20Only.pdf

Mart.

Hi

<15p/kWh within just 2 months, interesting ... who'd have thought ! .....

Z

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

<15p/kWh within just 2 months, interesting ... who'd have thought ! .....

Z

Hopefully next time you'll believe me when I say you were correct, or was I saying you were wrong about being incorrect?

No, I've got it now, I suggested your number was accidentally accurate, when you were trying to be deliberately inaccurate.

Glad we've cleared that one up! :undecided

I'm going for a lie down, my head is hurting.

Mart.

[Edit: I'm surprised nobody has commented on #168. Good news and bad news - makes you proud to be British! M.]

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Oh Dear! But at least we are ahead of those economic giants - Malta & Luxembourg ....... perhaps this scheme will help improve the UK stats a tiny bit:-

11MW PV plant for Truro:

http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/uk--11-mw-pv-plant-gets-green-light_100011082/#axzz2RvQdG7QN

"The 60-acre site is part of an existing sheep and llama farm, and it will provide the farmer landowner with a regular source of income. When complete, the photovoltaic plant will feature a total of 45,000 ground-mounted panels and will provide energy to the local electricity grid equivalent to 3,125 average households."

Mart.

Good news? A solar farm? In the South-West? whatever next?

Didn't you advocate sub-4kWp systems on roofs of houses all over UK as the way to go?;)

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Good news? A solar farm? In the South-West? whatever next?

Didn't you advocate sub-4kWp systems on roofs of houses all over UK as the way to go?;)

I'm a fan of all PV systems, small, medium or large - though some will be more economically viable than others - unless of course you falsify tariff rates, falsify accounting practices, ignore viability levels and consistently ignore infrastructure upgrade costs!

I'm still not sure why you have so much difficulty understanding my views, or why it's so important to you to try to misrepresent my position - do you feel it makes you look 'big and clever', or 'small and silly'?

So, to re-cap, I'm a fan of PV and many, many more forms of renewables. Are you?

Mart.

Cardew

Well you were not a fan of solar farms, and spent post after post giving reasons why they were not the way forward and sub-4kWp systems were the sensible choice.

I have been absolutely consistent in my stance on solar PV and have not had to resort to your chameleon approach.

Your 'views' on solar have no balance, and often no logic. It was painfully obvious that solar farms in the West Country would be a far more sensible use of the subsidy customers pay - geographically higher output - much lower subsidy - actually exporting electricity to the grid for that subsidy(what a novel concept).


However you came up with every excuse why solar farms in the West Country were not viable and huge subsidies for sub-4kWp systems on roofs of houses dotted around UK was the best use of the levy we all pay.

I suggest you re-read your many posts on that issue if you have forgotten.

You really shouldn't get so sensitive, this is an internet forum.

P.S.

I really cannot believe that an adult would pen this obsequious post on the other thread.

Hiya Z, sadly your efforts to defend Cardew on the basis that previous history shouldn't be used to pre-judge his future intentions and actions, have been undone on your Solar News thread.

Whilst all of this may have appeared silly and petty to you, his actions do support my stance that once you allow him to sneak a small falsehood through, it only serves to bolster his confidence, and will almost certainly be repeated and followed by greater falsehoods.

The issue on this thread was never really about the small
difference between 46.81p v's 50p, or the less small(!) difference between 46.81p v's 50p+, it was always about closing the door before he got his foot in it - in order to prevent growing momentum, and further falsehoods.

So, were you right to suggest that I was using previous history to pre-judge - yes you were.

Was I wrong to pre-judge him - possibly.

Was I wrong to pre-judge him on the assumption that he would continue with such silliness ...... you be the judge as I simply find his desperate actions pointless and tiresome these days.

Mart.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Well you were not a fan of solar farms, and spent post after post giving reasons why they were not the way forward and sub-4kWp systems were the sensible choice.

I have been absolutely consistent in my stance on solar PV and have not had to resort to your chameleon approach.

That is simply untrue, and you are now trolling my views and opinions. I explained to you in great detail why your argument that farms were better than domestic was faulty.

Your approach has been consistent - consistently false.

I pointed out that you had blatantly ignored the differing viability levels to create a 1.33:1 advantage.

I pointed out that you had used falsified tariffs to boost that advantage to 2:1.

I pointed out that you had falsified accounting practices to argue (for years) that off-set wasn't export, to boost your argument to 3:1.

And I argued that you had failed to take account of distribution losses and infrastructure upgrade costs (though Zeupater had already pointed this out to you before me, approximately every 6 months) to claim a lower cost impact on the S West area.

Since I have nothing to hide, and have always argued my heart, you can't ever succeed in misrepresenting me on this matter. That doesn't stop you trolling to though, does it!

Rather than me re-read my posts, why don't you simply show me where I've argued against PV farms. I have always said that economic viability is in the following order:

1. Commercial scale roof mounted.
2. Domestic scale roof mounted.
3. Farm scale ground mounted.

I still stand by that opinion, and welcome all PV (and other renewables) developments. Do you?

Mart.

PS Do you support renewables (and/or low carbon generation)?

Cardew

The definition of 'trolling' is not someone who disagrees with your posts.

zeupater

Hi All

I think that there is again an issue of context .... the reference 11MWp development would be entirely consistent with a requirement to locate appropriately sized arrays close to areas of population ...

The article does however raise one issue in my mind, that being the array generation being equivalent to 3,125 average households ... I would have thought that at a peak averaged generation of somewhere around 7MW the number of houses (~ 500W average) would be closer to 15000, so the farm would be pretty significant to Truro (pop ~20k) and the immediate surrounding area, but not much more ....

I understand that the figure of 3125 properties simply comes from the average household electricity consumption of 3300kWh/year, so the development must be anticipating 10.3GWh/year(3300x3125), so ~936kWh/kWp annually, which would likely be possible on an optimally configured array in the SW ... still doesn't make sense of the article relating the total annual generation to household annual consumption to resolve to the number 3125 in the first place ....

HTH
Z

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

. I explained to you in great detail why your argument that farms were better than domestic was faulty.(1)


Rather than me re-read my posts, why don't you simply show me where I've argued against PV farms. I have always said that economic viability is in the following order:

1. Commercial scale roof mounted.
2. Domestic scale roof mounted.(2)
3. Farm scale ground mounted.

I still stand by that opinion, and welcome all PV (and other renewables) developments. Do you?

Mart.

Do you even know what you have read and written?

I simply said:

Good news? A solar farm? In the South-West? whatever next?

Didn't you advocate sub-4kWp systems on roofs of houses all over UK as the way to go?;)

So you obviously agree with me - you state(1) you have explained to me that my argument that solar farms were better than domestic was faulty.

In your pecking order of financial viability(2) you have placed 'domestic scale roof mounted' ahead of 'farm scale ground mounted'

So what possible objection could you have to my post?

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

The definition of 'trolling' is not someone who disagrees with your posts.

Never said it was.

But it is the definition of someone that would repeatedly post a false argument that off-set isn't export, in order to deceive people into thinking they aren't getting what they pay for.

It is the definition of someone that would keep using a false tariff figure (20p instead of 30.7p) in order to exaggerate an argument.

It is the definition of someone that would keep ignoring the costs of upgrading local infrastructure to cope with 'multi GW' PV farms in the S. West. Despite being reminded every 6 months and accepting the argument each time, before 'trying it on' again.

It is the definition of someone that would make up false claims about my working for, or profiting from a RaR firm/scheme, simply to try to discredit me, or undermine my contributions.

And it is most definitely the definition of someone that would repeatedly misrepresent my position on PV farms, despite being corrected numerous times both my myself, and by other MSE members.

You might not like me mythbusting you all the time, but you can solve that by ceasing the myths. Trolling me or the MSE PV threads won't resolve the issue.

Mart.