Solar ... In the news

Nicolai_Grenovski

the comment ...

"I don't see any mechanism by which nuclear could delay alternate low carbon supplies.
Did you have something in mind - an actual real world causal relationship?."

... .. a long time ago I learned that if I had a shilling pocket money I could spend it on a single chocolate bar or a bag of goodies such as mojos, bootlaces, black jacks & flying saucers ... but not both! ... any kind of analogy going on here

Yes - if you go shopping for 100g of sweets (100% of your demand) you can have a mix.
if you buy 20g of chocolate it does not in any way hinder buying 20g of "bootlaces".

Nicolai_Grenovski

German PV contracts (comparable to the UK{??}) this year hit £50/MWh

I'm sorry but this is exactly not true - where are your data from?

fun fact, since the cost of pv has fallen 30pounds in germany since the 80 pound contracts where issued there and in the uk, and we can now expect the 2030 intermittncy cost of pv to be minus £3.70, that suggests sub 50pounds for uk pv,

I'm sorry but we cannot sell pv to the UK because we are priced in Euro's and since you decided to leave us the pound is worth nearly 30% less than it was against Euro.
UK prices for imported HW like German pv could well go up on forex markets especially with 0.56 euro cents per watt now agreed in Tariff between EU and China.

lstar337

Cardew wrote: »

It is impossible to post anywhere in this section(Green and Ethical) with anything that is considered detrimental to Solar PV without at times an almost hysterical response raising a comparison with Nuclear generation and Hinkley in particular.

I'm aware of what happens, hence why I want it out of this thread. No doubt it is a heated topic, but not one I'm interested in reading about. Which is why I would like to keep this thread for its intended purpose.

By all means argue PV vs Nuclear in another thread where I don't have to read all the squabbling! 😉

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Much as I appreciate your input on MSE, I think the above is unfair.

It is impossible to post anywhere in this section(Green and Ethical) with anything that is considered detrimental to Solar PV without at times an almost hysterical response raising a comparison with Nuclear generation and Hinkley in particular.

Look through all the threads in Green and Ethical to confirm.

Cardew

Why get upset with us? ... almost all of the people who post on the G&E section are concerned with Green & Ethical subjects. apart from those who bring along their own ramp to upset the apple cart for whatever reason floats their boat.

The real issue you yourself don't really seem to grasp is that we as individuals can do something .. it may be growing our own fruit & veg (I do!), recycling (I do!), local sourcing (I do!) ... starting to get the picture yet!? .. insulating our homes (I do!), reducing carbon footprint (I do!) .. all the way through to some of us generating the vast proportion of the electricity we use (which I also do!) ... but then again, isn't it a scientific premise that "Those who adapt ..."

Whether the subgroup is 'I' or everyone who regularly reads or contributes to this thread, we can only make a difference to our own lives and what we do ourselves ... if you or anyone else have an issue with the demise of an industry, that's any industry, you really need to take a serious look at that industry and discover the cause of the demise - it's normally related to some form of uncompetitiveness, usually at a product desirability or cost level.

Now, with this in mind we should consider where focus should be and accept that the focus should be very narrow - on one hand you have groups (government, industry & consumers) whilst on the other there's policies based on ideology & economics and that's just about it in a nutshell .. . yet there's a rabid-fascination with what a group of people who have absolutely no impact on government, industry or the economics involved but do have an impact on their own lifestyles ...

Now, nuclear - I don't know how many times this need to be repeated ... It seems like I've said it a billion times, but for those with little intent to take any notice, ... I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH NUCLEAR AS A FORM OF GENERATION - I DO HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE COST OF NUCLEAR !! --- CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THIS ?? ... seems pretty clear and concise to me & I would think that many others posting on this forum would copy & paste it into any answer they supply, they're certainly free to do so!. The thing is, I support, & will continue to support, alternative forms of generation which lead to reducing the carbon intensity of the UK grid mix as long as there's a strong probability that the technology involved will be able to both compete without subsidy on an open & fair marketplace within a reasonable period of time and place further downward pressure on energy prices. If there's a problem with this, then take it up with the nuclear industry and have them focus on their own efficiencies ... maybe, with a little pressure on the industry, instead of being the answer to the question "Where is the most expensive object on Earth ?" - a £24/MWh powerstation could be built there afterall !

As to your comment made to 'Istar337' above ... no, that's wrong. Nuclear generation is under extreme commercial pressure all over the world ... if the press are reporting this as news is it to be ignored? ... Moreover, if there are news items which compare costs of Solar to any other form of generation, isn't that something which is of interest on a thread dedicated to 'Solar .. In the news' ? ... so we have a thread discussing what the thread is supposed to discuss, read by people who may be interested, yet every time that the news touches the interests of a form of generation which could potentially be disruptive to the current cosy industry structure, particularly when it involves glowing rods, then things change ... the swivel eyed anti-renewables yappy-dogs immediately parachute in and spin mayhem as if their livelihood depends on it ... :think:

HTH
Z

Nicolai_Grenovski

Now, nuclear - I don't know how many times this need to be repeated ... It seems like I've said it a billion times, but for those with little intent to take any notice, ... I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH NUCLEAR AS A FORM OF GENERATION - I DO HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE COST OF NUCLEAR !! --- CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THIS ?? .

Please take this to a nuclear thread.

But as we're here....

As Martyn posted

UK costs by 2030
Onshore wind: £45-72/MWh
Solar £59-73/MWh
Offshore wind £85-109/MWh
Nuclear £69-99/MWh.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/566567/BEIS_Electricity_Generation_Cost_Report.pdf

What are your concerns on offshore wind?
Of Scottish tidal at £305/MWh
or the exciting Swansea Bay lagoon at £96.50/MWh for 90 years!

Perhaps you could order them preferentially by cost - be sure to account for intermittent.

Cardew

Zeupater,

Your personal lifestyle is not up for discussion as far as I am aware.

Much of this section, including this particular thread, is nothing more than a eulogy for all things solar, and we get a barrage of links to articles from the Solar industry.

I would love for the discussion in this thread to be confined to solar PV, without any mention of Nuclear. However virtually every time any poster who is not a member the self-congratulatory cartel makes any criticism or observation, the subject of Nuclear subsidies(Hinkley etc) is raised by one of the cartel - normally the self appointed leader; and is 'thanked' by the rest of the group. Surely you know that to be true; if not read back through the thread and see who are the culprits.

So I agree this thread should most definitely not be a battleground for solar v nuclear, but aim your criticisms at the offenders.

Cardew

lstar337 wrote: »

I'm aware of what happens, hence why I want it out of this thread. No doubt it is a heated topic, but not one I'm interested in reading about. Which is why I would like to keep this thread for its intended purpose.

By all means argue PV vs Nuclear in another thread where I don't have to read all the squabbling! ��

My reading of post #1915 by zeupater is that this thread should contain PV vs Nuclear discussion.

As to your comment made to 'Istar337' above ... no, that's wrong. Nuclear generation is under extreme commercial pressure all over the world ... if the press are reporting this as news is it to be ignored? ... Moreover, if there are news items which compare costs of Solar to any other form of generation, isn't that something which is of interest on a thread dedicated to 'Solar .. In the news' ? ... so we have a thread discussing what the thread is supposed to discuss, read by people who may be interested,

Is that your understanding?

What a few posters in this section want is to be able to freely - and frequently - criticise Nuclear yet any defence to that criticism is 'squabbling'.

In defence of Nicolai Grenovski, he doesn't raise Nuclear issues except in response to other posters.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Zeupater,

Your personal lifestyle is not up for discussion as far as I am aware.

Much of this section, including this particular thread, is nothing more than a eulogy for all things solar, and we get a barrage of links to articles from the Solar industry.

I would love for the discussion in this thread to be confined to solar PV, without any mention of Nuclear. However virtually every time any poster who is not a member the self-congratulatory cartel makes any criticism or observation, the subject of Nuclear subsidies(Hinkley etc) is raised by one of the cartel - normally the self appointed leader; and is 'thanked' by the rest of the group. Surely you know that to be true; if not read back through the thread and see who are the culprits.

So I agree this thread should most definitely not be a battleground for solar v nuclear, but aim your criticisms at the offenders.

Cardew

Addressed in order ....

... "Much of this section, including this particular thread, is nothing more than a eulogy for all things solar, and we get a barrage of links to articles from the Solar industry." .. possibly a major clue to the news items being concerned with solar is in the thread title ... "Solar ... In the news', yet that seems to have been overlooked ... :wall:

... "I would love for the discussion in this thread to be confined to solar PV, without any mention of Nuclear .." ..... if that's the case then maybe you could join others who orchestrate campaigns in all of the major news sources and have them boycott comparison of all forms of generation, particularly the ones which mention the uncompetitiveness of one form against another - then there'd be less PV vs Nuclear news items to report on this thread ...

... "... any criticism or observation, the subject of Nuclear subsidies(Hinkley etc) is raised ..." ... and unfortunately that's normally when the 'criticism or observation' you mention is made specifically against the temporary subsidy schemes which have been part of a global effort by the developed countries that can afford to support the growth of new low carbon technologies so that clean generation sources become both affordable and competitive with all other forms of generation within a compressed timescale ... however, when the counterpoint of 60 years of nuclear subsidy without even a possibility of being subsidy free is raised, the 'foul play' flare is shot into the air and claims of 'anti-nuclear' are megaphoned around the G&E board for weeks, as well you know! .. isn't that a classic case of spin, the aggressor feigning aggrieved?

... "I agree this thread should most definitely not be a battleground for solar v nuclear, but aim your criticisms at the offenders." .... the latest spat seems to have kicked off as a result of a nuclear power plant in the USA being cancelled due to being uncompetitive against solar pv and other forms of generation, with the company concerned announcing heavy investments in solar and associated projects ... 'Solar ... in the news' raised the news report, all goes quiet then a pair of anti-PV members turn up on a solar thread and waive the 'Support nuclear, you're all dumb idiots!' flag in everyone else's face ... do you therefore consider yourself fairly criticised? ... both the evidence and your own criteria suggests you should!

HTH
Z

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

My reading of post #1915 by zeupater is that this thread should contain PV vs Nuclear discussion.

Is that your understanding?

What a few posters in this section want is to be able to freely - and frequently - criticise Nuclear yet any defence to that criticism is 'squabbling'.

In defence of Nicolai Grenovski, he doesn't raise Nuclear issues except in response to other posters.

Cardew

... "My reading of post #1915 by zeupater is that this thread should contain PV vs Nuclear discussion ... Is that your understanding?" ... then, as normal on this solar thread, you are either mistaken or are intentionally spinning ... Zeupater's position is obviously that when there's a newsworthy article regarding PV then it's newsworthy ... if that article involves a decision made by a nuclear generation company to ditch new nuclear capacity due to cost competitive issues & build PV capacity instead, it's obviously more newsworthy than normal because of the context ...

... ".. criticise Nuclear yet any defence to that criticism is 'squabbling'. " ... As covered in previous post, normally as a result of direct criticism of solar subsidy .. stop poking the stick at people & succeeding technologies and put it away, you may then find that the tendency to get yourself and an increasingly uncompetitive technology poked back at will subside ... it's actually pretty rare to see anything involving nuclear anywhere on this section without 'anti-pv' mention of subsidies being the catalyst ...

... "In defence of Nicolai Grenovski, he doesn't raise Nuclear issues except in response to other posters." ... :rotfl: laughable, last time I looked every post ever made was on this one thread and most where he(?)'s popped up were pro-nuclear based, odd really for someone claiming to be in the solar industry, yet criticises the technology at every available opportunity, and posts from a country which is ditching nuclear! ... anyone would think that it was an alter-ego of one intending to protect their main profile against moderation sanction, or someone who having been involved in the nuclear industry being very bitter and targetting frustrations on their perceived causes - cheap coal, cheap gas, cheap offshore wind, cheap onshore wind, cheap solar, cheap hydro, cheapening storage .. effectively ignoring the obvious - if everything else is either currently, or will soon be, cheaper than nuclear, then it's nuclear uncompetitiveness which forms the problem, everything else is just excuses ...

HTH
Z

Nicolai_Grenovski

laughable, last time I looked every post ever made was on this one thread and most where he(?)'s popped up were pro-nuclear based, odd really for someone claiming to be in the solar industry, yet criticises the technology at every available opportunity, and posts from a country which is ditching nuclear! ..

I'm a committed environmentalist - it's why I do what I do.
What sort of an argument is it to say solar (and I challenge you to identify one single negative solar comment) is any better at what it undoubtedly does because of another completely different technology.
Solar is extremely useful - it has its place in our toolbox..
But so does wind, geothermal, tidal, hydro and yes, so does nuclear.
If you think it doesn't then that is a problem you have that is best argued elsewhere.
The fact is that to address global warming we need to cut our emissions.
Do you agree with this premise or not? - because your incessant attacks on one particular undoubtedly effective tool for addressing it are no different to me than someone attacking solar or wind power.
Do you understand?

So I don't know if you accept that we must address climate change, but it certainly does not feature in your comments.

This thread is for solar news - so I go on the assumption that it isn't a hate site for trolls.
If you you used it as a platform to attack wind power I'd take you to task on that too.

I didn't come here to discuss nuclear, but it isn't heresy to point out errors in your attacks if you make them.

SO PLEASE keep the subject on solar news./
By all means let me know when Hinkley point gets covered in solar modules, but until that time >>>>>