Solar ... In the news

mmmmikey

JKenH wrote: »

Getting the panels has made me live my life differently and It has made me think how to be more efficient with my consumption from the grid. Isn’t that what it is all about really?

Couldn't agree more with this and the other comments you make. Things like the awareness of green issues that solar panels creates is one of many intangible benefits. And I'm with you on the whole FIT thing - I'm not sure I'd go as far as retrospective changes because that risks creating mistrust and stifling other future grant subsidised investment, but I do think that FIT has served it's purpose and there are other things green investment is better spent on.


(As an aside - how late into the evening are your west facing panels generating a decent amount / about what time does generation fall below 1kW on a sunny day this time of year? Thinking of adding some (non FIT subsidised) west facing panels to supplement my 1kW south / 3kW east array. I'm just outside Lincoln so not too far away so would expect similar generation....)

JKenH

mmmmikey wrote: »

(As an aside - how late into the evening are your west facing panels generating a decent amount / about what time does generation fall below 1kW on a sunny day this time of year? Thinking of adding some (non FIT subsidised) west facing panels to supplement my 1kW south / 3kW east array. I'm just outside Lincoln so not too far away so would expect similar generation....)

Some sample generation figures from Wednesday
18.26 2319w
18.57 1927w
19.13 1459w
19.39 1017w

I should point out that my panels on the west roof are closer to WSW than West (my East roof is nearer ESE) and I have a tree shading issue around this time.

The generation fell to 101w at 20.05 but then recovered to 254 w at 20.21.

If the sun can get a bit higher in the next few days it might just clear the birch tree that is causing the problem before it disappears behind more distant trees.

silverwhistle

michaels wrote: »

the state owning and running assets in its normal highly inefficient manner.

As opposed to private companies like Carillion and G4S, various rail franchises and other examples that don't immediately spring to mind?


The fact that the current government couldn't manage a knees up in any brewery, privatised or not, is not a good reason to fear the alternative to the legal framework that gives shareholder returns priority over all other stakeholders including society as a whole.



On the question of solar we have a situation now, due to government policy, where the only new people who can benefit are those who can use all the consumption themselves or can afford the still expensive battery technology. Remember for new installations exporters will not get _anything_ at the moment. Great for the local energy companies though.


As pointed out solar installations on a wider scale lend themselves to more efficiencies rather than the patchwork of private installations that has sprung up over time. It's a technology that lends itself to a steady and incremental expansion. It also fits in well with any move to EVs and ASHPs.



Even better of course would be the installation at time of build, but the photo of new houses (I think) with solar panels that I saw in the newspaper article showed another problem; a half-hearted approach given the space with about half the potential panels installed. Given the additional cost would largely be the panels and mounting, it just seems a lost opportunity.



I think the idea is fundamentally a good one, and although we can all come up with issues over how it may be implemented and financed I think that is where the arguments should be, rather than throwing our hands in the air and saying let's give up it's all too difficult.

Martyn1981

michaels wrote: »

Council houses tend to be in clusters so generation from lots of homes together would cause problems for the local distribution.

"would" cause problems? Any proof of that? The size of the systems could be scaled appropriately, or storage (domestic or DNO based) could be deployed, and whilst storage has a cost, it also brings loads of benefits too.

"would" is a future word (as opposed to - does), yet we already have the necessary technology, and at ever falling costs, to deal with the issues you raise. So I'd suggest "could" and "won't" as realistic alternatives.

I have no problem with people raising realistic negatives, but at all stages of RE deployment, we keep getting these 'potential problems' being promoted as inescapable facts, something they may not be, and certainly aren't when we consider the real solutions already on offer, and being developed, promoted, and in many cases, rolled out - such as tests by some LA's and/or DNO's to roll out domestic storage to allow for higher levels of domestic PV penetration.

Looking at Australia, they are already up to 20% of domestic properties having PV. That's 2m households. The first million averaging 2.4kWp, the second averaging 5.6kWp. And no, A/C systems will not be absorbing all of this, even if they are switched on during mid day. This year, 70,000 homes are expected to install batteries.

So solutions exist and are being rolled out already.

michaels

Martyn1981 wrote: »

"would" cause problems? Any proof of that? The size of the systems could be scaled appropriately, or storage (domestic or DNO based) could be deployed, and whilst storage has a cost, it also brings loads of benefits too.

"would" is a future word (as opposed to - does), yet we already have the necessary technology, and at ever falling costs, to deal with the issues you raise. So I'd suggest "could" and "won't" as realistic alternatives.

I have no problem with people raising realistic negatives, but at all stages of RE deployment, we keep getting these 'potential problems' being promoted as inescapable facts, something they may not be, and certainly aren't when we consider the real solutions already on offer, and being developed, promoted, and in many cases, rolled out - such as tests by some LA's and/or DNO's to roll out domestic storage to allow for higher levels of domestic PV penetration.

Looking at Australia, they are already up to 20% of domestic properties having PV. That's 2m households. The first million averaging 2.4kWp, the second averaging 5.6kWp. And no, A/C systems will not be absorbing all of this, even if they are switched on during mid day. This year, 70,000 homes are expected to install batteries.

So solutions exist and are being rolled out already.

I agree not insurmountable, but one advantage of only say one every 20 houses having PV at the moment is that there is unlikely to need to be any extra investment at the local distribution network level. As you say such investment need not be prohibitive but it will need to be considered if lots of home sin a small area all have PV installed.

I often work with the civil service, their management of projects is universally appalling and I can't see why it would be any better for running electricity generation or infrastructure. I have seen daily examples where sensible investment does not take place because of competing demands from higher political priority departments and I can't see why that would not be the case for the energy sector (it would only become high priority after the lights went out).

Alternatively the money can be taken off the govt books using solutions like PFI - anyone suggesting that is a route we should go down?!

michaels

mmmmikey wrote: »

Couldn't agree more with this and the other comments you make. Things like the awareness of green issues that solar panels creates is one of many intangible benefits. And I'm with you on the whole FIT thing - I'm not sure I'd go as far as retrospective changes because that risks creating mistrust and stifling other future grant subsidised investment, but I do think that FIT has served it's purpose and there are other things green investment is better spent on.


(As an aside - how late into the evening are your west facing panels generating a decent amount / about what time does generation fall below 1kW on a sunny day this time of year? Thinking of adding some (non FIT subsidised) west facing panels to supplement my 1kW south / 3kW east array. I'm just outside Lincoln so not too far away so would expect similar generation....)

Most of our panels are about 5-10 degrees S of W. 4kw nominal, on 14th (very good curve) we generated more than 2kw between 11AM and 18:15.

Personally I like the idea of selling PV to the grid at spot as it might make non South orientations just as valuable as S facing as although total gen is 10% less it may be at more valuable times of the day.

Martyn1981

michaels wrote: »

I agree not insurmountable, but one advantage of only say one every 20 houses having PV at the moment is that there is unlikely to need to be any extra investment at the local distribution network level. As you say such investment need not be prohibitive but it will need to be considered if lots of home sin a small area all have PV installed.

I often work with the civil service, their management of projects is universally appalling and I can't see why it would be any better for running electricity generation or infrastructure. I have seen daily examples where sensible investment does not take place because of competing demands from higher political priority departments and I can't see why that would not be the case for the energy sector (it would only become high priority after the lights went out).

Alternatively the money can be taken off the govt books using solutions like PFI - anyone suggesting that is a route we should go down?!

So ..... not 'would' then.

I always think it's a shame when I see all these false negatives being stated/claimed, especially when reality has already provided solutions, or is already rolling out the solutions.

As to your 1 in 20 example (5%), I gave a 20% and growing example that already exists.

And in response to your 'after the lights go out' claim, can I repeat my statement that some DNO's are already carrying out tests of potential solutions, and the whole grid seems very open to storage and solutions for intermittent supply (note they already cope with intermittent demand.)

Maybe it's my love of RE that means I read lots about the solutions to problems, and why I get a bit bored with suggested 'problems with solutions' that have been, or are being solved already.

michaels

Martyn1981 wrote: »

So ..... not 'would' then.

I always think it's a shame when I see all these false negatives being stated/claimed, especially when reality has already provided solutions, or is already rolling out the solutions.

As to your 1 in 20 example (5%), I gave a 20% and growing example that already exists.

And in response to your 'after the lights go out' claim, can I repeat my statement that some DNO's are already carrying out tests of potential solutions, and the whole grid seems very open to storage and solutions for intermittent supply (note they already cope with intermittent demand.)

Maybe it's my love of RE that means I read lots about the solutions to problems, and why I get a bit bored with suggested 'problems with solutions' that have been, or are being solved already.

I think you are getting hung up on a rather random choice of words, we all know DNOs can be tricky approving anything over 4kw just as we know that it I snot hard for them to upgrade their equipment to cope with more solar if they had to.

The lights going out comment refers to the system being run by the govt rather than the private sector - quite rightly the govt have other priorities which is why it is better they stay out of this market beyond setting the rules.

Martyn1981

michaels wrote: »

I think you are getting hung up on a rather random choice of words, we all know DNOs can be tricky approving anything over 4kw just as we know that it I snot hard for them to upgrade their equipment to cope with more solar if they had to.

The lights going out comment refers to the system being run by the govt rather than the private sector - quite rightly the govt have other priorities which is why it is better they stay out of this market beyond setting the rules.

But it's not a random word, you said would cause trouble, but all your comments since have suggested the opposite "not hard for them to upgrade their equipment to cope with more solar if they had to."

I agree with some of your comments since, but totally disagree with your original claim. In your post two days ago you seem to double down on your original choice of words, suggesting the problem 'is not insurmountable'. That too suggests a big problem, which may be difficult to address, but even today, I (and I suspect many others) can see lots of examples of clusters of PV on social housing, or new builds.

So had you said 'could', fine, but your post was 'would', which simply isn't true, both today in the UK, as demonstrated in countries with far higher penetration, and in the future given the solutions that already exist and are already being rolled out.

Regarding the 'lights out' comment what you said was:

I have seen daily examples where sensible investment does not take place because of competing demands from higher political priority departments and I can't see why that would not be the case for the energy sector (it would only become high priority after the lights went out).

So your statement was that the problem would get very serious before it would be addressed by the government. But that's wholly untrue, or irrelevant, as again, the problem is already being addressed. If it's being addressed today, then it can't be left till it's too late.

I'm sorry if you think I'm being pedantic, but it's actually the exact opposite, I'm not challenging a small, simple issue over a word (or two) but trying to point out that what you've suggested could happen (or would - will definitely happen) in the future, won't happen, as it's already being addressed today.

We should celebrate the solutions and positive steps for RE integration, not deny them.

Edit - Thinking about it, I like this thread, and the similar one on green energy in general. I like to read and learn about the topics, and post all the good news about the technologies and the developments that have been, are being, and will be rolled out. That's why I find it a shame, when negative claims are suggested that are untrue, or already out of date, or being addressed.

It's not a new thing, it's been consistent all decade, I recall 7 or 8 years ago claims that too much PV would push up local voltage and frequency. I commented that in Germany inverters already shutdown to prevent this happening, and I think we all know that they do the same in the UK now (and have for many years).

I strongly believe that discussing solutions to suggested possible problems is a good thing, but pushback against actual negative claims is essential.

pile-o-stone

The main issue with the public ownership of companies like BT, British Gas, British Rail, etc. was lack of investment. The profits from these companies went into the public purse and was spent elsewhere.

The only way re-nationalising companies will work is if they are financially ring fenced where the profits remain with those companies and are reinvested in infrastructure, training and pay.