Solar ... In the news

GreatApe

Now I have obviously used my gas boiler a bit over the year, but if it went U/S would it be the only course of action to repair or replace when I'm only using 1000kWh p.a?

IF your true use is only 1,000 units a year then you can just get rid of it because the cost to repair and replace is much higher for you, per kwh, than a typical user. A typical boiler might cost £150 a year in depreciation (the cost to replace every x years) and maintenance

In your case you are paying 15p a unit in depreciation and maintenance
A more typical user using 15,000 units a year is paying closer to 1p a unit in depreciation and maintenance

Typically the break even is around 3,000 units.
If you use less its probably more economic to just do electrical heating and if more then gas becomes cheaper and cheaper the bigger the demand

markin

GreatApe wrote: »

It depends if costs matter to you or not

A rich individual could do it, for instance they could fit significant amounts of solar on their property and convert it to hydrogen and then store that in tanks to then burn that in the winter

The costs would be massive.
You can buy natural gas for 4p a unit, an industrial user can buy it for 2p a unit
To generate your own hydrogen for storage is likely going to cost a magnitude/s more

Also to store the stuff is not easy.
For a start it has 1/3rd the energy volumetric density of natural gas so your storage tanks or cavity only hold 1/3rd as much energy. Plus hydrogen is just more difficult to handle


It is like the argument of going off grid for electricity
It can be done. You can do that today
You just over install solar so that a winter day solar production is still the same as a winter day electricity needs for your home. And have perhaps a 100KWh battery.
So can a house go off grid today? Sure but it will cost significantly more than paying £400-500 to get their electric from the grid. Probably looking at £100k plus to make a off grid house with solar and batteries only.

But you can easily do it for £25k if your allowed to use a propane generator in January, and buy that gas.

8kwh solar, And 2 powerwall2's and a 5kwh generator.

And as long as you have a garden, garage or shed to mount the extra solar

Martyn1981

markin wrote: »

But you can easily do it for £25k if your allowed to use a propane generator in January, and buy that gas.

8kwh solar, And 2 powerwall2's and a 5kwh generator.

And as long as you have a garden, garage or shed to mount the extra solar

Might even be the same cost as having the property connected up to the leccy grid. So win, win, win.

TBH I was posting numbers and answers like that to him many years ago under his other account, when he was actually arguing against Aussie homes going off-grid - despite analysis suggesting that up to 1/3rd of them might find it cheaper to go off-grid in the next decade or so.

Best simply not 'to feed them'.

Martyn1981

Remember the big Tesla batt in Australia? Well here's another, a bit smaller this time, and connected to a PV farm (the other is connected to a wind farm):

Gannawarra battery-integrated solar farm – Australia’s largest – officially opened

GreatApe

markin wrote: »

But you can easily do it for £25k if your allowed to use a propane generator in January, and buy that gas.

8kwh solar, And 2 powerwall2's and a 5kwh generator.

And as long as you have a garden, garage or shed to mount the extra solar

Lets see: Just use the grid which is 50% clean now and will within 5 years be 75% clean for a grand sum of ~£450 a year

Or take out a mortgage to buy £25,000 worth of kit that might or might not last 25 years. Pay for fuel for your sub 20% efficient generator and have it delivered taking up road space and creating more waste. Maintain the lot and do the research and take the time out to install the lot and pay circa £1,500 pa on this mortgage fuel maintenance

Probably less clean and 3-4 x the price

Now if you could sell me that kit for ~£5,000 then I would be interested in 'going off grid' but while it is £25,000 it makes no sense economically or ecologically

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Might even be the same cost as having the property connected up to the leccy grid. So win, win, win.

TBH I was posting numbers and answers like that to him many years ago under his other account, when he was actually arguing against Aussie homes going off-grid - despite analysis suggesting that up to 1/3rd of them might find it cheaper to go off-grid in the next decade or so.

Best simply not 'to feed them'.

Yes I remember those arguments. How many years has it been? 6-7?

And how many Aussie homes have since disconnected? Where is that tumbleweed emoji when you need it.....

Anyway I will repeat what I said back then to you since it still applies
The grid is super effective super affordable and super clean (inert Copper wire that will last hundreds of years) and already exists to a large extent and some >500 million properties per decade are being added to the worlds grids. What this means is batteries are too late the world has already mostly built its grid*

What you dont understand about business is that if a new technology comes along that is cheaper, the first reaction by existing business is not to say 'ok guys we had a good run lets just declare bankruptcy and go home'. Instead businesses cut costs. With large fixed cost low marginal cost businesses like national grids and local DNOs they can cut costs more and more and more and write down assets etc all the way down to the marginal cost of operation and even then there is nothing like competition and low prices to allow ways to cut costs further

zeupater

pile-o-stone wrote: »

I think you'll regret that as Z posts a ton of really interesting, informative and on-topic posts that you'll now miss out on.

I also subscribe to Z's comment about relatively new people on this forum unsuspectingly getting dragged into conversations with the troll. I once defended the person Z was referring to. I thought it was useful to have opposing views to prevent this place from becoming an echo chamber. However, after reading some of the posts I saw that they were nearly always off-topic, nearly always anti-renewables and there were also some nasty attacks against fellow posters. I therefore put that person on ignore and I'm positive I've not missed out by not seeing those posts.

People on here have disagreements, I was having a discussion on increasing the unit price of electricity and having fixed standing charges to pay for the grid with Martyn. We don't agree and probably never will, but the debate has been carried out in a reasonable way and it's all about renewables and sustainability. You can't really say that about the contributions from the poster Z mentioned.

*steps off soapbox*

Hi

Thanks for the mention, but I didn't read that particular conclusion as being contained within ASB's post .... :D ... anyway, apart from seeing the odd quoted troll-text I've really no idea of what's been going on in recent exchanges as they don't interest me in any way because I classify almost all contributions that "the poster Z mentioned" as not being worthy of consideration time because they're almost inevitably based on spinning previous unsupported positions which have been dismantled on numerous previous occasions as well as containing plenty of diversionary nonsense & 'finger-in-the-air' conjecture as opposed to having some form of referenced evidence basis ...

... sad really on many fronts, but extremely so if it's considered as being influential on how others may think about how much renewable energy based technologies will act as a major catalyst for change to influence us all in the near-future ... well, to be fair, I suppose that it's been the same whenever technological change has happened, even the last mass-builders of papyrus reed boats probably clutched onto their last handful of damp straws just as tightly as the newfangled planked vessels sped past, all in vain of course! ... such is the position of those who don't fully understand and therefore fear change ...

...but then again, most are far more embracive & optimistic ... :cool:

HTH
Z

ASavvyBuyer

pile-o-stone wrote: »

I think you'll regret that as Z posts a ton of really interesting, informative and on-topic posts that you'll now miss out on.

It is not Z that has been added to my ignore list. I value his posts, as they are on-topic and relevant.
It was by following Z's post that I investigated getting a ASHP and had one installed.

silverwhistle

pile-o-stone wrote: »

People on here have disagreements, I was having a discussion on increasing the unit price of electricity and having fixed standing charges to pay for the grid with Martyn. We don't agree and probably never will, but the debate has been carried out in a reasonable way

I'm afraid I don't agree with you either! As I mentioned in my post below at my consumption even low standing charge tariffs would result in an additional 7p or so cost per unit on top of the suppliers unit price, so well over 10 p a unit. At least with the zero standing charge I'm on it's 6p+vat.



It seems perverse to have a lower marginal rate if you increase consumption, and I don't know of many other retail situations where that applies. It's all very well saying poor people may use more due to circumstances beyond their control, but with higher fixed charges those who make an effort to cut their costs, whether by insulation or accepting lower levels of comfort, will be penalised by higher marginal costs the more they save.



It's more likely that the less-well off will make more efforts to reduce usage than the better off, so why deny them that agency by making it more difficult for them?

Martyn1981

pile-o-stone wrote: »

People on here have disagreements, I was having a discussion on increasing the unit price of electricity and having fixed standing charges to pay for the grid with Martyn.

Just to be clear, so there can be no confusion, I have not suggested increasing the unit charge and having a fixed standing charge, I am suggesting increasing the unit charge and having no fixed standing charge.

My suggestion will, I believe, turn out to be a net benefit for those described in your earlier post .....

pile-o-stone wrote: »

Your higher prices won't just hit those on benefits, it will also hit the 'just about managing', young people just starting out in their careers who are already under a burden of trying to pay student loans and save for deposits on high house prices, it'll hit young families who have high child care costs. How do these apply for assistance? Are we to add even more people on the benefit system? You'd have to increase the unit price significantly just to cover the increase in civil service administration to make these additional benefit payments.

...... as these people are more likely to have lower consumption than the more wealthy, and higher consuming households in the UK.

In case there is still any confusion, here is a hypothetical example of before and after prices and revenue:

Unit charge 15p/kWh and standing charge of £105pa:

Low user, 2,000kWh = 2,000kWh@ 15p + £105 = £405
Average user, 3,500kWh = 3,500kWh@ 15p + £105 = £630
High user, 5,000kWh = 5,000kWh@ 15p + £105 = £855

Next you take the standing charge and divide it by the average use to share it out fairly. So £105/3,500kWh = 3p/kWh and then add this on to the unit price, so £15p + 3p = 18p/kWh:

Low user, 2,000kWh = 2,000kWh@ 18p = £360
Average user, 3,500kWh = 3,500kWh@ 18p = £630
High user, 5,000kWh = 5,000kWh@ 18p = £900

Note that the average bill, and the average revenue has not changed and remains at £630 per household. There is no net change to total revenue, however, the higher unit price should encourage a reduction in use as every kWh avoided now saves the household 20% more than before.